As I am preparing for a trip to Finland this week, heading a
team of Canadian researchers to conduct a 2-day SSHRC-funded research workshop
with a team of Finnish researchers, I thought I would share some thoughts on
the Canadian educational system contrasted with the Finnish one. This workshop
is to plan a multi-study research programme that will compare Canadian and
Finnish secondary and tertiary school systems in terms of student experiences
therein in terms of how those systems protect students from various risks,
including academic disengagement and early school leaving.
Mission drift in Canada
One of the driving structural factors in the Canadian
educational system contributing to a multitude of problems like disengagement,
drop-out, grade inflation, sense of entitlement, and ‘degree purchasing,’ is
the increasing enrolment of students into hitherto ‘academic’ or ‘liberal
programmes’ at the secondary and tertiary levels, respectively. At the
secondary level, vocational programmes become less and less common, down from a
60/40 split in Ontario a few decades ago.
Based on financial (these programmes are cheaper to offer)
and policy (belief in the flawed human capital theory) factors, we have allowed
these academically oriented programmes to drift away from their original
mission of personal and intellectual transformation to a form of
‘pseudo-vocationalism.’ In other words, what in the past was offered to those
who were content to learn for the sake of learning, has been increasingly sold
as a form of job training, even though the ‘skills’ taught are diffuse and
indirect (e.g., writing and verbal skills). More recently, it has become
evident that in many of our bloated universities even these skills are not
being adequately taught.
Programmes can be considered ‘pseudo-vocational’ in
instances where intrinsically liberal programmes have been rebranded to
implicitly or explicitly promise that they will give students an edge in the
competition for specific jobs. As this has happened, the pedagogical value of
the liberal education in stimulating
critical thinking abilities, and the skills associated with effectively
communicating those abilities in writing and speech, is diminishing as
universities adopt teaching practices associated with training people to remember systems of facts and procedures,
rather than educating to develop
a critical awareness of the world at large that is epistemologically
defensible.
Pseudo-vocationalism originates in the pressures on
undergraduate programmes to be more ‘marketable.’ If the BA gave graduates in
the past an upper hand in entering higher level occupations, the thinking seems
to be that accrediting a programme as baccalaureate level will continue to
afford graduates this advantage. Consequently, to pursue this new ‘job-market
mission,’ many liberal programmes have slowly evolved into pseudo-vocational
training programmes, at least implicitly. In other words, the training approach is trumping the education approach, and many universities currently have a
mixed system where liberal subjects are often assessed in ways best suited for
vocational training (i.e., only using tests, and then only of content and
procedure). This is causing considerable confusion among stakeholders,
especially among students who are told that they can convert a BA/BSc into a
job, only to find out that there is only limited truth to this. It also
explains why there is so much confusion about grading standards and so many denials
that grade inflation is a problem.
My own discipline, sociology, has a history of
pseudo-vocationalism. The most recent fad in sociology departments is to offer
specializations in criminology to capitalize on the so-called ‘CSI effect,’
where enrolments are stimulated more by television viewing habits than by the
realities of the labour market. At the same time, other classes have become so
over-enrolled, especially at the lower levels, that the only method of
assessment that can be realistically used is multiple-choice tests.
A good part of the acceptance of this mission drift is due
to a loss of understanding of the transformative potential of the liberal
educational experience. This transformation requires intellectual engagement
and emotional commitment. A student cannot just sign up for a liberal
programme, and passively say ‘educate me.’ It cannot be bought with tuition,
and there is nothing magical about spending four years at a university. If
there were some magic to it, we could offer two types of degrees: one where
students take courses and the other where they do not take courses but simply
participate in extra-curricular activities and heavy doses of socialization
with other students while they live in residence. We could call the former a curricular
degree and the latter a residential
degree.
The liberal education in Canada is thus threatened with an
eclipse by pseudo-vocationalism, as underfunding drives universities to develop
programmes that can be delivered on a mass sale and which adopt mass evaluation
methods unsuited to the transformative potential of the liberal education.
Consequently, Canadian universities are currently experiencing a mission drift
that threatens the very core ‘idea of the university.’
Mission reform in Finland
Not all of the world’s university systems have let the
mission drift occur to the extent found in Canada. Finland, in particular, has
endeavoured to maintain educational standards at all three levels, and in so
doing is preserving the integrity of the mission of its university system,
while providing effective alternatives for those who are not academically
inclined.
