92 Y. Li and F. Dervin Finland summer university: education psychology (5 credits); Children and youth psychological well-being (25 credits); Multiculture (25 cred- its), dance pedagogy (25 credits). Positive learning: well-being in schools. Summer university of Mikkeli: Minor in drama education (25 credits). United Nations Finland: course on sustainable development online (6 credits) 19 online meetings and 4 meetings face to face in Helsinki. Duration: one academic year. Uskonnonopetus, Religious teaching: art education, cultural multiliter- acy, subject integration, etc. (different cities and towns around Finland). The following courses were advertised for in the magazine, and involved time abroad: OKKA: foundation for education, teaching and training: summer course for teachers in Rome Italy (10 days): visits to museums, lectures, networking with other teachers, etc. costs EUR 450 and the foundation sponsors the rest OAJ, trade unions for teachers: 10 day-trip to Germany for tourism (German history, culture), advertised as an active study trip to Germany. CPD Offerings In 2017–2018 the following topics were covered in the CPD courses offered by providers: – Assessment – ICT, robotics, programming – Migrant education – Multiliteracies – Wellbeing/psychological aspects of education – Working in/with a community – Working with the New National Curriculum (2016).
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 93 As one could expect, they follow the topics/themes put forward by the Ministry of Education for the same year. The formats of training were as follows: 1 day (conference, seminar, school training day), several days and several months (qualifying trainings with credits). In what follows we present a range of courses for each of the themes, providing information about the content, tuition, trainers and duration. We follow the aforementioned list of topics covered in the study. Whenever possible, we give an indication of duration, cost, and potential sponsorship. Assessment Amongst the major providers, three proposed courses on the topic of assessment were available (Brahea, HY+ and Educode). Apart from one course proposed by Brahea on evaluation of own and peer school activities which lasted a whole semester (6 credits), the other courses were short-term (1–2 days). The two Educode courses cost EUR 200 each while the others were sponsored by the NAE. The following course titles were identified: The development of a school assessment culture Evaluation in building a learning culture Electronic Assessment in teaching (in crafts education) The aims of these courses were to help teachers reflect on and develop the multifacetedness of assessment in school. In the interviews with teachers, they reveal that many VESO-days were dedicated to the topic too. However, as we shall see, they found the knowledge that was passed onto them was not very useful (see next chapter). ICT, Robotics, Programming Without any surprise, this second topic is present in many proposed courses. Brahea, Educode, HY+ and the NAE had a long list of courses. Apart from a one-year programme at Brahea (AVATAR 2020) and two six-week long courses offered by HY+ (learn how to activate and use
94 Y. Li and F. Dervin inclusive digital tools to support education and development processes), all the other courses were 1–2 days. Three courses from the NAE and some of the ones offered by Educode charged between EUR 100–500. The topics covered in the courses ranged from a specific technology (e.g. LEGO, Minecraft, Office 365) to broader courses on program- ming, and digital inclusion. Brahea’s one-year programme (AVATAR 2020) appears to be the most exhaustive, covering different aspects of ICT: Learning and learning environments for the School of the future/ Developer Training I (2 cr) Learning and learning environments for the School of the future/ Developer Training II (2 cr) Basics of using an iPad in teaching (1 cr) Tablet or laptop?—experiences and tools to be used by a school for inclu- sion of ICT (1 cr) Games, Learning and Gambling (3 cr) Migrant/Intercultural/Multicultural Education As a country that is witnessing more and more migration, it appears normal that many CPD courses deal with the issue of diversity in edu- cation. This is where the most long-term trainings are available. HY+ offers 3 such courses: School for integration (duration: 7 months, 10 credits), Diversity in education (2 months, 3 credits), Qualification training for immigrant teachers (2-year programme, 60 credits). Brahea proposes two very similar courses: Culture- responsive practices for working with immigrants (one year, 30 cred- its), Becoming a teacher in Finland—Teacher training preparatory studies for immigrant background teachers (2-year programme, 60 credits). In these courses, the providers promise to provide the lat- est research on the issue of multicultural education but also to give concrete tools to work with migrant (and/or migrant-background) students.
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 95 Multiliteracies The idea of multiliteracies is presented as transversal in the National Core Curriculum of 2014–2016. It is defined as follows: “interpretation, com- posing, and evaluation of written, spoken, and multimodal texts within a rich textual environment” (2016: 56). The NAE and HY+ proposed several courses on the topic. For instance, the NAE offered courses on media crit- ical skills, the use of digital pens and reading strategies (one day-course for EUR 300 and a 3-month course on new methods for teaching reading). Wellbeing/Psychological Aspects of Education HY+ is the only provider which deals with this topic, with 14 different short- and long-term courses on issues related to well-being and psychology. Proactive Ethics in Working Life (1 day, free) Literary Therapy for Children and Young People (4 months, EUR 2300) The basics of Literacy Therapy (1 year, EUR 3300) Prevention of Radicalization in Schools (2 months, free, sponsored by the NAE) Change of the teacher’s role (one month, 2 credits, free, sponsored by the NAE) Working in/with a Community Three main providers offer courses on this issue which is also central in the National Core Curriculum (“school as a community”): Educode, HY+ and Brahea. These courses concern mostly other aspects of CPD: tutoring, mentoring. Tutor and peer educator training (4 days, EUR 200) Reverse learning in practice (one day, taught by teachers certified by LEGO) Being wise at work (1 day, free)
96 Y. Li and F. Dervin Ethics in working life (1 day, free) Gordon’s Effective Workplace Community Training (10 days, EUR 200) provides the ability to capitalize on key interaction and interpersonal skills in leadership and work Teachers in Finland—intercultural know-how and well-being at school life in general (one semester, 6 credits). In general, all these courses seem to be influenced by the fields of psy- chology and communication, and lack, somewhat interdisciplinarity. For example these two courses are described as follows: Gordon’s Effective Workplace Community Training provides the ability to capitalize on key interaction and interpersonal skills in leadership and work life in general (HY+). Teachers in Finland—intercultural know-how and well-being at school life in general. This training is designed for foreign teachers and for support staff. The goal is to support the recognition of competences and the development of work activities for your own workforce. It also aims at increasing involve- ment in developing your own school by becoming an active member of the work community. The course also examines opportunities to move forward in your working career in Finland (Brahea). Working with the New National Curriculum (2016) Finally, a few courses offer to help teachers work with and understand the ideology of the Core National Curriculum. Educode offered two such courses in 2017: New teacherhood, NPDL (New Pedagogies for Deep Learning) (1–2-day trainings). These are described as follows: Helps to ensure the development of a school so that the objectives of the new curriculum are met in practice. The international New Pedagogies for Deep Learning program helps to develop the culture of operation and to implement the goals of the curriculum.
