This study seeks to explore the effect of tools of school governance advanced by the global reform agenda (1) on student performance and (2) on reducing the effect of sociodemographic variables on this performance. To do so, we compare two Nordic welfare states with an egalitarian tradition: Sweden and Finland. The Swedish school system has undergone comprehensive market-based and accountability-driven reforms beginning in the early 1990s. The Finnish school system is still based on the professional trusteeship of teachers, but has moderately implemented reforms of decentralization, enhancing school autonomy and opportunities of school or curriculum choice beginning in the late 1990s. Our analysis comprises of two steps. In the first step, a literature review of the reforms and their effects in Sweden and Finland is carried out. In the second step, regression analyses are conducted using data from the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) of 2000, 2009, and 2015. The results show an increasing influence of sociodemographic factors and growing inequality and no effect of governance tools as recommended by the global reform agenda in both countries over time, but more so and earlier in Sweden than in Finland.
AndereE (2020) The Future of Schools and Teacher Education: How Far Ahead is Finland?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AnderssonEKHennerdalPMalmbergB (2021) The re-emergence of educational inequality during a period of reforms: A study of Swedish school leavers 1991–2012. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science48: 685–705.
3.
AvvisatiF (2020) The measure of socioeconomic status in PISA: A review and some suggested improvements. Large-scale Assessments in Education8(1): 1–37.
4.
BallSJ (2012) Global Education Inc. New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. London and New York: Routledge.
5.
BarberMMourshedM (2007) How the Worlds’ Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top. London: McKinsey & Company.
6.
BartkoJJ (1966) The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability. Psychological Reports19(1): 3–11.
7.
BeachD (2018) Structural Injustices in Swedish Education. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
8.
BeachDSernhedeO (2011) From learning to labour to learning for marginality: School segregation and marginalization in Swedish suburbs. British Journal of Sociology of Education32(2): 257–274.
9.
BehtouiAHertzbergFJonssonR, et al. (2019) Sweden: The otherization of the descendants of immigrants. In: StevensPAJDworkinAG (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Race and Ethnic Inequalities in Education. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.999–1034.
10.
BerishaAKSeppänenP (2017) Pupil selection segments urban comprehensive schooling in Finland: Composition of school classes in pupils’ school performance, gender, and ethnicity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research61(2): 240–254.
11.
BerneliusV (2013) Eriytyvät kaupunkikoulut: Helsingin peruskoulujen oppilaspo- hjan erot, perheiden kouluvalinnat ja oppimistuloksiin liittyvät aluevaikutukset osana kaupungin eriytymiskehitystä [Growing Gaps in Urban Schools: School Segregation, School Choices and Neighbourhood Effects on Educational Attainment in the Process of Urban Segregation in Helsinki]. Research publication series Tutkimuksia 1/2013. Helsinki, Finland: City of Helsinki Urban Facts.
12.
BerneliusVVaattovaaraM (2016) Choice and segregation in the ‘most egalitarian’ schools: Cumulative decline in urban schools and neighbourhoods of Helsinki, Finland. Urban Studies53(15): 3155–3171.
13.
BerneliusVVilkamaK (2019) Pupils on the move: School catchment area segregation and residential mobility of urban families. Urban Studies56(15): 3095–3116.
14.
BjörklundAClarkMAEdinP-A, et al. (2005) The Market Comes to Education in Sweden: An Evaluation of Sweden’s Surprising School Reforms. New York, NY: Russell SAGE Foundation.
15.
BjörklundAEdinP-AFredrikssonP, et al. (2004) Education, equality and efficiency – An analysis of Swedish school reforms during the 1990s. Report 2004:1. Uppsala: Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation.
16.
BlasiusJThiessenV (2015) Should we trust survey data? Assessing response simplification and data fabrication. Social Science Research52: 479–493.
17.
BöhlmarkAHolmlundHLindahlM (2016) Parental choice, neighbourhood segregation or cream skimming? An analysis of school segregation after a generalized choice reform. Journal of Population Economics29(4): 1155–1190.
18.
BöhlmarkALindahlM (2007) The impact of school choice on pupil achievement, segregation and costs: Swedish evidence. IZA Discussion Paper, Bonn, No. 2786.
19.
BoudonR (1974) Education, Opportunity, and Social Inequality. Changing Prospects in Western Society. New York, NY: Wiley.
20.
BourdieuP (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
BourdieuP (1998) The State Nobility: Elite Schools in the Field of Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
22.
BourdieuPPasseronJC (1990) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: SAGE.
23.
BrandénMBirkelundGESzulkinR (2019) Ethnic composition of schools and students’ educational outcomes: Evidence from Sweden. International Migration Review53(2): 486–517.
