Finnish Education by Govt

8/9/2019 Finnish Education by Govt

1/64

1

THE FINNISH

EDUCATION SYSTEMAND PISA

SIRKKU KUPIAINEN | JARKKO HAUTAMKI | TOMMI KARJALAINEN


2/64

CONTENTS


3/64

3

4 INTRODUCTION

7 KEY FEATURES OFTHE FINNISH EDUCATION SYSTEM

25 FINNISH STUDENTSRECURRENT SUCCESS IN PISA

45 HOW TO EXPLAIN FINNISHSTUDENTS GOOD PERFORMANCE

55 CONCLUSIONS

T H E F I N N I S H E D U C AT I O N S Y S T E M AN D P I S


4/64

The exceptionally high attainment ofFinnish students in PISA 2000, 2003and 2006 in all three literacy domainshas aroused continuous international

interest toward the Finnish educationsystem. To respond to this interest, wepresent in this booklet a short over-view of the Finnish education systemand of Finnish students performance

in PISA, aiming at showing how therst helps to understand and explainthe latter.

Since the release of the rst re-sults of PISA 2000, Finnish students

good performance has generatedmany candidates for key explana-

INTRODUCTION


5/64


6/64


7/64

7


8/64


9/64

9

KEY FEATURES OF

THE FINNISH EDUCATION SYSTEM

K E Y F E AT U R E S O F T H E F I N N I S H E D U C AT I O N S Y S T


10/64

ADOPTING COMPREHENSIVEEDUCATIONFinlands rapid transition from a sparsely populatedagrarian society to a quickly developing industrialstate in the 1950s and 60s called for radical changesin the education system. Parallel education provedwanting in providing qualied workers and employeesfor the expanding economy as only a minority of eachage cohort received sufcient academic or profes-sional qualications. Despite the active resistance ofthe more ardent proponents of the academic estab-lishment and the political right, the common politicalclimate of the 1960s was ready for a radical change,leading to the adoption of comprehensive 9-year

education for all. However, unlike in some other coun-tries adopting a similar reform at the time, compulsoryeducation was limited to nine years of basic schoolor the age of 16, leaving upper secondary educa-tion divided into two parallel systems, the general oracademic upper secondary schools and vocationalschools. Besides, as a concession to the advocates

of the parallel system, streaming in key academicsubjects was maintained at the lower secondary level,and while most private secondary schools joined the

In view of the extensiveeducation reforms ofFinland in the early1970s, it can well be said

that the foundations forFinnish students successin PISA were laid alreadywhen the parents of thePISA generation began

their school careers.


11/64

11

municipal system willingly, some retained their statuswhile afliating to the new system to guarantee theireconomic foundations. Despite the latest reform of1999, many basic schools are still not really compre-hensive but students school careers include a cleartransition and even possibility of school choice be-tween primary and lower secondary schools (grades1-6 and 7-9, respectively), with classroom teachersin the former and subject teachers in the latter. Manylower secondary schools were actually built on thefoundations of former parallel schools for grades 5to 12, and continued their close afliation with therespective general upper secondary schools, oftenwith the same teachers teaching at both levels.

The Basic School Law was accepted in 1968and implemented between 1972 and 1977, proceed-ing year by year from Lapland to Southern Finland.Concomitant with the basic school reform, large-scaleteacher in-service training was implemented to fa-cilitate their transition to teach the whole age cohortthrough an academically demanding curriculum.

Planning of this curriculum was done in a wide-basedcommittee comprising representatives from politicalparties to university experts on education, and leading

to a very detailed new framework curriculum for thebasic school being passed in Parliament in 1970.Furthermore, while the implementation of compre-hensive school proceeded from north to south, class-room teacher education was transferred from earlierteacher colleges or seminaries to universities. In viewof these extensive reforms, it can well be assertedthat the foundations for Finnish students success inPISA in the 2000s were laid already in the 1970s.

To secure the attainment of the education re-forms goals of equity and high academic standardsacross the whole country, a strictly centralised steer-ing system was applied, and governmental decreeswere implemented at county and municipal level un-

der the governance of the National Board of Educa-tion (NBE). Once the basic school had been success-fully established across the country, however, a shiftin political climate began gravitating towards a moreopen decentralised education system, leading e.g. tothe abandoning of school inspections and the obliga-tory approval of text books by the NBE in the1980s.

Reecting this general trend, the new frameworkcurriculum of 1985 allowed for increased freedomat the municipal and school level while still maintain-



12/64

ing high cohesion via the common core curriculumand guidelines for classroom hour distribution. Thecurricular emphasis on basic skills and knowledge,accentuated in mathematics and science with exam-ples from and a foreseen applicability in real life, canbe seen to have further ground the future success ofFinnish students in PISA with the very similar goals ofits framework.

The decentralisation of education continued allthrough the 1990s, gradually leading to a growingconcern of the realisation of the equity goals of the

reform in municipalities struggling with the after-math of the economic recession of the early 1990s.While the new framework curriculum of 1994 furtherincreased the licence of municipalities and schoolsin formulating their own curriculum, the EducationLaw of 1999 established a new evaluation policy withsample based NBE-implemented evaluations in keysubjects, obligatory for the sampled schools but alsoavailable by fee for others for internal use. Besides,on side of the continuous increase of studentsenrolled in remedial and special education across

G E N E R A L W E S T E R N M O D E L

StandardisationStrict standards for schools, teachers and students toguarantee the quality of outcomes.

Emphasis on literacy and numeracyBasic skills in reading, writing, mathematics andscience as prime targets of education reform.

Consequential accountabilityEvaluation by inspection.

T H E F I N N I S H S Y S TE M

Flexibility and diversitySchool-based curriculum development,steering by information and support.

Emphasis on broad knowledgeEqual value to all aspects of individual growth and learning:

personality, morality, creativity, knowledge and skills.

Trust through professionalismA culture of trust on teachers and headmasters

professionalism in judging what is best for students

and in reporting of progress.


13/64

1 3

the country, concern for the equally special needs ofbetter performing students has also been a recurrenteven if less vocal theme in the discussion concerningFinnish education, especially since the 1990s, even iftemporarily palmed off by Finnish students successin PISA.

Overall, during the last decades, the developmentof the Finnish education system has largely followedor reected that of many other Western countries butfor two clear differences: Finland has not adopted thestrong version of consequential accountability withnational testing, and our standards are relatively opento local exibility and diversity with a strong emphasison basic literacy and numeracy concurrent with a

wide-range education for all.

THE FINNISHEDUCATION SYSTEMFinland, like the other Nordic countries, differs frommost countries participating in PISA in the pace inwhich children enter academic life. Finnish childrenbegin school only the year they turn seven, andthere is very little stress on academics in a childs

life before that. Every child has a subjective right tomunicipally provided day-care, but the percentageof children enrolled is one of the lowest in WesternEurope (e.g., in 2006, 63 % of three-year-olds). Onlythe one-year pre-school or kindergarten class for six-year-olds, established in 1998 to help transition fromhome or day-care to school, is attended by nearlythe whole age cohort. The curriculum for all earlyeducation stresses the salient role of play in foster-ing childrens physical, cognitive, social and emotionaldevelopment, with even the pre-school year aiming at just preparing children for reading and mathematicsby the use of age-appropriate preparatory activitiesinstead of outright teaching.

The crux of the Finnish education system is thecompulsory nine year basic education. A decree forits nal unication to a fully comprehensive school forgrades 1 to 9 was passed in 1998, but structurallyindependent primary and lower secondary schoolsare still common across the country. Finnish uppersecondary education is divided into the two clearlyseparate systems of academically oriented generalupper secondary schools and vocational institutions,which prepare students for direct employment or



14/64

THE FINNISH EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Doctoral degreesLicentiate degrees

Masters degrees

Bachelors degreesUniversities

Polytechnic masters degrees

Polytechnic bachelors degreesPolytechnics

Vocational qualificationsVocational institutions and apprenticeship training

Matriculation examinationGeneral upper secondary schools

Basic education| (Comprehensive schools) 716yearolds

Additional basic education

Pre-primary education, 6yearolds

6

5

4

3

2&1

0

Work experience 3 years

ISCED-classification0 Preprimary education | 1-2 Primary education or first stage of basic education |3 Lower secondary or second stage of basic education | 4 (upper) secondary education |5 First cycle of tertiary education | 6 Second cycle of tertiary education

Speacialist vocationalqualifications

Furthervocational

qualifications

Work experience 3 years


15/64

15

further education in the polytechnics. Upper second-ary education is not compulsory but is attended byover 90 % of the age cohort. Despite the differencesin the respective curricula of the two strands, bothallow for access to all tertiary education via study-programme specic entrance examinations. Entranceto upper secondary is based on application and basicschool certicate, with special requirements for someprogrammes. In bigger municipalities, general uppersecondary schools tend to form a ranking orderbased on the GPA of the yearly incoming students.Until recently, the majority of students aspired for theacademic strand but during the past few years thetwo strands have begun to appeal fairly equally to

students nishing comprehensive education. Drop-out between basic and upper secondary education isaround 5 %, and another 5 % drop out from uppersecondary, mainly from the vocational schools. Re-peating class is very rare in the basic school, and astrong emphasis on remedial and special educationfrom early grades on is a trade mark of the Finnishschool system.

Education is arranged and provided by localauthorities (mainly municipalities) with the state

sharing its costs by statutory government transfer(in 2006, the state provision for basic education was55 %). The pre-school year, basic education and bothstrands of upper secondary education are free ofcharge for everyone, and in all but the general uppersecondary, also text books and other requisites areprovided by the school. Free daily school meals areprovided for all in both basic and in upper secondaryschools without charge, a 60 year old tradition stem-ming from the early elementary schools, establishedto entice school attendance and to support learning.Children have the right to attend their nearest basicschool but can also apply for a place in any otherschool with vacant places in their municipality.

For all levels of education, especially in the big-ger cities, there also exist some schools or classeswith special entry requirements for programmes withspecial emphasis on side of the common core cur-riculum, e.g., foreign language schools and languageimmersion classes from primary level on, as wellas lower secondary and general upper secondaryschools with a special emphasis on mathematics,science, music, or arts.



16/64

EDUCATION AUTHORITYThe Finnish education system is a mixture of statecontrolled or steered and relatively autonomouselements.The government determines the generalobjectives of education and the division of classroomhours between different subjects.The Ministry ofEducation drafts legislation and government deci-sions pertaining to education.The National Board ofEducation lays out the concrete objectives and corecontents of instruction in the different subjects and isresponsible for the national core curriculum with itsdirective norms for good achievement in each (mark8 on a scale of 4 to 10).Local authorities (gener-ally municipalities) are responsible for the practical

arrangement of schooling and for composing themunicipal curriculum based on the national corecurriculum. Each school, in turn, writes its own cur-riculum based on both the national core curriculumand the municipal document. The education provideris obliged to evaluate its education services and theireffectiveness, and to participate in external evalua-tions. Teachers and school principals are municipalemployees. The former are nominated by schoolboards in collaboration with the schools principal,

while the latter are nominated by municipal councils,based on a proposition of the respective schoolboard, formed after hearings of the school staff.For most students, the language of instruction isFinnish but at all levels education is also providedin Swedish, the mother tongue of approximately6 % of the population, and in Sami, Roma and signlanguage, when needed. The number of basic schoolage children with immigrant background is about15 000 (the average age cohort is about 58 000)but their share varies considerably across the country,exceeding 50 % in just one or two schools in biggercities. Municipalities aim at supporting the integrationof students with immigrant background by providing

supportive instruction in their mother tongue for stu-dents whose knowledge in Finnish does not yet allowfor full engagement in regular teaching.

PUPIL WELFAREIn pre-primary and basic education, pupils are entitledto any welfare services they might need for full en-gagement in their respective education programmes,including general health and dental care for all


17/64

17K E Y F E AT U R E S O F T H E F I N N I S H E D U C AT I O N S Y S T

students. All pupils are also entitled to special-needseducation when necessary. Already before schoolage and especially during the lower grades, at-riskchildren and students are screened for possiblelearning problems to allow for early intervention.Any student with learning or adjustment problems isentitled to remedial teaching in or on side of regularclassroom education or to be transferred to special-needs education. When feasible, this is realised byinclusion but can also be arranged in a special educa-tion class in regular schools or in a school for special-needs students. An individual teaching and learningplan is made for each student with special needs.

BASIC EDUCATION CURRICULUMReecting the radical change begot by the basicschool reform, the rst national curriculum for basiceducation in 1970 was very detailed and the steeringsystem strictly centralised. In 1985, while rewritingthe national curriculum in the form of a curriculumframework, the role of municipalities as providers ofeducation was emphasised by instructing them towrite their own curricula based on the national frame-

work. In the 1994 reform, even more steering powerwas delegated to municipalities, and each school wasto write their own curriculum, leading to unparalleledcollective discussions about the goals and practicalexecution of education in all schools across country.However, the new decree on classroom hour distribu-tion of 2001 and the new core curriculum of 2004reinforced anew state control by narrowing thelicence of municipalities and schools in planning theirrespective curricula.

The National Core Curriculum for Basic Educa-tion denes the common guidelines along which allmunicipalities and schools have to arrange their work.It covers education for all students, even the severely

handicapped. The main goals and working guidelinesare the same for every student, and municipal author-ities, school principals and teachers are responsiblefor implementing them so as to support the maximallearning and well-being of all. In addition to indicatingthe general and grade-level goals, study contents andevaluation criteria for each subject, the core curricu-lum introduces the cross-curricular themes intendedto permeate all education. It also obliges municipali-ties and schools to cooperate with parents and with


18/64

T H E S T R U CT U R E O F A S C H O O L C U R R I C U L U M

Basic values, task and objectivesBasic values, task and objectives

Cross-curricular themes

T h e a s s e s s m e n t o f p u p

i l s a n

d t h e s c

h o o

l s

C o o p e r a t

i o nDistibution of

lesson hoursLanguage

programmeKnowledgestrategy

Subjects Subjects Subjects

Supportinglearning Guidance

Studentwelfare services

Conception of learning, school culture, learning environmentand working approaches and methods


19/64

19

municipal social and health authorities in matters ofstudent development and welfare. Likewise, it obligesmunicipalities and schools to regularly evaluate andcontinuously develop their own work.