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 97 Pause This first analytical section shows that, in theory, a wide range of CPD courses are available for Finnish teachers. What is more, most of the courses seem to focus on the target topics proposed by the NAE. Although most of the courses are free (sponsored by the NAE), some more specific courses or qualifying courses are quite expensive (in aver- age EUR 3000). As a reminder, the cost or absence of cost of the CPD courses do not include travel, accommodation and subsistence. Conceptually and theoretically, it is not always easy to see where the courses are situated from the description and they thus appear to be frag- mented (Huber 2012). One notices however certain flavours, such as the influence of positive psychology on courses related to well-being, ‘American’ multicultural education on courses related to migrants and diversity. One can also see clearly the influence of certain multination- als on how ICT and robotics are taught: LEGO certification, the use of Microsoft, etc. Because of these different conceptual and methodological approaches, teachers receive CPD that determines how they work, but they also lead to discrepancies in ways different teachers are trained, which may have a good but also negative impact on teaching—especially if teachers do not discuss together (Aspfors 2012; Darling-Hammond 2009). Our final point refers to the lack of indication of progression (at what career level the trained teachers are?) and evaluation of coherence and cohesion between the ‘patchwork’ of courses in the descriptions of the courses (see critiques of such issues in Stein et al. 1999). The Providers’ Voices In this section, we listen carefully to the voices of four representatives of CPD providers in Finland. This complements directly the previous sec- tion, which helped us to identify our participants and to formulate our interview questions. The interviews took place in similar conditions. The researchers went to see the interviewees at their working place in different Finnish cities. In all cases, the interviewees had booked a room for the interviews so
98 Y. Li and F. Dervin the discussions could be more private. At the beginning of the inter- views, they were told about the objectives of the study as well as the anonymity of the collected data. In general, the tone of the interviews was informal and convivial. In terms of language policy, the interviews were done in English, with some Finnish when the participants could not find some words in the language. All the participants appeared to be very comfortable in English. A few words about the different participants are needed here. Four people were interviewed from four different providers. Interestingly they all had a different profile and position towards CPD. Table 5.2 summa- rizes these elements, at the time of the study. As indicated in the table, the four participants, although all involved in teacher CPD had somewhat different profiles and roles in CPD pro- vision. This gives to what follows a multivoiced perspective, which can only provide us with richer data. The analyses of the three interviews revolve around these three themes: (1) Qualifying CPD in Finland, (2) Biggest problems for CPD, and (3) Providing CPD: realities and myths. Table 5.2 Profiles of interviewees: providers Provider Profile Position towards CPD (code: A) University CPD – Project planner Involved in preparing and department – Long experience in selling train- selling CPD to munici- (code: O) Teachers’ Trade ings to teachers palities and teachers Union – S pecial adviser with the Involved in creating (code: N) Finnish Teacher Trade Union material for teachers University CPD Organisation (OAJ) and training them department – Was a class teacher for 20 years (code: E) State-owned – University teacher Involved in training company – Ph.D. in education teachers – Used to work as a teacher in basic education – S pecialises in linguistically and culturally responsible teaching and leaning – A cts as a private CPD consultant too – Part of management team Involved in preparing and – Former teacher (6-year selling CPD to munici- experience) palities and teachers
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 99 Qualifying CPD in Finland In this first section, we analyse how the providers describe CPD in Finnish education in general, and what its characteristics are. In general, the comments made by our participants are rather negative. The first aspect of CPD that is discussed is the fact that it does not always appear to be serious enough. O: in-service training is not in a very good shape in Finland For O, who works for the Trade Union, there is a need for it to be research-based, in other words to reserve CPD to professionals such as the NAE, and more importantly, universities: O: in-service training should be based on research and we have so many actors in the field and we don’t know what they do… so I think that half of the training and the money comes from the National Agency to whom the Ministry of Education gives the money and they organise good in-ser- vice training for teachers. In her interview O repeats on several occasions that some of the provid- ers, whom she qualifies as “private training actors”, are problematic: O: we also have some training by private training actors but we don’t know what they do…. O: if they are not teachers if they don’t have a teacher’s background we don’t know what they do we don’t call it teaching because if they are not teachers E adds an extra layer to the complex list of CPD providers in Finland, providers of both IT services and training: And then I would like to add that the third part or this kind of third player in the field are digital companies providing some training ser- vices… so I think that when people are talking about CPD they are often talking about how to use ICT in education… there is like [name of such company] they sell basically IPads to schools but then they provide a lot of teacher training… that’s training for like one-day training…
100 Y. Li and F. Dervin There appears to be a criticism of such CPD provision from E. He ends his description of the ‘digital companies’ with a comparison to his kind of organization: “but we the major providers we provide large long-last- ing programmes to support development.” By making this claim, E. agrees with Feiman-Nemser (2001) who suggests long-term CPD as ‘good practice’. However, as we shall see, E.’s company also offers many ‘one-off’ training sessions… One of the reasons why CPD is not in “a good shape” relates to the lack of coherence that surrounds it according to O. The incoherence comes mostly from decision-makers in her opinion: O: In-service training has never been coherent… no so that’s what we are waiting for and we are talking a lot with municipalities, they should make their goals what in their areas they need to develop we want them to work together with schools teachers and principals, and think together what is needed, and schools should make their own development plan, and prin- cipals and teachers have their own plans… Although A, from a University company, agrees with O, she argues that the marketization of CPD (Aspfors 2012), which has become a reality in Finland, is a good and acceptable thing: A: I think that private companies were a curse word for education before and we still have this kind of attitude sometimes coming to us and then when it comes to, for example, especially university staff they are really critical about this aspect, but then again as we see, when we really look about, when you look at the schools and munic- ipalities how much they collaborate with private companies, start- ups are big. For example, furniture companies or whatever, I mean we can’t just separate ourselves from the world, I mean we need to collaborate. When she presents her company A even goes as far as saying: “we oper- ate just like a regular company so if you are not efficient enough then you have to go.” There may actually be a contradiction here between the public services offered by these companies (sponsored by public funds) and the need to make a profit.
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 101 For N, from another university, the consequence of this marketi- zation can be very negative. In her interview, she shares the following criticism: N: and here is something I have to say about [She mentions another com- pany] I have found its marketing the courses vague because for example they offer some courses of Finnish as a second language and they market it as giving qualifications to be a Finnish language teacher, and we have many times contacted them and said this is not fair… it is not the reality, so why do you do this? Problems Behind CPD Our interviewees mentioned many impediments to CPD, from their own perspectives. Yet, they all seem to share the same concern about financial issues. They argue that there is not enough money for CPD and that, depending on municipalities, teachers can have more or less access to CPD (see Hämäläinen and Hämäläinen 2011). O explains that this leads to inequality: O: Some municipalities don’t give money for travelling so the teachers invest their own money but we feel it should be the employers’ responsi- bilities. Mostly during summer time, some teachers do it but we think the employer should pay for all. That’s the main problem with CPD. As a representative of the Trade Union, her role is to defend teachers’ rights and duties. O. reports that some municipalities disagree with the need for more CPD and that they even believe that Finnish teacher education is too long and too expensive. E confirms this problematic aspect of decentralisation of deci- sion-making in what follows: E: I just had a call with one of my managers and he just pointed out that he hasn’t yet found a municipality in Finland where they didn’t need
102 Y. Li and F. Dervin some help in CPD but the problem is that they don’t have the money. They were willing to buy some training and some consultancy services, but the problem is always money… Of course, there are some cities and municipalities that can easily spend some money on CPD but in most cases they don’t have the money… This has repercussions on the way E’s company organizes CPD and charges for it. We asked him if teachers paid for the trainings by them- selves. He answered: E: Yes… and sometimes they even do pay that we can see when we provide our… what we call open training… where anyone can partici- pate… our typical price for one person for one-day training is somewhere around EUR 150… many schools they have budgeted around EUR 150-200 per teacher for CPD… and also the price EUR 150, that’s also something as a teacher you could also pay on your own… you would not pay like EUR 500 or something… but EUR 150 people might pay for themselves… Another aspect about finance of CPD concerns directly the competi- tion between the different providers who compete for funding from the NAE or municipalities (see Heikkinen et al. 2015). A is very adamant about one aspect that she finds unfair: A: Yeah, there’s a lot of consultants who actually are… um they can pro- vide such low fees and such low courses that uh… when, for example, a large municipality is in southern Finland when they need to um what’s the name in English? They need to ask for bids for all kind of providers, and then they have to choose the cheapest one. I: Oh yeah, it’s not fair. A: That’s not really fair, because you know what, you can’t get a good training with the lowest amount of money so… we have some… we have quite actually difficult experiences regarding this, because I don’t think it’s really fair, I mean… they’re big municipalities who need really… high quality education but they can’t… they have to buy the cheapest one
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 103 At the end of the interview when asked what she would change about CPD in Finland, she returns to the topic, sounding even more annoyed: A: well, in my personal opinion, I really hate the fact that the municipal- ities they need to buy always the cheapest option because then you really get I’m sorry to say this but crappy training… In her interview, N has a different view on this issue. Just as a reminder, N is a practitioner, while A an administrator: I: I have heard from some providers that sometimes there are interesting practices whereby some companies are offering CPD for cheaper… have you experienced that also? N: well… not in fact, not exactly for example our university… one year ago, Helsinki municipality bought from us and it was so expensive and I thought are they really willing to pay so much… I don’t remember how much… it was a lot… and well it was no problem… they had some pro- ject funding and that’s how they did it. For N, the amount charged for providing CPD does not matter as long as it is of high quality. Going back to A, and interestingly, she appears concerned by the fact that some municipalities do not realise what quality training is or the need for long-term CPD. She says: A: if they are buying a three-hour lecture and they think that every… all the problems that they have this will just disappear with that, so it doesn’t happen I think… when I see those bids that they send to us… one can clearly see that they don’t have some… that they don’t under- stand what they are doing, what they’re actually trying to buy from us so and then there can’t be really an effective training… it’s really sad because we want to do the best that we can and use the best experts and have the best you know better processes and everything but our hands are tied…
104 Y. Li and F. Dervin Another criticism addressed to municipalities is the lack of funding offered for paying for teachers’ substitutes when they take CPD (Pöntynen and Silander 2015). This is especially discussed by N and O: N: I think that the main problem for now in Finland is schools… well they do not have enough substitutes or they do not have the possibility to get substitute teachers, which prevents people from participating in training and professional development and I think it is lack of money, and well the teachers know… if I go away so another teacher has to cover it so… Beyond financial issues, our interviewees confirm the fact that at least 20% of teachers do not take part in CPD (e.g. Hämäläinen et al. 2015), O. goes as far as saying: O: 20% of teachers don’t take part in in-service training every year. But they can’t be forced. Principals should force them but it’s hard for them to say you have to go… but I don’t know how it works. I think it is the teachers who are close to retirement… and they are scared of computers and changes… As we shall see in the data collected from teachers about CPD (see Chapter 6), teachers appear to be increasingly overworked, especially since the National Core Curriculum has been in place. How to motivate them to take part in CPD is a burning issue: N: I think, in my opinion, teachers are very tired at the moment because the curriculum has changed and it is really demanding and so they are not so willing to participate in trainings… For N, this has a consequence on participation as only those teachers who are really motivated register for CPD. Two other problems related to CPD were mentioned by the interviewees. First of all, the lack of relation between ITT and CPD is decried (see Niemi 2015). When N is prompted about the fact that an increasing number of Newly Qualified Teachers quit their jobs, she says:
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 105 N: To be honest with you, preservice teacher education does not prepare teachers well… parents are really demanding sometimes, for example, we have nothing about cooperation with parents… we include this in our in-service programme The second somewhat surprising aspect is the lack of use of online tech- nologies for CPD. O seems aware of this issue: I: What about the use of technology for in-service training? O: There is not much… yes but I think it is going on more and more what I think is… we have had the difficulty with computers in schools and kindergartens, people don’t have their own computers and they don’t know how to teach with IPads and computers… A shares the same views: A: there are not that many domestic providers of online training so… yeah so most of the training that the NAE is funding… they are just basic contact teaching you know so I think that that really is a problem… N explains why online CPD does not seem very common in Finland. We need to bear in mind that the situation might be different in other university departments: I: How about online training? N: That’s another story… we have for example… we are offering three online courses about multilingualism and responsive teaching but the problem is that the bureaucracy here at university is that it does not recognize that kind of teaching as teaching at all… so we can’t mark those hours that we spend online as teaching at all so we don’t get paid and there are not counted… and everything here is about counting the hours… maybe there is a light at the end of the tunnel… I think it is the problem here in this faculty… it is differ- ent in other faculties…
106 Y. Li and F. Dervin Providing CPD: Realities and Wishes In this final section about the providers’ interviews, we examine what we call the realities and wishes of CPD. We start by identifying the CPD philosophies shared by three partici- pants (E, A and O). E, who works for a state-owned training company, appears to have the clearest CPD philosophy—which he presents as the company’s focus: E: What many teachers are looking for when they are participating in training is that there comes the training then after the training they’re provided with some new skills they can use in their work… but that is something we do not do… because in our model we kind of help them… we organise some kind of mentoring services so when we have one-day training courses, we are not giving them handouts and checklists so… when you go back to your classroom then you do this this and this… no… we are providing them with some new ideas and some skills to help them… I think the mentoring model is much better… at a deeper level… When prompted about the success of this approach, E is very honest: it depends on the ‘customers’ (his term) and on the trainers. E also explains that sometimes there are misunderstandings between the pro- vider and the municipality that buys their service—and this is reflected in the teachers’ expectations: E: but sometimes we have some issues when a city or a municipality has bought some training from us and somewhere between us… and the end customer there can be a gap in information and… the teachers sometimes when they come to our trainings they think we will provide them with some kind of pedagogical burana [pills for headache in Finland2] and we do not provide… and they were expecting this kind of approach and… 2We could hint again at the Chinese saying 头痛医头, 脚痛医脚 to problematise this misunder- stood aspect of CPD (“When someone has a headache, the doctor only treats the head; heals the foot only when he has pain in the foot”).
