Table Of ContentPolicy Implications of Research in Education 1
Ulf Blossing
Gunn Imsen
Lejf Moos Editors
The Nordic
Education Model
'A School for All'
Encounters Neo-Liberal Policy
Policy Implications of Research in Education
Volume 1
Series Editors
Professor Stephen L. Jacobson, University at Buffalo – State University
of New York, USA
Dr. Guri Skedsmo, University of Oslo, Norway
Editorial Board
Prof. Helen Gunter, University of Manchester, England
Prof. Stephan Huber, University of Teacher Education Central Switzerland
Prof. Jonathan Jansen, University of the Free State, South Africa
Prof. Karen Seashore Louis, University of Minnesota, USA
Prof. Allan Walker, Hong Kong Institute of Education
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/11212
Policy Implications of Research in Education
Scope of the Series
In education, as in other fi elds, there are often signifi cant gaps between research
knowledge and current policy and practice. While there are many reasons for this
gap, one that stands out is that policy-makers and practitioners may simply not
know about important research fi ndings because these fi ndings are not published in
forums aimed at them.
Policy Implications of Research in Education aims to clearly and comprehensively
present the implications for education policy and practice drawn from important
lines of current education research in a manner that is accessible and useful for
policy-makers, educational authorities and practitioners.
Ulf Blossing • Gunn Imsen • Lejf Moos
Editors
The Nordic Education Model
‘A School for All’ Encounters
Neo-Liberal Policy
Editors
Ulf Blossing Gunn Imsen
University of Gothenburg Department of Education
Gothenburg, Sweden Norwegian University
of Science and Technology
Lejf Moos Trondheim, Norway
Danish School of Education
University of Aarhus
Copenhagen NV, Denmark
ISBN 978-94-007-7124-6 ISBN 978-94-007-7125-3 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-7125-3
Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2013949542
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifi cally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfi lms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifi cally for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specifi c statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
This publication emanates from the Nordic
research network: ‘NordNet: Transnational
Tendencies and Nordic School Development’
that was funded by NordForsk. We thank
the agency for this support.
Foreword
Almost a hundred years ago, after an intense period of competitive colonisation and an
increasingly sophisticated arms race, Europe engaged in the fi rst of two terrible wars.
Today in Western Europe, such aggressive competition for power is unthinkable.
But there is a new weapon being used in today’s competition – education.
Countries are restructuring their education systems in bids for the top of the
international rankings. And, just as generals were prepared to sacrifi ce countless
soldiers in the hopes of a victorious battle, modern ministers appear happy continually
to ‘reform’ their teachers and subject their students to endless change.
Prime amongst the deadly weapons available to politicians is the neo-liberal
philo sophy of markets, competition and choice. Based on Milton Friedman’s
Capitalism and Freedom 1 , such a way of looking at the world has enabled big business
to grasp involvement in what had hitherto been public service. In many countries,
regardless of their customary politics, New Public Management (NPM) with its
reliance on fi nancial reward as the only acceptable motivating factor has become the
favourite governmental means of reform in the fi elds of health and education.
The Nordic Education Model is an excellent account of how the fi ve Nordic
countries are coping with the pressure of this global trend. The book is the fruit of the
NordNet group of researchers with whom I have had the privilege of working as a
critical friend. The three editors and 19 authors work in 10 Nordic universities.
Three each come from Sweden and Norway, two from Denmark and one each from
Finland and Iceland. In addition, the book benefi ts from the involvement of a Danish
‘expat’ (from my old university in London). From Reykjavik in the northwest to
Helsinki in the east and Copenhagen (and London) in the south, these authors
have examined the impact of neo-liberal thinking on the education systems in which
they work.
