Becoming a special educator – Finnish and Swedish students’ views on their future professions

Figures & data

Table 1. Requirements in Umeå 2014 in order to study to become a special teacher or a SENCo

Content of SENCos’ Education 90 cr	Credits	Content of Special Teacher Education 90 cr	Credits
The Field of Education for Special Needs	15	The Field of Education for Special Needs	15
Processes in Practice in the Field of Special Needs	7.5	Processes in Practice in the Field of Special Needs	7.5
Professional Counselling and Consultation in the Field of Special Education	7.5	Professional Counselling and Consultation in the Field of Special Education	7.5
Fields of Knowledge in Special Education	7.5	Specialisation in Language, Writing and Reading Development OR in Mathematical Development OR in Intellectual Impairment*	30 each
Evaluation, Leadership and Developmental Work	22.5
Thesis	30	Thesis	30

*Not in our data

Table 2. Requirements in Oulu and Helsinki in 2014 in order to study to become a special teacher

Content of Special Teacher Education in Helsinki 40 cr+20 cr	Credits	Content of Special Teacher Education in Oulu 40 cr +20 cr	Credits
Basic Studies of Special Education	20	Basic Studies of Special Education	20
Professional Development	4	Special Education as a Profession	5
Reading, Writing and Communication Challenges	7	Reading and Writing Challenges	5
Behavioural Challenges	5	Socio Emotional Development and Pedagogy	5
Support for Learning	6	Development of Communication	5
Development and Evaluation	3	Cognitive Performance and Evaluation	5
Mathematical Challenges	3	Mathematical Challenges	4
Teaching Practice	6	Teaching Practice	6
Thesis*	3	Thesis	5
Society, Disability and Education	3	–

*They have already written a master's thesis worth 40 credits

Table 3. Participants’ background variables (sp. ed.=special education)

Country	No. of participants (117 altogether)	Mean age in years, (SD)	Work experience in special education?	Work experience in sp. ed. Mean of years (SD)
Sweden	68	41 (6.5)	yes 22; no 43	2 yrs. (2.9)
Finland	49	38 (8.1)	yes 21; no 28	3 yrs. (2.1)

Table 4. The prior education of our respondents

Degree	Swedish students*	Finnish students
Preschool teacher	12	–
Class teacher	36	24
Subject teacher	8	11
Class+subject teacher	3	7
Class+preschool teacher	5	6
Other	1	1

*Three did not mention their education

Table 5. Means and standard deviations of items related to special educators’ work in practice, co-operation and documentation (ST=special teacher, SEr=special educator, SE=special education, LD=learning difficulties, T=teacher)

Items	Finnish sample (n=49)	Swedish sample (n=65–68)
Special educators’ work in practice
1. STs’ main task is to work with pupils	3.98 (.90)	3.98 (1.06)
2. STs are mainly experts in LDs	2.82 (1.07)	3.48 (.90)
3. The most challenging part of an SEr's work is to deal with students with behavioural problems	3.90 (1.03)	2.99 (.95)
4. An SE needs to influence school climate to become more accepting of diversity	4.29 (.94)	4.61 (.60)
Co-operation
5. Ts appreciate working with SErs	3.88 (.73)	4.04 (.97)
6. An SEr's key task is to coach other Ts to work with special needs pupils	3.71 (.96)	4.20 (.77)
7. Lack of time is the greatest obstacle to co-operation	4.08 (.98)	3.87 (.99)
8. Subject Ts do not want to co-operate with STs	2.82 (.81)	2.59 (1.19)
9. As an SE, I will mainly instruct a small group in my own separate class	2.59 (1.19)	1.84 (.80)
10. Class Ts want to work with SEs	3.51(.65)	3.88 (.80)
Documentation
11. The IEP is an important document	4.41 (.71)	4.07 (.86)
12. All teachers systematically follow IEP guidelines	2.55 (.87)	2.90 (.87′)
13. The goals stated in IEPs are forgotten in daily school routines	3.45 (1.04)	3.21 (.99)
14. The goals in IEPs are systematically evaluated	3.08 (.91)	3.25 (1.08)
15. STs are overloaded with paperwork/documentation	3.59 (1.08)	3.31 (.97)
16. IEPs strongly guide SEs’ work	3.67 (.90)	3.56 (.94)

Note. Scale for all items 1–5 (disagree-agree).

Table 6. Means and standard deviations of items related to attitudes towards inclusion and study expectations

Items	Finnish sample (n=49)	Swedish sample (n=65–68)
Inclusion
17. I support inclusion with no reservations	3.41 (.89)	3.32 (.95)
18. Overall, inclusion is a complicated issue	4.37 (.91)	4.56 (.85)
19. Inclusion does not suit every child	4.08 (1.08)	3.21 (1.21)
20. Practical matters must not restrict a child's right to study among his/her peers in a regular class	4.10 (.85)	4.62 (.75)
21. Special teaching separate from a child's own class is necessary	2.84 (.99)	2.90 (.99)
22. All special teaching can be delivered in a child's own class	2.31 (.98)	2.64 (1.06)
Education
23. Special teacher education should also include research education	3.06 (1.09)	4.38 (.65)
24. I mostly want to attain formal compe-tence from my education	2.31 (1.10)	2.63 (1.11)
25. Education must be close to practice	4.37 (.91)	3.50 (.99)
26. Education has to have a firm theoretical background	3.86 (.91)	3.85 (.78)
27. All teachers need special education studies	4.41 (.77)	4.61 (.58)
28. Distance learning and reading books do not make a special educator; contact teaching is also needed	4.88 (.39)	4.25 (1.04)

Note. Scale for all items 1–5 (disagree-agree).

Figure 1. The percentages of the focus areas concerning what a special educator needs to know in Finland and Sweden according to students (ST=special student teacher).

Figure 2. The percentages of the focus areas concerning what a special educator needs to know in Finland and Sweden according to students (ST=special student teacher).