Conclusions

As a phenomenon of a modernising society, the vocational guidance highlights the changing attitudes to the transition from school to work or further education. The young people and their families could not be left alone in this decision-making process; the city officials believed that the youths and their parents needed information and guidance to find their way.

The young people depended on their parents—not to mention siblings and other family members—in many ways. The family’s financial situation controlled their opportunities to acquire further education. Parents had to have both the will and the ability to permit and encourage their children to acquire more education. Middle-class parents were more likely than working-class parents to report that they could pay for further education. The choice between work and further education depended on how the family viewed work, education, and the link between the two.

The elementary school pupils had already opted out of higher education, and several other educational pathways were hard, if not impossible, for them to reach. Nevertheless, for the majority of them, that was not regrettable. Instead, they aimed for rapid employment through relatively short vocational schooling or direct access into the job market. The parents wanted to transmit to their children a high level of respect for work. Education was viewed instrumentally, as it could protect one from unemployment and lead to a more stable position in the labour market. Although both the young people and their parents noted that the future occupation ought to be something the young people were interested in, work was not necessarily understood as a means of fulfilment.

Despite the fear of unemployment, the booming economy offered plenty of opportunities for young workers in early 1960s Helsinki. The capital attracted the young from the countryside as well, although some of them moved to Sweden to find employment.19 Especially for boys, on-the-job training was still a valid option. Moreover, pay and employment prospects were considered more important for boys and their parents. The importance of acquiring vocational skills was stressed to both boys and girls, but gender roles, particularly boys’ and girls’ differing opportunities in the labour market, influenced the families’ reasoning. The gender-based division also applied to vocational education.

The young people made plans and decisions together with their family members, who can be described as setting limits on opportunities. They controlled the economic resources and decided whether the young person could consider further education, and they made the most of their social network when the young people searched for a job. The transmission of values is never a one-way process but an interactive one. However, the elementary school pupils were still so young that they were greatly dependent on their family members and the opinions their elders held (cf. Thompson 1997, 42–44). While the baby boomers received more formal education—both general and vocational—than the previous generations, the boys’ and girls’ plans were realistic and down-to-earth: it was still more a question of what one could do than what one wanted to do when one grew up.

Notes

1. All names mentioned in the chapter are pseudonyms.

2. This and other similar notes refer to the samples that I have collected from the vocational guidance records introduced later. The number is an identifier in the samples.

3. Nowadays, Finland and Sweden are held up as Nordic examples of a less-differentiated educational system, mass higher education, and the social democratic welfare state resulting in social equality in education and early occupational outcomes when compared to other European countries.

4. In Helsinki, the share of working-class pupils in lower secondary schools remained stable at twenty-seven to twenty-nine percent from the mid-1950s to the late 1960s; during this period, there is a coherent classification of the pupils’ socio-economic background. During the same period, the share of working-class students in upper secondary schools first diminished, but their share increased from the early 1960s onwards (HT 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1962a, 1963b, 1964, 1965, 1966a, 1967a, 1969, 1970, 1971). In the statistics, the occupations of secondary school pupils’ parents were classified into five categories: 1) officials, 2) entrepreneurs and clerical workers, 3) people practising liberal professions, 4) workers, and 5) other or unknown occupation. Here, I have classified pupils as working-class if their parents were workers. The official socio-economic classification differed from this. It had four categories, of which two can be understood as working-class. For example, in Helsinki in 1960, forty-four percent of economically active men belonged to the third category (skilled workers and so-called lower clerical workers), and fourteen percent of them were classified in the fourth category (unskilled workers) based on their occupation (HT 1963c).

5. It was possible to apply to lower secondary school also after five or six years of elementary school if one was not successful in the entrance examination the first time. Therefore, not all first graders were eleven years old. In addition to this, it must also be kept in mind that there was not enough space in the secondary schools for those who passed the entrance exam. For example, in 1957 only seventy percent of those who had passed the exam could begin their studies the same autumn (Pietiäinen 1995, 174).

6. Although only the fathers’ occupational status is mentioned here, the socio-economic classification of the families is based on both parents’ occupations in the case they were both employed. Overall, a quarter of the mothers were housewives, both in middle-class and in working-class families. The classification is grounded in the classification applied in the contemporary censuses and in a study concerning the appreciation of occupations (Bruun 1954; Rauhala 1966). Cf. endnote 4.

7. Municipal employment offices organised vocational guidance until 1960, after which the state took over the labour exchange and vocational guidance. The vocational guidance records of Helsinki were archived in their entirety until 1960; since then, the state organisation has decided to archive only a sample permanently.

