Proposing a Model of a Supporting System of Entrepreneurship Education

Proposing a Model of a Supporting System of Entrepreneurship Education Elena Ruskovaara, Project Manager, Lappeenranta University of Technology, PO BOX 20, FI-53850 Lappeenranta, Finland. E-mail: Elena.ruskovaara@lut.fi, tel. +358 40 5550 320, www.lut.fi/entre Timo Pihkala, Professor, Lappeenranta University of Technology Jaana Seikkula-Leino, Professor, Lappeenranta University of Technology Keywords: entrepreneurship, enterprise, entrepreneurial, elements of entrepreneurship / enterprise, supporting system, steering system ABSTRACT Objectives: The aim of this article is to critically review the elements of the national entrepreneurship system and its segments, using Finland as an example. Prior Work: Entrepreneurship is characterized by a broad spectrum of governmental, technological, and institutional practices. These each play a part on local, regional, national, and international levels, and on inspection, the organization seems like a rather unorganized system (Meyer & Rowan, 1978). The ever-growing spectrum of the objectives, methods, expertise, and outcomes makes it difficult to gain a clear overview of the situation. Pittaway and Cope (2007) presented a substantial review of entrepreneurship al literature and suggested that the objectives of entrepreneurship are still unclear. Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial research should be building the basic understanding of the goals, practices, and objectives of entrepreneurship. So far, the real value of the broad set of tools, practices, programs, directions, and strategies to support entrepreneurship remains questionable (Hytti and O Gorman, 2004; Fayolle et al., 2006). Approach: We identify themes and segments which seem to associate with enterprise and enterprise and therefore have a role in a supporting and steering system of entrepreneurship. Results: We will propose a model of supporting system for entrepreneurship and enterprise. Not only goals and results of entrepreneurship and enterprise have their place in the system, but also organization, strategies, support system, resource allocation, co-operative networks, implementers and practical methods of entrepreneurship as well as its know-how should have their position in the system. These segments should first be found and defined and then evaluated and followed on a regular basis. Implications: The paper proposes a model characterizing a steering system of entrepreneurship. The model seeks to contribute in the ongoing discussion of the development of entrepreneurship systems. The model would be useful both when viewing needs for developing national entrepreneurship and enterprise but also when allocated resources to entrepreneurship. Value: The difficulties facing the development of the entrepreneurship system are numerous. Despite this challenge, researchers and politicians are attempting to advance the system and its outcomes. Formulating this model, we feel, is one step towards a coherent understanding of national entrepreneurship system. 1

INTRODUCTION The advancement of entrepreneurship is becoming more and more significant with regards to the national economy and from the entire European perspective. The European Commission s (Commission of the European Communities, 2003) Green book on entrepreneurship defines the promotion of entrepreneurship as being the top priority for the al system. According to the Commission of the European Communities (2006), entrepreneurship is a key skill for citizens. During the past few years, entrepreneurship and its role in regional development has gained a lot of attention (Valliere & Peterson, 2009). Also, proponents of entrepreneurship have developed a broad set of tools, practices, programmes, directions, and strategies to support entrepreneurship. The advancement of entrepreneurship and entrepreneur are, as of late, hot topics here in Finland as well. The importance of promoting entrepreneurship and the significance of entrepreneurship are highlighted in the governmental project policy programme for employment, entrepreneurship and work life (instigated by Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen in the II governmental programme of April 19, 2007 and continued by Kiviniemi s government (www.valtioneuvosto.fi) as well as in the Ministry of Education and Culture s Education and research development plan for 2007-2012 (Opetusministeriö, 2008). Previously, the Department of Education and Culture formulated guidelines (Ministry of Education, 2009) and an operational programme for entrepreneurship ; accordingly, entrepreneurship should be present in the lesson plans of Finnish grammar schools (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004) and high schools (Finnish National Board of Education, 2003). Additionally, entrepreneurship expertise has been added to the vocational school curriculum so that all vocational degrees require at least 5 study weeks of entrepreneurship (Opetushallitus, 2009). The university entrepreneurship fostering work group (Opetusministeriö, 2009) defined the objectives of universities, the universities of applied sciences completed their combined entrepreneurship strategy in 2006 (Ammattikorkeakoulujen rehtorineuvosto Arene ry:n yrittäjyysstrategia 2006), and the Ministry of Education (2009, 14-15; 23-24) published the Guidelines for entrepreneurship that defines the national objectives for the year 2015 as well as the target development areas according to type. These target development areas state that entrepreneurship should be present in higher strategies and practices, and that entrepreneurship is an integral part of the basic training for teachers. It is apparent that a lot of objectives have been set in Finland for entrepreneurship and its addition to all levels of. Keeping in mind national and international attempts to advance entrepreneurship, and considering the local resources being allocated to further this theme, we notice that the development of entrepreneurship is a comprehensive European effort. At the same time, the difficulties facing the development of the entrepreneurship system are numerous. Despite this challenge, researchers and politicians are attempting to advance the system and its outcomes. When keeping in mind the national and international frameworks and the regional resources set aside for this, it is interesting to notice that entrepreneurship may be viewed as a goal-oriented activity that can be steered, followed, developed, and resourced. The field of entrepreneurship seems to be multilayered viewed on the perspective of different players, resources and contents. Therefore it is not surprising if teachers feel the field is scattered and aims seem to be remote from daily life. At least in Finland, large amount of entrepreneurship actions are executed by different project and teachers say having problems fulfilling the aims, practices, contents and results of entrepreneurship (Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010). Therefore we feel analyses and discussions are needed, hence this article provides an outline of the national entrepreneurship system and its segments. The objective of this article is to propose and draw a picture, as well as, raise a discussion about the different elements of entrepreneurship from the point of view of the educator. ELEMENTS OF THE ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION SYSTEM Next we will present our view about the elements we propose the system of entrepreneurship contains. The model is preliminary and it certainly evokes needs for improving, updating and furthermodification, but for us it seems, there is a need of this kind of compendium. In the picture, we would like to simplify the elements and their role and by saying the boundaries between different elements are ambiguous we would like the open the discussion here. 2

Goals of entrepreneurship : international, national, regional, local Entrepreneurship organization Division of labor, specialization, cooperation between regions and authorities Strategies and means of entrepreneurship meeting objectives, curricula Support systems for entrepreneurship portals, information systems, tracking, measurement tools Resource allocation of entrepreneurship schooling, development, information production Cooperative networks of entrepreneurship organizations, researchers, developers Entrepreneurship know-how knowledge, skills Implementers of entrepreneurship teachers, project staff, trainers etc. Practical methods of entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial teaching methods, entrepreneurship attitude Results of entrepreneurship Picture 1. The elements of the entrepreneurship system. In a picture 1 we propose the elements of entrepreneurship. On the top are different level goals of entrepreneurship and bottom different kinds of results. Between them, there are many elements, players and perspectives we will present one by one in following chapters. Goals of entrepreneurship The premises of the entrepreneurship system are the objectives of entrepreneurship. The main objective is actually a multiple one: on the one hand, we have the entrepreneurship objectives according to the EU; on the other hand, we have national, regional, local, school-specific, and business-level al and entrepreneurial goals. Additionally, the teacher may set personal entrepreneurship al goals. Whether or not this actually happens, that is, do teachers set specific goals, is unclear. In a study by Seikkula- Leino et al. (2010), groups of teachers were questioned about their objectives regarding entrepreneurship ; instead of describing their own goals, they described the goals of their students. The study presented that teachers entrepreneurship goals are unstructured and are not only confused with the students goals but also with the existing methods. It is important that the objectives are defined, that they are pointing in the same direction, and that the goals are understandable and acceptable by those who are implementing entrepreneurship. In this regard, it has been important to discuss the integrity of entrepreneurship, the social significance of entrepreneurship, and the objectives (e.g. Gibb, 1993). 3

The discussion regarding the significance of entrepreneurship is ongoing; a good example is the debate among research groups about entrepreneurship and especially regarding whether or not entrepreneurship can be taught (e.g. Henry et al., 2005; Hynes, 1996). One prevalent point of view concerns the definition of the qualifications that are essential for entrepreneurs, as well as what specific attitudes and values drive the entrepreneurial spirit. The answers vary depending on which point of view one has. Strategies and means of entrepreneurship The objectives of entrepreneurship don t change very rapidly. The biggest changes in objectives happen when goals are being defined for a new level of activity, or when tangible definitions of objectives are needed for strategic guidelines. In this way, entrepreneurship al strategic guidelines, such as curricula, can actually manage to adjust the objectives of a method even though curricula should be focused on the method itself. Strom-Gottfried and Dunlap (2004) wrote that curriculum planning is a clever way to develop teachers, and Schwartz (2006) went even further by recommending that teachers should take active part in the curriculum planning since this actually works as an effective supplementary method regarding current issues. The strategic guidelines of entrepreneurship fluctuate more than the objectives. They reflect the state of society, political trends, and societal emphasis. The most central of the national strategic guidelines on entrepreneurship are probably the Government s policy programmes (e.g. the policy programme for employment, entrepreneurship and work life 2011) and the national curricula and degree qualifications (Finnish National Board of Education, 2003; 2004; Opetushallitus, 2009). There are a lot of political strings being pulled behind these strategic papers; at the same time, there is an honest concern for meeting the current needs of society. It is apparent that the presence of entrepreneurship in the strategic guidelines is the result of a widespread mutual understanding. Organizing entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship is characterized by a broad spectrum of governmental, technological, and institutional practices. These each play a part on local, regional, national, and international levels, and on inspection, the organization seems like a rather unorganized system (Weick, 1976; Meyer & Rowan, 1978). The division of labor between different actors, specialization, and cooperation on an authority level are structural solutions by nature. There is a nascent opinion developing among the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Finnish National Board of Education, regional authorities, municipalities, school districts, al facilities, and countless other organizations involved in entrepreneurship activities regarding the best way of dispersing the different tasks at hand in order to reach the goals. The organization of entrepreneurship is made more difficult due to the fact that the defined objectives and the way in which they are approached overlap, and this is not an easy nut to crack. For instance, the Ministry of Education and Culture is responsible for policy according to their own standards and objectives, while the Government s policy programme sets specific entrepreneurship agendas over which the Ministry of Employment and Economy presides. Although it does appear, at first glance, that a hierarchy in the organization of entrepreneurship does exist, it is difficult to comprehend a definitive authority relationship between the different organizations. Rather, this is dependent on the autonomy of the different organizations. It s no wonder that the agendas set by higher instances may fail to be realized at the lower governmental levels. It is not as much about authority as it is about cooperation and understanding between the different actors. There are surprisingly few checks on organization and work division: Pittaway and Hannon (2008) presented three conceptual models of higher level entrepreneurship organization. They evaluated the efficiency and compatibility of these models by using eight factors, such as funding, intellectual strength, connection to the local community, and academic credibility. Their study indicated that the method of organization can have a big impact on how well entrepreneurship actors can perform the task at hand. Support systems for entrepreneurship There are several national and local programmes (i.e. TiimiAkatemia, Auringonkukka project, Agendi Modus, etc.) and support systems (i.e. the YES-center, Measurement Tool for Entrepreneurship, Enterprise Finland, YVI project) that have been developed to encourage entrepreneurship. A significant part of these incentives have been initiated by universities or academies, and cooperation between these instances is central for reaching results. Enterprise programmes have been a popular method for advancing entrepreneurship. At the same time, the ever-growing spectrum of the objectives, methods, expertise, and outcomes makes it difficult to gain 4

a clear overview of the situation. Hytti and O Gorman (2004) analyzed 50 different entrepreneurship programmes and projects from four different European countries. They identified the programmes various methods of teaching entrepreneurship and evaluated the effectiveness of these processes. Hytti and O Gorman focused on the importance of local adjustments to the programmes and defined Training the Trainers as being one of the key areas for development. Fayolle et al. (2006) also took a look at entrepreneurship programmes and concluded that they are rapidly becoming more prevalent. Because of the resources already being invested, Fayolle and his group determined that the evaluation of these programmes must be both comprehensive and consistent. Most of the support systems have been activated over the past few years, and their mutual interaction is still relatively non-existent. Material banks, developed by projects and different organizations (Young Enterprise Finland, The Center for School Clubs), also make up part of the support system. Because the agendas that are set on a strategic level and the different objectives should be followed up on somehow, the development of a measurement tool becomes a central challenge. The entrepreneurship