Writers from each of the fi ve countries recount the history of the ‘School for All’
before describing the challenges it is facing. Thus, Gunn Imsen and Nina Volckmar
1 Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom . Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Boston, J.,
Martin, J., Pallot, J., & Walsh, P. (1996). Public management: The New Zealand model. Auckland:
OUP.
vii
viii Foreword
from Norway ask: ‘How open should it [the comprehensive school] be to private
alternatives? How much should one break from the principle of combined classes
and allow for a permanent differentiation of levels? How should one meet the
demands for adapted education for all pupils, both within and outside the framework
of the classroom community?’
Annette Rasmussen and Lejf Moos inform us how in Denmark, from around
1990, the historic government agenda changed with ‘a shift in the modernisation
policy. Public institutions should not only be internally effective, they should also
be externally competitive. Therefore, regulations were introduced, inspired by the
private sector’.
Even in Finland – the Nordic country with the most equal outcomes – Sirkka
Ahonen recounts how ‘The changes in school politics happened step by step during
the 1990s. Deregulation and decentralisation of the administration of primary and
secondary education came as the fi rst step, and the introduction of competition
within the primary school, accompanied by the liberation of the management of the
public expenditure by local authorities, as the second step’. As a result, equality has
been ‘subordinated to the freedom of choice in order to boost the creative potential
of free individual actors’.
The situation in the Nordic country worst hit by the October 2008 economic
downfall – Iceland – according to Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, Hafdís Guðjónsdóttir
and Jóhanna Karlsdóttir, is somewhat different. The Iceland Chamber of Commerce,
‘representing neoliberal education policy’, had publicly recommended free school
choice in 2003. ‘Its aim was to increase quality by encouraging school competition
and establishment of private schools by the ‘money goes with child’ approach’.
According to these authors, NPM could have heralded the death knell of the
‘School for All’ and the advent of ‘elite schools’. But, the authors report that ‘it is
doubtful that this neoliberal policy impacted education to the same degree as it did
many other fi elds… indicating some level of consensus across political parties
about the importance of School for All’. It is as if the severity of the fi nancial crisis
brought home to people and the government the risk of forsaking a proven pillar of
society. Furthermore, they suggest that the crisis ‘led to disbelief in political ideas,
rooted in new public management and a neoliberal atmosphere, such as privatisation,
competition and accountability’.
This book addresses questions important not only within the advanced Nordic
countries. As the editors note in the concluding chapter, ‘in many countries, a School
for All is still a goal in progress’. It is somewhat ironic, therefore, that it is in those
countries where the noble idea has best succeeded that its dissolution is being most
thoroughly discussed.
The thematic chapters cover a lot of territory. Nina Volckmar and Susanne
Wiborg endeavour to explain why social democratic governments have conceded so
much to right-wing pressures, foregoing principles in the hope of retaining a bigger
prize without seemingly noticing its inevitable diminution.
The three editors trace the history of progressivism and ask questions about the
future of all the more complex forms of group work and pedagogic communication
in the face of the increase of individualisation of learning.
Foreword ix
Karen Andreasen and Eva Hjörne raise vexed questions about who should be
included as the goal of the ‘School for All’ is challenged. Anne Nevøy , Annette
Rasmussen, Stein Erik Ohna and Thomas Barow take the same debate into upper
secondary schooling asking important questions about the effi cacy of irregular
programmes. And Trond Buland and Ida Holth Mathiesen explore the issue of drop-
out and the essential role of the local authority.
The fi nal chapter by the three editors reprises the issues. It ends on a positive
note: ‘In spite of the worrying indications, it is not likely that neoliberal policy will
dominate the Nordic educational model at the system level and erase the ideal of a
School for All. The democratic vision is still there’. I hope that events prove them
right. I hope also that the competition between nations extends to include measures
of equity 2 and well-being.3 These are issues which affect the quality of life in all
societies and about which the Nordic countries know a great deal.
Professor Emeritus, Richmond, England Peter Mortimore
2 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2012). E quity and quality in education:
Supporting disadvantaged students and schools . Paris: OECD.
3 UNICEF. (2007). ‘Child well-being in rich countries’. IRC Report Card 7. Florence: Innocenti
Research Centre.
