Comparing multicultural education in China and Finland: From policy to practice

ABSTRACT

Over the last several decades multicultural education has played a key role in many educational policies and practices internationally. In this article, the author examines multicultural education in the Chinese and Finnish contexts through a comparative study. The comparison includes the scope of diversity, the policy and practice of multicultural education, and what two distinct educational systems can learn from each other. A critical multicultural education framework and pluralistic unity nationality theory have been employed to discuss the policy and practice of multicultural education in both countries. The analysis clarifies commonalities and context-bound differences. Implications and suggestions for further development of multicultural education in both countries are also explored.

KEYWORDS:

• Multicultural education
• critical multiculturalism
• pluralistic unity nationality theory
• China
• Finland

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1. Dervin, “Towards Post-intercultural Education in Finland?” 19–29.

2. Hummelstedt-Djedou et al., “Diverging Discourses on Multicultural Education in Finnish,” 184–202.

3. Holm and Zilliacus, “Multicultural Education and Intercultural Education: Is there a Difference,” 11–28.

4. Wan and Bai, “Comparison between Western Multicultural Education and Minority Education in China,” 32–41.

5. Jin, Pei and Xiao, “The Chinese Nation: “National Complex” or “National Entity”?” 1–13.

6. Cherng et al., “China: Sociological Perspectives on Ethnicity and Education,” 301–344.

7. Ma, 2007, “Comparative Research on Affirmative Action in China and America,” 117.

8. See note 4 above.

9. See Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). “National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014.”

10. Mikander, Zilliacus and Holm, “Intercultural Education in Transition: Nordic Perspectives,” 40–56.

11. Holm and Mansikka, “Multicultural Education as Policy and Praxis in Finland,” 63–74.

12. See note 10 above.

13. Leeman and Reid, “Multi/intercultural Education in Australia and the Netherlands,” 57–72.

14. Ibid.

15. Gorski, “What we’re Teaching Teachers,” 309–318.

16. See note 2 above.

17. Palaiologou and Gorski, “The Evolution of Intercultural and Multicultural Education,” 353–355.

18. May and Sleeter, “Introduction: Critical multiculturalism,” 7–22.

19. Wang, Between Modern Schooling and Cultural Heritage, 71–72.

20. See note 17 above.

21. Postiglione, Education and Social Change in China.

22. Postiglione, Education, Ethnicity, Society and Global Change in Asia.

23. Fei, “Pluralist-Unity of Chinese Nation,” 1–19.

24. Ibid.

25. See note 19 above.

26. Blommaert and Verschuren, Debating diversity, 1–9.

27. Fairclough, “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method,” 121–38.

28. Wodak, “Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis,” 50–69.

29. Postiglione, “Making Tibetans in China,” 1–20.

30. Li, “Chinese as a Lingua Franca in Greater China,” 149–76.

31. Zuo, “China”s Policy towards Minority Languages,” 80–91.

32. See Sixth National Population Census of the People”s Republic of China.

33. Holm and Londen, “The Discourse on Multicultural Education in Finland,” 107–20.

34. See the website of Statistics Finland https://www.stat.fi/index_en.html.

35. See note 11 above.

36. See Regional Ethnic Autonomy Law of the PRC: https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/regional-ethnic-autonomy-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-amended.

37. See Multicultural Research Center of Beijing Normal University, “National Report of Multicultural Education of China,” 28.

38. See https://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/regional-ethnic-autonomy-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-amended#body-chinese.

39. Wu, Introduction to Ethnic Issues, 1–10.

40. Kent, The Sami Peoples of the North.

41. Hepburn, “Forging Autonomy in a Unitary State,” 468–87.

42. See note 21 above.

43. See note 41 above.

44. Leibold and Chen, Minority eucation in China.

45. Postiglione, “Education and Culural Dversity in Multiehnic China,” 27–43.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid.

48. See http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_177/201407/171904.html.

49. See the document http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07/29/content_1667143.htm.

50. Smith, National Identity.

51. Adamson and Feng, “Trilingualism in Education,” 243–58.

52. Ibid.

53. See note 44 above.

54. Ibid.

55. See http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_309/200412/4672.html.

56. See note 29 above.

57. Lu, “Research on the Reform of Preparatory Class Teaching,” Tao and Wang, “Exploring the Development of Teaching Reform,” 53–54.

58. This project began in 2005 with the aim of training a group of high-level elites from ethnic minorities. This project helped ethnic minority students to take master”s and doctoral degrees in Chinese top 100 universities and most students were from the western province of China.

59. The enrolment plan of “the plan of high-level elites of ethnic minorities” for 2020 issued by ministry of education in can be found at http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A09/moe_763/201909/t20190930_401889.html.

60. Yuan, “A Review of the Studies on Chinese Ethnic Education Policy”; Xie, “Research on the Preferential Policies”; Ma, “Comparative Research on Affirmative Action”; Teng and Ma, “Preferential Policies for Ethnic Minority Groups”; and Hui and Jiang, “Research on the Ethnic Preparatory Education,” 103–5.

61. Teng and Ma, Affirmative action in China and the US.

62. Wang, “Preferential poLicies for Ethnic Minority Students,” 149–63.

63. Zhou, “Language Policy and Illiteracy,” 129–48.

64. Zhang, Evaluating Trilingual Language Teacher Training Programmes, 6-20.

65. See note 7 above.

66. Zhang and Liu, “Analysis on the Equity of Minority Education,” 9-13.

67. Teng, “The Idea of Plurality and Unity,” 75–90.

68. See note 45 above.

69. Cherng et, al., “China: Sociological Perspectives on Ethnicity and Education,” 203–344; and Teng and Ma, “Preferential Policies for Ethnic Minority Groups,” 10–18.

70. Leibold, Ethnic Policy in China.

71. Teng and Ma, “Preferential Policies for Ethnic Minority Groups,” 10-18.

72. See note 33 above.

73. Lähteenmäki-Smith and Salminen, Promoting Social Inclusion of Roma.

74. Saukkonen, “Multiculturalism and Nationalism,” 270–294.

75. European Commission, “Integrating Students from Migrant Backgrounds.”

76. Population Research Institute, “Migration in Finland.” http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/in_english/population_research_institute/facts-and-figures/migrationin-finland/.

77. Harju-Luukkainen and McElvany, “Immigrant Student Achievement and Education Policy in Finland,” 87–102.

78. See the document at https://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/2010/en20101386.pdf.

79. Tørslev et al., “Refugee and Immigrant Children’s Right to Education,” 30-35.

80. See note 33 above.

81. See note 9 above.

82. Zilliacus, Holm and Sahlström, “Taking Steps towards Institutionalising Multicultural Education,” 231–48.

83. Ibid.

84. Ibid.

85. See note 74 above.

86. Ibid.

87. See note 79 above.

88. Ibid.

89. Kalalahti et al., “Immigrant-Origin Youth and the Indecisiveness,” 1242–62.

90. Ismail, “Immigrant Children,” 717–34.

91. Various and Pulkkinen, “Migrant Pupils and the Effectiveness of Primary Education,” 35–51.

92. Ibid.

93. See note 13 above.

94. See note 7 above.

95. See note 19 above.

96. Wang and Phillion, “Minority Language Policy and Practice in China,” 1–14.

97. See note 74 and 79 above.

98. See note 13 and 82 above, Ma, “Education of Ethnic Minorities in Contemporary China.”

99. See note 21 above.

100. See note 11 above.

101. See note 79 above.

102. See note 17 and 18 above.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Xiaoxu Liu

Xiaoxu Liu is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the University of Helsinki. Her research interests include multicultural education, education for diversity and Chinese minority education.