measurement tool under development (Pihkala et al., 2011) is not only a tool for evaluating and developing the individual educator s methods of entrepreneurship, but is also applicable on a larger scale as a support system and a guideline for improving local and national entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship networks There is a lot of networking in entrepreneurship. On a national level, authorities, different organizations, businesses, and special interest groups are in constant interaction with each other. For instance, the publication Guidelines for Entrepreneurship Education (Ministry of Education, 2009) was made possible by the involvement of 20 different parties 1. These networks are efficiently utilized, there are both official and unofficial networks and the networking can be either local or national in nature; additionally, very active international networks also exist. From the point of view of the teacher and the school, local entrepreneurs and various non-profit organizations, which are common in the entrepreneurship field, are part of the essential entrepreneurship network. There may be a lot of businesses and other organizations close to the school that would not only be easily accessible but could also be very helpful in achieving the al objectives. Cooperation between schools in different transitional phases could easily be connected to entrepreneurship, as could the interaction with various research centers and universities. Resource allocation of entrepreneurship Resource allocation, or the planning and organization of resources, is one of the touchiest subjects of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is characterized as being temporary and shortsighted, which stems from the nature of the resourcing. Despite the importance of advancing entrepreneurship, a significant chunk of entrepreneurship has been developed through various temporary projects. These projects have resulted in a lot of useable teaching material, well-established programmes, web courses still in use, and new models for cooperation, mentorship, and planning for businesses as well as schools (Etelä-Suomen lääninhallitus, 2005). For entrepreneurship to become established in the al system and not be dependent on outside projects there should be an honest realization that the subject needs its own resource allocation. What could this allocation entail? - time, for instance: that the teacher could allocate teaching hours to entrepreneurial activities - money, for instance: the possibility of using funds for entrepreneurship or to give the teacher supplementary opportunities - tools, for instance: to acquire instruments that could support entrepreneurship instruction - people, for instance: entrepreneurship specialists that meet the needs of the institution 1 Actors involved in drafting the Guidelines, other than the Ministry of Education and Culture, include the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Finnish National Board of Education, the Regional State Administrative Agency of Southern Finland, the Central Chamber of Commerce, Confederation of Finnish Industries EK, the Federation of Finnish Enterprises, the Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners MTK, the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, the Trade Union of Education in Finland, the Economic Information Office, the Finnish 4H Organization, the Centre for School Clubs, Young Enterprise Finland, the Finnish enterprise agencies, Junior Chamber Finland, the University of Oulu s Department of Teacher Education in Kajaani, the University of Turku s Normaalikoulu (TNK) and Lappeenranta University of Technology. (Ministry of Education 2009 5

The educator has to produce some of the resources himself. Others are the problem of the institution, and a solution is highly dependent on the choices made by the heads of the institution. Deakins et al. (2005) emphasized the rectors significance, not only as setting the guidelines for attitudes and culture, but also as key players in resource allocation, working relationships, and activation of the local community. Some resource allocation can be solved by the school district or a higher instance. Who enables an emphasis on entrepreneurship studies and what does that mean in a practical sense? A lot is also dependent on intellectual resources and the activity culture of the institution. Is it status quo for teachers or teaching groups to cooperate, for instance, or does entrepreneurship often come up as a theme at the teacher meetings? The impact of resource allocation cannot be disparaged, and it is a very important element especially in the development of activities. The expertise of entrepreneurship In addition to the aforementioned resources, we also need skill and talent with regards to entrepreneurship. The boundaries between the actors in Picture 1 are not unambiguous, rather, they are oversimplified; entrepreneurship research is linked to know-how as well as research. Entrepreneurship research seems to be on the upswing in Finland at the moment, with several universities and colleges studying the subject and numerous groups actively researching it. It isn t at all rare these days to run into undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral thesis on the topic of entrepreneurship. One would hope that these broad research efforts are of high enough quality that the results can be realized and transplanted into the al field. The entrepreneurship educator, the teacher, must have up-to-date skills