The German and Finnish education systems

When exploring the nature of SSW in a country, it is important to focus on their interrelatedness with the country’s education system. In countries that have a social-democratic welfare regime, education systems are classified as comprehensive with a high level of equal opportunity and as having an integrative effect; in countries that have a conservative/corporatist welfare regime, education systems are comparatively more selective and the education possibilities of children more dependent on their families; as for countries that have a liberal welfare regime, their education systems are highly diversified (Schmid, 2010, pp. 435–436).

In addition, the organisation of education systems in Europe has been clustered into three categories: those that have a “single structure”, a “common core curriculum” or “differentiated lower secondary education”; education systems of the first category provide education “from the beginning to the end of compulsory schooling, with no transition between primary and lower secondary education, and with general education provided in common for all pupils”; those of the second category have “the same general common core curriculum” for all schoolchildren at the level of lower secondary education; in education systems of the third category, children “follow distinct educational pathways or specific types of schooling” (European Commission/EACEA/

Eurydice, 2018, p. 5).

Germany

Countries that are classified as conservative/corporatist like Germany “are typically committed to preserve social structures and hierarchies” and, thus, the “status quo” (Andres & Pechar, 2013, p. 249). This assessment is shared by scholars that consider the German education system selective as it has a three-tier school system and as a child’s educational opportunities are dependent upon the child’s family background (Schmid, 2010, p. 436;

CRC, 2014). At this point, CYW (and, in our case, SSW) aims to reintegrate individuals who were not able to fulfil the requirements of school and were, as a consequence, excluded (Homfeldt & Schulze-Krüdener, 2001, p. 9).

Hence, SSW has a contrary function concerning this issue.

School has both an education and an upbringing task in Germany;

in addition, it is the aim of education policies and of schools to enable cooperation between home and school in order to balance different interests because of their joint responsibility to educate and bring up children (Kultusministerkonferenz, 2018, p. 4). In Germany, the federal states have the primary responsibility for education, science and culture (“cultural sovereignty”); to coordinate education between the federal states, the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs was established (Eckhardt, 2019, pp. 15–16).

The education system includes early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary and continuing education; early childhood education is voluntary, although several federal states are entitled to make attendance compulsory; it is followed by a four- to six-year-long period of primary education, depending on the federal state, and beginning in the year in which children turn age six (Kultusministerkonferenz, 2017, p. 25). Primary education is followed by differentiated lower secondary education (European Commission/

EACEA/Eurydice, 2018, p. 5). During this stage, children attend one of the following secondary schools: the Hauptschule, Realschule or Gymnasium.

The Hauptschule offers five years of education that has “the lowest status and provides the fewest career opportunities”; the Realschule provides the “de facto minimum standard school-leaving degree for most occupations”, and the Gymnasium leads to the degree necessary to enter university; the latter

form of schooling “was and is a selective and demanding” one (von Below, Powell & Roberts, 2013, p. 364). Thus, social inequalities are traced back to inequalities of educational access that, in turn, lead to future disadvantages (Freitag & Schlicht, 2009, p. 50).

The socioeconomic status of parents is still a strong predictor of a child’s performance in mathematics and science in Germany (Mostafa & Schwabe, 2019, p. 5). In particular, children that have an ethnic-minority background have a “significantly weaker record of school achievement” (CRC, 2014, p.

13); hence, the German education system has been criticised by the CRC specifically in terms of dealing with disabilities, respect for children’s views, children’s rights education and integrating minorities (Lundy, 2012, p. 399).

Thus, despite the fact that there exist more education possibilities nowadays, noticeable educational inequalities between different social classes persist (Becker & Lauterbach, 2016, p. 7). Current PISA results show that children who are part of the 25% most socioeconomically disadvantaged children in Germany were outperformed by the 25% most advantaged ones by 113 score points, corresponding to a 24-point-larger difference than the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] countries (Mostafa & Schwabe, 2019, p. 1).

Several factors contribute to this situation; for example, the decision regarding a specific school track must be made at an early age, and changing tracks at a later point is difficult (CRC, 2014, p. 13). Furthermore, the decision concerning a specific school type often depends on the educational expectations of parents instead of children’s own abilities and goals; in addition, Germany has a half-day school tradition, where a child’s extracurricular activities are dependent on a families’ financial resources, which is disadvantageous for less-affluent families compared to wealthier ones (Freitag & Schlicht, 2009, p. 54). Moreover, the enrolment rates in all-day

schools vary tremendously between federal states.²⁴ Here, SSW, in the frame of CYW, has the aim of compensating for social disadvantages by offering affected children and minors support that promotes their school education (SGB VIII, Section 13).

