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

The two-year pre-primary education trial, implemented by the Ministry of Education and Culture, was conducted in 148 municipalities between 2021 and 2024. Within the trial, approximately 15,000 children commenced pre-primary education at the age of five instead of six. In addition, around 20,000 children formed the control group, participating in early childhood education and care (ECEC) at age five and entering pre-primary education at age six, following the standard practice. This sub-report forms part of the monitoring and evaluation of the trial. Its results are based on two surveys conducted in spring 2023: a municipal survey targeting officials responsible for ECEC in the trial municipalities (N = 89) and a survey of ECEC teachers in both trial and control groups (N = 1,051). These surveys provided information and insights regarding the arrangements and implementation of the support for children’s growth and learning, as well as the organization of such support in the municipalities across both groups during the trial’s second operating period (2022–2023). For municipalities, this period represents the second year of the pre-primary education trial, whereas for the child cohorts it marks the first year of participation for the second age cohort (children born in 2017). Almost all ECEC and pre primary education teachers — whether working in special groups, integrated special groups, or other child groups — reported that the new three tier support system for children was being implemented in ECEC centres. This system was introduced through the amendment to the Early Childhood Education and Care Act, 8/2022. Although the system was removed from pre primary education as of August 2025, but it continues to be applied in other forms of ECEC. The availability of ECEC special education (SEN) teacher services varied considerably across municipalities in terms of staffing levels, qualifications, and organizational arrangements. While most municipalities employed several qualified SEN teachers, some had none or relied on unqualified staff. A majority of teachers reported that SEN services adequately met the needs of their group’s; however, approximately two in five rated the services as only moderate or poor. No significant differences were observed between the trial and control groups in the organization or perceived quality of SEN services. Most trial municipalities provided student welfare services for five and six year olds in pre primary education, with half of teachers rating these services as well aligned with their group’s needs. Teachers in special and integrated special groups offered slightly more positive evaluations than those in other groups. Multidisciplinary teams were generally available; however, more than 10% of teachers reported their absence. By law, children receiving intensified or special support must promptly receive an administrative decision regarding the provision of support services. This requirement was consistently met in special and integrated special groups: however, in approximately one-fifth of other groups, such decisions were absent. Although most teachers considered SEN and student welfare services adequate, around half reported that support measures outlined in children’s personal learning plans were fully implemented for all children. Support was more frequently realized in special groups than in others. Teachers most often attributed these gaps to insufficient resources, a lack of assistants, and staff turnover. Nevertheless, they highlighted several positive aspects of support, including effective cooperation with parents, staff competence in identifying needs, and the provision of assistance when required.