Kaksivuotisen esiopetuksen kokeilun seurannan ja arvioinnin tuloksia : Osaraportti 5: Tuen järjestelyt ja toteutuminen toimintakaudella 2022–2023

Overview

This sub-report synthesizes findings from two surveys conducted in spring 2023 as part of the monitoring and evaluation of the two-year pre-primary education trial (148 municipalities). The sample included municipal ECEC officials (N = 89) and ECEC teachers in trial and control groups (N = 1,051). The report focuses on arrangements and implementation of the statutory three-tier support system, availability and organization of special education (SEN) teacher services, student welfare provision, administrative decisions for intensified and special support, and fidelity of support measures in children’s personal learning plans during the 2022–2023 operating period.

Methods and approach

Cross-sectional survey data were collected in spring 2023 from municipal officials responsible for ECEC in trial municipalities and from ECEC teachers across trial and control settings. Respondents reported on structural arrangements (staffing, qualifications, organizational models), presence of multidisciplinary teams and student welfare services, administrative practice concerning decisions for intensified and special support, and perceived implementation fidelity of individual support measures. Analyses compared responses across group types (special groups, integrated special groups, other groups) and between trial and control municipalities to identify differences in organization and perceived adequacy of services.

Results

Implementation of the statutory three-tier support system in ECEC centres was reported as nearly universal across respondent teachers, reflecting the 2022 amendment to the Early Childhood Education and Care Act, although the system had been later removed from pre-primary education. Availability and characteristics of SEN teacher services varied substantially between municipalities: most employed multiple qualified SEN teachers, but some municipalities lacked qualified staff or relied on unqualified personnel. Approximately a majority of teachers judged SEN services as meeting their group’s needs, while roughly two in five rated services as moderate or poor. No systematic differences between trial and control municipalities were detected in the organization or perceived quality of SEN services. Student welfare services were provided in most trial municipalities for five- and six-year-olds; about half of teachers considered these services well aligned with group needs, with slightly higher positive ratings from staff in special and integrated special groups. Multidisciplinary teams were generally present, albeit absent according to over 10% of teacher respondents. Administrative decisions for intensified or special support were issued reliably in special and integrated special groups but were missing in roughly one-fifth of other groups. Full implementation of support measures specified in personal learning plans was reported for about half of children; implementation rates were higher in special groups. Primary barriers to implementation included insufficient resources, shortages of assistants, and staff turnover. Positive aspects noted by respondents included effective parent collaboration, staff competence in needs identification, and provision of assistance when required.

Implications

The uneven distribution of qualified SEN teacher resources and variability in organizational arrangements indicate systemic capacity constraints that limit uniform delivery of intensified and special support across municipalities. The absence of administrative decisions in a nontrivial share of general groups and partial implementation of individualized support plans suggest procedural and resourcing gaps that may undermine legal entitlements and intended support pathways. Continued monitoring should prioritize municipal staffing profiles, qualification levels, and implementation fidelity metrics to inform allocation decisions and corrective measures. Integration of student welfare and multidisciplinary teams should be strengthened where absent, and targeted investments in assistant personnel and staff retention measures are indicated to improve implementation completeness of individualized supports.