Nordic localism

Authors have approached vulnerability as an ontological condition with a transformative potential to promote social justice and human rights.117, 118, 119 Judith Butler120 writes that vulnerability of a subject is a question of ontological precariousness of life. Vulnerability is often linked to the well-meaning approach of helping those ‘less well off’ in the society.121 The policies and practices targeting vulnerable young people often resonate with good intentions. The school system needs to give equal opportunities, which means that the vulnerable individuals should also be given appropriate concern.

However, the traditional ethos on youth work concerning empowerment and voluntary participation is increasingly challenged by short-term interventions and ideologies and practices responding to social problems as individualised risks and problems. The role of education seems to be slipping away from knowledge-based education to skills training and even towards infantilisation, which Frank Furedi has pointed out in his book Wasted: Why education isn’t educating. 122 More policy and professional discourses insist that young people must develop competences of resilience, selfdiscipline, and continuous self-development.123, 124 The shift of responsibility from social/society to individual has increased vulnerability. This is especially evident in the sphere of working life, where workers have been considered disposable without obligation on the part of the ‘social fabric’ to take care of them.

Nordic localism

After a period of centralisation since the 1930s, ‘traditional Nordic localism’ re-emerged during the 1980s.125 Traditionally, vesting a high degree of decision-making in local authorities has been the central feature of school education in the Nordic countries.126, 127 Nevertheless, before the 1990s, state regulation was considered

117 Turner, B. (2006). Vulnerability and human rights. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University

Press. 118 Brown, K. (2011). ‘Vulnerability’: Handle with care. Journal of Ethics and Social Welfare, 5(3), 313–321. 119 Ecclestone, K., & Goodley, D. (2014). Political and educational springboard or straitjacket?

Theorising post/human subjects in an age of vulnerability. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of

Education, 37(2), 175–188. https://doi.org.10.1080/01596306.2014.927112 120 Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso. 121 Brown, K. (2014). Questioning the ‘vulnerability zeitgeist’: Care and control practices with

‘vulnerable’ young people. Social Policy and Society, 13(3), 1–17. 122 Furedi, F. (2009). Wasted: Why education isn’t educating. London & New York: Continuum

International Publishing Group. 123 Bottrell, D. (2009). Understanding ‘marginal’ perspectives. Towards a social theory of resilience.

Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice 8(3), 321–339. 124 Walther, A. (2006). Regimes of youth transitions: Choice, flexibility and security in young people’s experiences across different European contexts. Young, 14(2), 119–139. 125 Green, A., Wolf, A., & Leney, T. (1999). Convergence and divergence in European education and training systems. London: Institute of Education, University of London. 126 Arnesen, A.-L., & Lundahl, L. (2006). Still social and democratic? Inclusive education policies in the

Nordic welfare states. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50(3), 285–300. 127 Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

essential for the sake of equality.128 During recent decades, decentralisation and new public management practices have increased local autonomy, which has also led to inter-municipal fragmentation. This trajectory has weakened the unifying structural principles upon which the comprehensive systems were built.127,129 As one of the key elements of the Nordic welfare model,128 the comprehensive school system is based on the idea of providing equal educational opportunities, regardless of gender, social class, and geographic origin.

In tandem with the ‘changing central–local relations of governance’, Nordic welfare states are undergoing a gradual but wide-ranging transformation towards a more market-based mode of public service delivery. The municipalities in general – and local education authorities in particular – operate in the intersection between the imperative of school markets and the aversion to inequality. Due to the situation in which the performance of both Finland and Sweden in the PISA survey has declined in recent years,130 the municipal interpretations and actions to improve quality and equality in education have gained in significance.

The political situations in which local education markets occur are dissimilar in the two countries. In Finland, school choice takes place within the public-school system, strictly provided and governed by public authorities. Classes with a special emphasis are the Finnish mechanism for exercising parental choice.131 In contrast, the choice occurs both within and between the private and public sectors in Sweden. All schools, both public and private, compete for pupils and funding.130 The number of independent schools − and the proportion of students involved − has risen markedly, driven by the rather unique ability of independent school owners to extract profits.

There are well-reported, differentiation-related downsides of choice, such as increased interschool variance in student achievement.132, 133

128 Page, E., & Goldsmith, M. (Eds.). (1987). Central and local relations. London: SAGE. 129 Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Lundahl, L. (2016). Recognizing and controlling the social cost of school choice. In B. Pink, & G. Noblitt (Eds.), Education, equity and economy: Studies toward the future of socially just education (73-94). Heidelberg: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-21644-7_4 130 OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Volume I). Paris: OECD. 131 Seppänen, P., Kalalahti, M., Rinne, R., & Simola, H. (Eds.). (2015). Lohkoutuva peruskoulu: Perheiden kouluvalinnat, yhteiskuntaluokat ja koulutuspolitiikka [Segmenting comprehensive school: School choices, social classes and education politics]. Research in Educational Sciences 68. Jyväskylä: Finnish

Educational Research Association. 132 Bernelius, V., & Kauppinen, T. M. (2011). School outcomes and neighbourhood effects: A new approach using data from Finland. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 225–247). London: Springer. 133 Östh, J., Andersson, E., & Malmberg, B. (2013). School choice and increasing performance difference:

A counterfactual approach. Urban Studies, 50(2), 407–425.