AdvancePraiseforFinnishLessons

“ThestoryofFinland’sextraordinaryeducationalreformsisonethatshouldinformpolicymakersandeducatorsaroundtheworld.NoonetellsthisstorymoreclearlyandengaginglythanPasiSahlberg,whohaslivedandstudiedthesereformsfordecades.Thisbookisamustread.”

—LindaDarling-Hammond,CharlesE.DucommunProfessorofEducationandCo-DirectoroftheStanfordCenterforOpportunityPolicyinEducation,

StanfordUniversity

“AterrificsynthesisbyanativeFinn,ateacher,aresearcherandapolicyanalystallrolledupintooneexcellentwriter.PasiSahlbergteachesusagreatdealaboutwhatweneedtoknowbeforeengaginginnationaleducationalreforms.”—DavidC.Berliner,Regents’ProfessorofEducation,ArizonaStateUniversity

“PasiSahlbergisthebesteducationpolicyexperttosharetheFinnishexperiencewiththeinternationalcommunity.IhaveknownhimfordecadesandthisbookconfirmsthatheisnotonlyapractitionerbutalsoavisionarythatweFinnsneedwhensearchingforthesolutionstooureducationalchallenges.”

—ErkkiAho,DirectorGeneral(1973–1991),FinnishNationalBoardofEducation

“Thisbookisawake-upcallfortheUnitedStates.Finlandwentfrommediocreacademicresultstooneofthetopperformersintheworld.Andtheydiditwithteacherunions,minimaltesting,nationalcollaboration,andelevatingteachingtoahigh-statuscalling.ThisistheantidotetotheNCLBparalysis.”

—HenryM.Levin,WilliamHeardKilpatrickProfessorofEconomicsandEducation,TeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversityandDavidJacksProfessorof

EducationandEconomics,Emeritus,StanfordUniversity

“ItisessentialalsoforusFinnstogetabalancedanalysisofwhatreallyisbehindthesuccessoftheFinnisheducationalsystem.PasiSahlberg,asaninsider,knowswhathashappenedand,asaresearcher,hasanobjectiveperspectiveoncauseandeffectrelationships.Thisstorymakessensetome.”—Olli-PekkaHeinonen,Director,FinnishBroadcastingCompany,andformer

MinisterofEducation(1994–1999)

“Finland’sremarkableeducationalstory,sowelltoldinthisbookbyPasiSahlberg,isbothinformativeandinspiringforothersbecauseitshowsthatwithappropriateeffortsustainedovertime,acountrycanmakehugeimprovementsforitsyoungpeople,somethingthatallcountriesaspiretodo.”—BenLevin,CanadaResearchChair,OntarioInstituteforStudiesinEducation,

UniversityofToronto

theseriesonschoolreform

PatriciaA.WasleyUniversityofWashingtonAnnLieberman

SeniorScholar,StanfordUniversityJosephP.McDonaldNewYorkUniversitySERIESEDITORS

FinnishLessons:WhatCantheWorldLearnfromEducationalChangeinFinland?PASISAHLBERGTheNetworkedTeacher:HowNewTeachersBuildSocialNetworksforProfessionalSupportKIRAJ.BAKER-DOYLE

HowTeachersBecomeLeaders:LearningfromPracticeandResearchANNLIEBERMAN&LINDAD.FRIEDRICH

PeerReviewandTeacherLeadership:LinkingProfessionalismandAccountabilityJENNIFERGOLDSTEIN

ImprovingtheOdds:DevelopingPowerfulTeachingPracticeandaCultureofLearninginUrbanHighSchoolsTHOMASDELPRETETheMindfulTeacherELIZABETHMACDONALD&DENNISSHIRLEY

GoingtoScalewithNewSchoolDesigns:ReinventingHighSchoolJOSEPHP.MCDONALD,EMILYJ.KLEIN,&MEGRIORDAN

ManagingtoChange:HowSchoolsCanSurvive(andSometimesThrive)inTurbulentTimesTHOMASHATCH

TeacherPracticeOnline:SharingWisdom,OpeningDoorsDÉSIRÉEH.POINTERMACETeachingtheWayChildrenLearnBEVERLYFALK

TeachersinProfessionalCommunities:ImprovingTeachingandLearningANNLIEBERMAN&LYNNEMILLER,EDS.

LookingTogetheratStudentWork,2ndEd.TINABLYTHE,DAVIDALLEN,&BARBARASCHIEFFELINPOWELL

ThePowerofProtocols:AnEducator’sGuidetoBetterPractice,2ndEd.JOSEPHP.MCDONALD,NANCYMOHR,ALANDICHTER,&ELIZABETHC.MCDONALDSchools-within-Schools:PossibilitiesandPitfallsofHighSchoolReformVALERIEE.LEE&DOUGLASD.READY

SeeingThroughTeachers’Eyes:ProfessionalIdealsandClassroomPracticesKARENHAMMERNESS

BuildingSchool-BasedTeacherLearningCommunities:ProfessionalStrategiestoImproveStudentAchievementMILBREYMCLAUGHLIN&JOANTALBERT

MentorsintheMaking:DevelopingNewLeadersforNewTeachersBETTYACHINSTEIN&STEVENZ.ATHANASES,EDS.CommunityintheMaking:LincolnCenterInstitute,theArts,andTeacherEducationMADELEINEFUCHSHOLZER&SCOTTNOPPE-BRANDON,EDS.

HoldingAccountabilityAccountable:WhatOughttoMatterinPublicEducationKENNETHA.SIROTNIK,ED.

MobilizingCitizensforBetterSchoolsROBERTF.SEXTON

TheComprehensiveHighSchoolTodayFLOYDM.HAMMACK,ED.TheTeachingCareerJOHNI.GOODLAD&TIMOTHYJ.MCMANNON,EDS.

BeatingtheOdds:HighSchoolsasCommunitiesofCommitmentJACQUELINEANCESS

AttheHeartofTeaching:AGuidetoReflectivePracticeGRACEHALLMCENTEE,JONAPPLEBY,JOANNEDOWD,JANGRANT,SIMONHOLE,&PEGGYSILVA,WITHJOSEPHW.CHECK

TeachingYouthMedia:ACriticalGuidetoLiteracy,VideoProduction,and

SocialChangeSTEVENGOODMANInsidetheNationalWritingProject:ConnectingNetworkLearningandClassroomTeachingANNLIEBERMAN&DIANEWOOD

StandardsReforminHigh-PovertySchools:ManagingConflictandBuildingCapacityCAROLA.BARNESStandardsofMindandHeart:CreatingtheGoodHighSchoolPEGGYSILVA&ROBERTA.MACKIN

UpstartStartup:CreatingandSustainingaPublicCharterSchoolJAMESNEHRING

OneKidataTime:BigLessonsfromaSmallSchoolELIOTLEVINE

GuidingSchoolChange:TheRoleandWorkofChangeAgentsFRANCESO’CONNELLRUST&HELENFREIDUS,EDS.TeachersCaughtintheAction:ProfessionalDevelopmentThatMattersANNLIEBERMAN&LYNNEMILLER,EDS.

TheCompetentClassroom:AligningHighSchoolCurriculum,Standards,andAssessment—ACreativeTeachingGuideALLISONZMUDA&MARYTOMAINO

CentralParkEastandItsGraduates:“LearningbyHeart”DAVIDBENSMAN

TakingChargeofCurriculum:TeacherNetworksandCurriculumImplementationJACOBE.ADAMS,JR.TeachingWithPower:SharedDecision-MakingandClassroomPracticeCAROLREED

GoodSchools/RealSchools:WhySchoolReformDoesn’tLastDEANFINK

BeyondFormulasinMathematicsandTeaching:DynamicsoftheHighSchoolAlgebraClassroomDANIELCHAZAN

SchoolReformBehindtheScenesJOSEPHP.MCDONALD,THOMASHATCH,EDWARDKIRBY,NANCYAMES,NORRISM.HAYNES,&EDWARDT.JOYNER

LookingTogetheratStudentWork:ACompanionGuidetoAssessingStudentLearningTINABLYTHE,DAVIDALLEN,&BARBARASHIEFFELINPOWELLLookingatStudentWork:AWindowintotheClassroom(Video)ANNENBERGINSTITUTEFORSCHOOLREFORM

Teachers—TransformingTheirWorldandTheirWorkANNLIEBERMAN&LYNNEMILLERTeachinginCommon:ChallengestoJointWorkinClassroomsandSchoolsANNEDIPARDO

CharterSchools:AnotherFlawedEducationalReform?SEYMOURB.SARASON

AssessingStudentLearning:FromGradingtoUnderstandingDAVIDALLEN,ED.

RacingwiththeClock:MakingTimeforTeachingandLearninginSchoolReformNANCYE.ADELMAN,KARENPANTONWALKINGEAGLE,&ANDYHARGREAVES,EDS.TheRoleofStateDepartmentsofEducationinComplexSchoolReformSUSANFOLLETTLUSIMakingProfessionalDevelopmentSchoolsWork:Politics,Practice,andPolicyMARSHALEVINE&ROBERTATRACHTMAN,EDS.

HowItWorks—InsideaSchool–CollegeCollaborationSIDNEYTRUBOWITZ&PAULLONGO

SurvivingSchoolReform:AYearintheLifeofOneSchoolLARAINEK.HONG

EyesontheChild:ThreePortfolioStoriesKATHEJERVISRevisiting“TheCultureoftheSchoolandtheProblemofChange”SEYMOURB.SARASON

TeacherLearning:NewPolicies,NewPracticesMILBREYW.MCLAUGHLIN&IDAOBERMAN,EDS.

What’sHappeninginMathClass?EnvisioningNewPracticesThroughTeacherNarratives(Vol.1)DEBORAHSCHIFTER,ED.

What’sHappeninginMathClass?ReconstructingProfessionalIdentities(Vol.2)DEBORAHSCHIFTER,ED.

TheSubjectsinQuestion:DepartmentalOrganizationandtheHighSchoolLESLIESANTEESISKIN&JUDITHWARRENLITTLE,EDS.AuthenticAssessmentinAction:StudiesofSchoolsandStudentsatWorkLINDADARLING-HAMMOND,JACQUELINEANCESS,&BEVERLYFALK

SchoolWork:GenderandtheCulturalConstructionofTeachingSARIKNOPPBIKLEN

SchoolChange:ThePersonalDevelopmentofaPointofViewSEYMOURB.SARASON

TheWorkofRestructuringSchools:BuildingfromtheGroundUpANNLIEBERMAN,ED.StirringtheChalkdust:TalesofTeachersChangingClassroomPracticePATRICIAA.WASLEY

FinnishLessons

WhatCantheWorldLearnfromEducationalChangeinFinland?

PasiSahlberg

ForewordbyAndyHargreaves

ExcerptfromRumblin’onhere:WordsandmusicbyNeilYoung.Copyright©2010bySilverFiddleMusic.Allrightsreserved.Usedwithpermission.

PublishedbyTeachersCollegePress,1234AmsterdamAvenue,NewYork,NY10027

Copyright©2011byTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversityAllrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopy,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,withoutpermissionfromthepublisher.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDataSahlberg,Pasi.

Finnishlessons:whatcantheworldlearnfromeducationalchangeinFinland/PasiSahlberg;forewordbyAndyHargreaves.p.cm.

ISBN:978-0-8077-5257-91.Educationalchange—Finland.2.Education—Finland.I.Title.

LA1013.7.S342011370.94897—dc23

2011033428

ISBN:978-0-8077-5257-9(paper)eISBN:978-0-8077-7088-7

ForEinarFrithiofSahlberg(1895–1977)

IcanfeeltheweatherchangingIcanseeitallaround

Can’tyoufeelthatnewwindblowing?Don’tyourecognizethatsoundthatsound?

AndtheearthisslowlyspinningSpinningslowly,slowlychanging.

—NeilYoung:Rumblin’(2010)

Contents

SeriesForewordbyAnnLieberman

Foreword:UnFinnishedBusinessbyAndyHargreaves

Acknowledgments

Introduction:Yes,WeCan(LearnfromOneAnother)NorthernExposureFinlandasanExampleLearningfromOneAnotherThePlanofThisBook

1.TheFinnishDream:EqualEducationalOpportunitiesPost-WarFinlandTowardUniversalBasicEducationTheNewSchoolIsBornExpandingUpper-SecondaryEducationImprovingEducationalAttainmentAGenerationofEducationalChangeTheFinnishEducationSystemin2011

2.TheFinnishParadox:LessIsMoreFromPeripherytoLimelightLevelofEducationalAttainmentEquityofOutcomesStudentLearningCostofEducationFinnishParadoxesofEducation

3.TheFinnishAdvantage:TheTeachersTheCultureofTeachingBecomingaTeacherAcademicTeacherEducationTeachersasResearchersProfessionalDevelopmentTimeforPedagogicalReflectionLeadersAreTeachersGoodTeachers,GreatSchools

4.TheFinnishWay:CompetitiveWelfareStateThePowerofGlobalizationTheGlobalEducationalReformMovementAKnowledge-BasedEconomyWelfare,Equality,andCompetitivenessTwoFinnishIcons:NokiaandPeruskouluTheFinnishDreamChallenged

5.IstheFutureFinnish?ExcellencebyBeingDifferentSuccessfulEducationalReformTheTransferofChangeKnowledgeTheFutureofFinnishEducation

Notes

References

Index

AbouttheAuthor

SeriesForeword

ItismostfittingtohaveFinnishLessonsbyPasiSahlbergasapartoftheSchoolReformSeries.Finland,aswelearnfromthisfinebook,hastransformedteachingandteachereducationoverthecourseof30orsoyears.Welearnnotonlythehistoryofthisschoolreformeffort,butthedetailsofthisimportantexampleofwhatitmeanstoprovideequaleducationalopportunityforall.

Inthefollowingchapterswelearnwhatitmeanstohaveateacherpreparationprogramthatis“research-based”anditseffectsonstudentlearning.Finlandisnumberoneininternationalcomparisons,andthisbookshowsusnotonlywhybuthowtheygotthere.

Thefocusofthisreformeffortisontheteachereducationprogram,whichprovidesacomprehensiveframeworkforallwhoteach—fromprimarytosecondaryschoolteachers.Allofthemarerequiredtogetamaster’sdegree,givingtimeenoughtostudypedagogyaswellaspracticeandtolearnhowtodoresearch.Studentslearnthatinquiryintoteachingispartofwhatitmeanstoteach.Teachingisanintellectualenterpriseenhancedbytheteacher’sownresearchquestionsandsubsequentfindings.

IntheFinnishcontext,teachingisahigh-statusprofession,akintobeingadoctor.Thosewhoenternotonlystayinteaching,butmanycontinuetheirstudies,nottoleave,buttolearnmoreandcontributemoretotheirprofession.Thisheightenedsenseofprofessionalismmakesteachingasought-afterpositionandoneobtainedonlybythosewhoarefortunateenoughtobechosenforcandidacy.

Wehavemuchtolearnfromtheexamplesthatarewrittenaboutinthisbook:fewstandardizedtests;autonomyineachschool;researchasanimportantfocusforlearningtoteach;andleadershipemanatingfromtheteachersthemselves.Thesearelessonstobelearnedandstudied.Suchauniqueexamplegivesusmuchfoodforthoughtandprovidesuswithanimportantprimerforschoolreform.

—AnnLieberman

Foreword:UnFinnishedBusiness

Inthe1960s,theRussianlaunchofSputnikpropelledamassivedrivetodevelopscienceandmathematicsinnovationinU.S.schools.Inthe1980sand1990s,therisingsunofJapanandotherAsiantigereconomiespromptedcallstocopyJapaneseeducationalmethods—makingschoolworkmorerigorous,extendingtheimpactofstandardizedtesting,andincreasingthenumberofhoursofschoolingovertheschoolyear.Inthepastdecade,theburgeoningeconomiesofIndiaandChinahaveprovokedUnitedStatescommissionsandinitiativestoadvocatetheteachingof21st-centuryskills,toughercurriculumrequirements,commonnationalstandards,yetmoretesting,increasedcompetitionbetweenteachersandschools,andharderworkforeverybody.Nevertheless,overthepastquartercentury,thestandardsandperformanceofAmericanteachersandschoolshavesteadilydeclinedinrelationtointernationalbenchmarks.Inspiteofthis,acrossmorethan2decadesofeducationalreform,theUnitedStates,likemanyotherAnglo-Americannations,hasepitomizedEinstein’sdefinitionofmadness:keepdoingthesamethingwhileexpectingtogetadifferentresult.Force,pressure,shame,top-downintervention,markets,competition,standardization,testing,andeasierandquickerpassagesintoteaching,closureoffailingschools,thefiringofineffectiveteachersandprincipals,andfreshstartswithyoungteachersandnewlyestablishedschools—theveryreformstrategiesthathavefaileddismallyover2decadesinmanyAnglo-Saxonnations—arebeingreinventedandre-imposedandwithevengreaterforceanddetermination.

THELEMMINGRACETOTHETOP

Thecriticsarealreadyoutinforce.InternationalchangeadviserMichaelFullanpredictsthatPresidentObama’sRacetotheTopstrategy,withitsintentiontoturnaroundthenation’s5,000worstperformingschools,liftlimitsonestablishingcharterschools,andintroducemeasuressuchasperformance-relatedpaytoraisetheteacherquality—willendinfailure(Fullan,2010).Thestrategy,Fullansays,payslittleornoattentiontodevelopingthecapacityofleadersandteacherstoimprovetogetherorasasystem;itisbasedonafailedtheorythatteacherqualitycanbeincreasedbyasystemofcompetitiverewards,anditrestsonabadlyflawedmodelofmanagementwhereeveryonemanages

theirownunit,isaccountableforresults,andcompeteswiththeirpeers—creatingfiefdoms,silos,andlackofcapacityorincentivesforprofessionalstohelpeachother.

FormerAssistantSecretaryofEducationDianeRavitchalsocondemnsBarackObama’s“awfuleducationplan,”whichsheregardsasevenworsethanitsmuchderidedpredecessor,NoChildLeftBehind(Ravitch,2010a).Theplanpromotescharterschoolseventhoughtheevidenceindicatesthattheydonotconsistentlyorevenonaverageoutperformtheirpublicschooldistrictalternatives,andthattheysimply“skimthebeststudentsinpoorcommunities,”leavingtheresttoflounder(Ravitch,2010a).Meanwhileperformance-basedpaytiesteacherrewardstoresultsonappallinglydesignedtestsofdubiousvalidityand“destroysteamwork”amongprofessionalswhoinstead“needtosharewhattheyknow.”Thereform,sheconcludes,is“mean-spirited,punitive,anddeeplyindifferenttotherealproblemsthatteachersface.”

ProfessorYongZhao,theleadingAmericanexpertoneducationalreforminChinaandSoutheastAsia,pointsoutthatChina,theleadingeconomiccompetitoroftheUnitedStates,isactuallydecentralizingitscurriculum,diversifyingassessment,andencouraginglocalautonomyandinnovation.Meanwhile,Zhaoconcludes,whileChinaisdecentralizingandSingaporeispromotingacreativeenvironmentcharacterizedbytheprincipleof“TeachLess,LearnMore,”U.S.educationhasbeenstubbornly“movingtowardauthoritarianism,lettingthegovernmentdictatewhatandhowstudentsshouldlearnandwhatschoolsshouldteach”(Zhao,2009,p.40).

Inculture,politics,andbusiness—aswellasineducationalreform—toomanyAnglo-Americanculturesandsocietieshavedevelopedanunhealthyobsessionwithallthatisbigger,harder,tougher,faster,andstronger.Companiesthatsacrificecustomersafetytoshort-termshareholdervalue;businessesthatwreakecologicalhavocwithexcessivelyboldandriskyeffortstoincreaseprofitability;financialcollapsesthatresultfromastronomicallevelsofunrepayabledebt;turnaroundspecialistswhocreatearbitrarydisruptionbysettingunrealistictargetsforgrowthandequallyarbitraryquotasforstaffdismissals—thesearetheconsequencesoftheimpatience,hubris,arrogance,andgreedthatcharacterizetheworstkindsofbusiness.Failure,firings,competition,andclosuresaretheeducationalequivalentofunsustainablechangeinbusiness.Whattheyofferisoversized,pumped-up,artificiallyenhancedschoolreformonsteroids.

Eveninbusiness,theselarger-than-lifestrategiesofturnaroundandimprovementdonotproducesustainableimprovement.Companiesmaybebrokenup,assetssoldoff,andemployeesfiredwithimpunity,andallthismight

increaseshort-termshareholderreturns,butfewstrategiesofthesesortssurviveinthelong-termandmanyturnaroundcompanieseventuallybecomecasualtiesoftheirleaders’recklessbehavior.Indeed,managementexpertManfredKetsdeVriesexplainshowmanyso-calledturnaroundspecialistsarelittlemorethanpsychiatricallydisturbednarcissists,sociopaths,andcontrolfreaks(KetDeVries,2006).

THIRDANDFOURTHWAYSAHEAD

Theworstofthesteroidalschoolreformmovementhasbeentemperedbylighter,lesspunitivealternativesinotherAnglo-Americancontexts.Here,thepoliticaltargetsandgoalsfortest-drivenimprovementinthefundamentalsofliteracy,mathematics,andsciencearestillimposedwithinsistentinflexibility,buttheyarenowmoderatedbyalessharshimprovementdiscourseandbyhigherlevelsofprofessionalsupportintheformofimprovedmaterials,increasedresources,andbettertraining.

AboutadecadeagoinEngland,andmorerecently(andsomewhatdifferently)inOntario,Canada,andAustralia,amodelhasbeenadvancedandadvocatedthatstandsbetweenandbeyondthecompleteprofessionalautonomyofthe1970s,andthemean-spirited,miserly,market-driven,andstandardizedreformsthatcharacterizedEnglandintheearly1990s,andotherplacesafterthat.

The“ThirdWay”ofeducationalchangereflectedinthemodelsoffersadoubletwistonmoreblatantlysteroidalreformefforts:

aclearemphasisonthemoralpurposeofeducationacommitmenttocapacitybuilding

Thesecomponentssoundmoreprofessionallyplausibleandinspiringthantheirreformcounterpartsthathoundedandhectoredtheteachingprofessionintosubmission.Yetinreality,theyarestillhighlyproblematic.

First,theadmirableadvancementofmoralpurposeinThirdWayreformsrepeatedlyturnsout,inpractice,tobethesamemoralpurposeirrespectiveofculture,countryorcontext—Raisethebarandnarrowthegaptoimprovetestedachievementscoresinliteracyandmathematics(linkedtoimposedsystem-wideachievementtargets).WhetheritisOntario,Australia,Bermuda,orGreaterManchesterinEngland,thegoalormoralpurposeisalmostidentical.Thecountriesandculturesmaydifferbuttheconsultants’PowerPointslidesremainprettymuchthesame.IntheThirdWay,peoplearen’tdefiningordevelopingtheirownsharedvisionsormoralpurposes.Theydon’towntheirvisions.They

rentthemfromotherpeople.Second,whiletheThirdWayhasanadmirablecommitmenttocapacity-

building,ithasoftendistortedthemeaningof“capacitypeople”anddivertedpeoplefromthenoblepurposesthatunderpinneditsorigins.Theideaofcapacity-buildingfirstemergedinthecontextofdevelopingcountries.Muchliketheconceptandstrategyofcommunityorganizing,capacity-buildingmeanthelpingacommunityhelpitself.Itwasahumanisticandempoweringconceptdirectedtowardassistingpeopletofulfilltheirownpersonallycompellingpurpose.InThirdWaypolicies,though,capacity-buildinghasoftenturnedintosomethingelse—trainingpeopleinprescribedstrategiestodeliveraccountabilitygoalsandtargetsimposedbyothers.

IntheThirdWay,capacity-buildingisabouttrainingforpolicydelivery.IntheFourthWayofinspiration,innovation,andcollectiveresponsibility,assetoutbyDennisShirleyandmyselfasaresultofourdirectworkinhigh-performingjurisdictionslikeFinlandandAlberta,Canada,capacity-buildingismoreaboutself-directedgrowthanddevelopment(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009).Inshort,andtobeveryclear:TheThirdWayisaboutrentinganddeliveringthepoliciesofothers,whiletheFourthWayisaboutsharedownershipanddevelopmentofacommunity’sowncompellingpurposes.

THENORTHERNLIGHTAPPROACH

Intoallthispolicymixhascometheunlikeliestexemplarofeducationalsuccess—Finland.Withitsunexpectedlyandconsistentlysuperlativeperformanceoninternationaltestsofstudentachievement,itspossessionofthenarrowestachievementgapsintheworld,anditsequallyhighrankingsonratingsofeconomiccompetitiveness,corporatetransparency,andgeneralwell-beingandqualityoflife,thislittleNordiccountryofbarely5.5millionpeoplehasilluminatedadifferentpathtoeducationalandeconomicgoalsthanthosebeingforgedbytheAnglo-Americangroupsofnations.

CuriousaboutandintriguedbyFinland’sunusualexample,educatorsandpolicymakersfromallovertheworldhavevisitedthisScandinaviancountrytotryanddiscoverthesecretsofitssuccess.Ihavebeenfortunateenoughtobeamongthem.In2007,IhadtherareopportunitytotakeasmallteamfromtheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD)toFinlandtoexaminetherelationshipbetweenthecountry’sachievementrecordanditsstrategiesofschoolimprovementandleadershipdevelopment(Hargreaves,Halasz,&Pont,2008).

UnlikemanyothercommentatorsontheFinnishexperience,wedidnotrely

solelyonsecondarysources,oronafewinterviewswithseniorpolicymakers,orontheavailableeducationalresearchliterature.Weobservedandinterviewedstudents,teachers,schoolanddistrictadministrators,universityresearchexperts,andMinistryofEducationstaffuptotheveryhighestlevel.WereadmaterialonthehistoryandorganizationofFinlandasasocietyandofitsdynamicleadingcompany,Nokia.Wewantedtounderstandthecountryanditshistoryaswellasitsschools,andtograspwhatexplaineditsdramaticeconomicandeducationalturnaroundafterthefalloftheBerlinWallandthecollapseofFinland’sprotectedSovietmarketsin1990.Inallthisresearch,itquicklybecameevidenttousthattheleadingauthorityonFinland’sdistinctiveeducationalreformstrategywasandstillisPasiSahlberg.

SahlberggrewupinaFinnisheducationalfamily.HetaughtintheFinnishschoolsystemandthenattheuniversitylevel.Fromthere,hewentontooverseetheprofessionaldevelopmentstrategyfortheMinistryofEducation.Likeallthebestresearchersandcommentators,Sahlbergwasandremainsbothaninsiderandoutsider.AsaloyalandtrustedinsiderwhonowheadsuponeofFinland’sleadingorganizationsinthefieldofinnovation,Sahlbergpossessesarichandauthenticgroundinginandunderstandingoftheinnerworkingsofthecountry’seducationalandsocietalsystemthatareoftensomysterioustooutsidevisitors.

LeavingFinlandforasignificantpositionwiththeWorldBank,PasiSahlbergquicklydevelopedthecapacitytounderstand,interpret,andprovidesystemicsupportforcountriesinEasternEurope,CentralAsia,NorthAfrica,andtheMiddleEast.InadditiontopublishingarangeofkeyscholarlyarticlesonFinland,healsowrotethedefinitivecountryreportonFinlandfortheWorldBank.

PasiSahlberg’sinsiderstatushereiscritical.Heisnotonlyinterestedinsystemiceducationalreforminacerebralsense.Hecarespassionatelyaboutandremainsdeeplyconnectedtothestudents,teachers,andcommunitiesthatreformsultimatelyserve.Oneofthedistinguishingfeaturesofhischaracteristhatuponenteringanewcountryanywhereintheworldtoprovidesystemicevaluationandsupport,oneofhisfirstprofessionalactsisalwaystoteachamathematicslessonandconversewiththestudentsinoneofthecountry’severydaysecondaryschools.

PasiSahlberghelpedourOECDteamtounderstand,ashewillhelpreadersofthisbookunderstand,whatmakesFinnishreformdistinctivelysuccessful,andwhyithasprovedinconvenienttotheAnglo-Americangroupofnationsasanexemplarofeducationalchange.Finland,heshows,

hasdevelopedandowneditsownvisionofeducationalandsocialchange

connectedtoinclusivenessandcreativity,ratherthanrentingastandardizedvisionthathasbeendevelopedelsewhere;reliesonhigh-quality,well-trainedteachers,withstrongacademicqualificationsandmaster’sdegrees,whoaredrawntotheprofessionbyitscompellingsocietalmissionanditsconditionsofautonomyandsupport—comparedwiththerapidentrystrategiesofshort-termtrainingandhighteacherturnoveradvancedincountrieslikeEnglandandtheUnitedStates;hasaninclusivespecialeducationalstrategywherenearlyhalfofthecountry’sstudentswillhavereceivedsomespecialeducationsupportatsometimebeforecompleting9-yearbasicschool,ratherthanthespecialeducationstrategyoflegalidentification,placement,andlabelingofindividualsfavoredbyAnglo-Americannations;hasdevelopedteachers’capacitytobecollectivelyresponsiblefordevelopingcurriculumanddiagnosticassessmentstogetherratherthandeliveringprescribedcurriculaandpreparingforthestandardizedtestsdesignedbycentralgovernments;andhaslinkededucationalreformtothecreativedevelopmentofeconomiccompetitivenessandalsothedevelopmentofsocialcohesion,inclusiveness,andsharedcommunitywithinthewidersociety.

PasiSahlbergurgesusnottofollowtheeducationalreformstrategies(whichhecallsGERM)advancedbyAnglo-AmericanpoliticalleadersandtheireducationaladvisorswhodismissthepotentiallessonsofFinnisheducationalreformbecauseoftheirideologicalinconvenience.Nationsthathavebecomecommittedtoandstuckwithhighratesofeconomicinequalityrespondonlytopublicimpatiencefortoughtalkandshort-termgain.HeshowshowthosewhodismissFinland(infavoroftheirownpreferredmodels,ofcourse)onthegroundsofitsmodestsizeasanationoverlookhowitspopulationof5.5millionisclosetotheaverageofmostU.S.states,wherethebulkofeducationalpolicydecisionsaremade.AgainsttheargumentthatFinlandisjusttoodifferentfromAmerica,England,orCanada(asifIndia,China,andJapanarenot!),SahlbergrevealshowFinlandhasdramaticallychangeditsidentityandorientationasanation,andhowothercountriescanandmustalsodosoaswell.

ThereareunresolvedquestionsinAnglo-Americaneducationalreformthatpumped-upsteroidalreformstrategiesandthe“lemming”RacetotheTopwillneverbeabletoanswerbutthatSahlberg’sworkprofoundlycan.ThisisnotjustbecausePasiSahlbergisthemostcredibleindigenousexpertonhisowncountry’sexemplaryreforms.Itisalsobecause,asaworld-rankingscholar,andformerWorldBankexpertonahostofcountriesandtheireducationalsystems,

Sahlberghasdevelopedaninternationalperspectiveoneducationalreformingeneralaswellastheoutsider’sadvantageinbeingabletomakeallthatisfamiliarinFinlandfreshtoothers.

Oneofthewaysthatteachersimproveisbylearningfromotherteachers.Schoolsimprovewhentheylearnfromotherschools.Isolationistheenemyofallimprovement.Wehavespentdecadesbreakingdowntheisolationofteacherswithinandbetweenourschools.ItisnowtimetobreakdowntheideologyofexceptionalismintheUnitedStatesandotherAnglo-Americannationsifwearetodevelopreformsthatwilltrulyinspireourteacherstoimprovelearningforallourstudents—especiallythosewhostrugglethemost.Inthatessentialquest,PasiSahlbergisundoubtedlyoneoftheverybestteachersofall.

—AndyHargreaves

Acknowledgments

Beforewritingthispage,Iwenttomyneighborhoodbookstoreandreadtheacknowledgmentsinseveralotherauthors’books.Manyofthemincludelengthylistsofnames—colleagues,friends,students,andsometimesopponents—whoaregivencreditinthebook.Sometextsmademewonderifallthosementionedreallydeservedtobethanked.Withthisbook,Icanassureyouthateveryonenamedbelowhashadaroletoplayindevelopingorwritingthisbook.Somecontributionsweresmallerthanothersbuttheywereallimportant.

Writingabookaboutatopicsoclosetoyourownlifeandworkisdifficultwithoutoccasionallysolicitinganoutsider’sperspective.Forthewritingofthisbook,Ihavedependedontheknowledge,wisdom,andexperienceofsomeclosecolleaguesandfriends.TheirconfidencethatthestoryofFinlandisworthsharingwithotherswasanimportantkickofftowritethisbook.Buttolistentoonlythosewhoagreewithyouwon’tmakeagoodstory.ThisiswhenIremembermygrandmother’swisdom:Ifweallthinkthesameway,noneofusprobablythinksverymuch.Inthisregard,Iamparticularlythankfultothosetrustedoneswhohavedaredtodisagreewithmeorraisetheirconcerns,butalwaysineloquentandrespectfulterms.

SpecialthanksgotoErkkiAho,LisaBelzberg,DavidBerliner,Jean-ClaudeCouture,LindaDarling-Hammond,CarrieFuller,SlavkoGaber,KaukoHämäläinen,AndyHargreaves,TomHatch,JarkkoHautamäki,HannahHayman,HenryHeikkinen,Olli-PekkaHeinonen,MarttiHellström,StephenHeyneman,PeterJohnson,BenLevin,HenryLevin,StephenMurgatroyd,CeraMurtagh,HanneleNiemi,DavidOldroyd,LydaPeters,KariPitkänen,VeeraSalonen,LauraServage,RobertSchwartz,DennisShirley,andWinWiencke.IwanttothankSamAbramsforhiscriticalfriendshipandhisassistanceintheeditingofthisbook.

AnimportantsourceofinspirationtowritethisbookhasbeenthetensofthousandsofpeoplearoundtheworldthatIhavemetathundredsofconferences,seminars,andsymposia.Theyhavetaughtmetounderstandbetterandrespectmoredeeplythecomplexityofeducationalchange.Asaconsequence,Iamhumblebeforethequestionofwhysomenationsdobetterineducatingtheirpeoplethanothers.ItiseasytooverlookcontextualdifferencesandgivesimpleexplanationstosuchquestionsastowhyFinnishstudentsdo

betterininternationalteststhanmostothers.Questions,discussions,andcriticalconcernsinthislighthavebeenessentialformeingivingshapetothestoryofeducationaldevelopmentinFinland.MyinternationalstudentsattheUniversityofHelsinkihavealsobeenasourceofinspirationwhenwehaveexploredthesecretsoftheFinnisheducationsystemfromperspectivesthatoftenincludeverydifferentexperiencesandexpectationsfromthoseofFinnishstudents.Iamgratefultoallmyaudiencesandstudentswhohavemadewritingthisbookanexcitingjourneyandaprocessofpersonalgrowthforme.

Thisbookhasbeendevelopedfromearlierversionsofvariouspartsofmyanalyses,researchandargumentsthatcanbefoundintheworkslistedinthereferencesectionofthisbook.ReviewersandeditorsofthejournalsandeditedvolumesinwhichmypreviousworkshaveappearedhavealsohadasignificantroleinenhancingmyownargumentationandclarityintellingthestoryofFinland.

IameternallygratefultoPetraforherenduringsupportandwisdomtoshow

methewayforwardwhenmyownpowerandwillhavebeenlow.

FinnishLessons

Introduction:Yes,WeCan(LearnfromOneAnother)

Duringthenext10yearsabout1.2billionyoung15-to-30-year-oldswillbeenteringthejobmarketandwiththemeansnowatourdisposalabout300millionwillgetajob.Whatwillweoffertheseyoung,aboutabillionofthem?Ithinkthisisoneofthegreatestchallengesifwewanttoachievepeacefuldevelopmentandhopefortheseyoung.—MarttiAhtisaari(formerPresidentofFinland,1994–2000,andNobelPeacePrizeLaureate)

Ithasbecomecleareverywherethattheschoolswehavetodaywillnotbeabletoprovideopportunitiestolearnwhatisnecessaryinthefuture.Thedemandforbetterqualityteachingandlearning,andmoreequitableandefficienteducationisuniversal.Indeed,educationalsystemsarefacingatwinchallenge:howtochangeschoolssothatstudentsmaylearnnewtypesofknowledgeandskillsrequiredinaunpredictablychangingknowledgeworld,andhowtomakethatnewlearningpossibleforallyoungpeopleregardlessoftheirsocioeconomicconditions.Tobesuccessfulwiththesechallengesisbothamoralandeconomicimperativeforoursocietiesandtheirleaders.Itisamoralobligationbecauseeachperson’swell-beingandultimatelyhappinessarisesfromknowledge,skills,andworldviewsthatgoodeducationprovides.Itisalsoaneconomicimperativebecausethewealthofnationsdependsasneverbeforeonknow-how.Theaftermathoftherecentglobaleconomiccrisisisshowinghowunemployedyoungpeoplearebecominghopelesstotheextentthatisbringinggovernmentsdown.Manyoftheseyoungpeoplelackrelevanteducationandtrainingthatwouldhelpthemtohelpthemselves.

ThisbookisaboutFinlandandhowtheFinnstransformedtheireducationalsystemfrommediocreinthe1980stooneofthemodelsofexcellencetoday.InternationalindicatorsshowthatFinlandhasoneofthemosteducatedcitizenriesintheworld,provideseducationalopportunitiesinanegalitarianmanner,andmakesefficientuseofresources.Finnisheducationhasrecentlyattractedattentionfrommanyinternationalscholars.LindaDarling-Hammond(2010)writesextensivelyaboutitinherbook,TheFlatWorldandEducation.

AndyHargreavesandDennisShirley(2009)choseFinlandasanexampleofanationthathassuccessfullytransformeditseducationsystemintheirbook,TheFourthWay.AchapteronFinnisheducationhasbecomeanintegralpartofanyinternationalhandbookorvolumethatreportscontemporarythinkingandpracticeinthefield.Internationaldevelopmentagencies,consultingfirms,andmediahousesrefertoFinlandasagoodmodeland“awitness”ofsuccessfultransformationofpubliceducation.1MonographsonFinnishschoolandteachershavebeenpublishedinChina,Korea,Japan,France,Slovenia,andGermany,justtomentionafewcountries.ThisbookisacomprehensivedescriptionofeducationalchangeinFinlandwrittenbyanativeFinnfromaninternationalperspective.

InleadingthewaytowardeducationalreforminFinlandintheearly1990s,Dr.VilhoHirvi,thenDirectorGeneraloftheNationalBoardofEducation,saidthat“aneducatednationcannotbecreatedbyforce.”Heacknowledgedthatteachersandstudentsmustbeheard,andthatthewayforwardcalledforactivecollaboration.InFinland,teachersandstudentswereinsistingonmoreflexibilityandfreedomindecidinghowtodesigninstruction,whattostudy,andwhen.“Wearecreatinganewcultureofeducationandthereisnowayback,”HirvisaidtohisstaffattheNationalBoardofEducation.Basictothisnewculturehasbeenthecultivationoftrustbetweeneducationauthoritiesandschools.Suchtrust,aswehavewitnessed,makesreformthatisnotonlysustainablebutalsoownedbytheteacherswhoimplementit.

NORTHERNEXPOSURE

Atthebeginningofthe1990s,educationinFinlandwasnothingspecialininternationalterms.AllyoungFinnsattendedschoolregularly,theschoolnetworkwaswideanddense,secondaryeducationwasaccessibleforallFinns,andhighereducationwasanoptionforanincreasingnumberofuppersecondaryschoolgraduates.However,theperformanceofFinnishstudentsoninternationalassessmentswasclosetooverallaverages,exceptinreading,whereFinnishstudentsdidbetterthanmostoftheirpeersinothercountries.TheunexpectedandjarringrecessionofthattimeperiodbroughtFinlandtotheedgeofafinancialbreakdown.BoldandimmediatemeasureswerenecessarytofixnationalfiscalimbalancesandrevivetheforeigntradethatdisappearedwiththecollapseoftheSovietUnionin1990.Nokia,themainglobalindustrialbrandofFinland,becameacriticalengineinboostingFinlandfromthecountry’sbiggesteconomicdipsinceWorldWarII.AnotherFinnishbrand,peruskoulu,orthe9-yearcomprehensivebasicschool,wastheotherkeyplayerinthisturnaroundof

theFinnisheconomyandsociety.Interestingly,bothNokiaandtheFinnishpubliceducationalsystemhavetheiroriginsinthesametimeperiodinFinnishhistory:thegoldenyearsofbuildingtheFinnishnationalidentityinthemid-19thcentury,aswillbedescribedinChapter4ofthisbook.

TherearecountriesaroundtheworldwhereeducationleadersfindtheirowneducationalsystemsinasituationverysimilartothatofFinlandin1990.Theglobaleconomicdownturnishittingmanyschools,universities,andentireeducationsystemshard.TakeIreland,Greece,England,ortheUnitedStates—studentachievementisnotanywhereclosetowhatitshouldbeinknowledge-basedeconomieswhereproductivityandinnovationarenecessaryconditionsforcompetitiveness.Studentsseemtofindteachingofferedinschoolsanduniversitiesincreasinglyboringandirrelevanttotheirneedsinarapidlychangingworld.ThestoryofeducationalchangeinFinlandinthisbookbringshopetoallthoseworriedaboutwhetherimprovingtheireducationalsystemsisatallpossible.Italsoprovidesfoodforthoughttothosewholookforwaystoadjusteducationpoliciestotherealitiesofeconomicrecovery.ThelessonsfromFinlandshouldberefreshingbecausetheydepartfromtheideascommonlypresentedinbooksorjournalsoneducationaldevelopment.Moreover,theselessonsshowthatsystemicimprovementisindeedpossibleifonlypoliciesandstrategiesaredesignedinsmartandsustainableways.

Whiletheselessonsholdgreatpromise,theycallforpatience.Inthisageofimmediateresults,educationrequiresadifferentmindset.Reformingschoolsisacomplexandslowprocess.Torushthisprocessistoruinit.ThestoryofFinland’seducationaltransformationmakesthisclear.Stepsmustbegroundedinresearchandimplementedincollaborationbyacademics,policymakers,principals,andteachers.

ThisbookisabouthowsuchaprocessevolvedinFinlandsinceWorldWarII.ItisthefirstbookwrittenforinternationalreadersthattellsthestoryofhowFinlandcreatedasystempraisedasmuchforitsequityasforitshighquality.Manyoftheworld’sgreatnewspapersandbroadcastservices—theNewYorkTimes,WashingtonPost,TimesofLondon,LeMonde,ElPais,NationalPublicRadio,NBC,DeutscheWelle,andBBC—havecoveredthisFinnisheducationalmiracle.ThousandsofofficialdelegationshavevisitedFinnishauthorities,schools,andcommunitiestolearnaboutwhatdrivesexcellenceineducation.Thisstory,however,hastillnownotreceivedthebook-lengthtreatmentnecessaryforenumerating,linking,andexplainingthemanyplayers,institutions,andimpersonalforcesinvolved.

Myapproachinthisbookisbothpersonalandacademic.ItispersonalbecauseofmyintimaterelationshipwitheducationinFinland.Iwasbornin

northernFinlandandraisedinavillageprimaryschool,asbothofmyparentswereteachersatthatschool.Mostofmychildhoodmemoriesareinonewayoranotherlinkedtoschool.IhadtheprivilegeoflookingbeyondthesecretsoftheclassroomaftereverybodyelsewasgoneandIfoundthatworldrich.Itwasmyhomeandanenchantedone.ItisperhapsnosurprisethenthatIwentontobecomeateacher.MyfirstpositionwasatajuniorhighschoolinHelsinki.Itaughtmathematicsandphysicstherefor7years.LaterIspentenoughtimeineducationaladministrationandinuniversityteachereducationtounderstandthedifferencebetweeneducationinschoolandout.AsapolicyanalystfortheOrganisationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD),aneducationspecialistfortheWorldBank,andanexpertoftheEuropeanCommission,IgainedtheglobalperspectivenecessaryforadeeperappreciationofFinland’sdistinctplaceineducation.

AsarepresentativeofFinlandinthesedifferentcapacities,IhavealsobeenforcedtodevelopakeenerunderstandingofwhatdistinguishesFinnishmethodsbyansweringquestionsfromaudiencesandmediaaroundtheworld.Sincethebeginningof2000,Ihavegivenmorethan250keynoteaddressesand100interviewsabouttheFinnisheducationalsystemaroundtheworld.Myestimateisthatthismeanstalkingtosome50,000peopledirectlyandmanymorethroughpublishedstoriesandnews.Numerousconversationswithpeoplewhoareinterestedineducation,asIam,havegreatlyadvancedthewritingofthisbook.Thefollowingaresomeofthequestionsthathavebeenaskedoverandoveragain:“WhatisthesecretofFinnisheducationalsuccess?”“HowdoyougetthebestyoungpeopleintoteachinginFinland?”“Howmuchdoeslackofethnicdiversityhavetodowithgoodeducationalperformancethere?”“Howdoyouknowthatallschoolsaredoingwhattheyshouldwhenyoudon’tteststudentsorinspectteachers?”“HowdidFinlandsaveitseducationsystemduringtheeconomicdownturninthe1990s?”Forsuchquestionsandalsocriticalremarksrelatedtomythinking,Iamgrateful.Butforthem,IwouldneverhavebeenabletohonemyassessmentofFinnishdifferences.

ThisbookalsohasanacademicorientationbecauseitstemsfromresearchthatIhavebeenpartofoverthelast2decadesasanauthor,co-author,orcritic.Thisbookisthusnotatypicalmonographwrittenasaresultofaresearchprojectoranevent.Itisasynthesisofadecadeofpolicyanalysis,experienceasateacherandadministrator,anddialoguewiththousandsofeducatorsaroundtheworld.IhavebeenprivilegedtospendenoughtimeoutsideofFinlandandworkwithanumberofforeigngovernmentstobetterunderstandthetruenatureandpeculiarityofFinnisheducationandlifeinFinnishschools.

FINLANDASANEXAMPLE

Publiceducationsystemsareincrisisinmanypartsoftheworld.TheUnitedStates,England,Sweden,Norway,andFrance,justtomentionafewnations,areamongthosewherepubliceducationisincreasinglychallengedbecauseofendemicfailuretoprovideadequatelearningopportunitiestoallchildren.Toughsolutionsarenotuncommoninthesecountries:Tighteningcontroloverschools,strongeraccountabilityforstudentperformance,firingbadteachers,andclosingdowntroubledschoolsarepartoftherecipetofixfailingeducationsystems.Thisbookdoesnotsuggestthattoughercompetition,moredata,abolishingteacherunions,openingmorecharterschools,oremployingcorporate-worldmanagementmodelsineducationsystemswouldbringaboutaresolutiontothesecrises—quitetheopposite.Themainmessageofthisbookisthatthereisanotherwaytoimproveeducationsystems.Thisincludesimprovingtheteachingforce,limitingstudenttestingtoanecessaryminimum,placingresponsibilityandtrustbeforeaccountability,andhandingoverschool-anddistrict-levelleadershiptoeducationprofessionals.Thesearecommoneducationpolicythemesinsomeofthehighperformingcountries—Finlandamongthem—inthe2009InternationalProgrammeforStudentAssessment(PISA)oftheOECD(2010b,2010c).ThechaptersofthisbookofferfivereasonswhyFinlandisaninterestingandrelevantsourceofideasforothernationsthatarelookingforwaystoimprovetheireducationsystems.

One,Finlandhasauniqueeducationalsystembecauseithasprogressedfrommediocritytobeingamodelcontemporaryeducationalsystemand“strongperformer”overthepast3decades.Finlandisspecialalsobecauseithasbeenabletocreateaneducationalsystemwherestudentslearnwellandwhereequitableeducationhastranslatedintosmallvariationinstudentperformancebetweenschoolsindifferentpartsofcountryatthesametime.Thisinternationallyrarestatushasbeenachievedusingreasonablefinancialresourcesandlesseffortthanothernationshaveexpendedonreformefforts.

Two,becauseofthisprovensteadyprogress,Finlanddemonstratesthatthereisanotherwaytobuildawell-performingeducationalsystemusingsolutionsthatdifferfromthemarket-driveneducationpolicies.TheFinnishwayofchange,asdescribedbyAndyHargreavesandDennisShirleyinTheFourthWay,isoneoftrust,professionalism,andsharedresponsibility(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009).Indeed,Finlandisanexampleofanationthatlacksschoolinspection,standardizedcurriculum,high-stakesstudentassessments,test-basedaccountability,andarace-to-the-topmentalitywithregardtoeducationalchange.

Three,asaconsequenceofitssuccess,Finlandcanoffersomealternative

waystothinkaboutsolutionstoexistingchroniceducationalproblemsintheUnitedStates,Canada,andEngland(suchashighschooldrop-outrates,earlyteacherattritionandinadequatespecialeducation)andemergingneedstoreformeducationalsystemselsewhere(suchasengagingstudentsinlearning,attractingyoungtalentsintoteaching,andestablishingholisticpublicsectorpolicies).TheFinnishapproachtoreducingearlyschoolleavers,enhancingteacherprofessionalism,implementingintelligentaccountabilityandstudentassessmentinschools,andimprovinglearninginmathematics,science,andliteracycanofferinspirationtootherschoolsystemslookingforapathtosuccess.

Four,Finlandisalsoaninternationalhighperformerincommerce,technology,sustainabledevelopment,goodgovernance,andprosperityandthusraisesinterestingquestionsconcerninginterdependenciesbetweeneducationandothersectorsinsociety.Itappearsthatotherpublicpolicysectors,suchashealthandemployment,seemtoplayarolealsoinlong-termeducationaldevelopmentandchange.InFinland,thisholdstrueaswellregardingincomeparity,socialmobility,andtrustwithinFinnishsociety,asthechaptersthatfollowwillshow.ThisbookalsoexplainshowthereareinterestingparallelevolutionsbetweentheFinnishschoolingandtheiconicFinnishtelecommunicationgiantNokia.

Finally,weshouldlistentothestoryofFinlandbecauseitgiveshopetothosewhoarelosingtheirfaithinpubliceducationandwhetheritcanbechanged.Thisbookrevealsthatthetransformationofeducationalsystemsispossible,butthatittakestime,patience,anddetermination.TheFinnishstoryisparticularlyinterestingbecausesomeofthekeypoliciesandchangeswereintroducedduringtheworsteconomiccrisisthatFinlandhasexperiencedsinceWorldWarII.Itsuggeststhatacrisiscansparkthesurvivalspiritthatleadstobettersolutionstoacuteproblemsthana“normalsituation”would.Thisbookspeaksagainstthosewhobelievethatthebestwaytosolvechronicproblemsinmanyeducationsystemsistotakecontrolawayfromschoolboardsandgiveittothosewhomightrunthemmoreeffectively,bychartersorothermeansofprivatization.AlthoughtherearelimitstotheideasthatcanbetransferredfromFinlandtoothernations,certainbasiclessonsmayhavegeneralvalueforothereducationalsystems,suchasthepracticesofbuildingonteacherstrengths,securingrelaxedandfear-freelearningforstudents,andgraduallyenhancingtrustwithineducationalsystems.

Asthisbookillustrates,thereisnosinglereasonwhyanyeducationalsystemsucceedsorfails.Instead,thereisanetworkofinterrelatedfactors—educational,politicalandcultural—thatfunctiondifferentlyindifferentsituations.Iwould,however,liketocitethreeimportantelementsofFinnisheducationalpoliciessincetheearly1970sthatappeartotranscendculture.The

firstoneisaninspiringvisionofwhatgoodpubliceducationshouldbe:Finlandhasbeenparticularlycommittedtobuildingagoodpubliclyfinancedandlocallygovernedbasicschoolforeverychild.ThiscommoneducationalgoalbecamesodeeplyrootedinpoliticsandpublicservicesinFinlandthatitsurvivedopposingpoliticalgovernmentsandministriesunharmedandintact.Sincetheintroductionofperuskouluinearly1970s,therehavebeen20governmentsandnearly30differentministersofeducationinchargeofeducationalreformsinFinland.SostronghasthiscommitmenttohavingcommonbasicschoolforallbeenthatsomecallittheFinnishDream.Thishintstoothernationsintentoneducationaltransformationthatitisbettertohaveadreamofyourownthanrentonefromothers.

