Piia finlandia

10.04.23

1

School Choice in Finland

The Catholic University of ChileSantiago15. November 2010 Piia Seppänen

post doctoral researcher CELE, University of TurkuFinland

10.04.23

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

10.04.23

3

Arguments for politics of school choiceOriginal ideological hopes for school choice

(Friedman & Friedman 1980; Chub and Moe 1990): Children from disadvantage areas get option for

better schools – Equal opportunities Competition of schools drives better services –

Quality improvementAn original idea of vouchers has transformed to

versatile applications in schooling reforms of countries

In Finland either of previous arguments were dominant when school choice policies were discussed in the middle and late of 1990’s.

Arguments by the Finnish choice policy advocators (Seppänen 2003b):

Supports pupils’ personal development, talents and inclinations, will boost of motivation - Individuality

10.04.23

4

The Content




10.04.23

5

School choice policy in Finland in relation to features in compulsory schooling

Features of comp.s. (‘extremes’)

In Finland

1. Ownership of schools

(public – private)

98% municipal (under 1% state) and 2% subsidised private schools (2008) All free of charge and non-profit organis.

2. The structure

(comprehensive – parallel)

Since 1970’s comprehensive, 9 years. No academic or vocational tracks.Comprehensive pupil support free of charge.

3. Governance

(state – other actors)

4. Allocation of pupils to schools

(catchment areas – open enrollment)

5. Pupil selection (no selection – total selection)

10.04.23

6

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

A national core curricula hours/week:1-2 grade 193-4 grade 235-6 grade 247-9 grade 30 (inc.13 optional subjects)Total 222+ remedial lessons are availableremedial lessons are available

The school yearThe school year190 school days, 5 days / week190 school days, 5 days / week

10.04.23

7



In Finland



98% municipal (under 1% state) and 2% subsidised private schools (2008) All free of charge and non-profit organis.

2. The structure


Since 1970’s comprehensive, 9 years. No academic or vocational tracks.Comprehensive pupil support free of charge.

3. Governance


A strong tradition of central state governance changed during 1990’s to municipal power with national steering.


(catchment areas – open enrollment)

5. Pupil selection (no selection – total selection)

421

1. Helsinki (583 350)

2. Espoo (244 330)

3. Tampere (211 507)

4. Vantaa (197 636)

5. Turku (176 087)

6. Oulu (139 133)

7. Jyväskylä (129 623)

8. Lahti (100 854)

Total population in the eight largest cities: 1,78 milj.

3

6

5

7

8© Kuntarajat: Tilastokeskus

KL/JAH 16.6.2010

Areas of municipalities (total 342):Town (62)Rural area (214)Denselypopulated area (66)

Sorce: The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities

The eight largest cities of Finland in 2009,

33,3% of total 5,35 milj. (population)

The capital area

(1 milj.)

4© Kuntarajat: Tilastokeskus

KL/JAH 16.6.2010

A proportion of pupils in basic education in the eight largest cities of Finland in 2009

1. Helsinki (8,5%)

2. Espoo (4,9%)

3. Tampere (3,0%)

4. Vantaa (3,9%)

5. Turku (2,6%)

6. Oulu (2,3%)

7. Jyväskylä (2,3%)

8. Lahti (1,8%)

The capital area

(17,3% pupils)

21

3

6

5

7

8

Total 29,3% of 1-9 grade pupils live in the eight largest cities of Finland (total number 584 246 pupils)



10.04.23

10



In Finland



2. The structure


3. Governance


98% municipal (under 1% state) and 2% subsidised private schools (2008) All free of charge and non-profit organis. Since 1970’s comprehensive, 9 yearsNo academic or vocational tracks.

Comprehensive pupil support free of charge. A strong tradition of central state governance changed during 1990’s to municipal power with national steering.


(catchment areas – open enrollment)5. Pupil selection (no selection – total selection)

A named school place + pupil can apply to another school

A right to a named school, otherwiseoversubscription criteria. Pupil selectionto so called specialised/emphasised classes(e.g. music, languages, sport, math, art), usually aptitude tests or previous success in particular subjects. varies between cities

School choice policy

10.04.23

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 schoolsThe 3rd grade (emphasised classes) The 1st grade (language classes)

1 – 9 grades schools (emphasised classes)

10.04.23

12

Some choice possibilities of a case pupil

10.04.23

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’ was a key element of school quasi-markets since 1980’s (involving open enrolment, school autonomy and diversity, per capita funding, privatised provision, accountability mechanisms (e.g. Whitty et al. 1998) and along 2000 expansion of specialisation and privatisation of schools)

