Danna Brown is a researcher for Civitas.
Once Finland changed the term from “daycare” to “early education” in its early-years policy, it fundamentally altered the direction of how to support children in the early years of their lives.
A recently published Civitas report, Foundation for the Future, discussed the work of Lea Pulkkinen, focusing on the question: “Are the Pillars of a Good Childhood collapsing in Finland?” Lea Pulkkinen is a psychologist with expertise in human development and children’s well-being, and her work has advanced child-centred education in Finland.
Pulkkinen identified seven trends threatening the pillars of a good childhood in Finland. One of the concerning trends that Pulkkinen highlighted was ‘schoolification’, which she believes is endangering children’s access to what they need in the early years to support their natural development.
Unfortunately, in 2013, Finland transferred responsibility for early childhood administration from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture. Since then, the Finnish government has replaced the term “daycare” with “early education.” While this name change may seem minor, it represents how the government addresses the needs of children in their early years.
Pulkkinen’s assessment of the consequences of changes in Finland’s early-years policy for children is eye-opening. Finland effectively decided that early childhood was an education policy area to be optimised rather than a vital stage of a child’s life to be supported. According to Pulkkinen, the foundations for a good childhood in Finland will continue to weaken if these trends are not addressed.
The first three years of a child’s life are a critical period for their development. During this period, children are particularly sensitive to stress. What they need more than cognitive stimulation is social and emotional support from their parents and caregivers. They need responsive, attuned relationships with stable caregivers. They need security. They need to be able to play freely and have time in natural environments. These are not soft variables. These vital building blocks are the foundation upon which cognitive development is later built.
Pulkkinen states that ‘schoolification’ is a process in which early childhood services are being reorganised along junior school lines rather than around the child’s natural developmental stage. The emphasis decisively shifts away from children’s social and emotional experiences in their early years toward cognitive training and measurable skills. The result is more of a system to produce measurable cognitive outputs. It is not a change that focuses on what is vital to children in their early years.
Pulkkinen was direct about what drove these changes, noting that global economic competition from the 1990s onwards led to the dominance of economic values in Finnish policymaking, “replacing educational traditions and philosophy.” Over time, both parents in full-time employment became the norm. This resulted in children becoming a scheduling issue to be managed by institutional services rather than a responsibility of parents to be supported, where necessary, by the government.
Finland was, until recently, celebrated internationally as proof that a well-resourced home-care childcare system produces good outcomes. However, the data Pulkkinen presented complicates that picture of Finland. Burnout among Finnish parents ranks high in Europe. The number of children placed outside the home by child protection authorities has doubled over the past 30 years. The fertility rates have reached their lowest recorded level in Finnish history. These current outcomes reflect a system designed around the wrong objective.
What can Britain learn from Finland? The British government has expanded subsidised childcare from nine months old and elevated the “early education” element of the policy; it would, however, do well to take note of what is happening in Finland as a cautionary tale. The policy decisions Finland has implemented for children in their early years in recent years raise serious questions about their negative impact on children in the future. It is an example that illustrates what happens when the government replaces the wisdom and love of parental judgment.
This is not to say that the government should do nothing. Rather, the government should support parents and families rather than substitute for them. In Britain, policy aimed at children and families should expand the genuine choices available to parents, not narrow them by subsidising one form of care while withdrawing support for alternatives. Separating childcare subsidies from the requirement to use formal institutional care would be a good starting point. Providing real financial support for home-based care in the first three years of a child’s life would be another. The state cannot know what individual children need better than parents can.
Children in their early years do not need a curriculum. They need caring relationships, stability, and time with their parents and caregivers.
Pulkkinen’s ominous conclusion is worth taking seriously: “In all policymaking, the primary consideration must be the child’s developmental needs and best interests. Parents must have the freedom to choose how to arrange care for their children, and the economic support to act on that choice.”
Policymakers could learn from this latest report from Civitas in constructing policy around family-in-childcare policies.
We must not follow Finland’s footsteps.
