Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

While Finland has been considered a model for educational equity, the last decade has brought up concerns about educational segregation. This systematic literature review captures an overview of research on factors contributing to educational segregation and its consequences in Finland. A literature search of studies investigating various aspects of segregation in Finland and published both in English and Finnish was conducted, and altogether 40 scientific articles were analyzed. The findings show that segregation in Finland is regional or associated with the transitions that allow major choices. Neighborhood segregation, emphasized classes, transition to upper secondary education, and transition to higher education were identified as sources of segregation. Evidence on the consequences of the segregation in Finland is still scarce. Further research exploring the reasons, intertwining, and consequences of these phenomena as well as preventing them would be necessary.

Keywords

Educational segregation Finland literature review

Introduction

Finland has long been considered as a model country for quality education and especially educational equity and equality (e.g. Sahlberg, 2007). Compulsory 1-year early childhood education, same public comprehensive basic education reformed profoundly over 50 years ago (cf. Ahonen, 2003) and necessary special education support provided for all children and youth with no early tracking as well as academic university-level teacher education have been identified as important factors behind Finland’s educational success (Pekkala Kerr et al., 2013; Sahlberg, 2007; Toom et al., 2010). In the international comparison, these factors have been identified as ideal characteristics of comprehensive and inclusive public education system. These have also been regarded as key factors contributing to the success of Finnish pupils and especially girls in the several PISA measurements since 2000. Many of these aspects have also been identified as critical factors in educational equality and segregation in the international research conducted in a variety of contexts (cf. DiPrete and Eirich, 2006; Hadjar and Gross, 2016; Skopek et al., 2019). However, during the recent years, researchers have identified some elements and details in the Finnish public educational system, which need special attention, and which challenge the ethos of educational equity and equality (e.g. Thrupp et al., 2023), and this review study especially focuses on elaborating those aspects. In the international comparison, population in Finland is still relatively small and homogeneous in terms of socioeconomic status, ethnic background of families, as well as small number of minorities. The natural consequence is that the diversity of pupils in schools and students as well as teachers in educational institutions is small. Most children in Finland go to the public schools throughout their educational path, and there are only few private schools in the whole Finland. All schools in Finland follow the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 and for Upper Secondary Education 2019 as well as Guidelines for Vocational Education. These are also likely to be the most important reasons for the scarce research on educational segregation. In line with Bourdieu’s (1986) thoughts, the students’ cultural, social, and economic capitals as resources and effects for education and schooling of course exist in the Finnish context as well, but the extent to which they emerge is not that extensive (Lehti and Erola, 2017; Lehti et al., 2019) as they can be in many other country contexts. However, during the last decade, there has been increasing concerns, public discussions, and emerging academic research about school segregation (see, for example, Bernelius and Huilla, 2021).

Segregation is a complex phenomenon with multiple dimensions (Reardon and Owens, 2014). Selection of dimensions or groups of interest influences the findings (Massey and Denton, 1988). The relevant focus varies across educational and societal contexts. While isolation/exposure and unevenness are the most used dimensions in educational contexts (Reardon and Owens, 2014), in the Finnish context, the focus is often on unevenness. In the frame of this literature review, we define educational segregation as an unequal distribution of specific student groups in educational institutions according to their social and ethnic background, sex, or other characteristics (see Ramos Lobato, 2020; Tikkanen, 2019). Research on educational segregation in the Finnish context has mainly been focused on school choice, school catchment area, regional, and neighborhood segregation (Bernelius and Vilkama, 2019; Kosunen, 2015; Kosunen et al., 2020).

While the same public basic education, special educational support, and a fixed school catchment area policy are at the core of the Finnish educational system, there are certain transitions in the educational path that offer choice for families, and thus are vulnerable to segregation (Tikkanen, 2019). After the 9-year comprehensive school, transition to the upper secondary level offers both general academic and vocational tracks. While both tracks offer eligibility for higher education admission, access to higher education is restricted due to highly selective admissions (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2019) and limited number of study places. An additional cause for concern has lately been some additions to the public basic education system. Lower secondary schools in Finland have been allowed to create selective classes, so-called emphasized classes that offer supplementary lessons in one or more subjects (e.g. music, arts, sports, science) in addition to the Finnish National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 within the framework of common education (e.g. Kosunen et al., 2020). These emphasized classes have also received additional resources and funding both from the state and municipalities for the special activities. Research has indicated that all these phases in which major educational choices are allowed are subject to being socioeconomically stratified (Härkönen and Sirniö, 2020; Kosunen et al., 2020; Nori, 2012).

Due to the strong school catchment area principle, especially in primary school but also in lower secondary school in Finland, the composition of the neighborhood has become an important factor in the consideration. Recent findings also indicate that regional segregation, especially in urban areas in the Southern part of Finland, is increasing (Kauppinen and Mukkila, 2022), and this has consequences for differences between schools (Bernelius, 2011). While differences in learning outcomes between schools are still relatively small compared to international findings (Metsämuuronen and Nousiainen, 2021), increased exposure of segregation in educational institutions in Finland warrants a systematic review of academic literature focusing on this topic. An overall view is needed not only on reasons and contributing factors, but especially on the consequences of segregation during the whole educational path in the Finnish context. Consequently, the aim of this study is to explore segregation of educational institutions and its consequences in Finland by means of a systematic literature review. Our specific research questions are as follows:

Which factors contribute to segregation of educational institutions in Finland?

Which consequences does the segregation of educational institutions have on educational outcomes in the Finnish context?