Along with school social workers, school psychologists also operate in German schools; however, current statistics show that in 2018, one school psychologist was responsible for 7,258 pupils on average; the number of pupils per school psychologists ranged from 4,413 in Bremen to 15,062 in Lower Saxony (Seifried, 2018). In addition, while several countries have implemented school health nurses, Germany solely provides “punctually proactive and health-promoting services” in their schools; however, model projects that implemented 20 school-health professionals [Schulgesundheitsfachkräfte]

in Brandenburg and Hesse for two years highlighted the need for health-related expertise in schools (Tannen, Adam, Ebert & Ewers, 2018, p. 14, this researcher’s translation).

Finland

Countries that are classified as social-democratic, such as Finland, consider educational access to be a right of citizenship and provide a high standard of education, as well as promote equality among all citizens (Andres & Pechar, 2013, p. 249). Moreover, education policies “are necessarily intertwined with other social policies, and with the overall political culture of a nation”

(Sahlberg, 2015, p. 49). Thus, scholars note that “education functions well in Finland, but that it is a part of well-functioning democratic welfare state”, wherefore performances can only be assessed against the background of

“other systems in society, e.g. health, environment, rule of law, governance,

24 Alt, Guglhör-Rudan, Hüsken & Winklhofer (2019, pp. 4–5) estimate that in 2017, approximately 48% of all children of primary school age used the whole-day option, corresponding to an increase of 27% compared to 2006; however, there are great differences between western federal states (41%) and eastern federal states (78%):

while only 20% of all children in Baden-Wurttemberg, 30% in Schleswig-Holstein and 40% in Bavaria and Rhineland-Palatinate used this option, 86% of all children in Saxony, 80% in Brandenburg and 72% in Saxony-Anhalt did so. Another high rate of usage is seen in Hamburg, with 92% of all children.

economy and technology” (OECD, 2014, p. 177; referring to Castells &

Himanen, 2002). The Finnish school is seen as a “caring school” that supports “every student’s holistic growth” (Koskela, Määttä & Uusiautti, 2013, p. 1313). Hence, the school is involved in realising “social goals such as equal opportunity and community fellowship” (Hiilamo, 2008, p. 30); it is described as a “miniature welfare state” that functions as a “centre for social welfare, health care and employment advice”, along with teaching (Jauhiainen, 1993; as cited in OECD, 1998, p. 17), and comprises, among other professions, SSW.

The education system has a single structure (European Commission/EACEA/

Eurydice, 2018, p. 5) comprising a voluntary pre-primary education lasting for one year, a compulsory nine-year basic education and a “voluntary vocational or upper secondary education” (Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2012, pp. 70–71).

Basic education involves educational tasks (e.g., competence development), social tasks (e.g., building up human and social capital), cultural tasks (e.g., building up a cultural identity and cultural capital) and future-related tasks; in addition, it provides special support for children who do not have the ability to reach the established goals (National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014, 2016, pp. 29–30, 111). Furthermore, as set out in the National Core Curriculum, cooperation with parents is seen as an important and integral part of schooling and is directed towards supporting parents in their role as caretakers (Orell & Pihlaja, 2020, p. 114).

However, before implementing school reforms in the 1970s, Finland had a parallel school system that determined children’s future prospects by placing them in either academic-oriented schools or vocational fields at the age of 10, whereby taking the latter route meant never being allowed to seek entrance to higher education; this was a situation that divided the nation, and that divide was further widened by the fact that academic schools often demanded tuition fees (Niemi, 2012, p. 21). Since then, education policies have focused on education equality and equity (Koskela, Määttä & Uusiautti, 2013, p. 1313; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013, p. 3; Wallin, 2011, p. 22). Here, education equity does not mean the provision of children with the same education

but with equal opportunities (Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2012, p. 70)25 that

“lies at the heart of Finland’s education policy” (OECD, 2014, p. 173). For the purpose of avoiding “dead-ends” in the education system (Niemi, 2012, p. 25), decreasing the impact of a family’s socioeconomic background on children’s learning outcomes and, hence, increasing educational equality, a basic education system was implemented (Aho, Pitkänen & Sahlberg, 2006, p. 35), which is free of charge (Kumpulainen & Lankinen, 2012, p. 70).

