A letter to the editor of the Irish Independent
Feabhra 2, 2017
Dear Sir/Madam,
In her recent opinion article Language a bigger barrier than baptism (Irish Independent, 21 January 2017), Sarah Carey tells readers that she often quotes the example of Finland in addressing “nationalistic Irish language nonsense”, which, as far as she is concerned, is “the ultimate barrier in the Irish education system.”
Acknowledging many of Finland’s enviable achievements in education, she proceeds to use that country’s example to attack Irish-medium education in Gaelscoileanna as a “ruthless obstacle to foreigners.”
Assured of her understanding of Finnish education, Ms Carey regrets that “alas space prevents me from elucidating”.
Ms Carey has previous form in the matter. In Parents, not priests, driving segregation. The Irish Times blames religion for segregating Irish children. What about Gaelscoileanna (sic) (Irish Independent, 1 March 2015) she made much the same claim with “alas, space prevents me from elaborating”.
When recently considering the net effect of Gaelscoileanna on Irish society, Ms Carey couldn’t “help thinking of the World War II arguments of George Orwell that pacifists were objectively pro-Nazi”. Why? “Gaelscoileanna,” she argues, “with their almost 100pc native Irish demographic, are objectively segregationist.”
Ms Carey was just as big into the whole war theme in her 2015 missive. “If you’re going to fight a war over segregation in schools, identifying the real problem is a good start.” In her eyes, Irish-medium education is the enemy as aided and abetted by “families in the Gaelscoileanna (who) sail along blissfully free of moral challenge.” She thus paints many Irish families less as morally-driven pacifists and more like amoral Vichy-style profiteers I think.
Whenever Nazi comparisons are inappropriate, we may question the validity of arguments proposed.
Ms Carey argues that Finland’s educational reforms have succeeded because “everyone did better when there was no choice” because all children in a given locality went to the same school.
Pasi Sahlberg, the renowned Finnish educator, can help Ms Carey with her poor grasp of choice in Finland’s education success.
In Finland, the elimination of consumerist choice was targeted at the way education can be packaged as a market-driven product where an increasing number of profit-motivated private operators compete with different ‘value propositions’ in different customer segments based on differing incomes and social status. (Although not a fan of private schooling as a matter of general principle, Mr Sahlberg differentiates between mission-driven schools charging fees such as those in Ireland and profit-and-greed-driven academies more recently introduced by “competition raises standards” ideologies in other countries.)
Mr Sahlberg puts it this way: “The question is not, however, choice or no choice. It is about whether we have a good school for all children or just for some. In the end we need to work out how we manage parental choice so that it doesn’t harm equity.”
While Finland has indeed achieved remarkable reforms of its education system in a way that Ireland most clearly hasn’t, there is in fact a very significant element of choice in Finnish education that will likely shock Ms Carey. Not only is this matter of choice immensely significant in the context of a modern and open Finnish society, it is of course immediately relevant to debate here about the role of Irish-medium education and the Irish language in Ireland.
For all her readiness to elaborate and elucidate on Finland’s education reforms, it seems clear that Ms Carey doesn’t know that Finland’s education policymakers are strongly committed to the provision of choice in schools’ language medium for instruction and learning. Mr Sahlberg again: “It is noteworthy that Finland is a trilingual country, where Finnish, Swedish, and Sami are all official languages.”
Finland’s constitution and its parliamentary legislation protect the language rights of the country’s different language communities and heritages. There is a very substantive offering of choice between Finnish-medium education and Swedish-medium education extending from pre-school all the way to postgraduate studies at doctoral level. Demographics dictate that the opportunity to learn through the medium of Swedish is not fully nationwide but Folktinget (a lobby group for the rights of Swedish-speaking Finns) suggest that up to 99pc of students who want to learn through Swedish can do so within the state-school system. Resources are also committed to Sami-language education provision in the far north of the country.
Finland’s education policymakers and world-renowned experts are not exhorting citizens to “look at who’s doing the excluding” or how Swedish-speaking Finns are “objectively segregationist.” Finland does respect and tolerance much better than Ms Carey.
Finland is not only a world leader in the quality of state-school education, it is also recognised as a leader in language education and plurilingualism. Monta rautaa tulessa (many irons in the fire) sums up how Finns regard, value and take pride in their language skills.
Not all is perfect but there is much to learn from Finland if we pay attention to its real lessons instead of Ms Carey’s alternative facts.
Some facts will be clear. Ms Carey will not be able to “elucidate” how Finnish-speaking, Swedish-speaking or Sami-speaking Finns regard their language heritage as nationalistic nonsense. Nor will she be able to “elaborate” on how Finns regard choice of language medium for education as a ruthless obstacle to foreigners wishing to integrate into Finnish society.
There is concern in Finland about uneven concentration of immigrant learners across the education system. Sahlberg once more: “For example, in the city of Espoo, there are schools with more than 40% immigrant student populations, while some schools have practically no immigrants.” Immigrants unsurprisingly tend to choose the Finnish-speaking schools of the majority demographic rather than Swedish-speaking ones. Sahlberg nevertheless believes that “Finland has been able to enhance equity in education while schools and classroom have become more diverse”.
Interestingly, Sahlberg notes research showing that immigrant students in Finland performed significantly better in PISA tests than their peers in other countries. Based on the same studies, he also believes there is a threshold of about 20% “in the proportion of immigrant students per class after which the learning achievement of all students in that class begins to decline”.
Alas, space prevents further discussion of Finland’s and Ireland’s shared characteristics and different experiences. However, I would like to add that the success of Gaelscoileanna and the Irish-medium education movement clearly mirrors aspects of what has worked so successfully in Finland. With special regard to the development of language skills in both Irish and in foreign languages, Finland offers important lessons for policymakers and other stakeholders in Irish education.
Equally, the success of Gaelscoileanna and the Irish-medium education movement also offer key lessons for policymakers and stakeholders interested in the development of language skills for living and prospering in a global world. Níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin.
In summing up, I will paraphrase Ms Carey from 2015: Since her analysis is flawed, so is her suggested solution. Her real problem is her obsession with Irish parents who choose to enrich their children’s lives with an education in the language of their national heritage. It is she who would have heart failure if she were presented with a system that was even more like Finland’s.
Mark Reynolds,
Artane
Dublin 5