24.
BreenRJonssonJO (2005) Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology31(1): 223–243.
25.
BurgerK (2019) The socio-spatial dimension of educational inequality: A comparative European analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation62: 171–186.
26.
ChmielewskiAK (2014) An international comparison of achievement inequality in within- and between-school tracking systems. American Journal of Education120(3): 293–324.
27.
ChmielewskiAK (2019) The global increase in the socioeconomic achievement gap, 1964 to 2015. American Sociological Review84(3): 517–544.
28.
ChmielewskiAKReardonSF (2016) Patterns of cross-national variation in the association between income and academic achievement. AERA Open2(3): 2332858416649593.
29.
Courtney SJ and Gunter HM (2015) Get off my bus! School leaders, vision work and the elimination of teachers. International Journal of Leadership in Education18(4): 395–417.
30.
DahlstedtMFejesA (2019) Neoliberalism and Market Forces in Education: Lessons From Sweden. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
DovemarkMKosunenSKaukoJ, et al. (2018) Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: Social changes reflected in schooling. Education Inquiry9(1): 122–141.
32.
EriksonRGoldthorpeJH (1992) Individual or family? Results from two approaches to class assignment. Acta Sociologica35(2): 95–105.
33.
FjellmanAMYang HansenKBeachD (2019) School choice and implications for equity: The new political geography of the Swedish upper secondary school market. Educational Review71(4): 518–539.
34.
ForsbergH (2015) A socio-spatial analysis of the Swedish free school reform of 1992 and the marketization of upper secondary education in Stockholm. In: The Association of American Geographers (AAG) Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, 2015.
35.
GoldthorpeJ (2007a) ‘Cultural capital.’ Some critical observations. Sociologica1(2): 1–23.
36.
GoldthorpeJ (2007b) Outline of a theory of social mobility. In: GoldthorpeJ (ed.) On Sociology. Vol. I, Critique and Program. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp.154–185.
37.
GreanyTHighamR (2018) Hierarchy, Markets and Networks: Analysing the ‘Self-Improving School-Led System’ Agenda in England and the Implications for Schools. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.
38.
GrekS (2017) Socialisation, learning and the OECD’s reviews of national policies for education: The case of Sweden. Critical Studies in Education58(3): 295–310.
39.
GrekS (2020) Facing “a tipping point”? The role of the OECD as a boundary organisation in governing education in Sweden. Education Inquiry11(3): 175–195.
40.
GunterHMCourtneySJHallD, et al. (2018) School principals in neoliberal times: A case of luxury leadership? In: SaltmanKJMeansAJ (eds) The Wiley Handbook of Global Educational Reform. New York, NY: Wiley, pp.113–130.
41.
GunterHMMcGinityR (2014) The politics of the Academies programme: Natality and pluralism in education policy-making. Research Papers in Education29(3): 300–314.
42.
GustafssonJEYang HansenK (2018) Changes in the impact of family education on student educational achievement in Sweden 1988–2014. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research62(5): 719–736.
43.
HanbergerACarlbaumSHultA, et al. (2016) School evaluation in Sweden in a local perspective: A synthesis. Education Inquiry7(3): 349–371.
44.
HansenKYGustafssonJE (2016) Causes of educational segregation in Sweden – School choice or residential segregation. Educational Research and Evaluation22(1–2): 23–44.
45.
HansenKYGustafssonJE (2019) Identifying the key source of deteriorating educational equity in Sweden between 1998 and 2014. International Journal of Educational Research93: 79–90.
46.
HansenKYStrietholtR (2018) Does schooling actually perpetuate educational inequality in mathematics performance? A validity question on the measures of opportunity to learn in PISA. ZDM50(4): 643–658.
47.
HanushekEALinkSWoessmannL (2013) Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics104: 212–232.
48.
HanushekEAWoessmannL (2010) The High Cost of Low Educational Performance: The Long- Run Economic Impact of Improving PISA Outcomes. Paris: OECD.
49.
HanushekEAWoessmannL (2015) The Knowledge Capital of Nations: Education and the Economics of Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
Harju-LuukkainenHMcElvanyN (2018) Immigrant student achievement and education policy in Finland. In: VolanteLKlingerDBilgiliO (eds) Immigrant Student Achievement and Education Policy. Cham: Springer, pp.87–102.
51.
Harju-LuukkainenHVettenrantaJWangJ, et al. (2020) Family related variables effect on later educational outcome: A further geospatial analysis on TIMSS 2015 Finland. Large-scale Assessments in Education8(1): 1–13.
52.
