Education in the Prevention of Social Exclusion
Markku Jahnukainen, Ph.D.
University of Helsinki, Finland

Abstract: Social exclusion is a frequently used concept in different youth programs in the European 
Union. Schools have participated in projects for the prevention of social exclusion. However, the 
definition of social exclusion is still unclear and it could be used also as a stigmatising label. In this 
article, the nature of social exclusion as a social phenomena and the preventive, non-stigmatising 
potential of education will be discussed. 

Key Words: social exclusion, prevention, special education

Introduction

  Concern over the welfare of children and young people is frequently voiced both in expert forums 
and the media. Various programmes to foster their welfare are also being implemented by different 
sectors of the government in Finland.   In these contexts, the concept of social exclusion is often 
used1. The process of social exclusion should be seen as linked to the operating environment in 
which the individual exists or from which s/he is excluded. The risk of social exclusion exists for 
individuals whose life situation includes serious risk factors for the accumulation of disadvantage, 
whereas socially excluded individuals are the ones for which the risks have become a reality. In 
discussing, for instance, dropping out from education in the framework of exclusion one should 
specify that the concept dealt with is educational exclusion, not social exclusion per se, which is 
accompanied by an accumulation of many other elements of disadvantage (such as poverty, health 
problems, loneliness, drug problems) (JŠrvinen & Jah-nu-kai-nen, 2001). Correspondingly, 
unemployment can be defined as exclusion from the labour market, which in itself is not a sufficient 
condition for social exclusion.

  The prevention of the process of educational exclusion contains several levels. Certain measures 
are targeted for entire age groups and thus non-stigmatising. This article deals with these several 
levels and conceptually links the prevention of educational exclusion to the wider debate on social 
exclusion.

Exclusion from the Societal Context

  According to Tuula Helne, ÒWhen speaking of [social] exclusion we always speak of societyÓ 
(Helne, 2002). This is a simple but crucial observation: in social exclusion talk we2 very often speak of social exclusion as a characteristic defining the individual, without paying more attention to the crucial role of the operating context in the definition. Community and its norms have a crucial role in 
producing social exclusion: without community and society there is no possibility of social exclusion. 
By definition, social exclusion is linked to interpersonal relationships, societal actor positions and the 
values and norms defined by those representing the dominant culture in society3.

  Thus, as a concept, social exclusion is much more difficult than could be expected when looking at 
the word alone (see JŠrvinen & Jahnukainen, 2001). As it is, social exclusion Ð and the prevention 
(or even eradication) of exclusion Ð is a catchword employed particularly in projects targeted to the 
young, without a more precise definition of the precise nature of the concept itself and the causal 
relationships eventually linked to it. In everyday speech certain activities and expression belonging 
to youth culture Ð and consequently regarded as marginal and deviant by adults and proponents of 
middle-class lifestyle Ð are easily seen as characteristics linked to social exclusion on too flimsy 
grounds: for instance, tattoos and piercings, heavy black metal music and recreational drug use are 
matters of (life) style and cannot serve today as a basis for defining the risk of social exclusion. 
Stylistic trends may be outside the mainstream (compared with the arts and the development of 
different styles) and challenge the more established concepts on values, norms or aesthetics, but they 
do not necessarily have any links with social exclusion in the short or the longer term. As is 
suggested by Tuula Helne, the marginal actor position, being at the edge, does not yet signify being 
outside (or in the excluded position); instead, Óif someone is at the edge, they are inside, at the 
periphery of the centreÓ (Helne, 2002, 174). Deviation from the mainstream, or marginality, should 
actually be distinguished from the concept of social exclusion4, which is a process and leads to a 
societal actor position that is unsatisfactory from the viewpoints of both the individual and society 
(Jahnukainen, 2001e; JŠrvinen & Jahnukainen, 2001; Helne, 2002). 

