Finland in PISA

The Reasons behind the Results

Markku Linna

Education System of Finland

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 QUALIFICATIONSW

ork

expe

rien

ce

Work experience

OECD countries participating from PISA 2000

OECD countries participating from PISA from 2003

OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2000

OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2003

OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2006

PISA COUNTRY PARTICIPATION

PISA PROGRAMME

• An OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, which produces data on learning outcome in an international framework.

• Surveys every three years, with focus on

– reading skills (PISA 2000)

– mathematical skills (PISA 2003) and

– science skills (PISA 2006)

– problem-solving skills

• The 2003 PISA focused on mathematical literacy

Pisa tests:

• how well 15-year-olds master basic skills they will need in future society in order to respond to changes in working life and to lead quality lives ?

• what kind of factors influence these skills and how these skills develop ?

• Pisa does not assess learning of curricular content.

PISA 2003 MAIN RESULTS

Young Finns :

• rank highest among the OECD countries in

• mathematical literacy (544 points)

• science literacy (548 points)

• reading literacy (543 points)

• are among the top in problem-solving (548 points)

• performed well and uniformly in all the areas.

• The proportion of poorly performing students was small and that of high-performers excellent.

• Differences across regions and schools were small.

• Gender differences have decreased in all the performance areas.

PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR MATHEMATICS 2003 Source: OECD 2004

356359360

417422

437468

483527

536550

385423

445466466

483485

490490

493495

498500

503503

506509511

514515516

523524

527

529532534

538542544

300 350 400 450 500 550 600

BrazilTunisia

IndonesiaThailandUruguay

Serbia andRussia

LatviaMacao (China)Liechtenstein

Hong Kong (China)

MexicoTurkey

GreeceItaly

PortugalUSA

SpainHungary

PolandLuxembourgh

NorwaySlovakia

OECD averageIreland

GermanyAustria

SwedenFrance

DenmarkIceland

Czech RepublicNew Zealand

AustraliaSwitzerland

United KingdomBelgiumCanada

JapanNetherlands

KoreaFinland

PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR SCIENCE 2003 Source: OECD 2004

385390

395429

436438

489489

525525

539

405434

468475

481483484486487

491491

495495

498500502503505506

509511513

519521523524525

538548548

300 350 400 450 500 550 600

TunisiaBrazil

IndonesiaThailand

Serbia and MontenegroUruguay

LatviaRussia

Macao (China)Liechtenstein

Hong Kong (China)

MexicoTurkey

PortugalDenmarkGreece

LuxemburgNorw ay

ItalySpain

AustriaUSA

IcelandSlovakia

PolandOECD average

GermanyHungary

IrelandSw edenBelgiumFrance

Sw itzerlandCanada

New ZealandCzech Republic

NetherlandsAustralia

United KingdomKoreaJapan

Finland

PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR READING LITERACY 2003 Source: OECD 2004

375382

403412

420434

442491

498510

525

400441

469472

476478479481482

489491491492492494495496497498499500

507513514

515522525

528534

543

300 350 400 450 500 550 600

TunisiaIndonesia

BrazilSerbia and

ThailandUruguay

RussiaLatvia

Macao (China)Hong Kong

Liechtenstein

MexicoTurkey

SlovakiaGreece

ItalyPortugal

LuxembourgSpain

HungaryCzech

AustriaGermany

IcelandDenmark

OECD averageUSA

FrancePolandJapan

Sw itzerlandNorw ayBelgium

NetherlandsSw eden

United KingdomIreland

New ZealandAustraliaCanada

KoreaFinland

PISA RESULTS: MEAN SCORES FOR PROBLEM SOLVING 2003 Source: OECD 2004

345361

371411

420425

479483

529532

548

384408

448469470

477482

487490492494

498500501

505506

509513

516517519520521

525529530

533547548550

300 350 400 450 500 550 600

TunisiaIndonesia

BrazilUruguay

Serbia and MontenegroThailand

RussiaLatvia

LiechtensteinMacao (China)

Hong Kong (China)