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 107 so I think that comes because people traditionally train their skills by going to a one-day training and then they can use for instance Microsoft Excel… but that’s not something we do… As far as trainers are concerned E’s company hires mostly teachers and principals who are part of their network or, even, who have taken part in their previous trainings. He explains that “you can just be a good teacher and you have some skills that you wanna share to others and then you are an expert for others… and you are willing to share this expertise…”. These trainers must adhere to the aforementioned training model. A seems to have a less clear idea about what her company wants in terms of CPD, especially in terms of format. She explains: A: In addition to research… because I think that’s really important not to just have lectures, but to have kind of hands-on experience and con- crete examples. And we, of course, we are really… we want to develop the teaching methods that we’re using. So not just basic lecturing, that’s a bit limited… A seems to suggest that CPD is done though typical problem and inquiry-based learning (Girvan et al. 2016). When asked what a suc- cessful CPD course is, A is first a bit hesitant and then provides us with a vision about the participants: A: it’s an awful question I’m sorry… yeah but it’s okay I try to answer… the participants come from different schools because then you get some kind of variety and you can… She also lists working methods that seem to be popular and successful in CPD: A: there’s also this kind of a peer-mentoring and you can get group reflec- tion and sharing… that’s something that usually works a lot better than just to develop in one school (…) in good trainings there needs to be something else apart from lectures like experiential learning… they go
108 Y. Li and F. Dervin to different places to learn… a different environment such as a forest or whatever it is… and that’s actually what we are doing quite often… they might have kind of a closing seminar in the forest for example… and I think that’s something is also it’s a concrete way of showing those teachers that if you can do this in in-service training so why can’t you do this with your class. She then described an ideal trainer as follows: A: they need to be really… I mean they need to be really motivated… they have to have the passion… but the teacher it shows in it shows… like… and you can’t just do that for just to make money or something like… that it’s obvious I mean then you have this kind of a passion for what they’re doing and that also… sometimes it takes more efforts and more time than actually we can compensate with the fees or whatever… It is important to note that University companies often hire university staff (from lecturers to professors) but also school teachers as trainers. These are often from the local university but both O and N report using the services of foreign experts either through visiting professors (e.g. USA) or online lectures (e.g. from Sweden). We asked N how they chose the courses that are offered as CPD: N: well we base our courses to our image of the needs of the teachers… and it is not just the image, it is also the results of the studies that we have been making… for example, in 2016, we collected a large data, 822 teachers, about their knowledge about multiculturalism and it showed a huge lack of knowledge… there is a lot of good will, a lot of empathy, but the lack of knowledge is enormous so that’s what we are doing. N specializes in multicultural issues in education and we were inter- ested in probing the ideologies that constituted the CPD courses on the topic. So, we asked her: I: when you think about the trainings you are offering, what is the ide- ology of the courses? How do you make it very specific for teachers in Finland?
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 109 N: It is always a combination of theory and practice. From my experi- ence, teachers always want to have good practices, so when they leave the training this is my tool for tomorrow, but this is never enough there needs to be theoretical knowledge: why? Why is this thing good or effec- tive? Because otherwise it is just a toolkit that maybe just works once that is it. I always emphasize that the mindset and the attitudes, they are very important, and it is to be theory-based. Her first answer relates to the format of CPD rather than the content of CPD. So, we asked her the question again: I: but when you think about theory, it is very political. When I hear the terms that you use I cannot not think about American researchers who are based in America and work on the American context. In my own research and my research group we would use a completely different term. N: well for us the background is in sociocultural theories, but I would say because I have been working so long in the schools I know the Finnish context so well, so it is context-based and that’s also… the participants, they always tell that it is good that I explain the theoretical knowledge with the experiences and experiments from the field. I always get this feedback. And I am really happy because that’s what I want to offer, I can offer good practices but not only that I always want to have it as research based and I know what the research says but unfortunately, there is very little research from Finland… In terms of realities, O. discusses the reforms that were taking place at the time of the interview, the so-called Kiky, through which teachers, like all other employees in Finland had to accept more working hours and losing part of their summer bonuses. When O discusses time allo- cation for CPD activities (in a broad sense), she explains: O: We have three hours per week to make or cooperate with your col- leagues, parents and write messages… it is three hours per week and one hour goes to school meeting so it is almost one or two hours per week and then, there is one hour left and sometimes where they don’t have these meetings then there is more time to cooperate with your colleagues. So when I was a teacher, we had one hour per week to cooperate with
110 Y. Li and F. Dervin teams or external people… we get paid for these…and they get controlled but some of the work is done at home… so it is 38 weeks times three hours, it is called YS (Yhteisuunnitelu ). So it is 4-3 hours per week but mostly they are spent in meetings by principal but now that we have this kiky… the boss of our trade union Olli was negotiating with the munici- palities and employers, and they decided that it is extra 24 hours to work per year and they negotiated that they would take 30% of the summer extra salary but these hours, half of it is for YS so you have 12 more hours to do that cooperation and you can use it when you want, and the 12 hours extra are for in-service training… CPD here seems to be reduced to cooperation with other teachers, and co-planning (see Niemi 2015). However, according to O, even these hours are used up for meetings and other administrative tasks. In order to conclude this chapter, let us look at what our interviewees wish for as far as the future of CPD is concerned. The first argument that all the providers mentioned is the funding as well as the selection of providers and courses by municipalities. For O and E this has to be reformed. O also argues that universities should be given the priority to offer CPD, as their trainings are research-based. E has a more practical (and vital) message for decision-makers: I would give at the government level… I would give a strict amount of money to be used for CPD… maybe EUR 500 or EUR 1000… some amount of money that has to be used and then… He also suggests “some kind of system to check” the quality of the train- ings and the participation of teachers. As a reminder: none of this is occurring officially in Finland. N’s vision seems to correspond to many of the critiques of CPD in Finland that we have highlighted in earlier chapters (e.g. Heikkinen et al. 2015): N: my dream is that we would have some kind of CPD system that when people are ready to be teachers, they know that they have to develop themselves all the time, that there should be the time and money for that… I think there should be more collaboration between teacher educa- tion and the field…
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 111 Finally, and that is one aspect that was very little discussed with the interviewees, O sees the importance of making CPD more inclusive a priority. Finland’s reputation is based on inclusive and equity prac- tices. While this discourse will always appeal to ‘others’, one is entitled to wonder if the limited inclusive characteristics of CPD do not reflect a deeper problem that international rankings do not always identify. If teachers are not included in a wider system, can students be? O argues: O: What we want is that trainers travel to the place isolated and we hope that they could cover a topic for different educational levels instead of just one. A topic that could interest all teachers at different levels. Section Epilogue: A Visit to Educa In January 2018, we both visited the Educa Trade Fair for Education and Pedagogy in Helsinki. The theme of the fair was Opettaja opettaa! (The teacher teaches!). The fair is often presented as an annual training event for professionals in the education field. Anyone can participate for free (upon registration) and the targeted audiences are teachers and headmasters from different educational levels. Nearly 18,000 people vis- ited the fair in 2018 (http://educa.messukeskus.com/). The objectives of the fair are to present new educational tools to the participants (from furniture to ways of including discussions around sexual harassment in the classroom), and to offer seminars about ‘burning issues’ in educa- tion. Most CPD providers have a stall at the fair. The Teachers’ Trade Union (OAJ) is very much involved in the organisation of the fair. At the Union stand, teachers can collect a certificate of attendance which they can fill in by themselves and indicate the number of hours spent there. The certificate states that Educa is a training program. At first sight, Educa is before all market-oriented but also very much fragmented. Moving from one stall to another (where people can usu- ally collect freebies such as reflectors, pens, sweets, etc.), one encoun- ters companies that sell textbooks, school photos, arts and craft, EdTech startups with VR technology, 3D printers, but also NGOs, the NAE, and probably the most surprising of all: Falun Gong (Falun Dafa)
112 Y. Li and F. Dervin and stalls selling tea and clothes. The stands were targeted first and foremost at people who work in Finland and were mostly in Finnish and Swedish. We came across one or two ‘foreign’ stands—e.g. a Singaporean company specialising in neuroscientific based pedagogy. A minority of the visitors were from outside Finland. As said before, Educa is considered as a CPD event for teachers. Teachers can get to know the latest textbooks, the latest technology and obtain more information about projects and reforms. The proposed seminars, lectures and workshops were many and varied, and included the following themes: well-being and safety, teaching tools of the future, media literacy, and multiculturalism (as advertised on the fair website). The speakers were decision-makers, teachers, teacher educators, entre- preneurs (e.g. physiotherapists giving advice on how to sleep well), NGOs, etc. The theme of the fair (the teacher teaches! ) is problematised as follows in the fair booklet: The interesting lectures at Educa offer new and fresh ideas! The themes focus on the job of the teacher! These are some of the themes that will be discussed: Professional boundaries for teachers Well-being of teachers, students and the community School community – everybody participates Towards the future, but how? Safety: who is responsible for it and whose issue is it? Leadership and change Multifaceted leadership – pedagogy, well-being and safety, and personnel. Out of the tens of lectures and seminars, only three sessions were related directly to CPD (duration for each session: 30 minutes): 1. The teacher of the year talked about how to learn to be a ‘super- teacher’ (“teacher 2.0”) in the presentation of a book he wrote on the subject.
