FINLAND AT A GLANCE independent since 1917, member of the European Union since 1995

1 For learning and competence

FINLAND AT A GLANCE

- independent since 1917, member of the European Union since 1995

- total area 338,000 km2, population 5.2 million (17 inhabitants / km2)

- two official languages: Finnish 92 %, Swedish 6 %, (Saami 0,03%)

- religion: Lutheran (85 %), orthodox (1 %)

- immigrants: 2 % of population

- main exports: electronics, metal and engineering, forest industry

- 3 493 basic schools / 564 000 pupils

- 439 general upper secondary schools / 113 000 students

- 205 vocational upper secondary schools / 140 000 students


From parallel to comprehensive school system

Parallel system until 1970s with three tracks:1) Civic school

Grammar school divided to

(2) Intermediate with 5 grades and

(3) High school with 3 grades

Traditional matriculation examination after high school

Parliament made decision in 1963 – Act on education system in 1968

–Ample experiments since 1968

Implementation of comprehensive school in 1972 – 1982 Finally, in 1985 ability courses in some subjects was abolished

Result: Finnish Basic education (primary 1 – 6, lower secondary7 – 9)


Result: Education System of Finland in 2005

BASIC EDUCATION

Pre-school education in schools or children’s day care centres

AgeSchool years

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

CO

MP

UL

SO

RY

ED

UC

AT

ION

UPPERSECONDARYSCHOOLS

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

UNIVERSITIESPOLYTECHNICS(AMKINSTITUTIONS)

1

2

3 3

33

2

2

2

1 1

1

4 45

SPECIALIST VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

FURTHER VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

Wor

k ex

peri

ence

Work experience


Via Centralisation to the most decentralised Public Education System

among OECD Countries in 1990s

In decentralisation process (started in middle of 1980s) focus was on the increase of decision-making powers of municipalities

Still, the basic elements and frameworks of the education system decided at central level, e.g.:

–Structure of the system

–Degrees, examinations, certificates

–Establishment of new institutions (except basic schools)

–Per capita (pupil/student) state funding of education

–Qualifications of teachers

–National core curriculum

Result: Basic structures and principles follow nation-wide decisions.


School autonomy in principle -contents Municipality decides on

distribution of decision making power.

Curriculum–National Core Curricula by NBE – goals of good learning outcomes in subjects

and themes–Guidelines by the municipality – local orientation–School-based curriculum

free space at lower grades of basic school 10 % at upper grades of basic school 20 % at upper secondary 25 %

Profiling of schools by contents Text books and other materials

–Approval procedures abolished 1993–Teachers decide

Pedagogical autonomy of teachers (with M.Sc. degree) Schools decide on group forming, daily work rhythm and

other practices Voluntary participation in national development programs


School autonomy - resources Decisions by principal and School Board (teacher recruiting, school budget,

school-specific curriculum, annual work plan, school regulations)

Annual work plan and budget–No national regulation of class sizes

–Maximum number of teaching hours (according to a formula) by Education Committee of Municipality

Budget–Teachers salaries and frame for other expenditure according to

formulas

Recruitment of teachers and staff–Acted qualifications

–Principal, teachers and School Board

Result: Hopefully, sustainable high level of performance


Accountability – follow-up of results No national examination after basic school National Matriculation Examination – final examination after

upper secondary general school No inspection of schools Mandatory self-evaluation of schools National evaluation system of school education

–NBE evaluates learning outcome on a sample basis (5 – 10 % of pupils) – Also, selling of tests

