1 Introduction
The Finnish education system has long been lauded as a model example of a system with emphasis on equality and inclusivity. While just a couple of years ago the Finnish education system was drawing admiration from across the globe for its remarkable outcomes, this hype is now passing as the Finnish PISA results are dwindling down (Terävä, 2023).
In this essay I will first describe the basics of the Finnish education system. Then I will compare it with the idea of meritocracy with the help of two articles, one by Miller (1996) and one by Mijs (2016). Miller sees the meritocratic ideal as a positive force worth aiming for and Mijs sees it as a promise that will never be truly fulfilled. Alongside of this comparison I aim to discuss what role equality and merit should play in the Finnish educational system.
Miller (1996) who sees potential in the meritocratic ideal, describes how leftist and feminist thinkers have criticized meritocracy for focusing on equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome (279). This is the viewpoint I am also taking in the essay. With the help of several sources both from media and research I’m writing a leftist and feminist critique of meritocracy.
2 Finnish education system
According to the Finnish National Agency for Education -website, the Finnish education system consists of multiple levels. The first one is the early childhood education and care that’s available to all children under school age but isn’t mandatory to attend. Right before primary education children must attend one year of pre-primary education or other activities that meet the same objectives the pre-primary education does. This happens when the child is about 6 years old. Primary and lower secondary education are the levels of basic education that are mandatory to everyone in Finland. Primary education happens from ages 7 to 12 and lower secondary education happens from years 13 to 15. A student is free to attend a voluntary additional year of basic education if they feel the need for it. After this the student must either attend general upper secondary education or vocational education and training that happens from ages 16 to 18 and generally takes 3 years. This marks the end of mandatory education, but adult students are free to attend higher education, such as university or vocational university. As an adult it’s also possible to take part in adult education. (Finnish National Agency for Education, n.d.) The Finnish education system is structured in such a way that it is possible to advance to a higher degree from each type of education, in other words, a person who has completed a vocational basic degree can eventually end up in research education.
Unlike many other countries, Finland intentionally avoids the reliance on standardized testing as the main means of assessment in the basic education. Instead, assessment is based on continuous evaluation by teachers. (Ministry of Education and Culture and Finnish National Agency for Education, 2022.) Finnish education system requires educators to hold a master’s degree trying to ensure the quality of the education (Eurydice, 2023).
2.1 Ideals behind the system
The Finnish education system is built upon the foundational principle of equal access to education for all students, regardless of their socio-economic background. This means that all the mandatory education is tuition free, every student living further from the school gets free transportation to their education and the schools provide a free lunch to all students. (Ministry of Education and Culture, n.d.) This commitment to equality is built to ensure that every child in Finland can receive quality education. This sets the stage for a more inclusive and egalitarian society where merits of the students are the only things affecting the outcomes of their lives. Despite these efforts to minimize the achievement gap, socio-economic factors still play a big role in educational outcomes (Härkönen and Sirniö, 2020). This is a point that I will discuss this later in the essay.
3 The meritocratic ideal
In his article “Two Cheers for Meritocracy” David Miller (1996) defends meritocracy as an ideal for society. Miller discusses the concept of meritocracy, which entails individuals acquiring positions of advantage based on their talent and effort rather than factors like race, gender, or family connections. Comparing Miller’s description with the Finnish education system, I believe the system can be considered meritocratic due to the drive to create equal access to education. Efforts are also made to provide support and resources to help all learners, making sure no one is disadvantaged due to factors they can’t control (see Kosunen, 2021, 138).
3.1 Outcomes of equality and inequality
The book “Spirit Level” illustrates how reducing economic inequality also reduces social problems. In the book Wilkinson and Pickett (2011) use data from multiple different countries from various topics to prove their point. They describe how economically more equal countries have fewer teen pregnancies (141), less crime (169), less drug problems and less mental health issues (83–92). The book is mostly concerned with the inequality of income and doesn’t discuss inequality in education as much, but it’s still a wonderful example of the problems any kind of inequality can create. Keski-Petäjä and Witting (2016) write about the effect the parents’ education has on their children. They describe how the children of parents who have higher education also end up in higher education and the children from lower educational level families end up with less education. In a perfectly meritocratic world this shouldn’t happen. The talented children, no matter their background, should end up in higher education. So how is this possible in Finland where the system is built to ensure the equality of opportunities?
In his article “The Unfulfillable Promise of Meritocracy” Mijs (2016) argues that educational institutions distort the meritocratic process. He describes how the choice of which school to go to affects the equality of opportunities, especially when comparing public and private institutions (18–19). Finnish people tend to see this as a foreign problem, as Finland has very little private schools. Unfortunately, this is also a Finnish problem. So called “school shopping” has become a trend that is widely discussed in media and in municipal politics (see Takala, 2023; Hirvonen, 2023; Leppä, 2023). If Finns are choosing where they live based on the school they want to send their children to, to the extent that the apartments near the so called “better schools” appreciate in value much faster than elsewhere (Takala, 2023), how is this equality of opportunity?