5 Providers: Offerings and Critiques 113 2. A session, organized by a vice-principal and an administrator, was entitled Let’s develop together. The aim of the session was to discuss how to support teachers in their involvement with CPD. 3. The session on teacher tutors was a discussion between two ‘experts’ about the worth of this initiative and asked the question of its sustainability. The fair can probably serve as CPD in the sense that teachers can find information about teaching tools, CPD programs, official informa- tion… The lectures and seminars are of interest, although many of these sessions represent (indirect) advertising for companies selling services and teaching tools. Some of the sessions are also meant to be entertain- ing (dance, stand-up). It would be interesting for a fair like EDUCA to provide teachers with concrete and focused tools to help them keep up with CPD outside the fair. References Aspfors, J. (2012). Induction practices: Experiences of newly qualified teachers. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Recognizing and enhancing teacher effective- ness. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 3, 1–24. Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a contin- uum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Girvan, C., Conneely, C., & Tangney, B. (2016). Extending experiential learn- ing in teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 129–139. Hämäläinen, K., & Hämäläinen, K. (2011). Professional development for edu- cation personnel as a competence resource. A report on good practices and development measures in professional development for education personnel. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Hämäläinen, K., Hämäläinen, K., & Kangasniemi, J. (2015). Osaamisen kehit- tämisen poluille: Valtion rahoittaman opetustoimen henkilöstökoulutuksen haasteet ja tulevaisuus [Knowledge development direction: A state funded edu- cation in-service training, challenges and future]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus.
114 Y. Li and F. Dervin Heikkinen, H., Hästö, P., Kangas, V., & Leinonen, M. (2015). Promoting exploratory teaching in mathematics: A design experiment on a CPD course for teachers. LUMAT (2013–2015 Issues), 3(6), 905–924. Huber, S. G. (2012). The impact of professional development: A theoretical model for empirical research, evaluation, planning and conducting train- ing and development programmes. Professional Development in Education, 37(5), 837–853. National Board of Education (2016). National core curriculum for basic education. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Niemi, H. (2015). Teacher professional development in Finland: Towards a more holistic approach. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 279–294. Pöntynen, L., & Silander, T. (2015). Opettajat koulutuksessa - nappikau- pasta rohkeisiin ratkaisuihin [Teachers in training—The most daring solutions]. Available at https://www.sitra.fi/blogit/opettajat-koulutuksessa- nappikaupasta-rohkeisiin-ratkaisuihin/. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. (1999). The development of profes- sional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237–270.
6 Teachers’ Views on CPD Context: 2017, First Year of Reform In this chapter, we examine teachers’ discourses on CPD. The context of the interviews was a small lower secondary school in a rural area, about 200 km away from the capital city. The choice of the school, where the interviews were collected, relates to our wish to reach out to the periphery and avoid schools based in the Helsinki area—which are often visited by pedagogical tourists to Finland (see Dervin 2013). The visit took place after the Christmas break in 2017. It is important to note that this followed the first semester of implementation of the New Core Curriculum. We had visited the school in early autumn 2017 so we already knew some of the teachers we interviewed. The discussions took place in the teachers’ staffroom and in a class- room. They were led in three languages (Finnish, English and French) and translated into English when English was not used. We noted that many of the teachers lowered down their voices or code-switched to another language and looked in the direction of the Principal’s office when they were critical of CPD or the school in general. © The Author(s) 2018 115 Y. Li and F. Dervin, Continuing Professional Development of Teachers in Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95795-1_6
116 Y. Li and F. Dervin When we started the interviews, we were struck by the fact that most of the teachers looked and sounded tired—even if they just had two weeks’ holiday. One teacher asserted that “I think that these Xmas holidays… they did not give me some rest… we are tired…”—shift- ing speakers from me to we. As we shall see, some were clearly annoyed by the reforms and the amount of work, they claimed, these impose on them. For example, they discussed the problems of ‘over-digitalisation’ and the new idea of phenomenon-based learning, which was not taking place in the school. One of the main obstacles for the latter relates to funding. One teacher exclaimed: “I can’t even take my students to the city 30 km away, we don’t have the money, while in Helsinki it is so easy.” During the visit, we were also told that one teacher had left the school, and the profession, as he was burning out. Another teacher was off work (one of the best teachers whose students get top grades in the final exams) because of stress about over-digitalisation. As we shall see these issues were omnipresent in discussions of CPD (NAE 2016). Before we examine the data in detail, let us make general remarks about how the topic of CPD as an object of research is understood by these teachers. Some of the teachers we interviewed did not understand what the Finnish phrase for CPD meant and what it covered. Besides some of them were clearly ashamed of the fact that they don’t do any CPD at all—apart from the compulsory VESO-days (see Heikkinen et al. 2015). However, we noted that all the teachers we interviewed appeared to be very eager to do new things and develop their skills, but they seem to do it either alone or with their closest colleagues. Teacher 5 described herself as: I am the kind of person who gets excited about things and I am always so happy to find new methods. Some of the teachers were also ‘hungry’ to do CPD but had no oppor- tunity beyond VESO (because of family commitments or money). Two teachers had done long-term CPD (a minor in media education; a major in career advising while working). One teacher took us through her professional Facebook page, explaining how she uses this tool to self-train and “share tips” with other teachers. She considered this to be
6 Teachers’ Views on CPD 117 the best form of CPD as it did not require going anywhere or spend- ing time in a lecture hall. Interestingly, this teacher, as well as another respondent, essentialised Finns to explain the lack of engagement and cooperation with colleagues: “We Finns don’t like to share our work”; “maybe we are too lazy in Finland and we are scared of what the others will say…” (see similar arguments in Heikkinen et al. 2015; Pöntynen and Silander 2015). These assertions (which we have heard from other teachers and providers many times) seem to question e.g. Sahlberg’s (2018) argument that “in Finland, we try to make cooperation part of our culture”. They also disrupt the official narrative of ‘trust’. In total six teachers took part in our interviews. We realise that this is a very small number in a school that has 25 teachers. However, we are not trying to generalise about all these teachers—not about Finnish teachers in general. Our goal is to identify some recurring discourses about CPD that might dialogue with discourses from respondents in the other sections. We are also interested in the multiple and sometimes conflicting and contradictory voices that we might identify about CPD. The choice of the teachers was based on: different levels of senior- ity; different school subjects; different teacher education backgrounds (Helsinki, Jyväskylä, and Turku). All the respondents were qualified with a Master’s and teacher education credits. Only female teachers took part in our study. One male teacher joined in one of the interviews as a guest but did not say anything. The table below provides basic yet anonymous information about the teachers (Table 6.1). Teacher 3 is probably the most interested teacher in CPD. During her interview she explained that: I get bored very easily, so being me, I need the change if I do the same every year that would burn me out… so I need this change… Table 6.1 Profiles of interviewees (teachers) Teacher Seniority Subject 1 20 years Mother tongue (Finnish) 2 15 years Foreign languages 3 8 years History and psychology 4 5 years Foreign languages 5 15 years Mother tongue 6 10 years History and geography
118 Y. Li and F. Dervin At the time of the interview she had completed an extra qualification in career advising and was considering doing a Ph.D. She was the only teacher who did not have a permanent position in the school. When asked how it felt when she started, she explained that she had received a lot of support “because the headmaster teaches the same studies as I do”. Furthermore, she considers that her university studies prepared her well for self-learning. The analysis is composed of the followings subsections: respondents’ experience of CPD; discourses on VESO-days; critiques of CPD; needs. Respondents’ Experience of CPD Having access to CPD in Finland requires being active in finding proper and interesting courses in which one could take part (Niemi 2015, see Chapter 4). When asked what kind of CPD she has done Teacher 6 claims that “I don’t think that there is much to offer for his- tory teachers or maybe I am not active enough to look for the train- ings but…”, showing that she is aware of the fact that she is somewhat responsible for her own CPD. Apart from teacher 3, it usually takes a certain number of interac- tional turns with us before the teachers mention concrete CPD courses they have taken. Teacher 1 mentions a course about media education that she took at a Finnish university with a colleague of hers, explaining that “That was something I did not have at university when I studied”. Teacher 2 seems to have had very little experience of CPD (she started her career five years earlier). This is how she responds to the query about past experiences of CPD: T2: that’s a very difficult question… if you count in all the VESO days… I have taken part in some training somewhere… last year I went to Helsinki… they have this association for language teachers… it was very useful it costs like 15 euros… the school paid… it was one evening and they taught us how to use abitti in a very effective way and that was very useful and that was something that was targeted… I have these great notes I can use…