Current PISA results show a smaller gap in performance connected with Finnish student’s socioeconomic status (79 score points) than across OECD countries (89 score points), despite the fact that this gap has widened since the last PISA results in 2009 (Ikeda & Schwabe, 2019, p. 1). In addition, there is only a small “variance in achievement” between different schools in Finland, which “reflects the equalizing effect of the school system, as well as the lack of strict stratification in the Finnish society in terms of the wealth distribution and social classes” (Ahtola & Niemi, 2014, p. 138). Nonetheless, despite these findings and Finland’s efforts, social exclusion is also a topic of concern in this country (Hämäläinen & Matikainen, 2018, p. 16).

Closely linked with the move towards a comprehensive school system, ²⁶ that was, in turn, linked to the development of the welfare state (Pakkasvirta

& Tarnaala, 2018, p. 131), pupil welfare was introduced to promote the emotional, physical and social well-being of children, and to support their growth into “balanced, healthy, and cooperative citizens” (Andersson et al., 2002, p. 83; see also Gråsten-Salonen & Mehtiö, 2017, p. 360; Wallin,

25 However, the Finnish education system is not without critique. For example, educational equality primarily promotes pupils with disabilities or learning difficulties;

despite the fact that steps have been taken to promote gifted students in Finland since the 1980s, there are still challenges in providing gifted children with equal opportunities in “sparsely populated areas” (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013, p. 9). Also, Finland has received criticism from the CRC in terms of bullying, the treatment of minorities and children’s rights education (Lundy, 2012, p. 399).

26 Schmid (2010, p. 428) notes that Finnish education policies must be seen within specific Nordic preconditions, such as a low population of five million that is unequally distributed between metropolitan and rural areas—a situation that led to specific institutional arrangements (e.g., comprehensive school and free school meals).

2011, p. 22). Further, with the move toward a three-tiered support system for learning²⁷ that was “detailed in the amendments and additions to the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education on 29.10.2010” (Finnish National Board of Education, 2010, as cited in Lakkala & Thuneberg, 2018, p. 296) and that includes general support, intensified support and special support, multiprofessional work has been given greater emphasis; it is seen as “one of the key components in providing any form of support during all the three tiers” (Thuneberg et al., 2013, p. 74), and it functions as a “coordinator and supporter of the actions” (Thuneberg et al., 2013, p. 70). Figure 2 shows the organisation of pupil welfare in Finnish schools (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Pupil welfare in schools in Finland (referring to Laitinen, K. &

Hallantie, 2011, pp. 26–27; see also Laitinen, K., 2012, p. 2).

27 For a detailed description regarding the three-tiered support system, see for example Thuneberg, Vainikainen, Ahtiainen, Lintuvuori, Salo & Hautamäki (2013) and Lakkala, Takala, Miettunen, Kyrö-Ämmälä, Sarivaara & Kielinen (2019).

As shown in the diagram, pupil welfare comprises pupil welfare with respect to the curriculum approved by the education provider²⁸ and pupil welfare services, that include health care, as well as psychological and curatorial (SSW) services²⁹ (Laitinen, K. & Hallantie, 2011, pp. 26–27; Laitinen, K., 2012, p.

2), which must represent a “functional and unified entity” (Lakkala, Turunen, Laitinen, M. & Kauppi, 2019, p. 4; this researcher’s translation; referring to Pupil and Student Welfare Act 1287/2013, Section 9.1). Hence, there is a close connection between pupil welfare services and the Finnish local welfare system (Lakkala, Turunen, Laitinen, M. & Kauppi, 2019, p. 5; for a detailed description, see this publication). While local authorities guide pupil welfare by providing welfare reports³⁰ (as set out in the Health Care Act 1326/2010, Section 12), as well as welfare plans³¹ (as set out in CWA 417/2007, Section 12) for children and young people, pupil welfare plans are developed at the school level (as set out in Pupil and Student Welfare Act 1287/2013, Section 13). All schoolchildren have the right to receive services free of charge as needed to guarantee their participation in schools; these services are defined as follows:

“Pupil welfare means promoting and maintaining the pupils’ good learning, good mental and physical health as well as social well-being

28 See Kumpulainen & Lankinen (2012, p. 72) for detailed information concerning the responsibilities of the Finnish National Board of Education and the education providers.