Each municipality draws up its own municipalcurriculum based on the national core curriculum,taking into consideration the special circumstancesand needs of local children and families. Finally,based on the municipal document, each school writesits own curriculum. This is the central pedagogicaldocument on the basis of which schools draw up theiryearly work plans, teachers work plans and, whenneeded, individual study plans for special-needsstudents. Reecting the national and municipal

guidelines, the curriculum is prepared cooperativelyby the principal(s), teachers and other school staff.In it, the national goals, study contents and cross-curricular themes are interpreted and translated intothe individual schools action plan. It also indicateshow support for students with learning difculties,multicultural education, special needs education,student guidance and counselling, and studentsphysical and mental well-being is organised andtaken care of in the school.

SCHOOL SUBJECTS ANDCROSS-CURRICULAR THEMESThe objectives and contents for all subjects andcross-curricular themes are laid out in the nationalcore curriculum. The subjects and their share of thetotal school hour distribution vary according to gradelevel but during basic education encompass: mothertongue and literature, second national language(Swedish/Finnish), foreign language(s), mathemat-ics, environmental and nature studies (lower grades),biology and geography, physics and chemistry, healtheducation, religion or ethics, history, social studies,music, visual arts, crafts, physical education, homeeconomics, and educational and vocational guidance.

Especially in lower secondary schools, pupils are alsooffered one or two weekly hours of school-speciccourses to choose from.

The cross-curricular themes introduced in somelength in the core curriculum comprise: growth as aperson, cultural identity and internationalism, mediaskills and communication, participatory citizenship andentrepreneurship, responsibility for the environment,well-being and a sustainable future, safety and trafc,and technology and the individual. They are to be



20/64

C H A N G E O F E D U C AT I O N A L S T E E R I N G S Y S T E M

Basic values, task and objectivesSituation in 1970s and 1980s

Centralised control and decosion -making Centralised curriculum Long-term plans Budgetiing based on expenditures External evaluation: inspections

Situation in 1990s / 2000

Devolution of power Self-governance School-based curricula Distinctive educational profiles of schools Self-direction and self-regulation Learning organisation as a mode instutional structure Self-evaluation and own control

Performance-based funding

implemented in the overall working culture of schools,in actual school subjects, and in special activities,from excursions and school meals to camp schools,clubs and school festivities.

EVALUATION OF AND ASSESS-MENT IN BASIC EDUCATIONReecting international tendencies, evaluation hasbecome the focal steering tool also of the Finnish ed-ucation system after the decentralisation of educationsince the late 1980s. Educational legislation denes

the function of educational evaluation as supportingthe development of education and improving the con-ditions for learning (Act on Basic Education 1998).Municipalities and schools are obliged to evaluatetheir functioning and the instruction they provide byself-evaluation and by participating in external evalua-tions. The aim is to steer municipalities and schools indeveloping their own work and to supply data for thecontinuous development of education and learningat the national level. Evaluation is also seen to havean important social and political function in enhanc-ing the realisation of equity in the Finnish education


21/64

2 1K E Y F E AT U R E S O F T H E F I N N I S H E D U C AT I O N S Y S T

system (the parliamentary committee on education3/1998 HE 86/1997).

In Finland, theMinistry of Education formu-lates the overall strategy for educational evaluation.External system level evaluations are administered bythe Education Evaluation Council (www.edev./portal/english), an independent expert organisation work-ing in connection to the Ministry of Education. Itsevaluations and evaluation development work covera wide range of issues from regional effectivenessto remedial teaching and student welfare services,from issues regarding specic levels of education tothematic evaluations such as utilisation of informationtechnology in education. National assessments of

curricular outcomes in general and vocational educa-tion are carried out by theNational Board of Educa-tion (www.oph./english/). These comprise alternate yearlyassessments of mathematics and mother tongue atthe end of basic education (grade 9), occasional as-sessments in other subjects and at other grade levelsand, lately, longitudinal assessments in key subjects.

All evaluation and assessment aims primarilyat providing reliable up-to-date information on thecontext, functioning, results and effects of education

to safeguard the realisation of educational equityand to support the local education administrationsand schools in developing their services. In addition,the NBE assessments aim at providing subject-specic data for amending curricular objectives andrequirements. To reect these goals, assessment inbasic education is solely based on representativesamples of schools and students, and there are nonational high-stakes evaluations or testing before thematriculation examination at the end of general uppersecondary education.

ASSESSMENT OFLEARNING IN SCHOOLSThe lack of national high-stakes assessment in basiceducation does not mean that Finnish students dontface exams during their education. It only means thatcontrol of learning is left to schools and individualteachers. Teachers either compose their own ex-ams based on the learnt content or they lean on theexam-blueprints of teachers materials accompanyingmost text books, covering the contents of each studyunit. Subject teachers associations also provide pre-


22/64

made exams with access to the accumulating norma-tive data to assist in providing guidelines for moreuniform marking in view of the comprehensive schoolcerticate used for entrance to the upper secondaryschool of ones choice.

As a result, students attainment in most subjectswill be assessed numerous times all through the nineyears of basic education, despite the actual lack oftesting in the high-stakes summative meaning of theterm. In fact, one of the reasons Finnish students givefor not liking school is exactly the multitude of examsthey feel they have, and probably even have at leastcompared to their Nordic peers.

In addition to the recurrent exams measuring

students curricular attainment, specic normativetests are widely in use in the early grades to screenstudents for possible learning difculties in reading,writing and mathematics. These are administeredby special teachers or school psychologists, and theresults are used for planning possible need for andallocation of remedial and special education supportand resources.

TEACHER EDUCATIONConcurrently with the implementation of the basiceducation reform, teacher education was thoroughlyrestructured in 1975 as part of a comprehensive uni-versity degree reform (FYTT-committee 1972). Thetransfer of classroom teacher education from teachercolleges to universities entailed a change towardresearch-based teacher education by consolidatingthe foundations of teacher education in academicresearch and by training teachers as commencingresearchers, capable of searching for and applyingscientic ndings in their own work.

Both classroom and subject teachers attainmasters degrees (300 ECTS); the former in educa-

tion, the latter in their respective subject(s). Besidesconsolidating their professional qualications asa teacher, this allows and prepares all teachers tocontinue academic studies to doctorate level. Theacademic status of classroom teacher education hasundoubtedly contributed to the continuous popularityof teaching profession in Finland, as well as to thetrust parents feel towards their childrens teachersand the school in general. As a consequence, only10 % to 15 % of aspiring candidates are accepted


23/64

2 3K E Y F E AT U R E S O F T H E F I N N I S H E D U C AT I O N S Y S T

into classroom teacher education programmes in theeight universities offering them, allowing the de-partments to apply rigorous screening to select themost adept and motivated students. The difculty ofacceptance has also acted as a signal for future ap-plicants that a career in teaching can be intellectuallyand socially interesting and rewarding. However, asin many other countries, the situation is not so brightconcerning subject teachers, and in elds like sci-ence and mathematics the number of applicants doesnot allow for similar rigorousness in screening, evenif also they go through a special process of selectionincluding an interview.

The Finnish classroom teacher education quali-

es for teaching most subjects to grades 1 to 6, andit is common in Finland for the teacher to teach thesame class for at least two but even four consecu-tive years. As part of their degree, many classroomteachers also attain qualications for teaching one ortwo subjects for grades 7 to 9, even if many of themonly use the qualication for teaching the subject(s)for other classes in their own schools. Subject teach-ers earn qualications for teaching their respectivesubject(s) for grades 7 to 9 in the comprehensive

school and in the general upper secondary schools.These are not class-level-based but while groupingeach incoming student body to class-like groups forsocial reasons, offer an open array of obligatory andelective courses, of which each student must studya minimum of 75 courses of 38 hours each beforematriculation, at his or her personal pace, within twoto four years.

Subject teachers may opt for a special pro-gramme and carry out their pedagogical studies con-currently with their studies in the major subject(s), orthey can decide on a career as teacher later and carryout the pedagogical studies after their studies in theirrespective subjects. Subject teachers usually write

their masters thesis in their major subject but mayalso do it in the didactics of the respective subject.

Continuing education centres at universities andthe NBE offer courses and programmes both forteachers further professional development and forprospective school principals. Teachers actual ac-cess to in-service training varies across the country,however, due to regional differences in supply and inmunicipalities possibilities for and policies in providingtime for in-service education.


24/64


25/64

2 5


26/64


27/64

2 7

FINNISH STUDENTS

RECURRENT SUCCESS IN PISA


28/64

The three PISA studies of 2000, 2003 and 2006form a full cycle with each of the three literacies hav-ing been once at the centre stage(For a more comprehen-sive account of the PISA studies see OECD 2001, 2004, 2007. For a morecomprehensive account of the Finnish PISA results, see Vlijrvi & al.2003, 2007; Hautamki & al. 2008). At each cycle and in all do-mains, Finnish students attainment has been amongthe best both in terms of the mean level of attain-ment and in terms of student variance, indicating aneducation system that seems to have succeed verywell in providing the great majority of young peoplethe competences deemed valuable for all in todaysworld (OECD 2007a).

HIGH OVERALL PERFORMANCEWITH SMALL VARIANCEFinnish students good performance in PISA 2000Reading literacy was not a surprise as Finnishstudents have performed well also in earlier com-parative studies on reading since the IEAs 1991PIRLS study. However, few could have predictedthat Finnish students would also be among the bestin the two minor foci of PISA 2000, mathematical

Finnish students haveperformed at a consistentlyhigh level in all domainsin PISA 2000, 2003 and

2006 with an exceptionallysmall share of students atthe lowest prociency leveland relatively small differ-ences between schools

across the country.


29/64

2 9

and science literacy. The high mean scores of 546,536 and 538, respectively, for reading, mathemat-ics and science (OECD mean 500), were not onlycaused by the share of top-performing studentsbeing one of the highest among the participants butalso by the number of students performing belowthe level deemed necessary for full participation intodays world being among the smallest, attesting tothe success of the Finnish comprehensive school inequalising student variance. The only major deviationof this was the signicant difference in Finnish girlsand boys scores in reading literacy. However, whileit was the biggest among all participating countries,it did not prevent also the Finnish boys from being

the best readers among the boys of the participatingcountries.The same high level of performance and uniform-

ity of results have since been repeated in PISA 2003and PISA 2006, regarding both the alternate majordomains of mathematical and science literacy, therespective minor domains, and the special componentof problem solving in PISA 2003. At each cycle, theperformance of Finnish students has been among thebest and, except for the chronic gender difference in

reading repeated also in the NBE studies, the resultshave been among the most even in terms of bothbetween-student and between-school variance.

This small variance, shared with the other Nordiccountries, seems, however, to be caused at least inpart by the timing of PISA at a point when studentsare still in the comprehensive school with its sharedcurriculum and mores. If Nordic children would beginschool at age six as is done in many other countries,they too would have proceeded into upper second-ary level in time of PISA. Regarding the dual modelof Finnish upper secondary education with two typesof schools with their distinct student bodies and in-ternal cultures, there is little reason to doubt that the

Finnish in-between-school differences would muchdiffer from those of other countries with an otherwisefairly similar educational structure but for the age ofentering school. This does not mean, however, thatconclusions regarding the impact on social equity andcapacity building of a comprehensive vs. a dual modelof education, made on the basis of PISA, would notbe warranted from the policy point of view.

F I N N I S H ST U D E N T S R E C U R R E N T S U C C E S S I N P I S


30/64

10 20 70 80 90 100 0 30 40 50 60

M E A N S A N D P R O F I E N C Y D I S T R I B U T I O N F O R O E C D C O U N T R I E S 2 00 6 S C I E N C E

FinlandCanada

New ZealandJapan

AustraliaNetherlands

KoreaUnited Kingdom

GermanyBelgium

Czech RepublicSwitzerland

AustriaIreland

SwedenHungaryFrancePoland

Denmark IcelandNorway

SpainUnited StatesLuxembourg

Slovak RepublicItaly

PortugalGreeceTurkeyMexico

564537537533529526523523520515514513512510506505500499498493490490490489489476475474424410

Proficiency level %: Below level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6


31/64

3 1F I N N I S H S T U D E N T S R E C U R R E N T S U C C E S S I N P I S

10 20 70 80 90 100 0 30 40 50 60

M E A N S A N D P R O F I E N C Y D I S T R I B U T I O N F O R O E C D C O U N T R I E S 2 0 0 6 M AT H

FinlandKorea

NetherlandsSwitzerland

CanadaJapan

New ZealandBelgiumAustraliaDenmark

Czech RepublicIcelandAustria

GermanySwedenIrelandFrance

United KingdomPolandSlovak Republic

HungaryLuxembourg

NorwaySpain

United StatesPortugal

ItalyGreeceTurkeyMexico

548547531530527523522520520513510506505504502501496495495492491490490480474466462459424406

Proficiency level %: Below level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6


32/64

10 20 70 80 90 100 0 30 40 50 60

M E A N S A N D P R O F I E N C Y D I S T R I B U T I O N F O R O E C D C O U N T R I E S 2 00 6 R E A D I N G

KoreaFinlandCanada

New ZealandIreland

AustraliaPolandaSwedenNetherlandsBelgium

SwitzerlandJapan

United KingdomGermanyDenmark

AustriaFranceIcelandNorwayCzech RepublicHungary

LuxembourgPortugal

ItalySlovak Republic

SpainGreeceTurkeyMexico

United States

556547527521517513508507507501499498495495494490488484484483482479472469466461460447410

Proficiency level %: Below level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5


33/64


The most prominent feature of Finnish studentsperformance in PISA is its recurrently high level com-bined with small variance. The rst can be seen in thedistribution of Finnish students through the procien-cy levels, with a relatively small share of students atthe lowest levels and a sizeable one at the two upper-most levels. The latter can be seen in the small overallvariance and the very small between-school variance,both indicating the low impact students social oreconomic background has on their performancecompared to that in many other countries. Some ofthis uniformity is due to societal factors characteristicof Finland as a relatively young Nordic well-fare state,and some to the implementation of PISA before the

split-up of upper secondary education. But some cansurely be seen to testify to a successful implementa-tion of the equity goals of the basic school reform.