Educational System and the Process of Exclusion

  Participation in, or exclusion (voluntary or involuntary) from, education is an exceptionally strong 
societal signal, especially in the Finnish culture: a high value is set on acquiring as high a level of 
education as possibleÐ even as an end in itself5 Ð and, on the other hand, dropping out of a course of 
study or being pushed to less appreciated fields of education are taken as signs of failure (see, e.g., 
Markku VanttajaÕs 2002 analyses of the ÒfailuresÓ of high achievers). It is the purpose of our 
educational system to provide, on the basis of equal opportunity, an education that is of as high a 
level as possible to as many citizens as possible. The youngest generation in particular has also been 
able to utilise this opportunity to an excellent degree6.

  At the risk of overstating the case one can also say that, applied in their current target scope, the 
principles of educating the entire age group and providing them with lifelong learning, while 
admirable, may accelerate the birth of an educational lower class of individuals who have, for 
instance, severe learning difficulties or a culturally and socially deprived background. Moreover, the 
adult population with deficient basic education (as regards foreign languages, for instance) may be 
pushed to a secondary position in the labour market due to the lack of formal educational 
qualification. If participation in education was less frequent or less typical, being uneducated would 
not in itself become a stigmatising factor to the present degree.

  On the other hand it is clear that, at least in the comprehensive school, an attempt is made to 
provide everyone with the opportunity to succeed: evaluation is no longer carried out7 in the tight 
format of normal distribution (based on the so-called bell curve), but every child has the opportunity 
of progress as compared to his or her previous level and as compared to the age group. Teaching 
suited to the Ògood onesÓ Ð or to the average at least Ð has been abandoned in favour of taking 
account of the learning capabilities of each individual pupil, thanks to individual study plans and, in 
special education, the Personal Plan Covering the Organisation of Education (commonly known by 
its Finnish acronym HOJKS).

  Despite the procedures described above, some of our schoolchildren still do poorly in the 
comprehensive school (Jakku-Sihvonen & Kuusela, 2002). Actually, gaps in basic knowledge and 
skills may be among the primary reasons8 for dropping out of further education or not entering post-
comprehensive education. The crucial division into educational achievers and educational losers 
happens at the transition stage between basic and secondary education, even though the roots of the 
choices actualised at this stage can be tracked further back, to success during the first years of 
comprehensive school and also to the pupilsÕ family background (Kuusinen, 1986; Kuusela, 2002). 
The children of educated parents do better in school than those of uneducated parents, which 
continues to be seen in the studentsÕ skills levels and their confidence in their own abilities in 
secondary education (HautamŠki et al., 2002).

  Thus, stressing the importance of education is a double-edged sword: when success in school is 
linked to family background, it strengthens the cultural capital of the pupils who are capable of 
benefiting from education. For a part of the age group, education forms one (more) link in the 
process of social exclusion. However, it is to be noted that even though a statistical connection exists 
between such factors as education and employment prospects, there are individual exceptions from 
the statistical norm both in the positive and the negative direction (e.g., Jahnukainen, 1997, 2004; 
Kivirauma & Jahnukainen, 2001). Whether dropping out from school leads into deeper social 
exclusion depends on the demands and support provided by the individualÕs (close) community 
andon the compensating factors in the individualÕs life. Thus, what we are dealing with is the 
goodness or poorness of fit between the individualÕs potential for action and the action expected by 
the community and the support available (for more detail, see Thomas & Chess, 1980). 

  It is also obvious that school alone cannot influence all factors that affect the process of exclusion. 
Nevertheless, school is without doubt in a key position for offering activity that can provide 
compensatory experiences to an individual who has landed on an unfavourable track. In preventing 
the exclusion process, school has the crucial task of preventing educational dropping out by ensuring 
that everyone receives instruction suitable to their level, and of ensuring the acquisition of essential 
basic skills and knowledge in particular. These also form the foundation for the studentsÕ subsequent 
ability to utilise the channels for further education offered by society (and considered as the default 
option, at least latently).