8. The boys were a majority of fifty-five percent in the elementary schools’ two last classes (HT 1962b), and the girls formed a majority of students in the secondary schools (HT 1962a). The samples include ten percent of all files from 1960.

9. For example, one girl had applied to secondary school three or four times because her parents had insisted. Apparently, she had failed the entrance exam because of her poor skills in mathematics. Her father worked as an insurance inspector, and her mother was a pharmacist. The girl’s younger siblings performed well at school, but the firstborn’s school performance had clearly been a disappointment to the well-educated parents. The guidance counsellor referred to her as the black sheep of the family (elementary schoolgirl, number 21).

10. In 1950, almost a fifth of Helsinki’s population was Swedish-speaking. Ten years later, the proportion of Swedish-speakers had diminished to a little more than one-tenth.

11. These cases were rare. It is noteworthy that all eight clear disagreements were between parents and their daughters, whereas none of the boys had clear disputes with their parents. In two of these cases, the mother agreed with the daughter, but the father disapproved of the plan (elementary schoolgirls, numbers 4, 28, 49, 63, 77, 78, 86, and 87).

12. The Finnish verb voida used in the question can mean both ability and willingness to do something. Overall, the question was ‘If the chosen occupation requires education in some vocational institution, the family can cover the expenses entirely, partly, not at all (the suitable option is underlined)’.

13. A chi-square test of independence was performed to examine the relation between the parents’ social class and their willingness to pay for their children’s education. The relation between these variables was significant, χ? (2, N = 139) = 6.82, p = 0.033. Working-class parents were less likely to be willing to pay for their children’s education compared to middle-class parents.

14. The law on day care, which expanded day care services rapidly, was enacted in 1973. Before that, children’s communal day care was considered part of social welfare, and there was only a very limited amount of nurseries.

15. In several cases, the young person has stated that his or her father or stepfather was occasionally unemployed or disabled. The mothers’ unwanted unemployment is more difficult to detect because women were perceived as a flexible labour reserve (elementary schoolboys, numbers 3, 21, 50, 71, and 85; elementary schoolgirls, numbers 2, 18, 24, 29, 39, and 61.)

16. Communal relief work was a predecessor of unemployment benefit system. Government and municipalities organised roadworks, for instance, to offer work during economic depression. The work was physically demanding and poorly paid.

17. Parents refer to their plan as an occupation for the future in the following cases: elementary schoolboys, numbers 23 (car mechanics), 48 (television and radio mechanic), and 55 and 102 (both electric industry).

18. The parents refer explicitly to manual labour as unwanted in the following cases: elementary schoolboys, numbers 14, 36, and 43; elementary schoolgirls, numbers 14, 25, 30, 66, and 70.

19. On the wave of emigration to Sweden, see Snellman (2003).

Bibliography Archival Material

Files on elementary schoolboys. 1960. The Youth Department of Helsinki Employment Office Archive. FbIV:96–119. Helsinki City Archives, Helsinki.

Files on elementary schoolgirls. 1960. The Youth Department of Helsinki Employment Office Archive. FbI:83–100. Helsinki City Archives, Helsinki.

Strategy paper. 1967–68. Annex number 1 of the strategy paper 1967–68. Vocational guidance district office in Helsinki. Hd:1. National Archives of Finland, Hämeenlinna.

References

Ball, Stephen J. 2003. Class Strategies and the Education Market: The Middle Classes and Social Advantage. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Bruun, Kettil. 1954. “Uusi sosiaaliryhmitys.” Tilastollisia kuukausitietoja Hel-singistä 5 (3): 37–44.

Connell, R. W., D. J. Ashenden, S. Kessler and G. W. Dowsett. 1989. Making the Difference: Schools, Families and Social Division. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 2009. The Incomplete Revolution: Adapting to Women’s New Roles. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Furlong, Andy and Fred Cartmel. 2007. Young People and Social Change: New Perspectives. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence F. Katz. 2008. The Race between Education and Technology. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Goodwin, John and Henrietta O’Connor. 2005. “Exploring Complex Transitions: Looking Back at the ‘Golden Age’ of from School to Work.” Sociology 39 (2): 201–20.

Heikkinen, Anja. 1995. Lähtokohtia ammattikasvatuksen kulttuuriseen tarkasteluun: Esimerkkinä suomalaisen ammattikasvatuksen muotoutuminen käsityon ja teollisuuden alalla 1840–1940. Tampere: Tampereen yliopisto.

Hiisio, Ossi, Matti Luoma, Valle Ojaniemi and Veikko Kiuru. 1958. Omalle uralle: Kansalaiskoulun ammatinvalinnan oppikirja. Helsinki: Kulkulaitosten ja yleisten toiden ministerion ammatinvalinnanohjaustoimisto, and Valistus.

