Getting on the right track? Educational choice-making ...

Disability & Society

ISSN: 0968-7599 (Print) 1360-0508 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20

Getting on the right track? Educational choicemaking of students with special educational needs in pre-vocational education and training Anna-Maija Niemi & Tuuli Kurki To cite this article: Anna-Maija Niemi & Tuuli Kurki (2014) Getting on the right track? Educational choice-making of students with special educational needs in pre-vocational education and training, Disability & Society, 29:10, 1631-1644, DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2014.966188 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.966188

Published online: 14 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 341

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cdso20 Download by: [University of Helsinki]

Date: 08 April 2016, At: 06:53

Disability & Society, 2014 Vol. 29, No. 10, 1631–1644, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2014.966188

Getting on the right track? Educational choice-making of students with special educational needs in pre-vocational education and training Anna-Maija Niemi* and Tuuli Kurki Institute of Behavioural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland

Downloaded by [University of Helsinki] at 06:53 08 April 2016

(Received 3 February 2014; final version received 12 September 2014) This paper explores the educational choice-making of students with special educational needs in the context of Finnish pre-vocational training and one of its programmes, ‘Preparatory and Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for Disabled Students’. The authors enquire into the kinds of educational choices available for students in the preparatory programme, and how student counselling meets their educational hopes and future plans. The analysis draws on an ethnographic study of special needs education in post-compulsory education in Finland. It shows that students need to reflect on their educational plans within institutional and diagnostic restrictions and guidance. The authors state that educational choices can be negotiable, but more attention must be given to deconstructing the self-evidences and institutional barriers linked to the transitions of young adults with special educational needs. Keywords: pre-vocational training; special educational needs; educational choice-making; student counselling

Points of interest This paper examines student counselling and educational choice-making of students with special educational needs in a Finnish pre-vocational training programme. We explore the kinds of educational choices available for students and how their choices correspond to the student counselling they receive. The paper highlights that educational choices are constituted between students’ future plans and student counselling, but also within institutional practices and their restrictions, such as statements of special educational needs. We argue that educational choices can become negotiable but that more attention must be given to deconstructing the self-evidences and institutional barriers of special needs education.

Introduction In public discourse, school drop-outs – and especially those with special educational needs and disabilities – are seen to be at risk of social exclusion (Kelly 2001; *Corresponding author. Email: anna-maija.niemi@helsinki.fi © 2014 Taylor & Francis


1632

A.-M. Niemi and T. Kurki

Powell 2006; Te Riele 2006). Early school-leaving has been problematised widely in various countries and extensive resources have been spent to promote staying in school after the basic education (cf. Brunila 2013; Furlong 2006; Yates and Roulstone 2013). Pre-vocational education and training is seen as one solution to prevent educational and social exclusion (see Niemi and Kurki 2013; Kurki and Brunila 2014). This resonates with the changes taking place in the labour market and the neoliberal tendencies of education policies, such as the marketisation of education (cf. Brunila 2011, 2013; Tomlinson 2008, 2010; Yates and Roulstone 2013, 141–148). Regardless of preventative actions such as pre-vocational training, the educational transitions of young adults with special educational needs still tend to be complicated (for example, Båtevik and Myklebust 2006; Jahnukainen and Helander 2007; Jahnukainen 2001; Niemi, Mietola and Helakorpi 2010; Riddell, Baron, and Wilson 2001). However, listening to the hopes and wishes of students with special educational needs has not been in the focus of the ‘need-centred’ discourse of special needs education (Allan 1999; Vehmas 2005). In this paper, we concentrate on the interview narrations of young adults who have participated in the pre-vocational training programme ‘Preparatory and Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for Disabled Students’. This programme is offered to young adults with special educational needs who have not been able to get a study place in upper secondary education. We enquire into the kinds of educational choices available for students in the programme, and how student counselling meets their educational hopes and future plans. In order to explore these questions, we use the concepts of subjectification (Butler 1997; Davies 2006; Youdell 2006a, 2006b, 2006c) and agency (Butler 1990, 1997; Evans 2002, 2007). We also explore how the terms ‘special educational needs’ and ‘disability’ are defined in the statements of educational authorities. Thus, our aim is to deconstruct these definitions and formulate their critique. The analysis draws on the research data generated in an ethnographical study by Anna-Maija Niemi,1 in which she analyses the discursive practices of special needs education in post-compulsory education in Finland.2 Finnish special needs education and pre-vocational training In Finland, the majority of young people between the ages of seven and 16 study in public comprehensive schools, which provide a basic education lasting nine years. According to the Finnish National Board of Education (2014), basic education is ‘the same for all’ and students with special needs are supported within the comprehensive school system. However, around 8% of each age cohort of students in comprehensive schools is regarded as having special educational needs. Around 40% of these students study in separate special classes or schools (Statistics Finland 2013) and the remaining 60% partially in mainstream classes and partially in special classes. Additionally, studies show that once a student is placed in special classes or schools, they rarely return to mainstream classes (Niemi, Mietola and Helakorpi 2010; cf. Pfahl and Powell 2011). Recently, Finnish educational legislation reformulated the system of special support in basic education, and now the same process is going on in upper secondary education.3 The aim of the rearrangement is to promote educational inclusion (FNBE 2014). During the last (ninth) year in comprehensive school, all students in Finland receive student counselling and are expected to apply for upper secondary education through the nationwide joint application system. In general, students who have