6 Teachers’ Views on CPD 119 Eurydice (2015: 83) had already noted that less experienced teachers have less access to CPD in Finland. The only concrete training that she mentions was meant to support teachers in their use of an e-platform (abitti in the excerpt above) used throughout Finland by high school students who take the matriculation examination at the end of upper secondary school. It is interesting to note that many teachers seemed to be worried about not knowing how to use the platform properly and claimed they needed more training—while they said nothing about their needs for further development in relation to e.g. the subject they taught. When urged to think about other examples of CPD that she had taken, teacher 2 comments on a course taken at the National Agency of Education in 2015: T2: there was something organised by the NAE it must have been like 2015… autumn 2015… so we went to Helsinki… the problem is every time it is organised by NAE it is like they have several lecturers… there lots of people there… and the other speakers don’t know what the others talk about… so there might be slideshows that resemble one another and we were just talking about this… (…) the speakers did not know what the others said and there was a lot of overlapping… This is a critique about CPD courses that we have often heard during interviews or informally with acquaintances (see Heikkinen et al. 2015; Huhtala and Vesalainen 2017). There does not always seem to be cohe- sion and coherence in the way CPD courses are organised. The first two teachers are language teachers and, as seen ear- lier, there are many opportunities to apply for funding to do CPD abroad. However, neither of these teachers have taken part in such initiatives, although they remember having applied at some point in their career. The reasons given for not taking part include having young children, which limits the opportunity to spend time abroad, and financial reasons (although all is covered and a substitute teacher is even paid for). Teacher 4 explains that she does CPD at least once a year, which she refers to as “short courses… a weekend, an evening or a day or some- thing… nothing very extensive” (see Aspfors 2012). She only gives
120 Y. Li and F. Dervin the concrete example of a course on using new technologies and IT in teaching organised by a university three years earlier. She adds: T4: The headmaster suggested I should take this course and I went and that was very useful and I have used things I learnt, it was organised locally so I did not need to go to Helsinki I: so the municipality paid for everything? T4: yes, everything, so that was good… As explained earlier, teacher 3 appears to be the most engaged and moti- vated for CPD. This is how she talks about a CPD course she had com- pleted just before the Christmas break: T3: I just finished in December studies that I became a student counsel- lor. That was a one and a half-year programme. I was working here and then one week in [name of Finnish university]. I: and the municipality had organised all the substituting? T3: yeah, I did all my lessons for that time and when I was away I did not get any salary… well you know teachers are like that… Unlike other teachers, T3 seems to be even willing to ‘sacrifice’ her own time and money to get extra qualifications. It is important to note that she is younger than other teachers, with no family ties. Furthermore, she was the only teacher who did not have a permanent position—although she had been working in the school for at least 8 years—and who was consid- ering embarking on a PhD. Her case could show that personal motivation and circumstances can have an influence on participation in CPD. Discourses on VESO-Days As a reminder, VESO further training days consist of CPD organised by a school or a municipality for all staff (Hellström 2012). They are com- pulsory half-days or full-days, usually organised outside teaching time.
6 Teachers’ Views on CPD 121 The teachers’ views on this major source of CPD are rather negative in the interviews. Teacher 1 is very strongly critical of VESO-days: T1: (…) VESO if you remember but the usefulness of that is like zero or minus three or… something like that I: when we came here in August there was a VESO day on evaluation, do you remember? T1: no… but yes… we had those but they are bullshit… mostly… of course there is something but… they are not very useful… maybe the performer has been poor or the subject I feel is something I don’t need in my every day work… Teacher 1 is the most experienced teacher of all the respondents and is known for being an excellent teacher. Her language is very strong: VESO days are ‘useless’, ‘bullshit’ (see Guiden and Brennan 2017). The other teachers appear to be a bit more balanced in their opinion. Teacher 3 argues that the usefulness of these VESO-days is unstable: “well it depends, sometimes they do, sometimes I get really bored and hate it and you know…”. Teacher 5 qualifies VESO-days as “always so ‘useful’” in an ironic way, using her fingers to form inverted commas. We asked teacher 5 why she felt this way: I: When we came in August you had a VESO on assessment… was that good? T5: yes, we have had many VESOs on this topic… it brought me very little… to me because in Finnish language and literature… so I think that the assessment that I have done has been very versatile so it was not so much news to me… I have never had this thing that we study this and then we have exam and then you get the grade… no that is not the way… (…) few VESOs have been kind of useful but… most of them are like too general… there’s all the teachers together and then there is no… and nothing to do with practical stuff… Again and again the argument of VESO-days not being well targeted or useful for the respondents returns in the interviews (Heikkinen et al. 2015). We often felt that they experienced them as ‘duty’ rather than
122 Y. Li and F. Dervin opportunities to learn new things. Teacher 5 gives a certain number of arguments in the previous excerpt: VESO days are too general and not related to practices. Teacher 4 reinforces this impression in her discourse on VESO-days but she also adds an important aspect: the leadership does not consult teachers about potential topics of interest. We were aware of a forthcoming VESO-day at the school, so we asked teacher 2 what it was going to be about. She replied: T2: yes, we are gonna have our next VESO this January, but we haven’t really decided… because our general idea was to work with teachers from different schools in the region but… they have all decided to have their own VESO days. I: So, is this going to happen? T2: yes, but I don’t know the exact date or the topic… I: what topics would you want? Give us a couple of topics. T2: I don’t know perhaps… cooperating and sharing ideas with the others… The teacher’s answer seems typical of the participants: they would want something interesting and relevant to their own work but they are not sure what. It is also interesting that the cooperative characteristic of Finnish teachers, which is mentioned by many education exporters, is somewhat put into question here when the teacher explains that the joint VESO with other schools would not take place because “they have decided to have their own VESO days”. Critiques of CPD Throughout the interviews, the teachers don’t mince their words about CPD as they see it in Finland. The choice of the school, in a rural part of the country, in the periphery, shows that the teachers experience some kind of exclusion, by not being able to participate in CPD as often as they would like to if they lived in a city. Teacher 1 explains:
6 Teachers’ Views on CPD 123 “where we are away from city where all the activities are”. She adds “In Helsinki, it only takes 15 minutes to go somewhere for CPD here I have to take a train and it takes 3 hours” (see Heikkinen et al. 2015). In a similar vein teacher 5 shares the following: I have tried to find some interesting CPD but I haven’t… or I had found something but it was in Jyväskylä… in Helsinki I could still go – but in Jyväskylä it is too far away… The city of Jyväskylä is located in the western part of the Finnish Lakeland, about 270 km from the capital city and 150 km from the school. All these assertions go against the somewhat commonsense that has been built about Finland that all schools are equal in the Nordic country (Sahlberg 2011). There are laws, of course, about CPD but the teachers are hesitant about the number of days they should reserve for CPD. Teacher 1 explains: T1: I know but two of those days are VESOS. They are legally those. And then there is one day which you have to find… I: But do you have to? T1: I don’t know maybe I should… but nobody is checking this… Teacher 1 expresses guilt for not being actively involved in CPD (like many other teachers). The end of her second tour (“but nobody is checking this…”) represents an argument that we heard repeatedly (see Hämäläinen 2015). Some teachers assumed that leadership does not keep track of the use of the third compulsory day of CPD for financial reasons: the schools have very little budget for CPD and, silence around CPD, allows them to save money for other things. Teacher 3 goes as far as claim- ing that, as a consequence, “In Finland, CPD has been quite neglected…” When asked who takes part in CPD in the school, some teachers argue that it depends on the teachers’ personality and motivation, con- firming e.g. Heikkinen’s et al. (2015) study and Fullan (2005). Teacher 3, however, believes that:
124 Y. Li and F. Dervin through my experience my older colleagues… they are not so eager… if you have five years before retirement, but I don’t know how I will feel when I am 60… But if you look at this new curriculum, everybody has to change the way they teach… Some decision-makers and providers that we interviewed also shared the view that ‘older’ teachers do not rely on CPD to develop. Teacher 3 adds: I have only been doing this for 5 years so it is OK I can find my way but for my older colleagues who have been doing a successful job for decades already, I think they feel the pressure and I don’t think this makes them happy because it is nearly as if someone is saying to you OK the work you have been doing for decades is not good anymore, and I don’t think that’s a good thing and there is always a trend… Through her discourse on older teachers, she shows her sympathy for them, especially as she claims, the request to do CPD could be deemed aggressive to their faces and professional identity. Teacher 5 brings back the topic of financial limitations to taking part in CPD regularly and seriously. Teacher 5 is adamant that “maybe the trainings or educations that are for us are the ones that don’t cost any money”. In her opinion the school principal would send teachers more often to do CPD if there was a real budget and if CPD were much cheaper (see Hämäläinen and Hämäläinen 2011). Money issues also seem to matter to teacher 2: T2: I think it is most about money, you really need to ask can I go there? Can I get the money? CPD is not always good… you can have a lot of expectations and then you go there and then wow maybe 30 min- utes is useful and the rest is useless… when you only have the oppor- tunity to choose one training, you see the title and you go and you get disappointed… For teacher 2, CPD is an investment for which one does not always reap the right fruits (or any fruit at all), depending on the trainer, the topic and the newness of what is offered (Aspfors 2012).