HT (Helsingin kaupungin tilastotoimisto). Statistical Abstract of the City of Helsinki. Helsinki: HT.

———. 1954. Table 33. Population Living in the City by Age and Sex at the End of 1952. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1954 [Statistical Abstract of the City of Helsinki 1954].

———. 1956a. Table 40. Population by Age, Sex, Language, Cultural Level, and Knowledge of Languages on 31 December 1950. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1956.

———. 1956b. Table 133. Secondary Schools, School Years 1934/35–1954/55. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1956.

———. 1957. Table 131. Secondary Schools, School Years 1949/50–1955/56. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1957.

———. 1958. Table. 135. Secondary Schools, School Years 1949/50–1956/57. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1958.

———. 1959. Table 135. Secondary Schools, School Years 1949/50–1957/58. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1959.

———. 1960. Table 125. Secondary Schools, School Years 1951/52–1958/59. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1960.

———. 1962a. Table 121. Secondary Schools, School Years 1953/54–1959/60. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1961.

———. 1962b. Table 118. Pupils of Public Elementary Schools According to Their Personal Data, School Years 1949/50–1960/61. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1961.

———. 1962c. Table 120. Vocational schools, school year 1959/60. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1961.

———. 1963a. Table 11. Population (15 years and over) by Age, Sex, Language, and Educational Level. Yleinen väestolaskenta Helsingissä vuonna 1960 [General Census of the Population in Helsinki, 1960].

———. 1963b. Table 119. Secondary schools, school years 1954/55–1960/61. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1962.

———. 1963c. Table 17. Economically Active Population by Age, Sex, Marital Status, and Social Group. Yleinen väestolaskenta Helsingissä vuonna 1960 [General Census of the Population in Helsinki, 1960].

———. 1963d. Table 34. Economically Active Population by Vocational Training, Occupational Status, Mother Tongue, Age, and Sex. Yleinen väestolaskenta Helsingissä vuonna 1960.

———. 1964. Table 125. Secondary Schools, School Years 1954/55–1961/62. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1963.

———. 1965. Table 101. Secondary Schools, School Years 1954/55–1962/63. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1964.

———. 1966a. Table 93. Secondary Schools, School Years 1954/55–1963/64. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1965.

———. 1966b. Table 90. Vocational Schools 1964. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1965.

———1967a. Table 92. Secondary Schools, School Years 1955/56–1965/66. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1966.

———. 1967b. Table 89. Vocational Schools 1965. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1966.

———. 1968. Table 31. Population (15 years and over) by Age, Sex, Language, and Educational Level. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1967.

———. 1969. Table 90. Secondary Schools, School Years 1955/56–1966/67. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1968.

———. 1970. Table 76. Secondary Schools, School Years 1958/59–1967/68. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1969.

———. 1971. Table 75. Secondary Schools, School Years 1959/60–1968/69. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1970.

———. 1973. Table 72. Secondary Schools, School Years 1961/62–1970/71. Helsingin kaupungin tilastollinen vuosikirja 1972.

———. 1974a. Table 1.7. Population (15 years and over) by Sex, Social Class, Educational Level, and Age. Yleinen väestolaskenta Helsingissä vuonna 1970.

———. 1974b. Table 1.1. Population by Age, Sex, and Marital Status. Yleinen väestolaskenta Helsingissä vuonna 1970.

———. 1974c. Table 2.4. Economically Active Population by Marital Status, Age, Sex, and Social Class. Yleinen väestolaskenta Helsingissä vuonna 1970.

Häkkinen, Antti. 2014. “ ‘Kun yhteiskunta tuli kylään’: nuorisosukupolvien eri-laiset yhteiskuntakohtaamiset ja -kokemukset.” In Nuoruuden sukupolvet: Monitieteisiä näkokulmia nuoruuteen eilen ja tänään, edited by Kaisa Vehkalahti and Leena Suurpää, 32–56. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseura.

Iannelli, Cristina and Emer Smyth. 2008. “Mapping Gender and Social Background Differences in Education and Youth Transitions across Europe.” Journal of Youth Studies 11 (2): 213–32.

Jauhiainen, Annukka. 2002. Tyoväen lasten koulutie ja nuorisokasvatuksen yhteiskunnalliset merkitykset: Kansakoulun jatko-opetuskysymys 1800-luvun lopulta 1970-luvulle. Turku: Turun yliopisto.