3.2 Prioritizing the family
Even if Miller (1996) is eager to cheer for meritocracy in his article, he acknowledges the natural inclination to favor family, friends, and other close relations. This conflicts with the meritocratic principle of rewarding individuals based solely on their talent and effort, as people often prioritize helping their loved ones even if they may not be the most deserving candidates (278). Härkönen and Sirniö (2020) compared the education choices of people born from 1960 to 1985 compared to their parents’ education choices. They found out that the connection between family background and education has increased significantly, especially among the women in this group. This aligns with what Miller wrote about familial ties affecting the outcomes, in this case educational outcomes.
Pamela Barnhouse Walters (2000) writes about school expansion, the process of reforming schools to accommodate more people than before. This has been done in many countries to make education possible to everyone despite their heritage or other aspects they can’t change themselves. She describes multiple reasons for the expansion of education, such as educating the future workforce to be able to perform more demanding tasks (244) or school being the “warehousing function”, making it possible for the parents to attend work while children are taken care of in the school system (247). One reason however is the promise of social advancement (250). Through vast education available to everyone regardless of their background everyone has the opportunity to climb up the socio-economic ladder. Does this equality of opportunity then lessen the social and economic inequalities among people? Barnhouse Walters gives multiple examples how this is rarely the case. She describes how the expansion of schooling can change the amount of educational knowledge the lower social classes have, but the relational advantage of the higher social classes remains. In the rare cases the school expansion happened at the same time as inequality declines, the reasons were most likely more related to social welfare policies implemented around the same time (254). This aligns well with the topics discussed in Wikinson’s and Pickett’s (2011) book. The general economic equality produces better outcomes than systems that try to limit equality to opportunities only.
3.3 The declining PISA results and how to fix them?
In his article Mijs (2016) tells that fixating on meritocracy in education is misguided and unattainable due to systemic biases. It highlights how meritocracy is intended to allocate rewards based on effort and ability, aiming to optimize them (24). However, Mijs also points out how it can lead to exclusivity, bias, and inequality. Mijs argues that meritocratic policies may have detrimental effects, such as blaming individuals for societal issues and overlooking systemic inequalities (22–23). This is very much the case on what’s happening with the PISA discussion in Finland. The downward trend in the PISA results in Finland has been explained with all kinds of things, such as digitalization and the use of smart devices in education (Jaulimo, 2022), and immigration (Richter, 2023). Finnish government website disagrees with this. An article by Lehikoinen, Kalenius and Bernelius (2023) says that the length of the decline shows this to be impossible. The decline started in 1990s when the new curriculum with more digitalization was implemented in 2016. The case with immigration is similar. It’s too new of a phenomenon to be able to cause the decline that has taken decades to happen. They however mention, that after the recession in 1990s the funding level of general education dropped by quarter and has never recovered to its previous level. The state library funding was also halved during the 1990s. This led to a decline in library collections, which then led to decline in library use. This may have influenced the PISA results, as reading as a hobby has become more obsolete. The OAJ (2019) teachers’ union comments similarly on their blog, where they criticize the Finnish governments for the funding reductions despite knowing that the PISA results were declining. The OAJ blog post especially mentions the problem with supporting students who have trouble learning the necessary literacy levels. The students need support, but the resources just aren’t available. Mijs (2016) suggests that true equality of opportunity requires addressing not just merit but also the need for more equal starting points and outcomes. This could mean increasing the resources that support the students who are struggling right at the start of their struggles. However, what I really see Mijs suggesting is to make sure the starting points of the children coming to the school should already be addressed and made more equal. Much like what Barnhouse Walters (2000) mentioned in her work, the elite will keep giving advantages to their children, but social welfare for the low-income families can correct the starting points enough to create more equal outcomes (254).
4 Conclusion
The main argument of “The Unfulfillable Promise of Meritocracy” is that meritocracy, which aims to allocate rewards based on effort and ability, is not just an unfulfilled promise but an unfulfillable one (Mijs 2016). I agree with Mijs. When seeing the Finnish system, we can easily see that it is fairly close to the ideal of what a meritocratic education system should be, yet the outcomes are becoming less equal as time passes. This can be due to the lack of funding in education itself, but also due to the inequality in the society as a whole. The current political decisions made in Finland are bound to widen the inequality gap even further, making it harder to get social welfare such as housing support (Kela, 2023). Assuming that this wouldn’t affect education is naïve. Students from affluent backgrounds will have access to resources and opportunities that the less privileged students lack to even greater amount than before. This creates us a bleak future that keeps perpetuating inequality within the system.
Originally written in 27.3.2024 for Turku University course on Social Inequality (taught by Irene Prix).
References
Barnhouse Walters, Pamela (2000). “The limits of growth. School expansion and school reform in historical perspective.” Handbook of the Sociology of Education (ed. Maureen Hallinan). New York: Kluwer, pp. 241-261.
