The ‘spirit of the times’: Fast policy for educational reform in Finland

Setting the scene

We pursue these insights in a broader global context characterised by what appears sometimes as increased homogenisation, particularly in relation to educational policy-making. In the schooling context, this is perhaps most obviously expressed in policy reflecting the influence of various international large-scale assessments (ILSAs), particularly the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The production of various PISA ‘national reports’ ensures a constant comparative policy focus upon schooling practices and processes, with attendant implications for the extent to which context is taken into account (Sellar et al., 2017).

An interesting aspect about the current policy moment is not only the seeming dominance of such practices, but the way in which these and other neoliberal reforms are taken up by governments, regardless of their espoused political persuasion; even more ‘labour-oriented’ or ‘left-wing’ governments seem to adopt neoliberal approaches. In the Finnish context, despite a change from a right-wing government (from 29 May 2015–5 June 2019 – prime minister (PM): Juha Sipilä) to a left-green coalition government (6 June 2019–3.12.2019 – PM: Antti Rinne, and since 10 December 2019 – PM: Sanna Marin), it seems many of the same sorts of policy approaches continue. How can this be, and how are these policies manifest?

Neoliberalism and human capital development

Peck (2010) refers to processes of ‘neoliberalisation’ to capture the seemingly mundane, everyday practices that are enacted and expressed by those influenced by more neoliberal ideas and ideals. What is important to recognise is not that neoliberalism is ‘out there’ in the world as a seemingly virulent virus infecting all who fall under its spell, but is instead a set of grounded, material practices (cf. Connell, 2013; Kemmis et al., 2014; Salhberg, 2011) that actually manifest in specific reforms. These practices are also embodied by those upon whom they exert influence, and who are engaged in such practices.

What distinguishes neoliberal approaches from their earlier liberal origins is the way in which there has been a shift from limitations of governmental reason to develop what Peters and Bulut (2011) refer to as ‘the global exercise of political power on the principles of a market economy’ (p. xxviii). This entails:

the generalization of the model of homo economicus to all forms of behaviour representing an extension of economic analysis to domains previously considered to be non-economic and the redefinition of homo economicus as entrepreneur of himself with an emphasis on acquired elements and the problem of the formation of human capital in education. (Peters and Bulut, 2011: xxviii)

Fast policy

Peck and Theodore (2015) argue that in various processes of reading ‘best-practice literature’, borrowing particular models, and importing specific expertise and approaches for reform are all utilised to inform policy-making processes in multiple and varied jurisdictions around the world. These processes are ‘speeding up’ the nature of responses to particular policy issues and dilemmas. Consequently, ‘[i]t is a widely acknowledged feature of policymaking common sense, in many parts of the world today, that shorthand processes like these, and the various forms of “speed-up” they imply, have become normalized’ (p. xvi).

However, and importantly, this is not to suggest that processes of policymaking have become homogeneous and that the content of such policies are somehow similarly homogeneous:

None of this is to stake the questionable claim, it must be emphasized, that policymaking worlds are racing toward convergence—unilaterally driven by steamroller models of best practice, or “flattened” into a neoliberalized monoculture—but it is to make the more subtle point that those policymaking worlds are becoming more intimately and deeply interconnected than ever before. (Peck and Theodore, 2015: xvi)

Nevertheless, even as we may be suspicious of transcultural convergence as intimated by more performative accounts of globalisation, processes of interconnection and interconnectivity between various actors and ideas have been key to policy making processes under current conditions. Peck and Theodore (2015) are explicit on this point:

Furthermore, a related proposition is that this condition of interconnectivity is itself subject to historically distinctive forms of acceleration and intensification. Continuous monitoring and learning, continuous promotion of best-practice models, continuous inter-referencing of policies, especially at moments of path-altering “reform”—all these are features of reconstituted policy worlds. And in the terms we are exploring here, they are reconstituted fast policy worlds. (p. xvi)

Contextualising education policymaking

One of the key claims of this article is that recent governments seem to have accelerated the pace of educational reform and policy making more broadly in Finland in recent years. A clear shift towards faster policy took place when the right-wing-nationalist government, led by Juha Sipilä, took office in May 2015. Sipilä’s background in business was evident in the streamlined, business-like decision-making processes he adopted as PM. Sipilä was subsequently criticised for his reluctance to deliberate in the preparation of policy decisions through traditional parliamentary planning procedures. In the Finnish tradition, this includes deliberation with trade unions in the political process (Tamminen, 2015). He considered such decision-making to be outdated and too slow.