–Schools receive their result profile and the average profiles of tested schools

–Evaluation Council organises thematic evaluations No ranking lists – evaluation is for development Result: Contemporary culture in Finnish

schools


Basic operational Culture inside the Finnish Education System

Trust on schools, principals, teachers and students

School Autonomy – School operational culture

Influence of the local community

Comprehensive basic school with extensive special and remedial teaching

Limited competition between basic schools

Heavy competition between schools after that, covering the whole country

–Schools compete for best youngsters

–Youngsters compete for best study places


Comprehensive school1-6 year classes6 x

Principal

+ special classes 3+ pre-school classes

Junior high school7-9 year classes

Senior highschool

Principal Principal

Director of educatione.g. follows,leads and supervises education

Local education board (9 members)

e.g. choose the teachers

Municipal managere.g. leads the municipal office

Municipal board (7 members) e.g. decides executions of municipal council

Municipal council ( 27 members)e.g. budget and maintenance of schools

Vocational school

Joint municipal authority

Principal

Municipal of Nakkila

Structure of schools administration


Municipal of Nakkila

Structure of civilizations administration

Municipal council ( 27 members)

Municipal board (7 members)

Local education board (9 members)

Library-Culture board (7members)Board for leisure activities ( 7 members)

Director of schoolsSuperhead of library Secretary of culture

Secretary of sports Secretary of the youth

Music institute Civic institutePurchase service Purchase service


Comprehensive school

Costs/Year/Student

6500 € total

5500 € State

1000 € Municipal


Key features of PISA 2003 Information collected

–volume of questions3½ hours of mathematics assessment1 hour for each of reading, science and problem solving

–each student2 hours on paper-and-pencil tasks (subset of all questions)½ hour for questionnaire on background, learning habits, learning environment, engagement and motivation

–school principalsquestionnaire (school demography, learning environment quality)

Coverage–275,000 students in 41 countries

–PISA covers roughly nine tens of the world economy


Deciding what to assess...

looking back at what students were expected to have learned

…or…

looking ahead to what they can do with what they have learned.

For PISA, the OECD countries chose the latter.


PISA provides five key benchmarks for the quality of education systems

11.. Overall performance of education systems

2.2. Equity in the distribution of learning opportunities

– Measured by the impact students’ and schools’ socio-economic background has on performance…

… not merely by the distribution of learning outcomes

3.3. Consistency of performance standards across schools

4.4. Gender differences

5.5. Foundations for lifelong learning

– Learning strategies, motivation and attitudes


OECDLevel 6

Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

BelowLevel 1

OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 2.5a, p.354.

What students can do in mathematics

15%

21%

22%

18%

10%

4%

11%

Mathematics Level 6: Conceptualise, generalise and use information based on investigations and

modelling of complex problems Link different information sources and representations and flexibly translate

among them Show mathematical thinking and reasoning Formulate and precisely communicate their actions and reflections regarding

their findings, interpretations, arguments and the appropriateness of these to the original situationsMathematics Level 2:

Interpret and recognise situations in contexts that require no more than direct inference

Extract relevant information from a single source and make use of a single representational mode

Employ basic algorithms, formulae, procedures or conventions Make literal interpretations of results.

Mathematics Level 1: Answer questions in familiar contexts where all relevant information is present Carry out routine procedures according to direct instructions in explicit

situations.


7 8 6 7 8 7 9 6 7 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0

17 1715

18 16 1418

14 1412 12 13

12 12 11 912 10 9 9 8 8 7 8 6 5 3 3

0

26 2525

23 2423

2123 22

23 22 2122 20 21

2021

19 19 19 18 18 18 1713 13

11 7

3

28 2426 23 22

24 2024 23

26 26 24 26 26 25 2823

25 25 26 24 25 27 24

23 24

2014

10

1617 18 18 16 18 16 19 19 20 21 20 20 22 22 24 19 24 24 23 24 25 25 24

25 27

26

22

21

5 7 8 8 9 10 910 10 11 11 12 11 12 13 12

12 13 14 14 15 15 1516

19 19

21

25

28

2 3 2 3 5 5 7 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 9 7 7 7 8 7 8 10 13 1118

2838

0 %

20 %

40 %

60 %

80 %

100 %

Fin

land (

1-3)

Kore

a (

2-5

)

Canada (

4-7

)

Neth

erl

ands

(1-5

)

Japan (

2-7

)

Sw

itzerl

and (

4-9

)

Belg

ium

(4-8

)