Method

Literature search

A systematic literature review was selected as the method for our study in order to identify and synthesize literature relevant to our research questions in a structured manner (see Bearman et al., 2012; Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). A literature search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted (see Table 1) in the electronic databases EBSCOhost (education and psychology/sociology databases, including ERIC, Teacher Reference Center, SocINDEX with Full Text, CINAHL, and Academic Search Complete), Scopus, and Finna (a database for cultural and scientific material in Finland). These databases were selected as they cover relevant sources of educational research in Finland. The search was conducted in English in EBSCOhost and Scopus, and in Finnish in Finna. The year of publication was limited to 2010–2022. The alternative keywords “segregation,” “differentiation,” “stratification,” “school choice,” and “educational choice” (and their Finnish equivalents) were used. In addition, the keywords “education” and “Finland” (and their Finnish equivalents) were required. The searches focused on the title, abstract, and keywords of articles. The initial search resulted in 400 articles, of which 210 were in EBSCOhost, 85 in Scopus, and 105 in Finna. The first author then read through the titles and abstracts of the articles. The process of excluding articles is presented in Figure 1. All duplicates were removed, altogether 121 duplicates were identified in the search results of EBSCOhost and Scopus, and 15 in the search results of Finna. The remaining 294 articles were scanned for relevancy and quality. The criteria for including the articles in the review were as follows: (1) the study focused on segregation between educational institutions; (2) the study focused specifically on the Finnish context; (3) the study reported empirical evidence, that is, focused on observation instead of theoretical analysis, both quantitative and qualitative studies were included; (4) the study was peer-reviewed. Consequently, 62 articles remained after the initial screening for the next phase of the review. In this phase, all the authors carefully read the articles and re-checked that the content adhered to the selection criteria. A further 22 articles were excluded, resulting in the inclusion of altogether 40 articles in the review. A summary of the articles, their sample sizes, and methods are presented in Appendix 1. The reviewed articles utilized a range of different methods from quantitative register analyses and surveys to qualitative interviews and document analyses, and together they gave a multifaceted view on the complex topic.

Table 1.

Literature search process.

Databases	Keywords (OR)	Keywords (AND)	Criteria for selecting articles
EBSCOhostScopusFinna	“segregation”“differentiation” “stratification”“school choice” “educational choice”	“education”“Finland”	Focus on segregation between educational institutionsFocus on the Finnish contextBased on empirical evidencePeer-reviewed

Finnish equivalents of the keywords were used in Finna.

Figure 1.

The progress of excluding articles.

Analysis

The included articles were analyzed by all the authors using qualitative content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs, 2008). Each article was analyzed systematically and, in detail, searching for empirical findings that would give insights into our research questions, namely the contributors and consequences of segregation of educational institutions. At this phase, the educational level or transition that the article focused on was noted. Next, the similarities between the articles were examined. Based on careful reading, a total of four categories were identified as major aspects that create segregation of educational institutions according to the results of the reviewed articles: (1) neighborhood segregation, (2) school choice in emphasized classes, (3) choice of the upper secondary track, (4) access to higher education. Some of the reviewed articles included more than one category or aspect. Finally, we looked for findings on the consequences of the segregation in each of these categories. The division of the reviewed articles into categories is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Reviewed articles in categories.

Neighborhood segregation	School choice in emphasized classes	Choice of upper secondary track	Access to higher education
Bernelius (2015) Bernelius (2013a) Bernelius (2013b) Bernelius (2011) Bernelius and Vaattovaara (2016) Bernelius and Vilkama (2019) Dhalmann et al. (2014) Kosunen (2015) Kosunen et al. (2020) Kosunen and Carrasco (2016) Kosunen and Rivière (2018) Riitaoja (2010) Tikkanen (2019)	Berisha and Seppänen (2017) Bernelius (2013b) Bernelius and Vaattovaara (2016) Kalalahti et al. (2015a) Kalalahti et al. (2015b) Kosunen (2015) Kosunen (2012) Kosunen et al. (2020) Kosunen et al. (2016) Kosunen and Seppänen (2015) Lempinen et al. (2016) Mäntylä et al. (2015)Peltola (2020)Poikolainen (2011) Poikolainen (2012) Seppänen et al. (2012) Silvennoinen et al. (2015) Varjo et al. (2014)	Armila et al. (2018) Brunila et al. (2011) Heiskala et al. (2021) Härkönen and Sirniö (2020) Kalalahti et al. (2020) Kalalahti et al. (2017) Niemi and Kurki (2014) Vanhalakka-Ruoho et al. (2018) Varjo et al. (2020)	Heiskala et al. (2021) Härkönen and Sirniö (2020) Isopahkala-Bouret et al. (2018) Jokila et al. (2019) Nori (2012) Tervonen et al. (2018)

Some of the articles belong to more than one category.

Results

Neighborhood segregation as a contributor behind school differences

Description of the context

Several of the reviewed articles focused on neighborhood segregation as a contributor behind the differences between educational institutions (n = 13) in Finland. Since Finnish comprehensive schools admit pupils almost exclusively from their allocated catchment area with few exceptions, the neighborhood characteristics are essential in schools’ pupil composition. The characteristics of the families living in the neighborhood are reflected in the pupils’ characteristics in the school. However, certain options for school choice (presented in the next section) indicate that schools are more segregated than neighborhoods (Riitaoja, 2010). Nevertheless, it has been concluded that neighborhood segregation is the central factor behind school segregation (Bernelius, 2011; Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016).

