A recent study reveals that students are being assigned to the S2 group on incorrect grounds. This often places foreign-language students in an unequal position.

Approximately one in five children or young people studying Finnish as a second language and literature (S2) have sufficient reading skills to study at the S1 level.

This is according to researcher Lauri Ståhlberg, whose recent study has just been peer-reviewed. The article is part of Ståhlberg’s doctoral dissertation, which he is writing at the University of Helsinki.

According to the researcher, up to about one-fifth of those studying the S2 syllabus read Finnish texts more fluently and understood them better than at least one-third of those studying the S1 syllabus.

“The result was a bit surprising,” says Lauri Ståhlberg.

The results of the study highlight the fact that equality is not achieved equally in all schools.

“Schools need language assessment tools so that S2 resources can be allocated as appropriately as possible.”

The S2 curriculum should be reformed

The Finnish as a Second Language (S2) curriculum is intended for students who are unable to cope with Finnish as a mother tongue lessons. It is particularly necessary for children who have only just learned Finnish.

There are significant differences in the level of proficiency within the S2 curriculum. Some S2 students have great difficulty reading and writing Finnish. This was revealed in a study published in January by The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC).

On the other hand, it has been known for some time that individual students with an immigrant background have been placed in the S2 group even though their Finnish was stronger than their official mother tongue. This has placed young people with an immigrant background in an unequal position, as their language skills have not developed as well as those of students whose mother tongue is Finnish.

Experts have previously criticized the S2 system as outdated.

Maija Yli-Jokipii, a doctoral researcher in educational sciences, told Seura in November that S2 was created at a time when there were significantly fewer immigrants in Finland than there are today. According to her, students should receive language support in all lessons, not just in S2 lessons.

Earlier in January, Minister of Education Li Andersson admitted that Finland has not succeeded in providing sufficient support to foreign-language students.

There can be many reasons

Why are students placed in the S2 group even though their language skills are sufficient for the S1 group?

According to Lauri Ståhlberg, there may be many reasons for this.

In addition to reading skills, the S2 curriculum includes many other areas, such as writing and communication skills.

“However, it may be that many students who have achieved sufficient reading skills have been assigned to the S2 curriculum on grounds other than language skills.”

A student may be studying the S2 curriculum because, for example, their official native language is not Finnish. However, this should not be a reason for enrolling in the S2 curriculum.

“In some cases, students may also be enrolled in the S2 curriculum, even though in reality they are taught almost exclusively in Finnish language and literature classes.”

Funding basis to be reassessed

According to Lauri Ståhlberg, the operating models of S2 should be reevaluated. For example, it would be important to develop a test with class-level standards to support the assessment of the language skills of students studying the S2 syllabus.

“Currently, a student may start and finish elementary school as an S2 student, and their language skills may not be assessed very systematically along the way. However, there is likely to be a lot of variation in practices between schools.”

In addition, reading support should be increased, especially in upper secondary schools, and its targeting should be refined.

“There are students in schools who need support with reading but do not receive it. On the other hand, there are students who receive support even though they do not need it.”

Thirdly, Ståhlberg believes that some of the funding criteria for the S2 syllabus could be reconsidered.

“Support is distributed partly on the basis of how many students are studying the S2 syllabus. In some cases, this may affect the motivation to transfer a student from the S2 syllabus to the S1 syllabus.”

Lauri Ståhlberg’s article NIMI, which is part of his doctoral dissertation, will be published in the NMI Bulletin.

An article from his dissertation, “The connection between reading skills in Finnish as a second language and the focus of the literature (S2) syllabus in the second and seventh grades,” will be published in the special issue of Oppimisen ja oppimisvaikeuksien lehti (Learning and Learning Difficulties).

The study compared the technical reading skills and text comprehension of students studying the S1 and S2 syllabuses. The data used consisted of the reading skills results of 4,146 (S1) and 1,412 (S2) pupils in the second grade. In the seventh grade, the figures were 1,531 (S1) and 439 (S2).

Ståhlberg’s Lukuseula (Tutorised) company has developed the assessments to measure reading skills, which is used by approximately 50,000 children in Finland each year. An S2 language skills test is also currently being developed for the assessment tool.