Danna Brown is a researcher for Civitas.
Once Finland changed the term from “daycare” to “early education” in its early-years policy, it fundamentally altered the direction of how to support children in the early years of their lives.
A recently published Civitas report, Foundation for the Future, discussed the work of Lea Pulkkinen, focusing on the question: “Are the Pillars of a Good Childhood collapsing in Finland?” Lea Pulkkinen is a psychologist with expertise in human development and children’s well-being, and her work has advanced child-centred education in Finland.
Pulkkinen identified seven trends threatening the pillars of a good childhood in Finland. One of the concerning trends that Pulkkinen highlighted was ‘schoolification’, which she believes is endangering children’s access to what they need in the early years to support their natural development.
Unfortunately, in 2013, Finland transferred responsibility for early childhood administration from the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to the Ministry of Education and Culture. Since then, the Finnish government has replaced the term “daycare” with “early education.” While this name change may seem minor, it represents how the government addresses the needs of children in their early years.
Pulkkinen’s assessment of the consequences of changes in Finland’s early-years policy for children is eye-opening. Finland effectively decided that early childhood was an education policy area to be optimised rather than a vital stage of a child’s life to be supported. According to Pulkkinen, the foundations for a good childhood in Finland will continue to weaken if these trends are not addressed.
The first three years of a child’s life are a critical period for their development. During this period, children are particularly sensitive to stress. What they need more than cognitive stimulation is social and emotional support from their parents and caregivers. They need responsive, attuned relationships with stable caregivers. They need security. They need to be able to play freely and have time in natural environments. These are not soft variables. These vital building blocks are the foundation upon which cognitive development is later built.
Pulkkinen states that ‘schoolification’ is a process in which early childhood services are being reorganised along junior school lines rather than around the child’s natural developmental stage. The emphasis decisively shifts away from children’s social and emotional experiences in their early years toward cognitive training and measurable skills. The result is more of a system to produce measurable cognitive outputs. It is not a change that focuses on what is vital to children in their early years.
Pulkkinen was direct about what drove these changes, noting that global economic competition from the 1990s onwards led to the dominance of economic values in Finnish policymaking, “replacing educational traditions and philosophy.” Over time, both parents in full-time employment became the norm. This resulted in children becoming a scheduling issue to be managed by institutional services rather than a responsibility of parents to be supported, where necessary, by the government.
Finland was, until recently, celebrated internationally as proof that a well-resourced home-care childcare system produces good outcomes. However, the data Pulkkinen presented complicates that picture of Finland. Burnout among Finnish parents ranks high in Europe. The number of children placed outside the home by child protection authorities has doubled over the past 30 years. The fertility rates have reached their lowest recorded level in Finnish history. These current outcomes reflect a system designed around the wrong objective.
What can Britain learn from Finland? The British government has expanded subsidised childcare from nine months old and elevated the “early education” element of the policy; it would, however, do well to take note of what is happening in Finland as a cautionary tale. The policy decisions Finland has implemented for children in their early years in recent years raise serious questions about their negative impact on children in the future. It is an example that illustrates what happens when the government replaces the wisdom and love of parental judgment.
This is not to say that the government should do nothing. Rather, the government should support parents and families rather than substitute for them. In Britain, policy aimed at children and families should expand the genuine choices available to parents, not narrow them by subsidising one form of care while withdrawing support for alternatives. Separating childcare subsidies from the requirement to use formal institutional care would be a good starting point. Providing real financial support for home-based care in the first three years of a child’s life would be another. The state cannot know what individual children need better than parents can.
Children in their early years do not need a curriculum. They need caring relationships, stability, and time with their parents and caregivers.
Pulkkinen’s ominous conclusion is worth taking seriously: “In all policymaking, the primary consideration must be the child’s developmental needs and best interests. Parents must have the freedom to choose how to arrange care for their children, and the economic support to act on that choice.”
Policymakers could learn from this latest report from Civitas in constructing policy around family-in-childcare policies.
We must not follow Finland’s footsteps.