and know-how in accordance with the strategic guidelines at hand. So to what extent is entrepreneurship a generic theme? Do you have to study entrepreneurship in order to be good at it? To what degree is it an intuitive skill to be a good entrepreneurship educator? Fiet (2000b) depicts a good entrepreneurship educator as someone who can efficiently combine theory and practice. He describes how a teacher can teach, by engaging, surprising, and encouraging his students, even the most dull-sounding theoretic subjects. In order for the teacher to be successful, he must be have his finger on the pulse of the times, be able to assess a situation, and be excited about the subject; most of all, he must have the know-how to bring a theory to life and offer practical examples that are in touch with the students real world and experience. Hytti and O Gorman (2004) claim that an effective entrepreneurship educator balances between the roles of teacher and coach, enabling actions. His most important characteristic is giving the right amount of freedom to the students while asking the right questions. These questions support the learning; it also makes the students feel that they are not alone in the learning process. For the teacher to be a successful entrepreneurship educator he will likely need not only the support of the school board but also of regular supplementary and insight into new teaching methods and materials. It is clear that the supply and demand of educators supplementary must be in balance. General courses are best held regionally, but more specific courses could certainly be organized on a national level. Providing up-to-date methods and new knowledge is imperative, as is providing effective teaching methods. For the demands to be met, the key resource allocation issue for regional and facility aspects is making the educators available to take part in these courses. Supplementary facilities as well as teacher training facilities and universities play an important role in solving these issues. Practical implementation of entrepreneurship Although entrepreneurship is done in networks and through cooperation, the cornerstones of entrepreneurship are the practical implementations that the teachers choose and put into use. The teacher chooses how to do things and also what things to do. It is up to the teacher whether or not to proceed according to the textbook, if the Internet should be used, should the lesson be in the classroom or should the class head down to a local enterprise on a cold day, should individual projects be on the agenda, or should team efforts between different classes be carried out. The measurement tool for entrepreneurship development project (see: www.lut.fi/entre) has compiled a wide variety of entrepreneurship educators methods. Between September 2010 and February 2011, 166 grade school and secondary school teachers from various areas of Finland answered a survey that collected information about their preferred teaching methods and processes over the past six months. The teachers were to select among 14 different methods and processes that are considered standard within the subject of entrepreneurship (including Fiet, 2000a; 2000b; Hytti & O Gorman, 2004; Seikkula-Leino, 2007) according to how often they had put them into practical use. It appears that the teachers certainly used very broad spectrum of methods since every single method and process had been activated at some point 6

(see Chart 1). The most popular methods were: learning by doing, pair and group work, and problem-oriented learning. Collaborative and investigative learning were also implemented in the lessons at least once a week. On a monthly lesson plan were creative problem solving, team learning, project work, and peer learning. Less frequently used were simulations, e-learning, debate, learning journals, and pedagogical drama. On the other hand, all methods showed variation, with some teachers often using a certain method and others never using it. Implement Mode learning by doing 4 pair and/or group work 3 problemsolving learning 3 collaborative learning 3 investigative learning 3 peer learning, the student acts as teacher 2 creative problem solving 2 project work 1 team learning 1 e-learning 1 learning journal 1 pedagogical drama 1 simulation of practical situations 1 debate 1 Chart 1. Methods and processes used by teachers. (n 166, 4 = daily, 3 = weekly, 2 = monthly, 1 = less than monthly, 0 = never) The same survey (n 166) inquired about the presence of businesses, entrepreneurs, and entrepreneurship in. Almost one third (30,7%) of those who answered said that they had not used entrepreneurship stories as teaching material in the past six months, more than half (51,2%) had not made a study trip to a business, and an even larger group (62,0%) had not invited an entrepreneur to visit the school. The situation may not be that bleak, after all. A huge variation was seen in the answers given. For each of the aforementioned points, about one tenth of the respondents said that they had utilized these themes more than ten times over the past six months. There is a big disparage within the surveyed groups, and it does seem that those who do utilize the methods and processes utilize them adamantly while others do not regularly engage in any sort of entrepreneurship at all. Implementers of entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship in Finland has been project-like in nature, and the staff of the different projects together with teachers and subject