The research question is: What are differences in how Canadian and Finnish teachers think about teaching for the commons and civil society? The paper takes a theoretical comparative approach to how neoliberalism has influenced teaching for the commons in both countries. It is also informed by Marxist and antiracist considerations. The paper explores how economic and social change influence how societies transmit knowledge in the classroom. The stance taken is that when a nation accepts neoliberalism, it is a detrimental force in the schools and in society at large.

Education is context specific, and comparisons between teachers in two countries so far apart geographically and culturally is problematic (Simola, 2015). I contend, however, that important insights can be gleaned as to the potentiality of teaching for a better world. Indeed, almost all of my scholarly work is based around the premise that teaching and a strong public education system are the basis for a civil society and a strong commons.

The paper begins by a brief discussion of the effects of neoliberalism and its educational offshoot the Global Educational Reform Movement or GERM (Sahlberg, 2011). GERM promotes teacher accountability and supports a business model to evaluate school and teacher effectiveness (Mathison & Ross, 2008). Educational policy in Canada has been greatly influenced by neoliberal discourses (Orlowski 2015, 2014). In Finland, however, there has been strong resistance to these educational reforms (Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2012; Sahlberg, 2011).

The paper examines the role of the formal state-sanctioned curriculum as an influence in how teachers think about economic and social issues. In Finland there is much more freedom for teachers to design pedagogy that is relevant to the lives of their students (Sahlberg (2011). In Canada, by contrast, teacher accountability has replaced teacher responsibility (Orlowski, 2016). Teachers are expected to adhere to the formal curriculum.

The omission of social class as a factor in a student’s identity construction is a common feature of Canadian school curricula (Orlowski, 2011). Many social studies teachers do not teach about class issues (Orlowski, 2017, 2008). As one teacher put it, “Teaching about poverty should be focused on the Third World. Poor people in Canada are not really poor at all when compared to places I’ve been like Egypt.” In general, however, the data demonstrates that Canadian teachers think and teach more about other aspects of civil society that are supported in the formal curriculum such as race and culture from a progressive perspective (Orlowski, 2017, 2011).

In Finland, by comparison, teachers focus on cooperation, class issues, and the commons much more than their Canadian peers. As one Finnish teacher claimed, “We teach about taxes, what they’re used for, and the need to share with each other.” There is a major difference when it comes to multicultural education, however. When asked about making the curriculum more relevant to minorities, a veteran educator claimed: “Immigrant students get a lot of support here, but no, they must learn the same curriculum as the Finnish students.”

There were exceptions in both countries, however, indicating that teacher autonomy is still prevalent enough for teachers to teach about issues they consider important to their students and to civil society. These teachers used what is known as the enacted curriculum (Cornbleth, 1990). They saw themselves as this being part of their teacher identity.

The paper will use the words of the teachers themselves in highlighting the different approaches to teaching for the commons and civil society. It will offer explanations for the different foci of Canadian and Finnish teachers in thinking about the commons and civil society.

References Cornbleth, C. (1990). Curriculum in context. London: Falmer Press. Kumpulainen & Lankinen (2012). Striving for educational equity and excellence. In H. Niemi, A. Toom, & A. Kallioniemi, (Eds.), Miracle of education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools (pp. 69-81). Rotterdam, NE: Sense Publishers. Mathison, S., & Ross, E. W. (2008). The hegemony of accountability: The corporate—political alliance for control of schools. In D. A. Gabbard & E. W. Ross (Eds.), Education and the rise of the security state (pp. 91-100). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, Ca.: John Wiley & Sons. Orlowski, P. (in press). The Light to the Left: How Christian social studies teachers think about teaching for social justice. In Education. Orlowski, P. (2016). Saskatchewan Teachers and a Study Abroad Experience in Finland: “I Love How the Finns Respect Their Teachers!” Journal of Educational Administration & Foundations. 25 (3). Orlowski, P. (2015). Neoliberalism, its effects on Saskatchewan, and a teacher educator’s response. Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research. 26 (1), 223-250. Orlowski, P. (2014). Social studies & civil society: Making the case to take on neoliberalism, In Education, 20 (1), 3-24. Orlowski, P. (2011). Teaching about hegemony: Race, class & democracy in the 21st century. New York, NY: Springer. Orlowski, P. (2008b) Social class: The forgotten identity marker in social studies education. New Proposals: Journal of Marxism and Interdisciplinary Inquiry, 1 (2), 30-63. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Simola, H. (2015). The Finnish education mystery: Historical and sociological essays on schooling in Finland. New York, NY: Routledge. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer, (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 1-33). London, UK: SAGE Publications.