1633

participated in special needs education in comprehensive school continue studies in vocational education and training (VET). Only a few continue in academically oriented general upper secondary education, mainly because at the upper secondary level special needs education exists for the most part only in VET institutions and in vocational special education colleges. The latter are ‘aimed at students who need special support’, which means that students without a certain diagnosis are not eligible to apply (see Hakala 2010). In Finland, every year around 9% of those completing lower secondary education are left outside upper secondary education (Statistics Finland 2012). These young people are often guided to apply for pre-vocational training. Pre-vocational training prepares them for upper secondary education, mainly VET, and does not lead to qualifications. Currently, it consists of four training programmes, namely ‘Vocational Start’, ‘Pre-Vocational Training for Immigrants’, ‘Home Economics Training’, and ‘Preparatory and Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for Disabled Students’. The latter is divided into two programmes: Preparatory Programme 1, which prepares students for VET; and Preparatory Programme 2, which prepares and rehabilitates students for work and independent life (FNBE 2010).4 By completing one of the pre-vocational programmes, one can obtain six extra points when applying for upper secondary education. This analysis focuses on Preparatory Programme 1. Its main target group is young adults who have just finished comprehensive school and are regarded as having special educational needs. However, the programme brings together people with very different educational experiences. The main aim is to ‘allow students to develop their competencies, acquire capabilities required in vocational studies, working life and independent living, and clarify their future plans’ (FNBE 2010). Students are offered individualised preparation to help them succeed when seeking admission to VET. Nevertheless, this objective is not realised for all, and every year some of the students are left outside VET and thus face a prolonged transition (Niemi and Kurki 2013; FMEC 2011). Theoretical and analytical approach By general consent, educational choices are seen as individual choices of an autonomic subject. However, if a person shows inability to make such choices, she/he is then targeted with the interventions of control and discipline (cf. Foucault 2010). This paper looks at the educational choices and how the subjects making those choices are being constituted in the processes of educational guidance. We ask how the limits and possibilities of discursive practices shape the negotiations of choice-making among students in the preparatory and rehabilitative programme (for example, Youdell 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; St. Pierre 1997, 365). The concepts of subjectification and agency have been useful in this analysis. Subjectification refers to a process in which subjects position themselves in the discursive practices and simultaneously participate in the reformulation of the rules governing those very practices (Butler 1997, 83–84; Davies 2006) by becoming an agentic subject (Laws and Davies 2000, 206). Students’ subjectivity is constituted in the process of making educational choices; the restrictions and possibilities offered in student counselling formulate the process, but at the same time the process is shaped by the students’ own views and plans. We look at agency in relation to the students’ sense of autonomy (cf. Davies 2006); the sense that one can think, talk


1634


and act within the frames of the discourse. We do not subscribe to the view that agency requires apparent opposition when making educational choices. The concept of ‘bounded agency’ defines agency as socially situated and influenced but not completely determined (Evans 2007). For instance, Judith Butler (1990, 185) has stated that agency is not only bounded but also enabled by the possibility of variation and opposition of the rules governing the signification of the subject. In other words, discursive agency is not a property of an autonomic subject, yet the subject continues to act with the intent of participating in the reformulation of prevailing discursive practices (Youdell 2006c). Categories such as ‘disabilities’ and ‘special needs’ are repeated and reinforced over time and brought into the domain of language through reiteration (cf. Butler 1993, 7–8). Particular students and learners are then named and shaped in the everyday practices of education through socially constructed binaries, such as average/ below average and able/disabled. These binaries define what is regarded as ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’, and some identity categories become incompatible with the school’s notions of a learner (Ashton 2011; Youdell 2006b, 30 and 33, 2006c; cf. Grue 2011, 542–543; see also Davis 2006). In the medical discourse of disabilities, impairments and learning/behaviour-related difficulties are often attached to the ‘special’ individuals themselves (for example, Grue 2011; Lalvani 2013; Shakespeare 2006; Thomas and Loxley 2001). For example, the ‘lack of capacity’ has not disappeared from the public discourse but has been translated into the politically correct language of different ‘needs’ (Mietola 2014; Vehmas 2010; Youdell 2006b, 98–99); this can also be found in the curriculum and other educational documents of pre-vocational training (Niemi and Kurki 2013). These processes of naming appear to define subjectification in all educational contexts, including the context of educational choice-making and student counselling (cf. Youdell 2006c, 36). The analysis of this paper is based on discursive reading, which we understand as dismantling the data to determine ways in which ‘the real’ is constructed and performed. This includes the socially formed binaries used in language and in cultural practices. We do not think of data as something that reveals ‘the truth’ (Davies 2004; St. Pierre 2000; 483). Instead, we think that discourses take place in certain historical contexts and are shaped through the repetitions and variations (Foucault 1980, [1969] 2008, 47–48; Hall 2001, 74 and 75). No discourse functions independently but rather interacts with others, making the constitution of subjectivities and experiences of people a complex and contradictory process (for example, Allan 1999; Honan et al. 2000).

