In this study, we examine how students are guided into the instruction of the Finnish as an L2 syllabus in Finland. Additionally, we explore how various factors, such as teachers' school level, job title, age, knowledge of language learning principles, work experience, the percentage of students with a migration background, and the size of the municipality relate to the L2 syllabus guidance practices.

Finland is officially bilingual (Finnish and Swedish), and thus, basic education is offered in one of these languages. Recently, there has been a debate on the provision of teaching the language of instruction for students who do not speak it as their first language. According to the Curriculum for the Basic Education (National Agency for Education, 2014), students must be offered instruction in Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature as one of the curricula of the subject of Mother tongue and literature if their first language is not Finnish, Swedish or Sami or the student’s "basic language skills in Finnish [or Swedish] are deficient in one or more language skills - - or the student's Finnish [or Swedish] language skills are otherwise insufficient for studying the Finnish [or Swedish] language and literature syllabus" (National Agency for Education, 2014, p. 88). It is essential that, in accordance with the Basic Education Act (628/1998 § 30), guardians choose their child's curriculum.

Language use and language teaching are always part of a broader socio-political context (Lucas & Villegas, 2013). Language is learnt through interaction (van Lier, 2010), and the academic language takes much longer to develop than the language needed for everyday conversation (Thomas & Collier, 2002). Thus, language development requires linguistically responsible pedagogy from teachers of all subjects (Lucas & Villegas, 2013).

In Finland, the division into two curricula - Finnish or Swedish language and literature (L1) and Finnish or Swedish as a second language and literature (L2) - causes reflection and controversy, which is repeatedly raised in the media. The learning goals, teaching content and evaluation criteria differ in certain aspects (such as developing language skills in L2), but they also have lots of similarities aiming to increase students’ skills in language knowledge, literature and, for example, critical literacy (National Agency for Education, 2014).

The Owal Group (2022) investigated the implementation and development needs of L2 teaching. The study found that while the level of proficiency in the language of instruction is the main reason for guiding students to study L2 curriculum. In addition, the first language in the population register plays a significant role in the process, while the role of the guardians’ decision is less important. Other research on documents guiding educational decisions has shown that, in general, the role of guardians in the educational policy documents is not strongly promoted: guardians mainly have to adapt to the demands of the school community (Orell & Pihlaja, 2018). In order to gain a clearer understanding of the role of guardians and a stronger understanding of the factors behind the practices, in this study we will look at how students are guided to study the L2 curriculum. We also examine the ways in which teachers' school level, job title, age, knowledge of language learning, work experience, the percentage of students with a migrant background in the schools surveyed and the size of the working community are related to the extent to which they are involved in L2 teaching.

The data consists of responses of 336 teachers. Of the respondents, 91.7% were female, 7.2% male and 1.2% other. Slightly over a third of the respondents were under 40 years old, slightly over a third were aged between 41 and 50 and about a third were aged over 51. Finnish was the first language (L1) of 97% of participants and Swedish was the L1 of 3%. The respondents were mainly primary school teachers (26.3%), subject teachers (51.6%) and special education teachers (19.1%), with a few head teachers or vice-head teachers (0.6%), preparatory teachers (0.6%) and other teachers such as special class teachers or teachers of language and cultural groups (1.8%). 47.3% of respondents worked in primary schools, 15.2% in secondary schools, 19% in comprehensive schools, 14.7% in upper secondary schools and 1.8% elsewhere, such as in supplementary basic education or in grades 6-9 in basic education. 7.7% of respondents worked in pre-primary education and 0.3% in early childhood education. This study examined the responses (n = 262) to the open question "How does the process of guidance in Finnish/Swedish as a second language and literature instruction work in practice? For example, how are different aspects, such as the first language in the population register, the language skills of the student and the language spoken at home related to the process and how are guardians consulted?" The responses were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), whereby after a first review of the data, authors 1 and 4 identified the following themes based on their observations of the data: 1) first language in the population register, 2) reference to a guardian or student, 3) language skills, 4) previous school history, 5) other factor, 6) not known. In addition, the answers related to the guardian and student in the second theme were further divided into the following sub-themes: a) the guardian is consulted or discussed with, b) the guardian or student decides, c) the guardian decides if the curriculum is to be changed, d) the guardian is consulted only if the curriculum is to be changed or otherwise "if necessary" or "in unclear situations", e) the guardian or student may decide, or the guardian is consulted if the Finnish language skills are good. After defining the themes, Author 1 categorised the responses into the above themes. Author 4 checked the last 100 classifications for reliability.

The student's proficiency in the language of instruction was most often mentioned as relevant (27.1% of responses) in choosing the curriculum. In 15.5% of cases, L1 or L2 curriculum choices were mainly based on the first language in the population register, although first language should never be the sole reason for choosing an L2 curriculum (National Agency for Education, 2014a, p. 118). In some responses, the role of guardians in the choice of curriculum was limited. In 4.5% of the responses, it was indicated that the guardians could decide only if the school felt the need to change the student's subject from L1 to L2 or vice versa, or if they were actively requesting the change, but otherwise the choice of subject was automatic. Seeking cooperation only in problematic situations is also a common feature in the documents guiding education (Orell & Pihlaja, 2018). Although the Basic Education Act stipulates that the choice of the curriculum is decided by the guardians, in some cases the choice of the L2 curriculum was considered a matter of notification, presented to guardians as a right of the student. In other cases, the wishes of the guardians regarding the curriculum were overruled, citing the school's view of the student's needs. We will discuss the links between the background factors and the guidance in the presentation. Our findings highlight the need for more national guidelines, consistent practices, clear communication, and effective models for guiding students to the L2 syllabus and for collaboration with guardians. This is crucial to ensure that all pupils are provided with equal opportunities to fully participate in the school’s activities.

van Lier, L. (2010). The ecology of language learning: Practice to theory, theory to practice. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 3, 2–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.005 Lucas, T. & Villegas, A. M. (2013). Preparing linguistically responsive teachers: Laying the foundation in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice 52(2), 98–109. Orell, M. & Pihlaja, P. (2018). Kodin ja koulun yhteistyö normitettuna. Kasvatus, 49(2), 149–161. Owal Group (2022). Suomi/ruotsi toisena kielenä -opetuksen nykytilan arviointi. https://owalgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/S2-opetuksen_arviointi_170322.pdf National Agency for Education (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014. Määräykset ja ohjeet 2014:96. Opetushallitus. https://www.oph.fi/fi/koulutus-ja-tutkinnot/perusopetuksen-opetussuunnitelman-perusteet Thomas, W. P. & Collier, V. P. (2002). A National Study of School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students’ Long-Term Academic Achievement. http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/research/llaa/1.1_final.html