ThesecondaspectofeducationalchangethatdeservesattentionwhenreadingthisbookisthewayFinlandhastreatedadviceofferedexternallyvis-á-visitsowneducationalheritageineducationalreforms.MuchoftheinspirationinbuildingindependentFinlandsince1917hascomefromitsneighbors,especiallyfromSweden.Thewelfarestatemodel,healthcaresystem,andbasiceducationaregoodexamplesofborrowedideasfromourwesternneighbor.Later,Finnisheducationpolicieswerealsoinfluencedbyguidancefromsupranationalinstitutions,especiallytheOECD(whichFinlandjoinedin1969)andtheEuropeanUnion(whichFinlandjoinedin1995).Inthisbook,Ilaunchanargumentthat,despiteinternationalinfluenceandborrowingeducationalideasfromothers,Finlandhasintheendcreateditsownwaytobuildtheeducationalsystemthatexiststoday.IcallthistheFinnishWaybecauseitisdifferentfromtheglobaleducationalreformmovementthathasdominatededucationalpoliciesinmostpartsoftheworldduringthelast2decades.TheFinnishWayofchangepreservesthebestoftraditionsandpresentgoodpractices,andcombinesitwithinnovationsfoundfromothers.Cultivatingtrust,enhancingautonomy,andtoleratingdiversityarejustsomeoftheexamplesofthechangeideasthatarefoundinFinnishschoolstoday.Manypedagogicalideasandeducationalinnovationsareinitiallyimportedfromothercountries,oftenfromNorthAmericaortheUnitedKingdom.TheseincludecurriculummodelsfromEngland,California,andOntario;cooperativelearningfromtheUnitedStatesandIsrael;portfolioassessmentfromtheUnitedStates;teachingofscienceandmathematicsfromEngland,theUnitedStates,andAustralia;andpeer-assistedleadershipfromCanada,tomentionafew.Atthesametime,theFinnishDreamofeducationis“madeinFinland”andthereforealsoownedbyFinnsratherthanrented.

ThethirdaspectofchangeisasystematicdevelopmentofrespectfulandinterestingworkingconditionsforteachersandleadersinFinnishschools.This

bookraisesanimportantquestionthatisrepeatedinalmostanysituationwhenwhole-systemeducationalreformsarediscussed:Howdowegetthebestyoungpeopleintoteaching?ExperiencefromFinland,asillustratedinChapter3,suggeststhatitisnotenoughtoestablishworld-classteachereducationprogramsorpayteacherswell.Finlandhasbuiltworld-classteachereducationprograms.AndFinlandpaysitsteacherswell.ButthetrueFinnishdifferenceisthatteachersinFinlandmayexercisetheirprofessionalknowledgeandjudgmentbothwidelyandfreelyintheirschools.Theycontrolcurriculum,studentassessment,schoolimprovement,andcommunityinvolvement.Muchasteachersaroundtheworldentertheprofessionwithamissiontobuildcommunityandtransmitculture,Finnishteachers,incontrasttotheirpeersinsomanycountries,havethelatitudeandpowertofollowthrough.

LEARNINGFROMONEANOTHER

CanFinlandbeamodelforeducationalchangeinothercountries?ManyarefascinatedbythefactthatFinlandhasbeenabletotransformitseducationalsystemfromsomethingelitist,unknown,andinefficientintoaparagonofequityandefficiency(Schleicher,2006).Finlandisalsooneofthefewnationsamongthe34OECDcountriesthathavebeenabletoimproveeducationalperformanceasmeasuredbyinternationalindicatorsandstudentachievementtests.Furthermore,manyforeignvisitorshavebeenparticularlysurprisedtofindoutthatteachinghasbecomethenumberoneprofessionamongyoungFinns—abovemedicineandlaw—andthatprimaryteachereducationinFinnishuniversitiesisoneofthemostcompetitivechoicesofstudy.Alltheseaspectsoftheeducationalsystemareexploredfurtherinthisbook.

Thereare,however,thosewhodoubtthatFinlandhasmuchrelevancetoothereducationalsystemsbecauseofitsspecialcharacteristics.ThemostcommonlypresentedargumentisthatsinceFinlandissoexceptional,ithardlyprovidesanythingmeaningfultotheUnitedStates,England,Australia,France,orothermuchlargernations,orthatitis“toodifferenttoserveasmodelsforwhole-systemreformforNorthAmericaasawhole,”asMichaelFullanwrites(2010,p.xiv).TwopointsareoftenemphasizedwhentherelevanceofFinlandasamodelforeducationalchangeisconsidered.

First,FinlandisculturallyandethnicallyratherhomogeneousandthustoounliketheUnitedStates,forexample.Fairenough,butthesameholdstrueforJapan,Shanghai,orKorea.Theproportionofforeign-borncitizensinFinlandwas4.7%in2010andthenumberofnon-Finnishspeakingcitizensabout10%(StatisticsFinland,2011).ItisnoteworthythatFinlandisatrilingualcountry,

whereFinnish,Swedish,andSamiareallofficiallanguages.ThelargestlanguageandethnicminoritiesareRussian,Estonian,andSomali.ThediversificationofFinnishsocietysincethemid-1990shasbeenthefastestinEurope.WhenIbeganmyteachingcareerinHelsinkiinthemid-1980s,itwasraretohaveanybodyinmyclassroomthatlookedorsoundeddifferentthanothers.Thenumberofforeign-borncitizensinFinlandhasnearlytripledduringthefirstdecadeofthe21stcentury.Finlandisnotthathomogeneousanymore,but,ofcourse,itdoesn’tcomparetotheUnitedStatesorCanadaasamulticulturalnationasfarastheethnicdiversitiesareconcerned.

Second,Finlandisconsideredtobetoosmalltobeagoodmodelforsystem-widereformforNorthAmerica.Thisisamoretrickyargumenttodefend.Whenthesizefactorineducationalreformsisconsidered,itisnecessarytonotethatinmanyfederalnations,states,provinces,orregionsaretoalargeextentautonomousintermsofeducationalmanagementandrunningoftheirschools.ThisisthecaseintheUnitedStates,Canada,Australia,andGermany,forexample.PopulationinFinlandistoday5.5million.ItisaboutthepopulationofMinnesotaintheUnitedStatesorVictoriainAustralia,andjustslightlymorethanthesizeofAlbertainCanadaorNord-PasdeCalaisinFrance.Indeed,about30statesoftheUnitedStateshaveapopulationclosetoorlessthanFinland.TheseincludethestatesofMaryland,Colorado,Oregon,andConnecticut.ThestatesofWashington,Indiana,andMassachusettsarealsosmallishandclosetoFinlandinsize.InAustralia,onlyNewSouthWaleshasaslightlylargerpopulationthanFinland;allotherAustralianstatesaresmaller.InFrance,Île-de-FranceistheonlyregionthatsurpassesFinlandinsize.InCanada,onlyOntarioissignificantlylargerinpopulation(andlandarea)thanFinland;allotherprovincesaresimilarinsize.Ifthesejurisdictionshavefreedomtosettheirowneducationalpoliciesandconductreformsastheythinkbest,thenexperiencesfromaneducationalsystemofthesizeofFinlandshouldbeparticularlyinterestingandrelevanttothem.Franceistheonlycountrymentionedabovethatemployscentralizededucationalmanagement,andthereforetheFrencheducationpolicymakerscouldargueirrelevanceofsmallereducationsystemsasmodelsfortheirreforms.

Finally,therearethosewhodoubtthatinternationalcomparisonsarerelevantorreliableinwhattheyclaimtoshow.Onepointofviewisthatacademicachievementtests,suchastheProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA),TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy(TIMSS),andProgressinInternationalReadingLiteracyStudy(PIRLS)focusonareastoonarrowtocapturethewholespectrumofschooleducation,andthusignoresocialskills,moraldevelopment,creativity,ordigitalliteracyas

importantoutcomesofpubliceducationforall(SeeChapter2forreferencestothisargument).Thereisalsoagrowingconcernthatthesecomparisonsareinfluencingeducationalpoliciesandendorsingthecultureof“governingbynumbers”(Grek,2009).AnotherskepticalgroupsimplyarguesthatchosenmeasurementmethodologiesincurrentinternationaltestsfavorFinlandbecausetheymatchbetterwiththecultureofteachinginFinland;thisgroupincludesbothFinnishandforeignscientistsandexperts.2Recently,HarvardprofessorHowardGardnerwarnedhisaudienceinFinlandtotreatthesecurrentstudentassessmentstudieswithcaution,3contendingthatresultsinstudieslikethesealwaysdependonthesubject-areaknowledgetestedandtherespectivemethodologiesofthestudiesused.Inaddition,thesestudiesdonotmeasureinterpersonal,spatial,orcreativeskills,andtheseskillsetsareincreasinglyimportantinourcontemporaryworld.

AlthoughFinlandhaspersistentlyoutperformedothernations,itsachievementshavebeendownplayedinnumerousaccountsofrecommendedpolicy.InarecentreportbyMcKinseyandCompany(Mourshed,Chijioke&Barber,2010),forexample,Finlandisnotevenlistedasa“sustainedimprover”intermsofeducation.TheconsequenceisthatpolicymakersinmanycontextswillnotconsiderFinnishstrategiesastheydeveloptheirrepertoireofschoolimprovementpractices.Recentnationaleducationstrategiesandpolicyguidelines,suchasthe2010SchoolsWhitePaperinEngland(DepartmentforEducation,2010),LessonsfromPISAfortheUnitedStates(OECD,2010c),andtheWorldBankEducationStrategy2020(WorldBank,2011),oftenrefertocommonfeaturesofhigh-performingeducationsystemsasdesiredcriteriaforimprovement.Focusonteachereffectiveness,schoolautonomy,accountability,anddataareallcentralelementsofeducationsystemsinKorea,Singapore,Alberta,andFinland,butinverydifferentways.Asthisbookwillshowagainandagain,Finlandisuniqueintermsofhowtheseaspectsofeducationpolicyareemployed.TheFinnishexperienceshowsthatconsistentfocusonequityandcooperation—notchoiceandcompetition—canleadtoaneducationsystemwhereallchildrenlearnwell.Payingteachersbasedonstudents’testscoresorconvertingpublicschoolsintoprivateones(throughchartersorothermeans)areideasthathavenoplaceintheFinnishrepertoireforeducationalimprovement.

ThesizeofFinland’spopulationandrelativehomogeneityofitssocietyobviouslymakemanyaspectsofsettingeducationpoliciesandimplementingreformseasierthaninlarger,morediversejurisdictions.Butthesefactorsalonedon’texplainalltheprogressandachievementsineducationthataredescribedinthisbook,andtheyshouldnotstopusfromlearningfromoneanotheraswe

strivetoimproveeducationforallstudents.Finlandis,however,veryuniqueamongnationsintermsofitsvalues,culturaldeterminants,andsocialcohesionwithinsociety.Fairness,honesty,andsocialjusticearedeeplyrootedintheFinnishwayoflife.Peoplehaveastrongsenseofsharedresponsibility,notonlyfortheirownlives,butalsoforthoseofothers.Fosteringthewell-beingofchildrenstartsbeforetheyarebornandcontinuesuntiltheyreachadulthood.Daycareisarightofallchildrenbeforetheystartschoolatage7,andpublichealthserviceiseasilyaccessibletoallduringchildhood.EducationinFinlandiswidelyseenasapublicgoodandisthereforeprotectedasabasichumanrighttoallintheConstitution.Adagessuchas“smallisbeautiful,”“don’ttalkunlessyouhavesomethingtosay,”and“lessismore”aretypicaldescriptorsofgoodlifeandeverydaycultureinFinland.

InthisbookIdescribehowFinnshavebuiltafunctional,sustainable,andjustcountrywithanequitablepubliceducationsystembydoingthingsintheirownway.TheCountryBrandDelegationthatwaschairedbyex-CEOofNokia,JormaOllila,wrotein2010that“inFinland,peopledonotaspiretodoeverythingthesamewayastheothers,todressortolivelikeothers.Ratherthanthe‘donething,’Finnsdowhattheythinkistherationalthingtodo”(MinistryofForeignAffairs,2010,p.59).TheintenseindividualityofFinnsblendedwithlowhierarchyandtraditionalwillingnesstoworkwithothershasopenedpathwaystoendlesscreativepotential.Inspirationandvisiontocreateasocietywithaneducationsystemthatisgoodandaccessibletoallwasdrawnfromthispoolofcreativepotential.

Dataforthisbookarenotfromonlyonesource,nordoesthisbookclaimthateducationalexcellencecouldbejustifiedbyanyoneinternationalstudy.Evidenceisdrawnfromavailableinternationaldatabases,suchasPISAandTIMSS,globaleducationindicators,andversatileofficialstatisticsinFinland.

THEPLANOFTHISBOOK

Thisbookdrawsfromthefollowingtennotionsthatareexplainedindetailonthepagesofthisvolume:

1. Finlandhasaneducationsysteminwhichyoungpeoplelearnwellandperformancedifferencesamongschoolsaresmall—andallwithreasonablecostandhumaneffort.

2. Thishasnotalwaysbeenso.3. InFinland,teachingisaprestigiousprofession,andmanystudentsaspireto

beteachers.

4. Therefore,theFinnshaveprobablythemostcompetitiveteacher-educationsystemintheworld.

5. Asaconsequence,teachersinFinlandhaveagreatdealofprofessionalautonomyandaccesstopurposefulprofessionaldevelopmentthroughouttheircareers.

6. Thosewhoareluckyenoughtobecometeachersnormallyareteachersforlife.

7. Almosthalfofthe16-year-olds,whentheyleavecomprehensiveschool,havebeenengagedinsomesortofspecialeducation,personalizedhelp,orindividualguidance.

8. InFinland,teachersteachlessandstudentsspendlesstimestudyingbothinandoutofschoolthantheirpeersinothercountries.

9. Finnishschoolslackthestandardizedtesting,test-preparation,andprivatetutoringoftheUnitedStatesandmuchoftheworld.

10. AllofthefactorsthatarebehindtheFinnishsuccessseemtobetheoppositeofwhatistakingplaceintheUnitedStatesandmuchoftherestoftheworld,wherecompetition,test-basedaccountability,standardization,andprivatizationseemtodominate.

AfterthisIntroduction,thebookhasfivechapters.Chapter1explainsboththepoliticalandhistoricalrealitiesafterWorldWarIIandhowtheyshapedthemovetowardcommonbasicschoolforallbytheendofthe1960s.WhentellingthestoryofeducationalchangeinFinlandtoscoresofforeignvisitors,Ihavelearnedthatitisimportanttogobackfurtherintimethanthebirthofperuskouluin1970.Thischapterillustratestheprocessofreformingtheoldschoolsystem,whichdividedpupilsintotwotracksandreliedheavilyonprivatelygovernedandco-financedgrammarschools,intoacomprehensive,publiclymanagedandfundedsystem.Italsooutlinesthemainfeaturesofpost-compulsoryeducationthatemergedsoonafterimplementingtheperuskoulureforminlate1970s.ThemaincharacteristicsoftheiconicFinnishMatriculationExaminationasaschool-leavingtestforgeneraluppersecondaryeducationinFinlandaredescribedinthischapter.

Chapter2tacklesafundamentalquestion:WasFinlandalsoahigh-performerineducationinthepast?Theanswerprovidedinthischapterisasexpected:no.Itimmediatelyinvitesacorollary:WhatconstitutesagoodeducationalsystemandwhicheducationalreformshavemadesuchimpressiveprogresspossibleinFinland?ThecoreofthischapterisaninsightthattheFinnisheducationalsuccessininternationalcomparisonscan,atleasttosomeextent,beunderstoodbyparadoxes.Thiscanbecrystallizedbyasimple

principleineducationalreform:Lessismore.Chapter2providesevidence-basedexamplesofhowthisparadoxicalideaappearsintheFinnisheducationalsystemtoday.

Chapter3isaboutteachersandteachereducationinFinland.ItexaminesthecrucialrolethatteachersplayinFinlandanddescribesthemainfeaturesoftheteachingprofession,teachereducation,andteacherresponsibilitiesinFinland.ByrelyingontheFinnishexperience,thischaptersuggeststhatwhereashigh-qualityuniversity-basedteachereducationandcontinuousprofessionaldevelopmentarenecessaryconditionsforattractingthemosttalentedandcommittedyoungpeopleintoteaching,theyarenotsufficientalone.Teachershavetobeprovidedwithaprofessionalworkingenvironmentsothattheyfeeldignifiedandareabletofulfilltheirmoralpurposesinschools.ThischapteralsolooksatsomeofthefutureprospectsofteachingandteachereducationinFinland.

SinceFinland’samazingrecoveryfromagraveeconomicrecessionintheearly1990s—andmorerecentlyfromtheglobalfinancialcrisisof2008—manyhavespokenabouttheFinnishmodelofbuildinganinclusiveinformationsocietyandcompetitiveknowledgeeconomy(Castells&Himanen,2002;Routti&Ylä-Anttila,2006;Saari,2006).WhatissignificantintheprocessofeconomicrecoveryisthatatthesametimewhenFinnisheconomyandespeciallythepublicsectorhaveadjustedtotoughercompetitionandbetterproductivity,performanceoftheeducationsystemhasbeensteadilyimproving.Chapter4illustratessomeinterdependenciesbetweenFinnisheducationalpolicyandotherpublicsectorpoliciesthatareattheheartoftheeconomiccomeback.Furthermore,itsuggeststhatprogressintheeducationalsectorhashappenedintandemwithchangesingovernmentthathaveimprovedeconomiccompetitiveness,transparency,andwelfarepolicy.ForaconcreteexampleofthisinterplaybetweeneducationandbusinessdevelopmentinFinland,thischaptertracestheparallelevolutionofNokiaandFinnishschooling.

Finally,Chapter5asksaquestionthatis,surprisingly,notoftenaskedofFinnsbytheirvisitors:WhatisthefutureofFinnishschooling?Beinginthegloballimelighttakesitstoll.WhileFinnshavehostedthousandsofforeigneducationpilgrimssincelate2001,theyhavehadonlyalittletimeandenergytothinkaboutwhattheirowneducationsystemshouldlooklikeinthefuture.ThischaptersummarizesthemainelementsofsuccessfuleducationalchangebutconcludesthatbeingatthecenterhaspreventedFinnsfromthinkingaboutwhatkindofeducationisneededinthefuture.Itcloseswithadiscussionofthenecessitytochange,althoughthesystemispraisedforitsexcellenceandseemstobeworkingwell.

TofollowthelatestdevelopmentsinFinnisheducationandtohearnewsabouteventsrelatedtothisbook,besuretovisithttp://www.finnishlessons.com.

CHAPTER1

TheFinnishDream:EqualEducationalOpportunities

Godmendus!Thefactisthatwedon’tevenknowthefirstletterofthealphabet,andthatknowinghowtoreadisthefirstdutyofeveryChristiancitizen.Thepoweroflaw,ofchurchlaw,mayforceustoit.AndyouknowwhatkindofcontraptiontheStatehaswatching,eagertosnapusupinitsjawsifwedon’tobedientlylearntoread.Thestocksarewaitingforus,mybrothers,theblackstocks;theircrueljawsgapingwidelikethoseofablackbear.Theprovosthasthreateneduswiththosehellhispincers,andheisboundtocarryouthisthreatunlessheseesuseagerlystudyingeveryday.—AleksisKivi,SevenBrothers(1870/2005)

ThestoryofFinlandisastoryofsurvival.ItiseloquentlycapturedbyAleksisKiviinthefirstFinnishnovel,SevenBrothers,whichwasfirstpublishedin1870.Itisastoryoforphanbrotherswhorealizethatbecomingliterateisthekeytohappinessandagoodlife.Sincethosedays,readinghasbeenanintegralpartofFinnishculture.Educationhasservedasthemainstrategyforbuildingaliteratesocietyandanationthatistodayknownbytheworldforitsculturalandtechnologicalachievements.Therefore,SevenBrothersbelongstothelistofcoretextsinmostFinnishschoolstoday.

BeingarelativelysmallnationsituatedbetweenmuchlargerpowersoftheEastandtheWesthastaughtFinnstoacceptexistingrealitiesandtakechanceswithavailableopportunities.Diplomacy,cooperation,problem-solving,andseekingconsensushavethusbecomehallmarksofcontemporaryFinnishculture.Thesetraitsallplayanimportantpartalsoinbuildinganeducationalsystemthathasenjoyedglobalattentionduetoitsequitabledistributionofgoodteachingandlearningthroughoutthenation.

ThischapterdescribeshowFinlandhasprogressedfrombeingapoor,agrarian,andonlymodestlyeducatednationtoamodernknowledge-basedsocietywithahigh-performingeducationsystemandworld-classinnovationenvironment.ExpandingeducationaccordingtotheprinciplethatgoodeducationshouldbeaccessibletoallFinnishchildren,fromearlychildhoodeducationallthewaytothehighestacademicdegrees,hasbeenalong-termidealinFinnishsociety.ThischapterfirstprovidesahistoricandpoliticalcontextforrealizationofthisFinnishDream.Itthendescribestheevolutionoftheunifiedcomprehensivebasicschool,orperuskouluasitiscalledinFinnish,

andsomeprinciplesofuppersecondaryeducationthatareanimportantpartofFinnisheducationalsuccess.1PresentstructuresandpoliciesoftheFinnisheducationsystemarebrieflyoutlinedattheendofthechapter.

POST-WARFINLAND

Warposesamongthemostseriousofimaginablecrisesforanydemocraticnation.Exceptforashortperiodofcease-fire,FinlandwasatwarfromDecember1939tospring1945.Thecostofwarforthatyoung,independentdemocracywithapopulationoflessthan4millionwasenormous:90,000deadand60,000permanentlyinjured.Inaddition,25,000werewidowed,and50,000childrenwereorphaned.ApeacetreatywiththeSovietUnionwassignedinMoscowonSeptember19,1944,butmilitarycampaignstoremoveGermantroopsfromFinlandcontinueduntilApril1945.TheconditionsacceptedbytheFinnsweresevere.Finlandhadtohandover12%ofitsterritorytotheSovietsandtorelocate450,000people—11%ofFinland’stotalpopulation.TheFinnishconcessionstotheSovietswereestimatedtoreach7%ofitsGrossDomesticProduct(GDP).ApeninsulanearHelsinkihadtoberentedtotheSovietarmyasamilitarybase,politicalprisonershadtobereleased,andwartimeleaderswerejudgedinwartribunals.Severalpoliticalassociationswereprohibited,andthecommunistpartywasestablishedasalegalFinnishpoliticalentity.Theseconcessionsledtosuchfundamentalpolitical,cultural,andeconomicchangesinFinlandthatsomehaveidentifiedthepost-wareraastheemergenceofa“SecondRepublic.”2

Mostimportant,Finlandhadfoughtforitsfreedomandsurvived.ExternalthreatsexperiencedduringandafterWorldWarIIunitedFinns,whostillfeltthewoundsoftheprevious1918civilwar.Thepost-WorldWarIIerawasoneofpoliticalinstabilityandeconomictransformation,butitalsogaverisetonewsocialideasandsocialpolicies—inparticulartheideaofequaleducationalopportunities.ItisdifficulttounderstandwhyeducationhasbecomeoneofthetrademarksofFinlandwithoutexaminingthesepost-WorldWarIIpoliticalandsocialdevelopments.EvenamongFinnstherearethosewhoarguethatthesearchforkeysuccessfactorsintheFinnisheducationalsystemhastoextendmuchearlierthan1970,ayearoftenrecognizedasanhistoricalmilestoneinFinnisheducationforreasonsexplainedlaterinthischapter.

Historyisofteneasiertounderstandwhenitissegmentedintoperiodsorphasesofdevelopment,andtherecenthistoryofFinlandisnoexceptiontothisstrategy.AlthoughtherearemanywaystorecountFinland’shistorydepending

onthepurposesandperspectivesofitsauthors,inthiscaseitishelpfultoillustratecongruenciesbetweenthedevelopmentofFinland’seducationsystem,andthreestagesofeconomicdevelopmentfollowingWorldWarII:

enhancingequalopportunitiesforeducationbywayoftransitionfromanorthernagriculturalnationtoanindustrializedsociety(1945–1970)creatingapubliccomprehensiveschoolsystembywayofaNordicwelfaresocietywithagrowingservicesectorandincreasinglevelsoftechnologyandtechnologicalinnovation(1965–1990)improvingthequalityofbasiceducationandexpandinghighereducationinkeepingwithFinland’snewidentityasahigh-techknowledge-basedeconomy(1985–present)(Sahlberg,2010a).

The1950swerealreadyatimeofrapidchangestoFinland’seconomicstructure,butthe1960shavebeencharacterizedasphenomenalbyinternationalstandards(Routti&Ylä-Anttila,2006;Aho,Pitkänen,&Sahlberg,2006).Thedecadeofthe1960ssawFinnishsociety,inmoregeneralterms,relinquishmanyofitsoldvalues,andtraditionalFinnishinstitutionsbegantotransform.Publicservices—especiallybasiceducation—wereamongthemostvisiblesitesofchange.Whenthetimefordecisivechangearrived,itsspeedandthoroughnesstookmanyFinnsbysurprise.

TheendofWorldWarIIpromptedsuchradicalchangestoFinnishpolitical,social,andeconomicstructuresthatimmediatechangestoeducationandothersocialinstitutionswererequired.Indeed,educationsoonbecamethemainvehicleofsocialandeconomictransformationinthepost-warera.In1950,educationalopportunitiesinFinlandwereunequalinthesensethatonlythoselivingintownsorlargermunicipalitieshadaccesstogrammarormiddleschools.Mostyoungpeopleleftschoolafter6or7yearsofformalbasiceducation.Whereprivategrammarschoolswereavailable,pupilscouldapplytoenrollinthemafter4,5,or6yearsofstate-runbasicschool,butsuchopportunitieswerelimited.In1950,forexample,just27%of11-year-oldFinnsenrolledingrammarschoolsconsistingof5-yearmiddleschooland3-yearhigh-school.Analternativeeducationalpathafterthecompulsory7yearsofbasiceducationwas2or3yearsofstudyinoneoftheso-calledcivicschools,offeredbymostFinnishmunicipalities.Thisbasiceducationcouldbefollowedbyvocationaltrainingandtechnicaleducation,butonlyinlargermunicipalitiesandtownsthathousedtheseinstitutions.

In1950,therewere338grammarschoolsofferingfurthereducationalopportunitiesafterthe6-yearbasicschoolinFinland(Kiuasmaa,1982).The

Finnishstateoperated103oftheseschools,andmunicipalitiesran18.Theremaining217grammarschools,abouttwo-thirdsofthetotal,weregovernedbyprivatecitizensorassociations.Themajorburdenoftherapidexpansionofeducationfollowingbasicschoolingwasabsorbedbytheseprivateschools.Asignificantsocialinnovationin1950wasissuanceoflegislationthatguaranteedstatesubsidiestoprivateschools,andsimultaneouslyextendedthegovernment’scontrolovertheseschools.Thischangemadeitpossibletorespondtothepublic’sgrowinginterestineducationbyopeningnewprivateschools,astheirfinancialriskswerediminishedthroughstatefunding.

IntheearlyyearsafterFinland’sindependence,teachinginprimaryschoolswasformal,teacher-centered,andmorefocusedonmoralthanoncognitivedevelopment.AlthoughpedagogicalideasaimedatsocialgainsandmoreholisticinterpersonaldevelopmentwereknowninFinlandasearlyasthe1930s,schooleducationwasnotgreatlyinfluencedbythem(Koskenniemi,1944).ThreedominantthemesinFinnishnationaleducationpolicybetween1945and1970wouldcometochangethistraditionalmodel:

Thestructureoftheeducationsystemwouldprovideaccesstobetterandmoreeducationforall.Theformandcontentofcurriculawouldfocusondevelopmentofindividual,holisticpersonalitiesofchildren.Teachereducationwouldbemodernizedtorespondtoneedsarisingfromthesedevelopments.ThefuturedreamofFinlandwasbuiltonknowledgeandskills;thus,educationwasseenasafoundationforestablishingthefuture(Ahoetal.,2006).

Finland’seconomicstructurein1950,comparabletoSweden’seconomyin1910,wasintransition.Keyindustrieswereshiftingfromfarmingandsmallbusinesstoindustrialandtechnologicalproduction.Thenewpoliticalenvironmentinthepost-warerahadalsoactivatedworking-classfamilies,whoinsistedthattheirchildrenshouldhaveopportunitiestobenefitfromextendedpubliceducation.Consequently,amodelforcomprehensiveschoolsofferinguniversalaccessandaunifiedcurriculum,firstproposedinthe1920s,wasrevivedandenterededucationpolicydiscussionssoonaftertheendofWorldWarII.ItwasclearthattobecomearecognizedmemberofthecommunityofWesterndemocraciesandmarketeconomies,Finlandneededabetter-educatedpopulation.Thiswasavisionfortheentirenation.

TOWARDUNIVERSALBASICEDUCATION

Thefirst2decadesafterWorldWarIIwerepoliticallyturbulentinFinland.TheCommunistPartyreturnedtothemainstageofdailypoliticsinthefirstpost-warelectionsin1944,andidentifiededucationasoneofitsprimarystrategiesforbuildingaFinnishsocialistsociety.Inthe1948elections,threepoliticalpartiesreceivednearlyequalseatsintheFinnishnationalParliament:theSocialDemocraticParty(50seats),theAgrarianCentreParty(49seats),andtheCommunistParty(49seats).TherebuildingofFinlandbegan;politicalconsensuswasapreconditionforreforms,includingrenewingtheFinnisheducationalsystem.TheConservativePartyincreaseditspopularityinthe1950sandbecameafourthpoliticalforcetobereckonedwithinFinnishparliamentarynegotiations.ThepoliticaleducationcommitteesplayedparticularlyimportantrolesasthegroundworkforcomprehensivebasicschoolingforallFinnishstudentswaslaid,andthevisionfinallyrealizedin1970.

Threepoliticallyorientededucationcommitteesareparticularlyworthmentioning.First,inJune1945,thegovernmentestablishedthePrimarySchoolCurriculumCommittee.ThesecretaryofthatcommitteewasProfessorMattiKoskenniemi(1908–2001)whohad,afewyearsearlier,writtenaseminalbookonprimaryschooldidactics(Koskenniemi,1944).Throughhiscontributions,perspectivesoncurriculuminFinlandshiftedfromfocusingonsyllabi(theGermantermlehrplan)todescribingeducationalobjectives,processofeducation,andevaluation.ThesereformswerethefirsttomodernizeFinnishcurriculumbyinternationalstandards,andstillresonateincontemporarycurriculumthinking.

ThereareseveralreasonswhythiscommitteehasacentralplaceinthehistoryofFinnisheducation.First,themembersdevotedspecialattentiontoformulatingnewobjectivesforeducation,therebydeviatingfromGermantraditioninFinnisheducation.Thecommitteeputforththeideathatschoolshouldaimateducatingyoungpeopletorealizethemselvesasholisticindividuals,possessingintrinsicmotivationforfurthereducation.Thecontentofeducationthatwouldleadtothisgeneralaimwasgroupedintofivethematic,cross-curricularareas,whichlaterbecameamodelfortheComprehensiveSchoolCurriculumCommitteein1970.

Second,curriculumreformwasgroundedinempiricalstudiesconductedin300fieldschoolsinvolving1,000teachers.Inthisway,researchbecamepartofeducationpolicymaking.Third,andacorollaryoftheprevioustworeasons,thequalityofthecommittee’sworkwasregardedasexceptionallyhigh.TheFinal

Memorandumofthecommittee,publishedin1952,hasmeritinitssystematicformulationofeducationalobjectives,broadchild-centeredperspective,modernizedpresentationandrichnessofeducationalcontent,andemphasisontheprimacyofsocialcohesionasoneimportantgoalineducation.Significantmilestonesinthepost-warhistoryofFinlandwererealizedin1952:hostingtheSummerOlympicsinHelsinki,thecoronationofMissFinlandArmiKuuselaasthefirst-everMissUniverse,andcompletionofheavyreparationstotheSovietUnion.Itisappropriate,also,toappendtoFinland’s1952milestonesthenewinternationallycomparablecurriculumforFinland’sprimaryschoolsystemthatpavedthewaytoeducationalsuccesssomehalfacenturylater.

Asecondcommitteeofsignificance,theEducationSystemCommittee,launcheditsworkin1946toestablishregulationsforcompulsoryeducationandacommonframeworkofprinciplesfordetermininghowdifferentpartsoftheeducationsystemshouldbeinterlinked.ThecommitteeincludedrepresentativesofalloftheleadingpoliticalpartiesofthattimeandwaschairedbytheNationalBoardofEducation’sDirectorGeneralYrjöRuutu,allyoftheFinnishCommunistParty.Lessthan2yearsaftercommencingitswork,thiscommitteeproposedthatthefoundationoftheFinnisheducationalsystemshouldbean8-yearcompulsorybasicschoolthatwouldbecommontoallchildrenregardlessoftheirsocioeconomicsituation.Thecommitteeadvisedthatthisschoolsystemoughttoavoidtrackingto“academic”subjectsformoreablestudentsand“vocational”studiesforthosepreferringtolearnmanualskills,asexistedinthethen-currentparalleleducationsystem.

However,thecommitteeretainedthestandardthatonlythosestudentswhohadlearnedforeignlanguagesduringbasicschoolwouldbeallowedtoenteruppersecondaryschoolorgymnasium—whichrepresentedtheonlypathwaytohighereducation.Althoughtheideaofcomprehensiveschoolwasclearlyformulated,itwasnotacteduponduetobittercriticismbyuniversitiesandtheGrammarSchoolTeachers’Union.However,thecommittee’sproposalstimulatedfurtherdebatewithinFinnishsocietyaboutsocialjusticeandequaleducationalopportunities—tenetswhich,2decadeslater,wouldberealizedandentrenchedasfoundationsofFinnisheducationpolicy.

Developmentofdifferentsectorsofeducationcontinuedinthe1950s.ThebabyboomafterWorldWarIIledtorapidexpansioninthenumberofschools.Newlawsstipulatedthatcompulsoryeducationwastoconsistof6yearsofprimaryschooland2yearsofcivicschoolforthosewhodidn’tadvancefurthertogrammarschools.Thenewcurriculumlaunchedin1952begantochangeworkandlifeinschools.Vocationaleducationbecamepartoftheeducationsector.Finland’sdreamofcommonschoolingforallwasalive,but,inpractice,

parallel-schoolingstructuresremained.Consequently,athirdcommitteeofkeysignificance,theSchoolProgramCommittee,wasestablishedin1956tounifytheFinnisheducationsystemandbringcoherencetochangesinvarioussubsectorsofeducation.TheestablishmentofthiscommitteeundertheleadershipofReinoHenrikOittinen,DirectorGeneraloftheNationalBoardofEducationandaSocialDemocrat,wasonefurthersteptowardthebigdreamofFinnisheducation.

Theworkofthiscommitteewasbuiltonanunprecedentedanalysisofinternationaleducationpolicies.Particularlysignificantwasthecommittee’sobservationthatNordiccountriessharedmuchincommonregardingtheireducationpoliciesatthattime.Increasingequalityofeducationalopportunities—apriorityatthetimeinEnglandandtheUnitedStates—becameacentralthemeinthecommittee’sstrategicthinking.Theperiodof1956to1959,duringwhichthispoliticallybroad-basedcommitteeconductedalmost200meetings,wasparticularlyturbulent:Globaleconomicrecession,toughpoliticalconflictsbothdomesticallyandwiththeSovietUnion,andthelaunchoftheSputniksoonimpactededucationalreformsaroundtheworld.Nevertheless,thecommitteepersevered,anditsworkbecameacornerstoneinthehistoryofeducationalreformsinFinland.

TheSchoolProgramCommitteepublisheditsrecommendationsinthesummerof1959.ThecommitteesuggestedthatfuturecompulsoryeducationinFinlandshouldbebasedona9-yearmunicipalcomprehensiveschoolwiththefollowingstructure:

Thefirstfourgradeswouldbecommontoallpupils.Grades5and6wouldconstituteamiddleschoolwherepupilscouldchoosetofocusoneitherpracticalsubjectsorforeignlanguages.Grades7through9wouldhavethreestreams:vocationalandpracticalorientation,an“average”trackwithoneforeignlanguage,oranadvancedstreamwithtwoforeignlanguages.

Thecommitteewasunabletounifypoliticalwillaroundthisstructureofcomprehensiveschool;indeed,strongdisagreementaroseevenwithinthecommitteeaboutmainpolicyprinciples.Theproposedsystemwould,however,graduallymergeprivategrammarandpubliccivicschoolsintoanewmunicipalstructure,anddiminishtheroleofprivateschools.Overall,theworkofthiscommitteeinitiateddeepandsignificantdebateaboutcorevaluesineducationinFinnishsociety.Thekeyquestionwas:Isitpossible,inprinciple,thatallchildrencanbeeducatedandattainsimilarlearninggoals?Answerstothis

questioncreateddividedopinions,evenwithinfamilies.Primaryschoolteachersbelievedallstudentscouldlearnequallywell,universitiestypicallydoubtedtheproposition,andpoliticiansremaineddivided.Atthattime,givenitsneedtoadvancebothpoliticallyandeconomicallyontheworldstage,Finlandhadnochoicebuttoacceptthepropositionthatanyone—ifgivenadequateopportunitiesandsupport—couldlearnforeignlanguagesandadvancetohigherlevelsofeducationthanhadpreviouslybeenbelieved.Itwasmoredifficultformanypoliticiansatthattimetoacceptthattheeducationalarchitectureoftheday,whichmaintainedandactuallymoredeeplyentrenchedinequalityinFinnishsociety,wouldbeunableinthelongruntoensurethatFinlandwouldachieveitsgoalofbecomingaknowledgesociety.Figure1.1illustratesthecharacteristicsoftheparalleleducationalsystemuntiltheearly1970s,whichdividedpupilsattheageof11or12intooneoftwoseparatedstreams.Therewaspracticallynopossibilitytomovebetweenthesestreamsoncestudentshaddecidedwhichpathwaytofollow.

Theoriginal1959proposaloftheSchoolProgramCommitteewasfurtherelaboratedbytheNationalBoardofGeneralEducationintheearly1960s,andthenfinallytakentoParliamentonNovember22,1963.Theensuingdebatewasharsh.SomepredictedagloomyfutureforFinlandifthenewideasrelatedtocommonunifiedpublicschoolforallwereapproved:declininglevelofknowledge,wasteofexistingnationaltalent,andFinland,asanation,beingleftbehindintheinternationaleconomicrace.Inthefinalvote,theproposalfortheneweducationalsysteminFinlandwassupported,with123votinginfavorand68against.ThecelebrationofthebirthofthenewschoolinFinlandwasdisturbedbyanannouncementbythespeakeroftheParliament:PresidentJohnF.KennedyhadbeenassassinatedinDallas,Texasjustminutesprior.

Figure1.1.StructureoftheEducationSysteminFinlandbefore1970

ItwouldbeinappropriatetoclaimthatthebirthofthenewFinnish

comprehensiveschoolorperuskoulusystem,whichisfrequentlyidentifiedasastructuralfoundationforFinland’seducationalfametoday,wascreatedbypoliticiansandauthoritiesalone.Manyothers,includingbothschoolpractitionersandacademia,contributedtotheprocessofdefiningFinland’snewschoolsystem.ParticularlysignificantwastheroleplayedbysomeofFinland’scivilsocietyorganizations.ItisbeyondthescopeofthischaptertoconductdeeperanalysisoftheinfluencethatmanyofthesegroupsexertedonFinnisheducationalreform.However,agoodexampleofcivilsocietyinvolvementineducationpolicydevelopmentistheroleplayedbytheFinnishPrimarySchoolTeachers’Association(FPSTA).Asearlyas1946,FPSTAhadexpresseditssupportfortheideaofaunifiedbasicschoolsystem.Inthemid-1950s,theassociationpublisheditsowneducationdevelopmentprogramaccompaniedbyadetailed,well-arguedproposalforaunified,comprehensiveschoolsystem.Whatwasunusualaboutthisproposedprogramwasthat,unlikeappealsofunion-basedteacherassociations,itwasprogressiveandfuture-oriented.ItwaswidelysupportedbytheFPSTA,representingnearly90%ofallFinnishprimaryschoolteachers.TheFPSTA’sproposaltook5yearstocompleteandstimulatedanationaldiscussionthatwasclearlyfocusedontheneedtoenhanceequalityandsocialjusticeinFinnishsocietythroughamoreequitableeducationsystem.Perhapsmostimportantly,thepublicationoftheFPSTA’sprogramproposalwas

aclearsignthatschoolsandteacherswerereadyforradicalchange.In1955–1956,thenation’sgrammarschoolsenrolledapproximately34,000

pupils.Fiveyearslater,enrollmenthadswelledto215,000,andcontinuedtosoar,risingto270,000in1965and324,000in1970(Ahoetal.,2006).Finland’soldsystemcouldbarelyholdtogetherasparentsdemandedanimprovedandmorecomprehensivebasiceducationfortheirchildreninthehopeofsecuringbetterlivesforthem.Suchsocialpressureintroducedanewthemeintheeducationpolicydebate:theindividual’spotentialforgrowth.Researchersthenarguedthatanindividual’sabilitiesandintelligencealwaysrosetothelevelrequiredbysociety,andthateducationsystemsmerelyreflectedtheselimitsorneeds.

THENEWSCHOOLISBORN

Newlegislation(1966)andanationalcurriculum(1970)werepreparedinthesecondhalfofthe1960s.ThesocialpolicyclimateatthetimehadconsolidatedthevaluesofequalityandsocialjusticeacrossthesocialclassesofFinnishsociety.Theexpendituresincurredbytheidealofawelfarestatewereseen,asarguedbyaprominentFinnishpoliticalscientist,ProfessorPekkaKuusi,aninvestmentinincreasingproductivityratherthananecessarysocialcostofmaintaininganindustrialsociety(Kuusi,1961).Thenewcomprehensiveschoolsystemwaspoisedforimplementationin1972.Accordingtotheplan,awaveofreformwastobegininthenorthernregionsofFinland,andreachthesouthernurbanareasby1978.

Afundamentalbeliefrelatedtotheoldstructurewasthateveryonecannotlearneverything;inotherwords,thattalentinsocietyisnotevenlydistributedintermsofone’sabilitytobeeducated.InFinland,therewereechoesoftheColemanReport,favoringtheviewthatayoungperson’sbasicdispositionandcharacteristicsweredeterminedinthehome,andcouldnotbesubstantiallyinfluencedbyschooling(Colemanetal.,1966).Itwasimportantthatthenewperuskoulushedthesebeliefsandthushelptobuildamoresociallyjustsocietywithhighereducationlevelsforall.

Thecentralideaofperuskoulu,asshowninFigure1.2,wastomergeexistinggrammarschools,civicschools,andprimaryschoolsintoacomprehensive9-yearmunicipalschool.Thismeantthattheplacementofstudentsafter4yearsofprimaryeducationintogrammarandcivicstreamswouldcometoanend.Allstudents,regardlessoftheirdomicile,socioeconomicbackground,orinterestswouldenrollinthesame9-yearbasicschoolsgoverned

bylocaleducationauthorities.Thisimplementationwasrevolutionary,althoughasnotedpreviously,theideabehinditwasnotnew.Criticsofthenewsystemmaintainedthatitwasnotpossibletohavethesameeducationalexpectationsofchildrencomingfromverydifferentsocialandintellectualcircumstances.OpponentsarguedthattheentirefutureofFinlandasadevelopedindustrialnationwasatriskbecauseoveralleducationattainmentwouldhavetobeadjusteddownwardtoaccommodatelesstalentedstudents.

Figure1.2.StructureoftheEducationSysteminFinlandSince1970

Asplanned,thewaveofimplementationbeganinthenorthernpartsof

Finlandin1972.TheNationalCurriculumfortheComprehensiveSchoolsteeredthecontent,organization,andpaceofteachingthroughoutthecountry.Whilethestructureofthecomprehensiveschoolwassimilarforallstudents,theNationalCurriculumprovidedschoolswithtoolstodifferentiateinstructionfordifferentabilitygroupsandpersonalities.Foreignlanguagesandmathematicsteaching,forexample,werearrangedinawaythatofferedstudentsoptionsforthreelevelsofstudyingrades7through9:basic,middle,andadvanced.Thesyllabusofthe

basicstudyprogramcorrespondedtowhathadpreviouslybeenofferedincivicschools,andtheadvancedstudyprogramwasequivalenttothatofferedbytheoldgrammarschools.Thereasoningbehindthesedifferentiatedsyllabiwasthatiflearningforeignlanguageswasmadearequirementforall,therehadtobedifferentcoursesofstudyfordifferentkindsofstudents.Thelastofthesouthernmunicipalitiesshiftedtothenewcomprehensiveschoolsystemin1979.Abilitygroupingwaseventuallyabolishedinallschoolsubjectsin1985.Sincethen,allstudentshavestudiedaccordingtothesamecurriculaandsyllabi.

ComprehensiveschoolreformtriggeredthedevelopmentofthreeparticularaspectsintheFinnisheducationsystem,whichwouldlaterprovetobeinstrumentalincreatingawell-performingeducationsystem.First,bringingtogetherawidevarietyofstudentswithoftenverydifferentlifecircumstancesandaspirationstolearninthesameschoolsandclassesrequiredafundamentallynewapproachtoteachingandlearning.Theequalopportunityprincipleinsistedthatallstudentsbeofferedafairchancetobesuccessfulandenjoylearning.Fromearlyon,itwasunderstoodthattheeducationofpupilswithspecialneedswouldonlybesuccessfuliflearningdifficultiesandotherindividualdeficitswereidentifiedearlyenoughandpromptlytreated.Specialeducationquicklybecameanintegralpartofschoolcurricula,andallmunicipalitiesandschoolssoonhousedexpertstrainedtosupportspecialneedspupils.Specialeducationisdiscussedinmoredetailinthefollowingchapter.

Second,careerguidanceandcounselingbecameacompulsorypartofthecomprehensiveschoolcurriculainallschools.Itwasassumedatthetimethatifallpupilsremainedinthesameschooluntiltheendoftheircompulsoryeducation,theywouldneedsystematiccounselingontheiroptionsaftercompletingbasicschool.Careerguidancewasintendedtominimizethepossibilitiesthatstudentswouldmakeinappropriatechoicesregardingtheirfuture.Inprinciple,studentshadthreeoptions:continueeducationinuppersecondarygeneralschool,goontovocationalschool,orfindemployment.Bothtypesofuppersecondaryeducationofferedseveralinternaloptions.Careerguidanceandcounselingsoonbecameacornerstoneofbothlower-andupper-secondaryeducation,andhasbeenanimportantfactorinexplaininglowgraderepetitionanddropoutratesinFinland(Välijärvi&Sahlberg,2008).Careerguidancehasalsoservedasabridgebetweenformaleducationandtheworldofwork.Aspartoftheoverallcareerguidancecurriculum,eachstudentinperuskouluspends2weeksinaselectedworkplace.

Third,newperuskoulurequiredthatteacherswhowereworkinginverydifferentschools,namelytheacademicgrammarschoolsandwork-orientedcivicschools,hadtobegintoworkinthesameschoolwithstudentswithdiverse

abilities.AsProfessorJouniVälijärviexplains,comprehensiveschoolreformwasnotjustanorganizationalchangebutanewphilosophyofeducationforFinnishschools(Välijärvietal.,2007;Hautamäkietal.,2008).Thisphilosophyincludedthebeliefsthatallpupilscanlearniftheyaregivenproperopportunitiesandsupport,thatunderstandingofandlearningthroughhumandiversityisanimportanteducationalgoal,andthatschoolsshouldfunctionassmall-scaledemocracies,justasJohnDeweyhadinsisteddecadesbefore.Newperuskouluthereforerequiredthatteachersemployalternativeinstructionalmethods,designlearningenvironmentsthatenabledifferentiatedlearningfordifferentpupils,andperceiveteachingasahighprofession.Theseexpectationsledtowide-scaleteachereducationreformin1979:anewlawonteachereducation,emphasizingprofessionaldevelopmentandfocusingonresearch-basedteachereducation(discussedindetailinChapter3).

Anotherconcreteconsequenceoftheemergenceofperuskouluwasarapidexpansionofupper-secondaryeducation.Parentsexpectedtheirchildrentostudyfurther,andyoungFinnsthemselvesalsohopedtoreachhigherintheirself-development.Letusnowtakealookathowupper-secondaryeducationprovidedpathwaystoimprovinghumancapitalinFinland.

BOX1.1:WhatistheFinnishConsensus?

TheFinnishParliamentreachedadecision-in-principleforcomprehensiveschoolreforminNovember1963.Thedecisionwasnotunanimous;thebasisofthemajorityconsistedoftheAgrarianPartyandtheleftists.Thisdecision,perhapsthemostimportantsingleconsensusinthehistoryofFinnisheducation,wouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthesupportoftheAgrarianPartyandwidernationalconsensusforthecommongood.

TheAgrarianPartyhadforalongtimeresistedtheideaofacomprehensiveschoolsystem.TheyouthwingofthatpartyunderstoodthatrestructuringoftheFinnisheconomyandrelatedurbanizationrequiredthedevelopmentoftheold-fashionededucationsystemexistingatthattime.ItwasparticularlyimportanttosecureaccesstogoodeducationinruralpartsofFinlandthatweresufferingfromrapidmigrationtourbancentersandtoSweden.Theinterestingquestionis:WhydidtheAgrarianPartysupporteducationreformthatwasbasedontheideaofcommoncomprehensiveschoolforall?AnewgenerationofpoliticianswhowereneartothePrimarySchoolTeachersAssociation

becameconvincedthatallchildrencouldhavesimilarlearninggoalsandthattheycouldbetaughtinthesameschools.ThepresidentofFinlandandformerAgrarianPartymember,UrhoKekkonen,wasoneofthesupportersofthisreform.

ThedreamofacommonpublicschoolforallFinnishchildrenhadexistedsincethebirthoftheFinnishFolkSchoolinthe1860s.TheprocessthatledtothedecisionbytheParliamentin1963wasstrictlyapoliticalone.ItguaranteedthatthepoliticaleliteofFinlandwasstronglycommittedtothecomprehensiveschoolreform.Politicalsupportforthereformwasimportantbecauseitmadeitpossibletoproceedswiftlywithoutbeinghaltedbythenewgovernment.Thefoundationforasustainableeducationpolicywascreated.ThissameprincipleoftheFinnishconsensushascarriedthroughoutthedecadesuntiltoday.

Theimplementationofcomprehensiveschoolreformrequiredseveralotherpoliticalcompromises.ProfessorPauliKettunenhassaidthattheNordicwelfarestatewasconstructedusingthreepoliticalideals:thelegacyofliberatedpeasants,thespiritofcapitalism,andtheutopiaofsocialism.Equality,efficiency,andsolidarity,theessentialprinciplesofthesethreepoliticalideals,mergedintoaconsensusthatenrichedeachother.IthinkthatthisistherootofthesolidgroundonwhichFinnisheducationpolicyhasbeenestablished.