Data The data analysed here were produced in the ethnographic study by Anna-Maija Niemi. The data production took place in 2008 and 2009 at two VET institutions in Southern Finland. Niemi studied two programmes: ‘Preparatory and Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for Disabled Students’, and ‘Metalwork and Machinery of mainstream VET’. She spent 23 schooldays in the institutions observing lessons, breaks and meetings, and interviewing 26 students. The data analysed also includes interviews with 24 students who were interviewed as part of the ‘Equality is Priority’ research project.5 In addition, 17 teachers and other education professionals were interviewed individually or in groups.



1635

In this paper, we concentrate on analysing the interviews of 16 students who had participated in the preparatory programme at some point in their lives. All of them had also participated in some form of special needs education in comprehensive school. At the time of interviewing, the interviewees were 17–30 years old. Five of them had ended up in the programme after dropping out of VET because of lack of interest or the inability to succeed in their studies. Eight had started the programme directly after comprehensive school either by seeking admission to the programme or because they were not accepted into VET. In addition, three students came to the programme after participating in other pre-vocational programmes. We also analyse the interviews of teachers and other education professionals on educational choice-making and guidance, and include the analysis of education policy documents of pre-vocational education in Finland (see also Niemi and Kurki 2013). In this way, our analysis ‘stretches out’ from the particular institutions to the discourses of special needs education and disability policies more generally (cf. Lahelma et al. 2014; Marcus 1995; Troman, Jeffrey, and Beach 2006). We have written the paper collaboratively ‘through discussion’ (Gordon, Holland, and Lahelma 2000), combining points of resemblance between the data followed by discussions on our interpretations (cf. Lappalainen, Mietola, and Lahelma 2012). This has opened up new ideas and practices of analysis (cf. Lahelma et al. 2014). Making the ‘right’ choices and resisting them The main idea behind the preparatory programme (FNBE 2010, 58) is to strengthen students’ opportunities to participate in VET, which implements the inclusive idea of education for all. The analysis of education policy documents, however, brought out some contradictory aspects in the curriculum of the programme. The aim written in the curriculum is to train students to participate in educational choice-making as independently and responsibly as possible, but only on the condition that those choices are suitable and realistic. The students are therefore taught about self-evaluation in order to recognise not only their strengths but also their need for support. Hence, the curriculum emphasises the neoliberal language of the able and responsible subject (Goodley 2011; Tomlinson 2008; Yates and Roulstone 2013), but also the importance of strong individualised support where the student becomes the target of special services (Niemi and Kurki 2013). The heterogeneity of students studying in the preparatory programme has been discussed in the follow-up reports of the programme (Hirvonen, Pelkonen, and Uitto 2005; Päivänsalo and Miettinen 2004). A teacher interviewed by Niemi brought this up, stating that ‘the group is different every year; there aren’t only students with study-related difficulties but a wide range of everything’. Also, not all of the students interviewed had backgrounds in special classes or disability diagnosis. Some had been their whole basic education in special schools, while others had been in mainstream education but after dropping out of VET ended up in the programme. Based on the analysis, we have identified three kinds of subject positions available for the students in relation to their conceptions of student counselling and support (cf. Benjamin 2002, 64 and 80). Firstly, some students seemed to be happy with the guidance and support they received, and agreed with the educational options offered to them. Secondly, some students were partly satisfied, and although they were aware that their personal plans were not consistent with those of their teachers, they still accepted them. Some of them planned to do two degrees in a

1636



row; first the training suggested by their teachers, and later the training they had dreamed of. Thirdly, some students expressed dissatisfaction with the programme altogether. For them, the guidance seemed useless because according to them they already knew where they wanted to study. Some of these students were critical about the name of the programme referring to ‘disabled students’. On some occasions, this rumble of discontent was then acted out. These three subject positions are demonstrated in this section, which analyses the narrations of three former students of the programme: Rick, Elsy and Eva.6 We explore their choice-making processes by asking, for example, how student counselling met their educational hopes and future plans. We draw on the concepts of subjectification and agency in order to analyse these processes of negotiation. The students’ narrations are analysed in relation to the discourses of special needs education policy.

Rick: taking advantage of special support After studying in the preparatory programme, Rick, a 17-year-old young man with a background in a special school, had sought admission to a vocational special education college. In the interview Rick talked about his long-term interest to study in the Natural Resources programme in a vocational special education college to which he was now accepted: I’ve now marked in my IEP [Individual Education Plan] that I’m going [to study in the Natural Resources programme]. It has been sorted out that I will definitely have a place there in autumn … I studied there one week last year [as part of the study experiment], so we did the paperwork already then. And this year, my teacher noticed this and then we finally rang the school and they sent me the papers directly saying that I have a study place there, that I will get in next year … So, I didn’t think about seeking admission to other schools since I definitely have a study place there. (Rick)