The Sipilä government embraced a multitude of changes, including a nationwide attempt to reform the health and social welfare sectors. The government also renewed and deconstructed the educational infrastructure while simultaneously cutting funding. There was little co-ordination amongst a myriad of reforms occurring simultaneously (Tervasmäki and Tomperi, 2018). As a result, some reforms ‘hit the wall’ of the political opposition and of the Constitution of Finland itself.

Consequently, support for Juha Sipilä’s government plummeted. The 2019 elections resulted in a new green-left coalition led by Antti Rinne. However, while the policies changed, this new government also seemed to believe that change needed to be made quickly within one parliamentary term. This was the case even as the new government sought to reinstate committee work that extended beyond the government term, and which was typical of seminal reforms during the 1970s (when comprehensive school reform, for example, was implemented). Researchers have suggested that such an approach should be reinstated (Heikkinen et al., 2019).

Educational policy reform in Finland

The educational policy implementation process in Finland in recent times is of special interest, because the educational reforms have previously been characterised by being thoughtful, evolutionary and steady – even slow and conservative. The educational culture is built on a trinity of trust, cooperation, and responsibility, and has typically been less responsive to global influences and processes associated with standardisation, accountability, national tests, and privatisation (Mundy et al., 2016). Further, reforms implemented since the 1970s have been characterised by strong professional confidence in teachers and principals, schools and municipalities, within a system based on decentralised governance, enabling educators to attend to local needs and conditions. Both the levels of institutional and professional trust are high (Aho et al., 2006; Hargreaveset al., 2007; Sahlberg, 2007; Salo and Sandén, 2016).

Finnish educational policy has been built on flexibility and loose standards, giving teachers and principals the mandate to decide on timetables, curriculum content, teaching methods and learning materials, as well as internal policies related to school rules and evaluation. Supervision of schools, monitoring teachers and principals’ work and results have been almost non-existent. Teaching has been a popular profession in Finland. Teachers have been trusted, well-prepared professionals, receiving respect and status in society, practicing their profession in quite a traditional, knowledge-centred school, with teacher-centred practices and classroom culture (Simola, 2007; Välijärvi, 2005).

Findings: Educational reform in Finland

Intensification and fragmentation

Processes of intensification and fragmentation were manifest in different ways in each of the sectors. Teachers in compulsory schooling (basic education) were not only grappling with the implementation of the new basic curriculum around the mid-2010s but were also struggling to teach inclusively. The three-stage process, while laudable for its focus upon teachers striving to address the needs of all the students in their class (and an example of efforts to foster the development of more ‘irregular’ schools that actually actively strive for inclusive practices (Slee, 2011)), proved challenging for teachers. Added to this, the Sipilä government’s raft of reforms, and strident advocacy for rapid change on so many fronts, together with a relative lack of input of teachers in the latter stages of curriculum development processes, diminished teachers’ capacity to embrace and engage substantively with these reforms.

The focus upon more ‘project-based’ approaches is also reflective of these intensification and fragmentation processes. The emphasis upon initiatives such as the ‘digi-leap’ was presented as a new project, which while laudable for its determination to try to enhance students’ digital literacies, simply did not take into account the work conditions of teachers more broadly in this context. The introduction of new parallel projects created a more intensified and fragmented work environment, which clearly upsets the ‘Finnish success’ criteria of stable and sustainable educational development (Sahlberg, 2012; Simola et al., 2013).

In the VET sector, intensification was manifest through teachers’ efforts to try to support the holistic needs of their students, even as work-based educational needs were reduced. VET teachers, while hesitant about young students’ readiness for self-directed learning, were left to try to address the shortcomings of a programme that emphasised individualisation processes in relation to students’ learning pathways. Such individualisation and cost-cutting were reflective of more ‘efficient’ approaches to public sector reform more broadly, and which constituted forms of ‘best practice’ in other (often Anglo) contexts (Peck and Theodore, 2015). The concomitant effect of this intensification for teachers was a simultaneous process of fragmentation of these students’ learning experiences as they sought to make sense of reforms in this more disjointed environment.