———. 2011. “Tyoläis- ja maalaisnuorison pidentyvä koulutie.” In Valistus ja koulunpenkki: Kasvatus ja koulutus Suomessa 1860-luvulta 1960-luvulle, edited by Anja Heikkinen, and Pirkko Leino-Kaukiainen, 111–19. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Kaarninen, Mervi. 1995. Nykyajan tytot: Koulutus, luokka ja sukupuoli 1920- ja 1930-luvun Suomessa. Helsinki: Suomen Historiallinen Seura.

Kalela, Jorma. 1989. Tyottomyys 1900-luvun suomalaisessa yhteiskuntapolitiikassa. Helsinki: Tyovoimaministerio.

Kauppila, Juha. 2002. Sukupolvet, koulutus ja oppiminen. Tulkintoja koulutuksen merkityksestä elämänkulun rakentajana. Joensuu: Joensuun yliopisto.

Kettunen, Pauli. 1995. “Lonarbetet och den nordiska demokratin i Finland.” In Arbete och nordisk samhällsmodell: Texter fran den fjärde nordiska konfe-rensen for historisk arbetslivsforskning, Helsingfors och Kiljava den 16–19 september 1993, edited by Pauli Kettunen and Tapio Rissanen, 255–80. Tampere: Sällskapet for forskning i arbetarrorelsens historia och arbetarkultur i Finland, and Centrum for arbetslivsforskning vid Forskningsinstitutionen for samhällsvetenskaper, Tammerfors universitet.

Klemelä, Kirsi. 1999. Ammattikunnista ammatillisiin oppilaitoksiin: Ammatillisen koulutuksen muotoutuminen Suomessa 1800-luvun alusta 1990-luvulle. Turku: University of Turku.

KM (Komiteamietinto) 1956: 11. Naisten tyollisyyskomitean v. 1954 mietinto [Report of the female employment committee, 1954].

——— 1957: 12. Nuorisotyokomitean mietinto [Report of the youth employment committee].

——— 1968: B 57. Liikealan tyoolotoimikunnan mietinto [A committee report on the working conditions in commerce].

——— 1973: 19. Valtion opintotukikeskuksen johtokunnan mietinto: Opintotukitoiminnan perusteet ja lähivuosien tavoitteet [Report of the board of state student allowance centre].

Mannberg, Jan. 2003. Studie- och yrkesorientering i AMS yrkesinformerande texter 1940–1970. Umea: Umea universitet.

Marander-Eklund, Lena. 2014. Att vara hemma och fru: En studie av kvinnligt liv i 1950-talets Finland. Helsinki: Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland.

Mattlar, Wolmar, ed. 1954. Ammatillinen koulutus kansakoulun jälkeen. Helsinki: Helsingin kaupungin painatus- ja hankintatoimisto.

Mickwitz, Margaretha. 2008. “Tasa-arvotilanne 1960-luvulla.” In Roolien murtajat: Tasa-arvokeskustelua 1960-luvulta 2000-luvulle, edited by Margaretha Mickwitz, Agneta von Essen, and Elisabeth Nordgren, 11–24. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Mjelde, Liv. 1996. “Dinner through Text: The Advent of Domestic Science and House Wife Ideology in Norwegian Education.” In Gendered History of (Vocational) Education—European Comparisons, edited by Anja Heikkinen, 135–49. Hämeenlinna: Tampereen yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitos.

Pietiäinen, Jukka-Pekka. 1995. “Yksityisoppikoulut vaurastuvassa Suomessa 1944–1977.” In Yksityisoppikoulujen historia 1872–1977, edited by Jari Salminen, Jukka-Pekka Pietiäinen, and Jouko Teperi, 157–238. Helsinki: Painatuskeskus.

Purhonen, Semi. 2008. “Johdanto: suuret ikäluokat sukupolvena?” In Kenen sukupolveen kuulut? Suurten ikäluokkien tarina, edited by Semi Purhonen, Tommi Hoikkala and J. P. Roos, 9–30. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Rahikainen, Marjatta. 1999. “Kaupunkilaisnuorten toitä 1950–1970.” In Suoma-laisen tyon historiaa: Korvesta konttoriin, edited by Raimo Parikka, 335–69. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Rauhala, Urho. 1966. Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan sosiaalinen kerrostuneisuus: 1960-luvun suomalaisen yhteiskunnan sosiaalinen kerrostuneisuus ammattien arvostuksen valossa. Porvoo: WSOY.

Roberts, Ken. 2012. “The End of the Long Baby-Boomer Generation.” Journal of Youth Studies 15 (4): 479–97.