Rick was advised to study in the Natural Resources programme and he was also eager to go there. As he explained, he had already studied there one week the previous year as part of the study experiment. However, Rick had decided together with his parents to stay in his hometown for one more year and apply again the next year. The programme he was about to start now at the vocational special education college was not the Natural Resources programme of VET, leading to qualifications, but a special preparatory programme for Natural Resources to ensure he had really chosen ‘rightly’. Rick’s teacher talked about his future in relation to the current employment policy debate on extending working careers and speeding up graduation at all educational levels: I think the longer one stays in school, the more secure life will be. Rick will grow up as a person and mature … It means, in a way, playing for time … But alongside vocational studies, one also has to think about a good life [and maybe] he does not have the readiness for a good life on his own. One must think comprehensively, think about students in their entirety. If life in general doesn’t go well, neither does working life. From the bottom up, that’s my idea – to have a good life, the whole package. (Teacher)

The use of specific concepts and statements such as ‘disability’ and ‘special needs’ defines the subject but can also be used strategically by the subject (see Foucault



1637

[1978] 2010). In Rick’s case, being named as ‘a special needs student’ gave him an extra year within the support system. When talking about the future of students with a certain disability diagnosis, it seems that it is not really a work career that should be the topic, but life as a whole. One of the teachers interviewed explained that ‘it is an opportunity for a student to study at a vocational special education college, and then continue on to supported work and supported living and live life as normally as possible’. The self-contradiction of naming appears here. A legitimate statement of special needs provides access to different kinds of disability services that would not be available without such a statement. On the other hand, access to those welfare services can also result in social stigma (cf. Grue 2011, 536) and educational gridlocks (Hakala 2010). According to Reetta Mietola (2010, 2014), in the practices of student counselling in special needs education, efforts are made to keep the students in the education system as long as possible. Rick’s case shows how it may enfold some students in the ‘safety net’ of special support. Although his time of studying had been extended, Rick seemed happy to start studying in the programme. It was his dream come true, so there was no ambivalence between his wishes and the student counselling given to him. In the process of subjectification, Rick seemed to settle himself in the position of essentially ‘special student’, where one becomes visible by taking advantage of the discourse of special needs and special support (Helakorpi, Mietola and Niemi in press; Laws and Davies 2000; Mietola 2014).

Elsy: negotiating one’s ‘own’ choices The teacher is talking about three students who are interested in and applying for the Catering programme: Education welfare officer:Yes, many do apply for Catering, even without being interested in it. Teacher:Well, the rumour has it that if you apply for Catering, you will be admitted for sure. (Field notes from the staff meeting)

In the preparatory programme, guidance for further education is based on strong and secure support, yet the students are reminded at every turn about the importance of choice-making and the application process, and particularly about their responsibility in the process (FNBE 2010; Niemi and Kurki 2013; see also Lappalainen, Mietola, and Lahelma 2012). Students with special needs tend to be guided to the ‘safe routes’ of education (Niemi, Mietola, and Helakorpi 2010), which in Finland include the Catering programme in VET, which accepts a high number of students with special needs. In Niemi’s data, some students of the preparatory programme were advised to seek admission to VET programmes that they were not actually interested in but, according to the education professionals, they could ‘cope with’ and were ‘suitable’ for them. This was the case, for example, with Elsy, a 17-year-old young woman with a background in special education, who applied for the Catering programme instead of Business: Well, the teacher has influenced my choice-making pretty much. She has guided us on the right track. [Without her guidance] we wouldn’t be able to know where to go yet. She has kind of clarified us [laughs] … For example, I would still have the Business programme as my first option and I wouldn’t understand that I definitely won’t get in

1638


… She tries to get us into training so that we can start studying in the sector of our interests as soon as possible, and also in a programme we have a chance to get into. (Elsy)


Elsy emphasised that a suitable job for her would be something that she could easily do. For her, applying for the Business programme after graduating first from Catering might be possible although not very probable. She felt that choosing Catering was, after all, her personal choice, even though the idea was her teacher’s. She followed the guidance in order to get on the ‘right track’: I thought about applying for the Catering programme since one of my friends was applying there, so we could go together … Perhaps I would like to study Business but I cannot get in there. I will get into Catering, that’s for sure. You may want to get a study place somewhere but you just can’t get it. Then you have to work hard for it. I’ll probably try to complete my studies in Catering first and then apply for Business, if I am still interested. I will see in three years. (Elsy)

However, after a year of studying in the Catering programme, Elsy had already forgotten that she ever wanted to study Business. She enjoyed studying Catering but was now dreaming of studying in the Social and Health Care programme after completing Catering. We have analysed Elsy performing her sense of autonomy in the process of subjectification (cf. Butler 1997; Davies 2006): at first, she gave up her dream to study Business and accepted the choice (Catering) given by her teacher; but she still hung on to her future plan of studying something else after Catering. We could say that she manifested her sense of agency within the boundaries that limited her position (cf. Evans 2002) by first accepting what it was assumed she should choose and then planning the next steps after that choice (cf. Jagger 2008; Youdell 2006a, 2006b). In some sectors of VET, such as Technology, Communication and Transport, and Tourism, Catering and Domestic Services, the number of special needs students is relatively high, while in others, such as Social Services, Health and Sports, the number is remarkably low (FME 2004). Teachers interviewed explained that they advised their students to apply to Catering because there was less competition for study places: I have ethical responsibilities in this transition phase when I’m guiding students forward. I’m not happy with guiding people in a system that is not supportive, in a system where you can see that there is a relatively big risk of dropping out. (Teacher)

