Yes it’s true. There are some private schools, but they are government funded like any other school, because they’re not allowed to make a profit/collect tuition fees.
Education is forbidden to be a business, it can be private but non-profit.
Schools are allowed to charge extra fees (on top of the State / municipal funding per student) but the vast majority do not, or they charge very low fees compared to other countries. And of course that money has to go back to the school activities (e.g. new classrooms, extra trips, more sports), it cannot be hoarded in a bank as profit.
Rich aren’t investing in schools. They pay taxes. Taxes pay for schools. Tweet isn’t technically incorrect. Btw there are differences between schools and richer areas do have better outcomes
This only works in Finland (and other Nordic countries) because Finland has plenty of resources and infrastructure which allows this system to work effectively.
Public schools also compete for these students because that’s how they obtain this funding, so competition isn’t missing; and they work very similarly to private funds, trust me, they fight hard for money; which is good.
The mechanism of action cannot simply be copied, not without copying the Nordic model itself and keeping corruption low; it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It can’t for example work in USA, because of how their country is structured and the fact their public funding in education is already higher than Finland, but their structure isn’t efficient, and no adding more money to public funds will solve that, it’s like trying to solve a leaking pipe by adding more water.
Some non-profit projects which attempt to bring education to third world countries, such as my country, fail because they fail to realize the incompatibility of models; only one truth remain, people simply need money, they need it to survive, and you can’t have a system reliant on EU money, that will fail and soon as you pull the plug; that means fees, I’ve read failure over failure stories because they think that a nordic education model can work as it is in other countries, stories go from “having good intentions but terrible outcomes”, to literally mismanagement of public funds sent to countries like Tanzania.
What Finland should go forwards is a modified education system of its own for such issues, Finland is in a position to create a modified exportable version of its education, one that doesn’t take funding for granted, and allows for flexibility of sources of knowledge and sources of income.
And then this belief becomes harmful, the belief that a general recipe that only works in a handful of countries in special circumstances is the go-to solution; you may say this is Finland so it is only concerned with Finland, well, the reality is that this is not the case, countries compete towards having influence overseas and spreading as powerhouses of something, Finland placed its bet in education, it’s one of its tools of foreign influence, and we have to applaud that it isn’t guns. Not to add globalization means education isn’t just what is found within one country, not embracing it means falling behind, for your own people.
I would expect education to change in the future in Finland, in ways that break this paradigm; and it will be even better.
Source: I work in education sector.
Rich people live in areas where houses are expensive. Schools in those areas are well-funded and kids there won’t likely mix with poor kids because poor people can’t afford to live in those areas.
Eh, yes and no.
I mean you don’t see us proles in some fancy school in Westend and you don’t see af Lönegerens at some moldy country school just scraping by.
It’s true in a way yes but it wasn’t always so. Working class had to fight for this educational reform.
Secondly, Finland’s true aristocracy / nobility is, and has always been, the swedish speaking finns who have inherited centruries of wealth and privledges. They obviously have their own elite schools and inner circle among us….peasants and wildlings.
This should be norm all over the world. Turkey used to be like that as well. They were really very small percentages of private schools. Now education is extremely expensive. Thanks to Erdogan.
No investment as far as I am aware. Just taxation. Investment means investor need some return in foreseeable future.
We don’t have rich people. Income inequality is very low. Everyone is kind of middle class with few exceptions.
Mitä helkkaria mä jouskarilla teen
Rich parents still have more resources for district-shopping than poor parents. Not all schools are equal. But the differences are not huge. The main factor is that the demographical differences are not huge either.
No it’s not true. Universities and higher education charge tuition fees form non-EU citizens. Rich people don’t really invest in education that much. It’s mainly funded by the public sector.
No tuition until university.
And in university, it’s only for non-~~EEC~~ *EEA+Swiss* students. You’re an European citizen? No tuition. There’s a small fee for student union membership, which is mandatory, and some people campaign against having to support that cause with literally tens of euros.
It is possible to donate to universities, but donating to lower-level public schools is very rare, at least outside of the few private schools.
On the high school level, there are differences between schools considering courses offered etc., though this really matters only in towns or subregions where there are multiple high schools close to each other. Though even earlier, there are some options if you apply to a different school to e.g. do sports or study a specific language.
In general, differences are minor and potentially not what you would expect – for example, small and relatively rural high schools have done pretty well in the comparison between high schools and in the recent years traditional “need a straight-A to enter” high schools are no longer amongst the best high schools.
True.
That’s an exaggeration. Pretending that schools have no differences is dishonest. It’s more to do with student base than funding.
Does Finland have those specialty schools for younger kids like Montessori schools for example? I used to work for one in the states.
What many people miss in my opinion, is the difference between municipalities. A municapility with a worse financial situation can’t give the same funding than a big city. This leads to lacking in special education, qualified teachers and possibilities for foreign languages for example. Don’t get me wrong, the level is still good but Finnish schools are no way equal.
Whilst it’s true to a large extent, as far as I’m aware, there’s nothing stopping Finns sending the children to private schools in other countries
There is one exception which is sadly the foreign students in international programs at universities. The thinking is that since them or their families technically haven’t paid for the education in taxes, they pay a fee instead. This was at least the case couple years ago.
Other than that this is generally true.
I don’t have any kids but some of my colleagues fought hard to live in a certain school district in Espoo. They told me that not only it’s expensive, but it’s also almost impossible to buy/rent a place there.