10.04.23

14

In Year 1975/1980 and 2000

A. Zoned comprehensive

B. Open enrolment in comprehensive / partly comprehensive systems

C. Selection by ability

1. Centralised (with elements of devolution and choice)

SwedenFinlandDenmark France

ItalyGreecePortugalFrance

ItalyGreecePortugalSpain Luxembourg Luxembourg Austria AustriaBelgium

2. Regional Devolution (with some minor devolution and choice)

Spain BelgiumGermany Germany

3. Local Control (with national 'steering' and some school autonomy)

England & Wales SwedenFinlandDenmark

Ireland & NI Ireland & NI

4. Institutional Autonomy in Quasi-Market

England & Wales Netherlands Netherlands

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 Seppänen 2006, see also Kivirauma, Rinne & Seppänen 2009)

10.04.23

15

On basis of figure 1

an outline of changes in comprehensive school systems of EU member countries from

the end of 1970's to the end of 1990's

could be named as:

1. Stable selective continental European countries (an exception of France) and Ireland, as well as Northern Ireland

2. Southern European comprehensivisation3. Scandinavian change from central to local control

with some choice4. British and Dutch institutional autonomy in quasi-

markets(some countries may make deviations in detail)

10.04.23

16

The Content




Espoo

Data from four cities Espoo, Turku, Lahti and Kuopioin year 2000: - Statistics of an age cohort’s 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 (Seppänen 2006)



1. Popularity of schools divided and application flows

were towards centres. On average 1/3 of age cohort

applied to another than the allocated school, ½ in the

capital city Helsinki

2. Families' "self-selection" to the school popularity levels

or outside the markets

3. Socio-economic profile of schools segregated more

strongly according to parental "choices" than based on

catchment areas

4. The nature of families' preferences to attend to schools

seemed to be practical, social and class-related based

on open-ended answers in a postal questionnaire

Brief features of ‘the lived education markets’ in four Finnish cities, 2000

10.04.23

19

The most popular schools: A, B Popular schools: C, D Schools with balanced application flows: E, F Rejected schools: G Highly rejected schools: H, I Applying out of their own catchment area

5 - 9 pupils 10 - 20 pupils

over 20 pupils The distance between schools corresponds to a scale of

= 500 meters

Centre

G I D

C

B

A

E

H

F

A mapping of pupils' applications for the 7th grade to other than allocated school between

nine schools in a Finnish case city (Seppänen 2003)



applied to another than the allocated school, ½ in the






catchment areas





10.04.23

21

Pupils’ applying to the 7th grade to the other than allocated school (popularity type) and those who didn't apply

in relation to mother’s education (%) (Seppänen 2006)

* those pupils who attended to the catchment area school are emphasized three times, so that the sample represents the population.

11

13

19

25

8

8

6

7

4

4

3

1

77

75

72

67

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Novocational

Basicvocational

Polytechnics

University

Aplied to popular Aplied to balanced

Aplied to rejected Did not apply

Mother’s education, N 1490 (2886*), in four cities:

10.04.23

22

Pupils’ applying to the 7th grade to the other than allocated school (popularity type) in relation to mother’s

education (%) (Seppänen 2006)

48

53

66

76

34

31

23

22

18

17

11

3

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Novocational

Basicvocational

Polytechnics

University

To popular To balanced To rejected

Mother’s education, N 792, in four cities:



applied to another than the allocated school, 1/2 in the






catchment areas





10.04.23

24

The Contentconclusions of school choice in Finland




is applied form different premises than in English-speaking tradition

but in practise creates socially segregating outcomes

10.04.23

25

References Chubb, J.E. & Moe, T.M. 1990. Politics, Markets & America’s Schools.

Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Friedman, M. & Friedman, R. 1980. Free to Choose: a personal statement.

Harmondsworth : Penguin Books. Green, A., Wolf, A. & Leney T. 1999. Convergence and Divergence in

European Education and Training Systems. University of London. Institute of Education.

Kivirauma,J., Rinne, R. & Seppänen, P. 2009. Changing the Tide of Education Policyin Finland: From Nordic to EU educational policy model. In 'Hill, D. (ed.) The Rich World and the Impoverishment of Education: Diminishing Democracy, Equity and Workers’ Rights. New York: Routledge

Seppänen, P. 2003a. Miten ja miksi kouluvalintapolitiikka tuli Suomen peruskouluun 1990-luvulla? Kouluvalinnan lainsäädäntömuutokset sekä perustelut ja kritiikki kansainvälisessä valossa. [How and why school choice policy arrived at the Finnish comprehensive school during the 1990s. The legislation changes and arguments of the school choice in the international perspective] Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 68, 2, 175-187

Seppänen, P. 2003b. Patterns of 'public-school markets' in the Finnish comprehensive school from a comparative perspective. Journal of Education Policy, 18 (5), 513-531.

Seppänen, P. 2006. Koulunvalintapolitiikka perusopetuksessa. Suomalaiskaupunkien koulumarkkinat kansainvälisessä valossa. [School-Choice Policy in Comprehensive Schooling – School markets of Finnish cities in the international perspective] Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association: Research in Educational Sciences 26.

Whitty, G., Power, S. & Halpin, D. 1998. Devolution and Choice in Education. The School, the State and the Markets. Buckingham: Open University Press.