For example, students who had expressed interest in the Social and Health Care programme were advised to take a detour ‘via the kitchen’, by which teachers meant first completing the Catering programme before trying to get into Social and Health Care. The main aim of teachers was to secure a study place for all as the competition for study places would be high. Eva: resisting the categorisation of disabled When analysing the choice-making processes in the preparatory programme, it is essential to explore how some students were positioned in the categories of special needs and disability. Eva, a 17-year-old young woman who had spent the last two years of comprehensive school in a special class for students with emotional and behavioural difficulties, was dissatisfied with the programme because she felt they were ‘treated like little children’. When applying for VET after the programme, she


1639

did not write that she had studied in the programme for disabled students in her application because she did not want it known. She did this even though she knew that by leaving out this information she would not be eligible for the extra points that completing preparatory training would give her:


I don’t want anybody to know that I’ve been studying in a preparatory group. It’s so embarrassing … I don’t mind that I didn’t use the extra points … I’m so ashamed of studying in that group. Everybody sees it as a group for disabled people. I don’t want people to see me as disabled … Those who don’t know what kind of group it is always talk about it as a group for disabled people. (Eva)

Classifications and official categories shape the process of subjectification since those descriptions of the person often become the names people use to describe themselves and each other (Powell 2010, 2). The ways in which students are described in educational policy documents influence their positions in school practices. The use of specific terms and concepts define the subjects involved. However, it is also possible to strategically act against those very definitions (cf. Foucault [1978] 2010). It seemed important for Eva not to be identified as disabled, even if it meant losing the benefits of belonging to that category. According to the education professionals interviewed, tailoring special needs services could help achieve educational equality. However, many of them raised the question of stigmatisation of special needs students and problematised the naming of students as ‘special students’ (Niemi 2014). Florian et al. (2006, 37) have stated that the classifications and categorisations of education are problematic since these processes underpin the differences that the special programmes themselves are intended to address (see also Grue 2011). In current special needs education policies, discussion on disabilities is generally avoided or translated into the language of different kinds of needs (Thomas and Loxley 2001; Vehmas 2010). Hence, the classifications and categorisations persist but now with new names and labels (Powell 2010, 4). In Niemi’s data, the preparatory programme was called a ‘preparatory group’, but officially it includes the reference to ‘disabled students’. This has an effect on students’ educational choices and opportunities as well as on the negotiations of subjectivities. We want to point out that disabilities are not merely socially and discursively constituted phenomena, although their attendant meanings are (Benjamin 2002, 3). Thus, we do not deny the possibility that disabilities and particular studying-related difficulties are challenges in the lives of students. Rather, we think that it is crucial to rethink how society responds to disabilities and how we define normality. For Eva, the definition of disability carried such a stigmatising meaning that she refused to use it. Although she acted within the frames of the discourse, her agency was enabled by challenging the categories (Butler 1990; Youdell 2006c). Conclusion Young adults who had studied in the preparatory programme at some point of their lives performed autonomy in various ways within the practices of student counselling. For most of them it seemed important to have plans for the future as well as to be active and capable in realising those plans. Thus, the discourse of neoliberal education policy with its targets towards active citizenship was internalised by the students (cf. Davies and Bansel 2007; Yates and Roulstone 2013). Since the main


1640


objective of the preparatory programme is to improve participants’ ability to receive an education, and in the future to enter the labour market, finding a place in postpreparatory training is crucial. However, educational tracks that were considered suitable for these students were not always those they wanted. For teachers and other education professionals, the most important aim was to get every student into some form of education after the preparatory programme. In practice, for some students this meant continuing studies in so-called detour routes and not in education that would lead to qualifications. This is obviously a signal of lack of equity in the education system. The student counselling given was based on the idea of ‘special students’ who need special support and intensive guidance, which is a question of educational justice and students’ right for support. However, this approach of ‘special needs’ was resisted by some students who pointed out that they were not in need of any kind of help. Sticking to one’s own educational plans was done discreetly and strategically, and many of the students had ‘better’ plans for their future after completing the training suggested by their teachers (see also Kurki and Brunila 2014). Nevertheless, most students considered guidance important for them. In Rick’s case, he was able to apply for the programme he wanted because of his diagnosis. However, for students like Elsy, who did not have a ‘sufficient’ diagnosis, this route was not possible and she was obliged to apply for the mainstream programmes of VET. It seems that since adequate support is not available in the ‘more demanding’ programmes of VET, students with special needs are guided to VET programmes with lower admittance requirements. Eva lost the extra points she was entitled to in the application process because she refused to be categorised as a disabled person. This act of resistance, however, limited her options. Students’ educational choices are constituted between their hopes and plans and the student counselling processes, but also within institutional practices and their restrictions. Making educational choices shapes various subjectivities and generates expressions of agency. Thus, the ways in which educational programmes are named and for whom those programmes are targeted is not irrelevant. Names and labels affect the ways we see ourselves and each other and how we become identified in certain practices. Discursive practices enable but also restrict the process of subjectification, which moves away from the idea of a given subject and pays attention to the social locations and processes that constitute the subject (Butler 1997, 83–84; Davies 2006). Here, we have explored a preparatory and rehabilitative programme in a specific context in which discourses of ‘special needs’ and ‘disabilities’ are formulated. These discourses frame the outlines and practices of the programme and influence the educational choices students can make. In addition, they also promote socially bounded and enabled agency for the subjects, both students and teachers. An important factor that structures the student counselling of all pre-vocational programmes is the structure of student selection for VET. It has been noted at the education policy level that students with special educational needs do not have equal access to education (FMEC 2011, 2004). The decision-making of special needs education and the practices of student counselling should focus more on offering diverse educational options for all students. Without a wider focus, the objective of educational equality and social justice cannot be reached.