Eurydice. (2023) “Finland: 9. Teachers and education staff.” Online: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/finland/teachers-and-education-staff. Recovered: 15.3.2024.
Finnish National Agency for Education. (n.d.) “Finnish education system.” Online: https://www.oph.fi/en/education-system. Recovered: 15.2.2024.
Hirvonen, Saara. (2023) ”Koulushoppailu jakaa Uudenmaan ja Helsingin kansanedustajien mielipiteet: vain yhdessä puolueessa kaikki ovat samaa mieltä.” Online: https://yle.fi/a/74-20021121. Recovered: 15.3.2024.
Härkönen, Juho. Sirniö, Outi. (2020) ”Koulutuksen ylisukupolvinen eriarvoisuus on kasvanut.” Tackling Inequalities in Time of Austerity. Policy Brief 3/2020.
Jaulimo, Juulia. (2022) “Suomen Pisa-menestys romahti: opettajat listaavat kolme syytä.” Online: https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/suomen-pisa-menestys-romahti-opettajat-listaavat-kolme-syyta/8548438#gs.6633rv. Recovered: 21.3.2024.
Kela. (2023) “Yleinen asumistuki pienenee vuonna 2024, ja sen maksaminen omistusasuntoihin päättyy vuonna 2025.” Online: https://www.kela.fi/ajankohtaista-henkiloasiakkaat/5889330/yleinen-asumistuki-pienenee-vuonna-2024-ja-sen-maksaminen-omistusasuntoihin-paattyy-vuonna-2025. Revocered: 26.3.2024.
Keski-Petäjä, Miina. Witting, Mika. (2016) “Vanhempien koulutus vaikuttaa lasten valintoihin.” Online: https://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tietotrendit/artikkelit/2016/vanhempien-koulutus-vaikuttaa-lasten-valintoihin/. Recovered: 15.3.2024.
Kosunen, Tapio. (2021) ”Kohti saavutettavampaa korkeakoulutusta ja korkeakoulua.” Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. 2021:35. Online: julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/163235/OKM_2021_35.pdf. Recovered: 19.3.2024.
Lehikoinen, Anita. Kalenius, Aleksi. Bernelius, Venla. (2023) “PISA-lasku haastaa koulun ja yhteiskunnan.” Online: https://valtioneuvosto.fi/-/1410845/pisa-lasku-haastaa-koulun-ja-yhteiskunnan. Recovered: 21.3.2024.
Leppä, Asta. (2023) ”Lapsi tulee aina laittaa lähikouluun, jotta segregaatio ei pahene? ’Huonoin ratkaisu olisi lasten pakottaminen lähikouluun.’” Online: https://www.apu.fi/artikkelit/koulushoppailu-ja-segregaatio-saako-lapsen-pakottaa-lahikouluun. Recovered: 15.3.2024.
Mijs, Jonathan. (2016) “The unfulfillable promise of meritocracy: Three lessons and their implications for justice in education.” Social Justice Research 29: 14–34.
Miller, David. (1996) “Two cheers for meritocracy”. The Journal of Political Philosophy 4:4, 277–301.
Ministry of Education and Culture, Finnish National Agency for Education. (2022) “Finnish education in a nutshell.” Online: https://www.oph.fi/sites/default/files/documents/finnish_education_in_a_nutshell.pdf. Recovered: 15.3.2024.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (n.d.) “The Finnish Education system.” Online: https://okm.fi/en/education-system. Recovered: 15.3.2024.
OAJ. (2019) “OAJ Pisa-tuloksista: Oppimistulokset saadaan nousuu lisäämällä opetusta, erityisopetusta ja vahvistamalla opettajamitoitusta.” Online: https://www.oaj.fi/ajankohtaista/uutiset-ja-tiedotteet/2019/oaj-pisa-tuloksista-oppimistulokset-saadaan-nousuun-lisaamalla-opetusta-erityisopetusta-ja-vahvistamalla-opettajamitoitusta/. Recovered: 21.3.2024.
Richter, Juha. (2023) “OECD:n asiantuntija: Suomen koululaisten PISA-tulosten romahdus johtuu maahanmuutosta.” Online: https://puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/juha-richter/oecdn-asiantuntija-suomen-koululaisten-pisa-tulosten-romahdus-johtuu-maahanmuutosta/. Recovered: 21.3.2024.
Takala, Sami. (2023) ”Tutkija: Koulushoppailu on jo nyt arkipäivää Helsingissa.” Online: https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000009408325.html. Recovered: 15.3.2024.
Terävä, H. (2023) ”Suomen Pisa-menestys romahti: lukutaidossa suurempi muutos kuin koskaan aiemmin.” Online: https://yle.fi/a/74-20063393. Recovered: 15.2.2024.
Wilkinson, Richard. Pickett, Kate. (2011) ”Tasa-arvo ja hyvinvointi: Miksi tasa-arvo on hyväksi kaikille?” Juva: HS kirjat.