Finnish students are not the only ones to haveperformed well through the different cycles andliteracy domains. Due to PISA having attracted anever growing number of participants for each cycle,and to only reading literacy having been measuredwith appropriate anchor items trough all three cycles,

no exhaustive comparisons can be made. Incompleteas the comparisons might be, however, already thecurrent data show different possible proles for highoverall performance. This could be seen in the relativedistribution of students across the prociency levels,presented above for all domains in 2006 for theOECD countries, but can be highlighted by lookingat students attainment by country-specic percentilegroups (PISA score points for the different percentilegroups in each country with the respective OECDgroup mean set at zero).

Despite the relatively high correlations betweenthe three literacies at both OECD and country level,the country-specic attainment proles differ not only

by country but also by domain. Among the best per-forming countries, Finland stands out by its relativelybetter weak performers in all domains (66 to 91score points above the mean for the lowest 5 %of students while the top 5 % surpass the OECDmean of its group only by just 31 to 47 score points)whereas this is typical for the other countries onlyin reading, if even that, and for Estonian students inscience literacy. The differences in prole are most


34/64

VA R I AT I O N O F T H E P I S A 2 0 0 6 S C I E N T I F I C L I T E R A C Y S C O R E S

GermanyCzech Republic

AustriaHungary

NetherlandsBelgium

JapanItalyGreece

Slovak RepublicTurkey

SwitzerlandKorea

LuxembourgUnited States

PortugalMexico

United KingdomNew ZealandAustraliaCanadaIreland

Denmark Spain

PolandSwedenNorwayIceland

Finland 0 20 40 60 120 -80 80 100 -60 -40 -20

Variation of performance within schools Variation of performance between schools


35/64

3 5

AT TA I N M E N T P R O F I L E S F O R T H E S I X TO P P E R F O R M I N G C O U N T R I E S S C I E N C E

90% 95% 10% 25% 50% 75%

PISA score points above the OECD mean for each respective percentage group

5%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Finland

Hong Kong(China)

Estonia

CanadaTaipei (China)

Japan

F I N N I S H S T U D E N T S R E C U R R E N T S U C C E S S I N P I S


36/64

ATTA I N M E N T P R O F I L E S F O R T H E S I X TO P P E R F O R M I N G C O U N T R I E S M AT H E M AT I C S

90% 95% 10% 25% 50% 75%


5%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Finland

Hong Kong (China)

Taipei (China)

Korea

Netherland

Switzerland


37/64

3 7

ATTA I N M E N T P R O F I L E S F O R T H E S I X TO P P E R F O R M I N G C O U N T R I E S R E A D I N G

90% 95% 10% 25% 50% 75%


5%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Finland

Hong Kong(China)

Canada

Korea

Ireland

New Zealand



38/64

prominent in mathematical literacy where thereclearly are three paths to excellence: the strong weakperformers of Finland, the exceptionally good topperformers of the Chinese Taipei and the uniform(relative) excellence of students of all levels in HongKong and in South Korea.

SAMPLEIn PISA 2006, all 155 schools in the initial Finnishsample made by ACER participated in the study,ensuring the maximum representativeness of thesample at school level (the OECD average was 92 %while even in some of the other top-performing

countries schools acquiescence for participationwas much lower, e.g., Hong Kong-China 69 %, theNetherlands 67 %). The Finnish sample of 4714 stu-dents covered 93 % of the eligible population (OECDaverage 89 %). In all Nordic countries, the averagewithin-school student exclusion rate at 2.0 % - 3.3 %was higher then the OECD mean of just 1.6 %, evenif still within acceptable limits. Combined with schoollevel exclusion (under 2 % for all top-performing

countries), the overall exclusion rate in the Nordiccountries at 3.5 % to 4.5 % was clearly above theOECD average of 2.7 %, possibly reecting the com-mon practice of inclusion regarding special-needsstudents in the Nordic comprehensive schools.

SOCIAL EQUITYThe role students socio-economic background playsin their access to and success in education is a keyindex for educational equity. For home to have noimpact on a childs attainment at school or later inlife is hardly a goal to strive for, as it would indicatethat education pays no long-term dividends. This

does not mean, however, that striving to minimisedifferences both in opportunities and in attainmentbetween children coming from different social oreconomic background should not be one of the over-riding goals of education in its quest for equity andbuilding human capital. In PISA, the effect of ESCS(index for economic, social and cultural status) isanalysed at three levels: students, schools and studyprogrammes. In Finland, the impact is low compared


39/64


40/64

to the OECD mean for both students and schools,while study programmes have no effect in Finland asthere are none during basic education. Part of the lowsocio-economic variance is due to the relative homo-geneity of the Finnish society, but part is undoubtedlyexplained by success in implementing the equitygoals of the basic school. After all, one of the mainreasons leading to the basic school reform in the late1960s was the equity-problems related to the parallelschool system in terms of social mobility and growthof human capital.

INTERESTS ANDATTITUDESFinnish students seem to pose a dilemma for com-parative education research in terms of the impor-tance accorded to motivation and interest on learning.While Finnish students have performed among thetop in PISA for three times in a row in all domains,

they have regularly come out in international studiesas less interested and less motivated than studentsin most other countries, and have sometimes evenbeen interpreted as just not liking school. The appar-ent paradox of these non-motivated high-performersdoes not get support from correlational analysesat the national level where questionnaire data andstudents performance indicate a clear connectionbetween the two. Could the paradox be partially dueto just different cultural habits in answering question-naires? Might it be that for the Finnish students it isnot always necessary to totally agree with a state-ment given to them to answer? In any case, takingsimultaneously into consideration students attain-

ment in the different dimensions of scientic literacyof PISA 2006, their science-related attitudes, and therelations between these two, a new picture emergeswith the Finnish students nding their place not sofar from those of many other countries but for theirrelatively superior performance.


41/64


S T U D E N T S S C I E N C E C O M P E T E N C I E S A N D AT TI T U D E S

40 20 30

A bi-dimensional symbolic map of 30 OECD countries based on the three indexes for students science competencies (explaining, identifying and using) and on the two indexes of attitudes (interest and support)

10

40

35

30

25

20

20

15

10

5

0

-5

Finland

Mexico

France

Italy

Poland

Greece

USADenmark

Norway

Japan

Netherlands

Turkey

Spain

Hungary

Korea

Irland

Luxembourg

Canada

Sweden

Iceland

Australia

United Kingdom

New Zealand

Germany

BelgiumCzech Rep.