Potential of School to Prevent Exclusion

  With the economic depression of the early 1990s, as the social exclusion of the young began to 
receive particular attention, the typical means of prevention that emerged were various activity 
projects targeted to young people. To begin with, these project were organised outside the school, 
then gradually linked with the educational world, and the target group consisted of what were called 
Òyoung people at risk of social exclusion.Ó The exact definition of the Òrisk of social exclusionÓ at 
any given instance has remained very vague in practice: what is certain, however, is that the life 
situation of some participants has been burdened by a great number of risk factors for a considerable 
time, while others have had the good or bad luck of being involved in the project (and being labelled 
as being Òat riskÓ) with no more than slight grounds. From the viewpoint of prevention9, this mode 
of operation is located in the middle ground between what is called secondary and tertiary 
prevention: the members of the target group are affected by some risk factor at least, on the basis of 
which so-called remedial activity is considered necessary (secondary) and, in addition, the 
difficulties of some are of such a degree or number that a particular mode of operation is applied to 
reach a state where the individual could not harm him/herself or others any more than is already the 
case (tertiary).

  In fact, prevention is always a relative concept and requires a definition of the thing to be 
prevented. Speaking of the prevention of exclusion, development processes need to be looked at in 
longer perspective than simply within the comprehensive school. As was stated above, during the 
most lively period of youth projects the operating modes in relation to exclusion were located in the 
framework of remedial action and even action to minimise the damage. In the context of traditional 
school teaching this task has been handled by special education, even though this has only rarely 
been defined as prevention (see, however, Ruoho, 1992; Kauff-man, 1999). In addition to these 
operating models, targeted at individuals already at risk Ð and perhaps, in part, instead of them Ð 
special weight should be laid on actual, primary prevention, i.e., on measures affecting the entire age 
group. From the point of view of education, primary prevention of exclusion consists particularly of 
concentrating on good basic instruction: teachers should make sure that every pupil in the teaching 
group acquires the basic knowledge and skills that form the basis of further study. Thus, in the 
prevention of exclusion the school should aim to work in the primary field that is its natural domain: 
to ensure that the task of educating the entire age group is accomplished for each individual. The 
following table lists educational measures to prevent exclusion at different stages of education and 
different levels of prevention.

  Thus, the primary-level services concern the entire age group, while the secondary and, where 
needed, tertiary services involve a significantly smaller group. In fact, prevention is often described 
as a funnel where the primary services are located on the rim and the tertiary services at the narrow 
tip of the funnel (e.g., Nuorten huumeiden kŠytšn ehkŠisytoimikunnan mietintš, 2000). 

  At the primary level exclusion is prevented by arranging the most optimal conditions for growth 
for each child, and by investing in good early education and basic education. Afternoon activities 
arranged at school can also be included in this category (see Siitari, 2000). Primary-level activity by 
individual teachers includes the positions as elected municipal officials held by many professional 
educators, through which it is possible to promote operating models targeted to improving the 
situation of entire age groups by influencing municipal family, social and educational policy.

  At the secondary level, special support is arranged for the children and young people who exhibit 
difficulties related to learning, development and/or behaviour. The measures aim at circum-venting 
or eliminating difficulties detected at an early stage so that later stages of development are not 
jeopardised. The secondary stage consists of various short-term interventions such as part-time 
special education, improved study counselling and transition planning (see Jahnukainen, 2001b and 
2001c). Especially at the transition between comprehensive school and secondary education, 
anticipating the transition of individuals at risk has been found effective (e.g., Benz et al., 1997).

  At the tertiary level, the activity is targeted to individuals whose development is clearly 
endangered. Longer-term, holistic rehabilitation, eventually in co-operation with other authorities, 
aims at reaching the development targets of the age group by using individual means. Several 
operating models employed at this level require instruction in small groups or even individually, at 
least at the beginning or for part of the time; this is in the interests of both the child or young person 
and their immediate vicinity. Nevertheless, the permanent goal is to find an operating model that 
best avoids any stigmatisation and thus helps to prevent isolation or exclusion from the rest of the 
age group.