ErkkiAhoDirectorGeneral(1973–1991)

NationalBoardofGeneralEducation

EXPANDINGUPPER-SECONDARYEDUCATION

Thegeneralupper-secondaryschoolhadatraditionalschool-likeorganizationuntil1985whenthenewActonGeneralUpper-SecondaryEducationabolishedtheoldsystemandintroducedamodularcurriculumstructure.Twoannualsemesterswerereplacedbyfiveorsixperiodsper-schoolyear,basedonhowschoolsplannedtheirteaching.Thismeantthatteachingandstudyingwasreorganizedinto6-or7-weekperiodsduringwhichtheywouldcompletethecoursestheyhadchosen.Thischangeenabledschoolstorearrangeteachingschedules,and,inturn,affectedlocalcurriculumplanningbecauseschoolshadmoreflexibilitytoallocatelessonsintotheseperiodsdifferently(Välijärvi,2004).Thenextphaseofdevelopmentwastoreplaceagecohort–basedgrouping

ofstudentswithanonclassorganizationalsysteminthemid-1990s.Thisnewgeneralupper-secondaryschoolorganizationisnotbasedonfixedclassesorgrades(previouslycalled10th,11th,or12thgrades).Studentsthushavegreaterchoiceavailabletotheminplanningtheirstudiesintermsofboththecontentandthesequencingoftheircourses.Thenewcurriculumframeworkplacesastrongeremphasisonunderstandingstudents’cognitivedevelopmentandalsoinvitedschoolstomakethebestuseoftheirownandtheircommunity’sstrengths.Althoughstudentsnowhavemorefreedomtoplanandchoosetheirstudies,allstudentsarestillobligedtostudythebasicsofthe18compulsorysubjects.Studentshavetosuccessfullycompleteatleast75coursesof38lessonseach.Abouttwo-thirdsofthesearecompulsoryandtherestfreelychosenbystudentsfortheirgeneralupper-secondaryeducationdiploma.Normallystudentsexceedthisminimumlimitandstudymore,typicallybetween80and90courses.

Studentassessmentsandschoolevaluationsareadditionalimportantfactorsaffectingthenatureofteachingandlearningingeneralupper-secondaryschool.Teachersassesstheachievementofeachstudentattheendofeachperiod(of6or7weeks),whichmeansstudentsareassessedfiveorsixtimespersubjectperschoolyear.TheNationalMatriculationExaminationthatstudentstakeaftersuccessfullycompletingallrequiredcoursesisahigh-stakesexternalexamination,andthereforehasnotableeffectoncurriculumandinstruction.AfrequentlyexpressedcriticismbyteachersandschoolprincipalsinFinlandisthatthematriculationexaminationcauses“teachingtothetest”andthusnarrowscurriculumandincreasesstressamongstudentsandteachers.Asaformermathematicsandscienceteacher,Iconcur.

Vocationalupper-secondaryeducationalsounderwentsignificantadaptationstobettersuitneweconomicandpoliticalsituations.Structures,curricula,andmethodologyofvocationaleducationwererenewedtomeettheexpectationsofaknowledge-basedeconomyandproviderequiredlaborknowledgeandskills.OneofFinland’skeypolicytargetshasbeentoincreasetheattractivenessofvocationaleducationattheupper-secondarylevel(MinistryofEducation,2004).Currently,morethan40%ofnewupper-secondaryschoolstudentsstarttheirstudiesinvocationalschools.

Thestructureofvocationaleducationwassimplifiedandallinitialvocationalqualificationstodayconsistof120credits,equivalentto3yearsoffull-timestudy.Onequarterofthestudytimeisallocatedtogeneraloroptionalcourses.Thenumberofvocationalqualificationswasreducedfrommorethan600to52,andrelatedprogramsofstudyto113.Inprinciple,vocationalschoolstudentsareeligibletotakethematriculationexamination,althoughveryfewdo.Moreover,providersofupper-secondaryeducationarerequiredtopromote

transferability,ensuringthatstudentshaveaccesstogeneralupper-secondaryschoolsfromvocationalschools,andviceversa,iftheywishtoincludecoursesfromotherschoolsintotheirlearningplans.

Curriculumandstudyprogramsinvocationalschoolswererevisedtomatchthechangesmadeinupper-secondaryeducation,especiallythemodular-basedstructure,aswellastheneedsoflabormarketsinaknowledgesociety.Thenewcurriculumwasdesignedtobalancetheneedformoregeneralknowledgeandskillsandspecificprofessionalcompetencesrequiredineachvocationalqualification.Performanceassessmentsofachievedprofessionalknowledgeandskillsaredevelopedviacollaborationamongthreekeystakeholders:schools,employers,andemployees’representatives.

Methodsofinstructionandtraininghavebeengraduallychanginginvocationalsecondaryschools.Atleastonesixthofthetraininghastobearrangedason-the-joblearning,andthisisanintegralpartofthecurriculum.Alternativeworkshops,apprenticeshiptraining,andvirtuallearninghavebecomecommonplaceinupper-secondaryeducation.Aresult-basedcomponentofthefundingsystemforvocationalschoolsallocatesafactorof6%onthetopoftheschool’scorefundingforstaffdevelopment.Vocationalschoolsareincreasinglyinvestingthesefundstoupgradetheirteachers’pedagogicalknowledgeandskills.Twokeyfactorsappeartoinfluencetheefficacyofstudents’choicesatthecriticalpointoftransitiontoupper-secondaryeducation.First,whenenteringupper-secondaryeducation,Finnishstudentshavenoexperiencewithhigh-stakesstandardizedtestinginschool,unliketheirpeersinmanyothercountrieswheretestinghasbecomeanintegralelementofschoollife.Inacomparativestudyofteachers’experiencesunderdifferentaccountabilityregimes,weconcludedthat“thepressureofastructuredinstructionalmodelofteachingandexternalassessmentofpupils’achievementishavingdramaticconsequencesaccordingtosometeachers”(Berry&Sahlberg,2006).Consequencesofthehigh-stakestestingenvironmentincludeavoidanceofrisktaking,boredom,andfear.ThestudyalsosuggestedthatinFinland,mostlower-secondaryschoolteachersteachinordertohelptheirstudentstolearn,nottopasstests.ThePISAstudiesprovidefurtherevidenceforthisargument:Finnishstudentsexperiencelessanxietyinlearningmathematicscomparedtotheirpeersinothercountries(Kupari&Välijärvi,2005).

Asecondcontributingfactortothesuccessfultransitiontoupper-secondaryschoolingisthatstudentsarewellpreparedtomakedecisionsaboutpostcompulsoryeducation,becausecounselingandcareerguidancearewidelyavailableinbasicschool.Duringtheir3-yearlower-secondaryschool,allstudentsareentitledto2hoursaweekofeducationalguidanceandcounseling.

Thisreducestheriskthatstudentswillmakeill-informeddecisionsregardingtheirfurtherstudies.Italsohelpsstudentstoputmoreeffortintothoseareasoftheirstudiesmostimportanttotheiranticipatedrouteinupper-secondaryschool.

Finnishstudentstodayenterthetransitionpointbetweenlower-andupper-secondaryeducationwithamoreeffectivesetofknowledge,skills,andattitudesthaninthepast.Implementedreformstoupper-secondaryeducationinFinlandhavehadafundamentalimpactonschoolorganization,especiallywithrespecttoteachingandlearning.Traditionalschoolorganizationbasedonpresentation-recitationmodelsofinstruction,age-grouping,fixedteachingschedules,andthedominanceofclassroom-basedseatworkhasbeengraduallytransformedtoprovidemoreflexible,open,andinteraction-richlearningenvironments,whereanactiveroleforstudentscomesfirst.Ongoingschoolimprovementhasthereforebeenfacilitatedbytheimplementionofstructuralchangesinupper-secondaryschoolandbytheenrichmentofschoolsandclassroomswithalternativeinstructionalarrangementsandteachingmethods.

IMPROVINGEDUCATIONALATTAINMENT

Comprehensiveschoolreformhasgeneratedobviousconsequences.Asthenumberofgraduatesfromtheseschoolshasincreased,sotoohasthedemandforupper-secondaryeducation.Annually,about95%ofthosegraduatingfromperuskouluimmediatelycontinuetheirstudiesinoneofthetwotypesofupper-secondaryeducationsettingsorenrollinanadditional10thgrade.Somestudentswhodonotcontinuetheirformaleducationimmediatelyafterperuskouluenrollinnonformaleducationalprograms,andwillreturnlatertoadulteducationalprograms.Figure1.3illustratesthechoicesmadebyperuskoululeaversbetween2000and2009,giventheoptionsofparticipatingingeneralorvocationalupper-secondaryeducation,additional10thgrade,3orexitingformaleducation.Vocationaleducationhasbecomeatruealternativeformanystudentsbecauseofitsmoregenerallyorientedcurriculabutalsobecausetherearemoreopportunitiestocontinuestudiesinhighereducationafterreceivingaprofessionalqualificationfromvocationalschool.

AsshowninFigure1.3,in2009about94.5%ofthosewhocompletedcompulsorybasiceducationimmediatelycontinuedtheirstudiesattheupper-secondarylevelorundertookanadditional10thgradeofperuskoulu.In2009,thenumberofstudentsenrolledingeneralandvocationalupper-secondaryeducationstoodat50.6%and41.9%,respectively.Inabsolutenumbers,the2009–2010schoolyearmarkedthefirsttimewhenmoreyoungpeopleenrolled

invocationalupper-secondaryschoolsthaningeneralupper-secondaryschoolswhenallstudentswerecounted(gross-enrollmentrateincludesthosewhoenrollinvocationalschoolsaftertheageof16).In2009about5.5%,or3,500basic-schoolleavers,optednottocontinuestudyinginupper-secondaryeducationor10thgradeofperuskoulu.Someofthesestudentsenrollinotherpostcompulsoryeducationalprograms,suchasarts,crafts,ormanualtrades.Despitetheseoverallsuccesses,arelativelyhighnumberofyoutharedroppingoutofeducation,andthisisconsideredtobeoneofthemostsignificantproblemsfacedbytheFinnisheducationsystemtoday.

Thevoluntaryadditional10thgradeofperuskouluhasprovedausefuloptionforyoungFinnswhooptforthisrouteaftercomprehensiveschool,althoughtheenrollmenttrendisdeclining:In2003,outof1,800whostudied1additionalyearinbasicschool,83%enrolledingeneralorvocationalupper-secondaryeducation(35%and48%,respectively).Fewerthan2%ofpupilswhoenrollinthe10thgradedropoutduringtheschoolyear.Theacceptededucationpolicytargetofhavingonly2.5%basic-schoolleaversnotimmediatelycontinueeducationinupper-secondarylevelisambitiousandrequiressystematicmeasuresfromeducationauthoritiesaswellasfromschools.Accordingtocurrenteducationpolicies,thevoluntary10thgradeofbasicschoolwillbemadeavailableformorepupilswhomaybenefitfromit,studentguidanceandcareercounselingwillbemadeavailableforallstudents,andappropriatemethodsofteachingwillcontinuetobedevelopedinbothbasicandupper-secondaryschools.

Figure1.3.TransitionfromPeruskoulutoUpper-SecondaryEducationasaPercentageofAgeCohortsBetween2000and2009

Source:StatisticsFinland(n.d.a).

ItisnoteworthythatinFinlandalleducationafterthe9-yearperuskouluisnoncompulsory.Ratherthanmakingupper-secondaryeducationcompulsory,Finnisheducationpolicieshavereliedondevelopingequalopportunitiesforalltoparticipateinupper-secondaryeducationasamatterofindividualchoice,whileatthesametimecreatingincentivesforyoungpeopletostayonintheeducationsystemaftercompletionofcompulsoryeducation.Sincetheintroductionofthecomprehensiveschoolinthe1970s,theaimsofeducationpolicyhavebeentoprovideaplaceofstudyforallyoungpeopleinpostcompulsoryeducationalinstitutions.(Ahoetal.,2006).Mostofthegeneralandvocationalupper-secondaryschoolstodayareundermunicipal(andinsomecasesregional)administration,andmunicipalitiesthereforedetermineprovisionandaccessionpoliciesforpostcompulsoryeducation.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatlocalauthoritieshavecompletefreedom;curricula,teachers’professionalrequirements,andexpectationsregardingoverallpedagogicalenvironmentsarefairlyunifiedthroughoutthecountryandcreateacommoncultureofschoolinginFinland.

Duetothenoncompulsorynatureofupper-secondaryeducation,oneimportantindicatorofboththequalityandeffectivenessofpostcompulsory

educationisthecompletionrate.AspartofthenewlyintroducededucationefficiencysysteminFinland,stateauthoritieshave,since1999,collectedsystematicdataandanalyzedcompletionratesinupper-secondaryeducation.Ifanidealcompletiontimeofvocationalorgeneralupper-secondarystudiesissetat3.5years,thenaboutthreeoutoffourstudentssuccessfullycompletedtheirstudiesinthatdesiredtime.Table1.1showshowmanystudentsterminatedupper-secondaryandhighereducationinFinlandinacademicyear2007–2008.OverallgraduationratesinFinlandareinternationallyhigh.Only0.2%oftheagecohortwillnotcompletecompulsoryeducationsuccessfully.Upper-secondaryeducationgraduationrateinFinlandin2008was93%comparedto76%and77%inCanadaandtheUnitedStates,respectively.TheOECDaverageupper-secondaryeducationgraduationrateis80%(OECD,2010a).

Becausepersonalizedlearningplansinupper-secondaryschoolarenottiedtoagegroupsorclasses,somestudentswilltakemoretimetocompletetheirstudiesthanothers.Someotherswillleavetheeducationsystemwithoutaqualificationordiploma.Earlyschool-leavingratesthusprovideafurthermeasureofthequalityandefficiencyofsecondaryeducation.AccordingtonationalstatisticsinTable1.1,inrecentyearsabout2%perannumofgeneralupper-secondaryschoolstudentsterminatetheirstudieswithoutmovingintosomeotherformofupper-secondaryeducationortraining(CommitteeReport,2005).Approximatelythesamenumberofstudentsmovefromgeneraltovocationalsecondaryeducationandcompletetheirstudiesthere.Invocationalsecondaryeducation,thesituationisworse.Forexample,in2008almost10%ofvocationalschoolstudentsterminatedtheirinitialstudies,ofwhom1.5%continuedtheireducationinsomeotherschoolorinstitution.

Table1.1.TerminationofUpper-SecondaryandHigherEducationin

FinlandinAcademicYear2007–2008asaPercentageofTotalNumberofStudents

Source:MinistryofEducation(2009).

DropoutsfromformaleducationandtraininginFinlandareslowlydeclining,andinupper-secondaryeducation,dropoutratesaresubstantiallylowerthanthoseofmostothercountries(Välijärvi&Sahlberg,2008).Asfarasallupper-secondaryeducationisconcerned,about6%ofstudentsterminatedtheirstudiesduringtheacademicyear2008–2009withoutimmediatelycontinuingstudiesinsomeotherdegreeprogram.Theneedforpreventingeducationalfailureanddropoutsisgreatestinupper-secondaryandhighervocationaleducation.Keepingstudentsineducationhasbecomeaparticularincentiveforschoolsthrougharesults-basedcentral-governmentfundingscheme,whichwasintroducedinupper-secondaryvocationaleducationintheearly2000sandwillbeextendedtoallupper-secondaryeducationby2015.Whentheresults-basedfinancingindexforeducationandtrainingprovidersiscalculated,reduceddropoutratesandimprovedcompletionrateshaveapositiveeffectonoverallissuedbudget.Althoughthefinancingindexconcernsonlyasmallpartofoveralleducationbudgets,ithasbeenasufficientincentivetorapidlyfocustheattentionofschoolsandteachersonmeasurestoimprovetheearlyrecognitionandpreventionofproblemsthatmightleadtodropout,andonimproveddirectsupportsforstudents’learningandoverallwell-beinginschool.Moreover,becausethebasicfundingofschoolsistiedtothestudentnumbers,successinpreventingdropouthasapositiveimpactontheschoolbudget.Vocationalschoolsinparticularhavedevelopedinnovativesolutionsforthosestudentswhoselearningstylesworkbestwithamorepracticallyorientedcurriculum.Forexample,practice-orientedworkshopswherestudentscandesignandbuildconcreteformshavebecomeapopularwaytoincreasetheattractivenessandrelevanceofsecondaryeducationformanystudentswhoareatriskofleavingschool.

MatriculationExamination

Studentswhohavepassedtherequiredcoursesinupper-secondarygeneralschoolareeligibletotaketheNationalMatriculationExamination.ThetestisorganizedbytheMatriculationExaminationBoardandadministeredatthesametimeinallschoolsnationwide.Thereisnonationalexaminationforstudentsgraduatingfromupper-secondaryvocationalschools.Instead,vocationalschoolsassesstheformandcontentofcertificationexaminations.Studentswhosuccessfullycompleteeithertrackcanapplytoinstitutionsofhighereducation,namelypolytechnicsoruniversities.However,vocationalschoolgraduatesmakeupalessershareoftotalenrollmentinhighereducation.

TheMatriculationExaminationfirstdebutedin1852asanentrancetestfor

theUniversityofHelsinki.StudentshadtoshowsufficientevidenceofgeneralacademicknowledgeandbeproficientinLatin.Today,thepurposeoftheexaminationistodiscoverwhetherstudentshaveassimilatedtheknowledgeandskillsrequiredinthenationalcorecurriculum,aswellaswhethertheyhavereachedalevelofmaturityinlinewiththegoalsofupper-secondarygeneralschool.Studentstaketestsinatleastfoursubjects.Passingthematriculationexamination,whichisgivenonlyinupper-secondarygeneralschools,entitlescandidatestocontinuetheirstudiesathighereducationinstitutions.

TheMatriculationExaminationBoardisresponsibleforadministeringtheexamination,preparingthetests,andgradingtheanswersheets.TheMinistryofEducationnominatesthechairmanoftheboardanditsmembers(approximately40)afterconsultationandrecommendationsfromuniversitiesandtheNationalBoardofEducation.ThemembersrepresentthevarioussubjectscoveredontheMatriculationExamination.Approximately330associatemembersassisttheBoardinpreparingandmarkingthetests.Technicalarrangements,suchasprintinganddistributionoftheexaminations,aretakencareofbythesecretariat,whichhas22employees.ThetotalannualcostofthisexaminationinFinlandisabout10millionU.S.dollarsandisentirelycoveredbythefeesfromstudents—arareexpenditurenotcoveredbypublicsourcesintheFinnisheducationsystem.

HeldtwiceayearinspringandautumninallFinnishupper-secondarygeneralschools,theexaminationisahigh-stakeseventforstudents.Acandidatemustcompleteallselectedexamswithinthreeconsecutiveexaminations,thatis,within18months,buttheycanalsobecompletedinoneperiod.Theexaminationconsistsofatleastfoursubjectareas.AllcandidatesmusttaketheMotherTonguetest;theythenmaychoosethreeotherexamsfromthefollowingfourdomains:SecondDomesticLanguage(FinnishorSwedish),ForeignLanguages,Mathematics,andGeneralStudies(consistingofsocialandnaturalsciences).Thecandidatemayalsoincludeexamsinoneormoreoptionalsubjects.Allexamsarepaper-and-pencil,mostlyessaybasedandopenended,withanincreasingamountofreferencematerialsthatstudentsmustrefertowhenansweringthequestions.Thematriculationexaminationwillbecomputerbasedfrom2015forward.

Someexamshavetwodifferentattainmentlevels,andcandidatesmaychoosewhichtotake,regardlessoftheircourseofstudyinupper-secondaryschool.Mathematicsandforeignlanguagesofferadvancedandordinarycourse-levelexams;sodoestheseconddomesticlanguagesubjectarea.Thecandidatemustpassanexambasedontheadvancedcourseinatleastoneelectivesubject.Candidateswhohavepassedanexammaytrytoimprovetheirscoreonetime,

exceptforthegeneralstudiestest,whichcanbetakentwicemore.Studentswhohavepassedthematriculationexaminationcantrytoimprovetheirscoresonceortheycantakeextraexamsinsubjectsthatwerenotincludedpreviously.Acandidatereceivesacertificateaftersuccessfullypassingallthecompulsorytests.

Insteadofanationalexamination,vocationalstudentstakeaschool-levelassessmentoflearningoutcomesandskills.Theprinciplebehindtheassessmentistodevelopapositiveself-imageandpersonalgrowthinstudentswithdifferentkindsofcompetencies.Studentsaregaugedaccordingtotheirownself-assessments,aswellasthroughinterviewswiththeirteachers.Inaddition,theiron-the-jobtraininginstructorsparticipateinworkplaceassessments.Performanceisgradedfrom1(satisfactory)to3(excellent).Intheabsenceofanationalvocational-educationexamination,theNationalBoardofEducationissuesrecommendationstoensureequalityinschool-basedperformanceassessments.

Acurrenttopicofdebateinvocationaleducationishowtoensurethequalityofcertificationfromschooltoschool.Parliamentrecentlypassedanactonthisissue,andcertificationwillnowincludeboththeteachers’assessmentandademonstrationofskillstoprovethatastudenthasachievedthevocationalproficiencysetoutinthecurriculum.Theseskillsdemonstrationsaretotakeplace,whereverpossible,atworksites,mostlyinconjunctionwithperiodsofon-the-joblearning.Representativesofemployersandemployeesaretotakepartinassessment.Dependingontheprogram,studentscanexpecttoundergofrom4to10demonstrationsofproficiencyduringthecourseoftheirstudies.

AGENERATIONOFEDUCATIONALCHANGE

SincetheterrainofeducationalchangehasnotbeenexploredmuchinFinland,itissafetosuggesttheories-of-actionandconceptualmodelstoorganizethethinkingaboutwhathashappenedandwhy.Afterthecomprehensiveschoolreforminthe1970s,educationalchangeinFinlandcanbedescribedintermsofthreephases(Sahlberg,2009):

rethinkingthetheoreticalandmethodologicalfoundations(1980s)improvementthroughnetworkingandself-regulatedchange(1990s)enhancingefficiencyofstructuresandadministration(2000–present).

ThisprocessisillustratedinFigure1.4.Eachphaseconveysacertainpolicy

logicandtheoryofaction.Bytheearly1980s,thestructuralreformsthatledtocreatingperuskouluwerecompleted.Afterthat,attentionwasfocusedonconceptionofknowledgeandconceptionoflearningintheschoolpracticesembeddedintothephilosophyofperuskoulu.ThesecondphaseemergedfromtheliberalizationofFinnisheducationgovernance,aperiodcharacterizedbyself-directednetworkingofschoolsandcollaborationamongindividuals.Thethirdandongoingphasewasinitiatedbyaneedtoraiseproductivityinthepublicsector,andwasacceleratedbypublicationoftheinitialPISAresultsinDecember2001andlaterbythe2008economicdownturn.Thisphasefocusesonreformingthestructuresandadministrationofeducationandiscarefultoavoiddisturbingthesensitivebalanceofawell-performingeducationsysteminthepursuitofenhancedefficiency.Iwilldescribenexteachofthesethreephasesinmoredetail.

Phase1:RethinkingtheTheoreticalandMethodologicalFoundations(1980s)

Severalresearchanddevelopmentprojectslaunchedwithinthenewcomprehensiveschoolsysteminthelate1970sandearly1980sledtocriticismofthen-currentpedagogicalpractices,especiallyteacher-centeredmethodsofteachinginFinnishschools.Thenewschoolsystemwaslaunchedwithphilosophicalandeducationalassumptionsthatinsistedtheroleofpubliceducationmustbetoeducatecriticalandindependent-thinkingcitizens.Oneofthemainthemesofschooldevelopmentthenwastherealizationofamoredynamicconceptionofknowledge.Asaresult,renewedapproachestoteachingwouldleadtomeaningfullearningandunderstanding,teachersbelieved(Aho,1996).Asignificantdriverofthischangewasemerginginformationandcommunicationtechnologiesinschoolsatthattime.Somefeared,quitecorrectly,thattheexpansionofcomputersinclassroomswouldleadtoproblems,includingisolatedknowledge,unnecessaryinformation,andtechnologicaldeterminism.

Figure1.4.ThreePhasesofEducationalChangeinFinlandSincethe1980s

Technologicaldevelopmentcorrespondedwiththerevolutioninlearning

sciences.Thedominanceofcognitivepsychology,alongwiththeemergenceofconstructivisttheoriesoflearningandtheadvancesinneurosciencesonthehorizon,attractedFinnisheducationalresearcherstoanalyzeexistingconceptionsofknowledgeandlearninginschools.Severalinfluentialandteacher-friendlyreaderswerepublishedandsenttoschools.Theyincluded“ConceptionofKnowledge”(1989),“ConceptionofLearning”(1989),and“AboutPossibilitiesofSchoolChange”(1990).Questionslike“Whatisknowledge?,”“Howdopupilslearn?,”and“Howdoschoolschange?”werecommonthemesforteacherin-servicetrainingandschoolimprovementuntiltheendofthe1990s(Lehtinenetal.,1989;Miettinen,1990;Voutilainen,Mehtäläinen,&Niiniluoto,1989).

Fromaninternationalperspective,thisfirstphaseofeducationalchangeinFinlandwasexceptional.AtthesametimeasFinnishteacherswereexploringthetheoreticalfoundationsofknowledgeandlearningandredesigningtheirschoolcurriculatobecongruentwiththem,theirpeersinEngland,Germany,France,andtheUnitedStatesstruggledwithincreasedschoolinspection,controversialexternallyimposedlearningstandards,andcompetitionthatdisturbedsometeacherstothepointthattheydecidedtoleavetheirjobs(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009).InEnglandandtheUnitedStates,forexample,deeperanalysisofschoolknowledgeandimplicationsofnewresearchonlearningremainedmainlyissuesamongacademicsorreachedonlythemostadvancedteachersandleaders.PerhapsitisduetothesephilosophicalaspectsofeducationalchangethatFinlandremainedimmunetothewindsofmarket-driveneducationpolicychangesthataroseinmanyotherOECDcountriesinthe1990s.

AlthoughthenatureofeducationaldevelopmentinFinlandduringthisphasewasgenuinelyFinnishwork,itisimportanttogivecredittoknowledgeandideasthatwerebroughtfromabroad,especiallyfromtheUnitedStates,Canada,

andtheUnitedKingdom,aswellasotherNordiccountries.Particularlysignificantwastheroleofteachingandstudentassessmentmethods—especiallythosepublishedbytheAssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment(ASCD)—thatweredevelopedintheUnitedStatesandthenadoptedintoFinnishcultureandeducationalpractice.Twoexamplesdeservetobementionedhere.First,Finlandwasoneofthefirstcountriestolaunchalarge-scaleimplementationofcooperativelearninginselectFinnishuniversitiesandlaterinschools.ResearchanddevelopmentworkdoneattheUniversityofMinnesota(DavidandRogerJohnson),StanfordUniversity(ElizabethCohen),JohnsHopkinsUniversity(RobertSlavin),andTelAvivUniversity(ShlomoSharanandYaelSharan)hadanimportantroletoplayinthetransformationofteachingandlearninginschoolsaccordingtothephilosophicalprinciplesdescribedintheFinnishreadersmentionedabove.Second,inthelate1980s,theNationalBoardofGeneralEducationinFinlandlaunchedanationalinitiativetodiversifyteachingmethodsinscienceteaching.TheModelsofTeachingbyBruceJoyceandMarshaWeil(laterwithBeverlyShowers)wasthemainsourceofinspirationandideasforthiswork(Joyce&Weil,1986).BruceJoycevisitedFinlandinthelate1980sandhisworkhasleftapermanentimpressiononthehistoryofFinnishschoolimprovementthatstilllivestodayinhundredsofFinnishschoolsthroughexpandedteachingmethodsrepertoires.WorkbyDavidBerlinerineducationalpsychology,LindaDarling-Hammondinteachereducation,andAndyHargreavesandMichaelFullanineducationalchangehavebeencloselystudiedandimplementedindevelopingFinnisheducationsincethe1970s.ThesecretofthesuccessfulinfluenceoftheseeducationalideasfromtheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,andCanadaisthattherewasfruitfulgroundinFinnishschoolsforsuchpragmaticmodelsofchange.Interestingly,theFinnsthemselveshavedevelopedonlyalittlenovelpedagogicalpracticethatwouldhavehadmoreinternationalsignificance.

ThereissurprisinglylittlereliableresearchonhowthisfirstphaseofeducationalchangeactuallyaffectedteachingandlearninginFinnishschools.ReflectionbyoneofthekeyfiguresinFinlandofthattimeandtheauthorofsomeofthereadersmentionedearlier,ProfessorErnoLehtinen,wascautiouslyreservedabouttheimpact:

Discussiononconceptionsofknowledgeandlearninghasclearlyaffectedhowteacherstalkaboutlearningandteaching.Earlierdiscoursethatwascharacterizedbytraditionalvaluesofsocializationandteachingoffactsandautomatedidealsofmasteryhasbeenreplacedbyunderstanding,criticalthinking,problemsolving,andlearninghowto

learn.Expandingtheconceptionsofknowledgeandlearningwasalsoreflectedinimplementationofthenewcurriculuminthemid-1990satalllevelsofschooling,andalsointhenationalcurriculumreformsinthisnewdecade.(2004,p.54)

ThisphaseofeducationalchangeinFinlandhasbeencharacterizedasatimethatchallengedconventionalbeliefs,searchedforinnovation,andincreasedtrustinschoolsandtheirabilitiestofindthebestwaystoraisethequalityofstudentlearning.Deeperunderstandingofknowledgeandlearningstrengthenedschools’moralfoundations.ArecentevaluationofeducationinFinnishcomprehensiveschoolsconcludesthat“teacherspayconsciousattentiontodiversifyingteachingandlearningenvironments.Teachersthinkthattheuseofversatileteachingmethodsisimportantbothtoplanningandclassroomwork”(Atjonenetal.,2008,p.197).Thissuggeststhatschoolshavemadeprogressinteachingandlearning,atleastmodestly.

Phase2:ImprovementthroughNetworkingandSelf-Regulation(1990s)

TheNationalCurriculumReformof1994isoftenregardedasthemajoreducationalreforminFinland,alongwiththepreviousComprehensiveSchoolReformofthe1970s.Themainvehicleofchangewastheactiveroleofmunicipalitiesandschoolsincurriculumdesignandimplementationofrelatedchanges.Schoolswereencouragedtocollaboratewithotherschoolsandalsotonetworkwithparents,businesses,andnongovernmentalorganizations.Atthelevelofcentraladministration,thisnewcollaborativeandself-directedmovementculminatedintheAquariumProject,anationalschoolimprovementinitiativeenablingallFinnishschools,principals,andteacherstonetworkwitheachother.4TheaimoftheAquariumProjectwastotransformschoolsintoactivelearningcommunities.AccordingtoMarttiHellströmthisprojectwas“auniqueself-directedschoolimprovementnetworkthatwasopentoallactiveeducators”(Hellström,2004,p.179).Asaformofpractice,thiswaspreviouslyunheardofinFinnisheducationaladministration,andonlyrarelyfoundelsewhere.

TheAquariumProjectofferedschoolsanewcontextforimprovement—somethingthatcombinedtraditionalcommunityworkandmodernFacebook-typesocialnetworking.IthascloselinkstotheideasofAlbertaInitiativeforSchoolImprovement(AISI),auniquelong-termgovernment-fundedschoolandteacher-developmentprograminAlberta,Canada(Hargreavesetal.,2009).Researchhasshownthatschoolimprovementthroughnetworkingandself-

regulationhaspositivelyimpactedtheengagementlevelofschoolsindevelopmentinFinlandandAlberta.Particularlyimportanthasbeenthenotionthatthemajorityofschoolsinvolvedintheseinitiativesreportedthatduringatimeofeconomicdownturnanddecreasingresources,teachersbelievedthattheyhadsucceededinimprovingtheirschools.Despitedifferenteducationalgovernancesystems,theAquariumProjectandAISIhavestimulatedlocalinnovationsandresearchactivityamongprincipalsandteacherswhopursuedadvancededucationalstudiesinuniversities.Theyalsohavedemonstratedthatitistheschool,notthesystem,thatisthelocusofcontrolandcapacity—apointreinforcedbyHellström(2004)andMurgatroyd(2007).

Atthebeginningof1997,thereweremorethan1,000projectsin700schoolsand163municipalitiesparticipatingintheAquariumProject.Mybestestimateisthatthisincludedabout5,000teachersand500principalsdirectlyinvolvedinthisschoolimprovementinitiative.Theprojectwasinaccordwithnewideasofdecentralization,increasedschoolautonomy,andstrongerschoolidentityinthe1990s.Asastrategyforschoolimprovement,thisprojectstressedsharedresponsibilityinschools,personalization,andcollaborativeeffortstoenhancethequalityoflearning.Inthissense,theAquariumProjectincorporatedfeaturesconsistentwithneoliberaleducationpolicies,andoccasionally,thesecharacteristicswereseenassignalsofincreasedcompetitionamongschoolsintheeducationsector.Itistruethatschoolchoicecreatesacompetitiveenvironment,buttheschoolimprovementnetworktransformedboldcompetitionintomutualstrivingforbetterschools.ThestrongsocialaspectoftheAquariumProjectvaluedsharingideasandsolvingproblemstogether,thuspreventingschoolsfromviewingeachotherascompetitors.Inthisrespect,theprojectreliedonearliervaluesofequaleducationalopportunitiesandsocialresponsibility,ratherthancompetitionandadministrativeaccountability.PerhapsthispoliticaldualityservedastheAchilles’heeloftheAquariumProject.Theprojectwasterminatedbyapoliticaldecisioninearly1999atthedawnoftheeraofenhancedefficiencyofadministrationandstructuralreforms.

Phase3:EnhancingEfficiencyofStructuresandAdministration(2000—thepresent)

ThefirstPISAresultspublishedonDecember4,2001,tookeveryonebysurprise.Inallthreeacademicdomains—mathematics,science,andreadingliteracy—FinlandwasoneofthehighestperformingnationsoftheOECDcountries.EarlierstudentperformancegapswithJapan,Korea,andHongKongwereclosed.Finnsseemedtolearnalltheknowledgeandskillsthey

demonstratedonthesetestswithoutprivatetutoring,after-schoolclasses,orlargeamountsofhomework,unlikemanyoftheirpeersinothercountries(OECD,2010b;Sahlberg,2010a).Furthermore,therelativevariationofeducationalperformancebetweenschoolswasexceptionallysmallinFinland.

InitialreactionsafterthefirstPISAresultswithintheeducationcommunitywereconfusing.TheworldmediawantedtoknowthesecretofgoodFinnisheducation.Withinthefirst18monthsafterthefirstPISAresultswerepublished,severalhundredofficialforeigndelegationstouredaroundFinlandtolearnhowschoolsoperateandhowteachersteach.Questionsfromtheforeignvisitorsregardingthe“Finnishmiracle”ofPISAwereoftensuchthatFinnsthemselveswerenotpreparedtorespondwithreliableanswers.ThenextthreePISAcyclesin2003,2006,and2009advancedandconsolidatedFinland’sreputationevenfurther,thuselevatingtheinterestofworldmediainFinnisheducation.ThepowerofFinnisheducationisinitshighqualityandequitablestudentlearning,asshowninFigure1.5.Finland,Canada,andKoreaproducemoreconsistentlearningresultsregardlessofstudents’socioeconomicstatus.FranceandtheUnitedStateshavebothbelow-averageachievementscoresandawideperformancevariance.

WhatPISAsurveys,ingeneral,haverevealedisthateducationpoliciesthatarebasedontheidealofequaleducationalopportunitiesandthathavebroughtteacherstothecoreofeducationalchangehavepositivelyimpactedthequalityoflearningoutcomes.FurtheranalysisofPISAdataindicatethatfactorsrelatedtodomicileandgeographyplaysignificantrolesinexplainingvariationsofassessedstudentlearningandtheirfuturecareerpathsaswell(Välijärvi,2008).Apparently,thevariationsinstudentperformancecausedbygeographicandsocialfactorsareincreasing.ThereisincreasingskepticismamongteachersandresearchersinFinland,aswell,regardinglimitationsthatinternationalstudentassessmentsimposeontheirdefinitionofstudentperformance.

CombiningPISAresultswithotherglobaleducationindicatorsandnationalsurveysofpeople’ssatisfactionwithschools,itissafetoconcludethatFinland’seducationsystemisinverygoodconditionbyinternationalstandards.ThisisobviouslyachallengetoFinnisheducationpolicymakersandtotheschool-improvementcommunity—afterall,itisdifficulttorenewasystemthatisalreadyperformingwell.PerhapsthisexplainstheratherconservativemodeofdevelopingprimaryandsecondaryschoolsinFinlandrecently.Structuralreformshavefocusedonpost-secondaryeducationandtheefficiencyoftheentireeducationadministration.IntheFinnishschoolsystem,multiculturalism,specialeducation,andabolishingtheadministrativelinebetweenprimaryandlower-secondaryschoolsarethemainareasofdevelopmentsinceyear2000.

NationalCurriculumFrameworksforcomprehensiveandupper-secondarygeneraleducationwererevisedbutnosignificantchangeswereintroduced.Focusonenhancedefficiencyandproductivityhasledtoshrinkingschoolbudgetsinmanypartsofthecountryandtheneedtodomoreorthesameasbeforewithfewerresources.Manypractitioners,amongtheschoolleadersandteacherleaders,havebeenwaitingfornewdirectionsinschoolimprovementascompensationforthesenegativedevelopmentsinresourcing.SomeofthepossibletrendsforFinnishprimaryandsecondaryeducationinthisdecadewillbediscussedinChapter5.

Figure1.5.NationalAveragePISAScoreandPercentageofVarianceof

StudentReadingPerformanceasaFunctionofSocioeconomicStatusin2009inSelectedOECDCountries

Source:OECD(2010b).

THEFINNISHEDUCATIONSYSTEMIN2011

Oneofthekeymessagesofthisbookisthatunlikemanyothercontemporarysystemsofeducation,theFinnishsystemhasnotbeeninfectedbymarket-basedcompetitionandhigh-stakestestingpolicies.ThemainreasonisthattheeducationcommunityinFinlandhasremainedunconvincedthatcompetitionandchoicewithmorestandardizedtestingthanstudentsevidentlyrequirewouldbegoodforschools.Theultimatesuccessofahigh-stakestestingpolicyiswhetheritpositivelyaffectsstudentlearning,notwhetheritincreasesstudentscoresonaparticulartest(Amrein&Berliner,2002).Ifstudentlearningremainsunaffected,oriftestingleadstobiasedteaching,thevalidityofsuchhigh-stakestestsmustbequestioned.Finnisheducationauthoritiesandespeciallyteachershavenotbeenconvincedthatfrequentexternalcensus-basedtestingandstrongeraccountabilitywouldbebeneficialtostudentsandtheirlearning.

Educationpoliciesarenecessarilyintertwinedwithothersocialpolicies,andwiththeoverallpoliticalcultureofanation.ThekeysuccessfactorinFinland’sdevelopmentofawell-performingknowledgeeconomywithgoodgovernanceandarespectededucationsystemhasbeenitsabilitytoreachbroadconsensusonmostmajorissuesconcerningfuturedirectionsforFinlandasanation.TheconclusionisthatFinlandseemsparticularlysuccessfulinimplementingandmaintainingthepoliciesandpracticesthatconstitutesustainableleadershipandchange(Hargreaves&Fink,2006).EducationinFinlandisseenasapublicgoodandthereforehasastrongnation-buildingfunction.

EducationpoliciesdesignedtoraisestudentachievementinFinlandhaveputastrongaccentonteachingandlearningbyencouragingschoolstocraftoptimallearningenvironmentsandestablishinstructionalcontentthatwillbesthelpstudentstoreachthegeneralgoalsofschooling.ItwasassumedveryearlyinFinland’sreformprocessthatinstructionisthekeyelementthatmakesadifferenceinwhatstudentslearninschool,notstandards,assessment,oralternativeinstructionalprograms.Asthelevelofteacherprofessionalismgraduallyincreasedinschoolsduringthe1990s,theprevalenceofeffectiveteachingmethodsandpedagogicalclassroomandschooldesignsincreased.AnewflexibilitywithintheFinnisheducationsystemenabledschoolstolearnfromoneanotherandthusmakethebestpracticesuniversalbyadoptinginnovativeapproachestoorganizeschooling.Italsoencouragedteachersandschoolstocontinuetoexpandtheirrepertoiresofteachingmethods,andtoindividualizeteachinginordertomeettheneedsofallstudents.ThestructureandtheinternaldynamicsoftheeducationsysteminFinlandareillustratedinFigure1.6.

Figure1.6.TheEducationSysteminFinlandin2011

WhattheschemeshowninFigure1.6isnotabletorevealaretheprinciples

ofeducationandcarethataretypicaltoFinnishschoolstoday.Forexample,schoolsareencouragedtomaintainstrongsupportsystemsforteachingandlearning—nutritious,freeschoolmealsforallpupils,healthservices,psychologicalcounseling,andstudentguidancearenormalpracticesineveryschool.AnotherstrongelementoftheeducationsysteminFinlandisbuilt-innetworksofschoolsandcommunitiesofteachersinmunicipalitiesandschoolimprovementinitiatives.AndreasSchleicher,wholeadsthePISAteamattheOECD,concludedinhisanalysisofFinnisheducationthatbuildingnetworksamongschoolsthatstimulateandspreadinnovationhelpstoexplainFinland’ssuccessinmaking“strongschoolperformanceaconsistentandpredictableoutcomethroughouttheeducationsystem,withlessthan5%variationinstudentperformancebetweenschools”(Schleicher,2006,p.9).Thequestionis:HasFinlandalwayshadsuchawell-performingeducationsystem?Iftheanswerisno,thenitisworthaskingyetanotherquestion:WhatfactorshavecontributedtoFinland’seducationalimprovement?

CHAPTER2

TheFinnishParadox:LessIsMore

Ifeverybodythinksthesameway,nobodythinksverymuch.—Mygrandmother’sadvicetomeforsucceedinginlife.

TodayFinlandisregardedasoneoftheworld’smostliteratesocieties.Asanationofmodestpeople,Finlandneveractuallyintendedtobethebestintheworldineducation.Finnsliketocompete,butcollaborationisamoretypicalcharacteristicofthisnation.Intheearly1990swhenFinnisheducationwasknowninternationallyasaverage,theFinnishministerofeducationvisitedhercolleagueinneighboringSwedentohear,amongotherthings,thatbytheendofthatdecadetheSwedisheducationsystemwouldbethebestintheworld.TheFinnishministerrepliedthattheFinns’goalismuchmoremodestthanthat.“Forus,”shesaid,“it’senoughtobeaheadofSweden.”ThisepisodeisanexampleofclosesiblingrelationshipsandcoexistencebetweenFinlandandSweden.Infact,companionshipismorecommonthanrivalrybetweentheseneighboringNordicnationsthatsharemanyvaluesandprinciplesintheireducationsystemsandsocieties.

Thischapteranswerssuchquestionsas:HastheFinnisheducationsystemalwaysbeenatopperformer?Whatdowemeanbyagoodeducationsystem?andHowmuchdoeshomogenoussocietyexplaingoodeducationalperformance?ThischapteralsodescribeshowFinlandhasbeenabletoimproveparticipationineducation,creatingequaleducationalopportunitiesforall,andspreadagoodqualityofteachinginmostschoolsandclassroomswithmodestoverallcost.Ratherthanincreasingtimeforteachingandlearning,testingstudentsmorefrequently,andinsistingstudentsworkharderontheirhomework,Finlandhasdonetheopposite,asthischapterillustrates.ThekeylessonfromFinlandis:Therearealternativewaystobuildgoodpubliceducationsystemsthatdifferfromthosecommonlyofferedinworldeducationpolicyforums.

FROMPERIPHERYTOLIMELIGHT

Inthe1980stheFinnisheducationsystemhadonlyafewfeaturesthatattractedanyinterestamonginternationaleducators.ManyaspectsofeducationpolicywereadoptedfromFinland’swealthierwesternneighbor,Sweden.Ininternationalcomparisons,Finnisheducationwasexceptionalononlyone

account:TheFinnish10-year-oldswereamongthebestreadersintheworld(Allerup&Medjing,2003;Elley,1992).Otherthanthat,internationaleducationindicatorsleftFinlandintheshadowsoftraditionaleducationsuperpowers,suchasSweden,England,theUnitedStates,andGermany.WhatisnoteworthyisthatFinlandhasbeenabletoupgradehumancapitalbytransformingitseducationsystemfrommediocretooneofthebestinternationalperformersinarelativelyshortperiodoftime.Thissuccesshasbeenachievedthrougheducationpoliciesthatdifferfromthoseinmanyothernations.Indeed,someoftheeducationalreformpoliciesappeartobeparadoxesbecausetheydepartsoclearlyfromtheglobaleducationalreformthinking.

PriortothefirstcycleofthePISAin2000manycountriesthoughtthattheireducationsystemswereworldclassandthatstudentsintheirschoolswerebetterlearnersthanelsewhere.ThesecountriesincludeGermany,France,Norway,England,andnaturallytheSovietUnionandtheUnitedStates.Educationalindicatorssuchaseducationalattainment,spending,andcollegegraduationrates,aswellasacademiccompetitionssuchastheInternationalOlympiadsinmathematics,physics,andchemistry(andlaterinsubjectssuchascomputerscience,biology,andphilosophy)hadgiventhesenationsreasontocelebratetherespectiveperformancesoftheirschoolsystems.Inacademicscholarlycompetitions,highschool-agedstudentscompetetodemonstrateadvanced-levelknowledgeintheirfields.Naturallythoseeducationsystemsthathaveestablishedeffectiveselectionsystemstoidentifytalentsandspecialabilitiesearlyonandthenprovidegiftedstudentswithoptimallearningopportunitieshavesucceededwellinthesegames.Especiallypopulation-richnationswithlargenumbersofstudents,likeChina,theUnitedStates,andtheformerSovietUnion,haveacquiredreputationsashigh-performingeducationnationsonthebasisofAcademicOlympiads.Interestingly,severalCentralandEasternEuropeancountries,amongthemHungary,Romania,andBulgaria,arerankedhighintheoverallleaguetablesoftheseOlympiads.Table2.1illustratesthepositionofFinlandamongsomeselectednationsinMathematicsOlympiadssince1959whenFinlandparticipatedforthefirsttimeinthesegames.

SuccessintheseAcademicOlympiadswasoftenusedasaproxyforthequalityofnationaleducationalsystems.EvenifFinnishstudents’performanceinmathematicsisadjustedforpopulationsize,therelativepositionofFinlandhasfluctuatedbetween25thand35thintheoverallglobalranklist.Until2001—andinsomecirclesquitesometimeafterthat—acommonconceptioninFinlandwasthatthelevelofmathematicalandscientificknowledgeandskillsofFinnishstudentswasinternationallymodest,atbest.

AsFinlandattractsglobalattentionduetoitshigh-performingeducation

system,itisworthaskingwhethertherehasreallybeenanyprogressintheperformanceofitsstudentssincethe1970s.Ifsuchprogressinanytermscanbereliablyidentified,then,consequently,thequestionbecomes:Whatfactorsmightbebehindsuccessfuleducationreform?Wheneducationsystemsarecomparedinternationally,itisimportanttohaveabroaderperspectivethanjuststudentachievement.Whatissignificantfromthisanalysisisthesteadyprogressduringthepast3decadeswithinfourmaindomains:1.increasedlevelsofeducationalattainmentoftheadultpopulation,2.widespreadequityintermsoflearningoutcomesandperformanceofschools,3.agoodlevelofstudentlearningasmeasuredbyinternationalstudentassessments,and4.efficiencyandmoderateoverallspending,almostsolelyfrompublicsources.Letusnexttakealookateachofthesedomainsinmoredetail.

Table2.1.FinnishUpper-SecondarySchoolStudentsinMathematics

OlympiadsComparedwiththeirPeersinSelectedCountriessince1959

Source:InternationalMathematicalOlympiad(http://www.imo-official.org/).

LEVELOFEDUCATIONALATTAINMENT

Finlandremainedratherpoorlyeducateduntilthe1960s.Educationwasaccessibleonlytothosewhocouldafforditandhappenedtoliveclosetoagrammarschoolanduniversity.Whenperuskouluwaslaunchedintheearly1970s,forthree-quartersofadultFinns,basicschoolwastheonlycompleted

formofeducation.Holdinganacademicdegreewasrare,asonly7%hadsomekindofuniversitydegree.Overallprogresssince1970ineducationalattainmentbytheFinnishadultpopulation(15yearsandolder)isshowninFigure2.1(Sahlberg,2006b).Thecurrentsituationiscongruentwithatypicalprofileofthehumancapitalpyramidinadvancedknowledgeeconomies,havingabout30%highereducationalattainmentsandabout40%upper-secondary-educationdegreeholders.

Figure2.1indicatesthattherehasbeenasteadygrowthinparticipationinalllevelsofeducationinFinlandsince1970.Thegrowthhasbeenespeciallyrapidintheupper-secondary-educationsectorinthe1980sand,then,withinthehigherandadulteducationsectorsinthe1990sanduptothepresent.EducationpoliciesthathavedrivenFinnishreformsince1970haveprioritizedcreatingequalopportunities,raisingquality,andincreasingparticipationwithinalleducationallevelsacrossFinnishsociety.Asaresult,morethan99%oftheagecohortsuccessfullycompletecompulsoryperuskoulu,about95%continuetheireducationinupper-secondaryschoolsorinthe10thgradeofperuskoulu(3%)immediatelyaftergraduation,and93%ofthosestartingupper-secondaryschooleventuallyreceivetheirschool-leavingcertification,providingaccesstohighereducation(StatisticsFinland,n.d.a).

Morethan50%oftheFinnishadultpopulationparticipatesinadult-educationprograms.Whatissignificantinthisexpansionofparticipationineducationisthatithastakenplacewithoutshiftingtheburdenofcoststostudentsortotheirparents.Accordingtorecentglobaleducationindicators,only2.5%ofFinnishexpenditureoneducationalinstitutions(alllevelsofeducation)isfromprivatesourcescomparedwithanaverageof17.4%oftotaleducationalexpenditure(OECD,2010a).Forexample,intheUnitedStates33.9%andinCanada25.3%ofallexpenditureoneducationalinstitutionsisfromprivatesources.

Figure2.1.LevelofEducationalAttainmentAmongtheFinnishAdultPopulationSince1970

Source:StatisticsFinland(n.d.a).

Schoollifeexpectancy,whichpredictsthedurationofformaleducationofacitizenattheageof5,isoneofthehighestintheworldatover20yearsin2010.Thisismainlybecauseeducationispubliclyfinancedandhenceavailabletoall.Thetwotypesofhigher-educationinstitutionsofferaplaceofstudytoabouttwothirdsoftheagecohort.SincestudyinginFinnishuniversitiesandpolytechnicsisfree,highereducationisanequalopportunityforallthosewhohavesuccessfullycompletedupper-secondaryeducation.ThecurrentchallengeinFinnishhighereducationistoencouragestudentstocompletetheirstudiesfasterthanbeforeandtherebyenrollinlabormarketssooner.ThegovernmentofFinlandisintroducingnewconditionsforstudentloansandcarrotstothosewhograduateontime.

EQUITYOFOUTCOMES

EquityineducationisanimportantfeatureinNordicwelfarestates.Itmeansmorethanjustopeningaccesstoanequaleducationforall.Equityineducationisaprinciplethataimsatguaranteeinghighqualityeducationforallindifferentplacesandcircumstances.IntheFinnishcontextequityisabouthavingasociallyfairandinclusiveeducationsystemthatisbasedonequalityofeducationalopportunities.Asaresultofthecomprehensiveschoolreformofthe

1970s,educationopportunitiesforgoodqualitylearninghavespreadratherevenlyacrossFinland.Therewasavisibleachievementgapamongyoungadultsatthestartofcomprehensiveschoolintheearly1970sduetoverydifferenteducationalorientationsassociatedwiththeoldparallelsystem(seeFigure1.1).ThisknowledgegapstronglycorrespondedwiththesocioeconomicdividewithinFinnishsocietyatthattime.Althoughstudents’learningoutcomesbegantoevenoutbythemid-1980s,thestreamingofpupilsaccordingtoabilitygroupinginmathematicsandforeignlanguageskepttheachievementgaprelativelywide.