6 Teachers’ Views on CPD 125 The Need for CPD All in all, the teachers recognize the importance of lifelong learning through CPD in the career of teachers. For them, ITT is not enough. When we tell them that some decision makers we had spoken to claimed that teachers were so well trained that they did not need CPD, teachers 5 and 6 responded as follows: T5: No that is not the case T6: NO T5: that is truly not the case… I: so when you finished your studies you felt you were not ready? T5: No… T6: No… T5: never I am gonna be ready… this is how it should be, I think… T6: ITT gives us a good basis… T5: but if you don’t keep on building and training… T6: that would be a disaster. Teacher 4 is of the same opinion: T4: no, of course not, I am not ready… it changes all the time, so you have to learn all the time, for example the new curriculum, for example, I have learnt all the different programmes and software… I learnt here… I wasn’t taught anything like that during my studies and I think it is important to keep up with the language level too because the language changes… Teacher 1 shares the same opinion about ITT and CPD (see Niemi 2015), and mentions the new Core Curriculum to justify: T1: No, I don’t feel that I have been well trained… I am not in this moment when we have all this technology, all these changes and the new curriculum…
126 Y. Li and F. Dervin The way to do CPD properly, and how to get the time and money to do it, seem to remain mysteries to our respondents (Pöntynen and Silander 2015). Teacher 4 finds it hard to answer the following question: I: when you think about your own needs, what would be useful to give you a boost? T4: I would… I suppose… of course… hum… a good question… I am always eager to learn new things… but I think that the phenomenon based teaching I would love to learn… Yet some teachers appear to be aware of what would need to be needed to make a change. Teacher 1 agrees that there should be a system of more systematic and compulsory training (Villegas-Reimers 2003). Interestingly, however, she questions this ‘proposal’ by arguing that “I think my students are my priority”—meaning: I don’t want to be away from school. She con- cludes the interview with these words: “I think I need but I don’t have the time or the energy to go”… For teachers 2 and 5, there are actual discrepancies in Finnish ITT as, depending on where the teachers were trained to be teachers, they might have different approaches and perspectives: T2: but I think that the standards vary a lot so… sometimes when I listen to my colleague I think that she has gone through such a different sys- tem… it depends on the teacher educators… For them, this means that, in order to lower the potential gaps between teachers who were trained differently, CPD would be a good addition. Finally, teachers 5 and 6 wish to explore forms of CPD that would be more informal, such as discussions with colleagues. They co-construct the following discourse of cooperation: T5: I think that I would like to talk to a few people… maybe about the same subject I teach… but it is not necessary and just talk… T6: I have found it very useful to talk to my colleague because she also teaches history… she has given me many ideas and to think myself these
6 Teachers’ Views on CPD 127 things… and I would like to have more education where we talk to other history teachers… T5: and maybe we could even see what the others have done… Pause This section has examined the discourses of six teachers about CPD from a ‘peripheral’ Finnish school. The choice of this context proved to be fruitful: many respondents argued that living far off the centre, limits access to CPD, especially when funding is almost nonexistent. What also emerges from the interviews is that teachers follow very lit- tle CPD, although one of our teachers seems to represent an excep- tion (Heikkinen et al. 2015). A lack of funding, family commitments or simply a lack of motivation explain the low level of engagement with CPD. The teachers also blame the authorities (school leaders and municipalities) for not reserving enough funding for CPD or for ‘checking’ if people do CPD regularly. The teachers recommend more (practical?) CPD related to their own work; more cooperation between teachers and levelling of ITT through CPD (Niemi 2015). Although the teachers admit that there is a need for CPD, and that they would wish to have access to quality CPD, it does not appear to be a priority for them. References Aspfors, J. (2012). Induction practices: Experiences of newly qualified teachers. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press. Dervin, F. (2013). La Meilleure Éducation au Monde? Contre-enquête sur la Finlande [The best education in the world. An ethnography of Finland]. Paris: L’Harmattan. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2015). The teaching profession in Europe: Practices, perceptions, and policies. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/edu- cation/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/184EN.pdf.
128 Y. Li and F. Dervin Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability. System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Guiden, V., & Brennan, M. (2017). The continuous professional development (CPD) of Finnish primary school teachers—Potential lessons to be learned for Ireland. Irish Teachers’ Journal, 5(1), 39–54. Hämäläinen, K., & Hämäläinen, K. (2011). Professional development for edu- cation personnel as a competence resource. A report on good practices and development measures in professional development for education personnel. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Hämäläinen, K., Hämäläinen, K., & Kangasniemi, J. (2015). Osaamisen kehittämisen poluille: Valtion rahoittaman opetustoimen henkilöstökoulu- tuksen haasteet ja tulevaisuus [Knowledge development direction: A state funded education in-service training, challenges and future]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. Heikkinen, H., Hästö, P., Kangas, V., & Leinonen, M. (2015). Promoting exploratory teaching in mathematics: A design experiment on a CPD course for teachers. LUMAT (2013–2015 Issues), 3(6), 905–924. Hellström, M. (2012). In-service training of teachers in Finland. Available at pedagogiikkaa.blogspot.com/2012/05. Huhtala, A., & Vesalainen, M. (2017). Challenges in developing in-service teacher training: Lessons learnt from two projects for teachers of Swedish in Finland. Apples: Journal of Applied Language Studies, 11, 55–79. National Agency for Education. (2016). Teachers and principals in Finland. Available at http://www.oph.fi/download/185381_teachers_and_princi- pals_in_Finland_2016_brochure.pdf. Niemi, H. (2015). Teacher professional development in Finland: Towards a more holistic approach. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 279–294. Pöntynen, L., & Silander, T. (2015). Opettajat koulutuksessa - nappikaupasta rohkeisiin ratkaisuihin [Teachers in training—The most daring solutions]. Available at https://www.sitra.fi/blogit/opettajat-koulutuksessa-nappikaupasta- rohkeisiin-ratkaisuihin/. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educa- tional change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Sahlberg, P. (2018). Teachers need a sense of mission, empathy and leadership. The Conversation (Zhuoying, Z.). 3 January 2018. Available at https://www.jie- modui.com/N/90187. Villegas-Reimers, E. (2003). Teacher professional development: An interna- tional review of the literature. Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning.