Such fragmentation was similarly evident in the early childhood sector. At the same time, early childhood was being lauded as important by the Sipilä government, major cuts in the weekly time spent in education for the children of parents not deemed to be working studying or developing new businesses was seen as deeply problematic. However, importantly, such processes were also heavily criticised, and reflective of how broader policy prerogatives do not go unchallenged. That some municipalities did not implement the government cuts in the way intended also reveals something of the complexity of policy enactment processes, including how actors exercise agency and act as critics in spite of such circumstances. Such an approach exemplifies the sorts of counter-hegemonic position-taking that can occur under such circumstances (Pieterse, 1994).

Individualisation and decontextualisation

Fast policy can also be understood as manifest in the form or processes of individualisation and decontextualisation of educational practices. Such processes and practices were evident within and across these sectors. In relation to compulsory education and VET, individualism was also manifest not only in the intensification processes, but also in the content of reforms, such as increasing focus on notions of competence development. Reflecting simultaneous processes of decontextualisation of fast policy effects, such reforms can be deployed almost anywhere (Peck and Theodore, 2015).

In basic education, this context-free approach was expressed in support for 21st-century competences through the seven competences of comprehensive school in the Finnish curriculum, as well as advocacy for competencies in vocational education and youth services. Such content serves as ‘solutions’ that individualise those engaged in their learning, and in ways that are construed as existing beyond the immediate. In a working environment in which work is becoming more and more focused on intellectual labour as a form of ‘cognitive capitalism’ (Peters and Bulut, 2011), there is an emphasis upon various kinds of ‘added value’ generated through human thought. This occurs even as generic notions of competence sit uneasily with various conceptions of learning as engaged in communities of practice in working life/industry groups, and in collaborative groups in school settings.

In the VET sector, the strong focus on individual study paths was also a manifestation of these individualisation processes, and it created deficiencies amongst students in operating in functional groups. This strong individual focus, reflective of the rise of economic logics in domains previously free of such influence (Peters and Bulut, 2011), was most risky for marginalised students, especially those with special needs and from migrant backgrounds. VET teachers sought to try to respond to this individualisation, but at considerable cost; and in the context of severe cuts to VET teachers, this process was a clear instance of the intensification of remaining teachers’ work as they tried to redress the lack of coherence for students in their study programmes, and as they sought to provide the ‘connective tissue’ between students school experiences, and their experiences in industry/working life.

However, again, even as it seems the ‘spirit of the times’ is dominated by such processes of individualisation and decontexualisation, the decision of some municipalities not to reduce and fragment educational provision in the early childhood sector reveals alternative practices, enhancing of the ‘spirits’ of those involved. Fast policies are not simply unidirectional and uncontested (Peck and Theodore, 2015). That the peak industry body, the Finnish Confederation of Industries, was critical of the reduction in services for early childhood reveals how such challenges may also arise from what may seem like unlikely sources.

Instability, privatisation and reduction in public provision

Processes of privatisation and reduction in public provision of funding were also apparent within these educational arenas, leading to considerable instability. The privatisation of the early childhood industry, and the deployment of privatisation practices in VET reveal the cogency of business-models in educational contexts. In early childhood, the significant increase in the proportion of private companies delivering services is perhaps the clearest example of privatisation practices. The passing of legislation to enable these new players is part of the specific practices that enable more neoliberal approaches (Connell, 2013; Kemmis et al., 2014). The poor quality of building provision for early childhood education, and how to adequately respond to concerns about maintenance of such buildings over the longer term, was a manifestation of such practices. Similarly, at the same time, the emphasis upon provision of education services by private companies as opposed to the state is evidence of privatisation processes in the VET field, with subsequent effects of intensification of educators’ work, and increased isolation for students.

The reduction in funding in the years following the global financial crisis also contributed to the rearticulation of the public sector with problematic effects. Such reductions in public provision often go hand in hand with these privatisation processes (Connell, 2013), but may simply be manifest as cut-backs more broadly. In basic education, the three-stage support was never resourced properly in the first place with the result that this initiative was started but never brought to fruition. The timing was not good because of the economic crisis, with municipalities reducing revenue provided for education; cost-cutting became an imperative, and new investments were not made. Teachers and schools were consequently disadvantaged. The dismissal of VET teachers in schools was another manifestation of tight resourcing conditions. However, again, these processes are not uniform, and the expression of concern about early childhood provision by not only the unions but the Finnish Confederation of Industries reveals that funding cuts associated with rapid reform and as a manifestation of global processes of fiscal tightening, can be challenged (cf. Pieterse, 1994; Kellner, 2002).