1. 1
School Choice in Finland
The Catholic
University of Chile
Santiago
15. November 2010
Piia Seppänen
post doctoral researcher
CELE, University of Turku
Finland
2. 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. 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 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
4. 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. 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)
6. 6
For every pupil in basic educationFor every pupil in basic education
free of charge, in every school:free of charge, in every school:
-textbooks and other learningtextbooks and other learning
materialsmaterials
-school transport, if journey is over 5school 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 andpupil welfare services (social and
health care)health care)
For the pupils in need of specialFor the pupils in need of special
support all special aids required forsupport all special aids required for
participation in education.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 availableremedial lessons are available
The school yearThe school year
190 school days, 5 days / week190 school days, 5 days / week
7. 7
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)
A strong tradition of central state governance
changed during 1990’s to municipal power
with national steering.
4. Allocation of pupils to schools
(catchment areas – open enrollment)
5. Pupil selection
(no selection – total selection)
10. 10
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)
2. The structure
(comprehensive – parallel)
3. Governance
(state – other actors)
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.
4. Allocation of pupils to schools
(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, 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
School choice policy
11. 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)
13. 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)
14. 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)
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
France
Italy
Greece
Portugal
France
Italy
Greece
Portugal
Spain
Luxembourg Luxembourg
Austria Austria
Belgium
2. Regional
Devolution
(with some
minor
devolution and
choice)
Spain Belgium
Germany Germany
3. Local Control
(with national
'steering' and
some school
autonomy)
England & Wales Sweden
Finland
Denmark
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)
15. 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 comprehensivisation
3. Scandinavian change from central to local control
with some choice
4. British and Dutch institutional autonomy in quasi-
markets
(some countries may make deviations in detail)
16. 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
18. 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
19. 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)
20. 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
21. 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 %
No
vocational
Basic
vocational
Polytechnics
University
Aplied to popular Aplied to balanced
Aplied to rejected Did not apply
Mother’s education,
N 1490 (2886*), in four cities:
22. 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 %
No
vocational
Basic
vocational
Polytechnics
University
To popular To balanced To rejected
Mother’s education,
N 792, in four cities:
23. 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, 1/2 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
24. 24
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
25. 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.
