Advertisement

School Outcomes and Neighbourhood Effects: A New Approach Using Data from Finland

  • Venla Bernelius
  • Timo M. Kauppinen
Chapter

Abstract

Studies consistently show that the Finnish educational system is one of the best in the world with only small variations in educational outcomes between pupils and schools. In this chapter, it is argued that these country level observations hide dramatic variations within the country: when educational outcomes are studied for the Helsinki Metropolitan area, large variations can be found between neighbourhoods, schools, and individuals. Recent research suggests that these differences are growing, making the Helsinki Metropolitan area an attractive “urban laboratory” as neighbourhood effects are generally assumed to intensify as socio-spatial segregation increases. The chapter presents a critical commentary on results from a study on neighbourhood effects and educational outcomes, using data for Finland. The chapter ends with the presentation of the design of a new research project funded by the Finnish National Research Council, and the Academy of Finland, to overcome some of the shortcomings of previous research. The study will collect longitudinal data on a large sample of pupils with detailed information about individuals, households, schools and neighbourhoods. This design will allow the use of multilevel models to estimate neighbourhood effects.

Keywords

Contextual Effect Educational Outcome Collective Efficacy Neighbourhood Effect School Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ammermueller, A., & Pischke, J. (2006). Peer effects in European primary schools: Evidence from PIRLS. London: Centre for the Economics of Education, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, R., & Molina, I. (2003). Racialization and migration in urban segregation processes – Key issues for critical geographers. In K. Simonsen & J. Öhman (Eds.), Voices from the North (pp. 261–282). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  3. Bernelius, V. (2005). Onko oppimistulokset valettu betoniin? Tutkimus Helsingin kaupunkirakenteen ja peruskoulujen oppimistulosten välisestä yhteydestä ja kouluvalintojen vaikutuksista (Are educational outcomes real estate? A study of the connection between urban segregation and educational outcomes in public schools, and the effects of the public school market in Helsinki). Masters Thesis, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  4. Bernelius, V. (2008). Lähi(ö)koulu – Helsingin koulut ja kaupunginosat EU:n Urban II –ohjelman kouluhankkeissa. (The school in the suburbs – The schools and neighbourhoods of Helsinki in the EU Urban II school initiatives). Tutkimuksia 3. Helsinki: City of Helsinki Urban Facts.Google Scholar
  5. Bernelius, V. (2010). Alueellinen eriytyminen heijastuu kouluihin (Urban segregation affects schools). Peruskoulujen oppimistulokset ja oppilaiden hyvinvointi eriytyvällä Helsingin seudulla: MetrOP–tutkimus 2010–2013 (pp. 19–23). Tutkimuksia B1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bernelius, V. (forthcoming) Osoitteenmukaisia oppimistuloksia? Kaupunkikoulujen eriytymisen vaikutus peruskoululaisten oppimistuloksiin Helsingissä (Street numbers, school grades? The effects of school segregation in Helsinki). Research article.Google Scholar
  7. Bramley, G., & Karley, N. K. (2007). Homeownership, poverty and educational achievement: School effects as neighbourhood effects. Housing Studies, 22(5), 693–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brännström, L. (2008). Making their mark: The effects of neighbourhood and upper secondary school on educational achievement. European Sociological Review, 24(4), 463–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgess, S., Wilson, D., Briggs, A., & Piebalga, A. (2008). Segregation and the attainment of minority ethnic pupils in England. CMPO working paper 08/204.Google Scholar
  10. Butler, T., & Hamnett, C. (2007). The geography of education: Introduction. Urban Studies, 44(7), 1161–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of Ghettos and neighborhood effects on dropping out and teenage childbearing. American Journal of Sociology, 96(5), 1226–1259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diez–Roux, A. V. (1998). Bringing context back into epidemiology: Variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 88(2), 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donnelly, C. (2000). In pursuit of school ethos. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48(2), 134–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Friedrichs, J., Galster, G., & Musterd, S. (2003). Neighbourhood effects on social opportunities: The European and American research and policy context. Housing Studies, 18(6), 797–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fröjd, S., Kaltiala–Heino, R., & Rimpelä, M. (2006). The association of parental monitoring and family structure with diverse maladjustment outcomes in middle adolescent boys and girls. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 61(4), 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galster, G. (2008). Quantifying the effect of neighbourhood on individuals: Challenges, alternative approaches, and promising directions. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 128(1), 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galster, G. (2011). The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel modelling of educational data. In D. Courgeau (Ed.), Methodology and epistomology of multilevel analysis (pp. 25–42). London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  19. Hautamäki, J., Arinen, P., Eronen, S., & Hautamäki, A. (2002). Assessing learning–to–learn. A framework. Evaluation Reports 4. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  20. Hautamäki, J., Kupiainen, S., Arinen, P., & Hautamäki, A. (2005). Oppimaan oppiminen ala–asteella 2. Tilanne vuonna 2003 ja muutokset vuodesta 1996. (Learning to learn in the primary schools. The situation in 2003 and the changes from the year 1996). Oppimistulosten arviointi 1. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  21. Hautamäki, J., Kupiainen, S., Arinen, P., & Hautamäki, A. (2006). Learning–to–learn assessment in Finland – Versatile tools to monitor and improve effectiveness and equity of the educational system. In R. Jakku–Sihvonen & H. Niemi (Eds.), Research–based teacher education in Finland. Research in Educational Science 25. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  22. Hetland, J., Torsheim, T., & Aaro, L. E. (2002). Subjective health complaints in adolescence: Dimensional structure and variation across gender and age. Scandinavian Journal of Public Healthh, 30(3), 223–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jakku–Sihvonen, R., & Kuusela, J. (2002). Mahdollisuuksien koulutuspolitiikan tasa–arvo (Equality of opportunities in the educational policies). Oppimistulosten arvointeja 7. 2nd edn. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  24. Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In L. E. Lynn & M. G. McGeary (Eds.), Inner–city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kaltiala–Heino, R., Rimpelä, M., Rantanen, P., & Rimpelä, A. (2000). Bullying at school – An indicator of adolescent at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23(6), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Karisto, A., & Montén, S. (1996). Lukioon vai ei: Tutkimus alueellisista eroista helsinkiläisten lukionkäynnissä ja lukiolakkautusten vaikutuksista (College or not: A study of neighborhood differences in the college education and effects of college dropouts). Tutkimuksia 6. Helsinki: City of Helsinki Urban Facts.Google Scholar
  27. Kärnä, A., Salmivalli, C., Poskiparta, E., & Voeten, M. (2007). Bullying and victimization: variation and risk factors at individual, classroom and school levels. The 13th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, Germany, August 21–25, 2007.Google Scholar
  28. Karvonen, S., & Rahkonen, O. (2002). Kuka vastustaa koulutusta: Kouluvastaisuuden alueelliset erot Helsingissä (Who’s against education: Local differences in school attitudes in Helsinki). Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 67(4), 324–332.Google Scholar
  29. Karvonen, S., Vikat, A., & Rimpela, M. (2005). The role of school context in the increase in young people’s health complaints in Finland. Journal of Adolescence, 28(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kauppinen, T. M. (2002). The beginning of immigrant settlement in the Helsinki metropolitan area and the role of social housing. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 17(2), 173–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kauppinen, T. M. (2004). Asuinalueen ja perhetaustan vaikutukset helsinkiläisnuorten keskiasteen tutkintojen suorittamiseen (The effects of neighborhood and family background in completing secondary degrees among youth in Helsinki). Tutkimuksia 6. Helsinki: City of Helsinki Urban Facts.Google Scholar
  32. Kauppinen, T. M. (2007). Neighborhood effects in a European city: Secondary education of young people in Helsinki. Social Science Research, 36(1), 421–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kauppinen, T. M. (2008). Schools as mediators of neighbourhood effects on choice between vocational and academic tracks of secondary education in Helsinki. European Sociological Review, 24(3), 379–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koivusilta, L. (2000). Health–related selection into educational tracks. A mechanism producing socio–economic health differences. Tutkimusjulkaisuja D 394. Turku: Turku University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Konu, A. I., Alanen, E., Lintonen, T., & Rimpelä, M. (2002). Factor structure of the school well–being model. Health Education Research, 17(6), 732–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kortteinen, M., & Vaattovaara, M. (2007). Miten Helsingin käykään? Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 72(2), 137–145.Google Scholar
  37. Koskelainen, M., Sourander, A., & Vauras, M. (2001). Self–reported strengths and difficulties in a community sample of Finnish adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 10(3), 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kupari, P. (2005). Kotitausta näkyy matematiikan oppimistuloksissa (Social bacground is reflected to PISA outcomes in maths). In P. Kupari & J. Välijärvi (Eds.), Osaaminen kestävällä pohjalla – PISA 2003 Suomessa (pp. 115–127). Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Kuusela, J. (2006). Temaattisia näkökulmia perusopetuksen tasa-arvoon (Thematic insights to equality in primary education). Oppimistulosten arviointi 6/2006. Finnish National Board of Education. 144 s.Google Scholar
  40. Kuusela, J. (2010). MetrOP–alueen kouluista toisen asteen yhteishakuaineiston perusteella (Schools in the MetrOP–area, analysis based on secondary education choice register). In M. Rimpelä & V. Bernelius (Eds.), Peruskoulujen oppimistulokset ja oppilaiden hyvinvointi eriytyvällä Helsingin seudulla: MetrOP–tutkimus 2010–2013 (pp. 38–43). Tutkimuksia B1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kuusela, J., Etelälahti, A., Hagman, Å., & Hievanen, R. et al. (2008). Maahanmuuttajaoppilaat ja koulutus – tutkimus oppimistuloksista, koulutusvalinnoista ja työllistämisestä (Immigrant pupils and education – A study of educational outcomes, school choice and employment). Helsinki: National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  42. Lappalainen, H. (2003). Osaat lukea – miten osaat kirjoittaa? (You can read – how well can you write? – Evaluation of educational outcomes). Oppimistulosten arviointi 4. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  43. Lappalainen, H. (2008). On annettu hyviä numeroita. (They have given good grades – Evaluation of educational outcomes). Oppimistulosten arviointi 3. Oppimistulosten arviointi Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  44. Mattila, L. (2005). Perusopetuksen matematiikan kansalliset oppimistulokset 9. vuosiluokalla 2004 (National evaluation of Maths outcomes in the 9th grade.) Oppimistulosten arviointi 2. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  45. Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. (2005). Social exclusion, segregation and neighborhood effects. In Y. Kazepov (Ed.), Cities of Europe: Changing contexts, local arrangements, and the challenge to urban cohesion (pp. 170–189). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. (2007). Spatial segregation and integration in the Netherlands. In K. Schönwälder (Ed.), Residential segregation and theintegration of immigrants: Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden (pp. 7–40). Berlin: Social Science Research Center Berlin.Google Scholar
  47. Nash, R. (2003). Is the school composition effect real? – A discussion with evidence from the UK PISA data. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(4), 441–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Niemi, E. (2008). Matematiikan oppimistulosten kansallinen arviointi 6. vuosiluokalla vuonna 2007 (National evaluation of Maths outcomes in the 6th grade in 2007). Oppimistulosten arviointi 1. Helsinki: Finnish National Board of EducationGoogle Scholar
  49. Plotnick, R. D., & Hoffman, S. D. (1999). The effect of neighborhood characteristics on young adult outcomes: Alternative estimates. Social Science Quarterly, 80(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
  50. Rankin, B., & Quane, J. M. (2002). Social context and urban adolescent outcomes: The interrelated effects of neighborhoods, families, and peers on African–American youth. Social Problems, 49(1), 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rimpelä, M., & Bernelius, V. (Eds.) (2010). Peruskoulujen oppimistulokset ja oppilaiden hyvinvointi eriytyvällä Helsingin seudulla: MetrOP–tutkimus 2010–2013 (Educational outcomes and the welfare of pupils in the segregating Helsinki Region: MetrOP–research 2010–2013). Tutkimuksia B1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Rimpelä, M., Rigoff, A., Kuusela, J., & Peltonen, H. (Eds.) (2008). Hyvinvoinnin ja terveyden edistäminen peruskouluissa 1–2 (Promotion of wellbeing and health in comprehensive schools based on surveys to comprehensive schools 1–2). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education.Google Scholar
  53. Ritakallio, M., Kaltiala–Heino, R., Kivivuori, J., & Rimpelä, M. (2005). Delinquent behaviour and depression in middle adolescence: A Finnish community sample. Journal of Adolescence, 28(1), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Robertson, D., & Symons, J. (2003). Do peer groups matter? Peer group versus schooling effects on academic attainment. Economica, 70(277), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rutter, M., & Maughan, B. (2002). School effectiveness findings 1979–2002. Journal of School Psychology, 40(6), 451–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Salmela–Aro, K., Kiuru, N., Leskinen, E., & Nurmi, J. (2009). School burnout inventory (SBI): Reliability and validity. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sampson, R. J. (2008). Moving to inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments meet social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 114(1), 189–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sellström, E., & Bremberg, S. (2006). The significance of neighbourhood context to child and adolescent health and well–being: A systematic review of multilevel studies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 34(5), 544–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Small, M. L., & Feldman, J. (2011). Ethnographic evidence, heterogeneity, and neighbourhood effects after moving to opportunity. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Sykes, B., & Musterd, S. (2010). Examining neighbourhood and school effects simultaneously: What does the Dutch evidence show? Urban Studies. doi: 10.1177/0042098010371393.
  61. Thrupp, M., Lauder, H., & Robinson, T. (2002). School composition and peer effects. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(5), 483–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vaattovaara, M., & Kortteinen, M. (2003). Beyond polarisation versus professionalisation? A case study of the development of the Helsinki Region, Finland. Urban Studies, 40(11), 2127–2145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. van Ham, M., & Manley, D. (2010). The effect of neighbourhood housing tenure mix on labour market outcomes: A longitudinal investigation of neighbourhood effects. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Vilkama, K. (2008). Maahanmuuttajaväestön kasvu alueittain 1992–2007 (The growth of immigrant population in the neighbourhoods of Helsinki 1992–2007.) In Bernelius, Venla. Lähi(ö)koulu – Helsingin koulut ja kaupunginosat EU:n Urban II –ohjelman kouluhankkeissa. Helsingin kaupungin tietokeskus, Tutkimuksia 3 (pp. 20–21).Google Scholar
  65. West, P., Sweeting, H., & Leyland, A. (2004). School effects on pupils’ health behaviours: Evidence in support of the health promoting school. Research Papers in Education, 19(3), 261–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zimmer, R. W., & Toma, E. F. (2000). Peer effects in private and public schools across countries. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 19(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geosciences and GeographyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of Social ResearchUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations