27.01.2025 (Caucasian Journal). Is it possible to "import" the Nordic education model? What are the strengths and weaknesses of European education? How does EU membership affect national education policies?
These are some of the questions that we are discussing today with Inger ENKVIST, Professor Emerita from the Lund University in Sweden. Professor Enkvist is a distinguished Swedish educator and writer, one of the most renowned commentators on education policies, and an expert in Spanish literature.
▶ ქართულად: The Georgian version is here.
To be the first to view exclusive interviews, please subscribe here to our YouTube Channel
Inger ENKVIST: “WE HAVE FOR A LONG TIME LIVED ON THE RESULTS OF OUR PAST VERY HIGH EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS”
Alexander KAFFKA, editor-in-chief of Caucasian Journal: Hello and welcome to Caucasian Journal video interviews. Today we are especially delighted to meet with Inger ENKVIST, who is Professor Emerita from the Lund University in Sweden. Professor Enkvist is a distinguished Swedish educator, writer, one of the most renowned commentators on education policies, and an expert in Spanish literature.
Many countries have attempted to "import" elements of the Nordic education model. Do you think it is possible to replicate this model abroad outside of the Nordic countries in different cultural and social contexts?
Inger ENKVIST: Well, yes and no, as always. I think Nordic education was very successful some decades ago, and it built on a long democratic tradition or pre-democratic collaboration within society. And also it built on trust between the citizens and between the citizens and the state. So there are a number of historical factors that are important. We have seen that lately we have had a lot of immigration from outside Scandinavia, and some of those pupils have difficulty integrating into a Nordic way of looking at relationships between teachers and students. For example, we have a rather mild way of giving orders. There are orders, but they are framed as questions or suggestions, and some pupils do not understand that. So we could say that there was a traditional Swedish model up to mid 20th century. Then there was a Swedish or Nordic welfare model, which worked relatively well for a couple of years. And then we had to take into consideration if we need to make adjustments to what was established, now that we are in a new situation.
AK: What currently are the weak points of the Nordic education model?
IE: I would say it has to do with the kind of "political utopianism" and something that started in the 60s in Sweden, the United States, and Britain. It was to use education as a way of getting to a socialist society where everyone was equal: Using education not for education's sake, but for political reasons. And that seemed maybe attractive, but it had some very negative consequences.
I can take Sweden and Finland as examples. Everyone knows that Finland was the big champion of European education when the first PISA results came out, because it seemed that Finland could get very good results with a very Nordic way of conducting school business, with inclusive education, with a very mild way of disciplining the students, and with very mild restriction on the students. But we have now analyzed the Finnish situation and we know a lot more about it. And several researchers have pointed out that the students that were about 15 years of age in 2000, had been educated by teachers who had done their formation maybe in the 60s and 70s. Those teachers had experiences from the bad years in Finnish history, from the Second World War. Those were the teachers who had educated those 15 year old Finns that did so well in PISA tests. But after that success, Finland got richer. It was more of a welfare society. It had recently woken up to its new status as a high power educational state. And it started to implement reforms like other West European countries.
Everyone noticed that quality was going down. The intent of the state to regulate everything is not giving the results we would like to see.
And in Sweden, something similar happened, but it's more drawn out, so it's more difficult to see. We had a very good education system up to 1962. That's when we introduced the comprehensive school, the Ecole unique, the one model only for all students, which was a socialist reform, of course. That same year we abolished all other alternatives. Everyone should have the same education for up to 16 years of age. One curriculum, one school, one type of teacher training. That was contested at the moment, and all the teachers of upper secondary school protested: "Don't introduce these reforms!" But the politicians did not listen. Obviously, they thought that their program, or what they thought would be social cohesion, was more important.
So the negative influences do not show until we are in the 80s and especially in the 90s. Everyone noticed that quality was going down. The intent of the state to regulate everything is not giving the results we would like to see.
When I speak about politicization, it is having social equality as a goal; not only having gender equality, but having all kinds of gender issues that are topical today; having environmental concerns everywhere; and having multiculturalism as a political goal. All that has permeated the Swedish curriculum, as it has in most Western countries.
Maybe we should try to organize or offer different kinds of education, all of them good in their way. So to let every kind of offer of education be as good as it can be, and then let the students choose between them. It is not more expensive and it would, I think, respond better to what the public wants and what is good for the country.
One more thing that has happened since mid 20th century is that the school curriculum has become much more politicized. And I would like to see that the school offer includes curriculums that are not so politicized. When I speak about politicization, it is having social equality as a goal; not only having gender equality, but having all kinds of gender issues that are topical today; having environmental concerns everywhere; and having multiculturalism as a political goal. All that has permeated the Swedish curriculum, as it has in most Western countries. So we are not different, but we are like other countries in this.
All these goals do lower the standards of knowledge because they are supposed to be everywhere and they take time and effort from other pursuits. With these goals, school is not only a place of intellectual learning, it's also a place of social learning. And when you have two goals at the same time, you diminish both of them. And my concern here is the intellectual learning. If you mix your intellectual goal with other goals, you draw everything towards the bottom of your preferences. So I would like to have schools that did not have those political goals.
If you mix your intellectual goal with other goals, you draw everything towards the bottom of your preferences. So I would like to have schools that did not have those political goals.
And I have, in a recent book, I have tried to show that if you have concerns about the environment, you should rather augment the number of hours in biology and chemistry so that the students understand the issues. If you are interested in other cultures - multiculturalism - what you should do, in my view, is have more history, have more knowledge of religions, read more literature. Then you could form your own opinion about these things. So what they do now is that they offer a solution to the students. They try to teach what should be, in my view, the conclusion.
AK: If we look at the education model in the European Union in general and compare it to the Swedish, Finnish, or other Nordic models still within the EU, do you think the Nordic approach still has strengths or advantages compared to the general EU standards?
IE: Your question has to do with the European Union. And the EU, as it was when it started, was not to go into education. It was an economic collaboration. It promised to leave education at peace. Everything cultural was supposed to be dealt with by the states. But the EU is in a bad position, in my view. It is entering in a lot of areas where they should not enter and where they do not really do anything good. I would like to see European education in a better state. And I do not think that the EU has anything good to add.
If you have concerns about the environment, you should rather augment the number of hours in biology and chemistry so that the students understand the issues. If you are interested in other cultures - multiculturalism - what you should do, in my view, is have more history, more knowledge of religions, read more literature. Then you could form your own opinion about these things. So what they do now is that they offer a solution to the students. They try to teach what should be, in my view, the conclusion.
Can I also tell you an anecdote? It has to do with my ideals of European education. When I was very young, in the 70s, I went to Britain and I went to the Tate Museum. And it was a hot summer day and there was a long queue to enter. And behind me in the queue, there was a Portuguese boy, and we started talking. He had studied exactly the same program as I had studied in Sweden. So Sweden was a social democratic state. And Portugal was just a couple of years away from leaving the Salazar regime. And we had studied both Latin, the smattering of Greek, ancient Greek history, European history and the history of our country, literature, European literature and the literature of our country. And we had studied English, French, and a bit of German as the European standard languages, and a bit of philosophy, a bit of history of the religions, and a bit of psychology, but those were short courses. Essentially we had both had a European humanistic education which was practically the same.
I would like to say that that was European education before the progressives entered like elephants in a china shop. So for so-called "democratic" reasons, they did away with what was our common heritage. And now we have teachers and parents who have gone through this new school, and teacher training which is still set on all these ideological issues. And we have added an important number of students from other cultures who are not at all interested in the European heritage, they have other goals. So we have complicated the situation and we have for a long time lived on the results of our earlier very high standards of education. But this is getting thinner and thinner and we will have to do something about it. If we want to defend our way of life in Europe, we must defend or sustain our educational level. And our politicians are not quite up to the task.
This question that you are raising about European education, I feel it very deeply because my personal interest in education is European languages, history, literature, and philosophy. So they have done away with all the subjects that are dear to my heart. Exactly what I like, what I value, has been devalued by the bureaucrats.
If we want to defend our way of life in Europe, we must defend or sustain our educational level. And our politicians are not quite up to the task.
AK: The public in our region largely identifies themselves with European values, and considers themselves as European nations, which is very important. But still, I think people should understand in better detail what the European values are and what they should expect as they integrate with the EU. And what you are saying is quite important in this sense, because in fact it contradicts the general expectations which people have here. Maybe we could talk a little bit about how the current state of the EU might influence the national education policies, especially in the countries that are in the process of integration.
IE: If Georgia has a rather more traditional education, it should not do away with that education, because a number of European countries will tend to not exactly go back to it, but they will tend to introduce more elements from traditional education. The Western societies are in a relatively good situation, not because of their educational system, but in spite of it, living on fruits from yesterday. So do not take what we do now as your goal, but look at more principles that are more profound.
If Georgia has a rather more traditional education, it should not do away with that education, because a number of European countries will tend to not exactly go back to it, but they will tend to introduce more elements from traditional education. The Western societies are in a relatively good situation, not because of their educational system, but in spite of it, living on fruits from yesterday.
AK: Thank you very much for your excellent contribution.
IE: It has been nice talking to you and I'm very pleased to collaborate and to help Georgia and Armenia in any way I can. So thank you for inviting me.
AK: Thank you again. It's been a great pleasure for us.
IE: Thank you.
▶ ქართულად: Read or watch the Georgian version here.
This article was produced with the financial support of the EU and the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF). Its contents are the sole responsibility of the Caucasian Journal and do not necessarily reflect the views of GMF.
No comments:
Post a Comment