educators as well as coaches and consultants form one component. The implementation element of entrepreneurship has a lot to do with resource allocation. Despite the fact that entrepreneurship is resourced, and the fact that practical implementation is activated by strategies and the renewal of teaching plans, the realization of entrepreneurship has not been moving systematically toward the objectives that have been set for it. Studies have shown, for instance, that teachers find it difficult to apply entrepreneurship to their lesson plans (see Ristimäki, 2004; Seikkula-Leino, 2006; 2007; Ruskovaara, 2007). The importance of rectors as enablers of entrepreneurship, as well as actual organizers of entrepreneurship, is central (Deakins et al., 2005). The better the resources for entrepreneurship are allocated, the better the school can benefit from experts in this specific field. Henderson and Robertson (2000) highlight the role of the teachers in entrepreneurship. According to them, most students have a positive image of entrepreneurship but are discouraged by a lack of role models and a lack of pro-entrepreneurship among those important in forming the students career choices, such as the teachers. Entrepreneurs also play a part in entrepreneurship, as do a number of other third sector actors. Henderson and Robertson (2000) bring up the importance of businesses and entrepreneurs as resources in realizing entrepreneurship, and apprentice sessions in businesses are good practical methods of broadening and updating the. Hytti and O Gorman (2004) highlight the need for supplementary for teachers and support a model where a peer network is made up of teachers from different schools. They also point out that the teacher, in addition to the peer network group, could benefit from having a mentor outside of the al system: an entrepreneur. 7

Results of entrepreneurship There are different guidelines for the objectives of entrepreneurship on different operational levels. The variations mostly appear in regards to how the objectives are emphasized, and no great conflicts have been noted. In the introduction of the Guidelines for Entrepreneurship Education (Ministry of Education, 2009), Minister of Education describes the objectives of entrepreneurship as being entrepreneurship within all levels of society as well as strengthening entrepreneurship and developing new enterprises. The grade school curriculum outline (Finnish National Board of Education, 2004) describes the central goal of entrepreneurship as helping students visualize society from different perspectives and develop necessary skills in the basics of entrepreneurial practice. High schools have been set the goals (Finnish National Board of Education, 2003) of getting students to develop a participatory and responsible attitude and to participate in and influence society through political, economic and social activity and culture. The curriculum of vocational upper secondary and training (Opetushallitus, 2009) includes a large variety of skills and knowledge connected to intrapreneurship and entrepreneurship. The general objectives of entrepreneurship are threefold: Ristimäki (2004) divides the objectives into knowledge, talent, and attitude, while Hytti and O Gorman (2004) adopt Gibb s (1999) division, which states that the objectives of entrepreneurship are: learning to understand entrepreneurship, learning to be entrepreneurial, and learning how to become an entrepreneur. These objectives can be converted into results in the following manner: 1. The importance of entrepreneurship is known, recognized, and accepted in society. This requires not only awareness but most likely also a pro-enterprise attitude. 2. An entrepreneurial way of working and perceiving the environment; special skills such as responsibility and team work ability are important. 3. Entrepreneurship is a familiar enough concept to be seen as a realistic option for employment when the skills required by the entrepreneur have been achieved. The advancement of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship are a focal point for the economy. This is largely built on the concept that entrepreneurship and entrepreneurialism can be taught and supported. Pittaway and Cope (2007) published a substantial review of entrepreneurship al literature and came to the conclusion that, despite the amount of material available, the objectives of entrepreneurship are still unclear and very much reliant on faith. One of the central objectives for entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial research should be to construct a basic understanding of the goals, practices, and objectives of entrepreneurship. DISCUSSION The national entrepreneurship system and its segments are drawn up in this article. Systematic thinking has been proved effective when attempting to understand the al system (Myers & Rowan, 1978; Weick, 1976). It is evident that a large group of different actors are involved in the implementation of entrepreneurship and that this group seems like an unstructured and complex organization. This organization consists of many schools and teachers who are putting entrepreneurial to work, entrepreneurial researchers, and other information producers, entrepreneurship networks, and authorities in charge of entrepreneurship administration. This kind of entrepreneurship organization is on the one hand in place to draw up policy objectives, guidelines, and strategies for how to direct the organization itself. On the other hand, the organization