Restructuring a Nordic Educational System

Restructuring a Nordic Educational System

Ari Antikainen

Department of Sociology, University of Joensuu

[email protected]

ISA RC04. CONFERENCE “NEW DIRECTIONS IN SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION” 25-27 May, 2007 Nicosia, Cyprus College

"Educational transformations are always the result

and the symptom of the social transformations in

terms of which they are to be explained."

(Durkheim 1969; 1977, 92)

“Educational reforms are part of or consequences of

socioeconomic change.”

Introduction

_{New direction: to push the boundaries of SOE into welfare studies and}

politological and economic studies of institutions

_{Nordic model in international debates (part of the world of closed national}

societies, part of the future European model?)

“… of all the analyses done in different policy areas, one of the most striking conclusions was the outstanding performance of the Nordic countries in comparisons to the other countries (not only EU member states) on a very wide

range of indicators”. (Schubert & Martens 2005)

_{Does a Nordic education model exist, how has it been restructured, and}

what are its future options?

_{Phases of the Nordic welfare state and educational system:} 1. long historical roots

2. “Golden Age” (1950-1980s); comprehensive school model 3. first crisis in the 1970s and 1980s; decentralization

4. age of restructuring from the 1990s

(Antikainen 2006; 2007; Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50, 3, 2006)

“The Nordic strategy for building up high quality and equality in education has been based on construction of

a publicly funded comprehensive school system

without selecting, tracking or streaming students during their basic education until the age of 16. Part of the strategy is to spread the school network so that pupils have a school near their homes whenever possible or if

this is not feasible, e.g. in rural areas, to provide free transportation to more widely dispersed schools. Inclusion of special education and instructional efforts to minimize low achievement are also typical to Nordic

educational systems.”

How does the Nordic model manifest e.g. in the

present Finnish education system:

_{education from basic school to university is publicly}

funded and free;

_{there is no tracking in comprehensive school and}

extensive provision for special needs education;

_{school meals are free in basic and secondary schools}

and subsidized in higher education;

_{student grants in higher and secondary education;}

_{systematic local and regional education network;}

_{female majority in secondary, higher and adult education;}

_{high participation rate in adult education;}

Table 1. Percentage of pupils in primary and secondary education by type of institution (OECD 2005; Arnesen & Lundahl 2006)

20 80 14 86 10 90 OECD-average 3 97 5 95 5 95 Sweden 10 90 2 98 2 98 Norway 6 94 1 99 1 99 Iceland 10 90 4 96 1 99 Finland 2 98 23 77 12 88 Denmark private public private public private public Upper-secondary Lower-secondary Primary

Table 2. Residential area as basis of choice by upper grade basic school pupils. Estimated by school principals. (PISA 2003)

Residential area strongly influencing factor Denmark 59 % Finland 67 % Iceland 93 % Norway 74 % Sweden 62 % OECD countries 43 %

Restructuring processes: the case of Finland

_{Decentralization from the 1980s}

_Deregulation

_{Accountability (internal and external evaluations)}

_{Entrepreneurship as a school subject and orientation}

_{New Public Management}

Opposite conclusions: or major historical shift or

sustainability?

From welfare state to competition state?

_{Ideal types of the Keynesian Welfare National State and the}

Schumpeterian Workfare Postnational Regime as heuristic tools of analysis

Success stories of SWPR:

_{the case of Danish labour market policy (Torfing 1999)
the case of Finnish innovation policy (ICT cluster, Nokia)}

(Schienstock 2007) entrepreneur relativization; global-local subordinated to economic policy innovations SWPR social citizen state

ext. of social rights full employment KWNS key identity scale social policy goal of economic policy

Critical phase:

_{overcoming of path dependency (of economic, social and}

educational institutions & policies)

(Path dependency, originally used in technological research, refers to the way historical sequences are characterized by the tendency of earlier innovations to form institutional patterns, which prevent implementation of the most productive and efficient reforms.)

_{mechanisms: power, policy feedback; legitimization,}

Coverage and depth of path transformation

Application of the institutional approach to education

reveals that education has the status of a central

institution in this legitimization and socialization

(Meyer 1977; Benavot 1997) or as Meyer put it:

“As religions do, it (education) provides a

legitimating account of the competency of citizens,

the authority of elites, and the sources of the

adequacy of the social system to maintain itself in the

face of uncertainty.”

_{one of the Nordic collective goods: the National}

Innovation System:

“a domain for interaction in the production and utilization of knowledge and know-how built on co-operation

between all producers and users of new knowledge” (Science and Technology Council of Finland, 2000).

_{R&D-facilitating institutions (National Foundation for}

R&D, Sitra; Academy of Finland, National Technology Centre); R&D performers (including universities and

vocational schools); knowledge and technology transfers (including science parks)

_{pedagogical legitimization: training of “dynamically}

networked experts”

_{government officials as agents of new neoliberal policy
beginning of a new long wave? (Kondratiev 1984):}

“the long cycles may be regarded as a disturbance and restoration of the economic equilibrium of a long period. Their basic cause is to be found in that mechanism for the

accumulation and diffusion of capital which is adequate for the creation of new basic productive forces. The effect

of that basic cause, however, is strengthened by the effect of secondary factors.”

Sociocultural conditions of competitiveness:

trust and equity

Figure 2. Interrelations between equality, trust, innovations and competitiveness. (Helkama 2007)

COMPETITIVENESS INNOVATIONS

EQUITY

TRUST

_{16 OECD countries}

_{European Social Survey 2002}

_{PISA 2000, 2003}

_{equality; sense of community and trust in teachers}

in Finland

_{conclusion: the Nordic education model is behind}

Conclusion: a new emerging path generation?

_{basic structures of the Nordic model retained}

_{a long process}

_{a world movement and special local contexts}

_{economic policy elite vs. people}

_{role of new participants (churches) and new}