Afterabolishingstreamingincomprehensiveschoolinthemid-1980sandmakinglearningexpectationsthesameforallstudents,theachievementgapbetweenlowandhighachieversbegantodecrease.Thismeantthatallpupils,regardlessoftheirabilitiesorinterests,studiedmathematicsandforeignlanguagesinthesameclasses.Earlier,thesesubjectshadthreelevelsofcurriculathatpupilswereassignedtobasedontheirpriorperformanceinthesesubjects,butoftenalsobasedontheirparents’orpeers’influence.ClearevidenceofmoreequitablelearningoutcomescamefromtheOECD’sfirstPISAsurveyin2000.Inthatstudy,Finlandhadthesmallestperformancevariationsbetweenschoolsinreading,mathematics,andsciencescalesofallOECDnations.Asimilartrendcontinuedinthe2003PISAcycleandwasevenstrengthenedinthePISAsurveysof2006and2009(OECD,2001;2004;2007;2010b).Figure2.2showsperformancevariancewithinandbetweenschoolsintheOECDcountriesasassessedbythereadingscalein2009(OECD,2010b).

AccordingtoFigure2.2,Finlandhasabout7%between-schoolvarianceonthePISAreadingscalewhereastheaveragebetween-schoolvarianceinotherOECDcountriesisabout42%.StudentachievementvariationbetweendifferentschoolsinFinlandinPISA2009isatasimilarleveltothepreviousPISAcycles.ThefactthatalmostallFinnishinequalityiswithinschools,asshowninFigure2.2,meansthattheremainingdifferencesareprobablymostlyduetovariationinstudents’naturaltalent.Accordingly,variationbetweenschoolsmostlyrelatestosocialinequality.SincethisisasmallsourceofvariationinFinland,itindicatesthatschoolssuccessfullydealwithsocialinequality.Thissuggests,asProfessorNortonGrubbobservedinhisreviewofequityineducationinFinland,thatFinnisheducationalreformhassucceededinbuildinganequitableeducationsysteminarelativelyshorttime,amainobjectiveofFinland’seducationreformagendasetintheearly1970s(OECD,2005a;Grubb,2007).

AnessentialelementoftheFinnishcomprehensiveschoolissystematicattentiontothosestudentswhohavespecialeducationalneeds.SpecialeducationisanimportantpartofeducationandcareinFinland.Itrefersto

designededucationalandpsychologicalserviceswithintheeducationsectorforthosewithspecialneeds.Thebasicideaisthatwithearlyrecognitionoflearningdifficultiesandsocialandbehavioralproblems,appropriateprofessionalsupportcanbeprovidedtoindividualsasearlyaspossible.

Figure2.2.VarianceWithinandBetweenSchoolsinStudentReading

Performanceonthe2009PISAStudy

Source:OECD(2010b).

Theaimofspecialeducationistohelpandsupportstudentsbygivingthemequalopportunitiestocompleteschoolinaccordancewiththeirabilitiesandalongsidetheirpeers.TherearetwomainpathwaysinspecialeducationintheFinnishcomprehensiveschool.Thefirstpathseesthestudentincludedinaregularclassandprovidedwithpart-timespecialeducationinsmallgroups.Thesegroupsareledbyaspecialeducationteacherifthedifficultiesinlearningarenotserious.Thestudentmayalsohaveanindividuallearningplanthatadjuststhelearninggoalsaccordingtohisorherabilities.Studentswithspecialeducationalneedsmaycompletetheirstudiesfollowingageneraloranadjustedcurriculum.Studentassessmentisthenbasedontheindividuallearningplan.

Thesecondalternativeistoprovidepermanentspecialeducationinaspecialgrouporclassinthestudent’sownschoolor,insomecases,inaseparateinstitution.Transfertospecialeducationinthiscaserequiresanofficialdecision

thatisbasedonastatementbyapsychological,medical,orsocialwelfareprofessional,withamandatoryparentalhearing.InFinlandthetransferdecisiontospecialneedseducationismadebytheschoolboardofthepupil’smunicipalityofresidence,andcanbeprocessedratherquickly(withinafewmonthsinmostcases).Inordertopromotesuccessinlearning,eachstudentinspecialeducationhasapersonalizedlearningplanthatisbasedontheschoolcurriculumandadjustseducationalexpectationsindividually.

Inschoolyear2008–2009,almostonethirdofallstudentsinperuskouluwasenrolledinoneofthetwoalternativeformsofspecialeducationdescribedabove.Morethanonefifthofperuskoulustudentswereinpart-timespecialeducationthatfocusesoncuringminordysfunctionsinspeaking,reading,writing,orlearningdifficultiesinmathematicsorforeignlanguages.Respectively,8%ofstudentswerepermanentlytransferredtoaspecialeducationgroup,class,orinstitution.Thenumberofstudentsinpermanentspecialeducationhasdoubledinthelast10years;atthesametime,thenumberofspecialeducationinstitutionshasdeclinedsteadilysincetheearly1990s.Sincethosestudentswhoareinpart-timespecialeducationnormallyvaryfromoneyeartoanother,uptohalfofthosestudentswhocompletetheircompulsoryeducationatageof16havebeeninspecialeducationatsomepointintheirschooling.Inotherwords,itisnothingspecialanymoreforstudents.Thisfactsignificantlyreducesthenegativestigmathatisoftenbroughtonbyspecialeducation.Invocationalupper-secondaryeducation,approximately10%ofallstudentswereinspecialeducationduringtheschoolyear2008–2009.

Atthedawnofperuskoulureform,Finlandadoptedastrategyofearlyinterventionandpreventioninhelpingthoseindividualswhohavespecialeducationalneedsofsomekind.Thismeansthatpossiblelearninganddevelopmentdeficitsarediagnosedduringearlychildhooddevelopmentandcarebeforechildrenenterschool.Intheearlyyearsofprimaryschool,intensivespecialsupport,mostlyinreading,writing,andarithmetic,isofferedtoallchildrenwhohavemajororminorspecialneeds.ThereforetheproportionofstudentsinspecialeducationinFinlandintheearlygradesofprimaryschoolisrelativelyhigherthaninmostothercountries.AsFigure2.3shows,thenumberofspecialneedsstudentsinFinlanddeclinesbytheendofprimaryschoolandthenslightlyincreasesasstudentsmovetosubject-basedlower-secondaryschool.Thereasonfortheincreasedneedforspecialsupportinlower-secondaryschoolinFinlandisthattheunifiedcurriculumsetscertainexpectationsforallstudents,regardlessoftheirabilitiesorpriorlearning.Thecommonstrategyinternationallyistorepairproblemsinprimaryandlower-secondaryeducationastheyoccurratherthantrytopreventthemfromhappening(Itkonen&

Jahnukainen,2007).Countriesthatemploythestrategyofrepairhaveanincreasingrelativenumberofspecialneedsstudentsthroughoutprimaryandlower-secondaryeducation,asFigure2.3shows.

High-equityeducationinFinlandisnotaresultofeducationalfactorsalone.BasicstructuresoftheFinnishwelfarestateplayacrucialroleinprovidingallchildrenandtheirfamilieswithequitableconditionsforstartingasuccessfuleducationalpathattheageof7.Earlychildhoodcare,voluntaryfreepreschoolthatisattendedbysome98%oftheagecohort,comprehensivehealthservices,andpreventivemeasurestoidentifypossiblelearninganddevelopmentdifficultiesbeforechildrenstartschoolingareaccessibletoallinFinland.Finnishschoolalsoprovideallpupilswithfreeandhealthyluncheverydayregardlessoftheirhomesocioeconomicsituation.Childpovertyisataverylowlevel,lessthan4%ofthechildpopulationcomparedwithover20%intheUnitedStates.Inordertopreventearlychildhoodlearnersfrombeingrankedaccordingtotheireducationalperformanceinschools,grade-basedassessmentsarenotnormallyusedduringthefirst5yearsofperuskoulu.IthasbeenanimportantprincipleindevelopingelementaryeducationinFinlandthatstructuralelementsthatcausestudentfailureinschoolsshouldberemoved.Thatiswhygraderetentionandover-relianceonacademicperformancehavegraduallyvanishedinFinnishschools.

Figure2.3.EstimatedRelativeNumberofStudentsinPart-TimeorFull-

TimeSpecialEducationinFinlandandOtherCountriesduringPrimaryandLower-SecondaryEducation

Althoughthisbookfocusesfirstandforemostonprimaryandsecondary

educationinFinland,itisnoteworthythatFinnishhighereducationisoneofthemostequitableintheworld.TheToronto-basedHigherEducationStrategyAssociatescomparesequity-andequality-relatedissuesinhighereducationindifferentcountries.ItsGlobalHigherEducationRankings(Usher&Medow,

2010)istheseconditerationofacomparisonofhigher-educationaffordabilityandaccessibilityforresidentsin17countries.Thestudypresentsdataonsixdifferentindicatorsofaffordabilityandfourdifferentindictorsofaccessibility.Theoverallwinnerinbothaffordabilityandaccessibilityin2010wasFinland.Indeed,currentlymorethan60%ofupper-secondaryschoolgraduatesenrollinhighereducation.AllhighereducationinFinlandisfreeofchargeforallstudents,asofthiswritingin2011.

STUDENTLEARNING

Theultimatecriterionofthequalityofanationaleducationsystemishowwellstudentslearnwhattheyareexpectedtolearn.Internationalcomparisonsofeducationsystemsputastrongemphasisonscoresinstandardizedachievementtests.Althoughitisdifficulttocomparestudents’learningoutcomestodaywiththosein1980,someevidenceofprogressofstudentlearninginFinlandcanbeofferedusingIEA(InternationalEducationalAssessment)andPISAsurveysrecordedsincethe1970s(Kupari&Välijärvi,2005;Martinetal.,2000;Robitaille&Garden,1989).Sinceitisimpossibletoconcludewhethertherehasbeenprogressofstudentlearningingeneral,letuslookatsomeschoolsubjectsindividually.

Mathematicsisoftenusedasaproxyforgeneralacademiceducationalperformance.ThestudiesavailableincludetheSecondInternationalMathematicsStudy(SIMS)in1981(8thgrade,20nations),TrendsinMathematicsandScienceRepeatStudy(TIMSS-R)in1999(8thgrade,38nations)andthePISAsurveyin2000(15-year-olds,all30OECD-membercountries).ThesearetheinternationalstudentassessmentsurveysinwhichFinlandhasparticipatedsince1980.SincethenationsparticipatingineachinternationalsurveyarenotthesameandthemethodologiesofIEAandOECDsurveysaredifferent,theinternationalaverageasabenchmarkingvaluedoesnotalwaysprovideafullycomparableorcoherentpicture.

Table2.2showsFinland’sperformanceinmajorinternationalstudentassessmentstudiessincetheearly1960swhentheFirstInternationalMathematicsStudywaslaunched(Sahlberg,2009).Thesestudiesnormallycomparestudentachievementinreadingcomprehension,mathematics,andscienceatthreepointsofeducation:attheendofelementaryschool(age10),lower-secondaryschool(age14),andupper-secondaryschool(age17).Finnishstudents’performanceintheSecondInternationalMathematicsStudy(publishedin1981)was,inallareasofmathematics,attheinternationalaverage.The

nationalaverageperformanceofFinlandwasclearlybehindHungary,theNetherlandsandJapaninlower-andupper-secondaryeducation.In1999,theThirdInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudyrankedFinland10thinmathematicsand14thinscienceamong38participatingcountries.SincethefirstcycleofPISAin2000,Finlandhasbeenoneofthetop-performingnationsinmathematicsamongallOECDmemberstates.ProgresshasbeensimilaralsoinsciencesincetheSecondInternationalScienceStudyintheearly1980s.ItisnoteworthythatFinnishstudentshavealwaysperformedwellinternationallyinreading:Finnish4th-gradestudentswerethebestreadersintheReadingLiteracyStudyinthelate1980sand15-year-oldsachievedtoprankingsinallfourPISAcycles.

Table2.2.PerformanceofFinnishStudentsinInternationalStudent

AssessmentStudiesSincetheearly1960s

Whatmightexplainthisevidentimprovementinmathematicslearningin

Finnishschools?Thereissomeresearchonthisquestion,butithasproducedmorespeculationandqualitativeanalysisthanreliableanswers(Hautamäkietal.,2008;Linnakylä,2004;Ofsted,2010;Välijärvietal.,2007).Inthisanalysisthreepossibleexplanationsappear.First,mathematicsteachingisstronglyembeddedincurriculumdesignandteachereducationinFinnishprimaryschools.Forexample,intheUniversityofHelsinkieachyearabout15%ofstudentsinprimaryschoolteacher-educationprogramsspecializeinteachingmathematics.Thisallowsthemtoteachmathematicsinlower-secondaryschoolsaswell.Asaconsequence,mostprimaryschoolsinFinlandhaveprofessionalswhounderstandthenatureofteachingandlearning—aswellasassessing—mathematics.Second,bothteachereducationandmathematicscurriculuminFinlandhaveastrongfocusonproblemsolving,therebylinkingmathematicstotherealworldofstudents.MathematicstasksonPISAtestsarebasedonproblemsolvingandusingmathematicsinnewsituationsratherthanshowingmasteryofcurriculumandsyllabi.Third,theeducationofmathematicsteachersinFinlandisbasedonsubjectdidacticsandclosecollaborationbetweenthefacultyofmathematicsandthefacultyofeducation.Thisguaranteesthatnewlytrainedteacherswithmaster’sdegreeshaveasystemicknowledgeandunderstandingofhowmathematicsislearnedandtaught.Bothfacultieshaveasharedresponsibilityforteachereducationthatreinforcestheprofessionalcompetencesofmathematicsteachers.

PISAisincreasinglybeingadoptedasaglobalmeasuretobenchmarkthenations’studentachievementattheendofcompulsoryeducation.In2009,thefourthcycleofthisglobalsurveywasconductedinall34OECDmembernationsandin31othercountriesorjurisdictions.Itfocusedonyoungpeople’sabilitytousetheirknowledgeandskillstomeetreal-lifechallenges.“Thisorientation,”astheOECDsays,“reflectsachangeinthegoalsandobjectivesofcurriculathemselves,whichareincreasinglyconcernedwithwhatstudentscandowithwhattheylearnatschoolandnotmerelywithwhethertheyhavemasteredspecificcurricularcontent”(OECD,2007,p.16).

FinlandwasthetopoverallperformeramongtheOECDcountriesin2000and2003PISAstudiesandtheonlyonethatwasabletoimproveperformance.Inthe2006PISAsurvey,Finlandmaintaineditshighperformanceinallassessedareasofstudentachievement.Inscience,themainfocusofthePISA2006survey,Finnishstudentsoutperformedtheirpeersinall56countries,someofwhichareshowninFigure2.4(OECD,2007,p.16).Inthe2009PISAstudyFinlandwasagainthebestperformingOECDcountrywithhighoverall

educationalperformanceandequitablelearningoutcomeswithrelativelylowcost.Significantinthisnationallearningprofileisarelativelylargenumberofbestperformers(level6)andasmallproportionoflowachievers(level1andbelow).MorethanhalfofFinnishstudentsreachedlevel4orhigherincomparisontotheUnitedStates,whereapproximatelyonequarterofallstudentswasabletodothesame.TheCanadianprovincesAlberta,BritishColumbia,Ontario,andQuebecalsohavemorethan40%ofstudentsshowingatleastlevel4performance.

Figure2.5showsanotherdivergenceinFinnishstudents’learningperformancetrendasmeasuredinthePISAsciencescaleincomparisontosomeotherOECDcountriesovertime(OECD,2001,2004,2007,2010b).ItisnoteworthythatstudentachievementinFinlandalsoconsistentlydemonstratesprogressaccordingtothePISAdata,contrarytomanyeducationsuperpowers.Itisimportanttonotethatanyeffectsthatteachingmayhavehadontheresultsinagiveneducationsystemprimarilyreflectstheinfluenceofeducationpoliciesandreformsimplementedinthe1990s—notthemostrecenteducationreforms.

Againaquestionemerges:WhydoFinnishstudentsperformexceptionallywellinscience?SomefactorssuggestedbyFinnishscienceeducatorsincludethefollowing:First,primaryschoolteachereducationhasforthepast2decadesfocusedonredesigningscienceteachingandlearninginschoolssothatstudentswouldhaveopportunitiesforexperientialandhands-onscience.Atthesametime,moreandmorenewprimaryschoolteachershavestudiedscienceeducationduringtheirteachereducation—morethan10%ofgraduatesoftheUniversityofHelsinkihavestudiedsomescienceeducationintheirmasters’degreeprograms.Theseuniversitystudies,aspartofthenormalteachereducationprogram,havefocusedonbuildingpedagogicalcontentknowledgeandanunderstandingofscientificprocessinknowledgecreation.Thus,thesciencecurriculumincomprehensiveschoolhasbeentransformedfromtraditionalacademicknowledge-basedtoexperiment-andproblem-orientedcurriculum.Thischangehasbeenfollowedbymassivenationalprofessionaldevelopmentsupportforallprimaryschoolscienceteachers.Third,teachereducationinallFinnishuniversities,includingthefacultiesofscience,hasbeenadjustedtotheneedsofthenewschoolcurriculum.Today,scienceteachereducationiscoherentandconsistentwiththecurrentpedagogicalprinciplesofcontemporaryscienceteachingandlearningthathavebeeninspiredbyideasandinnovationfromtheUnitedStatesandEngland.

Therearefewinternationalstudentassessmentsthatfocusonsubjectsotherthanreading,mathematics,andscience.TheIEAInternationalCivicandCitizenshipEducationStudy(ICCS)isonesuchassessment,anditisthethird

IEAstudydesignedtomeasurecontextsandoutcomesofcivicandcitizenshipeducation(Schulz,Ainley,Fraillon,Kerr,&Losito,2010).TheICCSof2009thatbuiltonIEA’sCivicEducationStudy1999studiedthewaysinwhichyoungpeopleinlower-secondaryschools(typicallygrade8)arepreparedtoundertaketheirrolesascitizensin38countriesinEurope,LatinAmerica,andtheAsian-Pacificregion.Acentralaspectofthestudywastheassessmentofstudentknowledgeaboutawiderangeofcivic-andcitizenship-relatedissues.Inthisstudycivicknowledgereferstotheapplicationofthecivicandcitizenshipcognitiveprocessestothecivicandcitizenshipcontent.Civicknowledgeisabroadtermthatisinclusiveofknowing,understanding,andreasoning.Itisakeyoutcomeofcivicandcitizenshipeducationprogramsandisessentialtoeffectivecivicparticipation.

Figure2.4.PercentageofStudentsatEachProficiencyLevelonthePISA

2006ScienceScaleinSelectedOECDCountriesandSomeCanadianProvinces(*)

Source:OECD(2007).

Figure2.5.PerformanceofStudentsinScienceonPISASurveysbetween2000and2009inSelectedOECDCountries

Source:OECD(2001,2004,2007,2010b).

Inthe2009ICCS,Finnish8th-gradestudentsscoredthehighestaveragescoreincivicknowledge,alongsidetheirDanishpeers(seeFigure2.6).SimilarlytoPISAandTIMSS,Finlandhasthesmallestbetween-schoolvariationofstudentperformanceintheISSC2009study.TheICCS2009showsthatthereisastrongrelationshipbetweentheHumanDevelopmentIndex(HDI)andcivicknowledgeatthecountrylevel.ThevariationinHDIexplains54%ofthebetween-countryvariationincivicknowledge.Thisshowsthatnationalaveragesofcivicknowledgearerelatedtofactorsreflectingthegeneraldevelopmentandwell-beingofacountry.Thisfindingissimilartothosefromotherinternationalstudiesofeducationaloutcomes,butitdoesnotnecessarilyindicateacausalrelationshipbetweencivicknowledgeandtheoveralldevelopmentofanation.Paradoxically,thisstudyalsofoundthatFinnishyouthfeeltheleastengagedinpoliticsandcivicissuesintheireverydaylives.

Figure2.6.CivicKnowledgeScoresof8th-GradeStudentsintheOECDCountriesThatParticipatedinthe2009InternationalCivicandCitizenshipEducationStudy(ICCS)

Source:Schulzetal.(2010).

AllfourPISAsurveycyclessince2000indicatethatFinnisheducationalperformanceisconsistentoverallassessededucationaldomains,andthatFinnishstudentsonaveragescorehighineverysurveyacrossallmeasuredsubjects(reading,mathematics,andscience).ThequalityofFinnishpubliceducationasmeasuredbyinternationalstudentassessmentstudieshasbeensteadilyimprovingsincetheearly1970s.PISA2009wasthesecondcyclethatfocusedonreadingliteracyafter2000.Itthereforeprovidesauniqueopportunitytolookatthetrendinhowwellstudentsunderstandandcanusewhattheyread.Althoughthenationalaverageofstudentperformancein2009slightlydeclinedfrom2000,asFigure2.7shows,Finnishstudents’readingliteracyremainsataninternationallyhighlevel.WhatisalarminginthePISA2009,however,isrelatedtofindingthatFinnishyoungpeoplereadlessforpleasurethantheydid10yearsago.Halfof15-year-oldFinnishboysreportedthattheydon’treadforpleasure.ThisisclearlyvisiblealsoinnationalstudiesofreadingcomprehensionandhabitsinFinland.

AccordingtotheOECD,“Finlandisoneoftheworld’sleadersinthe

academicperformanceofitssecondaryschoolstudents,apositionithasheldforthepastdecade.Thistopperformanceisalsoremarkablyconsistentacrossschools.Finnishschoolsseemtoserveallstudentswell,regardlessoffamilybackground,socioeconomicstatusorability”(OECD,2010c,p.117).ThestrengthoftheeducationalperformanceofFinlandisitsconsistentlyhighlevelofstudentlearning,equitablydistributedacrossschoolsthroughoutthecountry.

Sinceitsinaugurationin2000,PISAhashadahugeimpactonglobaleducationreformsaswellasnationaleducationpoliciesintheparticipatingcountries.IthasbecomeasignificantpretextforeducationaldevelopmentinAsia,Europe,andNorthAmerica,andisgaininginterestintherestoftheworld.Large-scaleeducationreformshavebeeninitiated(intheUnitedStates,England,NewZealand,Germany,Korea,Japan,andPoland),newnationalinstitutionsandagencieshavebeencreated,andthousandsofdelegationshavevisitedwell-performingeducationjurisdictions,includingFinland,Alberta,Ontario,Singapore,andKorea,todiscoverthe“secrets”ofgoodeducation.Inmostofthemorethan65participatingeducationsystems,PISAisasignificantsourceofeducationpolicydevelopmentandthereasonformanylarge-scaleeducationreforms.

PerhapsitissurprisingtomanythatFinnisheducatorsarenotasexcitedbyPISAresultsasmanyforeignerswouldexpect.ManyteachersandschoolprincipalsthinkthatPISAmeasuresonlyanarrowbandofthespectrumofschoollearning.TherearealsoFinnswhoseethatPISAispromotingthetransmissionofeducationalpoliciesandpracticesthatarenottransferrable.Thiswill,theymaintain,leadtoasimplisticviewofeducationalimprovement.Justlikeinsports,toostronganemphasisoninternationalcomparisons(orcompetitions)mayleadtounethicalmeansoftemporarilyboostingperformancejusttogetabetterpositionintheresultstables.Agoodeducationsystemandhigheducationalperformanceismuchmorethanmeasuredacademicscores.SometeachersinFinlandareafraidthatthecurrentmovement,whichjudgesqualityofeducationsystemsbyusingacademicunitsofmeasurementonly,willeventuallyleadtonarrowingcurriculumandteachingattheexpenseofsocialstudies,arts,sports,music,andwhole-persondevelopment.

Figure2.7.PerformanceofFinnishStudentsinReading,Math,andScienceonPISASurveys,2000–2009

Source:OECD(2010b).

Thereis,indeed,anincreasingdebateaboutwhattheseinternationaltestsreallymeasureandwhetherPISAalonecanbeusedtojudgethequalityofeducationsystems.Critics’andproponents’argumentsareavailableineducationalliterature(Adams,2003;Bautier&Rayon,2007;Bracey,2005;Dohn,2007;Goldstein,2004;Prais,2003;Prais,2004;Riley&Torrance,2003;Schleicher,2007;Mortimore,2009).ThereadershouldnotethatPISAisnottheonlyavailableinternationalstudentassessment,andthatothersactuallymeasuredifferentaspectsofstudentlearningthanPISA.Nevertheless,thePISAstudyistheonlyinternationalbenchmarkinstrumentthatcoversallOECDcountriesandalsofocusesoncompetencesbeyondthecurriculumtaughtinschools.ItisalsoworthnotingthatthereisgrowingcriticismamongFinnisheducatorsaboutthewaysthatstudents’performanceandsuccessineducationsystemsaredeterminedusingsolelythetestscoresfromacademicstudentassessments.Many—myselfincluded—wouldliketoseeabroaderscopeofstudentlearningreflectedintheseassessments,includinglearning-to-learnskills,socialcompetencies,self-awareness,andcreativity.

COSTOFEDUCATION

ItseemsthatFinlandhasbeenabletoreformitseducationsystembyincreasingparticipationatalllevels,makinggoodeducationachievabletoalargeproportionofitspopulation,andattainingcomparativelyhighlearningoutcomesinmostschoolsthroughoutthenation.Allofthishasbeenaccomplishedbyfinancingeducation,includinghigherandadulteducation,almostexclusivelyfrompublicsources.Onemorequestionregardinggoodeducationalperformanceremainstobeaddressed:HowmuchdoFinnishtaxpayerspayforeducation?

InOECDnationsforwhichdataoncomparabletrendsareavailableforalleducationallevelscombined,publicandprivateinvestmentinFinnisheducationincreased34%from1995to2004inrealterms,whiletheOECDaverageforthesameperiodwas42%.TotalpublicexpenditureoneducationalinstitutionsasapercentageofGDPinFinlandwas5.6%in2007(Sahlberg,2009;OECD,2010a).Thisislessthanthe5.7%OECDcountriesspentonaverageandsignificantlylessthanspendingintheUnitedStates(7.6%ofGDP)andCanada(6.1%ofGDP).Asmentionedearlier,only2.5%oftotalFinnishexpenditureoneducationinstitutionscomesfromprivatesources.

TheRelationshipbetweenCostandStudentPerformance

Figure2.8summarizesstudents’meanperformanceonthePISAsciencescaleinrelationtocumulativeeducationalspendingperstudent(between6and15yearsofage)in2006inU.S.dollarsandadjustedtopurchasingpowerparities(OECD,2007;2010a).ThesedataindicatethatgoodeducationalperformanceinFinlandhasbeenattainedatreasonablecost.Figure2.8alsosuggeststhatthereisnocorrelationbetweenthequalityofaneducationsystemasmeasuredbythePISAstudyandtheleveloffinancialinvestmentineducation.Forexample,theUnitedStatesandNorwayhavethehighestlevelofspendingineducationbuttheirstudentoutcomeresultsarelow.This,ofcourse,doesnotsuggestanycausallogicbetweeneducationexpendituresandlearningoutcomes,althoughregressionindicatesaverysmallnegativeinterdependency(R2=0.03)betweeneducationcostandstudentachievement.Efficiencyisthereforemoreimportanttogoodeducationalperformancethanlevelofexpenditure.Moneyrarelyisthesolutiontotheproblemsineducationsystems.

Figure2.8.RelationshipbetweenPISAPerformanceinScienceandCumulativeExpenditureperStudentbetweenAges6and15inSelectedOECDCountriesin2006

Source:OECD(2007,2010a).

TheCostofGradeRepetition

Oneofthecostfactorsineducationisgraderepetition.Itmeansthatastudentisaskedtorepeatagradebecauseheorshefailedtosuccessfullymasterthesubjectscoveredthefirsttime.Thisisacommonlyusedremedyandformoftreatingindividualdeficitsandproblems.Notonlyisgraderepetitionanineffectivewaytohelpstudentsinneedofhelp,butitisalsoexpensiveforeducationsystems.LetuslookathowFinlandhasbeencopingwiththiscommonglobalphenomenon.

GraderepetitionintheoldFinnishparallelschoolsystemwasnotrareinelementaryschools,anditwasanintegraleducationalprincipleofgrammarschool.Insomecases,astudentrepeatedthe3rdgradeofelementaryschoolinordertoimproveknowledgeandskillsrequiredinthegrammarschooladmissiontestattheendofthe4thgrade.Atthetimeoftheintroductionofthenew9-yearschool,approximately12%ofstudentsineachgrammarschoolgradedidnotprogressfromtheirgrade.Graderepetitionatthattimewasnotevenlydistributedbetweenschoolsorgrades.Forexample,ingeneralupper-

secondaryschool,oneinsixstudentsrepeatsagrade.Wehaveestimatedthatuptohalfofthosegraduatingfromupper-secondarygrammarschoolrepeatedoneormoregradesatsomepointoftheirschooling(Välijärvi&Sahlberg,2008).Furthermore,significantnumbersofstudentsdroppedoutofschoolbeforecompletion—oftenafternotbeingabletoprogressfromonegradetothenext.InadequateprogressinmathematicsandSwedish(asasecondlanguage)werethemostcommonlycitedreasonsforgraderepetition,althoughsomestudentshadtorepeatduetobehavioralorattitudeproblems.

Peruskouluwasbuiltonthesocialvalueofequityandwasdrivenbytheideathatallstudentsareabletoachievecommonacademicandsocialgoalsthroughchoice-basededucationalstreamsintheuppergradesofcomprehensiveschool.Intheoldschoolsystem,graderepetitionwasamethodofdifferentiationforteachers.Problemsrelatedtoretentionwerewellknownattheinceptionofthenewschoolsystemintheearly1970s.Theimpactofbeingsentbacktothesamegradewithyoungerstudentswasoftendemoralizingandrarelymadewayfortheexpectedacademicimprovementsamongstudents(Brophy,2006;Jimerson,2001).Afterall,repeatinganentiregradewasaninefficientwayofpromotinglearningbecauseitdidnotfocusonthosepartsofthecurriculuminwhichastudentneededtargetedhelp.Studyingforasecondtimethosesubjectsthatastudenthadalreadysuccessfullycompletedwasrarelystimulatingforstudentsortheirteachers.Studentsweresenttothesameclasswithoutaplantospecifytheareasofimprovement,letalonethemethodsofachievingmosteffectivelytherequiredlevelsofknowledgeandskills.

Intheearlydaysofcomprehensiveschoolreformgraderepetitionwasseenasaninadequateandwrongstrategyforfixingindividuallearningorsocialdeficiencies.Intheelementaryschool,graderepeaterswhohaddifficultiesinoneortwosubjectswereoftenlabeledas“failing”studentswhoalsohadbehavioralandpersonalityproblems.Thiseducationalstigmanormallyhadadramaticnegativeimpactonstudents’selfesteemandtherebytheirmotivationandeffortstolearn.Italsoloweredteachers’expectationsregardingthesestudents’abilitiestolearn.Graderepetitioncreatedaviciouscirclethatformanyyoungpeoplecastanegativeshadowrightintoadulthood.Educationalfailureislinkedtoanindividual’sroleinsocietyandischaracterizedbyunfavorableattitudestolearningandfurthereducation.Leavingthisrolebehindwaspossibleonlyforyoungpeoplewithstrongidentitiesandhighsocialcapitalintheformoffriends,teachers,andparents.Finnishexperienceshowsthatgraderepetition,inmostcases,ledtoincreasedsocialinequalityratherthanhelpingstudentstoovercomeacademicandsocialproblems.

Peruskouluquicklychangedgraderepetitionpoliciesandpractices.While

thenewsystemdidnotcompletelyremovetheproblemofrepeatinggrades,thenumberofstudentswhorepeatedgradesinthecomprehensiveschooldecreasedsignificantly.Personalizedlearninganddifferentiationbecamebasicprinciplesinorganizingschoolingforstudentsacrosssociety.Theassumptionthatallstudentscanachievecommoneducationalgoalsiflearningisorganizedaccordingtoeachstudent’scharacteristicsandneedsbecameanotherfoundation.Retentionandabilitygroupingwereclearlyagainsttheseideals.Differentstudentshavetolearntoworkandstudytogetherinthesameclass.Diversityofstudents’personalities,abilitiesandorientationshastobetakenintoaccountincraftinglearningenvironmentsandchoosingpedagogicalmethodsinschools.Thisturnedouttobeoneofthemostdemandingprofessionalchallengesforteachers.Eventoday,schoolsaresearchingforanoptimaleducationalandeconomicsolutionfortheincreasingdiversity.

MinimizinggraderepetitionhasbeenpossibleprimarilybecausespecialeducationhasbecomeanintegralpartofeachandeveryschoolinFinland.Everychildhastherighttogetpersonalizedsupportprovidedearlyonbytrainedprofessionalsaspartofnormalschooling.Thisspecialsupportisarrangedinmanydifferentwaystoday.Asdescribedearlier,specialeducationinFinlandisincreasinglyorganizedwithingeneralmainstreamschooling.SpecialeducationhasakeyroletoplayinimprovingequityandcombatingeducationalfailureinFinnishschools.

Upper-secondaryschools—bothgeneralandvocational—operateusingmodularcurriculumunitsratherthanyear-basedgrades.Thus,graderepetitioninitsconventionalformhasvanishedfromFinnishupper-secondaryschools.Todaystudentsbuildtheirownpersonalizedlearningschedulesfromamenuofcoursesofferedintheirschoolorbyothereducationinstitutions.Studyinginupper-secondaryschoolisthereforeflexible,andselectedcoursescanbecompletedatadifferentpacedependingonthestudents’abilitiesandlifesituations.Ratherthanrepeatinganentiregrade,astudentonlyrepeatsthosecoursesthatwerenotpassedsatisfactorily.Moststudentscompleteupper-secondaryschoolintheprescribedtimeof3years,althoughsomeprogressfasterandsomeneedmoretimethanothers.Thisnonclassstructurehasalsoabolishedclassesinwhichthesamegroupofstudentsmovefromonelessontoanotherandfromonegradetothenext.

Finlandhaschosenthepolicyofautomaticpromotioncombinedwiththeprincipleofearlyintervention.Suchattentiontodynamicinequalitiesinallschools,asprofessorNortonGrubbpointsout,iswhatdistinguishesFinlandfrommanyothercountries(Grubb,2007).Thisrequiressystematiccounselingandcareerguidanceasyoungpeoplestarttothinkabouttheireducational

pathways.Indeed,fewerthan2%ofstudentswholeavethecompulsory9-yearcomprehensiveschooltodayattheageof16haverepeatedagradeatsomepointofschooling.GraderepetitionisatasimilarlevelinotherNordiccountriesbutmuchhigherelsewhereinEurope:40%inFrance;morethan30%inBelgium,theNetherlands,andSpain;and25%inGermanyandSwitzerlandrepeatagradeinschool(Välijärvi&Sahlberg,2008).

FINNISHPARADOXESOFEDUCATION

Finnisheducationalsuccesshasencouragedpeopletosearchforreasonsforsuchfavorableinternationalperformance.MostvisitorstoFinlanddiscoverelegantschoolbuildingsfilledwithcalmchildrenandhighlyeducatedteachers.Theyalsorecognizethelargeamountofautonomythatschoolsenjoy:littleinterferencebythecentraleducationadministrationinschools’everydaylives,systematicmethodsforaddressingproblemsinthelivesofstudents,andtargetedprofessionalhelpforthoseinneed.Muchofthismaybehelpfulinbenchmarkingtheircountry’spracticeinrelationtoaleadingeducationnationsuchasFinland.However,muchofthesecretofFinland’seducationalsuccessremainsundiscovered:

Whathastheeducationalchangeprocessbeenlike?Whatistheroleofotherpublicsectorpoliciesinmakingtheeducationsystemworksowell?Whatroledoesthecultureplay?HowmuchdidFinnisheducatorstakenoteofglobaleducationreformmovementsincreatingtheirownapproaches?

Inmanyways,Finlandisanationofstrangeparadoxes.Homeoftheleadingtelecommunicationindustryandoneofthehighestmobilephonedensities,Finlandisalsoknownforitsless-talkative(orsilent)people.Knownasreservedindividualswhopreferisolationratherthansocialinteraction,Finnslovetodancethetango.Theyevenselectanationaltangoqueenandkingduringtheannualtangofestival.Furthermore,withitstough,northernclimate,Finnsrankamongtheworld’shappiestpeopleandliveinoneoftheworld’smostprosperousnations.Finnishsisu,aculturaltrademarkthatreferstostrengthofwill,determination,andpurposefulactioninthefaceofadversity,coexistswithcalmnessandtenderness(Lewis,2005;Steinbock,2010).Indeed,paradoxesaremorehelpfulthanpurelogicinunderstandingsomeofthekeyfeaturesof

Finnisheducation.Avoidanceof“smalltalk”isawell-knownculturalcharacteristicofthe

Finns,asthefollowingtraditionalstoryillustrates.Twomenmetunexpectedlyafteralongtime.Becausetheyhadbeengoodfriendssinceboyhoodtheydecidedtogoandcelebratetheirpleasantencounterwithadrinkortwo.Theysoonfoundabar,lookedforaquiettable,andorderedfirstdrinks.Nowordswereexchangedandthedrinksweresoonfinished.Seconddrinkswereorderedandenjoyed,yetnotalk.Thirddrinkswentdowninsilence,butwhenthefourthdrinkswereabouttobesippedtheothermanraisedhisglassforatoastandcheerfullysaid:“Kippis”(whichisequivalentto“cheers”inEnglish).Thecompaniongavehimapuzzledlookandreplied,“Didwecomeheretodrinkortotalk?”

MinimalismisalsofavoredinotherwalksoflifeinFinland.Arts,music,design,andarchitecturealldrawtheirinspirationfromsmall,clear,andsimpleideas.Finnishpeoplethinkthat“smallisbeautiful.”Inbusiness,politics,anddiplomacy,Finnsrelyonstraighttalkandsimpleprocedures.Theywanttosolveproblems,nottotalkaboutthem.InventionsandinnovationsinFinlandareoftensuchthatsimpleideasmakeabigdifference.ItisperhapsnotsurprisingthenthatthesesameprinciplesandvaluesareembeddedinFinnisheducation.OneoftheFinnisheducationalvaluesistoputteachingandlearningbeforeanythingelsewheneducationpoliciesandreformsareunderconsideration.Mostofall,Finnsdon’tseemtobelievethatdoingmoreofthesameineducationwouldnecessarilymakeanysignificantdifferenceforimprovement.

Paradox1:TeachLess,LearnMore

TheFinnishexperiencechallengesthetypicallogicofeducationaldevelopmentthattriestofixlower-than-expectedstudentperformancebyincreasingthelengthofeducationanddurationofteaching.Forexample,whenstudentsarenotlearningenoughmathematics,acommoncureisarevisedcurriculumwithmorehoursofclassroominstructionandhomework.Thisalsorequiresinmosteducationsystemsmoreteachingtimeforteachers.Twointernationalindicatorsprovideavividpictureofnationalvariancesinhowmuchstudentsareexposedtoinstructionandhowlongteachersspendtimeinteaching.

First,asFigure2.9shows,therearebigdifferencesinthetotalnumberofintendedinstructionhoursinpublicinstitutionsbetweentheagesof7and14inOECDcountries(OECD,2010a).Thereappearstobeverylittlecorrelationbetweenintendedinstructionhoursinpubliceducationandresultingstudent

performance,asassessedbyPISAstudy.Interestingly,high-performingnationsinallacademicdomainsincludedinPISArelylessonformalteachingtimeasadriverofstudentlearning(Finland,Korea,Japan),whereasnationswithmuchlowerlevelsofacademicachievement(Italy,Portugal,andGreece)requiresignificantlymoreformalinstructionfortheirstudents.Whenthesedifferencesareconvertedintoschoolyears,Italian15-year-olds,forexample,haveattendedatleast2moreyearsofschoolingthanhavetheirFinnishpeers.Moreover,inFinland,childrenstartschoolattheageof7,whereasmanyItalianchildrenstartschoolattheageof5,whichaddsevenmoreformallearningtimeforthem.ThereisnocomparabledataavailableregardingcompulsoryinstructiontimeintheUnitedStatesorinCanadaintheOECDdatabase.However,estimatesfromsomestatesoftheUnitedStatesandCanadianprovincessuggestthattotalinstructiontimebetween7-and14-year-oldstudentsisabout7,500hours;thatisclosetowhatstudentshaveinFrance,England,andMexico.Furthermore,accordingtotheOECDstatistics,Finnish15-year-oldstudentsspendlesstimeonhomeworkthandoanyoftheirpeersinothernations.ThisisyetanotherstrikingdifferencebetweenFinlandandmanyothercountrieswhere“minimumhomeworkminutes”andothermeanshavebeenintroducedtomakesurethatstudentsarekeptbusystudyingafterschool.

WithschooldaysrunningshorterinFinlandthaninmanyothercountries,whatdochildrendowhentheirclassesareover?Inprinciple,pupilsarefreetogohomeintheafternoonunlessthereissomethingofferedtothemintheschool.Primaryschoolsareencouragedtoarrangeafter-schoolactivitiesforyoungestpupilsandeducationalorrecreationalclubsfortheolderones.Finnishyouthandsportassociationsplayanimportantroleinofferingyouthopportunitiestoparticipateinactivitiesthatsupporttheiroveralllearningandgrowth.Twothirdsof10-to14-year-oldsandmorethathalfof15-to19-year-oldsbelongtoatleastoneyouthassociation.ThirdSector,asthenetworkofthesenongovernmentalgroupsarecalledinFinland,contributesignificantlytosocialandpersonaldevelopmentofyoungFinnsandtherebyalsoeducationalperformanceofFinnishschools.

Figure2.9.TotalIntendedInstructionHoursinPublicInstitutionsforStudentsAges7–14in2008inSelectedOECDCountries

Source:OECD(2010a).

Anotherwaytoillustratethequantityversusqualityparadoxistoexaminehowteachersspendtheirworkingtimeacrossthenations.Again,varianceamongcountriesissignificant,asshowninFigure2.10(OECD,2010a).Inlower-secondaryschools,onaverage,Finnishteachersteachabout600hoursannually(i.e.,800lessonsof45minuteseach).Thiscorrespondstofourteachinglessonsdaily.AccordingtotheOECD,intheUnitedStatestheaverageannualtotalteachingtimeinlower-secondarygradesis1,080hours,which,inturn,equalssixormoredailylessonsorotherformsofinstructionof50minuteseach.AlthoughtherearenocomparabledatafromCanada,itisestimatedthatCanadianteachersteachapproximately900hoursannually.Lowerteachinghoursprovideteachersmoreopportunitiestoengageinschoolimprovement,curriculumplanning,andpersonalprofessionaldevelopmentduringtheirworkinghours.

HowisatypicalschooldaydifferentinFinnishandAmericanlower-secondaryschools?Firstofall,theAmericanteacherspendsalmosttwiceaslongeveryweekteachingthanherFinnishpeer.Teaching6hoursdailyisatoughjobandleavesmanyteacherstootiredtoengageinanythingprofessionalwhenteachingisdone.Teachers’workisthereforeprimarilydefinedasteaching

inandoutofclassroom.InatypicalFinnishlower-secondaryschoolteachersteach,onaverage,fourlessonsaday.Despitethefactthatteachersarepaidbythenumberoflessonstheyteach,thereisalsotimeeverydaytoplan,learn,andreflectonteachingwithotherteachers.TeachersinFinnishschoolshavemanyotherresponsibilitiesbesidesteaching:Theyassesstheirstudents’achievementandoverallprogress,prepareandcontinuouslydeveloptheirownschoolcurriculum,participateinseveralschoolhealthandwell-beinginitiativesconcerningtheirstudents,andprovideremedialsupporttothosewhomayneedadditionalhelp.ManyFinnishschoolsare,byvirtueofauniquedefinitionofteachers’workandbytheirnature,professionallearningcommunities.Ofcoursethereareexceptionstothisgeneralimageofteachers’work.Mostprimaryschools,nevertheless,aretrulyprofessionallearningcommunitieswhereteachingisaholisticprofessioncombiningworkwithstudentsintheclassroomandcollaborationwiththeircolleaguesinthestaffroom.

Figure2.10.TotalAverageTeachingHoursperYearinLowerSecondary

Educationin2008inSelectedOECDCountries

Source:OECD(2010a).

Interestingly,evidencefromthemostrecentstudiesindicatesthatFinnishstudentsexperiencelessanxietyandstressinschoolthanmanyoftheirpeersin

othercountries(OECD,2004,2007).ThenationalPISAreportconcludesthatonly7%ofFinnishstudentssaidtheyfeelanxietywhenworkingonmathematicstasksathome,comparedto52%and53%inJapanandFrance,respectively(Kupari&Välijärvi,2005).SimilarobservationsfromFinnishclassroomshavebeenreportedbyscoresofforeignjournalistsinnewspapersaroundtheworld.ArelaxedcultureoflearningandalackofstressandanxietycertainlyplayaroleintheachievementofgoodoverallresultsinFinnishschools.

Finnisheducatorsdon’tbelievethatdoingmorehomeworknecessarilyleadstobetterlearning,especiallyifpupilsareworkingonroutineandintellectuallyunchallengingdrills,asschoolhomeworkassignmentsunfortunatelyoftenare.Accordingtosomenationalsurveysandinternationalstudies,Finnishstudentsinprimaryandlower-secondaryschoolhavethelightestloadofhomeworkofall.TheWallStreetJournalreportedthatFinnishstudentsrarelygetmorethanahalf-hourofhomeworkperday(Gameran,2008).Itistruethatmanyprimaryandlower-secondaryschoolpupilsareabletocompletemostoftheirhomeworkbeforeleavingschoolfortheday.AccordingtotheOECD,Finnish15-year-oldstudentsdon’ttakeprivatetutoringoradditionallessonsotherthanwhatisofferedbytheirschool(OECD,2010b).Inthislight,highachievementofFinnishstudentsininternationaltestsisamazing.InKorea,Japan,Singapore,andShanghai,China,jurisdictionsthatareonparwithFinlandinreading,mathematicsandscience,mostchildrenspendhoursandhoursaftertheirregularschooldaysandontheirweekendsandholidaysinprivateclassesandtestpreparationschools.

Paradox2:TestLess,LearnMore

Theglobaleducationalreformthinkingincludesanassumptionthatcompetition,choice,andmore-frequentexternaltestingareprerequisitestoimprovingthequalityofeducation.SincetheEducationReformAct1988inEngland,test-basedaccountabilitypolicieshaveincreasedthefrequencyofstandardizedtestinginmanyschoolsystemsaroundtheworld(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009).Judgingtheannualprogressofstudents’andschools’performanceimprovementsisalmostwithoutexceptionbasedontheseexternalstandardizedtestsofreading,mathematics,andscienceachievements.Arethoseeducationsystemswherecompetition,choice,andtest-basedaccountabilityhavebeenthemaindriversofeducationalchangeshowingprogressininternationalcomparisons?

UsingthePISAdatabasetoconstructsuchacomparison,asuggestive

answeremerges.Mostnotably,theUnitedStates,England,NewZealand,Japan,andsomepartsofCanadaandAustraliacanbeusedasbenchmarks.Figure2.11demonstrateshowthe15-year-oldstudents’averageperformanceinmathematicsinthree2000–2006PISAsurveyshaschangedinthesecountriesascomparedtoFinland’sperformance(OECD,2001,2004,2007;Sahlberg,2010a).

Thetrendofstudents’performanceinmathematicsinalltest-basedaccountability-policynationsissimilar—itisindecline,incycleaftercycle,between2000and2006.Thesituationdoesnotchangesignificantlyifwelookatstudents’performanceinscienceorreadingliteracy.Strongerschoolaccountabilitywithintensifiedstandardizedtestingbecamecommonpolicyoptionsinthesenationsinthe1990s,whereaseducationpoliciesinFinlandatthattimeemphasizedteacherprofessionalism,school-basedcurriculum,trust-basededucationalleadership,andschoolcollaborationthroughnetworking.Finlandhas,unlikeanyothernation,illustratedinFigure2.11,improveditsaverageperformancefromitsalreadyhighlevelin2000.Althoughthisdoesnotconstituteevidenceofthefailureoftest-driveneducationalreformpoliciesperse,itsuggeststhatfrequentstandardizedstudenttestingisnotanecessaryconditionforimprovingthequalityofeducationashasbeeninsisteduponbymanyadvocatesofcompetition-basedpublicsectorpolicies.LessonsfromFinlandsuggestthatthereisanotherroutetosustainedimprovement.

Figure2.11.MathematicsPerformanceScoresof15-Year-OldStudentson

ThreePISASurveysinSelectedOECDCountries,2000–2006

Source:OECD(2001,2004,2007).

AlthoughstudentsarenottestedinFinlandastheyareinmanyother

countries,thisdoesnotmeanthatthereisnoassessmentofstudentsinFinland—quitetheopposite.Inprinciple,studentassessmentinFinlandcanbedividedintothreecategories.Firstisclassroomassessmentbyteachers;thisincludesdiagnostic,formative,andsummativeassessmentofstudentsaspartofteachingandlearning.Inallschools,thisissolelytheresponsibilityofteachers.Allteachersarepreparedtodesignandusevariousassessmentmethodsintheirwork.Classroomassessmentoccupiesasignificantamountofout-of-classroomworkingtimeforteachers.

Thesecondcategoryofstudentassessmentiscomprehensiveevaluationofstudents’progressaftereachsemester.Studentsreceiveareportcardthatindicatestheirperformanceinacademicandnonacademicsubjectsaswellasinbehaviorandengagement.Astudent’sreportcardisalwaysacollectiveprofessionaljudgmentbyherorhisteachers.Itisuptotheschooltodecidethecriteriaforthisevaluationbasedonthenationalstudentassessmentguidelines.Thismeansthatreportcardsissuedbydifferentschoolsarenotnecessarilyfullycomparablebecausetheyarenotbasedonstandardizedandobjectivemeasures.Manyteachers,however,believethatthisislessofaproblemthanhavingstandardizedcriteriaandteststhatwouldimpersonalizeschoolsandleadto“teachingtothetest.”

Third,students’achievementinFinlandisalsoassessedexternally.Regularnationalassessmentsarecarriedoutusingsample-basedmethodologythatincludesabout10%oftheagecohort(6th-and9th-gradestudents,forexample).Theseassessmentsmeasurestudents’learninginreading,mathematics,science,andothersubjectsin3-or4-yearcycles.Subjectsareincludedintheseassessmentsaccordingtotheneedsorrequestsofnationalauthorities.SchoolsnotincludedinthesesamplesmaypurchaseoneormoreofthesetestsfromtheNationalBoardofEducationtobenchmarktheirperformancetothatofotherschools.Aboutonefifthofallstudentsofthegradecohorttakepartinthisvoluntaryassessment.Asanexample,aschoolof500studentspaysabout5,000U.S.dollarsforeachsuchtest,includingananalysisofresults.TheannualstudentassessmentinthestatebudgetinFinlandislessthan5millionU.S.dollarsfortheentireschoolsystem.Inanequal-sizestateorprovinceinNorthAmerica,forexample,inMassachusettsorAlberta,astudenttestingbudgetcanbe10timeshigherthanthis.

TestingitselfisnotabadthingandIamnotanantiassessmentperson.Problemsarisewhentheybecomehigherinstakesandincludesanctionstoteachersorschoolsasaconsequenceofpoorperformance.Therearealarmingreportsfrommanypartsoftheworldwherehigh-stakestestshavebeenemployedaspartofaccountabilitypoliciesineducation(Au,2009;Nichols&

Berliner,2007;Amrein&Berliner,2002;Popham,2007).Thisevidencesuggeststhatteacherstendtoredesigntheirteachingaccordingtothesetests,givehigherprioritytothosesubjectsthataretested,andadjustteachingmethodstodrillingandmemorizinginformationratherthanunderstandingknowledge.Sincetherearenostandardizedhigh-stakestestsinFinlandpriortothematriculationexaminationattheendofupper-secondaryeducation,theteachercanfocusonteachingandlearningwithoutthedisturbanceoffrequentteststobepassed.