7 Paratexts to CPD: Decision Making, Leadership, Teacher Education and Project Work In this section we examine what we refer to as paratexts to CPD in the Finnish context. We borrow the term paratext to the French literary theorist Gérard Genette (1987: 1–2) who defines it as follows: A literary work consists, entirely or essentially, of a text, defined (very minimally) as a more or less long sequence of verbal statements that are more or less endowed with significance. But the text is rarely presented in an unadorned state, unreinforced and unaccompanied by a certain num- ber of verbal or other productions, such as an author’s name, a title, a preface, illustrations. And although we do not always know whether these productions are to be regarded as belonging to the text, in any case, they surround it and extend it, precisely in order to present it (…). In order to extend the metaphor, we could say that a paratext is also like supporting actors in a film or theatrical performance; background sing- ers; on-site medical staff in sporting events, etc. In other words, para- texts are secondary, but, at the same time, they play an important role. In the previous sections, we have listened to CPD providers as well as some of their ‘customers’ (teachers). In what follows we examine the discourses of individuals who represent, like paratexts to a book, © The Author(s) 2018 129 Y. Li and F. Dervin, Continuing Professional Development of Teachers in Finland, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95795-1_7
130 Y. Li and F. Dervin “other productions” that accompany and have an influence on the perception and discourses on CPD in Finland: decision makers, a school principal, a teacher educator and a CPD project coordinator. They all have a role to play for CPD: decision makers set priorities, manage and fund CPD; the school principal (should) make(s) sure that teachers do CPD; the teacher educator is involved in ITT but also in questions related to teachers’ CPD and has intervened in many CPD courses; the project coordinator works on a CPD project for teachers in a Finnish city. Each of these individuals were interviewed at their work place in English and Finnish. Decision-Makers: The NAE The first category of paratext is that of decision-makers. We felt it was essential to get the perspective of those who fund most of the CPDs in Finland. We thus contacted people at the National Agency of Education in Helsinki, especially the Counsellors of education who manage dif- ferent aspects of education. We were referred to individuals who are directly involved in managing CPD. Three participants came to our interview: one national coordinator for CPD (C1 hereafter), and two for international mobility of teachers (C2 and C3). The interview started with a presentation of facts about Finnish edu- cation and CPD (legislation, statistics, etc.). The coordinator for CPD had prepared a PowerPoint presentation that seems to be a presenta- tion used for Finnish education export purposes. Although we had requested an interview, we felt that the session would be mostly about promoting Finnish education. After 10 minutes, we told our respond- ents that we appreciated the fact that they wanted to share information about Finnish education but that we already knew a lot, having lived and worked in the country for more than 20 years. It was interesting to note the change of ‘tone’ when we started questioning (diplomatically) some of the participants’ assertions. For example, we noticed that the coordinator kept using the phrase “these are wonderful figures” when he presented us with comparative statistics about Finnish education. But we wanted to hear about other aspects, more critical aspects. In what
7 Paratexts to CPD … 131 follows the coordinator shows us figures demonstrating that Finnish teachers are the most respected in the world. We question him: I: But there is no research on that… but from our observations this is changing a bit… C1: in Finland you mean? I: Yes… there are new discourses about teachers… they are changing… C1: Maybe parents are challenging the school more and more? And also that we want to include not only professionals building up the whole school system and the curriculum but also other counterparts in the soci- ety like parents… it is the same in other Nordic countries, colleagues complain about that and you know some teachers even leave the profes- sion because they find it a bit stressing C2: I think that one thing is that teachers are more concerned about the extra work that they have to do outside the class hours as well because it has increased so much with the new curriculum. From this moment in the interview, the respondents started opening up and being more critical, less ‘official’ in a sense. Answering Critical Points: Official Parlance vs. ‘Truths’? The interview oscillated between what we wish to refer to as propa- ganda and ‘truths’. As a reminder the NAE actively takes part in Finnish education export (Schatz 2015); receives many foreign delegations per year, whom they charge; set up a growth programme entitled Education Finland in 2018, which aims at supporting businesses, higher education institutions and other education and training providers in expanding in the international market. Like for the providers and teachers in the previous sections, we asked the decision makers if they felt that teachers had received so good ITT that CPD was not always necessary. This discussion follows a part of the
132 Y. Li and F. Dervin presentation that shows that Finnish teacher education is the best in the world: I: Many researchers… they keep saying that ITT is so great that teachers are so well trained that they know how to self-develop or develop with others… Do you think this is true? C1: Well I think that there is a certain truth because they are master’s students even at the class teacher level… so they have a good initial training… We noticed that C2 seemed to disagree. We thus asked her to share her views: I: You don’t seem to agree too much… C2: I think that it is a very good basis and I think that the success of our basic education relies on the very good and thorough teacher education and training but nevertheless the world is changing all the time… C1: yes of course C2: and it is in a great speed which means that each and every one of us needs further education all the time… and there is versatile offer and teachers are quite independent in Finland… and then you have the capacity of choosing also that you stay and take your in-service training sort of in your own surroundings… and maybe this is the Finnish vision that it is sort of how should I say very open or… C1: there is not one model that suits everybody you can have different approaches C2: and even… so open-minded somehow… C2 disagreed with C1 somehow but she seemed to be constructing an iden- tity for Finnish ITT, which is that of freedom, diversity and open-minded- ness (see Sahlberg 2012 and critiques in Sitomaniemi-San 2015). When we told her, that this aspect “is a bit confusing for some people abroad… it is too flexible maybe…”, she used a typical argument based on what Dervin (2016) refers to as ‘culture as an alibi’ (an easy explanation):
7 Paratexts to CPD … 133 C2: yes but you have to think that we have different cultures and… if one generalises in our country it is always… the same teachers who are doing in-service training and then there are those who think that they never need anything… but it is like your hairdresser someone wants to go on in-service training every day and then some get stuck to what they learnt in their initial training… The use of the visit to the hairdresser metaphor allows C2 to divide teachers into two clear groups: those who are willing to self-develop and those who rely on their basic teaching skills only. Interestingly, this lim- ited view of teachers seems not to take into account views and opinions as those of the teachers we interviewed for this study. For instance, the (sometimes) ‘castrating’ role of both schools and municipalities that do not always provide funds and opportunities to take part in CPD (see Heikkinen et al. 2015). In the rest of her turn, C2 mentions (yet again) the ‘trust culture’ of Finland as a way of justifying the freedom and motivation that teachers have to develop: also the trust culture in this country they are adult trained people and one has to expect that they think by themselves when they need and what they need and then pick from the offer, so in this respect even though we try to make the system better and also offer a lot we basically trust very much in them We note here again a total ignorance of the importance of local deci- sion-making mechanisms in allowing teachers to take part in CPD. Finland might have a ‘culture of trust’ towards teachers (Sahlberg 2018) but if no efforts are made to allow them to develop properly, this rhetor- ical point falls on its head on many fronts. Later in the interview, the idea that CPD can be imposed on some teachers is suggested by C1: C1: And then it is up to the local administration to decide what is accept- able, what sort of programme and the forms of training… and then in addition, it says you can assign teachers for two more days and the employer has to pay extra for that they are actually working days… I: “Can assign”… what does this mean?
134 Y. Li and F. Dervin C1: It means that, for example, the principal sees that there is a teacher who needs such as ICT skills so the principal can assign or say to the teacher now you have to go… but I think it does not happen very often… it happens very rarely but it is possible… This part of the discussion seems, in a way, to contradict the ‘trust culture’ (see in previous quote: “they are adult trained people and one has to expect that they think by themselves when they need and what they need and then pick from the offer” C2). At the end of his turn, C2 operates a repair when he claims that assignment to CPD by principals does not occur “very often”—substituted by “very rarely”, which miti- gates somehow the meaning of the claim. In brief, what we note in this section is that discourses on teachers, ITT and the need for CPD, oscillate between officialised discourses and alternative truths, especially when ‘disrupted’ by our questions. Awareness of the Problems with CPD The further we moved into the discussions, the more the respondents appear to let critiques emerge. After half an hour into the discussions, when prompted about the issue of funding, the following discussion ensures: C1: the economic situation is what it is… and it has been very difficult for some teachers to get that money for accommodation… so many teachers have complained that they don’t even get the permission to go to these free in-service trainings… I: here again there appears to be differences between municipalities? C2: and I think that OK… the travel costs and things like that… but substitute teachers are the highest cost I think… and this is a problem for many municipalities… We find the same arguments and explanations as the ones identified by both providers and teachers (see Pöntynen and Silander 2015). The national decision-makers are very aware of these issues. We then
7 Paratexts to CPD … 135 asked them how they took this into account when they select the CPD courses that they fund. C1 explains: C1: That’s why when we select the projects we fund… we look at the whole map of Finland that they are all over so they don’t have to travel so far… Another issue that we discussed with the decision-makers is the lack of transparency in terms of feedback from the providers (see Huber 2012). We tried to have access to feedback but the providers always claimed that for business reasons they could not be shared. C2 makes the follow- ing claim about this issue: C2: If it is business well… of course you have your sort of business integ- rity and certain level of secrets but then again… I would not know… This claim is somewhat surprising since, as a funding agency, one would expect the NAE to be interested in what the providers do and how their trainings are perceived by teachers. We thus asked our respondents if they, themselves, had feedback from teachers who had taken part in these trainings. C1 tells us that “we don’t have a summary of the feed- back but sometimes we read them, in individual cases”… At the end of the interview, it became clear that our respondents were very aware of the main problems behind CPD in Finnish education. Although they had spent time trying to convince us that Finnish educa- tion is a ‘miracle’, the final evaluation of CPD in Finland shows that the Nordic country faces big issues, very similar to the ones experienced by other countries: I: one last question: what do you think should be done about CPD in the future? From your side? (20-second silence) C1: I think that the municipalities and schools should invest more to see the importance of in-service training and invest on it to let teachers go to in-service training sessions and it should not be so tight… I: and the Ministry of Education cannot say anything about this?