The Finns have viewed their educational system as a work in
progress for the past few decades, as should be the case in all countries experiencing
rapid social and economic change. Indeed, some of the features that warrant
close scrutiny from Canadian educators and policy makers are rather recent
additions or reforms to the Finnish educational system, as Finnish society has
adjusted itself to current conditions. The following figure shows the various
levels of the Finnish system as it is now constituted, along with the typical
ages at which people pass through them.
|
The
Finnish Educational System
|
|
Starting
age (typical duration)
|
Academic stream
|
Vocational
stream
|
|
|
Doctorate
|
|
|
|
Licentiate
|
|
|
(2-3)
|
Master’s
(University)
|
Master’s
(Polytechnic)
|
|
20 (3-4)
|
Bachelor’s
(University)
|
Bachelor’s
(Polytechnic)
|
|
16
|
Upper
secondary
|
Vocational
and apprenticeship training
|
|
7
|
Comprehensive
(primary)
|
|
6
|
Pre-primary
|
Three features of the Finnish system immediately stand out
in this figure: (1) the late starting age for primary school students, (2) the
clear division of secondary schools into vocational/apprenticeship and academic
streams, and (3) the separation of universities from polytechnic universities.
Most germane to this post are features 2 and 3.
Although there is no streaming during primary school, or
more specifically ‘comprehensive school,’ a major streaming takes place when
students are 16 and have completed nine years of formal schooling. About half
go on to upper secondary schools, which are designed to prepare students for
tertiary institutions, and most of the remainder go into vocational
institutions and apprenticeships, which are designed for direct labour-force
entry, although students can redirect to the tertiary route later if they can
qualify. The lack of streaming during primary school is meant to achieve a
uniform education for all students, regardless of their eventual occupational destination.
This helps to reduce social-class reproduction and assure a standard of
literacy and numeracy among the entire Finnish population.
During the period of primary education, students, teachers,
and parents get a good idea of the student’s interests and abilities, and the
decision is made on this basis regarding which secondary stream is pursued.
This is not an irreversible decision and students graduating from the
vocational stream can qualify for tertiary education by passing a nationally
standardized entrance exam.
Most of those who complete the vocational stream at the
secondary level go straight into the labour force. Note that in much of Canada,
serious vocational training is delayed until the tertiary level, rather than
integrating it into the secondary level. The modal age group entering
apprenticeships in Canada is the late 20s, some 10 years later than in Finland.
Those who complete the upper secondary stream in Finland can
qualify for tertiary education by taking the ‘national matriculation
examination.’ Successful completion of this exam affords entrance into one of
Finland’s 20 universities or 30 polytechnics. Just as the primary and secondary
levels do not require students or parents to pay tuitions fees, the tertiary
system has no tuition fees, and those who need financial assistance at both the
secondary and tertiary levels are eligible. The current polytechnic system was
developed in the 1990s, with all of the current schools completed by 2000. Some
polytechnics now offer degrees comparable to Master’s degrees.
What are the most notable differences in the outcomes of the
Finnish system from the Canadian one?
First, the dropout rate at the secondary level is lower than
in Canada, with 90 percent of young Finns obtaining secondary qualifications.
This lower dropout rate is presumably because students have a wider range of
educational options, affording them programmes they find interesting and
rewarding. In Canada, this range of options is not available in most schools,
forcing most students into academic programmes whether they like it or not.
Second, universities are clearly distinguished in their
missions from polytechnics. Universities are defined by their ‘focus of
research and education based on research’[i] while
polytechnics ‘train professionals in response to labour market needs and
conduct R&D which supports instruction and promotes regional development in
particular.’[ii]
The liberal mission of Finnish universities is kept on track by the National
University Act, which specifies that
universities
must promote free research and scientific and artistic education, provide
higher education based on research, and educate students to serve their country
and humanity. In carrying out this mission, universities must interact with the
surrounding society and strengthen the impact of research findings and artistic
activities on society.[iii]
Thus, the research capacity in the liberal tradition, vital
for taking Finnish society into the future, is preserved in Finnish
universities. At the same time, the immediate labour market needs of the
economy are the focus of polytechnics, as are the earlier-stream vocational and
apprenticeship programmes. In Canada, these missions have become confused, a
conundrum that is being exacerbated as more community colleges across the
countries are being declared by government fiat to be ‘universities.’ In turn,
liberal pedagogies are being attacked unjustly as not being relevant enough to
the job market and, because of our ‘bums-on-seats’ funding system, more and
more schools are turning to forms of pseudo-vocationalism to attract
‘customers.’
[i] Finnish
Ministry of Education, Education system in Finland, http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/koulutusjaerjestelmae/?lang=en,
accessed March 24, 2009
[ii] Finnish
Ministry of Education, Polytechnic Education in Finland, http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/ammattikorkeakoulutus/?lang=en,
accessed March 24, 2009
[iii] Finnish
Ministry of Education, University Education in Finland, http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/yliopistokoulutus/?lang=en,
accessed march 24, 2009