acquires necessary funding and resources and follows up on the realization of the policies. The latter is extremely important for the success of the entire organization, because without that, systematically serving their purpose is not possible; without information tracking, there can be no way of developing the necessary functions or resources. Another objectives of this article are to present options for developing the national entrepreneurship and its system. This has been an overlooked topic, especially considering the amount of resources that have been allocated to developing entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship and their implications. The Finnish entrepreneurship as a whole has some sore points, the most significant of which are the availability of functional and effective entrepreneurship models to the teachers, the shortsightedness of resources, and the measurement of entrepreneurship. To rise to these challenges there seem to be some crucial steps: to embed entrepreneurship into the teachers and to bring research-based, user-led innovations to the school life. Also different kinds of communication challenges are to be taken into consideration as it seems that there are a lot of training for teachers, many material packages and resource-centers to utilize but they are not yet known by the teachers. 8

At the core of entrepreneurship is what the teacher actually does. From this point of view, it is clear that we must systematically focus on guiding the educators practical methods in order to support the objectives of entrepreneurship more efficiently. For this to happen, we need additional and more substantial guidelines and models. We should be moving toward providing educators with a multifaceted array of entrepreneurship tools. As always, in addition to the best-practice models, entrepreneurship research should offer more information about the efficiency of various teaching methods and put those in practice. As stated, entrepreneurship is to a large extent constructed on the actions of various scattered projects. It is, however, in the national interest that entrepreneurship advances from a project level to a broader and more encompassing achievement that could be guided, evaluated, and resourced in a more systematic manner than it is today. This would allow all of the development innovation, advantages, and experience that have occurred in the area to become applicable. From the point of view of resource allocation, it would seem that those who are facing the difficulties of developing entrepreneurship, the teachers, have not had easy access to development activities and schooling. In principle, this is accessible, but if a teacher is not offered a substitute for the duration of the supplementary schooling, it becomes difficult for him to participate. One of the ideas supporting entrepreneurship is the cooperation of different actors. The basic idea is that one lone teacher in his own classroom doesn t necessarily make for the most effective entrepreneurial atmosphere; the school needs to open up to the local society (Finnish National Board of Education, 2003; 2004). By actively utilizing the networks, a teacher can greatly increase the timeliness and efficiency of the lesson plan, get to know what is happening on the field and for example hear about the forthcoming training possibilities and get recommendations of utilized, useful material packages. Finally, the central actors of entrepreneurship, the teachers, need better tools for evaluating their own entrepreneurship al methods. Only by comparison can entrepreneurship move from a test stage to a professional realization. The evaluation tools made available for entrepreneurship educators are advancing rapidly. The development of these measurement tools is not only to the advantage of the development of the teacher s own skills, but also increases the potential for using the assessment information to promote a local, regional, and national entrepreneurship management system. The assessment of the management system of entrepreneurship is at an introductory stage. The different segments of the strategies on a national level have been quite unevenly evaluated. On a national level, they have gotten fair amounts of attention; simultaneously, regional and local objectives and models for entrepreneurship have been mostly overlooked. Functional models and especially the gathering of comparative data on regional and local levels are integral concerns in entrepreneurship research. In this article we have aimed to present an overview of entrepreneurship system and both open the discussion and capture a draft of the phenomena. As the nature of this article is to generalize we can see at least following limitations: Different school and levels have different aims for both entrepreneurship and enterprise and therefore practices and methods presumably vary. Also, other context might have different essence and role than we have presented in picture 1. Knowing that, we haven t aimed to prepare universally applicable directions. We argue the elements of entrepreneurship need more indepth analyze. Therefore we suggest there is a definite need for more systematic data collection and discussion concerning different levels and context of entrepreneurship and its system. REFERENCES Ammattikorkeakoulujen rehtorineuvoston Arene ry:n yrittäjyysstrategia. (2006) http://www.arene.fi. (cited: 27.2.2011.) Commission of the European Communities. (2003) Green Paper Entrepreneurship in Europe. Brüssels. Commission of the European Communities. (2005) Proposal for a Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the council on key competences for lifelong learning. Brüssels. Deakins, D., Sheperd, K., Menter, I. & Wyper, J. (2005) Enterprise : The role of the Head Teachers. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 1, 241-263. 9