Findings

Reviewed studies have mainly been conducted in urban areas, meaning especially the Southern parts of Finland. Especially in the metropolitan area of Helsinki, the socioeconomic differences between school catchment areas have been growing during the last 20 years, and thus schools operate in distinctly varying environments (Bernelius, 2015). Many parents appear to be content with their local school (Kosunen, 2015; Kosunen and Carrasco, 2016). However, some studies have discovered that parents make decisions on where to live based on school catchment area composition (Bernelius, 2011; Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016; Bernelius and Vilkama, 2019; Dhalmann et al., 2014; Kosunen, 2015). Our review revealed that there are some general circumstances in which such decisions are made more often. It seems that native Finnish families from high socioeconomic backgrounds decide to reject the local school especially in areas where the average income is low and education level low, as well as in areas with a high percentage of immigrants (Bernelius, 2013a, 2013b; Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016; Kosunen and Carrasco, 2016). In addition, an important factor behind these decisions is the reputation of a school and conceptions of the quality of teachers and teaching, which are often based on information shared in parents’ informal social networks (Kosunen, 2015). Such conscious decision strategies are mostly used by native Finns in contrast to families with a migrant background, and thus, such decisions strengthen the segregation between neighborhoods (Bernelius, 2011; Bernelius and Vilkama, 2019). However, some of the reviewed articles suggested that decisions on residence are mainly focused on factors other than educational institutions. Such findings indicate that parents quite often look for child-friendly, safe neighborhoods, and familiar social environments in general, and catchment area composition is a side effect of the decision-making (Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016; Dhalmann et al., 2014; Kosunen and Carrasco, 2016; Kosunen and Rivière, 2018). However, consideration of the school environment is becoming increasingly important in decisions on residence (Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016).

As an overview of neighborhood segregation, the clearest divisions are between the areas with high and low socioeconomic status (Bernelius and Vaattovaara, 2016), native and migrant population (Bernelius, 2013a, 2013b; Kosunen and Carrasco, 2016), and, quite interestingly, migrant and Swedish-speaking population (Riitaoja, 2010). Due to catchment area principles, the same divisions show between schools.

Segregation of neighborhoods has an association with learning outcomes, educational attitudes, and educational choices. The learning outcomes and educational attitudes of a school can be predicted by the socioeconomic status of parents, neighborhoods and schools, and the average price per square meter of apartments in the area (Bernelius, 2011). In the areas with higher socioeconomic status and apartment prices, the learning outcomes are better, attitudes toward education are more positive and educational paths are longer. In addition, the higher the school’s socioeconomic status, the more satisfied the parents are with the school (Tikkanen, 2019). There is also an association with a high socioeconomic status of a neighborhood and the availability of and tendency to utilize school choice via emphasized classes (Kosunen et al., 2020; Varjo et al., 2014), which is discussed in detail in the next section.

School choice in emphasized classes in transition to lower secondary school as a source of segregation

Description of the context

The largest proportion of the reviewed articles (n = 18) focused on the question of so-called emphasized classes in the Finnish lower secondary schools. Even though the base rule for the Finnish comprehensive schools’ pupil selection is to admit pupils from the allocated catchment area, one of the major exceptions to the rule are the emphasized classes. They are selective classes in the lower secondary school that offer supplementary teaching within a public basic education school in a subject such as music, physical education, mathematics, science, or a foreign language (e.g. Kosunen et al., 2020). The selective procedures in these classes often combine grade-based selection that takes a pupil’s grade point average into consideration, and aptitude tests in the emphasized subject. Municipalities can decide to which extent options for emphasized classes are offered (see, for example, Varjo et al., 2014). The schools providing emphasized classes have more financial resources for the specific emphasized purposes, the teachers recruited to the schools have specific expertise on teaching the emphasized subjects, the class sizes can be smaller than regular schools, and the schools may be capable of providing individual teaching for pupils in the emphasized subjects. Parents’ associations of the schools especially regards to emphasized classes can be really actively involved in supporting the school’s activities, teachers’ work and pupils’ learning, and studies there. Most of the research on this topic focuses on large urban areas.

Findings

The selective criteria for the emphasized classes are clear and unambiguous, and they do not allow pupils’ family background to influence admissions (Mäntylä, 2015). However, a myriad of research has shown that socioeconomic status has a strong effect on who actually applies to the emphasized classes (Bourdieu, 1986; Kalalahti et al., 2015a, 2015b; Kosunen, 2015; Kosunen and Seppänen, 2015; Kosunen et al., 2016, 2020; Poikolainen, 2011; Seppänen et al., 2012; Silvennoinen et al., 2015; Varjo et al., 2014). Highly educated mothers, in particular, are active in utilizing these options (Kalalahti et al., 2015a; Kosunen, 2012; Poikolainen, 2011, 2012). Thus, the practice that is intended to support pupils’ personal interests and learning is likely to create socioeconomic segregation. As expected, the reviewed articles show that the pupils who actually attend emphasized classes have a background of performing well in their earlier education and are from high socioeconomic backgrounds (Kalalahti et al., 2015a, 2015b; Silvennoinen et al., 2015). The admission criteria are based on skills that are seemingly independent of socioeconomic status. However, the criteria favor families that are able to provide early non-formal education in, for example, music or sports, thereby benefiting in selections (Kosunen and Seppänen, 2015). Such non-formal activities are mostly utilized by families from high socioeconomic backgrounds. However, there are even larger-scale associations between socioeconomic status and emphasized classes on the level of residential area or even municipalities. Overall, families who live in high socioeconomic status areas are more likely to consider emphasized classes (Kalalahti et al., 2015b; Kosunen et al., 2020). They sometimes use emphasized classes as a way to avoid a local, less prestigious school, especially when the proportion of immigrants is high in the pupil population (Bernelius, 2013b; Kosunen, 2012; Kosunen et al., 2016). Socioeconomic composition and even the political emphasis of a municipality can influence the availability of emphasized classes, and thus, possibly create socioeconomic segregation between schools in neighboring municipalities. In the municipalities with higher socioeconomic status, emphasized classes are offered more, whereas municipalities with lower socioeconomic status and a leftist ethos offer fewer emphasized classes (Varjo et al., 2014). An interesting aspect of emphasized classes is that it creates socioeconomic segregation even within schools (Kosunen et al., 2016, 2020). This could be important for the consequences of the segregation that emphasized classes create, because class composition is more important to identity development than school composition (Peltola, 2021). In our review, we also found an interesting contrasting finding to the previously mentioned trend of high socioeconomic status families being active in emphasized class selections. Some of the families that match the type commonly eager to apply to emphasized classes (native, high socioeconomic background) make the conscious decision to forgo this option if they consider the local school to be satisfactory (Poikolainen, 2011, 2012).

