Browsing by Author "Kuronen, Perttu"

The purpose of this study is to describe the discussion, which took place in Helsingin Sanomat between 2000 and 2005, regarding the rationale for publishing basic education reviews. Firstly, the idea is to clarify, what type of views were presented, and what were the supporting arguments used. Secondly, the focus is on the professions of those involved in the dialogue, and the institutions they represented. The conflicting decisions of justice departments on the matter gave the inspiration for this study. The theoretical starting point for this study is Foucalt's views with regards to the blending of power and discourse, as well as the build up of social construction, in the context of life's continuous power struggle that is influenced by discourse. Media as a whole is a significant contributing factor to social construction. Helsingin Sanomat, being the most read Finnish daily publication, is one of the most important contributors amongst media. The material used in the study are the Helsingin Sanomat articles on the publicity of basic education evaluation between 2000 and 2005, during which period the two above mentioned legal entities made their decisions. This study can be defined as a qualitative analysis supplemented by certain quantitative factors. The calculations and creation of spreadsheets do not amount to quantitative analysis. This is simply a practical approach to present the material that forms the basis for this study. Discourse analysis was also applied in the study to gain a better overview of the material used. Two discourses were introduced as a framework to interpret the articles – welfare state discourse and neoliberal market discourse. The results show that those against publishing have technical arguments, and also rely on welfare state discourse. In their opinion, the comparability of education reviews is always questionable. Their approach to the matter reflects tones of the welfare state discourse, and their concerns included increased competition between schools, and the end of basic education offering equal opportunities. Those in favor of publishing highlighted information transparency, and the parent's need for review data when selecting schools. The law was also said to require publishing the data. Furthermore, the schools were considered to be accountable to the taxpayers. The ideology reflected in their argumentation was clearly the neoliberal market discourse. The negative aspects of publishing the reviews were contributed mainly by researchers, teachers, and school administrators. At the same time, the positive aspects of publishing were presented by the newspaper's own staff, a few politicians, and the man of the street. The active majority in the discussion were those against publishing.