Rubin, Anita. 2003. “Tulevaisuudenkuvat ja identiteetin rakentuminen myohäismodernissa.” In Tulevaisuudentutkimus: Perusteet ja sovelluksia, edited by Matti Kamppinen, Osmo Kuusi and Sari Soderlund, 791–819. Helsinki: Suo-malaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Saaritsa, Sakari and Antti Kaihovaara. 2016. “Good for Girls or Bad for Boys? Schooling, Social Inequality and Intrahousehold Allocation in Early Twentieth Century Finland.” Cliometrica 10: 55–98. doi:10.1007/s11698-014-0123-9.

Siltala, Juha. 2013. Nuoriso—mainettaan parempi? Nykynuorten sopeutumisratkaisut historiassa. Helsinki: WSOY.

Silvennoinen, Heikki. 2002. Koulutus marginalisaation hallintana. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Skeggs, Beverley. 1997. Formations of Class and Gender: Becoming Respectable. London: Sage.

Snellman, Hanna. 2003. Sallan suurin kylä—Goteborg. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.

Strathdee, Rob. 2001. “Changes in Social Capital and School-to-Work Transitions.” Work, Employment & Society 15 (2): 311–26.

Suikkanen, Asko, Ritva Linnakangas, Sirpa Martti and Anne Karjalainen. 2001. Siirtymien palkkatyo. Helsinki: Sitra.

SVT (Suomen Virallinen Tilasto). Helsinki: Tilastollinen päätoimisto.

———. 1952. Table 1. Secondary Schools, Number of Teachers and Pupils by Counties in the 1950–51 School Year. IX: 68. Oppikoulut [Statistical review of secondary school education in Finland during school year 1951–52].

———. 1956a. Table 1. Population and Some Important Data on the Structure of Population, by Municipality. VI C: 102:1. Vuoden 1950 yleinen väestolaskenta: Väkiluku, väeston ikä ja kielisuhteet. [1950 population census: Population, number, age and language].

———. 1956b. Table 4. Economically Active Population by Industry, Industrial Status, and Marital Status. VI C: 102:4. Vuoden 1950 yleinen väestolaskenta. Väesto elinkeinohaaran ja ammattiaseman mukaan, yksityiskohtainen ryhmittely. [1950 population census: Population by industry and industrial status, detailed classification].

———. 1957. Table 1. Secondary Schools, Number of Teachers and Pupils by Counties in the 1954–55 School Year. IX: 72. Oppikoulut [General secondary education during school year 1954–55].

———. 1960. Table 4. Secondary Schools, Number of Teachers and Pupils by Counties in the 1958/59 School Year. IX: 76. Oppikoulut [General secondary education during school year 1958/59].

———. 1963a. Table 4. Population by Age, Sex, and Marital Status, by 5 years, by Provinces, Statistical Regions, in Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, and the Coastal Region of Vaasa. VI C: 103:2. Yleinen väestolaskenta 1960. Väeston ikä, sivii-lisääty pääkieli ym. [General census of population, 1960: Population by age, marital status, main language, etc.].

———. 1963b. Table 2. Economically Active Population by Sex, Age, and Industrial Status; Statistical Regions, Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, and the Coastal Region of Vaasa. VI C: 103:6. Yleinen väestolaskenta 1960. Väeston sosioekonominen asema, ammatissa toimivan väeston ikä, tyopaikan sijainti. [General census of population, 1960: Population by socio-economic status, economically active population by age, location of working place].

———. 1964. Table 3. Population by Education and Age, by Provinces and Statistical Regions in Helsinki, Tampere, Turku, and the Coastal Region of Vaasa. VI C: 103:8. Yleinen väestolaskenta 1960: Syntymäpaikka, koulusivistys, siir-toväki ym. [General census of population, 1960: Population by birth-place and by education, displaced population, etc.].

Therborn, Goran. 1995. European Modernity and Beyond: The Trajectory of European Societies, 1945–2000. London: Sage.

Thompson, Paul. 1997. “Women, Men, and Transgenerational Family Influences in Social Mobility.” In Pathways to Social Class: A Qualitative Approach to Social Mobility, edited by Daniel Bertaux and Paul Thompson, 32–61. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Tolsma, Jochem and Maarten H. J. Wolbers. 2014. “Social Origin and Occupational Success at Labour Market Entry in The Netherlands, 1931–80.” Acta Sociologica 57 (3): 253–69.

Willis, Paul E. 1979. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Westmead: Saxon House.

Väänänen, Ari and Jussi Turtiainen. 2014. “Suomalaisen tyontekijyyden muutos 1945–2013.” In Suomalainen tyontekijyys 1945–2013, edited by Ari Väänä-nen, and Jussi Turtiainen, 261–302. Tampere: Vastapaino.