Austria

Switzerland

Slovak Republic

Portugal


42/64

S C I E N C E P E R F O R M A N C E A N D N AT I O N A L E X P E N D I T U R E

575

550

525

500

475

450

425

Science performance

Cumulative expenditure ( US$ converted using PPPs) 100000 10000 20000 30000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 90000

Slovak Republic

Japan

Mexico

France

Italy

Poland

Greece

USADenmark

Norway

Turkey

Spain

Hungary

Korea

Ireland

Iceland

Australia

United Kingdom

New Zealand

GermanyBelgiumCzech Rep. Austria Switzerland

Portugal

Netherlands

Finland

Sweden


43/64

4 3

NATIONAL INVESTMENTIN EDUCATION AND STUDENTPERFORMANCE IN PISAOverall, students attainment in PISA reects anations expenditure in education, making somecomparisons unfair for economically less developednations. Among the OECD countries, however,Finnish students performance clearly exceedsexpectations based on the fairly average level ofexpenditure in education in Finland, indicating thatan education systems effectiveness is not onlytied to expenditure.



44/64


45/64

4 5


46/64


47/64

47

HOW TO EXPLAIN FINNISH

STUDENTS GOOD PERFORMANCE


48/64

The success of Finnish students in all literacy do-mains of PISA in the past three cycles has not onlyraised acknowledgment abroad but has also raisedperplexed questions in Finland. How to understand orexplain that the Finnish comprehensive school, withits ever expanding need for remedial teaching andstudent welfare services, would parallel or outclasseven the most rigorous Far-Eastern and the very bestEuropean and Anglo-American education systems?Efforts to unravel the question have directed towardat least two very different directions. One has to dowith general socio-political and historical factors,the other with the Finnish education system and itscorollaries.

SOCIETAL REASONSThe societal reasons are tied to the short history ofFinland as an independent nation, and the salient rolethe Finnish language, education and culture had inthe formation of national identity in the mid-1800s,in a country which had never been a nation-state andstill was not, where the upper class talked in a tongueforeign to the peasant majority, extracting a mean

The roots for the Finnishsuccess in PISA can besearched for in the historyand rapid development ofthe Finnish well-fare stateas well as in the boldeducation policy of thepast forty years with itsemphasis on educationalequality.


49/64

4 9

living from the barren earth with its 56 000 lakes,both frozen much of the year. The late emergenceof Finnish as a literary language is attested by theSeven brothers by Aleksis Kivi, the rst novel inFinnish, published only in 1870. One of the keyepisodes in the novel depicts the escape of the pro-tagonists, seven brothers in the heartlands of Finland,from the provisional school of an itinerary clergyman,stopping in a nearby village to teach local men toread the catechism to receive church conrmation,required for entering matrimony. Maybe congruentwith the apparent paradox of the well-performingbut unmotivated and negative Finnish students ofinternational comparisons, the brothers soon returned

to the school despite the ensuing punishment, andcontinued to learn their ABCs.After the national awakening, Finland quickly

consolidated its identity as a nation state despite itsstatus as a Grand-Duchy in the Russian Empire untilindependence in 1917. In 1863, the Finnish languagegained an ofcial status on side of Swedish, and therapid political, economic and cultural developmentgave rise to a growing need for qualied workers andcivil servants, contributing to the central role educa-

tion was to gain in social and economic advancement.After that, supported by relatively autonomy as part ofRussia, including its own Parliament, Finland began todevelop as an aspiring forest industry-driven countrywith a slowly growing Finnish-speaking upper andmiddle class. However, due to waves of political re-pression in the early 1900s and a full-blown civil warafter the declaration of independence, developmentwas slow. Despite the rst decree on basic educa-tion being adopted in 1866, a four year elementaryeducation was made compulsory by law only in 1921,and was fully functional across the whole countryonly by the 1950s. As it is, Finland differs from mostdeveloped Western countries in the late timing, great

speed and considerable intensity of its transition froma poor agrarian country to a modern knowledge-based economy, all within the past fty to sixty years(Ingold 1997).

Today, Finland is a wealthy Nordic welfare statewith zero illiteracy, low infant mortality, high productivi-ty and relatively high taxes. A major aspect of societalincome distribution is investment in education whichis free-of-charge from the pre-school year at age 6to tertiary education, and accessible to all regard-

H O W T O E X P L A I N F I N N I S H S T U D E N T S G O O D P E R F O R M


50/64

less of language, ethnicity, gender, or social status.Basic education is a combination of centralised anddecentralised management and the private sectoris very limited due to both historical reasons and ageneral trust in the high standard of the municipalschools. However, the long history of central govern-ance before the basic school reform, together withthe unied university-level teacher education and thelargely secularised but still prevailing Lutheran workethic, advocating hard work and persistence as akey to success, might be central factors in explainingthe small urban-rural and regional differences in theFinnish PISA results.

REASONS DIRECTLYRELATED TO EDUCATIONOn side of the historical and societal factors support-ing the acceptance, high regard and actual value ofeducation for social advancement and mobility, themost salient explanation for Finnish students goodperformance in PISA might simply be the high con-gruence between the objectives of PISA and of the

Finnish basic school reform. This congruence is notlimited to the level of the general objectives of teach-ing (Finland) or assessment of (PISA) knowledge andskills applicable in real world situations, but even acursory reading of the PISA Framework on the onehand (OECD 2007a) and the Finnish curricular docu-ments and Finnish text-books on the other, show aremarkable goodness of t (c.f. Lavonen 2008). Thisexplanation seems to get support from changes somecountries have made in their science and mathemat-ics curricula or text-books since PISA has gained thestatus of the number one international comparativestudy in education. Whether this will lead to bet-ter achievement in these domains in such countries

remains to be seen.Another factor contributing to the uniformly highperformance of Finnish students seems to be therelative similarity of the tasks in all domains and thesalient role of reading in all of them. This congruencedoes not concern only Finland, and despite somevariation among countries in the relative performanceof their students in the three domains, good readingskills are typical for top performers in all domains.


51/64

5 1

From among the top ten countries in reading literacyin PISA 2006, only Irish, Polish and Swedish studentsdo not also gure among the top ten in either scienceor mathematics, while ve gure in both. Naturally,this might be just an indication of an exceptionallyhigh overall level of attainment in some countries.School marks collected in Finland as a national op-tion in PISA 2006 indicate, however, that at leastin Finland, students attainment in reading, mathand science at school varies signicantly more thantheir attainment in the respective literacy domains inPISA (Kupiainen & Pehkonen 2008). And while thedifference in mathematical literacy between Finnishboys and girls was 11 score points, it increased to 58

points when students score in reading was taken intoaccount.The lack of high-stakes testing might also be a

positive factor contributing to the Finnish successin PISA. Despite municipal and school-level resist-ance toward the recent expansion of governance byevaluation, Finnish schools have reacted positively toparticipation in PISA, and have apparently succeededin conveying this positive attitude to their students.