The main part of the reviewed research on emphasized classes focuses on socioeconomic status as the source of segregation. However, one study revealed that pupils with high support needs are not well represented in emphasized classes: schools that offer emphasized classes do not offer special needs classes (Lempinen et al., 2016). Thus, the practice of emphasized classes appears to create schools (and classes) with high socioeconomic status and low (or no) special education support need pupils in contrast with schools with low socioeconomic status and high special education support need pupils.

Even though there is robust evidence of segregation in emphasized classes especially in urban areas, our review revealed that little research has focused on the consequences of this practice. However, Berisha and Seppänen (2017) have found that school performance is higher in the emphasized classes compared with other classes in the same school. In addition, Bernelius and Vaattovaara (2016) discovered that school choice leads to a growing gap in learning outcomes between the strongest and weakest school (see also Bernelius, 2013a). It is not known whether this effect is independent of the effect of high socioeconomic background (e.g. Bernelius, 2011), in other words, whether attending an emphasized class in itself has a direct effect on learning outcomes. Since the socioeconomic status of the peer group is also associated with learning outcomes, regardless of pupil’s own socioeconomic status (Bernelius, 2015), the cumulation of high socioeconomic status pupils in emphasized classes may have direct consequences on learning outcomes. However, growing success in certain schools attracts more well-performing pupils (Bernelius, 2013a), deepening the segregation, but further making it difficult to make inferences. With the scarcity of evidence on learning outcomes, the choice to apply to an emphasized class is often an emotional rather than a rational decision, based on informal information gained from peers (Kosunen, 2015; Poikolainen, 2011).

Choice of the upper secondary track as a source of educational segregation

Description of the context

Some of the reviewed articles focused on the choice of the upper secondary track as a source of segregation of educational institutions (n = 9). In the Finnish educational system, the transition to upper secondary education marks the end of the basic education that is common for all. It is the first stage in Finnish students’ educational path when significant educational choices are made. This transition also marked the end of compulsory education for which all expenses were covered until 2021, when free education was extended to the end of upper secondary education until 18/19 years of age. Before the reform, students had three options: (1) to continue in general upper secondary education, (2) to continue in vocational education, and (3) to drop out of the educational system altogether. The third option was later removed with the reform of lengthened compulsory education. However, the research reviewed here was conducted before this reform. It is important to note that the Finnish system does not have educational dead ends: both tracks of the upper secondary education, namely general academic and vocational tracks, give eligibility for higher education studies. The choice between the options is free for everyone.

Findings

The reviewed research showed that there are strong norms that govern the choice process, including social class, gender, sexuality, and ethnicity (Brunila et al., 2011). In particular, the effect of socioeconomic and immigration status and gender have been explored in research as sources of segregation of the tracks in upper secondary education. Parental education, along with parental employment, has been found to have a strong influence on the choice of the track, and this influence has been increasing in recent decades (Härkönen and Sirniö, 2020; Kalalahti et al., 2017). On average, students with highly educated parents tend to continue in the general upper secondary education while there is more variation in students with lower educated parents: most often they choose vocational education, but the general track is an option for many of them as well (Härkönen and Sirniö, 2020; Vanhalakka-Ruoho et al., 2018). In addition, a poor financial situation and the place of residence can influence the choice, especially in rural areas where some of the options may be located far away from home (Armila et al., 2018). Migration status by itself does not have an effect on the preference or the choice of the track (Kalalahti et al., 2017; Varjo et al., 2020), but the socioeconomic effect is relevant for migrants as well as natives. However, students with a migration background may end up attending the vocational track due to, for example, lack of language skills (Varjo et al., 2020), even when they have higher aspirations and positive attitudes toward education (Kalalahti et al., 2017, 2020). In contrast, native students often choose the vocational track purposefully, with a quick transition to work life in mind (Varjo et al., 2020). In regard to gender, girls have been found to be more likely to attend the general track than boys (Armila et al., 2018; Kalalahti et al., 2020). Finally, Niemi and Kurki (2014) found that students with high support needs are often encouraged to choose such a track that has ready support available instead of their preferred choice—thus leading to a cumulation of students with support needs in certain vocational tracks. As an overview, students with different backgrounds and genders are on average attracted to different tracks in the upper secondary school, but there is no heavy segregation. It appears that the clearest division is with students from high socioeconomic backgrounds rarely attending the vocational track, while in the general track there is more variation in socioeconomic backgrounds.