1641


Notes 1. The study has been conducted in the research project of the Academy of Finland entitled ‘Citizenship, Agency and Difference in Upper Secondary Education – With a Special Focus on Vocational Institutions’. The Finnish Doctoral Training Network on Educational Sciences KASVA has funded the study. 2. The ethnographical study of the second author, which explores the questions of social justice and the precariousness of adult immigrant education in Finland, is discussed elsewhere (see Niemi and Kurki 2013). 3. The support in basic education is currently organised through a tripartite system. The focus is on the earliest possible support in order to prevent the emergence and growth of problems. Students first get general and then intensified support. If more extensive support is still needed, the student receives special support, which requires an official pedagogical statement of the need for special support (FNBE 2014). 4. The structure of pre-vocational programmes will be restructured in 2015. This restructuring will unite the separate programmes into one preparatory programme called ‘VALMA’, which aims to serve most of the students at the pre-vocational level. However, Preparatory Programme 2, which prepares students for work and independent life, will remain unchanged as before (for example, Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture [FMEC] 2014). 5. The ‘Equality is Priority’ (YES2) project, funded by the Finnish Ministry of the Interior and the European Union, implemented a life-historical interview study of educational pathways of former special needs education students (Niemi, Mietola, and Helakorpi 2010). 6. These names are pseudonyms.

References Allan, J. 1999. Actively Seeking Inclusion: Pupils with Special Needs in Mainstream Schools. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Ashton, J. R. 2011. “The CEC Professional Standards: A Foucauldian Genealogy of the Re/ Construction of Special Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (8): 775–795. Båtevik, F. O., and J. O. Myklebust. 2006. “The Road to Work for Former Students with Special Educational Needs: Different Paths for Young Men and Young Women?” Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 8 (1): 38–52. Benjamin, S. 2002. The Micropolitics of Inclusive Education. An Ethnography. Buckingham: Open University Press. Brunila, K. 2011. “The Projectisation, Marketisation and Therapisation of Education.” European Educational Research Journal. Special Issue: Philosophy of Education and the Transformation of Educational Systems 10 (3): 425–437. Brunila, K. 2013. “Hooked on a Feeling: Education, Guidance and Rehabilitation of Youth at Risk.” Critical Studies in Education 54 (2): 215–228. Butler, J. 1990. Gender Trouble. Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. Butler, J. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex”. London: Routledge. Butler, J. 1997. The Psychic Life of Power: Theories in Subjection. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Davies, B. 2004. “Introduction.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 17 (1): 3–9. Davies, B. 2006. “Subjectification: The Relevance of Butler’s Analysis for Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 27 (4): 425–438. Davies, B., and P. Bansel. 2007. “Neoliberalism and Education.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20 (3): 247–259. Davis, L. J. 2006. “Constructing Normalcy.” In The Disability Studies Reader, edited by L. J. Davis, 3–16. New York: Routledge. Evans, K. 2002. “Taking Control of Their Lives? The Youth, Citizenship and Social Change Project.” European Educational Research Journal 1 (3): 497–521.