20 comments
Yes it’s true. There are some private schools, but they are government funded like any other school, because they’re not allowed to make a profit/collect tuition fees.
Education is forbidden to be a business, it can be private but non-profit.
Schools are allowed to charge extra fees (on top of the State / municipal funding per student) but the vast majority do not, or they charge very low fees compared to other countries. And of course that money has to go back to the school activities (e.g. new classrooms, extra trips, more sports), it cannot be hoarded in a bank as profit.
Rich aren’t investing in schools. They pay taxes. Taxes pay for schools. Tweet isn’t technically incorrect. Btw there are differences between schools and richer areas do have better outcomes
This only works in Finland (and other Nordic countries) because Finland has plenty of resources and infrastructure which allows this system to work effectively.
Public schools also compete for these students because that’s how they obtain this funding, so competition isn’t missing; and they work very similarly to private funds, trust me, they fight hard for money; which is good.
The mechanism of action cannot simply be copied, not without copying the Nordic model itself and keeping corruption low; it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It can’t for example work in USA, because of how their country is structured and the fact their public funding in education is already higher than Finland, but their structure isn’t efficient, and no adding more money to public funds will solve that, it’s like trying to solve a leaking pipe by adding more water.
Some non-profit projects which attempt to bring education to third world countries, such as my country, fail because they fail to realize the incompatibility of models; only one truth remain, people simply need money, they need it to survive, and you can’t have a system reliant on EU money, that will fail and soon as you pull the plug; that means fees, I’ve read failure over failure stories because they think that a nordic education model can work as it is in other countries, stories go from “having good intentions but terrible outcomes”, to literally mismanagement of public funds sent to countries like Tanzania.
What Finland should go forwards is a modified education system of its own for such issues, Finland is in a position to create a modified exportable version of its education, one that doesn’t take funding for granted, and allows for flexibility of sources of knowledge and sources of income.
And then this belief becomes harmful, the belief that a general recipe that only works in a handful of countries in special circumstances is the go-to solution; you may say this is Finland so it is only concerned with Finland, well, the reality is that this is not the case, countries compete towards having influence overseas and spreading as powerhouses of something, Finland placed its bet in education, it’s one of its tools of foreign influence, and we have to applaud that it isn’t guns. Not to add globalization means education isn’t just what is found within one country, not embracing it means falling behind, for your own people.
I would expect education to change in the future in Finland, in ways that break this paradigm; and it will be even better.
Source: I work in education sector.
Rich people live in areas where houses are expensive. Schools in those areas are well-funded and kids there won’t likely mix with poor kids because poor people can’t afford to live in those areas.
Eh, yes and no.
I mean you don’t see us proles in some fancy school in Westend and you don’t see af Lönegerens at some moldy country school just scraping by.
It’s true in a way yes but it wasn’t always so. Working class had to fight for this educational reform.
Secondly, Finland’s true aristocracy / nobility is, and has always been, the swedish speaking finns who have inherited centruries of wealth and privledges. They obviously have their own elite schools and inner circle among us….peasants and wildlings.
This should be norm all over the world. Turkey used to be like that as well. They were really very small percentages of private schools. Now education is extremely expensive. Thanks to Erdogan.
No investment as far as I am aware. Just taxation. Investment means investor need some return in foreseeable future.
We don’t have rich people. Income inequality is very low. Everyone is kind of middle class with few exceptions.
Mitä helkkaria mä jouskarilla teen
Rich parents still have more resources for district-shopping than poor parents. Not all schools are equal. But the differences are not huge. The main factor is that the demographical differences are not huge either.
No it’s not true. Universities and higher education charge tuition fees form non-EU citizens. Rich people don’t really invest in education that much. It’s mainly funded by the public sector.
No tuition until university.
And in university, it’s only for non-~~EEC~~ *EEA+Swiss* students. You’re an European citizen? No tuition. There’s a small fee for student union membership, which is mandatory, and some people campaign against having to support that cause with literally tens of euros.
It is possible to donate to universities, but donating to lower-level public schools is very rare, at least outside of the few private schools.
On the high school level, there are differences between schools considering courses offered etc., though this really matters only in towns or subregions where there are multiple high schools close to each other. Though even earlier, there are some options if you apply to a different school to e.g. do sports or study a specific language.
In general, differences are minor and potentially not what you would expect – for example, small and relatively rural high schools have done pretty well in the comparison between high schools and in the recent years traditional “need a straight-A to enter” high schools are no longer amongst the best high schools.
True.
That’s an exaggeration. Pretending that schools have no differences is dishonest. It’s more to do with student base than funding.
Does Finland have those specialty schools for younger kids like Montessori schools for example? I used to work for one in the states.
What many people miss in my opinion, is the difference between municipalities. A municapility with a worse financial situation can’t give the same funding than a big city. This leads to lacking in special education, qualified teachers and possibilities for foreign languages for example. Don’t get me wrong, the level is still good but Finnish schools are no way equal.
Whilst it’s true to a large extent, as far as I’m aware, there’s nothing stopping Finns sending the children to private schools in other countries
There is one exception which is sadly the foreign students in international programs at universities. The thinking is that since them or their families technically haven’t paid for the education in taxes, they pay a fee instead. This was at least the case couple years ago.
Other than that this is generally true.
I don’t have any kids but some of my colleagues fought hard to live in a certain school district in Espoo. They told me that not only it’s expensive, but it’s also almost impossible to buy/rent a place there.