The consequences of the choice of track are twofold. The choice has a substantial effect on education attainment, as students in the general track are much more likely to continue to higher education (Härkönen and Sirniö, 2020), despite this also being possible for students in the vocational track. This likelihood of attending higher education has more far-reaching consequences. Those students who complete the general track have a higher socioeconomic status in the future, mainly because of the likelihood of their attending higher education, rather than the choice of track (Heiskala et al., 2021). However, there is no difference in employment later in life between the tracks (Heiskala et al., 2021).

Access to higher education as a source of educational segregation

Description of the context

Some of the reviewed articles (n = 6) focused on segregation in transition to higher education, emphasizing the access to higher education. While this is not strictly speaking segregation of educational institutions, it can be seen as segregation between higher education institutions and population without a higher education degree. Many of the differences between students with and without access to higher education crystallize into choices made in the transition to the upper secondary level. As shown above, these choices are associated with socioeconomic and other background variables. As a rule, students in the general track are much more likely to enter higher education than their peers in the vocational track (e.g. Härkönen and Sirniö, 2020). Consequently, at least in part due to the earlier choices that are influenced by socioeconomic background and academic achievement, students who gain access to a higher education institution have more highly educated and well-to-do parents compared with the general population (Nori, 2012). In upper secondary education, students make not only the choice between the tracks, but also the choice between schools within each track. Thus, high-achieving students accumulate in certain schools. However, Tervonen et al. (2018) have showed that attending a high-achieving school does not have a direct influence on access to higher education.

Findings

Our review revealed that there are some more direct segregating factors in access to higher education. Until recently, higher education admissions in Finland have been based on disciplinary-specific entrance examinations. In contrast to many higher education institutions internationally, students can enter higher education only after entrance examinations, which are relatively strict and competitive in many domains and fields. Due to the competition and limited amount of study places in higher education, private tutoring courses have been identified as an essential help in succeeding in entrance examinations and thus gaining access to higher education (Jokila et al., 2019). However, several problems have been pinpointed in this practice. Jokila et al. (2019) have found that private tutoring courses are available mostly in larger cities, and that the high cost of the courses increases with the selectivity of the study field. Thus, the financial resources of the family and the geographical location limit access to higher education. In general, a higher education student is more likely to originate from urban rather than rural areas (Nori, 2012). Consequently, the educational sphere after secondary school becomes stratified with urban students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds accumulating in higher education institutions (Isopahkala-Bouret et al., 2018; Nori, 2012). Such dynamics lead to the cumulation of resources, as completion of higher education leads to higher socioeconomic status (Heiskala et al., 2021).

Discussion

Our systematic review study identified four sources of segregation of educational institutions especially in the Finnish educational context, namely, neighborhood segregation, emphasized classes, transition to upper secondary education, and transition to higher education. The majority of the reviewed studies focused on emphasized classes and neighborhood segregation. Lower secondary education is highlighted more than the other educational stages in the current research. As described, these all have relatively unique characteristics in the Finnish context and firmly tied to the several contextual factors regarding the Finnish society, educational system and its various stages, financial resources, and composition of the population.

The findings of our review showed that there is evidence of segregation of educational institutions in the transitions that allow major choices and are based on regional segregation. However, it turned out that research exploring the consequences of this segregation is quite scarce and the findings are not conclusive. The main driver of segregation appears to be the socioeconomic background of families, pupils, and students as is found in several previous international studies conducted in more heterogeneous and diverse contexts. While segregation is found in the studies we reviewed, it is important to note that none of the choices in the Finnish educational system are fateful in a sense that the system does allow returning to earlier phases at any time. It is also important to note that despite the found indications of segregation of educational institutions, a recent government report has shown that in a global perspective, the differences in learning outcomes between Finnish comprehensive schools are quite small (Metsämuuronen and Nousiainen, 2021), even when compared with another model country of equality, namely Sweden (Modin et al., 2015). In addition, taking a vocational track in upper secondary education does not hurt employability when compared with the general track (Heiskala et al., 2021). Nevertheless, there are indications that inequalities are increasing in the Finnish context as well (Bernelius, 2015). Even if the current situation is good compared with other countries, this trend needs to be acknowledged and explored rather than lulling into an ethos of equal education. It would be very important to identify what are the unique characteristics of these internationally well-known phenomena and factors related to educational segregation especially in small and relatively homogeneous Finland. Knowing nuances would be necessary since they would help in understanding the mechanisms especially in the Finnish context. Only through understanding and recognizing segregation and its contributors, it is possible to pursue the Finnish ideal of equal educational opportunities, as well as try to prevent and tackle courses of educational segregation.

There are some limitations in the present review study. The literature search on peer-reviewed articles relied on selected databases that particularly include research conducted in the Finnish context. The search resulted in relatively few articles. In addition, the reviewed studies were conducted by a small number of Finnish researchers, most of them with the small number of the participants (see Appendix 1), and they focused mainly on a few urban areas. The research themes related to the segregation of educational institutions in the Finnish context turned out to be limited and scattered with unconnected aspects and trends. Some researchers shied away from using concepts such as segregation or stratification (possibly because from a global perspective the phenomenon is relatively small). Furthermore, most researchers who used the concept of segregation did not conceptualize or elaborate it thoroughly. It was often defined narrowly without the clear linkages to earlier concept definitions or theories in the field. In the present review, scarce use of the concept of segregation led us to expand our searched keywords beyond segregation to school choice in order to capture an overview of the phenomenon of segregation of educational institutions as we define it. The lack of unity in the concepts may also hinder coherence: the body of research lacks an institutional and structural systemic approach and an individual-level developmental approach. If these approaches were taken, it would be possible to coherently and comprehensively grasp either the contextual processes or the individual developmental trends that lead to segregation. In addition, the lack of extensive linkages to earlier international research may hinder understanding of the phenomena and their contextual and decontextual characteristics.