Combined with the opportunity to be part of some-thing which procedurally resembles the matriculationexam at the end of general upper secondary schoolbut poses no need for preparation and even allowsskipping a few regular classes, Finnish studentsclearly seem to be ready to apply their best knowl-edge, skills and perseverance in the PISA tasks. Therelatively low percentage of non-answering can beseen as a good indicator for this, with the share ofmissing responses in PISA 2006 for the differentdomains in Finland at 3 % to 6 % compared to theOECD means of 8 % to 15 %.

One factor pertaining to the high level and uni-formity of Finnish students performance is the timing

of PISA while students are still in the comprehensiveschool. Based on the results of comparable countrieswith a parallel system of education there seems to belittle reason to assume that Finnish students in theacademic strand would have performed much bet-ter had the parting to general and vocational uppersecondary already been in force, but there is everyreason to believe that students in vocational schoolswould have been less motivated to work on the tasks



52/64

in the middle of their professional training than theyare now in the comprehensive school with its dailyrequirements not too far removed from the world ofPISA.

REMEDIAL AND SPECIALEDUCATION & STUDENTS WITHIMMIGRANT BACKGROUNDPISA has revealed clear differences in grade repeat-ing policies even among countries which relativelysimilar education systems. Especially countrieswith comprehensive schools with a neighbourhoodschool principle and inclusion policy face acutely the

problem of how to manage student-level variation.In some, like France and Portugal, the problem hasbeen solved by a fair share of students repeatinggrades every year while in Finland, grade repeating isvery rare during basic education (about 2% of pupils,compared to over 40 % in France).

The practice of non-repeating was adopted inthe comprehensive school based on the principle ofeducation for all. To meet the policy of non-repeating,

schools are obliged to provide special support to allstudents who are not able to follow and prot fromregular classroom teaching. In most cases this is re-alised by remedial teaching in the regular classroomor in temporary small groups. If seen to best servethe special needs of the student, he or she may beassigned the status of a special-needs student viaprofessional assessment and be placed in a specialeducation class in his/her initial school or in a specialschool. In the course of the past fteen years, theshare of students allocated to remedial or special-needs education has increased manifold, with 27 %of students having received some form of specialsupport for their learning during basic education.

If attainment in PISA is to be interpreted as anindicator of the success of educational policy deci-sions concerning the way student variation is metat schools, the excellent relative performance of theweaker Finnish students in all domains could be seento support the Finnish policy of early remedial teach-ing and special education. In view of the relative ho-mogeneity of the Finnish student body the conclusionmight be premature, however. In all countries, one of


53/64

5 3

the most salient and enduring problems in educa-tion is the schools (in)ability to meet and provide forstudents for whom the language of the school is notthe same as the one spoken at home, and whosefamily traditions and values might differ considerablyfrom those of the surrounding society. As studentswith immigrant background form a very small minor-ity of the Finnish 15-year-olds participating in PISA2000, 2003 or even 2006, the composition of theFinnish lower end of prociency differs considerablyfrom that in many other countries in comprising a fargreater share of native-speaking students. Accord-ingly, the time might not be ripe yet to see whetherthe Finnish system will succeed any better in meeting

the challenge of non-native speakers than othershave done.

FLUENT READERSThe objective of PISA is to measure students readi-ness to apply in real life situations knowledge andskills learnt at school (OECD 2007a). Due to thetechnical constraints of an international large-scalestudy, however, what is measured in each domain is,in the end, measured with paper-and-pencil tasks,relying on written instructions which students haveto read and understand in letter as well as in inten-tion. The effort to emulate real life might, in fact, bea factor further removing the actual tasks from thegeneral objectives of PISA by necessitating lengthydescriptive texts to create the real life contextsfor the tasks. As it is, the tasks are imbedded in a

multitude of text to be read just to nd the problemto be solved, leading to a high interconnectedness ofstudents prociency in the three domains. Accord-ingly, factors pertaining to good reading skills can beseen salient to explaining students success also inthe other literacies measured in PISA, in Finland aselsewhere.

The Finnish language and the central role ofreading in daily life are factors which have been



54/64

often brought up when looking for explanations forFinnish students ne performance in comparativestudies on reading literacy or comprehension (PISA,IEA). The phonetic character of Finnish languagemakes decoding easy, and beyond the lower grades,dictation is common only in foreign language classes.As it is, after children learn to decode the languagewhich is spelled as it is pronounced, they soon learnto be ever more uent readers due to the subtitlingof all foreign language TV-programmes and lms.Combined with the long-standing tradition of news-papers and magazines subscribed for home delivery,a well-functioning network of free libraries, and zeroilliteracy among native adults, Finnish children are

truly embedded in written language from birth on.However, as students performing at the top inPISA reading literacy come from countries with verydifferent languages (e.g. Korean, English, and Chi-nese), the phonetic character of the Finnish languageor the non-dubbed TV programmes should not beseen as the only factors explaining Finnish studentssuccess in PISA.

SCIENCE ANDMATH LITERACYWhile Finnish students success in reading literacy inPISA 2000 was not exactly a surprise, their equallygood performance in the minor domains of math-ematical and science literacy did denitely exceed ex-pectations. An even greater surprise was the successof Finnish students in PISA 2003 with mathematicalliteracy as the major domain and problem solving asa new extension to the earlier three literacies. Thesuccess was not received with unequivocal content-ment, however, but raised an impassioned discussionbetween the representatives of the comprehensiveschool on the one hand and those of university

mathematics on the other (c.f. Astala & al. 2005).The difference between the mathematical literacy ofPISA and the kind of mathematics needed for furtherstudies, in which Finnish 9th graders were seen to behopelessly lacking, was (and still is) widely debatedin the press. PISA 2006, with science literacy as themajor domain and Finnish students again at the top,nally established the notion of the good t between


55/64

5 5H O W T O E X P L A I N F I N N I S H S T U D E N T S G O O D P E R F O R M

the Finnish curriculum and PISA tasks asa salient factor in explaining Finnish studentssuccess. Besides, it might have been of help thatdue to the common concern for Finnish studentslacking mathematical and science prociency,a national programme for boosting up math andscience instruction was instigated in the Finnishcomprehensive schools in the 1990s (ME 2002).


56/64


57/64


58/64


59/64

5 9

CONCLUSIONS


60/64

PISA has induced generalisations of the superiorityof the comprehensive school, partially based on theexcellent performance of Finnish students. A closeranalysis of the PISA data reveal, however, that theconclusion might be premature or unwarranted in thatit seems not to take into account all reasons for thesuccess of countries with a comprehensive schoolor the results of all countries with a comprehensiveeducation for the rst nine years. As it is, the conclu-sion seems to be based mainly on those countrieswhere students still are in comprehensive school atage 15, the time of the implementation of PISA. Theeffect of comprehensive education can be seen inthe small contribution of between-school variation to

overall student variation while also the latter tends tobe relatively small. But, especially in socially relativelyhomogeneous countries like Finland, as long as chil-dren attend schools following a curriculum geared toteaching the same contents for the whole age cohort,both are to be expected. However, in Finland like inDenmark, Iceland and Norway, the situation will bevery different a year later when students move on tothe upper secondary level with its general (academic)

The results of PISA arenot all there is to education,but the continuous successof Finnish students canbe seen to attest to asuccessful implementationof the objectives of theFinnish comprehensiveschool reform since theearly 1970s.


