The comprehensive school system changed in Finland more than a decade ago, it moved to a decentralized one and now the local authorities have power to define the choice policy. Segmented education, as well as profiling schools, gives possibilities to govern and produce citizens, who are needed to different assignments in the society. The aim is to produce citizens who have certain abilities: a cosmopolitan citizen who is educated and progressive. The learning society can be considered as a technology, which organizes and limits the educational possibilities of individuals. (Popkewitz 2007; Popkewitz, Olsson & Petersson 2006.) Subjects are seen to be free to do multiple choices, but in fact their actions are directed by political decisions (Dean 1999; Rose 1999) which are used to regulate citizens` daily life. The control is dressed in a liberal costume, so it would not upraise resistance (Lather 2006). Parents have an active role when processing information but the conceptions are not constructed in a vacuum (Poikolainen 2002; Vincent & Martin 2002). Also different social hierarchies limit parents choosing possibilities as well as their social and cultural resources (Bourdieu 1998; Reay & Lusey 2003). The school markets are open only to those parents who live in big cities, but so far parents have been quite silent even though there is a worry of national level segregation. In many countries the free choice policy has lead into social exclusion (e.g. Butler & van Zanten 2007). So far there here has been done only one larger, mostly quantitative, research on parents` school choices (Seppänen 2006) in Finland. According to the research, it would be valuable to gather data also interviewing parents to find out their thinking processes. Here the aim is to find out how do the Finnish 6th graders parents act in the school markets of the case city, what kind of chooser types they represent and what kind of discourses and resources they use when talking about school choices. The qualitative but also quantitative data has been gathered in a city, which uses rather restrictive choice policy, which could be defined as expressive, for schools strive for caring and shepherd atmosphere and emphasize equality, collaboration and approval of difference (Ball & Maroy). This study fills partly the gap in the European school choice research and it also gives tools to analyze parents thinking processes. This research is part of a larger project: “Parents and School Choice – Family Strategies, Segregation and Local School Policies in Finnish Comprehensive Schooling”.

The research data has been gathered by a questionnaire (n=374 parents) and interviews (76 parents). The quantitative data has been analyzed using chi-square tests and variance analysis. The qualitative data has been analyzed using content analysis and critical discourse analysis. The aim of the critical discourse analysis is to capture and describe the relationship between discourses and society which appears in texts and conversations as micropolitical but in a macropolitical landscape. It is essential to make explicit those discourses which build and construct knowledge (Luke 2002.) Educational institutions control and limit certain types of discourses, how those upraise and are available to subjects. I will show which discourses are used and how, the content of those and what is left hidden. Discourses classify people, issues and courses of events limiting and excluding certain discourses and including others. (Fairclough 2000; 2004; Jacobs 2006.)

Mostly parents` find the Finnish comprehensive schooling system working well, so there is no need to schools or pupils specialization. The higher the parents educational background the more satisfied the parents are for choice possibilities, 14 % of the families have been applied the place to some other than the local school. The parents of these families are expert choosers in the school markets, they use effectively their social networks and cultural resources when making decisions and acting. They use equity discourse referring to individuality, there is no need for equality. Skilled choosers use practical discourses when talking about choices. The equality of schooling is seen important and that is why they say there is no need for specialized schools. They use both social and cultural resources, but passive choosers drift to local school for practical reasons. School markets reward for possessing right economic, social and cultural resources and ”punishes” for owning wrong ones, which limit choices. Even though possibilities to choose are not actively marketed or the official choice policy is restrictive, parents` can break the borders and change the policy-in-action, if they own suitable resources.