136 Y. Li and F. Dervin C1: No, the money is not earmarked so… even if they get the money from the government, they are free to use it as they want… they can use it for social services or anything… Again, like the providers and teachers, the consequences of decentralisa- tion (decisional power resides in the hands of municipalities) are clearly stated and somewhat criticized here: Municipalities are in control and no one can force them to make an effort to promote CPD. From the perspective of European programs for teachers’ CPD, to which Finnish teachers are entitled, C2 notes that many of the issues mentioned above can play against Finnish teachers participating in these programs: C2: from our perspective, at least we see that there are a lot of appli- cants… so there is a demand definitely and what we hear from the field is that the substitute teacher issue is a very big problem… and even though many teachers do it during the summer vacation… and of course many schools in Europe are working when our teachers are on vacation but still one feels always a bit bad so… This has been noted at the Commission level also… even though of course it is a question of money… As a reminder none of the teachers that we have interviewed were able to take part in these EU programs, family and financial matters always being mentioned as hindrances. Views from a Principal The second participant in is section is a school leader: A vice-principal for basic education in a peripheral school (rural area; VP hereafter). She had worked at the same school for 23 years when we met her, also teaching health education and textile. We started by asking her about her own experiences of CPD: VP: Mainly the IT and then health education, the whole diploma and then of course the vice-rectorship… I did the official… it was during the work… it was five credit points or I don’t remember… it is not so much…
7 Paratexts to CPD … 137 Throughout her career, VP has acquired new skills through CPD. Her original training was in textile work education, and then she specialized in health education—which is taught at lower secondary school level. 10 years ago, she obtained the full qualifications to be able to serve as vice principal in her school. CPD and Teachers When we started discussing teachers’ CPD, we asked her about ITT and preparedness for their work when they enter the field (see Niemi 2015): I: Usually because there is not so much research on CPD in Finland, they say ITT is so great that teachers can self-learn for life? S: No, I don’t think… they are always well prepared because someone… they need more… and they find their ways… others think they have the education so they don’t need help… I KNOW… so you are not the right person to tell me I should learn something… VP disagrees with the assertion that CPD is not so much needed in Finland. In the excerpt she divides her teachers in two categories: Those who know they need CPD and try to do it, and others who do not want to do CPD. She ‘performs’ the voice of the latter in a somewhat ironic tone, mimicking their voice (“I KNOW… so you are not the right person to tell me”). The performed utterance is actually an interac- tion. Based on current knowledge about dialogism (i.e. the performance of multivoicedness in people’s utterances, see Aveling et al. 2015), one could imagine that this performance is based on real discourses and interactions heard by VP. The next point made by VP concerns newcomers, new teachers who just graduated. We shared with her the wish of the NAE for new teachers to be better inducted in schools. VP explains how new teachers are treated: S: They start because it is so… to tell how our school usually works, if you tell too much we have our new habits but I trust the teachers, they know how to do their work… we don’t give too much information…
138 Y. Li and F. Dervin yesterday I told our new teachers how to do a few practical and admin things but never about how to teach… For the teaching we have nothing to say… it takes some weeks and the students come and tell if there are problems… but the young ones they are not problematic but the older ones… Usually I like new teachers because they teach us new things, new habits… it becomes CPD for us the older ones…. There are many interesting claims in this excerpt. First as a vice prin- cipal who introduces the school to new teachers, VP tells us that they are not provided with too much information as she would want them to discover things by themselves: “we don’t give too much informa- tion”. Second it is not her duty (or anyone else’s in a sense) to teach these new teachers how to teach (see similar argument in Aspfors 2012). ‘Trustspeak’ (The trust argument) is used to justify this argument. It is interesting to note, however, that VP adds that students would report if there were any problems with the new teachers’ teaching. Third, in this part of the interview, VP further divides teachers into ‘new’ and ‘older’ teachers. She often accuses (gently) the latter of being negligent of CPD. Finally, she makes the interesting point that, by joining the school, new teachers usually bring in new skills that help others to develop. During our discussions with the representatives of the NAE, we were told that school leaders can “assign” teachers to do some CPD. We wanted to find out more about this with VP: I: So, there are examples when you have told people maybe you should go on CPD? VP: yes… but for the new teachers there is the trade union that can help and I remember they have support for young teachers… I: But as a vice-principal do you have the power to force people to do CPD? VP: Yes, my colleague does because he makes the plans with the peo- ple, they have the development discussions and there you can ask for CPD and if it is possible… and some people might need more but they feel they don’t need and they have studied 20 years ago and they feel they know everything. Sometimes, if there have been some problems with teachers… some teachers are not forced but guided to take some training…
7 Paratexts to CPD … 139 In order to answer the question, VP refers to the task of her supe- rior (the principal of the school) who has a yearly appraisal with each teacher. The issue of CPD is usually put on the table during these meet- ings (see Pöntynen and Silander 2015). But, as we have seen with teach- ers in a previous section, very few are entitled to do CPD because of a lack of funding. She also mentions that the trade union organizes (free) trainings for new teachers. She only deals with the core of the question we asked her at the end of her turn. Although it may sound contra- dictory to ‘trustspeak’, she admits that some teachers are asked to do specific CPD when needed (i.e. when there are problems) (she oper- ates a shift between the verbs ‘to be forced’ to ‘to be guided’ to do so). This indicates a potential approach to CPD which is somewhat punitive rather than precautionary. Organising CPD Part of VP’s role in the school is to organize the compulsory VESO-days (see Guiden and Brennan 2017). We asked her how these days are set up: I: You have the VESO every year and how does it work? VP: It depends what is the actual happening, whole Finland, at school or in a municipality. In January, we have a training on evaluation and maybe the two last years is the new curriculum but sometimes we have together high school and primary and sometimes even with the preschool, but when we do at school our leadership discusses what is needed right now usually beforehand so now, for example, we are planning next year because we have to take care of what is official so we can hire somebody or what we have to do by ourselves. In this excerpt, VP shows the complexity of organizing VESO-days in terms of format, participants, topics, trainers to hire, etc. Many of the teachers we interviewed complained about the fact that they were not consulted to propose topics for VESO-days. VP confirms that in the case of her school, it is the leadership that decides on that. VP was
140 Y. Li and F. Dervin then asked to share some ideas about the topics that could be covered in future VESO-days: I: If you look at the situation now, what sort of topics would be needed? VP: …learn how to use modern teaching techniques, how to behave with students… I: what about the phenomenon-based learning thing? VP: you know… as much as you have learnt by yourself… there is some training but… The question might have been difficult for her but it is quite surprising that the proposed topics are so broad. We finished our interview with VP by trying to find out how she deals with teachers’ potential demands/needs for CPD—beyond VESO- days. Without any surprise, the financial argument emerges: I: If the teachers want to do some extra training, how does it work? VP: because lack of the money there is usually one day per year… of course you can go if you want and it depends your boss if you get paid or unpaid… and maybe for craft teachers it is in the summer time and weekends but also during school days but it is about one day a year and it depends how much it costs but usually the trainings are not so expensive if you think about those in the business world…. I: do all the teachers use this one day per year? VP: no, so it means that then others can go for two days or more, it depends how much it costs because the money is… Views from a Teacher Educator The data from this subsection derives from an interview with one of the most influential and experienced teacher educators (TE) in Finland. Besides her position at a faculty of education, she has played an impor- tant consulting role with decision makers and teachers in Finland.
7 Paratexts to CPD … 141 CPD in Finland: An Eternal Issue From the beginning of the interview, it became clear that TE shared similar views as what we have noticed in this study. As her experience is long-term, she notes many times during the interview that the points we are making have been discussed by teacher educators, school lead- ers and teachers for many decades… but that nothing ever seems to be done to meet these issues. TE: Thank you for choosing this thematic because it is so important. So, if I give a little historical background, maybe not so far away, but I have been a member and chairing committees in Finland in teacher and teacher education, and during the last 20-25 years every document has said the same thing that teachers’ CPD should be better integrated with teachers’ ITT… and it should be systematic in those schools and school areas where teachers are working. Now during last fifteen years there has been in every document that there should be induction, which is missing in Finland and that is something that has been dis- cussed… so that is the background and now there is teacher education forum established 2016 this big network and it has identified the big- gest difficulties, problems and challenges in Finnish teacher education sector and that is in-service training and induction so again these are… (…) so anyway I could say that the same burning issues have been all the time discussed and how to solve them? that’s the issue we hav- en’t solved because, you know, that funding is coming from different sources so university is funded by state money and teachers are working in local municipalities and employer is responsible for teacher PD so how to put these together? And then coming labour market negotia- tions… so unfortunately that kind of discussion has been so far… and many good pilots have been, for example, for induction and there has been peer mentoring and individual mentoring projects but they have been project-based and every time the project finishes and then it is over, it vanishes… This is the very beginning of the interview and TE makes a list of many of the issues that have been discussed by the different actors interviewed
Search
Read the Text Version
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 47
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- 53
- 54
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 60
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 69
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- 75
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 82
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- 87
- 88
- 89
- 90
- 91
- 92
- 93
- 94
- 95
- 96
- 97
- 98
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- 110
- 111
- 112
- 113
- 114
- 115
- 116
- 117
- 118
- 119
- 120
- 121
- 122
- 123
- 124
- 125
- 126
- 127
- 128
- 129
- 130
- 131
- 132
- 133
- 134
- 135
- 136
- 137
- 138
- 139
- 140
- 141
- 142
- 143
- 144
- 145
- 146
- 147
- 148
- 149
- 150
- 151
- 152
- 153
- 154
- 155
- 156
- 157
- 158
- 159
- 160
- 161
- 162
- 163
- 164
- 165
- 166
- 167
- 168
- 169
- 170
- 171
- 172
- 173
- 174
- 175
- 176
- 177
- 178
- 179
- 180
- 181
- 182
- 183
- 184
- 185
- 186
- 187
- 188
- 189
- 190
- 191
- 192
- 193
- 194
- 195
- 196
- 197
- 198
- 199
- 200
- 201
- 202
- 203
- 204
- 205
- 206
- 207
- 208
- 209
- 210
- 211
- 212
- 213
- 214
- 215
- 216
- 217
- 218
- 219
- 220
- 221
- 222
