The aim of this paper is to examine whether the socio-demographic profiles of lower secondary schools affect the planned educational trajectories and perceived occupational prospects of Finnish students in their last year of compulsory basic education. Even though the Finnish education system is portrayed – often as aftermath of Finland’s PISA success – having only comparatively small differences between schools (e.g. OECD 2011), it has been argued that the process of stratification and polarisation of schools has started also in Finland (see Jakku-Sihvonen & Kuusela 2012; Seppänen et al. 2012). According to recent research, this can mostly be explained by the growing differences in the schools’ socio-economic compositions, which result from other development trends such as the implementation of free school choice policy and thus increased competition in the field of education. As, especially in larger cities and population centres, schools are competing for the best students and the students and their families are competing for the study places in the most esteemed schools, the education system’s chances for providing equal education are decreasing. (Kuusela 2012; Rinne et al. 2012.) Previous studies have shown that the effects of a school’s socio-economic composition on factors such as student performance can outweigh the effects of individual students’ socio-economic backgrounds (OECD 2004). The increasing differences between schools can either enhance or interfere with student performance and thus trigger processes of differentiation at the individual level with others excelling and others becoming marginalised (cf. Parreira do Amaral et al. 2011). This process of differentiation of schools is connected to wider social issues, such as the deepening of social disparities and the polarization of the youth, which have become significant concerns all over Europe with Finland being no exception.  

In the process of educational and social exclusion, the transition from basic to upper secondary education is a particularly critical stage (e.g. Jakku-Sihvonen & Kuusela 2012). In this paper, the understanding of this crucial transition point is deepened by taking into account the effects the school attended has on the plans and views of the students who are on the threshold of the first institutionalised transition of their educational trajectories. The concept of educational trajectory refers to a set of transitions between educational levels and institutions leading to varying levels of educational capital. These transitions are affected by individual choices as well as structures of social inequality and institutional arrangements; i.e. by both structure and agency. (Parreira do Amaral et al. 2011.) As structure and agency are closely interrelated in children’s and young people’s educational trajectories (Gecas 2003; Henderson et al. 2007), they also form the theoretical backdrop of this paper.

Gecas, V. 2003. Self-Agency and the Life Course. In: J.T. Mortimer & M.J. Shanahan (Eds.): Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Kluwer Academic, Plenum, pp.369–388. Henderson, S, Holland, J, McGrellis, S., Sharpe, S. & Thomson, R. 2007. Inventing Adulthoods. A biographical Approach to Youth Transitions, Thousand Oaks: SAGE. Jakku-Sihvonen, R. & Kuusela, J. 2012. Perusopetuksen aika. Selvitys koulujen toimintaympäristöä kuvaavista indikaattoreista. [Time for basic education. Report on indicators portraying schools’ operational environments.] Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture. Kuusela, J. 2012. Eriytymiskehitys oppimistulosten valossa. [Differentiation development in the light of learning outcomes.] In: R. Jakku-Sihvonen & J. Kuusela (Eds.) Perusopetuksen aika. Selvitys koulujen toimintaympäristöä kuvaavista indikaattoreista. [Time for basic education. Report on indicators portraying schools’ operational environments.] Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö, pp. 12–33. OECD. 2004. Learning from Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003. OECD Publishing. OECD. 2011. Lessons from PISA for the United States Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education. OECD Publishing. Parreira do Amaral, M., Litau, J., Cramer, C., Kobolt, A., Loncle, P., Mellottée, L., Ule, M., Walther, A. & Živoder, A. 2011. Governance of Educational Trajectories in Europe. State of the Art Report. GOETE Working Paper. Frankfurt: University of Frankfurt; Tübingen: University of Tübingen; Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana; Rennes: University of Rennes. Download: http://goete.eu/download/cat_view/ 69-working-papers. Rinne, R., Järvinen, T., Tikkanen, J. & Aro, M. 2012. Koulutuspolitiikan muutos ja koulun asema Euroopassa [Changes in Education Policies and the Status of School in Europe – Opinions of Principals from Eight European Countries]. In: Kasvatus, Vol. 43, No. 5, pp. 460–475. Seppänen, P., Rinne, R. & Sairanen, V. 2012. Suomalaisen yhtenäiskoulun eriytyvät koulutiet. Oppilasvalikointi perusopetuksessa, esimerkkinä Turun koulumarkkinat. [Differentiated educational pathways in the Finnish comprehensive school, the school markets of the city of Turku as an example.] In: Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 16–33.