Future research on the segregation of educational institutions in Finland should put more emphasis on comprehensive and systemic study designs and on the individual-level life-course trajectories and consequences of the institutional-level segregation. We already have a very good idea of the contributors of segregation, but we are still rather unsure as to whether it makes much difference from the point of view of the pupil’s or student’s educational outcomes. There is a myriad of factors that contribute to learning outcomes and educational attainment. Some of them, such as a sense of belonging in education, may even lead to contradictory conclusions on the consequences of segregation [a reference removed for peer review process]. An intersectional approach, that is, recognizing that individuals can belong to multiple social groups and contexts simultaneously, should be emphasized in future research. The current research mostly focuses on the individual dimensions of inequality but research shows that these dimensions do interact with one another (e.g. Zimmermann and Seiler, 2019).

Educational policies and practices can only be viewed and developed in their context. This review on segregation in educational institutions in Finland reminds even international audience about the interconnected systemic nature of education and society, and educational reforms should always bear this mind. The comprehensive basic education has often been seen as the core of the equal Finnish education system (Pekkala Kerr et al., 2013; Sahlberg, 2007; Toom et al., 2010). However, even good systems have gaps, in this the case external influence of residential segregation through catchment areas, internal influence of a later-stage modification of emphasized classes, and stages after the comprehensive basic education, namely upper secondary and higher education. Thus, in striving for equality and equity, a systemic approach should be adopted.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1

Articles, their sample sizes, and methods used.

Reference	Sample	Method
Armila et al. (2018)	35	Qualitative, interview
Berisha and Seppänen (2017)	1300	Quantitative, register data
Bernelius (2011)	6823	Quantitative, survey data, performance assessment
Bernelius (2013a)	Helsinki school catchment areas	Quantitative, register data
Bernelius (2013b)	Helsinki school catchment areas	Quantitative, register data
Bernelius (2015)	Helsinki, Espoo, Vantaa upper secondary schools	Quantitative, register data
Bernelius and Vaattovaara (2016)	3000	Quantitative, register data, survey
Bernelius and Vilkama (2019)	Helsinki school catchment areas	Qualitative, register data
Brunila et al. (2011)	Several datasets	Qualitative, ethnographic, interview
Dhalmann et al. (2014)	637, 57	Mixed-methods, survey, interview
Heiskala et al. (2021)	All individuals born in 1976	Quantitative, register data
Härkönen and Sirniö (2020)	1664550	Quantitative, register data
Isopahkala-Bouret et al. (2018)	n/a	Review study
Jokila et al. (2019)	n/a	Qualitative, document analysis
Kalalahti et al. (2015a)	2617	Quantitative, survey
Kalalahti et al. (2015b)	2617	Quantitative, survey
Kalalahti et al. (2017)	441	Quantitative, survey
Kalalahti et al. (2020)	357, 86	Mixed-methods, survey, interview
Kosunen (2012)	7	Qualitative, interview
Kosunen (2015)	95	Qualitative, interview
Kosunen et al. (2016)	2400, 96	Mixed-methods, register data, interview
Kosunen et al. (2020)	2400	Quantitative, register data
Kosunen and Carrasco (2016)	96	Qualitative, register data
Kosunen and Rivière (2018)	170	Qualitative, interview
Kosunen and Seppänen (2015)	33	Qualitative, interview
Lempinen et al. (2016)	1428	Quantitative, register data
Mäntylä et al. (2015)	n/a	Quantitative, document analysis
Niemi and Kurki (2014)	67	Qualitative, ethnographic, interview
Nori (2012)	n/a	Quantitative, register data
Peltola (2020)	46	Qualitative, interview
Poikolainen (2011)	374, 76	Mixed-methods, survey, interview
Poikolainen (2012)	374, 76	Mixed-methods, survey, interview
Riitaoja (2010)	Helsinki residents below 15 years of age	Quantitative, register data
Seppänen et al. (2012)	1336	Quantitative, register data
Silvennoinen et al. (2015)	2617	Quantitative, survey
Tervonen et al. (2018)	Register of applicants in secondary education 2000–2008 and other registers	Quantitative, register data
Tikkanen (2019)	318	Quantitative, survey
Vanhalakka-Ruoho et al. (2018)	16	Qualitative, interview
Varjo et al. (2014)	1699	Quantitative, survey
Varjo et al. (2020)	113	Qualitative, interview

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The PIONEERED project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement no. 101004392. The content provided in this paper reflects the authors’ views only. Neither the Research Executive Agency (REA) nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

ORCID iD

Katri Kleemola

References

Ahonen

(2003) Yhteinen koulu: Tasa-arvoa vai tasapäisyyttä? : koulutuksellinen tasa-arvo Suomessa Snellmanista tähän päivään. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Armila

Käyhkö

Pöysä

(2018) On the educational edges of a learning society: The Finnish hinterland as a framework of educational choices for young people. Journal of Youth Studies 21(9): 1198–1215.

Bearman

Smith

Carbone

, et al. (2012) Systematic review methodology in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development 31(5): 625–640.