1642


Evans, K. 2007. “Concepts of Bounded Agency in Education, Work, and the Personal Lives of Young Adults.” International Journal of Psychology 42 (2): 85–93. Florian, L., J. Hollenweger, R. J. Simeonsson, K. Wedell, S. Riddell, L. Terzi, and A. Holland. 2006. “Cross-cultural Perspectives on the Classification of Children with Disabilities: Part I. Issues in the Classification of Children with Disabilities.” The Journal of Special Education 40 (1): 36–45. FME (Finnish Ministry of Education). 2004. Ammatillisen Erityisopetuksen Toimenpideohjelma. [Action Plan for Vocational Special Needs Education]. Vol.1. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education. FMEC (Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture). 2011. Koulutus Ja Tutkimus Vuosina 2011-2016. Kehittämissuunnitelma [Education and Research for 2011–2016]. Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture. FMEC (Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture). 2014. “VALMA” - säädösmuutokset. [Changes for Pre-vocational Education]. http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/ Koulutus/artikkelit/tutke/liitteet2/VALMAsaadosmuutokset160114.pdf. FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). 2010. Preparatory and Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for Disabled Students, Curriculum 2010. Helsinki: FNBE. Accessed April 15, 2011. http://www.edu.fi/ammattikoulutus/ammatillinen_erityisopetus/vammais ten_opiskelijoiden_valmentava_ja_kuntouttava_opetus_ja_ohjaus/oppilaitokset. FNBE (Finnish National Board of Education). 2014. Support in Basic Education. Accessed June 18. http://www.oph.fi/english/education_system/support_for_pupils_and_students/ support_in_basic_education. Foucault, M. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972–1977, edited by C. Gordon. New York: Harvester Wheatshealf. Foucault, M. [1969] 2008. Tiedon Arkeologia [The Archaeology of Knowledge]. Translated by T. Kilpeläinen. Helsinki: Vastapaino. Foucault, M. [1978] 2010. Turvallisuus, Alue, Väestö. Hallinnallisuuden Historia. College De Francen Luennot 1977-1978 [Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the College De France 1977–1978]. Helsinki: Tutkijaliitto. Furlong, A. 2006. “Not a Very NEET Solution: Representing Problematic Labour Market Transitions among Early School-leavers.” Work, Employment & Society 20 (3): 553–569. Goodley, D. 2011. “Towards Socially Just Pedagogies: Deleuzoguattarian Critical Disability Studies.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 11 (3): 317–334. Gordon, T., J. Holland, and E. Lahelma. 2000. Making Spaces: Citizenship and Difference in Schools. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Grue, J. 2011. “Discourse Analysis and Disability: Some Topics and Issues.” Discourse Society 22 (5): 532–546. Hakala, K. 2010. “Discourses on Inclusion, Citizenship and Categorizations of ‘Special’ in Education Policy: The Case of Negotiating Change in the Governing of Vocational Special Needs Education in Finland.” European Educational Research Journal 9 (2): 269– 283. Hall, S. 2001. “Foucault: Power, Knowledge and Discourse.” In Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader, edited by M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, and S. Yates, 72–81. London: Sage. Helakorpi, J., R. Mietola, and A.-M. Niemi. In press. Tasa-arvoisten mahdollisuuksien vuoksi erillään? Erityisluokkien oppilaat koulun sosiaalisissa ja institutionaalisissa järjestyksissä [Students with Special Needs in the Social and Institutional Orders of the School]. Nuorten elinolot vuosikirja 2014. [Annual Book of Youth Issues 2014]. Helsinki: Terveyden Ja Hyvinvoinnin Laitos. Hirvonen, S., E. Pelkonen, and R. Uitto. 2005. Vammaisten Opiskelijoiden Valmentava Ja Kuntouttava Opetus Ja Ohjaus. Selvitys 2004 [Preparatory and Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for Disabled Students, a Report 2004]. Helsinki: FNBE. Honan, E., M. Knobel, C. Baker, and B. Davies. 2000. “Producing Possible Hannahs: Theory and the Subject of Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 6 (1): 9–32. Jagger, G. 2008. Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the Performative. Oxon: Routledge. Jahnukainen, M. 2001. “Two Models for Preventing Students with Special Needs from Dropping out of Education in Finland.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 16 (3): 245–258.



