1. CITY OF TURKU AS AN EDUCATIONAL SPACE – THE SEGREGATION OF SCHOOLS AND AREAS
Anna-Kaisa Berisha, Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning and Education (CELE), Department of Education, University of Turku
SCHOOL CHOICE, SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT & SEGREGATION
RESEARCH DESIGN
FINLAND: The schools of major cities have started to segment due to school choice policies (Seppänen, Kalalahti, Rinne & Simola 2015).
ESPOO: Lower secondary schools had considerable socioeconomic differences to begin with – however, had pupils gone to the school based on their neighbourhood allocation, no difference would have occurred in comparison to current status. Thus school choice led strongly to within-school segregation (rare languages, selective classes). Segregation between schools was not the key mechanism of segregation, much more important was the segregation between school classes, within schools. (Kosunen et al )
HELSINKI: School choice was connected to increasing differences in school achievement between schools, and furthermore, school choice and the differentiation of schools have connection to segregation of neighbourhoods (Bernelius & Vaattovaara 2016).
TURKU: A big force in creating the differences among schools and classes is emphasized teaching (Seppänen, Rinne & Sairanen 2012; Lempinen, Berisha & Seppänen 2016), and especially school classes differ from one another in terms of school achievement (Berisha & Seppänen 2016).
INTERNATIONALLY
UK: Secondary school pupils’ GCSE performance was strongly predicted by the type of neighbourhood they lived in. Also the importance of peer-group effects was found to be significant. (Webber & Butler 2007.)
DENMARK: Although neighbourhoods were not substantially segregated in relation to ethnicity, primary and lower secondary schools were (Rangvid 2007).
SWEDEN: School choice was linked to the growing differences between schools in regards to school achievement in secondary schools (Östh, Andersson & Malmberg 2013).
Does the composition of pupils differ in regards to school achievement and socioeconomic background in schools prior and after school choice (hypothetical neighbourhood allocation vs. current state)?
How do schools differ in terms of pupils’ school achievement and socioeconomic background as well as popularity and attractiveness (=school profiles)?
3) What is the flow of pupils like – from where to where, (who are moving)?
The data consist of pupil registry of 7th graders (n 1314) and the population census of the city and it is analysed with statistical methods.
RESULTS
Neither school achievement nor socioeconomic background of the pupils were statistically significantly different at the school level when pupils were returned to the school of their catchment area and compared with their current school (tests: Wilcoxon and Paired samples T-test). For school achievement, the differences varied between ±0.1 and for socioeconomic background -0.3–0.4.
School profiles: The school achievement of the pupils, school’s attractiveness to pupils from other catchment areas and popularity within the school’s own catchment area were taken into account when forming the school profiles. Three categories were formed: high profile schools B, D & E; average profile schools, A, F, G & J; and low profile schools C, H, I & K.
The flow of pupils consists of 367 pupils within the city (pupils coming from other municipalities are not shown in Figure 1). Six schools, B, D, E, G, I & J, have a positive flow and five schools, A C, F, H & K, have a negative one (when the pupils out of town are included, schools F & K become slightly positive). School D has the greatest positive flow and receives pupils from all other schools’ catchment areas, whereas school H has the largest outflow of pupils.
Figure 1.
The flow of pupils between schools.