HarjunenOKortelainenMSaarimaaT (2018) Best education money can buy? Capitalization of school quality in Finland. CESifo Economic Studies64(2): 150–175.
53.
HennerdalPMalmbergBAnderssonEK (2020) Competition and school performance: Swedish school leavers from 1991–2012. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research64(1): 70–86.
54.
HertelFRGroh-SambergO (2019) The relation between inequality and intergenerational class mobility in 39 countries. American Sociological Review84(6): 1099–1133.
55.
HwaYY (2019) Teacher accountability policy and sociocultural context: A cross-country study focusing on Finland and Singapore. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
56.
JerrimJLopez-AgudoLMarcenaro-GutierrezOD, et al. (2017) What happens when econometrics and psychometrics collide? An example using the PISA data. Economics of Education Review61: 51–58.
57.
JerrimJMicklewrightJ (2014) Socioeconomic gradients in children’s cognitive skills: Are cross-country comparisons robust to who reports family background?European Sociological Review30(6): 766–781.
58.
KalalahtiMVarjoJ (2020) Revisiting universalism in the Finnish education system. Research on Finnish Society12(1): 1–16.
59.
KallsteniusJ (2010) De mångkulturella innerstadsskolorna Om skolval, segregation och utbildningsstrategier i Stockholm. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis.
60.
KaukoJTakalaTRinneR (eds) (2018) Politics of Quality in Education: A Comparative Study of Brazil, China, and Russia. London and New York: Routledge.
61.
KiviraumaJRinneRSeppänenP (2003) Neo-liberal education policy approaching the Finnish shoreline. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies1(1): 513–531.
62.
KomatsuHRappleyeJ (2017) A new global policy regime founded on invalid statistics? Hanushek, Woessmann, PISA, and economic growth. Comparative Education53(2): 166–191.
KosunenS (2014) Reputation and parental logics of action in local school choice space in Finland. Journal of Education Policy29(4): 443–466.
65.
KosunenSBerneliusVSeppänenP, et al. (2020) School choice to lower secondary schools and mechanisms of segregation in urban Finland. Urban Education55(10): 1461–1488.
66.
KosunenSCarrascoA (2016) Parental preferences in school choice: Comparing reputational hierarchies of schools in Chile and Finland. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education46(2): 172–193.
67.
KosunenSSeppänenP (2015) The transmission of capital and a feel for the game: Upper-class school choice in Finland. Acta Sociologica58(4): 329–342.
68.
LiYDervinF (2018) Continuing Professional Development of Teachers in Finland. Cham: Springer.
69.
LöfstedtP (2019) Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes in Swedish schools. In: VolanteLSchnepfSJerrimJ, et al. (eds) Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes. Singapore: Springer, pp.133–152.
70.
LundahlLLindbladM (2018) Immigrant student achievement and education policy in Sweden. In: VolanteLKlingerDBilgiliO (eds) Immigrant Student Achievement and Education Policy. Cham: Springer, pp.69–85.
71.
MeyerH-DBenavotA (eds) (2013) PISA, Power and Policy. The Emergence of Global Educational Governance. Oxford: Symposium Books.
72.
MourshedMChijiokeCBarberM (2010) How the World’s Most Improved School Systems Keep Getting Better. London: McKinsey & Company.
73.
MünchR (2020) Governing the School under Three Decades of Neoliberal Reform: From Educracy to the Education-Industrial Complex. London and New York: Routledge.
74.
OECD (2003) Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow. Paris: OECD.
75.
OECD (2010) The High Cost of Low Educational Performance. The Long-Run Economic Impact of Improving PISA-Outcomes. Paris: OECD.
76.
OECD (2011) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons From PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD.
77.
OECD (2015) Improving Schools in Sweden: An OECD Perspective. Paris: OECD.
78.
OECD (2016) PISA 2015 Results. Volume II. Paris: OECD.
ÖsthJAnderssonEMalmbergB (2013) School choice and increasing performance difference: A counterfactual approach. Urban Studies50(2): 407–425.
82.
Ouakrim-SoivioNRautopuroJHildénR (2018) Shadows under the North Star: The inequality developing in Finnish school education. Nordidactica: Journal of Humanities and Social Science Education2018(3): 65–86.
83.
PaulsrudDWermkeW (2020) Decision-making in context: Swedish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of autonomy. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research64(5): 706–727.
PõderKLauriTVeskiA (2017) Does school admission by zoning affect educational inequality? A study of family background effect in Estonia, Finland, and Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research61(6): 668–688.
86.
PoikolainenJ (2012) A case study of parents’ school choice strategies in a Finnish urban context. European Educational Research Journal11(1): 127–144.
87.
