Piia finlandia

  • View
    354

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

 

Text of Piia finlandia

  • 1. School Choice in Finland The CatholicUniversity of Chile Santiago 15. November 2010 Piia Seppnen post doctoral researcherCELE, University of Turku Finland

2. The Content

  • 1. The policy named school choice in Finland
    • Arguments for politics of school choice
    • A role of school choice policy in comprehensive schooling systems

2. Brief features of the lived education markets in four Finnish cities, 2000 3. Arguments for politics of school choice

  • Original ideological hopes for school choice (Friedman & Friedman 1980; Chub and Moe 1990):
  • Children from disadvantage areas get option for better schoolsEqual opportunities
  • Competition of schools drives better servicesQuality improvement
  • An original idea of vouchers has transformed to versatile applications in schooling reforms of countries
  • In Finlandeither of previous arguments were dominant when school choice policies were discussed in the middle and late of 1990s.
  • Arguments by the Finnish choice policy advocators(Seppnen 2003b):
  • Supports pupils personal development, talents and inclinations, will boost of motivation-Individuality

4. The Content

  • 1.The policy named school choice in Finland
    • Arguments for politics of school choice
    • A role of school choice policy in comprehensive schooling systems

2. Brief features of the lived education markets in four Finnish cities, 2000 5. School choice policy in Finland in relation to features in compulsory schooling Since 1970s comprehensive, 9 years.No academic or vocational tracks. Comprehensive pupil support free of charge.2. The structure (comprehensive parallel)3. Governance (state other actors)4. Allocation of pupils to schools (catchment areas open enrollment) 5.Pupil selection (no selection total selection) 98% municipal (under 1% state) and2% subsidised private schools (2008)All free of charge and non-profit organis. 1. Ownership of schools ( public private) In Finland Features of comp.s. (extremes) 6.

  • For every pupil in basic education free of charge, in every school:
  • textbooks and other learning materials
  • school transport, if journey is over 5 kilometres to a named school
  • daily warm school meal
  • pupil welfare services (social and health care)
  • For the pupils in need of special support all special aids required for participation in education.

A national core curriculahours/week: 1-2 grade 19 3-4 grade 23 5-6 grade 24 7-9 grade 30(inc.13 optional subjects) Total 222 +remedial lessons are available The school year 190 school days, 5 days / week 7. School choice policy in Finland in relation to features in compulsory schooling A strong tradition of central state governance changed during 1990s to municipal power with national steering. 3. Governance (state other actors) Since 1970s comprehensive, 9 years.No academic or vocational tracks. Comprehensive pupil support free of charge.2. The structure (comprehensive parallel)4. Allocation of pupils to schools (catchment areas open enrollment) 5.Pupil selection (no selection total selection) 98% municipal (under 1% state) and2% subsidised private schools (2008)All free of charge and non-profit organis. 1. Ownership of schools ( public private) In Finland Features of comp.s. (extremes) 8. 2 1

  • Helsinki(583 350)
  • Espoo (244 330)
  • Tampere (211 507)
  • Vantaa (197 636)
  • Turku (176 087)
  • Oulu (139 133)
  • Jyvskyl (129 623)
  • Lahti (100 854)
  • Total population in the eightlargestcities: 1,78 milj.

3 6 5 7 8 Kuntarajat: Tilastokeskus KL/JAH 16.6.2010 Sorce: The Association of Finnish Local and Regional AuthoritiesThe eight largest cities of Finland in 2009, 33,3% of total 5,35 milj. (population) The capital area (1 milj.) 4 Areas of municipalities (total 342): Town (62) Rural area (214) Denselypopulated area (66) 9. 2 1 Kuntarajat: Tilastokeskus KL/JAH 16.6.2010 A proportion of pupils in basic educationin the eight largest cities of Finland in 2009

  • Helsinki(8,5%)
  • Espoo (4,9%)
  • Tampere (3,0%)
  • Vantaa (3,9%)
  • Turku (2,6%)
  • Oulu (2,3%)
  • Jyvskyl (2,3%)
  • Lahti (1,8%)

