![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper presents an historical overview of issues around the language of instruction and the curriculum of mother‐tongue education for the Swedish‐speaking minority in Finland during the half‐century after the establishment of the public school in 1866. In a linguistic‐ and culturally‐diverse society like that of Finland it has not been self‐evident that the question of language as a medium of instruction and as a school subject would be understood and shared in the same way by Finns and Swedes. This paper focuses on two collective themes, homogenization and differentiation. Homogenization stands for forces aiming at securing equal opportunities for education, regardless of vernacular languages and cultures. Differentiation refers to the possibility of accommodating the education to specific needs of the Swedish‐speaking population.
Notes
Sven‐Erik Hansén is a professor of education, Second Vice‐rector, and Rector of the Unit of Ostrobothnia of Åbo Akademi University, PB 311, FIN‐65101 Vaasa, Finland; e‐mail: [email protected]. His research interests centre on two domains, the teacher and the curriculum, especially in a language‐minority perspective.
The notion ‘people's school’ refers to the Finnish common school, established in 1866, and aimed for all citizens.
During the periods of Russification around the turn of the century and the 1910s, there was a growing threat of the possibility that Russian would be given official status in Finland, a development which was seen as a threat was to both language groups. The Swedish language would be obliterated, while Finnish would be reduced to the status of ‘low language’ in relation to Russian. The Russian revolution (1917) and Finland’s declaration of its independence in the same year eliminated the threat.
The addition of the so‐called ‘minority quota’ in the Language Act contributed to emphasizing the minority position of the Swedish population group.
Linguistic status is reviewed after each decennial census.
Cygnaeus himself emphasized Pestalozzi’s influence on his work (Lönnbeck Citation1910). Researchers have also stressed the fact that the first plan for the people’s school was Pestalozzian in character (e.g. Isosaari Citation1961).
The general school meetings and district inspector’s meetings that were beginning to be arranged became very important for the continued internal development and consolidation of the pedagogical work of the people’s school. These meetings, which were held regularly, became important forums for pedagogical discussion and for initiatives in pedagogical reforms. Through the school meetings, which were usually well attended, new ideas quickly spread to the teachers. Thus, the meetings also had, in a pedagogical sense, a regimental function for teachers in the common school.
Orthography was part of the discussion of the preservation of terminology and usage. The issue was under intensive debate in Sweden and led to a reform in 1906, which helped to frame the Swedish‐speaking school in Finland. The norms for orthography determined by the Swedish Academy would also serve as the norms for the Swedish language in Finland. In the Swedish‐speaking school in Finland, this conformity of the written language with the Sweden‐Swedish language norm has been seen as a main principle. Our own Finland‐Swedish language varieties have, therefore, ended up in a difficult situation. The preservation of terminology and usage, in school as well as in society, has been driven by those demands that have predominated in the centre of the country. It has generally interpreted its normative function in simple dichotomies such as right/wrong, standard language/dialect, good/bad style, etc. It is only recently past that attitudes towards dialects have become more accepting.