2007:49 R

Evaluation of special teacher training programme (SÄL II) — students´ and municipalities´ assessments

The SÄL model appears appropriate for its purpose and seems mainly to fulfil this purpose satisfactorily. The responses to both surveys support this view. Moreover, both students and municipalities are satisfied with the outcome. SÄL appears to be an expedient solution for allowing those working in schools to become qualified for teaching posts.

Students´ views of the programme vary, partly depending on which institution they studied at, which municipality they are working in, and partly on their own demands on the programme. Students appreciate the flexible way in which they are able to study and work at the same time. Experience exchange, new competence, and personal development are some further advantages of SÄL. But some students mention that it was difficult to fit everything in, which made everyday life stressful and tiring for them. Different ways of setting conditions from the municipalities´ side, unstructured programmes, and a lack of transparency are other factors which are criticised.
 
Almost all municipalities regard the purpose of SÄL — to give unqualified teachers the opportunity to become qualified and to broaden their teaching competence — as important. Three out of four municipalities believe the purpose was well served. Just over 60 per cent believe that there is still a need for similar programmes. The model SÄL is based on (a combination of distance learning and working as a teacher) is perceived as appropriate by almost all municipalities. In summary, SÄL gets high marks for how it was carried out. The programme´s effect on local school development, and on school activities in general, is judged to be markedly positive by a majority of respondents.
 
There are some differences of opinion between students and municipalities with regard to how well the programme was carried out.

Opinions are divided mainly on the questions of whether municipalities have made good use of the new competence acquired by the students, and of how well the municipalities had prepared themselves to receive students participating in SÄL.

In the open questions section it emerges that the lack of time to handle both work and studies appears to be the most common reason why students have chosen to leave the programme. Responses show that municipalities´ varying conditions for carrying out the programme, and students´ unfulfilled demands, may also have contributed to students leaving the programme. Despite this, the share of students who left the programme is very low, only 9 per cent.

In order to further reduce the number of students leaving SÄL, it would be a good idea to draw up an agreement which allowed the student to remain working at the school as long as he/she was studying in SÄL. Other possible improvement measures, which would reduce confusion and unnecessary misunderstandings, include clearer descriptions of the planning and content of SÄL, as well as of the SÄL diploma. Another possible improvement would be a reduction, as far as possible, of the differences in how conditions are set for students in different municipalities.