OthersignsofweakeningrelianceoncompetitionandtestingineducationcomefromrecentpolicychangesinEnglandandWales,andtheCanadianprovinceofAlberta,wheresomeofthenationalstandardizedtestshavebeenbannedandreplacedbysmarterwaysofassessingstudentsandschools.Alberta,forinstance,hadestablishedasystemofprovincialachievementtests(PATs)thatwasusedtomeasurepupils’performanceinreading,mathematics,andsciencetoinformdecisionmakersofoveralleducationalqualityinthejurisdiction.Althoughtheprovinceauthoritiesavoidedusingthetestingdatatorankschoolsorpointoutfailingdistricts,thereweresomeotherswhodidso.Teachersandparentsbecameveryfrustratedwiththesituation,inwhichmuchofgoodteachingwassacrificedinpursuitofraisingtestscores.Inthespringof2009theAlbertanProvincialAssemblyvotedinfavorofremovinggrade3tests.Asaconsequence,thefollowingyeartheministerofeducationdissolvedtheentireAccountabilityDepartmentinAlbertaEducation(MinistryofEducation).Thisindicatedshiftsawayfromtestingtowardmoreintelligenteducationpolicies.Inotherjurisdictionsaroundtheworld,however,windsareblowingintheoppositedirection.

Paradox3:MoreEquityThroughGrowingDiversity

ThemainpolicyprincipleofFinland’scomprehensiveschoolreformofthe1970swastoprovideequaleducationalopportunitiesforall,aswasdescribedinChapter1.Thisalsoincludedtheideathatstudentachievementshouldbeevenlydistributedacrossthesocialgroupsandgeographicregions.ItistruethatFinlandlongremainedethnicallyhomogeneous.However,sinceitjoinedtheEuropeanUnionin1995,culturalandethnicdiversificationhasprogressedfasterthaninotherEuropeanUnioncountries,especiallyinlargercities’districtsandschools,wheretheproportionoffirst-andsecond-generationimmigrantpopulationaccountsforone-quarterofthetotalpopulation.Table2.3showshowthenumberofforeign-borncitizensandresidentsissuedFinnishcitizenshiphasgrowninFinlandsince1980.In2010approximately4.7%ofinhabitantsin

Finlandwereforeign-borncitizensandthusnon-Finnishnativespeakers.ThelownumberofcitizenshipsissuedinFinlandismostlyduetotherequirementthatallcitizensmustbeproficientinoneofthedomesticlanguages.Allthese—Finnish,Swedish,andSami—arenotspokenanywhereoutsideofScandinaviaandthereforearerarelyspokenbythoseimmigratingtoFinland.

Finnishschoolshavehadtoadapttothischangingsituationwithinaveryshorttime.Asaconsequence,somemunicipalitiesareintroducinglimitstotheproportionofimmigrantstudentsattendingeachschooltoavoidsegregation.Forexample,inthecityofEspoothereareschoolswithmorethan40%immigrantstudentpopulations,whilesomeschoolshavepracticallynone.Cityauthoritiesbelievethatamoreevendistributionofimmigrantstudentsintheirschoolswouldbenefitbothstudentsandschools.However,schoolprincipalsaredoubtfulofsuchforcefulpoliciesandtheirimpactoncommunities.IncomprehensiveschoolsinHelsinki,theproportionofimmigrantchildrenisapproaching10%andlanguagesspokenintheseschoolsnumber40(http://www.hel.fi/hki/opev/en/).ThistrendisevidentinallmajorcitiesinFinland.

Table2.3.Foreign-BornCitizensandResidentsIssuedCitizenshipin

FinlandBetween1980and2010

Source:StatisticsFinland(2011).

TheFinnisheducationsystemfollowstheprincipleofinclusivenessregardingthetreatmentofstudentswithdifferingcharacteristicsandneeds.Studentsareplacedinregularschoolsunlessthereisaspecificreasontodootherwise.Therefore,inatypicalFinnishclassroom,onefindsteachersteachingdifferentabilities,interests,andethnicities,oftenwiththehelpofassistantteachers.TheincreaseddiversityinFinnishschoolsalsosuggeststhatvarianceinstudentperformancewithinschoolsmayincrease.CulturalheterogeneityinFinnishsocietywouldsuggestthatvarianceinstudentlearningamongschoolsmaybecomewider.However,asFigure2.11shows,averyhighoverallstudentperformanceinscience,mathematics,andreadingisevenlydistributed

throughoutschoolsacrossFinland.TheFinnishsocioculturalsituation,whichisexperiencingarapid

diversificationofschoolsandcommunities,offersaninterestingcaseforresearch.ProfessorJarkkoHautamäkihasexploredtheinfluenceofincreasedimmigrationonstudentlearninginschools.Twointerestingfindingsemerge.First,basedonthePISAdata,immigrantstudentsinFinnishschoolsseemtoperformsignificantlybetterthanimmigrantstudentsinmanyothercountriesinPISAbefore2009(Hautamäkietal.,2008).ImmigrantstudentsinFinlandscoredonaverage50pointshigherthantheirpeersinothercountries.Second,accordingtothissamestudy,intheproportionofimmigrantstudentsperclassthereseemstobeathresholdafterwhichlearningachievementofallstudentsinthatclassbeginstodecline.ThatproportionofimmigrantpupilsinHelsinkiwhennotableaffectsofdiversityonstudentachievementareobservableisabout20%.

Povertyisadifficultfactorthataffectsteachingandlearninginschools.Childpovertycanbedefinedasthepercentageofchildrenlivinginhomeswithanincomethatisbelow50%ofthenationalaverage.AccordingtotheUNICEFInnocentiResearchCentre,3.4%ofchildreninFinlandliveinpovertybasedonthatdefinition.ThisisthesmallestchildpovertyrateafterDenmark(2.4%).IntheUnitedStates21.7%andinCanada13.6%ofchildrenliveinpoverty(UNICEF,2007).TheequitableFinnisheducationsystemisaresultofsystematicattentiontosocialjusticeandearlyinterventiontohelpthosewithspecialneeds,andcloseinterplaybetweeneducationandothersectors—particularlyhealthandsocialsectors—inFinnishsociety.Itisimportanttounderstandhowthelevelofstudentperformancehascontinuouslyincreasedandstudentperformancevariancehasdecreased,whileFinnishsocietyhasbecomemoreculturallydiverseandsociallycomplex.Inotherwords,Finlandhasattainedsuccessinbuildingincreasedequitythroughincreasedethnicandculturaldiversityinitssociety.

CHAPTER3

TheFinnishAdvantage:TheTeachers

Butwherethere’sawill,there’saway.—AleksisKivi,SevenBrothers(1870/2005)

ManyfactorshavecontributedtoFinland’seducationalsystem’scurrentfame,suchasits9-yearcomprehensiveschool(peruskoulu)forallchildren,modernlearning-focusedcurricula,systematiccareforstudentswithdiversespecialneeds,andlocalautonomyandsharedresponsibility.However,researchandexperiencesuggestthatonefactortrumpsallothers:thedailycontributionsofexcellentteachers.

ThischapterexaminesthecentralrolethatFinnishteachersplayanddescribeshowteachereducationismakingmajorcontributionstotransformingFinland’seducationalsystemintoaglobalfocusofinterestandobjectofstudy.Thischaptersuggests,however,thatitisnotenoughtoimproveteachereducationandelevatestudentadmissionrequirements.Finnishexperienceshowsthatitismoreimportanttoensurethatteachers’workinschoolsisbasedonprofessionaldignityandsocialrespectsothattheycanfulfilltheirintentionofselectingteachingaslifetimecareers.Teachers’workshouldstrikeabalancebetweenclassroomteachingandcollaborationwithotherprofessionalsinschool,asthischapterargues.Thisisthebestwaytoattractyoungtalentedprofessionalsintoteaching.BeforedescribingcurrentprinciplesandpoliciesrelatedtoFinnishteachersandteachereducation,itisusefultoreviewsomerelevantculturalaspectsofteachingandteachers’workinFinland.

THECULTUREOFTEACHING

EducationhasalwaysbeenanintegralpartofFinnishcultureandsociety.Whileaccessto6-yearbasiceducationbecamealegalobligationandrightforallasfarbackas1922,Finnshaveunderstoodthatwithoutbecomingliterateandpossessingbroadgeneralknowledgeitwouldbedifficulttofulfilltheirlifetimeaspirations.Beforeformalpublicschoolingbegantospreadduringthe1860s,cultivatingpublicliteracywastheresponsibilityofpriestsandotherreligiousbrethreninFinlandasearlyasthe17thcentury.Catechistschoolsofferedreligious-orientedinitialliteracyeducationinSundayschoolsanditinerant

schoolswithinvillagesandinremotepartsofFinland.Bytradition,theabilitytoreadandwritewasrequiredforlegalmarriagebythechurchforbothwomenandmen.Becomingliterate,therefore,markedanindividual’sentryintoadulthood,withitsassociateddutiesandrights.TeachersalsograduallyassumedtheseresponsibilitiesastheFinnishpublicschoolsystembeganexpandingintheearly20thcentury.Primarilyduetotheirhighsocialstanding,teachersenjoyedgreatrespectandalsouncontestedtrustinFinland.Indeed,Finnscontinuetoregardteachingasanoble,prestigiousprofession—akintophysicians,lawyers,oreconomists—drivenmainlybymoralpurpose,ratherthanbymaterialinterest,careers,orrewards.

Untilthe1960s,thelevelofFinnisheducationalattainmentremainedratherlow,asFigure2.1showed.Forexample,in1952,asFinlandhosteditsfirst—andlast—SummerOlympics,nineoutoftenadultFinnshadcompletedonly7to9yearsofbasiceducation.AuniversitydegreewasregardedasexceptionalattainmentatthattimeinFinland(Sahlberg,2010a).Comparedwithothercountries,theFinnisheducationallevelwasclosetothatofMalaysiaorPeru,andlaggedsignificantlybehinditsScandinavianneighbors,Denmark,Norway,andSweden.Inthe1960s,elementaryschoolteacherswerestillpreparedin2-or3-yearteacher-educationseminars,notbyacademicinstitutions,butratherbyunitsofferingshorterpracticaltraininginteaching.Onegraduateofateacher-preparationseminarinthelate1950s,MarttiAhtisaari,wentfrombeingaprimaryschoolteacher,tobeinganinternationaldiplomat,tobeingPresidentofFinland(1994–2000),andnowaNobelPeacePrizelaureateandpraisedglobalpeacemaker.Today,whencelebratingitseducationalachievements,Finlandpubliclyrecognizesthevalueofitsteachersandimplicitlytruststheirprofessionalinsightsandjudgmentsregardingschooling.Statedquiteplainly,withoutexcellentteachersandamodernteachereducationsystem,Finland’scurrentinternationaleducationalachievementwouldhavebeenimpossible.

TheFinnisheducationsystemisdistinctlydifferentfrompubliceducationintheUnitedStates,Canada,ortheUnitedKingdom.Somedifferencesarecloselyrelatedtotheworkofteachers.Forexample,theFinnisheducationsystemlacksrigorousschoolinspection,anditdoesnotemployexternalstandardizedstudenttestingtoinformthepublicaboutschoolperformanceorteachereffectiveness.Teachersalsohaveprofessionalautonomytocreatetheirownschool-basedworkplanandcurriculum.AlleducationinFinlandispubliclyfinancedandtherearenofee-chargingschoolsoruniversities.

FinnishteachereducationtodayisfullycongruentwiththesecharacteristicsofeducationalpolicyinFinland.Fivecategoriesofteachersexist:

1. Kindergartenteachersworkinkindergartensandarealsolicensedtoteachpreschoolchildren.

2. Primaryschoolteachersteachingrades1to6in9-yearcomprehensiveschools.Theynormallyareassignedtoonegradeandteachseveralsubjects.

3. Subjectteachersteachparticularsubjectsintheuppergradesofbasicschool(typicallygrades7to9)andingeneralupper-secondaryschool,includingvocationalschools.Subjectteachersmayteachonetothreesubjects,e.g.,mathematics,physics,andchemistry.

4. Specialeducationteachersworkwithindividualsandstudentgroupswithspecialneedsinprimaryschoolsanduppergradesofcomprehensiveschools.

5. Vocationaleducationteachersteachinupper-secondaryvocationalschools.Theymustpossessatleast3yearsofclassroomexperienceintheirownteachingfieldbeforetheycanbeadmittedtoavocational-teacherpreparationprogram.

Inadditiontothesefiveteachercategories,teachersinadulteducationinstitutionsarerequiredtohavesimilarpedagogicalknowledgeandskills.Eachacademicyear,approximately5,700newopeningsbecomeavailableinallteachereducationprogramsinFinland.ThischapterfocusesontheeducationofprimaryandsubjectteachersintheK–12partoftheFinnisheducationalsystem,whichconstitutesabouttwo-thirdsofallteacher-educationstudents.

TeachingasaprofessioniscloselytiedtosustainingFinnishnationalcultureandbuildinganopenandmulticulturalsociety.Indeed,onepurposeofformalschoolingistransferringtheculturalheritage,values,andaspirationsfromonegenerationtoanother.Teachersare,accordingtotheirownopinions,essentialplayersinbuildingtheFinnishwelfaresociety.Asincountriesaroundtheworld,teachersinFinlandhaveservedascriticaltransmittersofculture.ThroughthecenturiesFinlandhasstruggledforitsnationalidentity,mothertongue,anditsownvalues,first,during6centuriesundertheKingdomofSweden;nextformorethanacenturyundertheRussianEmpireanditsfivetsars;andthenanothercenturyasanewlyindependentnationpositionedbetweenitsformerpatronsandthepowersofglobalization.ThereisnodoubtthatthishistoryleftadeepmarkonFinnsandtheirdesireforpersonaldevelopmentthrougheducation,reading,andself-improvement.LiteracyisthebackboneofFinnishcultureandhasbecomeanintegralpartoftheculturalDNAofallFinns.

Itisnowonder,then,thatteachersandteachingarehighlyregardedinFinland.TheFinnishmediaregularlyreportresultsofopinionpollsthat

documentfavoriteprofessionsamonggeneralupper-secondaryschoolgraduates.Surprisingly,teachingisconsistentlyratedasoneofthemostadmiredprofessions,aheadofmedicaldoctors,architects,andlawyers,typicallythoughttobedreamprofessions(Liiten,2004).TeachingiscongruentwithcoresocialvaluesofFinns,whichincludesocialjustice,caringforothers,andhappiness,asreportedbytheNationalYouthSurvey(2010).Teachingisalsoregardedasanindependenthighprofessionthatenjoyspublicrespectandpraise.Itisparticularlypopularamongyoungwomen—morethan80%ofthoseacceptedforstudyinprimaryteachereducationprogramsarefemale(MinistryofEducation,2007).

Inanationalopinionsurvey,about1,300adultFinns(ages15to74)wereaskediftheirspouse’s(orpartner’s)professionhadinfluencedtheirdecisiontocommittoarelationshipwiththem(Kangasniemi,2008).Intervieweeswereaskedtoselect5professionsfromalistof30thatwouldbepreferredforaselectedpartnerorspouse.Theresponseswererathersurprising.Finnishmalesviewedateacherasthemostdesirablespouse,ratedjustaheadofanurse,medicaldoctor,orarchitect.Women,inturn,identifiedonlyamedicaldoctorandaveterinarianaheadofateacherasadesirableprofessionfortheiridealhusband.Intheentiresample,35%ratedteacherasamongthetopfivepreferredprofessionsfortheiridealspouse.Apparently,onlymedicaldoctorsaremoresoughtinFinnishmatingmarketsthanareteachers.ThisclearlydocumentsboththehighprofessionalandsocialstatusteachershaveattainedinFinland—bothinandoutofschools.

BECOMINGATEACHER

Duetothepopularityofteachingandbecomingateacher,onlyFinland’sbestandmostcommittedareabletorealizethoseprofessionaldreams.Everyspring,thousandsofFinnishgeneralupper-secondaryschoolgraduates,includingmanyofthemosttalented,creative,andmotivatedyoungsters,submittheirapplicationstodepartmentsofteachereducationineightFinnishuniversities.Thus,becomingaprimaryschoolteacherinFinlandishighlycompetitive.Itisnormallyinsufficientsimplytocompletegeneralupper-secondaryschoolsuccessfullyandpassarigorousmatriculationexamination(seeChapter1).Successfulteacher-educationcandidatesmustalsopossesshighscores,positivepersonalities,excellentinterpersonalskills,andcommitmenttoworkasateacherinschool.Annually,onlyabout1ofevery10applicantswillbeacceptedtopreparetobecomeateacherinFinnishprimaryschools.ThetotalannualFinnish

applicantsinallfivecategoriesofteachereducationprogramsnumberabout20,000.

Primaryschoolteacher-educationcandidatesareselectedintwophases:First,agroupofapplicantsisselectedbasedontheirmatriculationexaminationscores,theupper-secondaryschooldiplomaissuedbytheschool,relevantrecordsofeachstudent’sout-of-schoolaccomplishments,andanationalentranceexaminwhichquestionsfocusonawiderangeofeducationalissues.Inthesecondselectionphase,topcandidatesfromthefirstphaseareinterviewedandasked,amongotherthings,toexplainwhytheyhavedecidedtobecometeachers.

BOX3.1:WhyDoIWanttoBeaTeacher?

Becomingateacherwaseasyforme.Actually,itwasnotachoiceatall,butratheraprocessthatgrewfromachildhooddreamintoarealisticgoalasanadult.Ihavemanyeducatorsinmyfamilyandteachingisinmyblood.Myparentshaveencouragedmetotakethisdirection.TheyhelpedmetofindsummerjobsandhobbieswhereIhadachancetoworkwithchildren.Ialwaysfoundthosejobsrewarding,fun,andmorallyfulfilling.ItwasthatfunaspectofworkingwithchildrenthatinfluencedmewhenIgraduatedhighschoolandmovedoninmycareer.

Duringmypart-timeteachinginschoolandalsocurrentlyinteachereducationintheuniversity,therosypictureofteachinghasfromtimetotimebeentarnished,buteverytimeshinesagain.Now,whenIamabouttograduateandgetmymasters’degreetoteachinprimaryschool,Ihavestartedtothinkaboutwhatitistobeateacher.WhydoIdothis?Firstistheinternaldrivetohelppeopletodiscovertheirstrengthsandtalents,butalsotorealizetheirweaknessesandinadequacies.IwanttobeateacherbecauseIwanttomakeadifferencetochildren’slivesandtothiscountry.Myworkwithchildrenhasalwaysbeenbasedonloveandcare,beinggentleandcreatingpersonalrelationswiththosewithwhomIwork.ThisistheonlywaythatIcanthinkwillgivemefulfillmentinmylife.

ButIalsounderstandthatinmywork,Iwillfacehugeresponsibility,foramodestsalaryandheavyworkload.Ialsoknowthatshrinkingfinancialresourcesforschoolswillcontinueandwillinfluencemyworkinschool.InHelsinkithesocialproblemsthatchildrenincreasinglyfaceintheirliveswillalsobepartofmyworkintheclassroom.Ineedtobe

abletoobservediverseindividualsandofferhelpinsituationsforwhichIamprobablynotyetprepared.IacceptthatmyworkisnotonlyteachingthethingsIlikebutitisworkingoutconflictsituations,workingwithcolleagueswhodonotnecessarilythinkthesamewayasIdo,andcollaboratingwithdifferentparentsineducatingtheirchildren.Withoutadoubt,Iwillcontinuetoaskmyselfwhetherthisworkisreallyworthallthat.

Thewell-knownFinnisheducatorMattiKoskenniemiusedtheterm“pedagogicallove”thatisalsoacornerstoneofmyowntheory-of-actionasateacher.Teachingisperhaps,morethananyotherjob,aprofessionthatyoucansuccessfullydoonlyifyouputyourheartandpersonalityintoplay.Eachteacherhasherownstyleandphilosophyofteaching.Theremaybemanymotivesforbecomingateacher.MyownisthatIwanttodogoodforotherpeople,careandlovethem.IdolovethemandthusIwillbeateacher.

VeeraSalonenTeacher-educationstudent

UniversityofHelsinki

Asthesetwoselectionphasessuggest,accesstoFinnishteachereducationishighlycompetitive.Normally,atleastsomepriorexperienceinteachingorworkingwithchildrenisrequiredfromsuccessfulcandidates.In2010,totalapplicationstoprimaryschoolteachereducationprogramsreachedanall-timerecord.Morethan6,600applicantscompetedfor660availablestudentpositionsinFinnishuniversities.Fortheacademicyear2011–2012,therewerenearly2,400newapplicantstothe120availablespacesintheprimaryschoolteacher-educationstudyprogramintheDepartmentofTeacherEducationattheUniversityofHelsinki.Figure3.1summarizesthetrendintotalannualapplicantsbetween2001and2010,disaggregatedbygender(Sahlberg,2011b).

Twophenomenaareapparent.TheFinnishteachingprofessioninprimaryschoolshasbecomeincreasinglyattractive,exceptforaslightdeclineinthemiddleofthisdecade.Also,theproportionofmaleprimaryschoolteachersremainsrelativelysmall.ThestateoftheFinnisheconomyisreflectedinthenumberofteacher-educationapplicants;whenprospectsofemploymentaredimmer,youngpeopleheadtowardteaching,ascanbeseenduringthelatesteconomicdownturninFinlandstartingin2008.AlthoughthenumberofFinnishstudentswhodonotcompletetheirstudiesandthusfailtoearnadegreeissmall,

arelativelylargernumberofmalestudentsendupstudyinginotherdisciplinesorworkingbeforetheygraduate.

Figure3.1.TotalAnnualApplicantstoFinnishPrimarySchoolTeacher

EducationProgramsin2001–2010

Source:Sahlberg(2011b).

Finlandisperhapstheonlynationthatisabletoselectitsprimaryschoolteacher-studentsfromthetopquintileofallhighschoolgraduatesyearafteryear.ThisabilityhascreatedastrongmoralandprofessionalfoundationforteachinginFinnishprimaryschools,whereFinnishchildrenspendtheirfirst6schoolyearswithable,effectiveeducators.Thus,Icallthisphenomenonthe“Finnishadvantage,”whileothernationscontinuetowonderhowtogetthe“bestandbrightest”intoteaching.

Whatmakesteachingatopjob?

IfweuseFinnisheducationasareference,threeconditionsforattractingthebest

youngpeopleintoteachingandkeepingtheminschoolsemerge.First,andmostimportantly,itisparamountthatteachers’workplacesallowthemtofulfilltheirmoralmissions.InFinland,asinmanyothercountries,ateachingcareerisaresultofaninnerdesiretoworkwithpeopleandhelpthemandtheirsocietiesthroughteaching.TeachersinFinlandpossessastrongsenseofbeingesteemedprofessionalssimilartomedicaldoctors,engineers,oreconomists.Teachersatalllevelsofschoolingexpectthattheyaregiventhefullrangeofprofessionalautonomytopracticewhattheyhavebeeneducatedtodo:toplan,teach,diagnose,execute,andevaluate.Theyalsoexpecttobeprovidedtimetoaccomplishallofthesegoalsinsideandoutsideofnormalclassroomduties.Indeed,inFinland,teachersspendrelativelylesstimeteachingthantheirpeersinmanyothercountries.Forexample,inNorthAmericanschools,teachersareengagedinteachingduringthevastmajorityoftheirdailyworkingtimeinschool,whichleaveslittlespaceforanyotherprofessionalactivities.Theconceptoftheprofessionallearningcommunity(PLC)isoftenappliedtohowteachersworkinschools,frequentlyontheirowntime.However,inFinland,Korea,andJapan,forexample,schoolsareregardedasprofessionallearningcommunitiesduetotheinherentnatureandbalanceofteachers’dailyprofessionalwork.

IhavetalkedwithFinnishprimaryschoolteachersinearlyphasesoftheircareersinordertounderstandwhatwouldpromptthemtoleavetheirchosenprofession(Sahlberg,2011b).Interestingly,practicallynobodycitessalaryasareasonforleavingteaching.Instead,manypointoutthatiftheyweretolosetheirprofessionalautonomyinschoolsandtheirclassrooms,theircareerchoicewouldbecalledintoquestion.Forexample,ifanoutsideinspectorweretojudgethequalityoftheirworkoramerit-basedcompensationpolicyinfluencedbyexternalmeasureswereimposed,manywouldchangetheirjobs.Finnishteachersareparticularlyskepticalofusingfrequentstandardizedteststodeterminestudents’progressinschool.ManyFinnishteachershavetoldmethatiftheyencounteredsimilarexternalpressureregardingstandardizedtestingandhigh-stakesaccountabilityasdotheirpeersinEnglandortheUnitedStates,theywouldseekotherjobs.Inshort,teachersinFinlandexpectthattheywillexperienceprofessionalautonomy,prestige,respect,andtrustintheirwork.Firstandforemost,theworkingconditionsandmoralprofessionalenvironmentarewhatcountasyoungFinnsdecidewhethertheywillpursueateachingcareerorseekworkinanotherfield.

Second,teachereducationshouldbesufficientlycompetitiveanddemandingtoattracttalentedyounghighschoolgraduates.TeachereducationattractsmanyofFinland’stophighschoolgraduatesbecauseitconstitutesamaster’sdegree

programandisthereforechallengingenoughforthem.Inaddition,duetothehighqualityofFinnishstudentsenteringteachereducationprograms,thecurriculaandrequirementshavebecomeverydemanding,comparabletootherdegreeprogramsofferedbyFinnishacademicuniversities.Graduateswhoholdamaster’sdegreecan,withoutfurtherwork,applytodoctoralstudies.Thatsamedegreealsoqualifiesanindividualtoworkingovernmentorlocaladministration,teachintheuniversity,orcompetewithothermaster’sdegreeholdersinprivatesectoremployment.IthasbeenquestionedinFinlandnowandthenwhetherprimaryschoolteachersnecessarilyneedmaster’s-levelacademicandresearch-basedqualifications.However,Finnishexperiencesuggeststhatiftheprimaryschoolteachingdegreerequirementwerelowered,manywouldseekstudiesinprofessionalfieldsthatwouldgivethemhigheracademicstatusandthusopenmoreemploymentopportunitieslaterintheircareers.

Third,thesalarylevelisnotthemainmotivetobecomeateacherinFinland.Teachersearnslightlymorethanthenationalaveragesalary.Theannualstatutoryteacher’ssalaryintheuppergradesofperuskoulu(lower-secondaryschool)after15yearsofexperience(inequivalentU.S.dollars,convertedbyusingpurchasing-powerparity)isabout41,000U.S.dollars(OECD,2010a).Thatisclosetowhatteachersearn,onaverage,inOECDcountries.ComparableannualsalaryintheUnitedStatesis44,000U.S.dollars,andinKorea,55,000U.S.dollars.Althoughmakingmoneyisnotthemainreasonforbecomingateacher,thereshouldbeasystematicwayforsalariestoincrease.Finnishteachersclimbthesalaryladderastheirteachingexperiencegrows;theirpayisnotmeritbased.

ThereisastrikingdifferencebetweenFinnishandAmericanteacherswithrespecttosalaries.(OECD,2010a).InFinland,firstofall,teachersearncomparativelymore,dependingonthelevelofschoolatwhichtheyteach.Thereareapproximately7%to10%higheraveragesalariesformid-careerteachersinlower-secondaryschoolthaninprimaryschools.Asimilargapexistsbetweenaveragesalariesinlower-secondaryschoolsandupper-secondaryschools.IntheUnitedStates,teachersalariesareroughlythesameatalllevelsofschooling.Althoughtheinternationalstatisticsdon’tprovideafullpicture,itseemsthatAmericanteacherscanexpecta21%to26%increaseinearningsfromthebeginningoftheircareerstothemidpoint(15yearsofserviceinK–12schools).Finnishteachersareinamorefavorablesituation.Theirstartingsalarieswillincreasebyapproximatelyonethirdbythetimetheyreachmid-career.Thetop-scalesalariesinFinlandare58%(lower-secondaryschoolteachers)to77%(upper-seconadryschoolteachers)higherthanstartingsalaries,respectively.

ACADEMICTEACHEREDUCATION

Untiltheendofthe1970s,primaryschoolteacherswerepreparedinteachercollegesorspecialteacher-educationseminars.Lower-andupper-secondaryschoolsubjectteachersstudiedinspecificsubject-focuseddepartmentswithinFinnishuniversities.Bytheendofthe1970s,allteacher-educationprogramsbecameapartofacademichighereducationand,therefore,wereonlyofferedbyuniversities.Amaster’sdegreebecamethebasicqualificationtoteachinFinnishschools.Simultaneously,scientificcontentandeducationalresearchadvancesbegantoenrichteacher-educationcurricula.Finnishteachereducationisnowacademic,meaningthatitmustbebasedonandsupportedbyscientificknowledgeandbefocusedonthinkingprocessesandcognitiveskillsneededtodesignandconducteducationalresearch(Niemi,2008;Jakku-Sihvonen&Niemi,2006).Aparticularprincipleofresearch-basedteachereducationinFinlandissystemicintegrationofscientificeducationalknowledge,didactics(orpedagogicalcontentknowledge),andpracticetoenableteacherstoenhancetheirpedagogicalthinking,evidence-baseddecisionmaking,andengagementintheprofessionalcommunityofeducators.Consequently,thebasicrequirementtodayforpermanentemploymentasateacherinallFinnishcomprehensiveandupper-secondaryschoolsispossessionofaresearch-basedmaster’sdegree,asshowninTable3.1.

TeachereducationisanimportantandrecognizedpartofhighereducationinFinland.Inmanyothernations,thesituationisdifferent:Teacherpreparationisfrequentlyviewedassemiprofessionaltrainingarrangedoutsideofacademicuniversities.IntheActsonTeacherEducationin1978–79,theminimumrequirementforpermanentemploymentasateacherwasraisedtoamaster’sdegreethatincludesanapprovedmaster’sthesiswithscholarlyrequirementssimilartothoseinanyotheracademicfield.Thislegislativepolicyservedastheimpetustotransferallteacher-educationprogramsfromcollegestoFinnishuniversities.Theseedsweresewnforbelievingthattheteachingprofessionisbasedonscholarlyresearch.AnimportantsideeffectofthistransitionwasunificationoftheFinnishteachingcohort,whichhadbecomedividedbytheComprehensiveSchoolReformofthe1970sintoprimaryschoolteachersandsubjectteachersworkinginlower-andupper-secondaryschools.

TheroleoftheTradeUnionofEducationinFinland(OAJ),establishedin1973,hasbeenbothanegotiatorofthetermsofteachers’employmentcontractsandspeakerforeducation(www.oaj.fi).Theunionrepresentsteachersatvariousschoollevelsandinstitutes,rangingfromkindergartenteacherstoinstructorsin

vocationalschools,schoolprincipalsandlecturersinuniversities.Morethan95%ofteachersinFinlandareOAJmembers.

Asmentionedabove,allFinnishteachersmustholdamaster’sdegree.Themajorsubjectinprimaryschoolteacher-educationprogramsiseducation.Insubject-focusedteacher-educationprograms,studentsconcentratewithinaparticularsubject,forexample,mathematicsorforeignlanguages.Subject-focusedteachercandidatesalsostudydidactics,consistingofpedagogicalcontentknowledge(subjectdidactics)withintheirownsubjectspecialty.Today,successfulcompletionofamaster’sdegree—thatincludesabachelor’sdegree—inteachingtakesfrom5to7years,accordingtotheFinnishMinistryofEducation(MinistryofEducation,2007).Therearenoalternativewaystoearnateacher’sdiplomainFinland;onlytheuniversitydegreeconstitutesalicensetoteach.IntheUnitedStates,forexample,theTeachforAmericaprogramadmitscollegegraduates,immersestheminpedagogycoursesoverasummerforseveralweeks,andthensendsthemtoschoolsinneedofteachers—wheretheyoftenfindthatclassroomchallengesareexceedinglydifficult.Therearesimilarteacher-certificationinitiativesinsomeothernations,suchasTeachFirstintheUnitedKingdomandNorway.

Table3.1.RequiredTeacherQualificationsbyTypeofFinnishSchool

Source:Sahlberg(2011b).

Academicteachereducationfocusesonbalanceddevelopmentofaprospectiveteacher’spersonalandprofessionalcompetences.Particularattention

isdevotedtobuildingpedagogicalthinkingskills,enablingteacherstomanageinstructionalprocessesinaccordwithcontemporaryeducationalknowledgeandpractice(Westbury,Hansen,Kansanen,&Björkvist,2005;Toometal.,2010).InFinnishprimaryteachereducation,thisischaracterizedbythestudyofeducationasamainsubject,composedofthreethematicareas:

1. Theoryofeducation2. Pedagogicalcontentknowledge3. Subjectdidacticsandpractice

Finnishresearch-basedteacher-educationprogramsculminateinarequiredmaster’sthesis.Prospectiveprimaryschoolteachersnormallycompletetheirthesesinthefieldofeducation.Typically,thetopicofamaster’sthesisisfocusedonorclosetoateacher’sownschoolorclassroompractice,suchasmathematicsteaching,orlearning.Subject-focusedteacherstudents,inturn,selectathesistopicwithintheirmajorsubject.Thelevelofscholarlyexpectationsforteacher-educationstudiesissimilaracrossallteacher-preparationprograms,fromelementarytoupper-secondaryschool.

TeachereducationinFinlandisalignedtotheframeworkoftheEuropeanHigherEducationAreathatisbeingdevelopedundertheongoingBolognaProcess.1Currently,Finnishuniversitiesofferatwo-tierdegreeprogram.First,anobligatory3-yearbachelor’sdegreeprogramqualifiesstudentsfora2-yearmaster’sdegreeprogramthatistheminimumqualificationforthelicensetoteachinFinland.Thesetwodegreesareofferedinmultidisciplinaryprogramsconsistingofstudiesinatleasttwosubjects.StudiesarequantifiedintermsofcreditunitswithintheEuropeanCreditTransferandAccumulationSystem(ECTS)within46Europeannations.ECTS,whichwillbecometheguidingpolicyfortheEuropeanHigherEducationArea,isastudent-centeredsystembasedonstudentworkloadrequiredtoachieveprogramobjectives.

Theobjectivesarenormallyspecifiedintermsoflearningoutcomesandcompetenciestobeacquired.ECTSisbasedontheassumptionthat60creditsrepresenttheworkloadofafull-timestudentover1academicyear.Theannualstudentworkloadforafull-timestudyprograminEuropeequals,inmostcases,about1,500to1,800hours.Therefore,oneECTScreditrepresentsabout25to30workinghours.Teachereducationrequires180ECTScreditsforabachelor’sdegree(whichdoesn’tmeetqualificationsforateachingdiplomaorenablepermanentemploymentasateacher),followedby120ECTScreditsforamaster’sdegree.

Abroad-basedteacher-educationcurriculumensuresthatnewlypreparedFinnishteacherspossesswell-balancedknowledgeandskillsinboththeoryandpractice.Italsoimpliesthatprospectiveteachersdevelopdeepprofessionalinsightintoeducationfromseveralperspectives,includingeducationalpsychologyandsociology,curriculumtheory,studentassessment,special-needseducation,anddidactics(pedagogicalcontentknowledge)intheirselectedsubjectareas.ItisnoteworthythatcontemporaryFinnishteachereducationhasbeenstronglyinfluencedbyresearchanddevelopmentinthisfieldinAmerican,Canadian,andBritishuniversities.2Toillustratewhatteachersstudyduringtheirpreparationprogram,Table3.2summarizesprimaryschoolteacher-educationtopicswithrequiredcreditunits,asofferedbytheDepartmentofTeacherEducation,UniversityofJyväskylä.AlleightFinnishuniversitiesofferingteachereducationhavetheirownnationallycoordinatedteacher-educationstrategiesandcurricula,ensuringcoherencebutencouraginglocalinitiativetomakebestuseofeachuniversity’sresourcesandnearbyopportunities.

Table3.2.SummaryofPrimaryTeacher-EducationMaster’sDegree

ProgramattheUniversityofJyväskyläin2010

Asageneralrule,primaryschoolteachereducationpreparingteachersfor

thelowergrades(typically,grades1to6ofcomprehensiveschools)includes60ECTScreditsofpedagogicalstudiesandatleast60additionalECTScreditsforothercoursesineducationalsciences.Anintegralpartoftheseadditionaleducationalstudiesisamaster’sthesisrequiringindependentresearch,participationinresearchseminars,anddefendingofthecompletededucationalstudy.Thecommonlyassignedcreditforthisresearchworkwithinall

universitiesis40ECTScredits.Therevisedteacher-educationcurriculuminFinlandrequiresprimaryschool

teachercandidatestocompleteamajorineducationalsciencesandearn60ECTScreditsinminorstudieswithinsubjectsincludedintheNationalFrameworkCurriculumforComprehensiveSchool,whichisregularlyupdatedbytheNationalBoardofEducationandtheMinistryofEducation.Mathematicsisoneofthepopularminorsubjectsamongstudents.Thisisanimportantfactorinsecuringhigh-qualitymathematicsteachinginmanyprimaryschoolsinFinland.

Moststudentsinprimaryteacher-educationprogramsentertheirstudieswithsolidknowledgeandskillsintherangeofsubjectsstudiedinupper-secondaryschool.InFinland,unlikeintheUnitedStatesorEngland,allupper-secondaryschoolstudentsareobligedtocompletesuccessfullyastudyprogramincludingupto18requiredsubjects—suchasphysics,chemistry,philosophy,music,andatleasttwoforeignlanguagesinadditiontotwodomesticlanguages.Normally,studentsacceptedinprimaryschoolteacher-educationprogramshaveearnedhigherthanaveragegradesinthesesubjects.Forexample,intheUniversityofHelsinki,some15%ofstudentsselectmathematicsastheirminorsubject,whichearnsthemalicensetoteachmathematicsassubjectteachersingrades7to9(Lavonenetal.,2007).Scienceeducationisalsoquitepopularamongprimaryschoolteacherstudents;eachyearapproximately10%takebasicoradvancedstudiesinscienceteaching.ItisclearthatprimaryschoolteachersinFinland,ingeneral,possessstrongmasteryofsubjectsthattheyteachduetotheirbroadlybasedupper-secondaryschoolstudiesandprimaryteacher-educationprogramsthatbuilduponthatsolidbase.

Finnishsubjectteachereducationfollowsthesameprinciplesasprimaryschoolteachereducationbutisarrangeddifferently.Therearetwomainpathwaystobecomingasubjectteacher.Moststudentsfirstcompleteamaster’sdegreeintheiracademicprogramswithonemajorsubject,suchastheFinnishlanguage,forexample,andoneortwominorsubjects,suchasliteratureanddrama.StudentsthenapplytotheDepartmentofTeacherEducationfortheirsubject-teacher-educationprogram.Inpedagogicalstudies,themainfocusisonsubject-orientedteachingstrategiesequivalentto60ECTScredits,andrequiresoneacademicyeartocomplete.Theotherpathwaytobecomingasubjectteacherisforastudenttoapplydirectlytoteachereducationtopursueamajorsubjectintheiracademicprogram.Normally,after2yearsofsubjectstudies,studentsstarttheirpedagogicalstudiesintheiruniversity’sfacultyofeducation.Thecurriculumforthissecondpathwayisidenticaltothatofthefirstroute,onlyscheduleddifferentlywithinbachelorandmastertracks,typicallyoverfour

academicterms,asillustratedbytheprogramattheUniversityofHelsinkishowninTable3.3.

Prospectivesubjectteachersdecidetomajorinfieldsthattheywillbeteaching,suchasmathematicsormusic.Formajorsubjects,advancedstudiesinvolving90ECTScreditsarenormallyrequired.Inaddition,60ECTScreditsarerequiredinasecondsubjectthatwillbetaughtinschools.Generally,theDepartmentofTeacherEducationorganizescoursesinpedagogicalstudiesincollaborationwithsubject-matterprogramsofferedbysubjectdepartmentsresponsibleforteachereducationoftheirownstudents.ExceptionsincludeteachereducationforsomesubjectsincludedintheNationalCurriculumFrameworkforthecomprehensiveschool,suchastextileworkandcrafts,specialeducation,studentcounseling,andmusic,whichareorganizedwithindepartmentsofeducation.Teachereducationformusic,arts,andphysicaleducationusuallyoccursinseparatedepartmentsorinstituteswithinauniversity.ItisalsointernationallyuniquethatFinnishacademicsubjectfaculties—notthedepartmentofteachereducation—issueMaster’sdegreesforsubjectteachersandthusplayimportantrolesinFinnishteachereducation.

Table3.3.StructureofthePedagogicalComponentoftheSubjectTeacher

EducationProgramattheUniversityofHelsinkiin2010

TEACHERSASRESEARCHERS

InstructioninFinnishteacher-educationdepartmentsisarrangedtosupportpedagogicalprinciplesthatnewlypreparedteachersareexpectedtoimplementintheirownclassrooms.Althoughalluniversityteachershavefullpedagogicalautonomy,everydepartmentofteachereducationinFinlandhasadetailedandoftenbindingstrategyforimprovingthequalityoftheirteacher-educationprograms.Subject-focusedpedagogyandresearchinscienceeducationwithinFinnishuniversities,forexample,areregardedasadvancedbyinternationalstandards(Lavonenetal.,2007).Moreover,cooperativelearning,problem-basedlearning,reflectivepractice,andcomputer-supportededucationarenowimplemented—atleasttosomeextent—inallFinnishuniversities.AFinnishhigher-educationevaluationsystemthatofferspublicrecognitionofandfinancialprizesforeffective,innovativeuniversityteachingpracticehasservedasanimportantdriverofthesepositivedevelopments.

Research-basedteachereducationmeansthatintegrationofeducationaltheories,researchmethodologies,andpracticeallplayimportantrolesinFinnishteacher-educationprograms.Teacher-educationcurriculaaredesignedsothattheyconstituteasystematiccontinuumfromthefoundationsofeducationalthinking,toeducationalresearchmethodologies,andthenontomoreadvancedfieldsofeducationalsciences.Eachstudenttherebybuildsanunderstandingofthesystemic,interdisciplinarynatureofeducationalpractice.Finnishstudentsalsoacquireskillsofdesigning,conducting,andpresentingoriginalresearchonpracticalortheoreticalaspectsofeducation.AnintegralelementofFinnishresearch-basedteachereducationispracticaltraininginschools,akeycomponentofthecurriculum,asdocumentedinTables3.2and3.3.

Thereare,inprinciple,twokindsofpracticumexperienceswithinFinnishteacher-educationprograms.Aminorportionofclinicaltrainingoccursinseminarsandsmall-groupclasseswithinadepartmentofteachereducation(partofafacultyofeducation),wherestudentspracticebasicteachingskillswiththeirpeers.Majorteachingpracticeexperiencesoccurmostlywithinspecialteachertrainingschoolsgovernedbyuniversities,whichhavecurriculaandpracticessimilartoordinarypublicschools.Studentsalsouseanetworkofselectedfieldschoolsforpracticeteaching.Inprimaryschoolteachereducation,studentsdevoteapproximately15%oftheirintendedstudytime(forexample,intheUniversityofJyväskylä,40ECTScredits)practice-teachinginschools.Insubjectteachereducation,theproportionofteachingpracticeinschoolsconstitutesaboutone-thirdofthecurriculum.

BOX3.2:Research-basedTeacherEducation

Inmylongcareerasateacher-educatorthemostsignificantpolicychangewastherequirementthatallteachersmustholdaacademicmasters’degreeineducationorinthesubjecttheyteachinschool.Itlaunchedadevelopmentchainthatelevatedallteachersasprofessionalswho,amongotherthings,areabletounderstandteachingholisticallyandimprovetheirownworkcontinuously.InFinlandittookmorethan20yearstobuildcommonunderstandingamongteachereducators,universityprofessors,andpractitionersaboutthecomplexityoftheteachingprofession.Research-basedteachereducationhasthefollowingthreekeyprinciples:

Teachersneedadeepknowledgeofthemostrecentadvancesofresearchinthesubjectstheyteach.Inaddition,theyneedtobefamiliarwiththeresearchonhowsomethingcanbetaughtandlearned.Teachersmustadoptaresearch-orientatedattitudetowardtheirwork.Thismeanslearningtotakeananalyticalandopen-mindedapproachtotheirwork,drawingconclusionsforthedevelopmentofeducationbasedondifferentsourcesofevidencecomingfromtherecentresearchaswellastheirowncriticalandprofessionalobservationsandexperiences.Teachereducationinitselfshouldalsobeanobjectofstudyandresearch.

ManypeopleaskwhyFinnishstudentsperformsowellinschoolandmanyyoungFinnschooseteachingastheirlifecareer.Thereisnoregularstandardizedtesting,schoolinspection,teacherevaluation,orrankingofschoolsinFinland.Publiceducationhasacentralroleinenhancingequalityandwell-beinginFinnishsociety.High-qualityacademicteachereducationensuresreadinesstoworkinmanyotherareasoftheFinnishlabormarket.Mostimportantly,inFinlandteachersandschoolsenjoystrongpublicconfidence.Parentstrustteachersthewaythattheytrusttheirdentists.Parentsdonotneedtoworryaboutfindingagoodschoolfortheirchildren.Manythinkthatthenearestschoolintheircommunityisgoodenough.Ibelievethatbecauseteachers—asaresultofacademiceducation—haveclearmoralpurposeandindependentprofessionalethos,theyaretrusted.Research-basedteachereducationisessentialinmakingthatpossible.

HanneleNiemiProfessorofEducation

UniversityofHelsinki

TheFinnishteacher-educationcurriculum,assummarizedinTables3.2and3.3,isdesignedtointegrateteachingpracticeintheoreticalandmethodologicalstudiessystematically.Teachingpracticeisnormallydividedintothreephasesoverthe5-yearprogram:basicpractice,advancedpractice,andfinalpractice.Duringeachphase,studentsobservelessonsbyexperiencedteachers,completepracticeteachingobservedbysupervisoryteachers,anddeliverindependentlessonstodifferentpupilgroups,allevaluatedbysupervisingteachersanddepartmentofteachereducationprofessorsandlecturers.EvaluationsofFinnishteachereducationhaverepeatedlyidentifiedthesystematicnatureofteachereducationcurriculaasakeystrengthandacharacteristicthatdistinguishesFinnishteachereducationfromthatofmanyothernations(Darling-Hammond,2006;Jussila&Saari,2000;Saari&Frimodig,2009).

TheFinnishteachereducationprogramrepresentsaspiralsequenceoftheoreticalknowledge,practicaltraining,andresearch-orientedenquiryofteaching.Teacher-educationresponsibilitiesareintegratedwithintheactivitiesofacademicuniversityunits.Forexample,attheUniversityofOulu,threefaculties,namelyscience,humanities,andeducation,deliverteachereducationcoursesfortheirstudents.Theyincludestaff(normallyuniversitylecturersandprofessors)specializedinsubject-orientedteachingmethodologies.TheircurriculaarecoordinatedwiththeDepartmentofTeacherEducation,responsiblefortheoverallorganizationofteachereducation.

AlthoughteachertrainingschoolsconstitutethemainportionofthenetworkwithinwhichFinnishstudentscompletetheirpracticeteaching,someordinarymunicipalpublicschools(municipalfieldschools)alsoservethesamepurpose.One-thirdofallteachingpracticeattheUniversityofOuluoccursinthesemunicipalfieldschools(MFS).Teachertrainingschoolswherepracticeteachingoccurshavehigherprofessionalstaffrequirements;supervisingteachersmustprovetheircompetencytoworkwithstudentteachers.Teachertrainingschools(butnotMFSs)arealsoexpectedtopursueresearchanddevelopmentrolesinteachereducationincollaborationwiththeuniversity’sdepartmentofteachereducation,orsometimesalsowiththeacademicunits’teachereducationstaff.Forexample,attheUniversityofOulu,theFacultyofScienceandtheFacultyofHumanitiesassumeteacher-educationrolesandsupportappropriatestaff.Allteachertrainingschoolscan,therefore,introducesamplelessonsandalternativecurriculardesignstostudentteachers.Theseschoolsalsohaveteachersexperiencedinsupervision,teacherprofessionaldevelopment,andassessment

strategies.Therearenospecificqualificationstobedesignatedassuchateacher—itiseachindividual’sresponsibilitytobuildtheneededknowledgeandskillsrequiredforemploymentinateachertrainingschool.

PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT

Sinceteachingisamuch-desiredprofessioninFinland,mostnewgraduatesfromFinnishdepartmentsofteachereducationandsubject-focusedprogramsseekimmediateschoolemployment.Duringtheirstudies,studentsdeveloptheirimpressionsofwhatschoollifefromateacher’sviewpointmaybelike.However,graduatesdonotnecessarilyacquireexperienceofparticipatinginacommunityofeducators,assumingfullresponsibilityforaclassroomofstudents,orinteractingwithparents.Alltheseconsiderationsarepartofthecurriculum,butmanylicensedgraduatesdiscoverthatthereisachasmbetweenlecture-hallidealismandschoolreality.

InductionofanewteacherintoafirstclassroomassignmentisrelativelylessdevelopedinFinland,althoughresearchanddevelopmentworkonteacherinductionisratheractive(Jokinen&Välijärvi,2006;OECD,2005b).Itisuptoeachschoolandmunicipalitygoverningtheseschoolstoaddressnewteachers’needsforinductionormentoringintotheirteachingresponsibilities.Thus,practicesregardingFinnishteacherinductionare,admittedly,diverse.Someschools,aspartoftheirmission,haveadoptedadvancedproceduresandsupportsystemsfornewstaff,whereasotherschoolsmerelybidnewteacherswelcomeandshowthemtotheirclassrooms.Insomeschools,inductionisawell-definedresponsibilityofschoolprincipalsordeputyprincipals,whileinotherschools,inductionresponsibilitiesmaybeassignedtosomeexperiencedclassroomteachers.TeacherinductionisanareathatrequiresfurtherdevelopmentinFinland,asrecentEuropeanrecommendationshavecorrectlypointedout(EuropeanCommission,2004).

Itisrecognizedthatprofessionaldevelopmentandin-serviceprogramsforteachersarenotalignedwithinitialteachereducationandoftenlackfocusonessentialareasofteachingandschool-development.Perhapsthemaincriticismdealswithweakcoordinationbetweeninitialacademicteachereducationandcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentofteachers(MinistryofEducation,2009).Municipalities,astheoverseersofprimaryandlower-andupper-secondaryschools,areresponsibleforprovidingteachersopportunitiesforprofessionaldevelopmentorin-servicetraining,basedontheirneeds.Accordingtotheemploymentcontract,thereare3mandatoryprofessionaldevelopmentdays

annuallythatallteachersmusttakepartinthatareofferedbythelocaleducationauthorities.Itisuptoindividualteachersorschoolprincipalstodecidehowmuchtimebeyondthose3days,andwhattypeofprofessionaldevelopment,isneeded,andwhethersuchinterventions,infact,canbefunded.

InFinland,asignificantdisparityexistsamongmunicipalities’andschools’abilitytofinanceprofessionaldevelopmentforteachers.Themainreasonforthissituationisthewaythateducationisfinanced.Thecentralgovernmenthasonlylimitedinfluenceonbudgetarydecisionsmadebymunicipalitiesorschools.Therefore,someschoolsreceivesignificantlymoreallocationsforprofessionaldevelopmentandschoolimprovementthandoothers,particularlyduringtimesofeconomicdownturnwhenprofessionaldevelopmentbudgetsareoftenthefirsttovanish.

