Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Piia finlandia

on

  • 607 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
607
Views on SlideShare
607
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Piia finlandia Piia finlandia Presentation Transcript

  • School Choice in Finland The Catholic University of Chile Santiago 15. November 2010 Piia Seppänen post doctoral researcher CELE, University of Turku Finland
  • 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
  • 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 schools – Equal opportunities
    • Competition of schools drives better services – Quality improvement
    •  An 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
  • 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
  • School choice policy in Finland in relation to features in compulsory schooling Since 1970’s 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) and 2% 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’)
    • 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 curricula hours/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
  • School choice policy in Finland in relation to features in compulsory schooling A strong tradition of central state governance changed during 1990’s to municipal power with national steering. 3. Governance (state – other actors) Since 1970’s 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) and 2% 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’)
  • 2 1
    • Helsinki (583 350)
    • Espoo (244 330)
    • Tampere (211 507)
    • Vantaa (197 636)
    • Turku (176 087)
    • Oulu (139 133)
    • Jyväskylä (129 623)
    • 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 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 Areas of municipalities (total 342): Town (62) Rural area (214) Denselypopulated area (66)
  • 2 1 © Kuntarajat: Tilastokeskus KL/JAH 16.6.2010 A proportion of pupils in basic education in 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%)
    • Jyväskylä (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 eight largest cities of Finland (total number 584 246 pupils) Sorce: The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities 4 Areas of municipalities (total 342): Town (62) Rural area (214) Denselypopulated area (66)
  • School choice policy in Finland in relation to features in compulsory schooling School choice policy A named school place + pupil can apply to 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 success in 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) and 2% subsidised private schools (2008) All free of charge and non-profit organis. Since 1970’s comprehensive, 9 years No 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. 1. Ownership of schools ( public – private) 2. The structure (comprehensive – parallel) 3. Governance (state – other actors) In Finland Features of comp.s. (‘extremes’)
  • ‘ 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)
  • Some choice possibilities of a case pupil
  • 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)
  • 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) Netherlands Netherlands England & Wales 4. Institutional Autonomy in Quasi-Market Ireland & NI Ireland & NI Sweden Finland Denmark England & Wales 3. Local Control (with national 'steering' and some school autonomy) Belgium Germany Germany Spain 2. Regional Devolution (with some minor devolution and choice) Italy Greece Portugal Spain Luxembourg Luxembourg Austria Austria 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 Year 1975/1980 and 2000
  • 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 :
    • 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)
  • 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
  • Espoo Data from four cities Espoo, Turku, Lahti and Kuopio in 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) Sorce: The Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities Areas of municipalities (total 342): Town (62) Rural area (214) Denselypopulated area (66)
    • 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
    • Families' "self-selection" to the school popularity levels or outside the markets
    • Socio-economic profile of schools segregated more strongly according to parental "choices" than based on catchment areas
    • 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
  • A mapping of pupils' applications for the 7th grade to other than allocated school between nine schools in a Finnish case city (Seppänen 2003)
    • 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
    • Families' "self-selection" to the school popularity levels or outside the markets
    • Socio-economic profile of schools segregated more strongly according to parental "choices" than based on catchment areas
    • 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
  • 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. Mother’s education, N 1490 (2886*), in four cities:
  • Pupils’ applying to the 7th grade to the other than allocated school (popularity type) in relation to mother’s education (%) (Seppänen 2006) Mother’s education, N 792, in four cities:
    • Popularity of schools divided and application flows were towards centres. On average 1/3 of age cohort applied to another than the allocated school, 1/2 in the capital city Helsinki
    • Families' "self-selection" to the school popularity levels or outside the markets
    • Socio-economic profile of schools segregated more strongly according to parental "choices" than based on catchment areas
    • 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
  • The Content  conclusions of school choice in Finland
    • 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
    • is applied form different premises than in English-speaking tradition
    • but in practise creates socially segregating outcomes
  • 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.