The capital area (17,3% pupils) 3 6 5 7 8 Total 29,3%of 1-9 grade pupils live in the eightlargestcities of Finland (total number 584 246 pupils) Sorce: The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities4 Areas of municipalities (total 342): Town (62) Rural area (214) Denselypopulated area (66) 10. School choice policy in Finland in relation to features in compulsory schooling School choice policy A named school place + pupil can applyto another school A right to a named school, otherwise oversubscription criteria. Pupil selection to so called specialised/emphasised classes (e.g. music, languages, sport, math, art),usually aptitude tests or previous successin particular subjects.varies between cities 4. Allocation of pupils to schools (catchment areas open enrollment) 5.Pupil selection (no selection total selection) 98% municipal (under 1% state) and2% subsidised private schools (2008)All free of charge and non-profit organis.Since 1970s comprehensive, 9 years No academic or vocational tracks. Comprehensive pupil support free of charge. A strong tradition of central state governance changed during 1990s to municipal power with national steering. 1. Ownership of schools ( public private)2. The structure (comprehensive parallel)3. Governance (state other actors) In Finland Features of comp.s. (extremes) 11. The main stages for school choice in the urban compulsory schooling of Finland

  • 7 9 grade schools
  • The 7th grade (continuing & starting emphasised classes)
  • 1 6 grade schools The 3rd grade (emphasised classes)The 1st grade (language classes)
  • 1 9 grades schools(emphasised classes)

12. Some choice possibilitiesof a case pupil 13. Finnish school choice policy

  • in urban areas since the middle of the 1990s
  • in publicly run compulsory school system(i.e. choice between public schools)
  • varies between cities on: how school places are allocated
    • mainly geographical catchment areas
    • a role of parental preferences over schools vary
  • how vastly specialised classes i.e. pupil selection are used
  • is different from e.g. England and Wales where parental choice wasa key elementof school quasi-markets since 1980s(involving open enrolment, school autonomy and diversity, per capita funding, privatised provision, accountability mechanisms (e.g. Whittyet al.1998) and along 2000 expansion of specialisation and privatisation of schools)

14. The change in models of education governance in relation to admission models from the end of 1970's to the end of 1990's in EU member countries at the time (Green, Wolf & Leney 1999; modified in Seppnen 2006, see also Kivirauma, Rinne & Seppnen 2009) NetherlandsNetherlands England & Wales 4. Institutional Autonomy in Quasi-Market Ireland & NIIreland & NI Sweden Finland Denmark England & Wales 3. Local Control (with national 'steering' and some school autonomy) Belgium GermanyGermany Spain 2. Regional Devolution (with some minor devolution and choice) Italy Greece Portugal SpainLuxembourg LuxembourgAustriaAustria Belgium Italy Greece Portugal France Sweden Finland Denmark France 1. Centralised (with elements of devolution and choice) C. Selection by ability B. Open enrolment in comprehensive / partly comprehensive systems A. Zoned comprehensive In Year1975/1980and2000 15. On basis of figure 1an outline of changes in comprehensive school systemsof EU member countries fromthe end of 1970's to the end of 1990's could be named as :

  • Stable selective continental European countries (an exception of France) and Ireland, as well as Northern Ireland
  • Southern European comprehensivisation
  • Scandinavian change from central to local control with some choice
  • British and Dutch institutional autonomy in quasi-markets
  • (some countries may make deviations in detail)

16. The Content

  • 1. The policy named school choice in Finland
    • Arguments for politics of school choice
    • A role of school choice policy in comprehensive schooling systems

2. Brief features of the lived education markets in four Finnish cities, 2000 17. Espoo Data from four citiesEspoo, Turku, Lahti and Kuopio in year 2000:- Statistics of an age cohorts preferences (N 5152) over the 7th grade schools- A postal questionnaire of families(n 1523) SES & reasons for choice Turku Kuopio Lahti Kuntarajat: Tilastokeskus KL/JAH 16.6.2010 Brief features of the lived education markets in four Finnish cities ( Seppnen 2006) Sorce: The Association of Finnish Local and Regional AuthoritiesAreas of municipalities (total 342): Town (62) Rural area (214) Denselypopulated area (66) 18.

  • Popularity of schools dividedand application flows were towards centres. On average 1/3 of age cohort applied to ano