GovernanceofFinnisheducationisinconsistentthroughoutthenation.Someschoolsexperiencerelativelyhigherautonomyovertheiroperationsandbudgeting.Othersdonot.Therefore,Finnishteacherprofessionaldevelopmentappearsinmanyforms.Ideally,theschoolistheprimedecisionmakerregardingthedesignanddeliveryofprofessionaldevelopment.Schoolsmayalsobemotivatedtoloweroperatingexpenses,suchasfortextbooks,heatingandmaintenance,anddivertthosefundstoteacher-developmentpriorities.However,someFinnishmunicipalitiesstillorganizein-serviceprogramsuniformlyforallteachersandallowlittlelatitudeforindividualschoolstodecidewhatwouldbemorebeneficialforthem.AccordingtoalargenationalsurveyconductedbytheUniversityofJyväskyläin2007,onaverage,teachersdevotedabout7workingdays(or50hours)annuallytoprofessionaldevelopment;approximatelyhalfofthatwasdrawnfromteachers’personaltime(Piesanen,Kiviniemi,&Valkonen,2007).

Moreover,approximatelytwothirdsofprimaryandsecondaryschoolteachersin2007participatedinprofessionaldevelopment(Kumpulainen,2008).ThissuggeststhatwithinatotalFinnishteacherpopulationof65,000,morethan20,000failedtoparticipateinanyprofessionaldevelopmentduringthatyear.Participationinprofessionaldevelopment,accordingtoarecentreportbytheFinnishMinistryofEducation,isdecreasing(MinistryofEducation,2009).Thegovernment,therefore,isconsideringwaystostrengthenthelegalgroundsaforteacherprofessionaldevelopmentbyrequiringthatallteachersmusthaveaccesstoadequateprofessionalin-servicesupport,fundedbymunicipalities.

TheFinnishstatebudgetallocatesnormallyabout30millionU.S.dollarseachyeartoprofessionaldevelopmentofteachersandschoolprincipalsthroughvariousformsofuniversitycoursesandin-servicetraining(comparedwith5millionU.S.dollarsforstudentassessmentandtesting!).Themainpurposeof

thisinvestmentinhumandevelopmentistoensureequalaccesstofurthertraining,particularlyforteachersworkinginmoredisadvantagedschools.Thisprofessionaldevelopmentsupportiscontractedtoserviceprovidersonacompetitivebasis.Thegovernmentinitiallydeterminesthefocusofthedesiredtraining,basedoncurrentnationaleducational-developmentneeds.Localeducationauthoritiesthatowntheschoolsandalsoemployalltheteachersmakeaninvestmentofsimilarscaleinprofessionaldevelopmentoftheireducationpersonneleachyear.TheMinistryofEducation,incollaborationwithmunicipalities,planstodoublepublicfundingforteacherprofessionaldevelopmentby2016.

Finnishteacherspossessingamaster’sdegreehaverightfulaccesstodoctoralstudiestosupplementtheirnormalprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities.Primaryschoolteacherscaneasilybegintheirfurtherstudiesinthefacultyofeducation;theirPhDdissertationswillthenfocusonaselectedtopicineducationalsciences.Manyprimaryschoolteacherstakeadvantageofthisopportunity,oftenwhilesimultaneouslyteachinginschools.Doctoralstudiesineducationforsubjectteacherswhohavetheirpreviousdegreesinsomeotheracademicfieldrequiremorework.Theseteachersmustfirstcompleteadvancedstudiesintheeducationalsciencesbecausethemainsubjectrequiresashiftfromastudent’sinitialacademicmajor,forexample,chemistry,intoeducation,sothatstudentsarequalifiedtocompletetheirresearchineducation.

TIMEFORPEDAGOGICALREFLECTION

TeachingiscommonlyviewedinFinlandasademandingprofessionrequiringsuperioracademicqualifications,evenforteachersofveryyoungstudents.Sinceteachereducationbecamepartofacademicuniversitystudiesinthe1970s,Finnishteachers’identityandsenseofbelongingtoahighlyregardedprofessionhavegraduallyincreased.DuringthecourseofFinland’seducationreforms,asexplainedinChapter1,teachershavedemandedmoreautonomyandresponsibilityforcurriculumplanningandstudentassessment.TheprofessionalcontextofteachinginFinlanddifferssignificantlyfromothercountriesregardinghowteachersexperiencetheirwork.TheprofessionallyrespectfulenvironmentthatteachersexperienceinFinlandisanimportantfactornotonlyforteachereducationpoliciesbutalsoforexplainingwhysomanyyoungFinnsregardteachingasamostadmiredcareer.

Curriculumplanningistheresponsibilityofteachers,schools,and

municipalities,nottheState.MostFinnishschoolstodayhavetheirowncustomizedcurriculumcoordinatedwithandapprovedbytheirlocaleducationauthorities.Thiscorrectlyimpliesthatteachersandschoolprincipalshavekeyrolesincurriculumdevelopmentandschoolplanning.TheNationalFrameworkCurriculaforcomprehensiveschoolandforupper-secondaryschoolprovideguidanceandnecessaryregulationsthateachschoolmustkeepinmindinitscurriculum-developmentactivities.However,therearenostrictnationalstandardsforordescriptionsofstudentlearningoutcomesthatFinnishschoolsmustincludeintheircurriculum,asistrueintheUnitedStates,GreatBritain,orCanada,forexample.Thatiswhycurriculumplanningvariesfromschooltoschoolandwhytheactualschoolcurriculacanlookverydifferentdependingontheschool.Theteachers’keyroleinpedagogicaldecisionmakingclearlyrequiresteachereducationtoinstallinallprospectiveteacherswell-developedknowledgeandskillsrelatedtocurriculumdevelopmentandstudentassessmenttheoryandpractice.Moreover,ithasshiftedFinnishteacherprofessionaldevelopmentfocusfromfragmentedin-servicetrainingtowardmoresystemicschoolimprovementthatbuildsbetterethicalandtheoreticalgroundingforeffectiveteaching.

Anotherimportantteacherresponsibilityisstudentassessment.Asmentionedearlier,Finnishschoolsdonotemploystandardizedcensus-basedteststodeterminetheirprogressorsuccess.Therearefourprimaryreasonsforthis:

1. EducationpolicyinFinlandgiveshighprioritytopersonalizedlearningandcreativeteachingasimportantcomponentsofschooling.Therefore,students’progressinschoolisprimarilyjudgedagainsttheirrespectivecharacteristicsandabilities,ratherthanbyrelianceonuniformstandardsandstatisticalindicators.

2. Educationdevelopersinsistthatcurriculum,teaching,andlearningareprioritycomponentsineducationthatshouldnecessarilydriveteachers’thinkingandschoolpractice,ratherthanfocusingonassessmentandtesting,asisthecaseinsomeothereducationsystems.StudentassessmentinFinnishschoolsisembeddedinteachingandlearningprocessesandistherebyusedtoimprovebothteachers’andstudents’workinschool.

3. Determiningstudents’personalandcognitiveprogressisregardedasaresponsibilityoftheschool,notofexternalassessmentsorassessors.MostFinnishschoolsacknowledgesomeshortcomings,suchascomparabilityorconsistency,whenteachersdoallstudentassessmentsandgrading.Atthesametime,thereiswideacknowledgmentthatproblemsoftenassociated

withexternalstandardizedtestingcanbeevenmoretroublesome.Theseproblems,accordingtoteachers,includeanarrowingcurriculum,teachingfortesting,andunhealthycompetitionamongschoolsandteachers.Classroomassessmentandschool-basedevaluationarethereforeimportantandvaluedcomponentsofFinnishteachereducationcurriculaandprofessionaldevelopment.

4. TheFinnishnationalstrategyforstudentassessmentisbasedontheprincipleofdiversifiedevidenceinwhichtest-basedperformancedataarejustonepartofthewhole.Dataregardingstudentachievementinvarioussubjectsarecollectedusingsample-basedstandardizedtestsandthematicreviews.Municipalitiesareautonomouslydesigningtheirqualityassurancepracticesaccordingtotheirneedsandaspirations.

Theonlyexternal“standardized”assessmentofstudentlearningistheNationalMatriculationExaminationattheendofupper-secondaryschoolwhenstudentsareattheageof18or19,asdescribedinChapter1.Itoccursatthecloseofuppersecondaryeducationandservesasageneralrequirementforacademichighereducation.Itassessesstudents’knowledge,skills,andcompetencesthroughessay-typeexamsinvarioussubjects,andisfullyfinancedbystudentsandadministratedbyanexternalexaminationboard.Ithasexerted,manyFinnisheducationspecialistsargue,adiscernableeffectoncurriculumandteachingingeneralupper-secondaryschool.3

AlthoughFinnishteachers’workconsistsprimarilyofclassroomteaching,manyoftheirdutiesareoutsideofclass.Formally,teacher’sworkingtimeinFinlandconsistsofclassroomteaching,preparation(inthecaseoflab-basedsubjectssuchasbiology),and2hoursweeklyofplanninganddevelopmentworkwithcolleagues.Unlikeinmanyothernations,Finnishteachersdonotneedtobepresentatschooliftheydonothaveclassesoriftheschoolprincipalhasnotrequestedthemtoperformsomeotherduties.Fromaninternationalperspective,Finnishteachersdevotelesstimetoteachingthandoteachersinmanyothernations.

AveragenetteachinghoursasreportedbythegovernmentstotheOECDarepresentedinFigure3.2.SchoolsinFinlandareautonomousintermsofschedulingtheirworkbutitisstillcommontohavea15-minuterecessaftera45-minutelesson.Everyschoolservesawarmthree-courselunchforallduringalunchbreakthatcanrangefrom20to75minutesdependingontheschoolschedule.Recentlyschoolshavesoughtalternativearrangementstoreleasemoretimeforteachers’collaboration,forexample,combininglessonsorclassesinto

longerperiodsorlargergroupsandtherebyprovidingmorediscretionarytimeduringtheschooldayforteachers.

Figure3.2revealsnotabledifferencesinaverageteachinghoursofallteachersbetweentheUnitedStatesandFinland.Evenifteachingtimeisadjustedtoannualschooldays,itappearsthatteachersinFinlandspendmuchlesstimeeachdayinteaching.Aquestionarises:WhatareFinnishteachersdoingwhenteachersinsomeothercountriesarestillteachingtheirstudents?Animportant—andstillvoluntary—partofFinnishteachers’workisdevotedtoschoolimprovementandworkwiththecommunity.ItisworthrecallingthatFinnishschoolsareresponsibleforthedesignandcontinuousdevelopmentoftheirschoolcurriculum.Also,teachersserveasthemainassessorsofstudents’educationalprogressandtheirschool’sperformance.Studentsreceivetheirgradesfromteacherswhosedutiesincludedesigningandconductingappropriateassessmentsandteststomonitortheirstudents’progressinschool.Finnishteachershaveacceptedcurriculumdevelopment,experimentationwithteachingmethods,responsibilitytoengageinstudentwelfaresupport,andcollaborationwithparentsasimportantaspectsoftheirworkoutsideofclassrooms.

ForeignvisitorsinFinnishschoolsoftenaskhowteachersareassessedbasedontheireffectiveness.Orhowdoadministratorsknowwhoareeffectiveteachersandwhoneedtoupgradetheirteachingcompetences?Theoverallfindingisclear:TherearenoformalteacherevaluationmeasuresinFinland.Sincetherearenostandardizedcensus-baseddataaboutstudentachievementavailable,itisnotpossibletocompareschoolperformanceorteachereffectiveness.TheonlyexceptionistheuseofmatriculationexaminationresultsbycertainmediaeveryspringtorankFinnishhighschoolsaccordingtotheirstudents’gradesintheexams.Thatnewsrarelygetsanysignificantattentionamongparentsorschools.

Figure3.2.AverageNetTeachingHoursperSchoolYearinFinland,theUnitedStates,andinOECDCountries

Source:Sahlberg(2011b).

ThequestionofteachereffectivenessorconsequencesofbeinganineffectiveteacherisnotrelevantinFinland.Asdescribedearlier,teachershavetimetoworktogetherduringaschooldayandunderstandhowtheircolleaguesteach.Thisisanimportantconditionforreflectingonteacher’sownteachingandalsobuildingsharedaccountabilitybetweenteachers.Theschoolinspectionsystemthatpreviouslyprovidedexternalfeedbackandevaluationofhowteacherstaughtandschoolsoperatedwasabolishedintheearly1990s.Todayschoolprincipals,aidedbytheirownexperienceasteachers,areabletohelptheirteacherstorecognizestrengthsandareasofworkthatneedimprovement.ThebasicassumptioninFinnishschoolsisthatteachers,bydefault,arewell-educatedprofessionalsandaredoingtheirbestinschools.Inrealprofessionallearningcommunitiesteacherstrusteachother,communicatefrequentlyaboutteachingandlearning,andrelyontheirprincipal’sguidanceandleadership.

Internationally,identifyingteachereffectivenesshasbecomeanewtrendinfindingwaystoimproveeducation.Novelstatisticaltechniques,calledvalue-addedmodeling(VAM),areintendedtoresolvetheproblemofsocioeconomicandotherdifferencesbyadjustingforstudents’priorachievementanddemographiccharacteristics.AlthoughVAMapproachesarefairercomparisons

ofteachersthanjudgmentsoftheirstudents’testscores,closeranalysisofVAMresultshasledresearcherstodoubtwhetherthismethodologycanidentifygoodorbadteachersasitsdesignersclaim(Bakeretal.,2010).Itissafetobelievethatrarelyaresuchquantitativemeasuresthesoleoreventheprimaryfactorofagoodorpoorteacher.Evensomemanagementexpertsfromthebusinessworldwarnagainstusingsuchmeasuresformakingsalaryorbonusdecisions,ashasbeendone,forexample,inpayingteachersbytheirperformancemerits(usingstudenttestscoresasthemainsourceofevidence).“InboththeUnitedStatesandGreatBritain,”reportsareviewoftheproblemswithusingstudenttestscorestoevaluateteachersbytheEducationPolicyInstitute,“governmentshaveattemptedtorankcardiacsurgeonsbytheirpatients’survivalrates,onlytofindthattheyhadcreatedincentivesforsurgeonstoturnawaythesickestpatients”(Bakeretal.,2010,p.7).PayingteachersbasedontheirperformanceisanalienideainFinland.Authoritiesandmostparentsunderstandthatteaching,caring,andeducatingchildrenistoocomplexaprocesstobemeasuredbyquantitativemetricsalone.InFinnishschools,theoperationalprincipleisthatthequalityofteachingandoftheschoolisdefinedthroughthemutualinteractionbetweentheschoolandthestudents,togetherwiththeirparents.

LEADERSARETEACHERS

Regardlessofhowwellteachersaretrainedinanyeducationsystem,consistenthigheducationalperformancerequiresgoodprofessionalleadershipattheschoollevel.Somecountriesallowtheirschoolstobeledbynoneducatorshopingthatbusiness-stylemanagementwouldraisetheefficiencyandimproveperformance.Similarly,localeducationauthoritiesandadministratorsaresometimespersonswithoutexperienceinteachingorleadingschools.InFinlandeducationalleadershipinmunicipaleducationofficesiswithoutexceptioninthehandsofprofessionaleducatorswhohaveexperienceinworkinginthefieldofeducation.Thisisanimportantfactorinenhancingcommunicationandbuildingtrustbetweenschoolsandeducationaladministration.

InFinlandschoolprincipalshavetobequalifiedtoteachintheschoolthattheylead.TheyalsohavetohavesuccessfullycompletedacademicstudiesoneducationaladministrationandleadershipofferedbyuniversitiesinFinland.Thismeansthatacorporate-CEOwithoutthesemeritswouldnotbeabletoleadaschool.InmostFinnishschoolstheprincipalisanexperiencedteacherwithprovenleadershipcompetencesandsuitablepersonality.Inmanyschoolsprincipalsalsohaveasmallnumberofclassestoteacheachweek.Pedagogical

leadershipisoneofthekeyareasofprofessionalschoolleadershipinFinland.Teachersrelyontheirleader’svisionandtheprincipalunderstandsteachers’work.ThereforeleadershipandmanagementinFinnishschoolsareinformalbuteffectiveasforeignobserverswitnessed(Hargreavesetal.,2008).

Beforethe1990s,becomingaschoolprincipalwasoftenarewardofsuccessfulserviceasateacher.Insomecases,however,aratheryoungteacherwasappointedasaschoolleader.Leadershipexperienceorqualitieswererarelyexaminedwhenfillinganopenprincipal’spostinschools.Nordidschoolprincipalsneedtobeexpertsinadministration,financialmanagement,orpoliticallobbyingastheydotoday.Intheearly1990sthissituationrapidlychanged.OnedriverofthischangewasthesuddendecentralizationofpublicsectormanagementandeducationaladministrationinFinlandatthattime.Anewfinancingschemethatincreasedautonomyofthemunicipalitiesimmediatelyaffectedschoolsinmostpartsofthecountry.Schoolprincipalsofferedtocontroltheirschoolbudgets;insomecasesthatincludedteachers’salariesandallrecurrentcosts.

Second,andarelateddriverofchange,wasanunexpectedfinancialcrisisthathitFinlandharderthanmanyotherWesterncountriesintheearly1990s.Schoolprincipalsbecametheoperationalarmsofthemunicipalitiesindecidinghowforthcomingbudgetcuts,thatweretypicallydouble-digitinmagnitude,wouldbemanaged.FinnishschoolprincipalsfoundthemselvesinasituationsimilartocorporateCEOswhohadtoadjusttheirfirmsintoshrinkingmarkets.Theimageofthenostalgicheadoftheschoolhadchanged.Majoreducationalchanges—suchascurriculumreformsof1994—havebeenimplementedsuccessfullyprimarilyduetoprofessionalattitudeandpedagogicalleadershipbytheschoolprincipals.Eversince,thisleadershipcommunityinFinlandhasservedasacriticalvoiceinshapingeducationpoliciesandsteeringschoolimprovementbasedontheneedsofteachers,students,andthesociety.Basedontheseexperiencesitisdifficulttoimaginethatmarket-basededucationreformsthatoftenunderminethecentralroleofpedagogicalleadershipcouldhavebeenimplementedinFinland.Schoolprincipalshavebeenfirsttostandbetweentheseintentionsandthewell-beingofschools.

GOODTEACHERS,GREATSCHOOLS

Insummary,whataretherelativestrengthsofteachereducationinFinland,basedoninternationalperspectives?First,althoughtheBolognaProcessdirectsoverallEuropeanhigher-educationstructuresandpolicies,itdoesn’tstipulatehowsignatorynationsshoulddesigncurriculaorarrangetheirteachereducation.

Thereare,andwillcontinuetobe,significantdifferencesinnationalteachereducationpoliciesandpracticesamongEuropeaneducationsystems.WithinthismosaicofEuropeanteacher-educationsystems,Finlandhasthesethreepeculiarities.

1.Themostableandtalentedindividualsgointoteaching.Sinceitshifted

primaryschoolteachereducationtotheuniversitiesandupgradedteacherdiplomastoarequiredmaster’sdegreeinlate1970s,Finlandhasattractedsomeofitsmostableandtalentedyouthtobecometeachers.Asdescribedearlier,thereisastrongculturalinfluenceincareerplanningofyoungFinns,butthatalonedoesnotexplainthesustainedpopularityofteaching.Twoothersalientfactorsmaybeidentified.First,therequiredmaster’sdegreeineducationalsciencesprovidesacompetitiveprofessionalfoundation,notonlyforbecomingemployedasaprimaryschoolteacher,butalsoformanyothercareers,includingeducationadministrationandworkintheprivatesector.Allgraduatingteachersarefullyeligibletoenrollindoctoralstudies,whicharestilltuition-freeinFinland.Second,manyyoungFinnsselectteachingastheirprimarylifecareerbecauseworkinschoolsisperceivedasanautonomous,independent,highlyregardedprofession,comparabletoworkingasamedicaldoctor,lawyer,orarchitect,forexample.Increasedexternalcontroloverteachers’workinschoolsthroughtest-basedaccountabilityorcentrallymandatedregulationwouldlikelydeflectmorebrightyoungpeopletoprofessionalcareerswheretheyhavefreedomtomakeuseoftheirowncreativityandinitiative.

2.Thereisclosecollaborationbetweensubjectfacultiesandschoolsof

education.Subjectteachereducationisorganizedcollaborativelyandiscoordinatedtoensurebothsolidmasteryofsubjectstobetaughtandstate-of-the-artpedagogicalcompetencesforallgraduates.FacultiesinFinnishuniversitiesperceiveteachereducationasanimportantcomponentoftheiracademicprograms.Lecturersandsomeprofessorsinthesubjectfacultieshavespecializedintheteachingoftheirowndisciplinesthathasenhancedcooperationamongteachereducators.Facultiesofeducationandvarioussubjectswithintheuniversityarealsopositivelyinterdependent:Theycanachievesustainablesuccessonlywhenallofthemdotheirbest.

3.Teachereducationisresearchoriented.TeachereducationinFinlandis

alsorecognizedbecauseofitssystematicandresearch-basedstructure.Allgraduatingteachers,bythenatureoftheirdegree,havecompletedresearch-

basedmaster’sthesesaccompaniedbyrigorousacademicrequirementsoftheory,methodologyandcriticalreflectionequaltoanyotherfieldofstudyinFinnishuniversitiesatthatlevel.Research-orientationtoteachereducationpreparesteachers,atalllevels,toworkincomplex,changingsocietalandeducationalenvironments.Research-basedacademictraininghasalsoenabledimplementationofmoreradicalnationaleducationpolicies.Forexample,enhancedprofessionalcompetenceshaveledtoincreasedtrustinteachersandschoolsregardingcurriculumplanning,studentassessment,reportingofstudentperformance,andschoolimprovement.Finlandhassuccessfullyintegratedresearch,knowledgeofcontentanddidactics,andpracticeintoitsteacher-educationprograms.

Indeed,thisresearchfocuscarriesatwofoldsignificanceforteachereducation.Researchfindingsestablishtheprofessionalbasisforteacherstoteachandworkeffectivelywithinacomplexknowledgesociety.Teachereducation—withinanysociety—hasthepotentialtoprogressasaneffectivefieldofprofessionalactivityonlythroughandfromrobustcontemporaryempirical,scientificinquiry.Professionalismasthemaincharacteristicofteachingrequiresthatteachersareabletoaccessandfollowongoingdevelopmentoftheirownprofessionandthattheycanfreelyimplementnewknowledgewithintheirowninstructionalwork.Thus,furtherdevelopmentofFinnishteachereducationmustnecessarilybebuiltuponongoing,high-quality,internationallyrelevantresearchanddevelopmentachievements.

Finnishteachereducation’sgreatestpotentialliesinhundredsoftalentedandmotivatedyoungpeoplewho,yearafteryear,seekenrollmentinteachereducationprograms.ThisisacrucialfactorforthecontinuedandfuturesuccessofteachereducationinFinland.YoungFinnsgravitatetowardteachingbecausetheyregarditasanindependent,respected,andrewardingprofessionwithinwhichtheywillhavefreedomtofulfilltheiraspirations.However,generalupper-secondaryschoolgraduatesalsoweighthequalityofteachereducationprogramswhenmakingdecisionsabouttheirfuturecareer.ItisthereforeparamountthatFinnishteachereducationcontinuestodeveloptoensurethat,inthefuture,itremainsanattractiveandcompetitiveoptionforhighlyableyoungpeople.

Teachers’professionalstatusinFinnishsocietyisaculturalphenomenon,buthowteachersbecomepreparedtoteachinclassroomsandworkcollaborativelyinprofessionalcommunitiesisattributabletosystematicallydesignedandimplementedacademicteachereducation.Forothernations,imitatingtheFinnishcurriculumsystemororganizationalaspectsofschoolsmaynotbeawisestrategy.However,apositivelessonthatFinnsthemselveshave

learnedbyraisingthelevelofteachereducationonparwithotheracademicpursuitscertainlymeritscloserexamination.Acriticalconditionforattractingthemostableyoungpeopleyearafteryeartoteachereducation,however,isthatateacher’sworkshouldrepresentanindependentandrespectfulprofessionratherthanmerelyfocusontechnicalimplementationofexternallymandatedstandards,endlesstests,andadministrativeburdens.

CHAPTER4

TheFinnishWay:CompetitiveWelfareState

Realwinnersdonotcompete.—SamuliParonen(Finnishauthor,1917–1974)

WhatmakesFinnisheducationuniqueisitssteadyprogressfromasystemthatwasbarelyatinternationalaveragestooneoftherarestrongpubliceducationalperformerstoday.Equallyimportant,Finlandhasbeenabletocreateanetworkofschoolswherenearlyeverybodysucceedsandfailureisrare.Simultaneously,participationinandgraduationfrompost-compulsoryeducationinFinland—bothupper-secondaryandhighereducation—haveincreasedsignificantlyduringthattime.ThesuccessofFinnisheducationhasbeenfrequentlynotedbyglobalmediaandvariouseducationdevelopmentagencies.ThisexceptionaldevelopmentwasnotaccomplishedbyfollowingthesameeducationreformprinciplesthataredominantintheUnitedStates,England,Canadaandmuchoftherestoftheworld.

Finlandhasacompetitivenationaleconomy,lowlevelsofcorruption,goodqualityoflife,astrongsustainable-developmentlifestyle,andgenderequality.ThesequalitiesmakeFinlandoneofthemostprosperousnationsintheworld.ThesuccessofFinlandasasmall,remoteEuropeannationhasbeenbuiltuponflexibilityandsolution-orientationinallaspectsofsociety.Initseducationsystem,theseprincipleshaveenabledschoolstoexperimentwithcreativityandassumeriskswhileseekingtoreachsetgoals,whetherthesegoalsrepresenteffectiveteachingorproductivelearning.Thisisinharmonywithpoliciesandstrategiesinotherareasofthepublicsector.Especiallyinterestinghasbeenthecloseinterplaybetweeneducationpoliciesandeconomicstrategiessincetheearly1990s.

ThischapterdiscussesinmoredetailhoweducationpoliciesinFinlandhaverespondedtointernationaleducationalreformideasandhowtheyarelinkedtotheoveralldevelopmentoftheknowledgeeconomyandwelfarestate.ItdescribestheincreasedinterdependencyamongpublicsectorpoliciesinFinlandsince1970,andpresentsatentativetypologytocompareeducationreformprinciplesandeconomicdevelopmentpoliciesinFinland.Themainpointofthischapteristhateducationpoliciesindynamic-knowledgesocietiesneedtobebasedonasystemsviewofpolicymakingandsustainableleadershipthatdoes

notunderminecomplexrelationshipsbetweendifferentpublicsectorpoliciesinthesesocieties.

THEPOWEROFGLOBALIZATION

InternationalizationhasshapedFinlandandthelivesofitspeopleduringthepast2decades.MembershipintheEuropeanUnionandanactiveroleintheOECDhaveincreasedindividualmobilityandtheexchangeofpoliciesbetweenFinlandandtherestofthedevelopedworld.Finnishpeople,however,remaindividedregardingglobalization.Manythinkthatglobalizationisleadingtoadiminishingrolefornation-statesandlossoftheirsovereignty,asaresultoftheemergenceofglobalhegemonyoftransnationalmoney,media,andentertainmentcorporations.Othersarguethatstandardizationineconomies,policies,andcultureshasbecomeanewnormforcompetitivecorporationsandnations,thusdiminishingFinnishcustomsandtraditions.Changesinglobalculturealsodeeplyaffecteducationalpolicies,practices,andinstitutions.Itisobviousthatthereisnostraightforwardviewoftheconsequencesoftheglobalizationprocessoneducationalpolicies.

Indeed,globalizationisaculturalparadox:Itsimultaneouslyunifiesanddiversifiespeopleandcultures.Itunifiesnationaleducationpoliciesbyintegratingthemwithbroaderglobaltrends.Becauseproblemsandchallengesaresimilarfromoneeducationsystemtothenext,solutionsandeducationreformagendasarealsobecomingsimilar.Duetointernationalbenchmarkingofeducationsystems,byusingcommonindicatorsandtheinternationalcomparisonsofstudentachievement,thedistinguishingfeaturesofdifferenteducationsystemsarebecomingmorevisible.Forexample,theOECDPISAhasmobilizedscoresofpoliticiansandeducationexpertstovisitothercountries,especiallyFinland,Canada,andKorea,inordertolearnhowtoredefinetheirowneducationpoliciesandimproveschools.Asaconsequence,globalizationhasalsoacceleratedinternationalcollaboration,theexchangeofideas,andthetransferofeducationpoliciesamongeducationsystems.

Analyzingglobalpolicydevelopmentsandeducationreformshasbecomeacommonpracticeinmanyministriesofeducation,developmentagencies,andconsultantfirms.Therefore,theworld’seducationsystemsarebeginningtosharesomecorevalues,functions,structures,andevidentlytheylookalike.Thequestionariseswhetherincreasedglobalinteractionamongpolicymakersandeducators,especiallybenchmarkingofeducationsystemsthroughagreedindicatorsandborrowingandlendingeducationalpolicies,haspromoted

commonapproachestoeducationreformthroughouttheworld.Changeknowledgeineducationhasbeencreatedanddisseminated

predominantlybyEnglish-speakingcountries.TheUnitedStates,Canada,andtheUnitedKingdomintheWestandAustraliaandNewZealandintheEasthavebecomethecentersofgravityforresearchanddebateonschoolimprovement,schooleffectiveness,andeducationalchange.Twoacademicjournals,SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement(establishedin1990)andtheJournalofEducationalChange(establishedin2000),arethekeyforumswithinwhichcontemporarychangeknowledgeiscommunicated.1BeyondtheAnglo-Saxonworld,theNetherlands,Sweden,Spain,andNorwayhaveengagedmostactivelyininternationaldialogueandresearchoneducationalchange.Surprisingly,Finland,Korea,andJapan—allcountrieswithhigh-performingandequitableeducationsystems—havehadonlyamodestroleinthegenerationofglobalchangeknowledge.EachofthesecountrieshasheavilyreliedontheresearchandinnovationfromtheUnitedStates,England,Australia,andCanada.

Inthebusinessofglobaleducationdevelopmentitisimportanttobeacriticalconsumerofavailablechangeknowledge.Indeed,ratherthanshiftingemphasistowardstandardizedknowledgeofcontentandmasteryofroutineskills,someadvancededucationsystemsarefocusingonflexibility,risktaking,creativity,andproblemsolvingthroughmodernmethodsofteaching,suchascooperativelearning,andthroughtheuseofcommunitynetworksandcommunicationtechnologiesinteaching.Thenumberofexamplesisincreasing,includingChina(oratleastitslargercitieslikeShanghai,Beijing,andHongKong,aneconomicpowerthatislooseningitsstandardizedcontroloneducationbymakingaschool-basedcurriculumanationalpolicypriority.JapanandSingaporeareadoptingtheideaof“lessismore”inteachinginordertomakeroomforcreativityandinnovation(seeChapter11inOECD,2010c).ThehighestperformingCanadianprovince,Alberta,islooseningitsgriponschoolsbyremovingstandardizedprovincialassessmentsandcreatingmoreintelligentaccountabilitypolicies,whichfocusonauthenticlearning.Waleshasdonesoalready.EveninEngland,themosttest-intensiveeducationsystemintheworld,thegovernmentisputtinganendtoallstandardizedtestinginprimaryschools.

Asareactiontotheoveremphasisonknowledge-basedteachingandtest-basedaccountability,authoritiesaroundtheworldareconsideringmoredynamicformsofcurriculum,introducingsmarterformsofaccountabilityandenhancingleadershipineducationinordertofindalternativeinstructionalapproachesthatpromotetheproductivelearningrequiredinknowledgeeconomies.Insteadoffocusingonsingleinstitutions,educationreformsarebeginningtoencouragenetworkingofschoolsandcommunities.Atthecoreofthisideais

complementarity,thatis,cooperationbetweenschoolsanddistrictsandstrivingforbetterlearninginthenetwork.Clusteringandnetworkingalsoappeartobecorefactorsinnations’economiccompetitivenessandeffortstocopewithglobalization.

Althoughimprovementofeducationsystemsisaglobalphenomenon,thereisnoreliable,recentcomparativeanalysisabouthoweducationreformsindifferentcountrieshavebeendesignedandimplemented.However,theprofessionalliteratureindicatesthatthefocusoneducationaldevelopmenthasshiftedfromstructuralreformstoimprovingthequalityofandaccesstoeducation(Hargreaves&Fink,2006;Hargreaves&Goodson,2006).Asaresult,curriculumdevelopment,studentassessment,teacherevaluation,integrationofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesintoteachingandlearning,proficiencyinbasiccompetencies(i.e.,readingandwriting),andmathematicalandscientificliteracyhavebecomecommonprioritiesineducationreformsaroundtheworld.Thesechangesinschoolsandclassroomsarethenensuredbyemployingmanagementmodelsfromthebusinessworld,suchastest-basedaccountability,merit-basedpayanddata-drivenadministration.IcallthistheGlobalEducationalReformMovement(seeSahlberg,2006a,2007,2010a).

THEGLOBALEDUCATIONALREFORMMOVEMENT

TheideaoftheGlobalEducationalReformMovement,orsimplyGERM,evolvesfromtheincreasedinternationalexchangeofpoliciesandpractices.Itisnotaformalglobalpolicyprogram,butratheranunofficialeducationalagendathatreliesonacertainsetofassumptionstoimproveeducationsystems(Sahlberg,2011a;Hargreaves,Earl,Moore,&Manning,2001;Hargreaves&Shirley,2009).GERMhasemergedsincethe1980sandisoneconcreteoffspringofglobalizationineducation.Ithasbecomeacceptedas“aneweducationalorthodoxy”withinmanyrecenteducationreformsthroughouttheworld,includingreformsintheUnitedStates,manypartsofAustralia,CanadaandtheUnitedKingdom,someScandinaviancountries,andincreasingnumberofcountriesinthedevelopingworld.2

Tellingly,GERMispromotedthroughthestrategiesandinterestsofinternationaldevelopmentagencies,bilateraldonors,andprivateconsultantsthroughtheirinterventionsinnationaleducationreformsandpolicy-makingprocesses.ProfessorDianeRavitchhasdescribedhowventurephilanthropyinjectsbillionsofdollarsintopubliceducationsystemsintheUnitedStates—

and,tolesserextent,insomeothercountries—andofteninsistsonemployingmanagementconceptsandprinciplesborrowedfromthebusinessworldintheschoolsystems(Ravitch,2010c).BydoingsoitpromotestheviralspreadofGERMglobally.ThereareonlyasmallnumberofprivatefoundationsprovidingfundstopubliceducationinFinland,andtheyhavetooperateunderclosesupervisionoftheauthorities.Theirinfluenceoneducationpoliciesorthedirectionofeducationreformsisdiminishing.

TheinspirationfortheemergenceofGERMcomesfromthreeprimarysources.Thefirstisthenewparadigmoflearningthatbecamedominantinthe1980s.Thebreakthroughofcognitiveandconstructivistapproachestolearninggraduallyshiftedthefocusofeducationreformsfromteachingtolearning.Accordingtothisparadigm,intendedoutcomesofschoolingemphasizegreaterconceptualunderstanding,problemsolving,emotionalandmultipleintelligences,andinterpersonalskills,ratherthanthememorizationoffactsorthemasteryofirrelevantskills.Atthesametime,however,theneedforproficiencyinliteracyandnumeracyhasalsobecomeaprimetargetofeducationreforms.

Thesecondinspirationisthepublicdemandforguaranteed,effectivelearningforallpupils.TheglobalcampaigncalledEducationforAllhasbeeninfluentialinshiftingthepolicyfocusineducationfromteachingofsometolearningforall.Inclusiveeducationarrangementsandtheintroductionofcommonlearningstandardsforallhavebeenofferedasmeanstopromotetheidealofeducationforall.Thishasled,generallyspeaking,toraisingtheexpectationsforallstudentsthroughnationalcurriculumsandcommonprograms.

Thethirdinspirationisthecompetitionandaccountabilitymovementineducationthathasaccompaniedtheglobalwaveofdecentralizationofpublicservices.Makingschoolsandteacherscompeteforstudentsandresourcesandthenholdingthemaccountablefortheresults(i.e.,studenttestscores),thismovementhasledtotheintroductionofeducationstandards,indicatorsandbenchmarksforteachingandlearning,alignedassessmentsandtesting,andprescribedcurricula.AsJamesPophamhasnoted,variousformsoftest-basedaccountabilityhaveemergedwhereschoolperformanceandraisingthequalityofeducationarecloselytiedtotheprocessesofaccreditation,promotion,sanctions,andfinancing(Popham,2007).Inotherwords,educationhasbecomeacommoditywheretheefficiencyofservicedeliveryultimatelydeterminesperformance.

Sincethe1980s,atleastfivegloballycommonfeaturesofeducationpoliciesandreformprincipleshavebeenemployedinattemptstoimprovethequalityof

education,especiallyintermsofraisingstudentachievement.Thefirstisstandardizationineducation.Outcomes-basededucationreformbecamepopularinthe1980s,followedbystandards-basededucationpoliciesinthe1990s,initiallywithinAnglo-Saxoncountries.Thesereforms,quitecorrectly,shiftedthefocusofattentiontoeducationaloutcomes,i.e.,studentlearningandschoolperformance.Consequently,awidelyaccepted—andgenerallyunquestioned—beliefamongpolicymakersandeducationreformersisthatsettingclearandsufficientlyhighperformancestandardsforschools,teachers,andstudentswillnecessarilyimprovethequalityofdesiredoutcomes.Enforcementofexternaltestingandevaluationsystemstoassesshowwellthesestandardshavebeenattainedemergedoriginallyfromstandards-orientededucationpolicies.Sincethelate1980scentrallyprescribedcurriculawithdetailedandoftenambitiousperformancetargets,frequenttestingofstudentsandteachers,andhigh-stakesaccountabilitywithmerit-basedpayforteachershavecharacterizedglobalizededucationpolicies,promisingquickfixesandstandardizedsolutionsatincreasinglylowercostforthosedesiringtoimproveschoolqualityandeffectiveness.

Asecondcommonfeatureoftheglobaleducationreformmovementisincreasedfocusoncoresubjectsincurriculum,suchasliteracyandnumeracy(Hargreaves,2003).Basicstudentknowledgeandskillsinreading,writing,mathematics,andnaturalsciencesareelevatedasprimetargetsandindicesofeducationreforms.DuetotheacceptanceofinternationalstudentassessmentssuchasPISA,TIMSS,andPIRLSascriteriaofeducationalperformance,reading,mathematical,andscientificliteracyhavenowbecomethemaindeterminantsofperceivedsuccessorfailureofpupils,teachers,schools,andentireeducationsystems.LiteracyandnumeracystrategiesthatincreasedinstructiontimeforsocalledcoresubjectsinEnglandandOntarioareconcreteprogrammaticexamplesoftheglobaleducationalreformmovement.IntheUnitedStates,theNoChildLeftBehindlegislationledmostschooldistrictstostealteachingtimefromothersubjects,especiallyfromsocialstudies,arts,andmusic,tobebetterpreparedforstateteststhatmeasuredstudentperformanceinliteracyandmathematics(Jennings&StarkRentner,2006).

Thethirdcharacteristicthatiseasilyidentifiableinglobaleducationreformsisteachingwithprescribedcurriculum;inotherwords,searchingforsafeandlow-riskwaystoreachpredeterminedlearninggoals.Thisminimizesexperimentation,reducesuseofalternativepedagogicalapproaches,andlimitsrisktakinginclassroomsandschools.Researchoneducationsystemsthathaveadoptedpoliciesemphasizingachievementofpredeterminedstandardsandprioritizedcoresubjectssuggeststhatteachingandlearningarenarrower,and

teachersfocusonguaranteedcontenttobestpreparetheirstudentsforthetest(Au,2009).Thehigherthetest-resultstakes,thelowerthedegreeoffreedomforexperimentationinclassroomlearning.

Thefourthgloballyobservabletrendineducationalreformisthetransferofmodelsfromthecorporateworldasamainlogicofchangemanagement.Thisprocess,whereeducationalpoliciesandtheirimplementationprinciplesareborrowedfromoutsidetheeducationsystem,isoftensupportedbyprivatecorporations,consultantfirms,andprivateventurephilanthropy.Moralgoalsofhumandevelopmentareoftencombinedwithnationalhegemonyandeconomicprofit.Faithineducationalchangethatdependsoninnovationsbroughtfromoutsidetheeducationsystemunderminestwoimportantelementsofsuccessfuleducationalimprovement.First,itoftenlimitstheroleofnationalpolicydevelopmentandtheenhancementofaneducationsystem’sowncapabilitytomaintainrenewal(Levin,1998).Perhapsmoreimportant,itparalyzesteachers’andschools’attemptstolearnfromthepastandtolearnfromeachother.Or,itpreventslateralprofessionaldevelopmentinthesystemthatisthemainsourceofenergyneededforsustainededucationalimprovement.

Thefifth,andacorollaryofthepreviousglobaltrend,isadoptionofhigh-stakesaccountabilitypoliciesforschools.Withinthattrend,schoolperformance—especiallyraisingstudentachievement—iscloselytiedtoprocessesofaccrediting,promoting,inspecting,and,ultimately,rewardingorpunishingschoolsandteachers.Merit-basedpayisonepopularapproachtoholdingteachersaccountablefortheirstudents’learning.Successorfailureofschoolsandteachersisoftendeterminedbystandardizedtestsandexternalevaluationsthatdevoteattentiontolimitedaspectsofschooling,suchasstudentachievementinmathematicalandreadingliteracy,exitexaminationresults,orintendedteacherclassroombehavior.

RacetotheTop(RTTT),launchedin2009,isa$4.35billionU.S.DepartmentofEducationprogramdesignedtospurreformsinstateandlocaldistricteducation,andincludesmanyoftheelementsofGERM.Itencouragescompetitionamongstatesandalsobetweenschoolsastheyseekmoreeffectivepracticesandpractitioners.Teacherandleadereffectivenessasmeasuredbystandardizedstudenttestshaveacentralroleinthisinitiative.Table4.1alsoillustrateshoweducationpoliciesinFinlandsincethe1980shavebeenalmostorthogonaltothoseoftheRTTT.

Therearealsootherswhohaveanalyzedtheglobaleducationalchangeefforts.AndyHargreavesandDennisShirleyhavedonesointheirbookTheFourthWay(2009),towhichIwillreturnlaterinthischapter.MichaelFullan,aCanadianeducationalchangescholar,hascometoasimilarconclusioninhis

analysisofwhole-systemreformpoliciesandstrategies(2011).Hespeaksabout“driversofchange,”suchaseducationpolicyorstrategylevers,whichhavethebestchancesofdrivingintendedchangeineducationsystems.“Intherushtomoveforward,”writesFullan,“leaders,especiallyfromcountriesthathavenotbeenprogressing,tendtochoosethewrongdrivers”(p.5).“Wrongdrivers”includeaccountability(vs.professionalism),individualteacherquality(vs.collegiality),technology(vs.pedagogy),andfragmentedstrategies(vs.systemsthinking).TheseineffectiveelementsofeducationreformthatresonatecloselywiththeaspectsofGERMdiscussedabovehavefundamentallymissedthetargetsandcontinuetodoso,accordingtoFullan.Inhisanalysisofwhole-systemreformsintheUnitedStatesandAustralia,hegoesevenfurther:

Thereisnowaythattheseambitiousandadmirablenationwidegoalswillbemetwithstrategiesbeingused.Nosuccessfulsystemhaseverledwiththesedrivers.Theycannotgenerateonalargescalethekindofintrinsicmotivationalenergythatwillberequiredtotransformthesemassivesystems.TheUSandAustralianaspirationssoundgreatasgoalsbutcrumblefromastrategyordriverperspective.(Fullan,2011,p.7)

NoneoftheelementsofGERMshowninTable4.1hasbeenadoptedinFinlandinthewaysthattheyhavewithineducationpoliciesofmanyothernations.This,ofcourse,doesnotimplythatthereisnoeducationalstandardization,learningofbasicskills,oraccountabilityinFinnishschools.Nordoesitsuggestthatthereisablack-and-whitedistinctionbetweeneachoftheseelementsinFinlandvis-à-visothercountries.But,perhaps,itdoesimplythatagoodeducationsystemcanbecreatedusingalternativepoliciesorthogonaltothosecommonlyfoundandpromotedinglobaleducationpolicymarkets.

GERMhashadsignificantconsequencesforteachers’workandstudents’learninginschoolswhereverithasbeenadominantdriverofchange(Sahlberg,2011a).Themostsignificantconsequenceisstandardizationofeducationalandpedagogicalprocesses.Performancestandardssetbytheeducationalauthoritiesandconsultantshavebeenbroughtintothelivesofteachersandstudentswithoutfullunderstandingthatmostofwhatpupilsneedtolearninschoolcannotbeformulatedasaclearstandard.Newformsofstudentassessmentsandtestingthathavebeenalignedtothesestandardsareoftendisappointmentsandbringnewproblemstoschools.However,becausethestandardizationagendapromisessignificantgainsinefficiencyandqualityofeducation,ithasbeenwidelyacceptedasabasicideologyofchange,bothpoliticallyandprofessionally.

Table4.1.TheKeyElementsofGlobalEducationalReformMovementin

ComparisonwithFinnishEducationPoliciesSincetheEarly1990s

Thevoicesofpractitionersarerarelyheardintheeducationpolicyand

reformbusiness.Educationalchangeliteratureisprimarilytechnicaldiscoursecreatedbyacademicsorchangeconsultants.Therefore,IgivespaceheretoaschoolimprovementpractitionerfromScotland.ThisexampleisparticularlyrelevantbecauseScotlandiscurrentlyrecoveringfromaratherseriousGERMinfectionafewyearsback.Thesymptomsincludedtop-heavyplanning,rigidcurriculum,fixedmeasuresthroughaudits,externalsnapshot-inspectionandexternallyjudgedaccountability.Manyofthemaregraduallynowfadingaway

andgivingroomtomoreintelligentcurriculumandevaluationpolicies.NiallMacKinnon,whoteachesatPlocktonPrimarySchool,makesacompellingappealfor“locallyownedquestionsandpurposesinrealisingpracticewithinthebroadernationalpolicyandpracticeframeworks”(MacKinnon,2011,p.98).HegetsrighttothepointofhowGERMaffectsteachersandschools:

Thereistherealpracticaldangerthatwithoutanunderstandingofrationaleandtheoreticalbasesforschooldevelopment,practitionersmaybejudgedbyauditorsondifferingunderlyingassumptionstotheirowndevelopmentalpathways,andtheuniversalisticgradingschemascometobeappliedasamaskorfrontgivingpseudoscientificveneertoimposedcriticaljudgmentswhicharenothingmorethanexpressionsofdifferentviewsandmodelsofeducation.Throughthemechanismofinspection,adifferenceofconceptualviewpoint,whichcouldpromptdebateanddialogueinconsiderationofpractice,iseliminatedinjudgmentalanddifferentialpowerrelations.Oneviewsupplantsanother.Commandandcontrolreplacesmutuality,dialogueandconceptualexplorationmatchedtopracticedevelopment.Thosewhosufferarethoseinnovatingandbringinginnewideas.(MacKinnon,2011,p.100)

GERMhasgainedglobalpopularityamongpolicymakersandchangeconsultantsbecauseitemphasizessomefundamentalneworientationstolearningandeducationaladministration.Itsuggestsstrongguidelinestoimprovequality,equity,andtheeffectivenessofeducation,suchasputtingpriorityonlearning,seekinghighachievementforallstudents,andmakingassessmentanintegralpartoftheteachingandlearningprocess.However,italsostrengthensmarket-likelogicandproceduresineducation.Firstandmostimportantly,GERMassumesthatexternalperformancestandards,describingwhatteachersshouldteachandwhatstudentsshoulddoandlearn,leadtobetterlearningforall.Byconcentratingonthebasicsanddefiningexplicitlearningtargetsforstudentsandteachers,suchstandardsplacestrongemphasesonmasteringthecoreskillsofreadingandwritingandmathematicalandscientificliteracy.Systematictrainingofteachersandexternalinspectionareessentialelementsofthisapproach.

Second,GERMreliesonanassumptionthatcompetitionbetweenschools,teachers,andstudentsisthemostproductivewaytoraisethequalityofeducation.Thisrequiresthatparentschooseschoolsfortheirchildren,thatschoolshaveenoughautonomy,andthatschoolsandteachersareheld

accountablefortheirstudents’learning.Bycontrast,atypicalfeatureofteachingandlearninginFinlandishigh

confidenceinteachersandprincipalsregardingcurriculum,assessment,organizationofteachingandinspectionoftheworkoftheschool.Anotherfeatureistheencouragementofteachersandstudentstotrynewideasandapproaches,inotherwords,tomakeschoolacreativeandinspiringplacetoteachandlearn.Moreover,teachinginschoolsaimstocultivaterenewalwhilerespectingschools’pedagogiclegacies.ThisdoesnotmeanthattraditionalinstructionandschoolorganizationarenonexistentinFinland;itisquitetheopposite.Whatisimportantisthattoday’sFinnisheducationpoliciesarearesultof3decadesofsystematic,mostlyintentional,developmentthathascreatedacultureofdiversity,trust,andrespectwithinFinnishsociety,ingeneral,andwithinitseducationsystem,inparticular.

IhavenamedthisalternativeapproachtotheglobaleducationalreformmovementtheFinnishWay.AsimilarattemptindevelopmentoftheinformationsocietyandeconomicsystemiscalledtheFinnishModel(Castells&Himanen,2002;Routti&Ylä-Anttila,2006;Saari,2006).WhatdistinguishesFinlandfrommostothernationsisthattheprovenlevelofperformanceoftheeducationsystemhasoccurredsimultaneouslyinlearningoutcomesandequityineducation.TheseareboththenextgenerationapplicationsoftheThirdWay,orradicalcentrism,thatbecamewell-knowninthe1990sthroughtheleadershipofTonyBlair,BillClintonandGerhardSchröder.Ineducation,theFinnishWayseemstohavestronglyinspiredtheFourthWay(2009):

TheFourthWayisawayofinspirationandinnovation,ofresponsibilityandsustainability.TheFourthWaydoesnotdrivereformrelentlesslythroughteachers,usethemasfinaldeliverypointsforgovernmentpolicies,orvacuumuptheirmotivationsintoavortexofchangethatisdefinedbyshort-termpoliticalagendasandthespecialinterestswithwhichtheyareoftenaligned.Rather,itbringstogethergovernmentpolicy,professionalinvolvement,andpublicengagementaroundaninspiringsocialandeducationalvisionofequity,prosperityandcreativityinaworldofgreaterinclusiveness,securityandhumanity.(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009,p.71)

Inthequoteabove,thewordFourthcouldbereplacedbythewordFinnish.TheFinnishWayisaprofessionalanddemocraticpathtoimprovementthatgrowsfromthebottom,steersfromthetop,andprovidessupportandpressurefromthe

sides.“Throughhighqualityteacherscommittedtoandcapableofcreatingdeepandbroadteachingandlearning,”asHargreavesandShirleydescribetheFourthWay,“itbuildspowerful,responsibleandlivelyprofessionalcommunitiesinanincreasinglyself-regulatingbutnotself-absorbedorself-seekingprofession”(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009,p.107).IntheFinnishWayteachersdesignandpursuehighstandardsandsharedtargets,andimprovetheirschoolscontinuouslythroughprofessionalcollaborationandnetworks,fromevidence,andfromliteratureintheirtrade.

AKNOWLEDGE-BASEDECONOMY

Themajoreconomictransformationandneedforsophisticatedknowledgeandskillsinnewhigh-techindustriesprovidedtheFinnisheducationsystemwithuniqueopportunitiesforradicalrenewalinthe1990s.Thishappenedatthesametimeasthreesignificanteconomicandpoliticalprocessesunfolded:thecollapseoftheSovietUnion;adeepandsevereeconomicrecessiontriggeredbyaFinnishbankingcrisis(1990–1993);andintegrationwiththeEuropeanUnion(1992–1995).EachofthesechangesinfluencedtheFinnisheducationsectoreitherdirectlyorindirectly.Bythemiddleofthe1990s,aclearFinnishconsensusemergedthatmobilecommunicationtechnologieswouldeventuallyfosterthetransformationtoaknowledgeeconomyandthatthiswasperhapsthebestwayoutoftheeconomiccrisisandintotheheartofEuropeanpower(Routti&Ylä-Anttila,2006).Itwasalsorealizedthattheknowledgeeconomyisnotonlyaboutpreparinghumancapitalforhigherknow-how,itisalsoabouthavinghighlyeducatedandcriticalconsumersabletobenefitfrominnovativetechnologicalproductsinmarketsrequiringbettertechnologicalliteracy.