RaynerSMCourtneySJGunterHM (2018) Theorising systemic change: Learning from the academisation project in England. Journal of Education Policy33(1): 143–162.
88.
RutkowskiDRutkowskiL (2013) Measuring socioeconomic background in PISA: One size might not fit all. Research in Comparative and International Education8(3): 259–278.
89.
RutkowskiLRutkowskiD (2016) A call for a more measured approach to reporting and interpreting PISA results. Educational Researcher45(4): 252–257.
90.
SahlbergP (2015) Finnish Lessons 2.0. What Can the World Learn From Educational Change in Finland, 2nd edn.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
91.
SahlbergP (2016) The global educational reform movement and its impact on schooling. In: MundyKGreenALingardB, et al. (eds) The Handbook of Global Education Policy. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp.128–144.
92.
SahlgrenGH (2015) Real Finnish Lessons. The True Story of an Education Superpower. London: Centre for Policy Studies.
93.
Salmela-AroKChmielewskiAK (2019) Socioeconomic inequality and student outcomes in Finnish schools. In: VolanteLSchnepfSJerrimJ, et al. (eds) Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes. Singapore: Springer, pp.153–168.
94.
SalokangasMAinscowM (2017) Inside the Autonomous School: Making Sense of a Global Educational Trend. London and New York: Routledge.
95.
SalokangasMWermkeW (2020) Unpacking autonomy for empirical comparative investigation. Oxford Review of Education46(5): 563–581.
96.
SalokangasMWermkeWHarveyG (2020) Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational Research Journal19: 329–350.
97.
SamuelssonKLindbladS (2015) School management, cultures of teaching and student outcomes: Comparing the cases of Finland and Sweden. Teaching and Teacher Education49: 168–177.
98.
SellarSLingardB (2014) The OECD and the expansion of PISA: New global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal40(6): 917–936.
99.
SeppänenPCarrascoAKalalahtiM, et al. (2015) Contrasting Dynamics in Education Politics of Extremes: School Choice in Chile and Finland. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
100.
SimolaH (2005) The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education41(4): 455–470.
101.
SimolaHKaukoJVarjoJ, et al. (2017) Dynamics in Education Politics: Understanding and Explaining the Finnish Case. London and New York: Routledge.
102.
SimolaHRinneRVarjoJ, et al. (2013) The paradox of the education race: How to win the ranking game by sailing to headwind. Journal of Education Policy28(5): 612–633.
103.
SjøbergS (2019) The PISA-syndrome – How the OECD has hijacked the way we perceive pupils, schools and education. Confero: Essays on Education Philosophy and Politics7(1): 12–65.
104.
Skolverket (2009) What Influences Educational Achievement in Swedish Schools? A Systematic Review and Summary Analysis. Stockholm: National Agency for Education.
105.
Skolverket (2012) Educational Equity in the Swedish School System? A Quantitative Analysis of Equity Over Time. Summary of Report 374. Stockholm: National Agency for Education.
106.
SmithCDHelgertzJScottK (2019) Time and generation: Parents’ integration and children’s school performance in Sweden, 1989-2011. European Journal of Population35(4): 719–750.
TirriK (2014) The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching40(5): 600–609.
110.
TrumbergAUrbanS (2021) School choice and its long-term impact on social mobility in Sweden. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research65(4): 569–583.
111.
Van ZantenA (2005) New modes of reproducing social inequality in education: The changing role of parents, teachers, schools and educational policies. European Educational Research Journal4(3): 155–169.
112.
VarjoJKalalahtiM (2019) The art of governing local education markets – Municipalities and school choice in Finland. Education Inquiry10(2): 151–165.
113.
VarjoJKalalahtiMSilvennoinenH (2014) Families, school choice, and democratic iterations on the right to education and freedom of education in Finnish municipalities. Journal of School Choice8(1): 20–48.
114.
VarjoJLundströmUKalalahtiM (2018) The governors of school markets? Local education authorities, school choice and equity in Finland and Sweden. Research in Comparative and International Education13(4): 481–498.
115.
VergerAParcerisaL (2017) A difficult relationship: Accountability policies and teachers—International evidence and premises for future research. In: AkibaMLeTendreGK (eds) International Handbook of Teacher Quality and Policy. London and New York: Routledge, pp.241–254.
116.
VergerAParcerisaLFontdevilaC (2019) The growth and spread of large-scale assessments and test-based accountabilities: A political sociology of global education reforms. Educational Review71(1): 5–30.
117.
VolanteLSchnepfSVJerrimJ, et al. (eds) (2019) Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes: Cross-National Trends, Policies, and Practices. Singapore: Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