Berisha

A-K

Seppänen

(2017) Pupil selection segments urban comprehensive schooling in Finland: Composition of school classes in pupils’ school performance, gender, and ethnicity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 61(2): 240–254.

Bernelius

(2011) Osoitteenmukaisia oppimistuloksia? Kaupunkikoulujen eriytymisen vaikutus peruskoululaisten oppimistuloksiin Helsingissä. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 76(5): 479–493.

Bernelius

(2013a) Koululaiset kaupungissa: Kouluvalintoja ohjaavat naapurustojen piirteet ja valintojen vaikutus koulujen eriytymiseen Helsingissä. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu 51(1): 8–27.

Bernelius

(2013b) Koulut ja kaupunkikehitys: Helsingin peruskoulujen kytkeytyminen asuinalueiden sosiaaliseen ja etniseen eriytymiseen. Terra 125(1): 3–18.

Bernelius

(2015) Pääkaupunkiseudun koulujen naapurustot—missä erot kasvavat? Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 80(6): 635–642. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2015121023629

Bernelius

Huilla

(2021) Koulutuksellinen tasa-arvo, alueellinen ja sosiaalinen eriytyminen ja myönteisen erityiskohtelun mahdollisuudet. Helsinki: Valtioneuvoston julkaisuja, Finnish Government, 2021.

10.

Bernelius

Vaattovaara

(2016) Choice and segregation in the “most egalitarian” schools: Cumulative decline in urban schools and neighbourhoods of Helsinki, Finland. Urban Studies 53(15): 3155–3171.

11.

Bernelius

Vilkama

(2019) Pupils on the move: School catchment area segregation and residential mobility of urban families. Urban Studies 56(15): 3095–3116.

12.

Bourdieu

(1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson

(ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, pp. 241–258.

13.

Brunila

Kurki

Lahelma

, et al. (2011) Multiple transitions: Educational policies and young people’s post-compulsory choices. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 55(3): 307–324.

14.

Dhalmann

Vaattovaara

Vilkama

(2014) Hyvää kasvuympäristöä etsimässä: Asuinalueen ja koulun merkitys lapsiperheiden muuttopäätöksille pääkaupunkiseudulla. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu 51(4): 11–29.

15.

DiPrete

Eirich

(2006) Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology 32(1): 271–297.

16.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008) The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62(1): 107–115.

17.

Hadjar

Gross

(2016) Education Systems and Inequalities. Bristol: Policy Press.

18.

Härkönen

Sirniö

(2020) Educational transitions and educational inequality: A multiple pathways sequential logit model analysis of Finnish Birth Cohorts 1960–1985. European Sociological Review 36(5): 700–719.

19.

Heiskala

Erola

McMullin

(2021) Formal differentiation at upper secondary education in Finland: Subject-level choices and stratified pathways to socio-economic status and unemployment. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies 12(3): 323–343.

20.

Isopahkala-Bouret

Börjesson

Beach

, et al. (2018) Access and stratification in Nordic higher education. A review of cross-cutting research themes and issues. Education Inquiry 9(1): 142–154.

21.

Jokila

Haltia

Kosunen

(2019) Valmennuskurssit ja korkeakoulumarkkinoiden maantiede. Tiedepolitiikka 44(3): 18–28.

22.

Kalalahti

Jahnukainen

Kivirauma

, et al. (2020) Koulutuspolun löytämistä ja sitoutumista: Toisen asteen opintojen uudelleensuuntaaminen ja maahanmuuttotaustaisuus. Kasvatus 51(4): 409–425.

23.

Kalalahti

Silvennoinen

Varjo

(2015a) Kouluvalinnat kykyjen mukaan?–Erot painotettuun opetukseen valikoitumisessa. Kasvatus 46: 19–35.

24.

Kalalahti

Silvennoinen

Varjo

(2015b) Vuorovaikutusta ja valintoja: Vanhempien osallisuus lasten koulusaavutusten ja kouluvalintojen taustalla. Nuorisotutkimus 33(3–4): 37–58.

25.

Kalalahti

Varjo

Zacheus

, et al. (2017) Maahanmuuttajataustaisten nuorten toisen asteen koulutusvalinnat. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 82(1): 33–44. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201702161715

26.

Kauppinen

Mukkila

(2022) Lähiöalueiden väestörakenteen kehitys suurissa kaupungeissa vuosina 1995–2019. Helsinki: Finnish institute for health and welfare (THL).

27.

Kosunen

(2012) “Meillä on siis kouluja, joista ne tulee: Siis Suomen eliitti”–Keskiluokan lasten kouluvalinnat pois lähikoulusta. Kasvatus 43(1): 7–19.

28.

Kosunen

(2015) Reputation and parental logics of action in local school choice space in Finland. Journal of Education Policy 29(4): 443–466.

29.

Kosunen

Carrasco

(2016) Parental preferences in school choice: Comparing reputational hierarchies of schools in Chile and Finland. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 46(2): 172–193.

30.

Kosunen

Rivière

(2018) Alone or together in the neighbourhood? School choice and families’ access to local social networks. Children’s Geographies 16(2): 143–155.

31.

Kosunen

Seppänen

(2015) The transmission of capital and a feel for the game: Upper-class school choice in Finland. Acta Sociologica 58(4): 329–342.

32.

Kosunen

Bernelius

Seppänen

, et al. (2020) School choice to lower secondary schools and mechanisms of segregation in Urban Finland. Urban Education 55(10): 1461–1488.

33.