Inthebeginningof1993,Finlandwasinthemostsevereeconomicrecessionsincethe1930s.Unemploymentwasreaching20%,grossdomesticproductvolumehaddeclined13%,thebankingsectorwascollapsing,andpublicdebthadgonethroughtheroof.Thegovernmentrespondedtothisnationalcrisisinanunexpectedway.First,investmentswereheavilytargetedtoinnovationinsteadofpromotingarangeoftraditionalactivities.Thesurvivalstrategyaddresseddiversificationawayfromtimberandconventionalindustriestowardhigh-technologyandmobilecommunication.Itintroducednewnationalcompetitivenesspolicyandacceleratedtheprivatizationofgovernment-ownedcompaniesandpublicagencies,andacceleratedtheliberalizationoffiscalmarketsandforeignownershipinFinland.Thekeyassumptionwasthatthefacilitationofprivatesectorinnovationandreciprocalcollaborationbetween

publicandprivateactorswouldbesuperiortotraditionaldirectinterventionandinvestmentinbroaderresearchanddevelopmentpolicy.Theovercomingofcrisiswasmainlyduetothestrongconcentrationonthetelecommunicationindustry,andthesupportofNokiaCorporationinparticular.NokiagavebirthtoacompletelynewelectronicsindustryinFinland,anessentialpartofthesuccessfulFinnisheconomiccomebackinthe1990s.

Second,knowledgeaccumulationanddevelopmentbecamethekeyturnaroundfeatureinpullingFinlandupfromdepression.Withoutmanynaturalresourcestorelyon,Finland’smaindeterminantsforgrowthstrategiesbecameknowledgeandtheactiveinternationalizationofitseconomyandeducation.In1998,theWorldEconomicForum(WEF)rankedFinlandas15thinitsglobalcompetitivenessindex.By2001Finlandhadclimbedtothepolepositioninthisinfluentialrankingthatcoversmorethan130economiesoftheworld(Sahlberg,2006a;AlquézarSabadie,&Johansen,2010).Grossexpenditureonresearchanddevelopment,commonlyusedasaproxyforcompetitivenessinknowledge-basedeconomies,increasedfrom2.0%in1991,to3.5%in2003,andto3.7%in2008,atthesametimetheOECDaveragefluctuatedbetween2.0%and2.3%(StatisticsFinland,n.d.b).ThenumberofknowledgeworkersintheFinnishlaborforcealsoincreasedsignificantly.Thetotalresearchanddevelopmentlaborforcein1991wasexactlyanOECDaverageatthattime,slightlymorethanfivepeopleperthousandworkers.By2003thisnumberclimbedto22people,almostthreetimeshigherthantheconcurrentOECDaverage.

ThetransformationoftheFinnisheconomyintoaknowledge-economyisdescribedas“remarkable,notonlyinlightofitsearliereconomicdifficulties…[butbecause]itisinterestingtoseethataknowledgeeconomycanbebuiltsuccessfullyinasmallandcomparablyperipheralcountry”(Routti&Ylä-Anttila,2006,p.4).Trustandincreasedinvestmentininnovationresultedineducationpoliciesinthe1990sthatfocusedonbetterknowledgeandskillsincoherencewithcreativityandproblemsolving.Thestrongfocusonmathematics,science,andtechnologycontributedmarkedlytothegrowthofNokiaasaworldleaderinmobilecommunicationandStoraEnsoinpapermanufacturing.SeveralFinnishuniversitieswerecloselyconnectedtoresearchanddevelopmentinthesefirms.Indeed,governmentalinnovationagenciesactivelyfacilitatedinnovationasathirdelementintheFinnishknowledgeandinnovationtriangle.Finnisheconomistswhoendorsedtheimportanceofinnovationandeducationinnationaldevelopmentpolicyalsoplayedanimportantrole.Educationwasseenasnecessaryandapotentialinvestment—notjustexpenditure—inhelpingtodevelopinnovationandadoptingmoreinnovationthroughouttheeconomy.Highlyeducatedpeoplearecertainly

“irreplaceablefortheimplementationofnewtechnologiesfromhomeandabroad”(Asplund&Maliranta,2006,p.282).

TheinformationsocietyandknowledgeeconomyhavebeenimportantcontextualfactorsforeducationalchangeinFinlandsincethe1970s.TheeconomicsectorinFinlandhasexpectedtheeducationsystemtoprovidetheneededquantitiesofskilledandcreativeyoungpeoplewithappropriatecompetencestodealwithrapidlychangingeconomicandtechnologicalenvironments.Intheircallforraisingstandardsofknowledgeandskills,Finnishemployers,forexample,werereluctanttoadvocatefornarrowspecializationandearlyselectiontoschools,contrarytomanyothercountriesatthattime.WhileFinnishindustryactivelypromotedbetterlearningofmathematics,sciences,andtechnology,itsimultaneouslysupportedratherinnovativeformsofschool–industrypartnershipsaspartoftheformalcurriculum.Therapidemergenceofinnovation-drivenbusinessesinthemid-1990sintroducedcreativeproblemsolvingandinnovativecross-curricularprojectsandteachingmethodstoschools.3SomeleadingFinnishcompaniesremindededucationpolicymakersoftheimportanceofkeepingteachingandlearningcreativeandopentonewideas,ratherthanfixingthemtopredeterminedstandardsandaccountabilitythroughnationaltesting.

MembershipintheEuropeanUnionin1995markedamentalchallengeandchangefor,andwithin,Finland.TheSovietUnionhaddisappearedonlyafewyearsearlier,aneventthatboostedconsolidationofFinland’sidentityasafullmemberofWesternEurope.TheaccessionprocessofbecomingaEuropeanUnionmember-statewasequallyimportantasattainingactualmembershipin1995.AsanewFinnishidentityemergedduringtheyearsoftheEuropeanUnionaccession,Finnishpeopleweremotivatedtoensurethattheyandtheirinstitutions,includingschools,wereuptothelevelofotherEuropeannations.Infact,thepoorreputationofmathematicsandsciencesinFinnishschools,comparedtoEuropeanpeersinthe1970sand1980s,becameareasontotryhardertoimproveFinnisheducationalperformancetoagoodEuropeanlevel.AlthougheducationisnotincludedinformalEuropeanUnionmembershiprequirementsorcommonpolicies,theaccessionprocesshadatangiblepositiveimpactonstrengtheningpublicinstitutions,includingtheeducationsysteminFinland,especiallyinthemidstoftheworsteconomicrecessiondescribedearlierinthisbook.Moreover,FinnisheducatorsbecameincreasinglyawareofvariousEuropeaneducationsystems.Thiscertainlydrovetheongoingeducationreformandadoptionofnewideasasmoreinformationbecamereadilyavailableaboutpracticeswithinothersystems.

HistoryandthepersonalmindsetofFinnssuggestthattheyareattheirbest

whenfacedwiththesekindsofglobalchallenges.Forexample,experiencessuchasthe1952Olympics,thewaragainsttheSovietUnion,andthedeepeconomicrecessionoftheearly1990sprovidegoodevidenceofthecompetitiveandresilientFinnishspirit,orsisuastheFinnssay.Theseeducationalandculturalattitudeswerecomplementedbykeyeconomic,employment,andsocialpoliciesthatevolvedsincethe1970s,whiletheestablishmentofawelfarestateanditsinstitutionsandpolicieswascompletedbytheendofthe1980s.SurvivalhasalwaysbeenthebestsourceofinspirationandenergyfortheFinnstogobeyondexpectations.

Analysisofeducationalchangeoftenincludesspeculationaboutthebasicnatureofchange,thatis,whetheritisevolutionaryorrevolutionary.Thesetermsrefertochangeaseithercontinuouswithsmoothdevelopmentfromonestagetoanother,orradicaltransition,wherenewinstitutionsandrulesarecreated.EducationalchangeinFinlandhasdisplayedperiodicevolution,meaningthatthenatureofeducationalchangehaschangedduringtheseperiodsofchange.Whatisimportanttorealize,asshowninTable4.2,isthat1990marksanimportantwatershedinFinnishhistorythatdistinguishestwoperiodsineducationaltime.Thetimepriorto1990wascharacterizedbythecreationofinstitutionsandframeworksforawelfare-basededucationsystem.Post-1990hasbeenmoreconcernedwithinterests,ideas,andinnovationsthathaveformedtheeducationsystemasanintegralpartofthecomplexsocial,economic,andpoliticalsystem.PartofthesuccessoftheFinnishWayemergesfromanabilitytocreatepunctuatedequilibriumbetweenthesetwoperiodsofeducationalchange.

TwosimultaneousprocesseshaveplayedanimportantroleindevelopingtheeducationsysteminFinlandsince1970.Ontheonehand,increasedinteractionamongvariouspublic-sectorpolicieshasstrengthenedthecoherenceofeconomicandsocialreformsand,therefore,createdconditionsforwhatHargreavesandFinkterm“sustainableleadership”ineducation(Hargreaves&Fink,2006).Thisincreasedcoherenceenablessystematiccommitmenttolonger-termvisionandintersectorcooperationamongdifferentpoliciesandstrategies.Ontheotherhand,internationalizationandFinland’sintegrationintotheEuropeanUnionhaveharmonizedandintensifiedconsolidationanddevelopmentofpublicinstitutionsandtheirbasicfunctions.Inthislight,threeconclusionscanbedrawnregardinghowFinnisheducationalsuccesscanbeunderstoodfromaneconomicandpoliticalperspective:

1. ThesuccessofFinnisheducationreformismainlybasedoninstitutionsandinstitutionalstructuresestablishedinthe1970sand1980s,ratherthanon

changesandimprovementsimplementedfromthe1990s.Thisstate-generatedsocialcapitalthatiscreatedthroughgovernmentregulationsandmotivatedbytheresponsibilitytoprovidebasicconditionsofwell-beingforallhasprovidedafavorablesocialcontextforeducationalachievement.

2. ChangesinFinnishprimaryandsecondaryeducationafter1990havebeenmoreaboutinterests,ideas,andinnovationsthanaboutnewinstitutionalstructures.Institutionalchangesinthe1990shavebeensmaller,exceptinhighereducationwhereanewpolytechnicsystemwasintroduced.Nonetheless,directionsremainclearandarebasedontheearlierpolicies.

3. Theemphasisonnationalcompetitivenessthathasbeenakeydrivingforceinmostpublic-sectorpoliciesintheEuropeanUnion,hasnotbeenconvertedtocleartargetsoroperationsinFinnishpublic-policysectorsduringthe1990sand2000s.Atthesametime,equityprinciplespromulgatedintheearly1970shavegraduallylostinfluenceinthesepolicies.

Table4.2.IncreasedInterdependencyAmongPublicSectorPoliciesinFinlandSince1970

Tosumup,since1970therehavebeentwodifferingyetinterconnected

educationalchangeperiods,whichdifferintermsofthetheoriesofchangeandsourcesofideasandinnovationdrivingthem.Ononehand,educationreformprincipleshaveincreasinglybeencreatedinterdependentlywithotherpublic-policysectors,followingacomplementarityprinciple.Ontheotherhand,ideasforeducationalchange—particularlyimprovingteachingandlearninginschools—havebeenbuiltuponpastgoodpracticesandtraditionsinFinland.Thishassometimesbeenlabeledpedagogicalconservatismandhascreatedapedagogicalequilibriumbetweenprogressivismandconservatismthroughlearningfromthepastandteachingforthefuture(Simola,2005).AcommonconclusionabouttheroleofsocialandeconomicpoliciesinbuildingtheeducationsysteminFinlandsincethe1970sisthatitisademonstrationofhowcontextmakesadifferenceineducationalachievement.Inotherwords,itdemonstratesthatindividualwell-being,equitabledistributionofincome,andsocialcapitalcanexplainstudent

learningininternationalcomparisons.Let’stakeacloserlookathowsocialpoliciesandthewelfarestatearelinkedtoeducationsystemperformanceinFinland.

WELFARE,EQUALITY,ANDCOMPETITIVENESS

Socialpolicydecisionsinthe1950sand1960sunderscoredtheeconomicimportanceoffarmsrunbyfamilies.However,thegeneralperceivedimageofFinlandremainedagrariandespiterapidindustrializationandagriculture’sdecliningcontributiontotheGDPoverthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury.RegardlessofdrasticchangesinthewayoflifeandemergingcosmopolitanismamongFinnishpeople,traditionalsocialvaluesendured.AccordingtoRichardLewis,whohasstudiedtheFinnishcultureclosely,thesevaluesincludedsuchculturalhallmarksasalaw-abidingcitizenry,trustinauthorityincludingschools,commitmenttoone’ssocialgroup,awarenessofone’ssocialstatusandposition,andapatrioticspirit(Lewis,2005).Policiesthatguidededucationreformssincethe1970sreliedontheseculturalvaluesandprinciplesofconsensus-buildingthathavebeendistinguishingcharacteristicsofFinnishsociety.

Finlandfollowedthemainpost-warsocialpoliciesofotherNordiccountries.Thisledtothecreationofatypeofwelfarestatewherebasicsocialservices,includingeducation,becamepublicservicesforallcitizens,particularlyforthosemostinneedofsupportandhelp.Itincreasedthelevelofsocialcapital,asdidnationalgovernmentpoliciesthataffectedchildren’sbroadersocialenvironmentandimprovedtheiropportunitiesandwillingnesstolearn.ProfessorMartinCarnoycallsthis“state-generatedsocialcapital”(Carnoy,2007).State-generatedsocialcapitalisthesocialcontextforeducationalachievementcreatedbygovernmentsocialpolicies.TheinfluenceofsocialrestructuringandeducationalreforminFinlandwasprofoundandimmediate.Eagertoimprovetheirchildren’seconomicandsocialopportunities,FinnishparentsturnedtotheeducationsystemthathasservedasanequalizinginstitutioninFinnishsociety.

Incomeinequalityisoftenclaimedtoaffectpeople’slivesinmorewaysthanjusthowmuchtheycanaffordtospendontheirliving.Areeducationsystemsinmoreequalsocietiesperformingbetterthanelsewhere?RichardWilkinsonandKatePickettargueintheirbook,TheSpiritLevel,thatindeedthesesystemsaredoingbetterinmorewaysthanjustone(Wilkinson&Pickett,2009).Actually,theyshowhowincomeinequalityisrelatedtomanyotherissuesinoursocietiesaswell.Incomeinequalitycanbemeasuredindifferentways.Onecommonmethodcalculatesthegapbetweenthewealthiestandpoorestquintileineachcountry.InFigure4.1,IusethedatafromtheUnitedNations2006Human

DevelopmentReport(UNDP,2007)andPISA2006(OECD,2007)toconstructarelationshipbetweenincomeinequalityandsciencelearningfor15-year-olds.Itappearsthatthereisanotstrongbutstillrecognizablerelationshipbetweenwealthdistributionandstudentlearning:Inmoreequalsocieties,pupilsseemtolearnbetterinscience.WilkinsonandPickettshowhowmoreequitablecountries(statistically)havemoreliteratecitizens,rarerschooldrop-out,lessobesity,bettermentalhealth,andfewerteenagepregnanciesthanthosewheretheincomegapbetweenpoorandwealthyiswider.

Figure4.1.IncomeInequalityandStudentLearninginScience(PISA)in

SelectedDevelopedCountriesin2006

Source:OECD(2007)andUNDP(2007).

Itseemsunderstandablethatincomeinequality,childpovertyandlackofappropriatepupilwelfareinschoolsplayanimportantpartinimprovingteachingandlearninginnationaleducationsystems.ThishasbeenwellunderstoodinFinlandduringthelasthalfacentury.Complimentaryschoollunches,comprehensivewelfareservices,andearlysupporttothoseinneedhavebeenmadeavailableforallchildreninallFinnishschools—freeofcharge.Everychildhas,bylaw,arighttothesewelfareservicesintheirschool.

ThischapterurgesthateducationalprogressinFinlandshouldbeviewedinthebroadercontextofeconomicandsocialdevelopmentandrenewal,both

nationallyandglobally.Interestingly,thegrowthoftheFinnisheducationsectorcoincidedwithanimpressiveeconomictransformationfromanagrarian,production-driveneconomytoamoderninformationsocietyandknowledge-driveneconomy.Indeed,Finlandhastransformeditselfintoamodernwelfarestatewithadynamicknowledgeeconomyinarelativelyshorttime.TheFinnishexperienceofthe1990srepresentsoneofthefewdocumentedexamplesofhoweducationandthereforeknowledgecanbecomedrivingforcesofeconomicgrowthandtransformation.Duringthatdecade,Finlandbecamethemostspecializedeconomyintheworldintelecommunicationtechnologyandthuscompleteditstransitionfromresource-driventoaknowledge-andinnovation-driveneconomicandeducationalsystem.

Inthe2000s,Finlandconsistentlyscoredhighininternationalcomparisonsofnationaleconomiccompetitiveness,transparencyandgoodgovernance,communicationnetworkreadiness,implementationofsustainabledevelopmentpolicies,and,surprisingly,inhappinessofpeople.Finlandhasbeenrankedasthemostcompetitiveeconomyseveraltimesinthefirstdecadeofthe21stcenturybytheWorldEconomicForum’sGlobalCompetitivenessIndex.4ThisissignificantgiventhatFinlandexperiencedasevereeconomiccrisisintheearly1990s.BecomingacompetitiveeconomyandthefirstcountrytomakeabroadbandInternetconnectionahumanrightforallcitizens,requiredamajorrestructuringoftheeconomy.Moreover,Finlandalsohasareputationofruleoflawand,asaconsequence,alowlevelofcorruptionthatplaysanimportantroleineconomicdevelopmentandperformanceofpublicinstitutions.In2009,theBritishthinktankLegatumrankedFinlandthemostprosperousnation,beforeSwitzerland,Sweden,Denmark,andNorway(theUnitedStateswasrankedninth)(http://www.prosperity.com).Thelatesummer2010issueofNewsweeklabeledFinlandasthebestcountryintheworld,trailedbySwitzerland,Sweden,Australia,andLuxemburg(UnitedStateswas11th)(Newsweek,2010).Educationwasthedrivingforceinbothoftheseindexes.

Afterthehistoriceconomiccrisisofthe1990s,goodgovernance,strongsocialcohesiveness,andanextensivesocialsafetynetprovidedbythewelfarestatemadeanexceptionallyrapideconomicrecoverypossible.AsimilarturnaroundofFinnisheconomicprogresswasrecordedaftertheglobalfinancialcrisisin2008.OneofthestrategicprinciplesinpullingtheFinnisheconomyoutofdownturnhasbeencontinuoushighlevelsofinvestmentinresearchanddevelopment,asdescribedearlierinthischapter.Despiteseverecutsinpublicspending,bothintheearly1990sandafterthemostrecentfiscalcrisis,beliefinknowledgegenerationandinnovationhasremainedstrong.In2010,Finlandspentnearly4%ofGDPinresearchanddevelopment—thehighestoftheOECD

countriesafterSweden.Asnoted,thischapterassertsthateducationsystemperformancehastobe

seeninthecontextofothersystemsinthesociety,forexample,health,environment,ruleoflaw,governance,economy,andtechnology.ItisnotonlythattheeducationsystemfunctionswellinFinland,butthatitispartofawell-functioningdemocraticwelfarestate.AttemptstoexplainthesuccessoftheeducationsysteminFinlandshouldbeputinthewidercontextandseenasapartoftheoverallfunctionofdemocraticcivilsociety.EconomistshavebeeninterestedinfindingoutwhyFinlandhasbeenabletobecomethemostcompetitiveeconomyintheworld.EducatorsaretryingtofigureoutthesecretofFinland’shigheducationalperformance.Thequalityofanationoritspartsisrarelyaresultofanysinglefactor.Theentiresocietyneedstoperformharmoniously.

Fourcommonfeaturesareoftenmentionedascontributoryfactorsforpositiveeducationalandeconomicprogress.First,policydevelopmenthasbeenbasedonintegrationratherthanexclusivesubsectorpolicies.Educationsectordevelopmentisdrivenbymedium-termpolicydecisionsthatrelyonsustainablebasicvalues,suchasequalopportunitiestogoodeducationforall,inclusionofallstudentsinmainstreampubliclyfinancededucation,andstrongtrustinpubliceducationasacivilrightratherthananobligation.Thesemedium-termpoliciesintegrateeducationandtraining,andinvolvetheprivatesectorandindustryinthecreationandmonitoringoftheirresults.Similarly,economicandindustrialpolicieshaveintegratedscienceandtechnologypoliciesandinnovationsystemswithindustrialclusters.Integratedpolicieshaveenhancedsystemicdevelopmentandtheinterconnectednessofthesesectorsandhavethuspromotedmoresustainableandcoherentpoliticalleadershipfortheirsuccessfulimplementation.

Second,strategicframeworkdevelopmentandchangehavebeenbuiltuponlonger-termvision.Nationaldevelopmentstrategies,suchastheInformationSocietyProgramin1995,NationalLifelongLearningStrategyin1997,andMinistryofEducationStrategy2020in2009,haveservedasoverarchingframeworksforthesectorstrategies(thesestrategiescanbefoundonthewebsiteoftheMinistryofEducation,www.minedu.fi).Theseandotherstrategieshaveemphasizedincreasingflexibility,coherencebetweenvarioussectors,anddevelopmentoflocalandregionalresponsivenessandcreativityininstitutions.

Third,therolesofgovernanceandpublicinstitutionshavebeencentralinpolicydevelopmentsandtheimplementationofbotheducationandeconomicreforms.Goodgovernance,high-qualitypublicinstitutions,andruleoflawplayimportantrolesinpolicydevelopmentandimplementationofplannedchanges.Evaluationapproachesinbothsectorsaredevelopment-orientedandvarious

playersinthesystemareheldaccountableforprocessandoutcomes.Specificinstitutions,suchastheParliamentaryCommitteeoftheFuturearesharedbyprivateandpublicrepresentativesaswellasthekeystakeholdersofthesocietyforconsensus-makingpurposes.

Fourth,ahighlyeducatedlaborforceandbroadparticipationineducationatalllevelsguaranteethestockofhumancapitalthatisnecessaryforbothgoodeducationservicedeliveryandeconomicgrowth.Forinstance,allteachersarerequiredtoholdamaster’sdegree,andmostworkersareencouragedtoparticipateincontinuousprofessionaldevelopmentaspartoftheirwork.Teachersareprofessionalsintheirschoolsandthereforeactivelyinvolvedinplanningandimplementingchangesintheirwork.

FlexibilityisoneofthekeydenominatorsofeducationandeconomicdevelopmentinFinland.Theeducationsystemwentthroughamajortransformationintheearly1990swhenmoststateregulationswereabolishedandpathwaystoeducationopportunitiesweredramaticallyincreased.Similarly,privatesectorregulationswereloosenedandmoreflexiblestandardswereintroduced,especiallytofosternetworkingbetweenfirms,universities,publicresearch,anddevelopmentinstitutions.

Strongintegratedpolicyframeworksandlonger-termstrategicvisionshaveenhancedsustainableleadershipineducationandprivatesectordevelopments.Duetothissustainabilityfactortheeducationsystemhasbeenreluctanttoadoptmarket-orientedprinciplesoftheGlobalEducationReformMovement.Forexample,learningandteachingstandards,high-stakestests,orconsequentialaccountability,haveneverbeenfavoredinFinnisheducationpolicies.Frequentandopendialoguebetweenprivatebusinessleadersandthepubliceducationsectorhasincreasedthemutualunderstandingofwhatisimportantinachievingthecommongoodandpromotingthedevelopmentofaknowledgeeconomy.Indeed,activecooperationbetweeneducationandindustryhasencouragedschoolstoexperimentwithcreativeteachingandlearningpractices,especiallyinnurturingentrepreneurshipandbuildingpositiveattitudestowardwork.Mostimportantly,themainprincipleinthedevelopmentofFinnishsocietyhasbeenencouragingintellectualgrowthandlearningofeachindividual.Developingculturesofgrowthandlearningineducationinstitutionsaswellasinworkplaceshasprovedtobeoneofthekeysuccessfactors.

TWOFINNISHICONS:NOKIAANDPERUSKOULU

WhenpeopleareaskedwhattheyassociatewithFinland,mostsay:“Nokia.”AccordingtoFinnishdiplomatsaroundtheworld,nextcomes“Education.”In

themiddleof2011Nokiastillistheleadingmobilecommunicationcompany,withabouta40%shareofallmobilephonessoldin2010intheworld.ItsheadofficeislocatedinEspoo,justwestofHelsinki.Nokiaemployssome133,000peoplearoundtheworldwithnetsalesof60billionU.S.dollars(in2010).TheglobalreputationofFinnisheducation,inturn,drawsprimarilyfromperuskoulu,a9-yearcomprehensiveschoolmodellaunchedin1972thathasbecomethebedrockofallotherformsofeducationinFinland.Thereare2,900suchschoolsinFinlandwith550,000studentsand40,000teachersin2010.AlthoughNokiaasanenterpriseandperuskouluasapublicinstitutionareverydifferentandservingdifferentpurposes,theysharesomeinterestingsimilarities.ThesesimilaritiesreflecttheprinciplesofbeingFinnishanddoingbigthingsintheFinnishway.

BothNokiaandtheFinnishpublicschoolsystemhaverootsdatingbacktothe1860s.ThestoryofNokiabeginsin1865.FredrikIdestam,miningengineerandfounderofNokiaCompany,broughtanewpapermanufacturingprocessfromGermanytoFinlandandbuiltawoodpulpmillonthebanksoftheTammerkoskiRivernearthecityofTampere.Idestam’sinventionwasrecognizedwithanawardattheParisWorldExpositionin1867,andheisoftenreferredtoasthefatherofFinland’spaperindustry.AlittlelaterheopenedasecondmillbytheNokianvirtaRiver.ThisiswhereNokiagotitsname.

TheFinnishschoolsystemevolvedatthesametime.PastorUnoCygnaeus,astudentofmygrandfather’sgrandfather’sfather,ProfessorCarlReinholdSahlberg,andatravelcompanionofhissonReinholdFerdinandtoSitka,Alaska,inthe1840s,wassenttoGermanyandSwitzerlandbytheFinnishSenateinthe1850stofindouthowpubliceducationshouldbeorganizedinFinland.Cygnaeusrecommendedthatthefirstteacherpreparationseminar,basedonwhathesawinSwitzerland,shouldbeestablishedinJyväskylä,Finland.Thefirstteachereducationseminarbegantherein1863.HealsoadvisedthattheFinnishFolkSchool,asitwascalled,shouldbebasedonpracticallearningandthedevelopmentofmanualskillsforallstudents,boysandgirls.TheSenatepassedtheActofBasicEducationin1866.ThefirstFinnishpublicschoolforallchildrenwasestablishedinJyväskyläinthatsameyear,anditfollowedthemodelofGermaneducation.ThepedagogyofCygnaeussignificantlyshapedthefutureofpubliceducation,andhehascometobeknownasthefatherofFinnishpublicschool,althoughtherearethosewhoquestionwhetherthistitlecanbegiventoonlyoneperson.

Nokiagrewquicklyandexpandeditsbusinessfromforestrytorubberworks,cables,andelectronics.Duringthefirsthalfofthe20thcentury,NokiabecameanimportantplayerintheFinnisheconomy.By1967,Nokiahad

becometheNokiaCorporation,aconglomeratewithrubber,cable,forestry,electronics,andpowergenerationdivisionsandglobalreach.Withitsrangeofexpertise,Nokiawasideallypositionedforapioneeringroleintheearlyevolutionofmobilecommunications.WhenEuropeantelecommunicationsmarketswerederegulatedinthe1970sand1980sandmobilenetworksbecameglobal,Nokiaquicklytooktheleadingrolewithsomeiconicinnovations:Thefirstinternationalmobilephonenetworkwasbuiltin1981andthefirstnewtechnologyGSM(globalsystemformobilecommunications)phonecallwasmadebyNokiain1991.UndertheleadershipofitsnewCEO,JormaOllila,Nokiadecidedtofocusonmobiletelecommunication.Asaresult,Nokiabecametheworldleaderofthemobiletelephoneindustrybytheendofthatdecade.ThistransformationofNokiahappenedinarelativelyshortperiodoftimeandisoftencitedasanexampleofdramaticorganizationaltransformation.

EducationinFinlandhasgonethroughasimilartransformation,ashasbeendescribedinpreviouschaptersofthisbook.Inthebeginningofthe1960s,barely10%ofadultsinFinlandhadearnedasecondarydegreeorhigher.Mostyoungpeoplesoughtemploymentrightaftercompleting7or8yearsofbasiceducation.Untilthebeginningofthe1970s,furthereducationopportunitieswerebasedonprivategrammarschoolsthatmanyfamiliescouldnotafford.ThetransformationoftheeducationsysteminFinlandthatkickedofffromtheintroductionofthenewperuskouluwasfundamentalandrapid.Itledtotheimmediateexpansionofupper-secondaryeducationandcreatedpathwaystohighereducationfortwothirdsoftheagecohortsbytheendofthe1990s.Buildingontheideasofupgradingteachereducationtothemaster’sdegreelevelinuniversities,abolishingstreamingandabilitygrouping,andinvestingearlyoninspecialeducationandstudentcounselingpositivelyaffectedthequalityofeducationinperuskouluandbeyond.Asaconsequence,bytheendofthe1990s,Finnishperuskoulubecametheworldleaderinreading,science,andmath.Thisshiftfromanelitistandsociallydividedsystemofeducationintothemostequitablepubliceducationsystemintheworldhappenedinsuchashorttimethatithasbeenfrequentlycitedasanexampleofdramaticorganizationaltransformation.

Bythe1990s,NokiaandFinnishschoolingenteredaneraoffruitfulengagement.MyworkwiththeFinnishMinistryofEducationinthe1990sincluded,amongotherduties,chairingthenationaltaskforcetocreatetheNationalFrameworkforScienceCurriculum.Thetaskforceincludednotonlyeducatorsfromschoolsanduniversitiesbutalsobusinessleadersandentrepreneurswhohadaninterestinwhatyoungpeopleshouldlearninschool.NokiawasthekeyplayerintheFinnishindustryatthattimeandalsoan

outspokenadvocateofhigh-qualityeducation,especiallyinperuskoulu,wherethefoundationforknowledgeandskillsisbuilt.Itwasunderstandable,therefore,thatwegaveaparticularlyattentiveeartotheopinionsandperspectivesofleadersatNokia.InourdialoguewithNokia,tooursurprise,weheardquiteunexpectedideasofdevelopingFinnishperuskoulu.

ThelogicoftheNokiansandsomeotherswithsimilarpointsofviewwassimple.Inordertobeonthecuttingedgeofinnovationinthemobilecommunicationbusiness,theycontendedthatpeoplemustbethekey.Theirobjectiveinthisregardwastohirethemostinnovativeaswellasthemostcollaborativepeopletheycouldfindandtogivethemthefreedomtoworktogetherandtakerisks.Theyexplainedtousthatifpeopleworkorlearninanenvironmentwhereavoidanceofmistakesandfearoffailurearedominant,theytypicallydon’tthinkforthemselves.Fearoffailuredoesnotengendercreativity.Itwasassimpleasthat.OneofthemembersoftheNokiatopmanagementputittousthisway:

BOX4.1:TheFinnishSchoolPrincipal

SchoolsizesinFinlandareincreasing.Onehundredfiftyyearsago,whentheFinnishpublicschoolwasborn,mostschoolshadonlyoneteacher.Todaytheseschoolsdonotexist.Intoday’sschools,teachershavetobeabletoworktogetherinsharedspacesandalsoeducatestudentstogether.Eachteacherhastoadjusthisorherpedagogicalthinkingandprinciplestothoseofotherteachers.Itisthereforeessentialthattheschoolhasacommonculturethatenablesconsistentteachingandlearningforsharedpurposes.Thatiswhyaprincipalisneededineachschool.

TheFinnishschoolprincipalisalwaysalsoateacher.AlmostallFinnishprincipalsteachsomeclasseseachweek.Finnishschoolprincipalshaveanincreasingamountofadministrativeduties.Manycomplainthattheworkloadisbecomingtooheavy.Theprincipalneedsagoodtheoryofleadershipinordertocopesuccessfullywithalltasksandresponsibilitiesinschool.Iwouldsaythatprincipalsshouldalsohaveavisionofwhatagoodschoolisandknowhowleadershipcanhelptoachievethatvision.

InmyworkasaprincipalImakebasicvaluesthefoundationonwhichIlaymyleadership.Ingoodschoolsdailyroutinesworkwellandteachingiseffective.Mytaskistohelpmyteacherstodotheirbest,and

Imakenecessarydecisionssothatmyschooloperateswell.Iworkhardtocreateagoodatmosphereinschoolandinspireteachersandstudents.AsaleaderofmyownschoolandpartofthenetworkofotherpublicschoolsinmydistrictImustknownationalandlocallevelpolicies.Itisimportanttoguaranteethatpublicmoneyiswiselyspentinallschools,includingmine.That’swhatmakesagoodschoolprincipal.

Istrivetobeagoodprincipalinmyschool.ItmeansthatIhavetodomybestasamanager,leader,director,andpedagogicguideforteachersandstudents:Inotherwords,Iwanttobeagoodandtrustedperson.Thebiggestchallengeformeistocombinealltheseaspectsofmywork.Beingaschoolprincipalisnotlikebeinganadministratororcoachofasportsteam.Aschoolprincipalisinchargeofthepartofacomplexsocialsystemthatiscontinuouslychanging.Withoutexperienceasateacherthisworkwouldbeverydifficulttofulfillsuccessfully.

MarttiHellströmSchoolPrincipalofAuroraSchool

CityofEspoo

Ifwehireayoungsterwhodoesn’tknowallthemathematicsorphysicsthatisneededtoworkhere,wehavecolleaguesherewhocaneasilyteachthosethings.Butifwegetsomebodywhodoesn’tknowhowtoworkwithotherpeople,howtothinkdifferentlyorhowtocreateoriginalideasandsomebodywhoisafraidofmakingamistake,thereisnothingwecandohere.Dowhatyouhavetodotokeepoureducationsystemup-to-datebutdon’ttakeawaycreativityandopen-mindednessthatwenowhaveinourschools.5

AnothersignificantmessagearticulatedbytheNokiansconcernedsharedleadershipandstrongtrustinpeople.DanSteinbockwritesinhisrecentbook,WinningAcrossGlobalMarkets,“Nokiansbelievethatinarapidlychangingandhighlycomplextechnologyandmarketingbusiness,abroadanddiverseexecutiveteamcanprovidestability,flexibility,andsimplicityindecisionmaking”(Steinbock,2010,p.47).Indeed,informality,quickdecisionmaking,andfreedomtoacthavebeentypicalprincipleswithintheleadershipofeducationinFinlandsincetheearly1990s.JustlikeinNokia,theobjectiveofeducationalmanagementinFinlandhasbeentohavedecisionsmadebythe

peoplewhohavethebestknowledgeandskills.Theeducationmanagementsystemisnotonlylesshierarchicalthanmanyothereducationsystems,butdecidedlyantihierarchical.TheobjectiveofmeritocraticmanagementinbothNokiaandtheeducationsystemistoencouragecreativity,entrepreneurship,andpersonalresponsibility.

SmartphonesalesbecametheweakcomponentofNokiain2010.Nokiacontinuedtomakemobilephonesthatweresmarterbuttheywerealsomorecomplicatedforusers.ThesenewproductswerenotabletocompeteinNorthAmericawiththeiPhoneandotherhand-heldmediadevicesthatcoulddomorethantraditionalphones.TheFinnishCEOofNokiawasreplacedinmid-2010byaCanadianfromMicrosoft.AnalysisofwhatwentwrongatNokiarevealssometellingaspectsofleadershipthatmayresonatewitheducationsectormanagementlateron.Someobserversarguedthat10yearsagoNokiahadreachedastateofcomplacencywithitsdominationoftheworld’smobilephonemarket.Therewerethosewhoclaimedthattopmanagementproceduresweretooslowwhentheyreliedonbuildingconsensusoneverypossibletechnicalissue.6AndthentherewerethosewhobelievedthatNokiahadlostmuchofitscreativecapacitytocomeupwithnewideaswhensetgoalshadbeenrealized.AllthesearealsopotentialrisksfortheFinnisheducationsystemasitmovesonasacelebratedmodelofpubliceducationintheworld.ThefourthOECDPISAstudyin2009conveyedthefirstsignsofpossibleturnofthecourseoftheFinnishcomprehensiveschool,althoughtheoverallperformanceisstillexcellent(OECD,2010b).AswillbediscussedinChapter5,certaincomplacencyandinabilitytobuildjointandinspiringvisionofthefutureinFinnisheducationwillserveasfactorsthatinevitablyleadthesystemintotrouble.

Yet,NokiaandFinnisheducationarefundamentallydifferent.Nokiaisaninternationalcorporationinthefiercelycompetitivemarketofcommunicationtechnologyandinnovation.Finnisheducation,especiallyitsperuskoulu,isastrictlydomesticsystemofhumandevelopment.Nokiaisacommercialenterprisedrivenbythepurposeofprivategood,whileeducationinFinlandisapublicserviceforsocialgood.Finally,Nokiareliesheavilyonitsownproprietaryresearchanddevelopmenttokeepitscompetitiveedge.TheFinnishschoolsystemdoesnothavethistypeofbuilt-insourceofinnovationonwhichtorely.

ForeignvisitorshaveoftenaskedmeaboutwhereallthepedagogicalideasandinnovationscomefrominFinnisheducation.Theresponsesurprisesthem:theUnitedStates,England,Canada,Sweden,andGermany,amongothercountries.AlthoughtheeducationalchangeischaracterizedastheFinnishWay,describedearlierinthischapter,thesourceofmanypedagogicalinnovationsand

researchevidenceforchangeareimportedfromelsewhere.EducationinFinlandalsodependsonatrulyopen-sourceplatformbecausedomesticeducationalchange-knowledgegenerationismodestininternationalcomparison.In2009Nokiaspent8.5billionU.S.dollarsonitsownresearchanddevelopmentwork,witheverythirdstaffmemberemployedasaresearcher.Finland’sbudgetforhighereducationin2009—for40institutionsofpost-secondarylearning—wasapproximately4billionU.S.dollars,includingresearchinallfieldsofscience.

THEFINNISHDREAMCHALLENGED

Itwouldbeamistaketothinkthattheeducationreformsofthe1970sthatcreatedFinland’s9-yearperuskouluweresupportedbyallbusinessleaders,politicians,andeducators.Thecampaignagainstperuskouluwasparticularlyharshfromsomepartsofthebusinesscommunity.Finnishbusinessleadersfollowedcloselyhowperuskoulu,whichwasbuiltonthegroundofformerprivatelygovernedgrammarschools,wasimplemented.TheFinnishBusinessandPolicyForum(EVA),apolicyandpro-marketthinktank,gavefundingtoafoundationthatwasopposedtothisongoingschoolreformandwantedtoseeprivateschoolsasalternativestothenewschools.TheParliament’sconservativerightaccusedadvocatesofthecomprehensiveschoolreformofbeingsocialistorevencommunist,warningthatthemodelwouldjeopardizethesteadyeconomicprogressofFinnishsociety.TheothersideoftheaisledefendedthereformsbysayingtheywouldsecureagoodeducationforeverychildinFinlandandtherebyraisethewell-beingandprosperityofFinnishsociety.Therewasalsoadebateinthe1970sabouttheabilityofthenewperuskoulutokeepupwiththeinternationalraceforaknowledgeableandskilledlaborforce.Thesecriticsfearedthatperuskouluwouldnotallowthemostableandtalentedtoprogressasfarastheyshouldinschool.

Inthelate1980s,whentheoppositiontoongoingeducationreformwasparticularlystrong,someparentsaswellaspoliticiansandbusinessleadersvoicedtheircriticismanddissatisfactiontoperuskoulu,whereallstreamingandtrackinghadbeenabolishedafewyearsearlier.Accordingtothesecritics,theemphasisonsocialequalityhadledtoasuppressionofindividuality.Thisconcernwas,infact,voicedbytheprimeministerattheFinnishSchoolPrincipals’AnnualMeetinginNovember1987:

Whenbelievingthatanyonecanlearneverything,thegoalsofthecomprehensiveschoolaresettoohigh.Whentryingtoeducatethewhole

populationtotheunattainablecomprehensiveschoollevel,thefinancialandmentalresourcesofasmallnationarebeingwastedonahopelesstask.Thesesameeducationalresourceswouldbebadlyneededtoeducatethosewhohaveproventobetalentedindifferentareastointernationalhighstandards.OnlythatwaycanwemaintainFinland’spositioninthehardinternationalcompetitioninscienceandtheeconomy.(Ahoetal.,2006,p.62)

Triggeredbythisperceptionofthepoliticalleadership,FinnishbusinessleaderslaunchedasurveytofindouttheactualstateofperuskouluasthemainmediumofeducationinFinland.Intheautumnof1988,theFinnishmediawidelyreportedthefindingsofthatsurvey.Thegrimconclusionwasthatperuskoulukillstalent.Inotherwords,itdoesn’tallowableandgiftedpupilstoprogresstotheirfullpotentialbecauseitinsistsonsocialequalitybyemployingunifiedcurriculuminallclassrooms.Thiscoincidedwiththederegulationoftheeconomy.TheeducationsystemhadtosupportthetransitionofFinnishsocietyintoamoreliberalandcompetitivemarketeconomy.Therewerethose—includingthethenprimeministerofFinland—whoarguedthattheeconomictransformationfrompostindustrialtoknowledgeeconomyrequiresthatableandtalentedstudentsshouldbeofferedopportunitiestoprogressfreelyandnotto“waitforthemediocrestudents,”especiallyinmathematicsandscience.

ThecampaigntoreformtheFinnisheducationsystemaccordingtothemodelsofthefreemarketcontinuedintothe1990s.TheEducationReformActof1988intheUnitedKingdomwiththefirstnationalcurriculumandcommonattainmenttargetstoall,theoutcome-basededucationpoliciesofNewZealand,andthestandards-basedmodeloftheUnitedStateswereallseenbysomeFinnishbusinessleadersassuitablealternativestothenewFinnishWayineducation.Increasingchoice,competition,andspecializationwerecitedasawaytobettereducation.NationalassessmentsandregulartestingofstudentachievementwerepromotedasthenecessarymeansofcatchinguptoothereducationsystemsthatseemedtoincreasethegapbetweenthemandFinlandineducation.

Criticismcontinuedandsharpeneduntiltheendofthe1990s,althoughresearchfindingsdidnotsupportthecontentionthatstudentswerelearninglessbecauseofperuskoulu(Linnakylä&Saari,1993).Shiftingtheresponsibilityofcurriculumplanning,schoolimprovement,andstudentassessmenttomunicipalitiesandschoolsinthemid-1990shadstrengthenedthesupportfromteachersandprincipalstodeveloptheFinnishschoolsystemwithoutusingthemodelsofmarketplacemanagement.Thecriticalvoicesweresuddenlymutedin

earlyDecember2001whennewsofthefirstPISAstudywaspublishedintheglobalmedia:FinlandoutperformedallotherOECDcountriesinreading,mathematics,andsciencewhenmeasuredattheendofperuskoulu.Indeed,theperuskouluwasvalidated.FinnishschoolingsoonjoinedNokiaasanotherFinnishglobalbrand.

CHAPTER5

IstheFutureFinnish?

Thefutureneedsabigkiss.—U2,360ºTour2009–2011

Finlandhasbeenengagedincomprehensiveschoolreformsincethe1970s.Researchonspecificfeaturesofperuskoululedtothedevelopmentofappliededucationalsciences,orsubjectdidactics,inFinnishuniversities.However,moregenericunderstandingsofeducationalchangeremainedrelativelyuntouched.Eventoday,researchoneducationalchange,schoolimprovement,andschooleffectivenessinFinlandismodest.MuchmoreanalyticalandresearchworkontheFinnisheducationalsystemisconductedonthecountry’seducationalpoliciesatdifferentphasesofitshistory.Itissomewhatparadoxicalthatwithundevelopeddomesticeducationalchangeknowledge,Finlandhasbeenabletotransformitseducationsystemin3decades,asthisbookdescribes.ModelsofchangeinFinlandhaveoftenbeenborrowedfromabroad,buteducationalpolicies,asdiscussedearlier,werecraftedandthenimplementedintheFinnishway.

Finlandhasnowcometoaforkintheroad.Untiltheendofthe20thcentury,Finlandhasbeenfollowingothercountries,learningfromthemandsometimesadaptingtheirgoodideasforitsownrestructuringanddevelopment.Indeed,itiseasiertowalkthepathsthatothershavepavedthantobeinthelead.Butthefuturerequiresnewwaysofthinking.Finlandhasshownthatinthepastithasbeenabletobeinnovativewhenneededandhasuseditspastexperienceasabasisfornewpoliciesandpractices.TheCountryBrandDelegationcrystallizedFinland’sgreateststrengthas“theunbiased,solution-focusedapproachtoproblems,whichderivesfromourhistoryandculture.Whenfacedwithanimpossiblesituation,werollupoursleevesanddoubleourefforts,”(MinistryofForeignAffairs,2010,p.3).Therefore,thisfinalchapterfirstarguesthateducationalexcellencehasbeenattainedbecauseFinlandhaschosenanalternativewayinitseducationalreform,oftenalmostinoppositiontotheglobaleducationalreformmovement.Finland’sapproachreflectsaparticularwinningstrategy:Systemwideexcellenceineducationispossiblebydoingthingsdifferentlythanothers.ThechapternextdiscussessomefactorsbehindeducationalsuccessinFinlandsincethe1970s.ItthensuggeststhatFinlandneedstoworkoutasharedvisionofthefuturethatinspirespractitionersandcommunitiestocontinuouslyrenewteachinginschoolsandeducationinthe

communities.Ultimately,thecorequestionconsideredisthis:WillFinlandsustainitshigheducationalperformanceinthefuture?

EXCELLENCEBYBEINGDIFFERENT

InthisbookIhaveconveyedmyconcernthattheinsistencethatnationsfollowtheGlobalEducationalReformMovement—characterizedbyincreasedcompetitionandchoice,standardizationofteachingandlearning,tighteningtest-basedaccountability,andmerit-basedpayforteachers—mayjeopardizeschools’effortstoteachfortheevolvingknowledgesocietyandforasustainablefuture.Thisisnotthebestwaytoimprovelearninginourschools,andthereisnoevidencethatitwouldimprovethequalityorenhanceequityofeducationsystems.Finland,forgoingthetenetsoftheGERM,isanationthathasdemonstratedsustainededucationalimprovementsincetheearly1970s,shownconsistenthighperformancebystudents,andmaintainedanequitableeducationalsystematthesametime.Finnishschoolsoperateincongruencewithacompetitiveknowledgeeconomyaswasdescribedinpreviouschapters.Itisthereforeusefultolookathowthatsocietyhasrespondedtotheglobalchallengetotransformnationaleducationsystemstoincreasetheiroveralleffectivenessandrelevancefor21st-centuryknowledgeandskillsneeds.

Interestingly,thetermaccountabilitycannotbefoundinFinnisheducationalpolicydiscourse.Finnisheducationalreformprinciplessincetheearly1990s—whenmuchofthepublicsectoradministrationwentthroughathoroughdecentralization—havereliedondevelopingprofessionalresponsibilitybyeducatorsandencouraginglearningamongteachersandschools,ratherthanbyapplyingbureaucraticaccountabilitypolicies.Therefore,sample-basedtesting,thematicassessments,reflectiveself-evaluations,andemphasisoncreativelearninghaveestablishedacultureofmutualtrustandrespectwithintheFinnisheducationsystem.Beforetheendofupper-secondaryschool,orgrade12,noexternalhigh-stakestestsareemployed.Thereisnoinspectionofteachers,andonlylooseexternalstandardssteertheschools.Thesepracticesleaveteacherswiththeopportunitytofocusonlearningratherthanbeconcernedaboutfrequenttestingandpublicrankingsoftheirschools.Somepolicymakerspredictedinthemid-1990sthatFinlandwouldfollowtheschoolaccountabilitypolicymodelspromotedbyGERM.ButinareviewofpolicydevelopmentinFinland10yearslater,test-basedaccountabilityisnotevenmentioned(Laukkanen,1998,2008).OtherNordiccountrieshavemovedtoadoptpoliciesthatareclosetoGERM,andthusdistancedthemselvesfromtheireastern

neighbor.Explainingtheeducationalsuccessofnationsorschoolsisbynomeans

easy.Finlandissaidtohavewell-preparedteachers,pedagogicallydesignedschools,goodschoolprincipals,arelativelyhomogeneoussociety,aninclusivenationaleducationalvision,andemphasisonspecialeducationneeds—eachseparatelyandcollectivelycertainlyhelptheFinnisheducationalsystemtoperformwell(Hargreavesetal.,2008;Kasvio,2011;Sahlberg,2010a;Simola,2005;Välijärvietal.,2007;Hautamäkietal.,2008;Matti,2009).CriticsclaimthatsinceFinlanddoesn’thavetheverydiverseethnicpopulationthatcharacterizesmanyothernationsitsschoolsperformbetter.Otherssuggestthatlowlevelsofchildpovertyexplainpartofitsstudents’goodeducationalperformance.Fairenough.Iargue,however,thatbecauseFinlandhasbeenabletokeepschoolsascentersoflearningandcaring,teacherscanconcentrateonwhatismostimportantandwhattheycandobest:teach.Theyarenotdisturbedbyfrequenttestingappliedtoschools,competitionagainstotherschools,orperformancetargetsimposedbyadministrators.Sincethebeginningofthe1990s,Finnishschoolshavebeensystematicallyencouragedbyeducationalauthoritiestoexploretheirownconceptionsoflearning,developteachingmethodstomatchtheirownlearningtheories-in-action,andcraftpedagogicalenvironmentstomeettheneedsofalloftheirstudents.ThisiswhyFinnishstudentslearnwellinallschools.

TheNationalBoardofEducation’s(1999)FrameworkforEvaluatingEducationalOutcomesinFinlandandthenationalLawonEducationin1998stipulatetherequirementsandbasicprinciplesofstudentassessmentandschoolevaluation.Teachersareresponsiblefortheoverallassessmentoftheirstudents,usingamixofdiagnostic,formative,performance,andsummativeassessments.Themunicipality’sresponsibilityistoplanandimplementnecessaryevaluationswithinandoftheirschools,basedontheirownandnationallyexpressedneeds.Thus,currenteducationpoliciesencouragecooperationbetweenschoolsandtrytoprotectschoolsfromunhealthycompetition.EducationpoliciesinFinlandencouragecollaborationandfriendlyrivalry,notcompetitionandracetothetop.

Finlandisthelandofnongovernmentalorganizations.Thereare130,000registeredgroupsorsocietiesinFinlandwithatotalof15millionmembers.Onaverage,eachFinnbelongstothreeassociationsorsocieties.YoungFinnsarealsoactivelyinvolvedinsportsandyouthassociationsthatnormallyhavecleareducationalaimsandprinciples.Youngpeoplelearnsocialskills,problemsolving,andleadershipwhentheyparticipateintheseassociations.ItiscommonlyacceptedinFinlandthattheseassociationsgiveapositiveadded-valuetoformaleducationofferedbyschools.