From Theory to Practice

  As was stated above, a lot is talked about social exclusion and young people threatened by social 
exclusion. Since, however, social exclusion is difficult to define on the individual level, it would 
make more sense to approach the prevention of social exclusion only as a general principle, but 
especially when talking about children and young people, we should focus on the strengths and 
development needs in the individual life situation. Thus, I do not consider it appropriate to set up 
particular instruction groups for young people Òthreatened by social exclusionÓ; instead, I would 
welcome discourse that prevents social exclusion also in practical teaching in the general primary-
level activity of the school. Creating a learning climate in which everyone has the opportunity of 
studying individually, yet striving to attain the general basic goals, without unnecessary competition 
or comparison, is one of the most important starting-points of primary-level prevention. Even if 
learning and adaptation problems are undeniably also linked to the process of social exclusion, 
schools must primarily target rehabilitative action to whatever problem area is topical, whether this 
is dyslexia or unauthorised absences. If the teacher takes the trouble to learn to know the pupils in 
his/her class or group as early as possible, s/he can better identify eventual deviations in learning and 
behaviour, enabling a rapid intervention and preventing the accumulation of problems. In my 
opinion, the true prevention of social exclusion consists in the development of the basic task of 
education, that is, the provision of education for the entire age group, into an entity which is as 
functional as possible at the level of individual schools and of the municipality. This work has been 
badly neglected, with projects funded by special arrangements overtaking the Òexclusion market.Ó
Markku Jahnukainen holds an Ed.D. and academic docentship in special education (University of 
Helsinki) and has worked as a special teacher at a comprehensive school, as a researcher and lecturer 
at different universities, and as a team leader of vocational special teacher and career counsellor 
programs at HŠme Polytechnic. Currently he holds an Academy research fellow post (Academy of 
Finland) and works at the University of Helsinki. 

  Correspondence may be addressed to: Markku Jahnukainen, Department of Applied Sciences of 
Education, Special Education, P.O. Box 26, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland. 
markku.jahnukainen@helsinki.fi. This research was funded by the Academy of Finland (funding n:o 
105649 and n:o 211163)

References

Benz, M., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997). School-to-work components that predict postschool 
success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63(2), 151Ð165.  

HautamŠki, J., Arinen, P., HautamŠki, A., Kupiainen, S., Lindblom, B., MehtŠlŠinen, J., Niemivirta, 
M., Rantanen, P., & Scheinin, P. (2002). Oppimaan oppiminen toisen asteen koulutuksessa. 
Oppimistulosten arviointi 2/2002 [Learning to learn in secondary education. Evaluation of 
learning results 2/2002.]Opetushallitus [National Board of Education].

Helne, T. (2002). SyrjŠytymisen yhteiskunta [A society of exclusion]. STAKES. Tutkimuksia 123.

Jahnukainen, M. (1998). LisŠluokalta tulevaisuuteen. Vantaan kymppiluokan oppilaiden lukuvuoden 
1995Ð1996 koulukokemukset ja jŠlkiseuranta [Extra class into the future. Tenth-class pupils 
of 1995Ð1996 in Vantaa: School experiences and follow-up]. Helsingin yliopisto. Opetta-jan-
koulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia 196 [University of Helsinki. Department of Teacher Education. 
Studies 196]. 

Jahnukainen, M. (2001a) Experiencing Special Education: Former Students of Classes for 
Emotionally/Behaviourally Disordered Talk About Their Schooling. Emotional and 
Behavioral Difficulties 6 (3), 150Ð166.

Jahnukainen, M. (2001b). Henkilškohtaiset suunnitelmat, transitio ja elinikŠinen oppiminen 
[Personal plans, transition and lifelong learning]. In M. Jahnukainen (Ed.), Lasten 
erityishuolto ja -opetus Suomessa [ChildrenÕs special care and education in Finland] ,11 (pp. 
356-363). tŠysin uudistettu painos. Helsinki: Lastensuojelun keskusliitto.

Jahnukainen, M. (2001c). HOJKS elŠmŠnkaaren eri vaiheissa [HOJKS at the various stages of the 
life span]. In O. Ikonen & P. Virtanen (Eds.), HOJKS Ð Erilaisia oppijoita, erilaisia 
lŠhestymistapoja [HOJKS Ð different learners, different approaches] (pp. 302-309). 
JyvŠskylŠ: PS-kustannus. 

Jahnukainen, M. (2001d). HyvŠ paha opettaja, eli postmodernin nuorison kouluttamisen ongelma 
erityiskasvatuksen valossa [The good bad teacher, or the problem of educating postmodern 
youth in the light of special education]. Nuorisotutkimus, 19 (4), 17Ð25.

Jahnukainen, M. (2001e). Social exclusion and dropping out of education. In T. Visser, H. Daniels,  
& T. Cole (Eds.), Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Mainstream 
Schools, International Perspectives on Inclusive Education, Vol. 1 (pp. 1-12). London: JAI.

Jahnukainen, M. (2004). Koulukodin jŠlkeen Ð vuosina 1996 ja 2000 kotiutettujen nuorten 
yhteiskuntaan jŠsentymisen ja riskikŠyttŠytymisen kasaantumisen tarkastelu [After the 
reform school Ð examination of the social integration and accumulation of risk behaviour of 
young people discharged in 1996 and 2000]. In M. Jahnukainen, T. Kekoni, & T. Pšsš 
(Eds.), Nuoret ja koulukoti [The young and the reform school]. Nuoriso-tutkimusverkosto, 
forthcoming.
Jakku-Sihvonen, R., & Kuusela, J. (2002). Mahdollisuuksien koulutuspolitiikan tasa-arvo [Equal 
opportunities in education policy]. National Board of Education, 16 August 2002. 
[http://www.edu.fi/julkaisut/]

JŠrvinen, T. (2001). KoulutusjŠrjestelmien yksilšllistyminen ja valinnanvapaus [Individualisation of 
education systems and freedom of choice]. In T. Kuure (Ed.), Aikuistumisen pullonkaulat. 
Nuorten elinolot vuosikirja [Bottlenecks of growing up. Yearbook of the circumstances of 
the young]. Pgs. 60-69. PieksŠmŠki: Nuorisotutkimusverkosto & Nuora & Stakes.

JŠrvinen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2001). Kuka meistŠ onkaan syrjŠytynyt? Marginalisaation ja 
syrjŠytymisen kŠsitteellistŠ tarkastelua [Now which of us are excluded? Conceptual 
examination of marginalisation and exclusion]. In M. Suutari (Ed.), Vallattomat marginaalit. 
YhteisšllisyyksiŠ nuoruudessa ja yhteiskunnan reunoilla [Margins without power. 
Dimensions of community in youth and at the edge of society] (pp. 125-151). 
Nuorisotutkimusverkosto. Julkaisuja 20. Helsinki: Nuorisotutkimusseura.

Kauffman, J. M. (1999). How we prevent the prevention of emotional and behavioural disorders. 
Exceptional Children, 65(4), 448Ð468.

Kauppila, J. (1996). Koulutus elŠmŠnkulun rakentajana [Education as the building-block of the 
course of life]. In A. Antikainen & H. Huotelin (Eds.), Oppiminen ja elŠmŠnhistoria. 
Aikuiskasvatuksen 37. vuosikirja [Learning and life history. 37th yearbook of adult 
education]. (page numbers needed). Kansanvalistusseura ja Aikuiskasvatuksen 
Tutkimusseura: JyvŠskylŠ: BTJ Kirjastopalvelu.

Kivirauma, J., & Jahnukainen, M. (2001). Ten years after special education. Socially maladjusted 
boys on the labour market. Behavioural Disorders, 26(3), 243Ð255. 

Kuusela, J. (2002). Helsingin koulujen oppimistulokset: kokoava katsaus [Learning results in 
Helsinki schools: summarizing survey]. National Board of Education. Unpublished research 
report.

Kuusinen, J. (1986). Koulumenestys, lahjakkuus ja sosiaalinen tausta [School success, giftedness 
and social background]. Kasvatus, 17, 192Ð197.

Nuorten huumeiden kŠytšn ehkŠisytoimikunnan mietintš [Report by the Committee on the 
Prevention of Drug Abuse by the Young]. (2000). Committee Report 2000:3. Ministry for 
Social Affairs and Health. Edita: Helsinki.

Nuorisobarometri [Youth barometer]. (2000). Selvitys 15Ð29-vuotiaiden suomalaisten nuorten 
asenteista [Survey of the attitudes of Finnish young people between the ages of 15 and 29]. 

Opetus-ministeriš, Nuorisoasiain neuvottelukunta. NUORAn julkaisuja 17.

Ruoho, K. (1992). EnnaltaehkŠisystŠ ja sen pedagogisesta soveltamisesta [On prevention and its 
pedagogical application]. In K. Tuunainen, H. Savolainen, & P. Savolainen (Eds.), 
Erityispedagogiikan tutkijakoulutuksen nykytila [Current status of special pedagogy 
researcher education] (pp. 42). University of Joensuu. Reports by the Faculty of Education.

Siitari, J. (2000). SyrjŠytymisen ehkŠiseminen ala-asteella. ILTIS-oppilaiden kouluasenteet ja 
sosiaalisuus sekŠ oppilaiden kokemukset ja vanhempien odotukset ja kokemukset ILTIS-
toiminnasta [Prevention of exclusion in the primary school. Attitudes towards school and 
social behaviour of pupils participating in the ILTIS project, and pupil experiences and 
parent expectations and experiences on the ILTIS activity]. Unpublished LicentiateÕs Thesis 
in Education. University of Turku.

Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1980). The dynamics of psychological development. New York: 
Brunner/Mazel. 

Vanttaja, M. (2002). KoulumenestyjŠt. Tutkimus laudaturylioppilaiden koulutus- ja tyšurista 
[Achievers in school. Study of the educational and employment careers of the top class of 
upper-secondary school graduates]. Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Kasvatusalan 
tutkimuksia 8. Turku:Painosalama

(Footnotes)
1 The Finnish word used to translate the concept social exclusion does not contain the dimension ÔsocialÕ, which is why it can, and often is, linked to any and all kinds of exclusion. In the most typical case it is used without defining the particular nature of exclusion.
2 I include myself in the discussion here, for in my job I deal almost daily with this area, and according to my observation I must all too frequently remind myself and my discussion partners of the complex nature of the definition of social exclusion. It is easy to talk about Óthe socially excluded young people in our schoolÉÓ or Óoperating models targeted to young people at risk of social exclusionÉÓ etc. This means that social exclusion is already being constructed in speech, often with too simplistic grounds.
3 At a minimum I should say that social exclusion needs three actors. This makes it possible for two actors to form a core on a majority principle, leaving the third one outside the core, in the margin.
4 It is, however, obvious that the phenomena behind the concepts also have a shared interface; when, for instance, marginality as an individual choice involves the most essential areas of life or covers a sufficient number of less essential social activities, we are coming closer to the definition of social exclusion (for more detail, see Jahnukainen, 2001e, JŠrvinen & Jahnukainen, 2001, 138 Ð 144). 
5 Also among young people (see Nuorisobarometri, 1999). This presents an interesting paradox, for it has nevertheless been noted that school is often experienced as a highly unattractive environment (see Kauppila, 1995; Jahnukainen, 1998; 2001a and 2001d): one is thus forced to go through education, even if with gritted teeth.
6 In 2000, the proportion of young people between the ages of 15 and 24 that participated in post-comprehensive education was higher in Finland than in the other EU Member States (JŠrvinen, 2001). 
7 At least this should not be the case, see Opetushallitus (1999) Perusopetuksen pŠŠttšarvioinnin kriteerit. The criteria for the grade Good (8) in shared subjects.
8 On the secondary level Ð or as the ÓexplanationsÓ noted on the student level Ð the causes may naturally consist of Ófrequent absencesÓ, ÓbehaviouralÓ and Ómotivational problemsÓ, when, in fact, the student may not be capable of following challenging instruction even when the field is to his or her liking, though on the other hand, teachers may also not be capable of recognising gaps in basic skills.
9 For more detail on the levels of prevention, see, e.g., Nuorten huumeiden kŠytšnehkŠisytoimikunnan mietintš (2000), and in the context of learning difficulties, Ruoho (1992).