Aust

ralia (

7-9

)

New

Zeala

nd (

7-1

0)

Icela

nd (

10-1

3)

Denm

ark

(10

-14)

Czech R

ep. (9

-14)

Fra

nce (

11-1

5)

Sw

eden (

12-1

6)

Aust

ria (

13-1

8)

Ire

land (

15-1

8)

Germ

any (

14-1

8)

Slo

vak R

ep. (1

6-2

1)

Norw

ay (

18-2

1)

Luxem

bourg

(19

-21)

Hungary

(19

-23)

Pola

nd (

19-2

3)

Spain

(22-2

4)

Unit

ed S

tate

s (2

2-2

4)

Ita

ly (

25-2

6)

Port

ugal (2

5-2

6)

Gre

ece (

27-2

7)

Turk

ey (

28-2

8)

Mexic

o (

29-2

9)

Percentage of students at each of the proficiency levels on the mathematics scale

Level 3

Level 1

Below Level 1

Level 6

Level 5

Level 4

Level 2

OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 2.5a, p.354.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910

11

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

12

25

26

27

28

29


Gender differences In reading, girls are far ahead– In all countries, girls significantly outperform boys in reading

In mathematics, boys tend to be somewhat ahead– In most countries, boys outperform girls

… but mostly by modest amounts…… and mainly because boys are overrepresented among top-performers while boys and girls tend to be equally represented

in the “at risk” group Within classrooms and schools, the gender gap is often larger

– Strong problem-solving performance for girls suggests…… that it is not the cognitive processes underlying mathematics that give boys an advantage…… but the context in which mathematics appears in school

– Gender differences in interest and attitudes towards mathematics are significantly greater than the observed performance gap

Girls report much lower intrinsic (though not instrumental) motivation in mathematics, more negative attitudes and much greater anxiety with mathematics…

… and this may well contribute to the significant gender difference in educational and occupational pathways in mathematics-related subjects


Sympathy doesn’t raise standards – aspiration does In the focus countries

–National research teams report a strong “culture of performance”

Which drives students, parents, teachers and the educational administration to high performance standards

PISA suggests… … that students and schools perform better in a climate characterised by high

expectations and the readiness to invest effort, the enjoyment of learning, a strong disciplinary climate, and good teacher-student relations

Among these aspects, students’ perception of teacher-student relations and classroom disciplinary climate display the strongest relationships


Public and private schools

0 20 40 60 80 100

Luxembourg

J apan

I taly

Switzerland

Finland

Denmark

Czech Republic

Sweden

Hungary

Austria

Portugal

United States

Netherlands

Slovak Republic

Korea

I reland

Spain

Canada

Mexico

New Zealand

Germany

OECD

United Kingdom

Government schools

Government dependent private

Government independent private

-15

0

-10

0

-50

0 50 100

Observed perf ormance diff erence

Diff erence af ter accounting f or socio-economic background of students

Diff erence af ter accounting f or socio-economic background of students and schools

Private schools perform better

Public schools perform better


Organisation of instruction In the focus countries–Schools and teachers have explicit strategies and approaches for teaching

heterogeneous groups of learnersA high degree of individualised learning processesDisparities related to socio-economic factors and migration are recognised as major challenges

–Students are offered a variety of extra-curricular activities

–Schools offer differentiated support structures for studentsE.g. school psychologists or career counsellors

–Institutional differentiation is introduced, if at all, at later stagesIntegrated approaches also contributed to reducing the impact of students socio-economic background on outcomes


Support systems and professional teacher development In the focus countries–Effective support systems are located at individual school level or in specialised

support institutions

–Teacher training schemes are selective

–The training of pre-school personnel is closely integrated with the professional development of teachers

–Continuing professional development is a constitutive part of the system

–Special attention is paid to the professional development of school management personnel

For learning and competence

OECD countries participating from PISA 2000

OECD countries participating from PISA from 2003

OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2000



PISA country participation

Documents

FINLAND AT A GLANCE independent since 1917, member of the European Union since 1995