Kosunen

Seppänen

Bernelius

(2016) Naapurustojen segregaatio ja kaupunkilaisperheiden eriytyvät kouluvalintastrategiat. Kasvatus 47(3): 230–244.

34.

Lehti

Erola

(2017) How do aunts and uncles compensate for low parental education in children’s educational attainment? In: Erola

Kilpi-Jakonen

(eds) Social Inequality Across the Generations. Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 89–111.

35.

Lehti

Erola

Tanskanen

(2019) Tying the extended family knot—Grandparents’ influence on educational achievement. European Sociological Review 35(1): 29–48.

36.

Lempinen

Berisha

A-K

Seppänen

(2016) Inkluusion ja kouluvalinnan dilemma: Oppilaan tuen taso ja yläkoulujen oppilaaksiotto Turussa. Kasvatus 47(2): 125–138.

37.

Mäntylä

(2015) Valittamalla eliittikouluun? Kunnallistieteellinen Aikakauskirja 43(3): 197–210.

38.

Massey

Denton

(1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces 67(2): 281–315.

39.

Metsämuuronen

Nousiainen

(2021) Matematiikkaa COVID-19-Pandemian Varjossa. Matematiikan Osaaminen 9. Luokan Lopussa Keväällä 2021. Jyväskylä: Kansallinen koulutuksen arviointikeskus, 2021.

40.

Modin

Karvonen

Rahkonen

, et al. (2015) School performance, school segregation, and stress-related symptoms: Comparing Helsinki and Stockholm. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 26(3): 467–486.

41.

Niemi

A-M

Kurki

(2014) Getting on the right track? Educational choice-making of students with special educational needs in pre-vocational education and training. Disability & Society 29(10): 1631–1644.

42.

Nori

(2012) Koulutuksellisen tasa-arvon toteutuminen yliopistojen porteilla: Hakijoiden taustat ja niiden yhteys opiskelemaan pääsyyn. Tiedepolitiikka 37(1): 7–18.

43.

OECD (2019) Education at a Glance 2019. OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD.

44.

Pekkala Kerr

Pekkarinen

Uusitalo

(2013) School tracking and development of cognitive skills. Journal of Labor Economics 31(3): 577–602.

45.

Peltola

(2021) Everyday consequences of selectiveness. Borderwork in the informal sphere of a lower secondary school in the metropolitan area of Helsinki, Finland. British Journal of Sociology of Education 42(1): 97–112.

46.

Petticrew

Roberts

(2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

47.

Poikolainen

(2011) “Miksi valita jo peruskouluvaiheessa?”: Vanhempien kouluvalintastrategiat. Kasvatus 42(2): 131–143.

48.

Poikolainen

(2012) A case study of parents’ school choice strategies in a Finnish urban context. European Educational Research Journal 11(1): 127–144.

49.

Ramos Lobato

(2020) School Segregation in Urban Contexts: Socio-Spatial Dynamics and Educational Inequalities (Urbaria summaries series). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.

50.

Reardon

Owens

(2014) 60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology 40: 199–218.

51.

Riitaoja

A-L

(2010) Asuinalueiden ja koulujen eriytyminen Helsingissä–yhteiskunnalliset ja kasvatukselliset haasteet. Terra 122(3): 137–151.

52.

Sahlberg

(2007) Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy 22(2): 147–171.

53.

Seppänen

Rinne

Sairanen

(2012) Suomalaisen yhtenäiskoulun eriytyvät koulutiet: Oppilasvalikointi perusopetuksessa, esimerkkinä Turun koulumarkkinat. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 77(1): 17–33. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe201209117908

54.

Silvennoinen

Kalalahti

Varjo

(2015) Why fix something that is not broken? The implementation of school choice policy and parental attitudes towards equality and uniformity of comprehensive school system in Finland. Athens Journal of Education 2(1): 37–52.

55.

Skopek

Triventi

Buchholz

(2019) How do educational systems affect social inequality of educational opportunities? The role of tracking in comparative perspective. In: Becker

(ed.) Research Handbook on the Sociology of Education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 214–232.

56.

Tervonen

Kortelainen

Kanninen

(2018) Eliittilukioiden vaikutukset yliopisto-opintojen aloittamiseen ja koulutusalan valintaan. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka 83(4): 374–386.

57.

Thrupp

Seppänen

Kauko

, et al. (eds) (2023) Finland’s Famous Education System: Unvarnished Insights into Finnish Schooling. Berlin: Springer.

58.

Tikkanen

(2019) Parental school satisfaction in the context of segregation of basic education in urban Finland. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 5(3): 165–179.

59.

Toom

Kynäslahti

Krokfors

, et al. (2010) Experiences of a research-based approach to teacher education: Suggestions for future policies. European Journal of Education 45(2): 331–344.

60.

Vanhalakka-Ruoho

Silvonen

Koski

, et al. (2018) Nuori ja perhe: Toimintakäytäntöjä, merkityksenantoja ja suunnanottoja koulutussiirtymissä. Nuorisotutkimus 36(2): 19–34.

61.

Varjo

Kalalahti

Jahnukainen

(2020) The reasoning behind the envisioned educational trajectories of young people from Finnish and immigrant origins. Education Inquiry 11(4): 360–378.

62.

Varjo

Kalalahti

Silvennoinen

(2014) Families, school choice, and democratic iterations on the right to education and freedom of education in Finnish municipalities. Journal of School Choice 8(1): 20–48.

63.

Zimmermann

Seiler

(2019) The relationship between educational pathways and occupational outcomes at the intersection of gender and social origin. Social Inclusion 7(3): 79–94.