1643

Jahnukainen, M., and J. Helander. 2007. “Alternative Vocational Schooling for the Droppedout: Students’ Perceptions of the Activity School of East Finland.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 22 (4): 471–482. Kelly, P. 2001. “Youth at Risk: Processes of Individualisation and Responsibilisation in the Risk Society.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 22 (1): 23–33. Kurki, T., and K. Brunila. 2014. “Education and Training as Projectised and Precarious Politics.” Power and Education 6 (3): 283–294. Lahelma, E., S. Lappalainen, R. Mietola, and T. Palmu. 2014. “Discussions That ‘Tickle Our Brains’: Constructing Interpretations through Multiple Ethnographic Data-sets.” Ethnography & Education 9 (1): 51–65. Lalvani, P. 2013. “Privilege, Compromise, or Social Justice: Teachers’ Conceptualizations of Inclusive Education.” Disability & Society 28 (1): 14–27. Lappalainen, S., R. Mietola, and E. Lahelma. 2012. “Gendered Divisions on Classed Routes to Vocational Education.” Gender and Education 25 (2): 189–205. Laws, C., and B. Davies. 2000. “Poststructuralist Theory in Practice: Working with ‘Behaviourally Disturbed’ Children.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 13 (3): 205–221. Marcus, G. 1995. “Ethnography in/of the World System. The Emergence of Multi-sited Ethnography.” Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117. Mietola, R. 2010. “Reippaasti Itekseen Vai Kädestä Pitäen? Monenlaiset Oppilaat, Ohjaus Koulutus- Ja Ammatinvalintaan Ja Koulutusmarkkinoiden Asiakkuus.” [Diverse Students and Educational Guidance in Education Markets]. In Yrittäjyyskasvatus Hallintana [Entrepreneurship Education as Governance], edited by K. Komulainen, S. Keskitalo-Foley, M. Korhonen, and S. Lappalainen. 158–186. Tampere: Vastapaino. Mietola, Reetta. 2014. Hankala Erityisyys. Etnografinen Tutkimus Erityisopetuksen Käytännöistä Ja Erityisyyden Muotoutumisesta Yläkoulun Arjessa. [Troubling Special: An Ethnographic Study on Practices of Special Education and Formation of Special in the Everyday Life of Lower Secondary School]. Helsingin yliopisto, Käyttäytymistieteiden laitos, Kasvatustieteellisiä tutkimuksia 255. Niemi, A.-M. 2014. “Tuki, tarve, leima, oikeus? Erityisyyden muotoutuminen ammatillisen koulutuksen diskursseissa [Support, Need, Stigma or Privilege? Discourses on Special Educational Needs in the Context of Vocational Upper Secondary Education].” Kasvatus [The Finnish Journal of Education] 45 (4): 349–363. Niemi, A.-M., and T. Kurki. 2013. “Amislaiseksi valmistettu, valmennettu ja kuntoutettu? [Trained, Prepared and Rehabilitated?].” In Ammatillinen koulutus ja yhteiskunnalliset eronteot [Vocational Education and Societal Differences], edited by K. Brunila, K. Hakala, E. Lahelma, and A. Teittinen, 201–215. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Niemi, A.-M., R. Mietola, and J. Helakorpi. 2010. Erityisluokka elämänkulussa. Selvitys peruskoulussa erityisluokalla opiskelleiden vammaisten, romaniväestöön kuuluvien ja maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten aikuisten koulutus- ja työelämäkokemuksista [Special Needs Education Class in the Life Course]. Sisäasiainministeriön julkaisuja 1/2010. Helsinki: The Finnish Ministry of the Interior. Päivänsalo, P., and K. Miettinen. 2004. Selvitys Vammaisten Opiskelijoiden Valmentavasta Ja Kuntouttavasta Opetuksesta Ja Ohjauksesta Kevätlukukaudella 2003 [A Review of the Preparatory and Rehabilitative Instruction and Guidance for Disabled Students in Spring Term 2003]. Helsinki: FNBE. Pfahl, L., and J. J. W. Powell. 2011. “Legitimating School Segregation. The Special Education Profession and the Discourse of Learning Disability in Germany.” Disability & Society 26 (4): 449–462. Powell, J. J. W. 2006. “Special Education and the Risk of Becoming Less Educated.” European Societies 8 (4): 577–599. Powell, J. J. W. 2010. “Change in Disability Classification: Redrawing Categorical Boundaries in Special Education in the United States and Germany, 1920–2005.” Comparative Sociology 9: 241–267. Riddell, S., S. Baron, and A. Wilson. 2001. “The Significance of the Learning Society for Women and Men with Learning Difficulties.” Gender and Education 13 (1): 57–73. Shakespeare, T. 2006. “The Social Model of Disability.” In The Disability Studies Reader, edited by L. J. Davis, 197–204. New York: Routledge.


1644


St. Pierre, E. A. 1997. “Nomadic Inquiry in the Smooth Spaces of the Field: A Preface.” Qualitative Studies in Education 10 (3): 365–383. St. Pierre, E. A. 2000. “Poststructural Feminism in Education: An Overview.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 13 (5): 477–515. Statistics Finland. 2012. Immediate Continuation of Studies Was Increasingly Difficult in 2011 for Both Completers of the 9th Grade of Comprehensive School and New Passers of the Matriculation Examination. Accessed October 24, 2013. http://www.tilastokeskus. fi/til/khak/2011/khak_2011_2012-12-13_tie_001_en.html Statistics Finland. 2013. Intensified or Special Support Was Received by 13 per Cent of Comprehensive School Pupils. Accessed October 24. https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/til/erop/ 2012/erop_2012_2013-06-12_tie_001_en.html Te Riele, K. 2006. “Youth ‘at Risk’: Further Marginalizing the Marginalized?” Journal of Education Policy 21 (2): 129–145. Thomas, G., and A. Loxley. 2001. Deconstructing Special Education and Constructing Inclusion. Buckingham: Open University Press. Tomlinson, S. 2008. Education in a Post-welfare Society. 2nd ed. Berkshire: Open University Press. Tomlinson, S. 2010. NEETs, Yobs, and Kripples. Low Attainment in a Global Knowledge Economy. A Report for the Leverhulme Trust. London: The Leverhulme Trust. Troman, G., B. Jeffrey, and D. Beach. 2006. Researching Education Policy. Ethnographic Experiences. London: Tufnell Press. Vehmas, S. 2005. Vammaisuus. Johdatus Historian, Teoriaan Ja Etiikkaan [Disability. Introduction to History, Theory and Ethics]. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Vehmas, S. 2010. “Special Needs: A Philosophical Analysis.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 14 (1): 87–96. Yates, S., and A. Roulstone. 2013. “Social Policy and Transitions to Training and Work for Disabled Young People in the United Kingdom: Neo-liberalism for Better and for Worse?” Disability & Society 28 (4): 456–470. Youdell, D. 2006a. “Subjectivation and Performative Politics – Butler Thinking Althusser and Foucault: Intelligibility, Agency and the Raced–Nationed–Religioned Subjects of Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 27 (4): 511–528. Youdell, D. 2006b. Impossible Bodies, Impossible Selves: Exclusions and Student Subjectivities. Dordrecht: Springer. Youdell, D. 2006c. “Diversity, Inequality, and a Post-structural Politics for Education.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 27 (1): 33–42.