29 Laitinen, K. and Hallantie (2011, p. 27) refer to psychological and curatorial services with reference to the Finnish CWA. Meanwhile, psychological and curatorial services are regulated by the Pupil and Student Welfare Act (1287/2013).

30 As set out in law, the local authorities are responsible for monitoring their residents’

health and welfare, to provide reports annually and to “identify objectives for health and welfare promotion on the basis of local conditions and demand and measures for meeting these objectives by making use of local welfare and health indicators”

(Health Care Act 1326/2010, Section 12).

31 As set out in law, the local authorities are responsible to provide a plan “concerning the actions of the municipality or municipalities to promote the wellbeing of children and young people and to arrange and develop child welfare services” (CWA 417/2007, Section 12, subsection 1).

and activities that improve the preconditions for these in the school community. Pupil welfare primarily consists of preventive activities and communal pupil welfare work that supports the entire school community” (National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014, 2016, p. 126).

Accordingly, pupil welfare is predominately preventive- and communal-oriented³² (National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014, 2016; Pupil and Student Welfare Act 1287/2013, Section 4) and provides, in addition, individual care for all pupils of a school (Pupil and Student Welfare Act 1287/2013, Section 3, subsections 1 and 2). At each school, a pupil welfare team is implemented that is led by the school principal and comprises the school social worker, school nurse, student counsellor, special education teacher, school psychologist and other specialists; moreover, collaboration with the relevant classroom teacher, supervisor and group tutor is of specific relevance (Wallin, 2011, p. 64).³³ Figure 3 shows SSW in the context of the Finnish pupil welfare system and school system (see Figure 3).

32 For an overview of working methods that aim at the promotion of communal work within schools, as well as successful transitions, see Norvapalo & Thessler (2018, p. 6).

33 However, municipalities at the periphery “lack funds and qualified professionals for pupil welfare services”; a situation that is further worsening due to urban drift (Ahtola

& Niemi, 2014, p. 8). Also, current research indicates that pupil welfare services may vary between different municipalities and Nordic countries (Hiilamo, 2008, p. 32).

Figure 3 School social work within the context of the Finnish pupil welfare system and school system.

Thus, SSW is part of the pupil welfare system and school system; it has not only the function of promoting every child’s growth and early support but of supporting parenting and increasing the welfare of the school community (Pupil and Student Welfare Act 1287/2013, Section 7); it broadens a school’s social function, provides insight and expertise regarding social change and strengthens the focus on a child’s needs; in addition, it is linked to a school’s operating culture (Wallin, 2011, pp. 53–54) and contributes to its basic mission (Jänkä, 2011, p. 12).

Concluding remarks

This study is focused on the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. The theoretical conclusions are essentially based on the interpretations of differences between the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. Nonetheless, as SSW is practised in schools, both education systems were investigated to a reasonable extent. Differences are specifically observed regarding the education systems’ structures (differentiated lower secondary education/single structured education) and their orientation (integrative/selective), professional services in school (predominantly school social workers and psychologists/pupil welfare teams), as well as SSW’s affiliation to the system (child welfare system/education system).

Thus, Germany has a differentiated lower secondary education system (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018, p. 5) that is rather selective (Schmid, 2010, pp. 435-436) and there are primarily school social workers and psychologists in schools (Seifried, 2018). In contrast, Finland has a single structured education system (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018, p. 5) that is rather integrative (Schmid, 2010, pp. 435-436) and has pupil welfare teams in schools comprising a broad range of professionals (Wallin, 2011, p. 64). Most interestingly, while SSW in Germany is part of the CYW system, SSW in Finland is part of the Finnish pupil welfare system, that is in turn part of the Finnish school system. Thus, several differences can be observed between the German and Finnish education systems.

4 METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodological aspects of this study. First, the research and comparative processes are presented; in doing so, specific attention is given to the four sub-studies and their research aims, methods and processes, as well as the summary section of this study and its aims, method and process. Second, data collection and analysis methods are presented in detail. Third, the central aspects concerning trustworthiness are delineated and, finally, aspects concerning research ethics are presented.