MexicoTurkeyGreece

ItalyPortugal

USASpain

PolandNorw aySlovakia

LuxembourghIreland

OECD averageHungary

IcelandAustria

Sw edenGermany

Czech RepublicDenmark

FranceNetherlandsSw itzerland

BelgiumCanada

AustraliaNew Zealand

JapanFinlandKorea

Pisa 2003: Comparison of the national averages

above the OECD average close to the OECD average below the OECD average

Mathematics Reading Literacy Scientific Literacy Problem-SolvingHong Kong (China) Finland Finland KoreaFinland Korea Japan Hong Kong (China)Korea Canada Hong Kong (China) FinlandNetherlands Australia Korea JapanLiechtenstein Liechtenstein Liechtenstein New ZealandJapan New Zealand Australia Macau (China)Canada Ireland Macau (China) AustraliaBelgium Sweden Netherlands CanadaMacau (China) Netherlands Czech LiechtensteinSwitzerland Hong Kong (China) New Zealand BelgiumAustralia Belgium Canada SwitzerlandNew Zealand Norway Switzerland NetherlandsCzech Switzerland France FranceIceland Japan Belgium DenmarkDenmark Macau (China) Sweden CzechFrance Poland Ireland GermanySweden France Hungary SwedenAustria United States Germany IcelandGermany Denmark Poland AustriaIreland Iceland Slovakia HungarySlovakia Germany Iceland IrelandNorway Austria United States LuxembourgLuxembourg Latvia Austria SlovakiaPoland Czech Russia NorwayHungary Hungary Latvia PolandSpain Spain Spain LatviaLatvia Luxembourg Italy SpainUnited States Portugal Norway RussiaRussia Italy Luxembourg United StatesPortugal Greece Greece PortugalItaly Slovakia Denmark ItalyGreece Russia Portugal GreeceSerbia-Montenegro Turkey Uruguay ThailandTurkey Uruguay Serbia-Montenegro Serbia-MontenegroUruguay Thailand Turkey UruguayThailand Serbia-Montenegro Thailand TurkeyMexico Brazil Mexico MexicoIndonesia Mexico Indonesia BrazilTunisia Indonesia Brazil IndonesiaBrazil Tunisia Tunisia Tunisia

COMPARISION OF THE NATIONAL AVERAGES

Variance in student performance between schools and within schools on the mathematics scale Expressed as a percentage of the average variance in student performance in OECD countries

100 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 100

Turkey

Hungary

Japan

Belgium

Italy

Germany

Austria

Netherlands

Czech Republic

Korea

Slovak Republic

Greece

Switzerland

Luxembourg

Portugal

Mexico

United States

Australia

New Zealand

Spain

Canada

Ireland

Denmark

Poland

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Iceland

Source: OECD 2003

Between-school variance Within-school variance

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

11000

12000

13000

Sw

itze

rlan

d1

Un

ited

Sta

tes

No

rway

Den

mar

k

Au

stri

a

Sw

eden

Can

ada1

Ital

y1

Bel

giu

m

Fra

nce

Jap

an

Fin

lan

d

Au

stra

lia

Net

her

lan

ds

Icel

and

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Ger

man

y

Isra

el

Sp

ain

Irel

and

New

Zea

lan

d

Ko

rea

Po

rtu

gal

1

Gre

ece

Hu

ng

ary1

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Po

lan

d1

Ch

ile

Slo

vak

Rep

ub

lic

Mex

ico

Ru

ssia

n F

eder

atio

n 1

Tu

rkey

1

Bra

zil

Exp

en

ditu

re p

er

stu

de

nt

(in

eq

uiv

ale

nt

US

do

llars

co

nve

rte

d u

sin

g P

PP

s)

1. Public institutions only.Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure on educational institutions per student.Source: OECD. Tables B1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2006 ).

OECD Total

Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student in primary through tertiary education (2003)In equivalent US dollars converted using PPPs, for primary to tertiary education, based on full-time equivalents. Source: OECD: 2006

Cumulative number of intended instruction hours in public institutions between ages 7 and 14

This chart shows the total number of hours of instruction a student in public sector education can expect to receive from the age of 7 years up to and including 14 years. Source: OECD 2006

0 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 9 000

Netherlands

Australia

Italy

New Zealand

Israel

France

Greece

Mexico

Ireland

Portugal

England

Belgium (Fr.)

Belgium (Fl.)

Turkey

Austria

Spain

Luxembourg

J apan

Czech Republic

Iceland

Germany

Hungary

Poland

Denmark

Korea

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Total number of intended instruction hours

Background of Good Results

• Equal opportunities for education irrespective of domicile, sex, economic situation or mother tongue

• Instruction, books, school materials and welfare services at school free of charge

• Comprehensive, non-selective basic education

• Teachers highly qualified professionals (master´s degree), profession valued, position autonomous

Background of Good Results

• Individual support for the learning and welfare of pupils, student counselling. Special needs education based on inclusion

• Development-oriented evaluation and pupil assessment–sample -based national testing of learning outcome, no ranking lists

• Significance of education in the society, broad political consensus on education policy

Background of Good Results

• Supportive and flexible administration – centralised steering of the whole, local implementation. Strong autonomy of municipal authorities in providing and organizing education

• The role of home-school relations and co-operation between schools and other authorities and society important– the idea of partnership

• Philosophy of education, core curriculum and teaching methods are learner-oriented

Backgound of good results

• Good network of public libraries

• History and tradition

• Trust

Future

• But what about the future