61/64

6 1C O N C L U S I O N S |

and vocational (professional) schools with their owncurricula and socially distinctive student bodies.

Besides, the general objective of PISA to meas-ure students ability and willingness to apply theirknowledge and skills in real life like tasks, even ifcompleted in school setting, might specically favourthe comprehensive system whose focus by necessityis on knowledge and skills deemed necessary for thewhole age cohort, irrespective of the diverging futureplans of the students. There is hardly reason to arguethat providing these skills for all would not be a wor-thy goal for all education systems, and there is everyreason for satisfaction in Finland for having succeed-ed in it so well. But in view of the signicance PISA

has attained at both the international and nationallevels of education policy since the release of the rstPISA results in 2001, a wider discussion might bewarranted regarding the making of (too) far-reachingconclusions for national education policies based on just one type of study, covering only one dimensionamongst the multitude of objectives each countryhas set for their education systems.

The above is not to say that the Finnish compre-hensive school or a common school for the wholeage cohort would not have been a bold educationaldecision with v positive outcomes. Even if PISA doesnot conrm that a comprehensive system will neces-sarily lead to high overall attainment or low between-student variation in academically more demandingtasks, the results do not show either that a selectiveparallel system with or without a private sector woulddo any better in these respects. Instead, the resultsof PISA seem to conrm that the consequences ofthe latter may be worse in many respects, especiallyregarding the knowledge and skills of students fromless favourable background. While willingly admitting

the need for continuous evaluation and developmentof the Finnish education system, we are pleased toconclude that current empirical evidence, combinedwith the moral argument for educational equalitystill speak strongly for a comprehensive school withhigh national standards and well-functioning studentsupport.


62/64

Aho, E., Pitknen, K. & Salhlberg, P. (2006).Policy Developmentand Reform Principles of Basic and Secondary Education inFinland since 1968.Working Paper Series: Education 2. Washington,DC.: World Bank.

Astala, K., Kivel, S.K., Koskela, P., Martio, O. Ntnen, M. & Tarvainen,K. (2005).The PISA survey tells only a partial truth of Finnish

childrens mathematical skills. Matematiikkalehti SOLMU[Mathematics Journal SOLMU]. Retrieved at http://solmu.math.helsinki./2005/erik/PisaEng.html, August 2008.

Ingold, T. (1997).Finland in the New Europe. People, Communityand Society.Newsletter of the Finnish Institute in London, No. 4.

Hautamki, J. Harjunen, E. Hautamki, A., Karjalainen, T., Kupiainen, S.,Laaksonen, S., Lavonen, J., Pehkonen, E., Rantanen, P., Scheinin, P. withHalinen, I. and Jakku-Sihvonen, R. (2008)PISA 06 Finland. Analyses,reections and explanations.Ministry of Education publications2008:44.

REFERENCES Laukkanen, R. (2008).Finnish strategy for high-level educationfor all.(pp.305-24). In N.C.Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance andperformance of education systems. Berlin: Springer.

Lavonen, J. (2008)PISA 2006 Science Literacy Assessment. In Hautamki & al. (2008)PISA 06 Finland. Analyses, reectionsand explanations.Ministry of Education publications 2008:44.

Lie, S., Linnakyl, P. & Roe, A. (Eds.)(2003).Northern Lights onPISA. Unity and diversity in the Nordic countries in PISA 2000. Olso: Department of Teacher Education and School Development.

Kupiainen, S. & Pehkonen, E. (2008)PISA 2006 MathematicalLiteracy Assessment.In Hautamki & al.PISA 06 Finland. Analyses,reections and explanations.Ministry of Education publications 2008:44.

ME (2002).Finnish knowledge in mathematics and sciences in

2002. Final report of LUMA Program.Helsinki: Ministry of Education.Available online www.minedu./OPM/Julkaisut/2002/nnish_knowl-edge_in_mathematics_and_sciences_in_2002_nal_rep?lang=

Mejling, J., & Roe, A. (2006).Northern Lights on PISA 2003 areection from Nordic countries.Oslo: Nordic Council of Ministers.

NBE (2004).Framework Curriculum for the Comprehensive School2004.National Board of Education: Helsinki

OECD (2004).Learning for Tomorrows World. First Results fromPISA 2003.(www.oecd.org/dataoecd/1/60/34002216.pdf)


63/64

6 3

OECD (2006a).Assessing Scientic, Reading and MathematicalLiteracy: A Framework for PISA 2006.(www.pisa.oecd.org/ xxx)

OECD (2006b).Document: ReleasedPISAItems_Maths.doc

OECD (2007a)Assessing Scientic, Reading and MathematicalLiteracy. A Framework for PISA 2006.(www.pisa.oecd.org/document/33/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_37462369_1_1_1_1,00.html)

OECD (2007b).PISA 2006 Science Competencies for TomorrowsWorld. Volume I Analysis.(www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/17/39703267.pdf)

Simola, H. (2005).The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical andsociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41, 455-470.

Vlijrvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakyl, P., Reinikainen,. P. & Arffman, I. (2003).

The Finnish success in PISA and some reasons behind it. PISA2000.Jyvskyl: Institute for Educational Research.

Vlijrvi, J., Kupari, P., Linnakyl, P., Reinikainen,. P., Sulkunen, S.,Trnroos, J. & Arffman, I. (2007).The Finnish success in PISA and some reasons behind it 2.Jyvskyl: Institute for EducationalResearch.

WRITERS &CONTACTS

Sirkku Kupiainen, Centre for Educational Assessment |University of Helsinki | sirkku.kupiainen@helsinki.

Jarkko Hautamki, Department of Applied Sciences of Education& Centre for Educational Assessment | University of Helsinki | jarkko.hautamaki@helsinki.

Tommi Karjalainen, Centre for Educational Assessment |University of Helsinki | tommi.t.karjalainen@helsinki.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATIONJari Rajanen, Counsellor of Education, PISA Governing BoardP.O. Box 29, FI-00023 Government, Finland

Layout: Ahoy | Photos: Liisa Takala | Helsinki University Print,


64/64

Ministry of Education Publications, Finland 2009:46ISSN:1458-8110 (print) | ISSN: 1797-9501 (PDF)ISBN: 978-952-485-778-9 (pbk.) | ISBN: 978-952-485-779-6 (PDF)

Distribution and salesHelsinki University Print Bookstore

PO Box 4 (Vuorikatu 3 A), FI-00014 Helsinki University, FinlandTel +358 9 7010 2363 or 7010 2366 | Fax +358 9 7010 23744http://kirjakauppa.yliopistopaino./ | [email protected].| www.yliopistopaino.helsinki.

Documents

Finnish Education by Govt