Etelä-Suomen lääninhallitus (2005) Yrittäjyyttä EU-projekteilla. Etelä-Suomen lääninhallituksen EUrakennerahastojulkaisut 11. Karhatsu, E., Tuhkalainen, S., Reijola, E., Soimakallio, H. & Kärkinen, J. (eds.) Multiprint: Helsinki. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006) Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training 30:9, 701-720. Fiet, J.O. (2000a) The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 16, 1-24. Fiet, J.O. (2000b) The Pedagogigal side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing 16, 101-117. Finnish National Board of Education. (2003) National Core Curriculum for Upper Secondary Schools 2003. Vammalan kirjapaino Oy: Vammala. Finnish National Board of Education. (2004) National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004. Vammalan kirjapaino Oy: Vammala. Gibb, A. (1999) Can we build effective entrepreneurship through management development. Journal of General Management 24:4, 1-21. Gibb, A. (1993) Enterprise Culture and Education: Understanding Enterprise Education and Its Links with Small Business, Entrepreneurship and Wider Educational Goals. International Small Business Journal 1: 11-34. Henderson, R. & Robertson M. (2000) Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. Career Development International 5:6, 279-287. Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2005) Entrepreneurship and training: can entrepreneurship be taught? Part I. Education + Training 47:2, 98-111. Hynes, B. (1996) Entrepreneurship and training introducing entrepreneurship into non-business disciplines. Journal of European Industrial Training 20:8, 10-17. Hytti, U. & O Gorman, C. (2004) What is enterprise? An analysis of the objectives and methods of enterprise programmes in four European countries 2004. Education + Training 46:1, 11-23. Ministry of Education (2009), Guidelines for Entrepreneurship Education, Publication of the Ministry of Education: Helsinki. Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. (1978) The structure of al organizations. In Marshall W. Meyer and Associates (eds.). Environments and Organizations 78-109. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass. Opetushallitus. (2009) Ammatillisten perustutkintojen uudistaminen. http://www.oph.fi/koulutuksen_jarjestaminen/opetussuunnitelmien_ja_tutkintojen_perusteet/ammatillisten_per ustutkintojen_tarkistaminen. (Cited: 5.2.2011.) Opetusministeriö. (2008) Koulutus ja tutkimus 2007-2012 kehittämissuunnitelma. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2008:9. Yliopistopaino: Helsinki. Opetusministeriö. (2009a) Korkeakoulupohjaisen yrittäjyyden edistäminen. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2009:10. Yliopistopaino: Helsinki. Pihkala, T., Ruskovaara, E., Seikkula-Leino, J. & Pihkala, J. (2011) Yrittäjyyskasvatus monikerroksisena ilmiönä - kohti yrittäjyyskasvatuksen ohjausjärjestelmää. In Heinonen, J., Hytti, U. & Tiikkala, A. (eds.). Yrittäjämäinen oppiminen: Tavoitteita, toimintaa ja tuloksia. Uniprint: Turku. Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. (2007) Entrepreneurship Education A Systematic Review of the Evidence. International Small Business Journal 25:5, 477-506. Pittaway, L. & Hannon, P. (2008) Institutional strategies for developing enterprise A review of some concepts and models. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15:1: 202-226. 10

Policy programme for employment, entrepreneurship and work life. (2007) www.tem.fi. (cited: 26.1.2011.) Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen in the II governmental programme (2007). Edita Prima Oy: Helsinki. Ristimäki, K. (2004) Yrittäjyyskasvatus. Oy Kotkan Kirjapaino Ab: Hamina. Ruskovaara, E. (2007) Opettajien yrittäjyys- ja yrittäjyyskasvatusasenteita. In: Yrittäjyyskasvatuksen monia suuntia, toim. Kyrö, P., Lehtonen, H. & Ristimäki, K. Yrittäjyyskasvatuksen julkaisusarja 5/2007, 98-129. Tampereen yliopiston kauppakorkeakoulu: Hämeenlinna. Schwartz, M. (2006) For whom do we write the curriculum?, Journal of Curriculum Studies 38: 4, 449-457. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2006) Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelmauudistus 2004 2006 ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen kehittäminen. Paikallinen opetussuunnitelmatyö yrittäjyyskasvatuksen näkökulmasta. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2006:22. Yliopistopaino: Helsinki. Seikkula-Leino, J. (2007) Opetussuunnitelmauudistus ja yrittäjyyskasvatuksen toteuttaminen. Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2007:28. Yliopistopaino: Helsinki. Seikkula-Leino, J., Ruskovaara, E., Ikävalko, M., Mattila, J. &Rytkölä, T. (2010) Promoting entrepreneurship : the role of the teacher?. Education + Training 52:2, 117-127. Strom-Gottfried, K. & Dunlap, K.M. (2004) Talking About Teaching Curricula for Improving Instructors' Classroom Performance. Journal of Teaching in Social Work 24:3, 65-78. Valliere, D. & Peterson, R. (2009) Entrepreneurship and economic growth: Evidence from emerging and developed countries. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 21:5/6: 459-480. Weick, K.E. (1976) Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 1-19. 11