Finland’sresponsetoimprovinglearningofallstudentssincetheearly1970shasreliedonfourstrategicprinciples:

1. Guaranteeequalopportunitiestogoodpubliceducationforall.2. Strengthenprofessionalismofandtrustinteachers.3. Steereducationalchangethroughenrichedinformationabouttheprocessof

schoolingandsmartassessmentpolicies.4. Facilitatenetwork-basedschoolimprovementcollaborationbetween

schoolsandnongovernmentalassociationsandgroups.

Thekeymessageofthisbookisthatschoolsincompetition-driveneducationenvironmentsarestuckinatougheducationaldilemma.ThecurrentcultureofaccountabilityinthepublicsectorasitisemployedinEngland,NorthAmerica,andmanyotherpartsoftheworldoftenthreatensschoolandcommunitysocialcapital;itdamagestrustratherthansupportit.1Asaconsequence,teachersandschoolleadersarenolongertrusted;thereisacrisisofsuspicion,asO’Neillhasobserved(2002).Althoughthepursuitoftransparencyandaccountabilityprovidesparentsandpoliticianswithmoreinformation,italsobuildssuspicion,lowmorale,andprofessionalcynicism.

SUCCESSFULEDUCATIONALREFORM

AtypicalfeatureofeducationinFinlandistheencouragementofteachersandstudentstotrynewideasandmethods,tolearnfrominnovations,andtocultivatecreativityinschools.Atthesametime,manyteachersrespectthetraditionsofgoodteaching.Educationpoliciestodayarearesultof3decadesofsystematic,mostlyintentional,developmentthathascreatedacultureofdiversity,trust,andrespectwithinFinnishsocietyingeneralandwithinitseducationsysteminparticular.

AsshowninTable4.1,theeducationpoliciesandrelatedstrategiestoraisestudentachievementinFinlanddifferfromthosefoundinothercountries.AndreasSchleichersuggeststhatoneelementofFinland’ssuccesshasbeen“thecapacityofpolicymakerstopursuereforminwaysthatwentbeyondoptimizingexistingstructures,policiesandpractices,andmovedtowardfundamentallytransformingtheparadigmsandbeliefsthatunderlayeducationalpolicyandpracticeuntil1960s,”(Schleicher,2006,p.9).AlthougheducationpolicydiscourseinFinlandchangeddramaticallyduringthe1990sasaconsequenceofnewpublicsectormanagementandotherneoliberalpolicies,Finlandhas

remainedimmunetomarket-basededucationalreforms.Instead,educationsectordevelopmenthasbeenbuiltuponvaluesgroundedinequityandequitabledistributionofresourcesratherthanoncompetitionandchoice.Importantly,theTradeUnionofEducationinFinland(OAJ),whichrepresentsmorethan95%ofallteachersinFinland,hasconsistentlyresistedadoptingbusinessmanagementmodelsintheeducationsector.Moreover,Finlandisasocietywhereachievingconsensusonimportantsocialandpoliticalissuesisnotrare.AlthougheducationispoliticizedinFinlandasitiseverywhere,Finnshavebeenabletogettogetheracrossthepoliticalpartylinesandreachagreements.Peruskoulu,the9-yearcompulsoryschool,isagoodexampleofthat.

Aquestionaskedrepeatedlyisthis:WhyareFinnishschoolsandstudentsdoingbetterintheinternationalcomparisonstudiesthanmostothers?ThisbookdescribeshowFinland,byemployingalternativeapproachesineducationpolicies,hasbeenabletoimprovestudentachievement.2ProfessorJouniVälijärviwhohasworkedoninternationalstudentassessmentsforseveraldecadesobservesthat:

Finland’shighachievementseemstobeattributabletoawholenetworkofinterrelatedfactorsinwhichstudents’ownareasofinterestandleisureactivities,thelearningopportunitiesprovidedbyschool,parentalsupportandinvolvementaswellassocialandculturalcontextoflearningandoftheentireeducationsystemcombinewitheachother.(Välijärvietal.,2002,p.46)

OneaccomplishmentoftheFinnisheducationsystemthatisoftenoverlookedistheespeciallyhighlevelofreadingliteracythatFinnishchildrenhavealreadyatearlyage.Therearebotheducationalandsocioculturalreasonsforit:Teachingtoreadinschoolsisbasedonindividualdevelopmentandpaceratherthanonstandardizedinstruction.Finnishparentsreadalot,booksandnewspapersareeasilyavailablethroughadenselibrarynetwork,andchildrenareexposedtosubtitledTVandcinemaatanearlyage.GoodreadingcomprehensionandabilitytounderstandtextsfastisagreatadvantageinPISAteststhatarebasedonbeingabletounderstanddescriptivetasksinallmeasuredareas.

AnotheroverlookeddirectionofFinnisheducationaldevelopmentisreformofschoolarchitecturealongtheguidelinessetoutbytheNationalCurriculumFrameworkanditspedagogicalandphilosophicalprinciples.Newschoolbuildingsarealwaysdesignedincollaborationwithteachersandarchitectsand

theyaretherebyadaptedtotheteachingandlearningneedsofthespecificcommunities.Physicalenvironmentprovidesanimportantcontextforbothstudentsandteachers.“Ifthebuildingisconsciouslyviewedasaninstrumentoflearning,”reasonsKaisaNuikkinen,“thearchitectureitselfcanserveasaninspirational,tangibleteachingtool,offeringalivingexampleofsuchthingsasgoodergonomicdesignandtheprinciplesofsustainabledevelopment”(Nuikkinen,2011,p.13–14).Theschoolbuildingcancreateasenseofwell-being,respect,andhappiness—allhallmarksofFinnishschool.

ThefollowingfiveinterrelatedfactorsareoftenheardwhenFinnishexpertsexplainthereasonsbehindgoodeducationalperformance.Allarerelatedtoeducationorschoolandshouldnotsuggestthatsocial,community,physicalenvironment,orfamilyfactorswouldnothaveimportantrolestoplay.

Peruskouluoffersequaleducationalopportunitiesforall.AllFinnish

childrenstarttheirformalschoolinginAugustoftheyeartheyturn7.Normally,class-basedprimaryschoollasts6yearsandisfollowedby3-yearlower-secondaryschool,althoughtodayperuskouluisformallyaunified9-yearschool.Todayitiswidelyrecognizedthatthe6-yearprimaryschoolprovidesasolidbasisforhigh-qualityeducationsystem.Finnishexperienceandinternationalresearchshowthatinvestmentinearlychildhooddevelopmentandprimaryeducationpaysoffinlatergradesthroughbetteraptitudeandlearningskills,aswellasthroughpositiveoveralloutcomes(Biddle&Berliner,2002).Schoolsaretypicallysmallwithclasssizesrangingfrom15to30students.In2010,onequarterofFinnishcomprehensiveschoolshadfewerthan50pupils;just6%ofallschoolshad500ormorepupils.Inotherwords,Finnishschoolsarerathersmall.Primaryschools(grades1to6)typicallyhavefewerthan300pupilsandoftenoperateseparatelyfromuppergrades(7to9),althoughtheunifiedperuskouluisgraduallyclosingthegapbetweenthesetwo.AsaconsequenceofthetighteningfinancialconditionsinFinnishmunicipalities,about1,000comprehensiveschoolshavebeenshutdownduringthefirstdecadeofthiscentury.Manyofthemweresmallruralschools.

TeachingisaninspiringprofessionthatattractsmanyyoungFinns.In

Finnishsociety,theteachingprofessionhasalwaysenjoyedgreatpublicrespectandappreciation,asexplainedinChapter3.Classroomteachingisconsideredanindependent,high-statusprofessionthatattractssomeofthebestupper-secondaryschoolgraduateseachyear.Themainreasonforthestrongappealofteachingasacareeristhefactthatamaster’sdegreeisthebasicrequirementfor

permanentemploymentasateacherinFinnishschoolsandhavingitopensotherfutureemploymentoptions.Therefore,individualswhochooseteachingastheirfirstcareerdonotfeelthattheirlivesarelimitedtoworkinginaschool.Indeed,teacherswithamaster’sdegreeofteninteresthumanresourcedepartmentswithintheFinnishprivatesectorandthird-sectororganizations.TheyalsohaveaccesstodoctoralstudiesinFinnishuniversities.Duringthepastdecade,FinnishschoolshavenotedanupsurgeinschoolprincipalsandteacherspossessingaPhDineducation.

Westburyandcolleaguespointoutthatpreparingteachersforaresearch-basedprofessionhasbeenthecentralideaofteachereducationdevelopmentinFinlandsincethemid-1970s(Westburyetal.,2005;Toometal.,2010).Teachers’higheracademicqualificationshaveenabledschoolstohaveanincreasinglyactiveroleincurriculumplanning,evaluatingeducationoutcomes,andleadingoverallschoolimprovement.TheOECDreviewonequityineducationinFinlanddescribeshowFinlandhascreatedavirtuouscirclesurroundingteaching:

Highstatusandgoodworkingconditions—smallclasses,adequatesupportforcounselorsandspecialneedsteachers,avoiceinschooldecisions,lowlevelsofdisciplineproblems,highlevelsofprofessionalautonomy—createlargepoolsofapplicants,leadingtohighlyselectiveandintensiveteacherpreparationprograms.Thisinturnleadstosuccessintheearlyyearsofteaching,relativestabilityoftheteacherworkforce,andsuccessinteaching(ofwhichPISAresultsareonlyoneexample),andacontinuationofthehighstatusofteaching.(OECD,2005a,p.21)

TodaytheFinnishteachingprofessionisonparwithotherhighprofessions;teacherscandiagnoseproblemsintheirclassroomsandschools,applyevidence-basedandoftenalternativesolutionstothem,andevaluateandanalyzetheimpactofimplementedprocedures.Parentstrustteachersasprofessionalswhoknowwhatisbestfortheirchildren.

Finlandhasasmartpolicyforaccountability.Finlandhasnotfollowedtheglobaleducationalaccountabilitymovementthatassumesthatmakingschoolsandteachersmoreaccountablefortheirperformanceisthekeytoraisingstudentachievement.Traditionally,theevaluationofstudentoutcomeshasbeentheresponsibilityofeachFinnishteacherandschool.Therearenoexternalstandardizedhigh-stakestestsinFinnishperuskoulu.Assessmentofstudentlearningisbasedonteacher-createdtestsattheschoollevelandonsample-based

nationalassessments.NormallyFinnishpupilsarenotassessedusingnumericalgradesthatwouldenableadirectcomparisonofpupilswithoneanotherbefore5thor6thgrade.Onlydescriptiveassessmentsandfeedbackareemployed,dependingonhowstudentassessmentisdescribedintheschoolcurriculumormunicipaleducationplan.Primaryschoolis,toalargeextent,a“standardizedtesting-freezone”andpupilsareallowedtofocusedonlearningtoknow,tocreate,andtosustainnaturalcuriosity.FearoflearningandanxietyarenotcommoninFinnishschools.ThenationalPISAreportconcludesthatonly7%ofFinnishstudentssaidtheyfeelanxietywhenworkingonmathematicstasksathomecomparedto52%and53%inJapanandFrance,respectively(Kupari&Välijärvi,2005).

EducationalaccountabilityintheFinnisheducationcontextpreservesandenhancestrustamongteachers,students,schoolleaders,andeducationauthorities,anditinvolvesthemintheprocess,offeringthemastrongsenseofprofessionalresponsibilityandinitiative.SharedresponsibilityforteachingandlearningcharacterizeshoweducationalaccountabilityisarrangedinFinland.Parents,students,andteachersprefersmartaccountabilitythatenablesschoolstokeepthefocusonlearningandpermitmoredegreesoffreedomincurriculumplanning,comparedtotheexternalstandardized-testingculturethatprevailsinsomeothernations.

Peopletrustschools.Muchofwhathasbeenpreviouslynotedispossible

onlyifparents,students,andauthoritiestrustteachersandschoolprincipals.Asdescribedearlierinthisbook,theFinnisheducationsystemwashighlycentralizeduntiltheearly1990s.Schoolswerepreviouslystrictlyregulatedbythecentralagencies;adensenetworkofrulesandordersregulatedthedailyworkofteachers.Thegradualshifttowardtrustingschoolsandteachersbeganinthelate1980s.Intheearly1990s,theeraofatrust-basedschoolculture,soeloquentlydescribedbyDirectorGeneralVilhoHirviintheopeningpagesofthisbook,formallystartedinFinland.

Thecultureoftrustmeantthateducationauthoritiesandpoliticalleadersbelievethatteachers,togetherwithprincipals,parents,andtheircommunities,knowhowtoprovidethebestpossibleeducationfortheirchildrenandyouth.Trustcanonlyflourishinanenvironmentthatisbuiltuponhonesty,confidence,professionalism,andgoodgovernance.Tellingly,Finlandalsoperformswellininternationaltransparencyrankingsthatindicatetheperceptionsofcorruptionamongcitizens.PublicinstitutionsgenerallyenjoyhighpublictrustinFinland.Trustingschoolsandteachersisaconsequenceofawell-functioningcivil

societyandhighsocialcapital.Honestyandtrust,asLewis(2005)observes,areoftenseenasamongthemostbasicvaluesandthebuildingblocksofFinnishsociety.

TheFinnisheducationsystemhassustainableleadershipandpolitical

stability.ThesuccessofFinnisheducationisnottheresultofanymajornationaleducationreformperse.Instead,educationdevelopmentinFinlandhasbeenbasedonthecontinualadjustmentofschoolingtothechangingneedsofindividualsandsociety.ProfessorRistoRinneclaimsthatalthoughtheemergenceofthenewpublicsectormanagementmeantrevolutionarychangesinFinnisheducationaldiscourse,thisnewrhetoricandpracticeshavenotbeenabletotakerootineducationaseasilyasinotherpartsofsociety(Rinne,Kivirauma,&Simola,2002).Asaconsequence,thebasicvaluesandthemainvisionofeducationaspublicservicehaveremainedunchangedsincethe1970s.Governmentsfromthepoliticalleftandrighthaverespectededucationasthekeypublicserviceforallcitizensandmaintainedtheirbeliefthatonlyahighlyandwidelyeducatednationwillbesuccessfulinworldmarkets.

Ineducationsystemsthatundergowaveafterwaveofreforms,frequentemphasisoftenisonimplementationandconsolidationofexternallydesignedchanges.Themainresultisfrustrationandresistancetochangeratherthanthedesiretoimproveschools.Arathersteadypoliticalsituationsincethe1980sandsustainededucationalleadershiphaveenabledFinnishschoolsandteacherstoconcentrateondevelopingteachingandlearning.Ratherthanallocatingfinancialresourcesandtimetoimplementnewreformsrepeatedly,teachersinFinlandhavebeengivenprofessionalfreedomtodeveloppedagogicalknowledgeandskillsrelatedtotheirindividualneeds.Afteradecadeofcentralizedin-serviceteachereducation,followingthelaunchofcomprehensiveschoolreforminthe1970s,thefocusofprofessionaldevelopmentprogramshasshiftedtomeetauthenticdemandsandexpectationsofschoolsandindividuals.

THETRANSFEROFCHANGEKNOWLEDGE

Today,Finlandisoftenusedasamodelofsuccessfuleducationalchange.“Associetiesmovebeyondtheageoflow-skillstandardization,”writesAndyHargreaves,“Finlandcontainsessentiallessonsfornationsthataspire,educationallyandeconomically,tobesuccessfulandsustainableknowledgesocieties”(Hargreavesetal.,2008,p.92).However,reformideasandpolicyprinciplesthathavebeenemployedinFinlandsincethe1970swillnot

necessarilyworkinotherculturalorsocialcontexts.Forexample,inFinland,asinotherNordiccountries,peopletrusteachotherandthereforealsotheirteachersandprincipalsmorethaninmanyothercountries(OECD,2008).Similarly,thereareothersocioculturalfactorsthatarementionedbysomeexternalobservers,suchassocialcapital,ethnichomogeneity,andhighprofessionalstatusofteachersthatmayhaveakeyrolewhentransferabilityofeducationpoliciesisconsidered.3

Indeed,manywanttolearnhowtodevelopagoodeducationsystemfromtheFinns(Barber&Mourshed,2007;Hargreavesetal.,2008;OECD,2010c;Ofsted,2010).UnderstandingFinnisheducationalsuccessneedstoincludeanawarenessofthesociocultural,political,andeconomicperspectivesdiscussedinthisbook.Indeed,thereismoretothepicturethanmeetstheeye.AnexternalOECDexpertreviewteamthatvisitedFinlandobservedthat“itishardtoimaginehowFinland’seducationalsuccesscouldbeachievedormaintainedwithoutreferencetothenation’sbroaderandcommonlyacceptedsystemofdistinctivesocialvaluesthatmoreindividualisticandinequitablesocietiesmayfinditdifficulttoaccept”(Hargreavesetal.,2008,p.92).AnothervisitingOECDteamconfirmedthattheFinnishapproachestoequitableschoolingrelyonmultipleandreinforcingformsofinterventionwithsupportthatteacherscangetfromothers,includingspecialeducationteachersandclassroomassistants(OECD,2005a).Furthermore,Finlandhasshownthateducationalchangeshouldbesystematicandcoherent,incontrastwiththecurrenthaphazardinterventioneffortsofmanyothercountries.Theconclusionwasthat“developingthecapacitiesofschoolsismuchmoreimportantthantestingthehelloutofstudents,andthatsomenonschoolpoliciesassociatedwiththewelfarestatearealsonecessary”(Grubb,2007,p.112).ScoresofnewsarticlesonFinnisheducationhaveconcludedthattrust,teacherprofessionalism,andtakingcareofthosewithspecialneedsarethefactorsthatdistinguishFinnishschoolsfrommostothers.4

Theseobservationsaboutthetransferabilityofeducational-changeknowledgecontradictwiththethinkingofthosewhoclaimthatcontext,culture,politics,orgovernancearenotofkeyimportancetoaschoolsystemanditsleaderswhenseekingrealimprovementineducationaloutcomes.TheMcKinseyreportthatanalyzededucationpoliciesandpracticesin25countriesconcludedthatthefollowingthreeeducationalreformprinciplesgobeforeanythingelse:1.thequalityofteachershelpsdeterminethelevelofstudentperformance;2.educationoutcomeswillonlyimprovebyimprovinginstruction;and3.systemwideexcellenceisonlypossibleby“puttinginplacemechanismsto

ensurethatschoolsdeliverhigh-qualityinstructiontoeverychild”(Barber&Mourshed,2007,p.40).Thisisarationalapproachtoeducationalimprovement.

AnalternativeexamplecitedwastheUnitedStateseducationreformknownasNoChildLeftBehind.Thislegislation,accordingtomanyteachersandscholars,ledtofragmentationininstruction,furtherinterventionsuncoordinatedwiththebasicclassroomteaching,andmorepoorly-trainedtutorsworkingwithstudentsandteachers(Ravitch,2010c;Darling-Hammond,2010).Asaconsequence,schoolsexperiencedtoomanyinstructionaldirectionsforanystudent,withanincreaseinunethicalbehaviorssuchasstudentscheatingontestsandadministratorsmanipulatingstudentassessmentprotocols,andalossofcontinuityininstructionandsystematicschoolimprovement(Nichols&Berliner,2007).Thisisabureaucraticapproachtodevelopingeducation.

DifferencesbetweentheseapproachesandtheFinnishWaydescribedinthisbookarenotable:TheFinnshaveworkedsystematicallyover30yearstomakesurethatcompetentprofessionalswhocancraftthebestlearningconditionsforallstudentsareinallschools,ratherthanthinkingthatstandardizedinstructionandrelatedtestingcanbebroughtinatthelastminutetoimprovestudentlearningandturnaroundfailingschools.TherationalandbureaucraticapproachestoeducationalchangementionedaboveresonatewiththekeyideasofGERMandcanbefoundintheeducationalpoliciesofnumerousnationsandjurisdictionsaroundtheworld,butnotinFinland.

Indeed,importingspecificaspectsoftheeducationsystemfromFinland,whetheritbecurricula,teachertraining,specialeducation,orschoolleadership,isprobablyoflittlevaluetothoseaimingtoimprovetheirowneducationsystems.TheFinnishwelfaresystemguaranteesallchildrenthesafety,health,nutrition,andmoralsupportthattheyneedtolearnwellinschool.AsthepassagefromthenovelSevenBrothersatthebeginningofChapter1illustrates,literacyandeducationingeneralhavehistoricallyplayedacentralroleinbecomingafullmemberoftheFinnishsociety.OnelessonfromFinlandis,therefore,thatsuccessfulchangeandgoodeducationalperformanceoftenrequireimprovementsinsocial,employment,andeconomicsectors.AsdescribedbyStuartKauffman(1995),separateelementsofacomplexsystemrarelyfunctionadequatelyinisolationfromtheiroriginalsysteminanewenvironment.Therefore,ratherthanborrowingonlyspecificaspectsorinnovationsfromothereducationsystems,moretransferableaspectsmaybethefeaturesandpolicyprinciplesofalarger,complexsystem,inthiscase,theFinnishModel.Inacomplexsystem,interactionsamongelementsofthesystemdeterminethebehaviorofthatsystemasmuchasitsindividualelements.Therefore,someconcernsthatshouldbeconsideredwhencontemplatingthe

transferofideasfromtheFinnisheducationsystemare:

1. Technicaldriversofgoodeducationalperformance.Theyincludecommoncomprehensiveschoolforall,research-basedteachereducation,professionalsupporttoteachers,smartaccountabilitypolicies,relativelysmallschools,andgoodeducationalleadership,especiallywithinschools.

2. Socioculturalfactors.Theyincludelongrelianceonthesocialvalueofliteracyandeducation,highworkmorality,trustinpublicinstitutionsincludingschools,andstate-drivensocialcapitalcreatedbythewelfarestate.

3. Linkstootherpublic-policysectors.Successofonesectordependsonthesuccessofallothers.Thereforegoodeducationalperformancemayonlybeexplainedthroughlargerpolicyprinciples,includingthoseofotherpublicpolicies.

Finnishpeoplealsoneedtobesmarttoavoidtheillusionthatthecurrentwaysofmeasuringtheperformanceofeducationsystemsisgoingtolastforever.Althoughthereareclearadvantagestorelyingonglobaleducationindicators—especiallythoserelatedtoeconomicsofeducation—andstudentachievementnumbersproducedbyPISAandothersurveys,therewillbeagrowingpressureinthecomingyearstodevelopeducationalunitsofmeasurementthatbettercoverabroaderrangeoflearningandthechangingfaceoffuturesocieties.PISAislookingatonepartofthatdesiredoutcomeofeducation.Atthesametime,asPeterMortimorewrites:

PISAalsosufferssomelimitations:Itassessesaverylimitedamountofwhatistaughtinschools;itcanadoptonlyacross-sectionaldesign;itignorestheroleandcontributionofteachers;andthewayitsresultsarepresented—insome,atleast,ofitstables—encouragesasuperficial,“leaguetable”readingofwhatshouldbeamoreinterestingbutessentiallymorecomplexpicture.(Mortimore,2009,p.2)

ManyteachersandprincipalsinFinlandhaveaskepticalviewofinternationalmeasurementsandbenchmarkingtools.Theyperceiveteachingandlearningascomplexprocessesandareawarethatquantifyingtheireffectivenessisdifficult.

IsthereanythingtolearnfromtheFinns?IamnotsuggestingthatothernationsshouldadopttheFinnisheducationsystemorevenitselements,suchasperuskouluoracademicteachereducation,asIclearlypointedoutabove.But

therearemanythingswecanlearnfromoneanotherineducation.Whilesensitivitytotheproblemsoftransferringeducationalideasfromoneplacetoanotherisessential,IwouldproposethreemainlessonsfromFinlandthatarerelevanttotryingtoimprovequalityandequityofeducation.

First,weshouldreconsiderthoseeducationpoliciesthatadvocatechoice,competition,andprivatizationasthekeydriversofsustainededucationalimprovement.Noneofthebest-performingeducationsystemscurrentlyrelyprimarilyonthem.Indeed,theFinnishexperienceshowsthataconsistentfocusonequityandsharedresponsibility—notchoiceandcompetition—canleadtoaneducationsysteminwhichallchildrenlearnbetterthantheydidbefore.Hopingthattheproblemofinadequateeducationwouldbefixedbypayingteachersbasedontheirstudents’testscoresorconvertingpublicschoolsintoprivateonesthroughchartersorothermeansisnotincludedintherepertoireofeducationalimprovementinFinland.

Second,weshouldreconsiderteacherpoliciesbygivingteachersgovernment-paidmaster’sdegree-leveluniversityeducation,providingbetterprofessionalsupportintheirwork,andmakingteachingarespectedprofession.Aslongasthepracticeofteachersisnottrustedandtheyarenotrespectedasprofessionals,youngtalentisunlikelytoseekteachingastheirlifelongcareeranywhere.Oriftheydo,theywillleaveteachingearlybecauseoflackofarespectfulprofessionalworkingenvironment.TheexperienceofFinlandandotherhigh-performingeducationsystemsspeaksclearlytothis.

Finally,withtheinternationalstudentassessmentstudiesandeducationalindicators,differencesbetweenhigh-performingeducationsystemsandthosewhoarestrugglingarebecomingmorevisible.Thereismuchtolearnfromthecurrentleaders.ThesecretofFinnishrapidandsustainededucationalimprovementisduetoasmartcombinationofnationaltraditionandinternationalideas.Ininternationaleducation,beingaforerunnerandtheshiningstarisnotnecessarilythebestpositionwhentransformingeducationsystemstomeettheneedsofthefuture.Therefore,aimingatbeingclosetotheleadersisprobablythebestplan.Letmeexplainmyposition.

THEFUTUREOFFINNISHEDUCATION

Inthefirstdecadeofthismillennium,Finlandestablishedaglobalreputationasamodeleducationalnation.NewsweektitleditsMay24,1999articleaboutFinland:“TheFutureisFinnish.”ItpraisedthesmartwayFinlandhasbeenabletocreateanationalvisionforaninnovation-basedsocietythatcombinesmobile

communicationsandinformationtechnologiesunlikeanyother(Newsweek,May24,1999).ThisbookhasdescribedhowFinland’seducationperformancehasprogressedsteadilysincetheearly1970s.Mobilephonemakers,symphony-orchestraconductors,andFormula1driversaresymbolsofwhataFinnishcultureandsocietythatvaluesingenuity,creativity,andrisktakingisabletonurture.ButwilltheFinnisheducationsystemcontinuetobeamodelinthefuture?

Ontheonehand,Finland’ssystemiceducationalleadershipsincethe1970s,itsstablepoliticalstructure,anditsestablishedcomplementarityamongpublic-policysectorswouldsuggestthatitseducationalperformancewillremainstrong.Ontheotherhand,PISAsurveyresults,inparticular,havecreatedafeelingofcomplacencyamongeducationpolicymakers,politicians,andthepublicat-largeregardingthestatusofFinnisheducation.Thismayleadtoaconditionfavoringthestatusquo,whereeducationpoliciesandleadershipofahigh-performingsystemaremotivatedbyadesiretomaintainthecurrentsituation,ratherthanseeingwhatpossiblefuturesmightrequirefromareformedFinnisheducationsystem.

EducationalchangeinFinlandhasbeendrivenbycultureandemotioninthecontextofsocial,political,andeconomicsurvival.Finlandhasshowntoothersthatthereisanalternativewayofchangetothatemployedbymanyothercountries.Finnsthemselveshavelearnedthattechnicalknowledgeorpoliticalinterestsarenotenoughtorenewsocietywithoutemotionalengagement.Indeed,globaleducationalreformsshowthattoorationalanapproachonchangedoesnotworkbecauserenewalrequiresenergy,andenergyisdrivenbyemotion.Intheeraofbigchangesemotionalpassionoftenemergesfromcrisis—orasenseofsurvival—asitdidinFinland.Butitcanalsocomefromviewingneweconomical,technological,orculturalopportunitiesandinnovation.

Inthebeginningofthe21stcenturyFinlandhasbecomeamodelnationforotherreasons:IthasbeenabletobuildacompetitiveknowledgeeconomywhilemaintainingmuchofthesocialjusticeoftheNordicwelfarestatemodel.Ahigh-levelthinktanknamedtheNewClubofParisconsideredpossiblefuturesforFinlandandstatedthatsurvivalisnolongertheimpetusforrenewaltokeepallthegoodthatFinlandhasbuilt.InitsrecommendationstotheFinnishGovernmentitsuggestedthat:

Otherdriverswithemotionaleffectneedtobeidentified.Thequestionishowtobroadenthescaleofemotionalrecognitionandexploitation.Insteadofsurvivalthedriverforchangecouldbeapowerfulvision,ortheBigDreamofFinland.Ifpeopledonotlovetheidea,itisfutileto

publishnewstrategies.Thenewstrategywithculturalandemotionaldimensionsshouldbesimple;acoupleofwordsthatpeoplecanimmediatelyandemotionallyrelateto.Thisiscurrentlymissing.(Ståhle,2007,p.2)

SomeFinnsareconcernedabouthowthecountryisseenbyothernationsinthiscompetitive,globalizedworld.SeveralinternationalcomparisonsindicatethatFinlandhasbecomeoneofthemostfunctionalandattractivecountriesinmanyways—well-being,governance,economicperformance,sustainabledevelopment,education,andhappiness.Forarathersmallandyoungnationthatseemstobegoodenough.TheMinistryofForeignAffairsinvitedaninfluentialdelegationofspecialistsfromvariousfieldsoflifetothinkabouthowtosecurethispositivesituation—orevenstrengthenit—inthefuture.Thefinalreportofthisgroupfoundthatfunctionality,nature,andeducationareseenasthekeythemesonwhichthefutureofFinlandshouldbebuilt.Italsoinsiststhat—despiteorbecauseofthecurrentpositivesituation—Finlandmustcontinuetoaskitself“whatshallwedonext”inallfieldsofoperations(MinistryofForeignAffairs,2010,p.277).

Thespiritofthesegeneralrecommendationsshouldalsobeconsideredineducation.ThechiefinstrumentthatguidesFinnisheducationpoliciesandeducationalrenewalistheDevelopmentPlanforEducationandResearchfor2007–2012.This,likethepreviousdocumentfor2003–2008,continuesearlierpoliciesanddevelopmentprinciples.Thesedocumentsemphasizesecuringequalopportunities,improvingthequalityofeducation,preparingskilledworkers,developinghighereducation,anddignifyingteachersasmainresourcesofgoodeducation.Furthermore,thesedocumentsplacestrongemphasisonthecomplementarityprinciplebydevelopingtheeducationsystemasawhole.AllthisassumesthattheFinnisheducationsystemwillcontinuetoperformwellinthecomingyears.However,therearesometrendswithinthegovernanceoftheeducationsystemandinFinnishsocietyingeneralthatprovidecauseforconcern.

BOX5.1:LeadingaLocalSchoolDistrict

TheDevelopmentoftheeducationsystemisbasedonsystematicandsustainablefiscalpolicies.Finnisheducationdependsheavilyonpublicfunding.Asaresultoftheglobalfinancialcrisis,theFinnishpublicsectorhasbeenhithard.Municipalitiesareexperiencingrapidly

tighteningbudgets.Duringthelastdecade,thedebtburdenofFinnishmunicipalitieshastripledandtheFinnishgovernmentdebtisbiggerthaneverbefore.IncreasingproductivityandcuttingpublicspendingarenowcommonpublicpoliciesinFinland.Mergingorclosingdownsmallschoolsisoneexpressionofthesepolicies.

Fromaninternationalperspective,Finlandisstillacountryofsmallschools.TheaveragesizeofacomprehensiveschoolinFinlandis200students.In2008therewere2,988comprehensiveschools.Since2004thenumberoftheseschoolshasdecreasedby14%.Atotalof1,900comprehensiveschoolshavedisappearedsince1990.ThishasradicallychangedthedensityandnatureofthecomprehensiveschoolnetworkinFinland.Morestudentsnowtravellongerdistancestoschool.Manysmallvillagesareaffectedwhentheschoolclosesdown.Muchofthisstructuralchangehasbeensteeredbyeconomicratherthaneducationalconsiderations.

TheworseningsituationoftheFinnishpublicsectorhasalsocausedmanymunicipalitiestousetemporarylay-offsofteachersasacurefortheirchronicfinancialcrisis.Teachershavebeensenthomewithoutpayforafewdaysorinsomecases,someweeks.Whileateacherhasbeenonthisforcedunpaidleaveotherteachershavehadtotakecareofherorhisclassesandstudents.Savingshaveoftenbeenminor,butthenegativeimplicationsfortheschoolsevere.

Iamconcernedaboutthelonger-termaffectsofthesepublicsectorpolicies.EconomicforecastsinFinlanddonotpromisebettertimesahead.Ononehand,weknowfromexperiencethatsimplyincreasingfinancialresourcesdoesnotsolvethedailyproblemsofschools.Butsustainedshrinkingofeducationbudgetscreatesasituationinwhichsomeoftheessentialstructureswillbejeopardized.Willschoolsandmunicipalitiesbeabletoachievemorewithlessinthefuture?Ithinkthatispossible,butitrequiresacarefulanalysisofcurrentstructuresandpractices.Weneedtobeclearwherethesavingscanbemadeandwhereresourcescanbetransferredtodevelopmentandrenewal.However,withoutasufficientslicefromtheoverallpublicbudgettoeducationitwillbeverydifficult.Cuttingbudgetsandworseningthepossibilityforhigh-qualityeducationisnotasmartwaytorewardpeoplefortheirgoodwork,demonstratedbyOECDPISA.

PeterJohnsonDirectorofEducation

CityofKokkola

First,nationaleducationauthoritieshavetightenedthegripofcontroloverschools.Thisshiftsignalsthatconfidenceinschools’abilitytojudgewhatisbestforpupilsandparentsisdeclining.Forexample,thenewNationalCurriculumFrameworkof2004reducesschools’roleincurriculumplanning.

Second,thegovernmentalEducationSectorProductivityProgramfor2006–2010andthenewgovernmentprogramfor2011–2015callformunicipalitiesandschoolstodomorewithfewerresources,andoftenleadtoschoolmergersandincreasingschoolsizes.Insomecases,productivitygainsaresoughtbyreducingschools’specialeducationandcounselingservices.ThismayturnouttobeharmfulforthedevelopmentofsocialcapitalinFinnishschools.Thereis,atthemomentofthiswriting,noclearideawithintheFinnisheducationsystemofwhatthedirectionofpubliceducationshouldbeinthefuture.Forexample,theDevelopmentPlanforEducationandResearchfor2007–2012issilentabouthoweducationshouldreacttoneedsexpressedintheeconomicsectortointensifyinnovationandcreatenewproducts.

Third,Finlandisslippingawayfromitstoppositionasthemosttransparentnation,thecountrywiththemostcompetitiveeconomy,andasociallyequalsociety.PISA2009resultssentsimilar,althoughweak,signalsofFinland’seducationalperformance(OECD,2010b).OtherindicatorssuggestthatinequalitiesinFinnishsocietyandinitseducationsystemareincreasing.Countrieswithhigherlevelsofequalityhavehigheroveralllevelsofattainmentinmanydifferentfields,includingeducation,asWilkinsonandPicketthaveshown(Wilkinson&Pickett,2009).Intermsofincomeequality,Finlandhasbeenamongthetopcountriesintheworld,togetherwithotherNordiccountries.Figure5.1showshowincomeinequalityhasincreasedinFinlandduringthelast2decades.Increasinginequalityisoftenrelatedtogrowingsocialproblems,suchasaprevalenceofviolence,diminishingsocialtrust,worseningchildwell-being,increasedpoverty,anddecliningeducationalattainment.Therefore,thechallengeforFinlandisnottotrytomaintainhighstudentperformancebuttostrivetokeepthecountryanequalsocietyandmaintainitsleadingpositionashavingthemostequitableeducationsystemintheworld.

InreformingitseducationsystemFinlandhasactivelylistenedtowhatothercountrieshaveadvisedasnecessaryforraisingthequalityofstudentlearningandmeetingthenewchallengesineducation.Finnisheducationauthoritieshavebeenparticularlyattentivetowhatsupra-nationalorganizations—theOECD,theEuropeanCommission,andtheUnitedNationsagencies—havethoughttobethe

necessarystepsineducationalpoliciesinFinland.TheeducationalresearchcommunityinFinlandhasadoptedmodelsandideasfromtheirforeigncolleagues.InFinland’scurrentsituation,aneworientationisneeded.Itisstillimportantforcommunicationandcollaborationwithinternationalpartnerstoremainactive.Today,however,Finlandismuchmoreagivingpartnerthanareceivingone.ItisthereforenecessaryforFinlandtobepreparedforcollaborationandexchangeofexperienceswithothereducationsystemsasatrustedsourceofinspiration,ideasandinnovation.Ihavesuggestedthatanewglobalpartnershipfortheleadershipofeducationalchangeisneeded.Thisshouldbebasedonprovenexcellenceandgoodpractice,capacitiesandwillingnesstomovefearlesslytoimplementinnovativeideasandsolutionsforthefutureofeducation.Finlandhasaplaceinthisleagueofneweducationleaders.Butitcan’ttakethatplacewithoutaninspiringvisionofeducation.

Figure5.1.RatioBetweenIncomeSharesoftheHighestandLowestIncome

QuintilesinFinlandfor1987–2008

Source:StatisticsFinland(n.d.c).

Anymovementneedsthefoundationthatdrawsfromthecoresetofvalues,philosophies,andacommonlysharedvision.FinnishphilosopherPekkaHimanen’svision,School2.0,aboutfutureeducationistrulyatransformationofpresentdayschooling.Itwouldbebasedonacommunityoflearnerswherelearningsparksfromindividualinterests,passion,andcreativityandaimstohelpeachlearnertofindhisorherowntalent.5Whateverthevisionofthenewschool

is,orhoweverwecallit,completelynewformsofschoolhavetobeconsidered.Thenewglobalpartnershipineducationalchangeshouldkick-offfromthisquestion.

Theinspiringidea—orBigDream—hasoftenjoinedFinnishpeopletogetherandprovidedasourceofemotionalenergyforchange.AfterWorldWarII,theideawastoprovideallFinnswithanequalopportunityforgoodpubliceducationregardlessoftheirdomicile,socioeconomicstatus,orotherlifeconditions.Thisbecamethemainprincipleinbuildingperuskouluintheearly1970s.ThefirstPISAsurveyin2000provedthattheFinnishBigDreamwasfulfilled.ThefourthPISAsurveyin2009insiststhatthenewFinnishdreamisurgentlyneeded.

Inthemidstofoneoftheworstpost-WorldWarIIeconomiccrisesintheearly1990s,FinlandturnedagaintoeducationandinsistedthatnothinglessthanbecomingtheleadingandmostcompetitiveknowledgeeconomyoftheworldwasenoughtobringFinlandbacktothetrajectoryofotheradvancedeconomies.TheBigDreamthenwastomaketheeducationsystemservethesocialcohesion,economictransformation,andinnovationthatwouldhelpFinlandtobeafullmemberoftheEuropeanUnionandremainafullyautonomousnation.Theeducationsystemwas,aswasdiscussedinpreviouschapters,thekeydriverthatraisedthenationoutoftheeconomiccrisis.Thepastvisionsofeducationareaccomplished,anditistimetoformanewvisionthatiscapableofsteeringeducationalchangeinFinlandduringthenextfewdecades.AsaconclusiontothisbookIoffersomeseedsforcreatingthatvisionforthefutureofeducationinFinland.

TheBigDreamforthefutureofFinnisheducationshouldbesomethinglikethis:Createacommunityoflearnersthatprovidestheconditionsthatallowallyoungpeopletodiscovertheirtalent.Thattalentmaybeacademic,artistic,creative,orkinesthetic,orsomeotherskillset.Whatisneededisforeachschooltobeasafelearningcommunityforalltoengage,explore,andinteractwithotherpeople.Schoolshouldteachknowledgeandskillsasbefore,butitmustprepareyoungpeopletobewrong,too.Ifpeoplearenotpreparedtobewrong,asSirKenRobinsonsays,theywillnotcomeupwithnewideasthathavevalue(Robinson,2009).ThatistheonlywaythatweinFinlandwillbeabletomakethebestuseofourscarcehumanresources.

Manychangesarerequiredtotheexistingformatofschooling.Firstandforemost,Finnishschoolmustcontinuetobecomemorepupil-friendlysothatitallowsmorepersonalizedlearningpaths.Personalizationdoesn’tmeanreplacingteacherswithtechnologyandindividualizedstudy.Indeed,thenewFinnishschoolmustbeasociallyinspiringandsafeenvironmentforallpupilstolearn

thesocialskillsthattheyneedintheirlives.Personalizedlearningandsocialeducationleadtomorespecializationbutbuildonthestrongercommongroundofknowledgeandskills.Thefollowingthemesofchangewouldemerge:

1.Developmentofapersonalroadmapforlearning.Itisimportantfor

eachyoungpersontoacquirecertainbasicknowledge,suchasreading,writing,andusingmathematics.Inthefuture,itwillbeimportantthatstudentshavealternativewaystolearnthesebasicthings.Childrenwilllearnmoreandmoreofwhatweusedtolearninschooloutofschool,throughmedia,theInternet,andfromdifferentsocialnetworkstowhichtheybelong.Thiswillleadtoasituationinwhichanincreasingnumberofstudentswillfindteachinginschoolirrelevantbecausetheyhavealreadylearnedwhatismeaningfulforthemelsewhere.

Agoodsolutiontoaddressthisistorethinkschoolssothatlearninginthemreliesmoreonindividualcustomizedlearningplansandlessonteachingdrawnfromastandardizedcurriculumforall.Theartoffutureeducationwillbetofindabalancebetweenthesetwo.Duetoexpandingeducationalpossibilitiesinadigitalworld,youngchildrenenterschoolswithhugedifferencesinwhattheyalreadyknowandareabletodo.Thisalsomeansthatyoungpeopleareinterestedinagreatvarietyofissuesthatmaybecompletelyforeigntoteachersintheirschools.CustomizedstudyplansorpersonalizedlearningmustnotmeanthatstudentswillstudyalonewithtoolsandinformationfromtheInternetonly.Itmeansthattheywillhaveawell-prepared,rich,andeducationallyjustifiedindividualplanforlearningthatisjointlydesignedandagreeduponbyteachers,parents,andthestudent.

2.Lessclassroom-basedteaching.Developingcustomizedandactivity-

basedlearningeventuallyleadstoasituationinwhichpeoplecanlearnmostofthewhatisnowtaughtinschoolsthroughdigitaldeviceswhereverandwhenever.Hand-heldportabledeviceswillprovideonlineaccesstoknowledgeandotherlearners.Sharedknowingandcompetencesthatarebecominganintegralpartofmodernexpertiseandprofessionalworkwillalsobecomepartofschoolsandtraditionalclassrooms.Finlandandsomeothercountrieshaveshownthatitisnotthelengthoftheschoolyearorschooldaythatmattermost.Lessteachingcanleadtomorestudentslearningifthecircumstancesarerightandsolutionssmart.Suchcircumstancesincludetrustinschools,adequatesupportandguidanceforallstudents,andcurriculumthatcanbelocallyadjustedtomeettheinterestsandrequirementsoflocalcommunities.

Ratherthancontinuethinkingoffutureschoolingintermsofsubjectsand

timeallocationstothem,thetimeisrightnowtomakeaboldmoveandrethinktheorganizationoftimeinschools.Thiswouldmeanhavinglesstimeallocatedtoconventionalsubjects,suchasmothertongue,mathematics,andscience,andmoretimeforintegratedthemes,projects,andactivities.Naturally,theshareoforganizedlessonsshouldbemoreavailableinthelowergradesofprimaryschool,andthengraduallydecreaseaspupils’skillsofmanagingtheirownbehaviorandlearningdevelops.Thiswouldalsomeanashiftfromcommoncurriculum-basedteachingtoindividuallearning-plan-basededucation.Thiswouldleadtoextendedtimeforallstudentstospendengagedinpersonallymeaningfulworkshops,projects,andthearts.

3.Developmentofinterpersonalskillsandproblemsolving.Inthefuture

peoplewillspendmoretimeonandgivemorepersonalattentiontomediaandcommunicationtechnologiesthantheydotoday.Itmeanstwothingsfromtheeducationalpointofview.First,peopleingeneralwillspendlesstimetogetherinaconcretesocialsetting.Socialinteractionwillbebasedonusingsocialnetworkingandotherfuturetoolsthatrelyondigitaltechnologicalsolutions.Second,peoplewilllearnmoreabouttheworldandotherpeoplethroughmediaandcommunicationtechnologies.Especiallyexpandingengagementinsocialmediaandnetworkswillcreateawholenewsourceoflearningfromotherpeoplewhohavesimilarinterests.Bydefault,thesenewsocialtoolswillincreaseopportunitiesforcreativeactionsaspeoplecanbepartofopensourceprojectsdesigninggamesordigitalsolutionsincollaborationwithothersinthesenetworks.

Schoolsneedtorethinkwhattheircoretaskineducatingpeoplewillbe.Itcannotremainasitistoday:toprovidetheminimumbasicknowledgeandskillsthatyoungpeopleneedinthefuture.Thefutureisnowandmanyyoungpeoplearealreadyusingthoseskillsintheirlivestoday.Schoolsneedtomakesurethatallstudentslearntobefluentinreading,mathematics,andscienceconcepts,andpossessthecoreofculturalcapitalthatisseenasessential.Equallyimportant,however,isthatallstudentsdevelopattitudesandskillsforusingavailableinformationandopportunities.Theywillalsoneedtodevelopbetterskillsforsocialinteraction,bothvirtualandreal,learntocooperatewithpeoplewhoareverydifferentfromthemselves,andcopeincomplexsocialnetworks.Whatmostpeopleinthefuturewillneedthattheyarenotlikelytolearnanywhereelseisrealproblem-solvingincooperationwithotherpeople.Thiswillbecomeoneofthebasicfunctionsoffutureschools:toteachcooperationandproblemsolvinginsmallgroupsofdiversepeople.

4.Engagementandcreativityaspointersofsuccess.Currenteducation

systemsjudgeindividualtalentprimarilybyusingstandardizedknowledgetests.Atworstthesetestsincludeonlymultiplechoicetasks.Atbesttheyexpandbeyondroutineknowledgeandrequireanalytical,criticalthinking,andproblemsolvingskills.However,theyrarelyareabletocoverthenon-academicdomainsthatincludecreativity,complexhandlingofinformation,orcommunicatingnewideastoothers.Itisimportanttoassesshowstudentslearnthebasicknowledgeandskillsinschoolandtoknowhowtheycandeveloptheircommunication,problem-solvingskills,andcreativityasaresultofschooleducation.

Conventionalknowledgetestsasweknowthemnowwillgraduallygivespacetonewformsofassessmentinschools.Asschoolsmovetoemphasizeteachingskillsthateverybodyneedsinacomplexandunpredictableworld,thecriteriaofbeingasuccessfulschoolwillalsochange.Peoplewilllearnmoreofwhattheyneedthroughdigitaltoolsandmedia,andthereforeitwillbecomeincreasinglydifficulttoknowwhatroleschoolshaveplayedinstudents’learning(ornotlearningifyouwish)ofintendedthings.Twothemeswillbeimportantaswemovetowardtheendofthisdecade.

First,engagingallstudentsinlearninginschoolwillbemoreimportantthanever.Lackofengagementisthemainreasonforthechallengesthatteachersfaceinschoolsandclassroomstoday.Itiswellknownfromresearchandpracticethataschildrengetoldertheirinterestinwhatschoolsofferdeclines.Bytheendofperuskouluagrowingnumberofyoungpeoplefindschoollearningirrelevant,andtheyareseekingalternativepathwaystofulfilltheirintentions.Therefore,engagementinproductivelearninginschoolshouldbecomeanimportantcriterionofjudgingthesuccessorfailureofschools.

Second,students’abilitytocreatesomethingvaluableandnewinschoolwillbemoreimportantthanever—notjustforsomestudents,butformostofthem.Ifcreativityisdefinedascomingupwithoriginalideasthathavevalue,thencreativityshouldbeasimportantasliteracyandtreatedwiththesamestatus.Finnishschoolshavetraditionallyencouragedrisktaking,creativity,andinnovation.Thesetraditionsneedtobestrengthened.Whenperformanceofstudentsorsuccessofschoolsismeasured,thecreativeaspectofbothindividuallearningandcollectivebehaviorshouldbegivenhighvalue.Inotherwords,asuccessfulschoolisabletotakeeachindividual—bothstudentsandteachers—furtherintheirdevelopmentthantheycouldhavegonebythemselves.

Whatisneededtoturnthesefourchangethemesintorealityisnotyetanothereducationalreformbutrenewal,acontinuoussystemictransformationofteachingandlearning,step-by-steptowardtheBigDream.Finlandhaswhatit

takestodojustthat.ItrequiresthenewglobalpartnershipandleadershipineducationalchangethatFinlandtakespartin.AnimportantlessonfromFinlandisthattherearedifferentpathwaystoeducationalexcellence.Thesepathsdifferfromtheglobaleducationalreformmovementdiscussedinthepreviouschapter.Awayofincreasingproductivityandimprovedefficiencymayleadtofinancialsavingsandperhapstemporarilybetterservices.But,asFinnishfuturologistsPirjoStåhleandMarkkuWileniuspointout,intheeconomiccontextshrinkingbudgetswillnevercreatesustainableimprovementsunlesstherearesimultaneousinvestmentsinsomethingnew(Ståhle&Wilenius,2006).ThereareenoughsignalsthroughforecastsoftheFinnisheconomyandsocietyingeneraltosuggestthatmoreinvestmentsareneededtocreatenewideasandinnovationsbothineducationandineconomicdevelopment,andtomaintainthehighlevelofsocialcapitalthathastraditionallybeenthedriverofstrongeducationalperformance.

Attheendofthe1990s,Finlandwasabletobenefitfromoneofthemostcompetitivenationaleconomieswhenexperimentation,creativity,andnetworkingweretakentotheheartofschoolimprovement,andtrustinteachersandschoolswereendorsedasthekeyprincipleofeducationmanagement.Acomponentofeducationalchangethatcreatesnewideasandinnovationshouldprovideenoughencouragementandsupportforrisktakingthatwillenablecreativitytoflourishinclassroomsandschools.ThisispossibleonlywithcontinuousrenewalofFinnisheducation,guidedbywiseeducationalleadershipincloserelationtootherpublicsectorpolicies.

Whatmanycountriesarelookingfornowisasociallyjusteducationsystemwithschoolsthatinspireteachersandstudentsaliketodotheirbest.SeymourSarasonremindededucationalreformersthat“teacherscannotcreateandsustaincontextsforproductivelearningunlessthoseconditionsexistforthem”(Sarason1996,p.367).Finnisheducationalpolicyconformspreciselywiththisconviction.TheFinnishgovernmentunderstandstheimportanceofteachersandaccordinglyinvestsheavilyinnotonlyteachereducationandprofessionaldevelopmentbutalsowork-conduciveenvironmentssothattheteachingprofessionattractsandretainstalent.

WellbeforethesurgeinattentiontoFinnisheducationfollowingthepublicationofthe2000PISAresults,IhadtheprivilegetohostSeymourSarasoninHelsinkiforaweekin1995.HewasfinalizingtherevisionofhisbookTheCultureoftheSchoolandtheProblemofChange,fromwhichtheobservationaboveisdrawn.ItookSarasontovisitschools,talktoprofessors,andtellsenioreducationauthoritiesaboutthelawsofschoolchangeashesawthem.HealsoreadtheFinnish1994NationalCurriculumFrameworksfor

comprehensiveandupper-secondaryschoolsandtheeducationdevelopmentplanswehadpreparedforthefutureofschooling.Inthefinalmeeting,IaskedSarasontosummarizehisfindings.Hesaid:“Whydidyoubringmehere?YourschoolsystemtomelooksveryclosetowhatJohnDeweyhadinmindandwhatIhavebeenwritingaboutteachingandschoolsforthelastthreedecades.”

Indeed,JohnDeweydreamedoftheteacherasaguidehelpingchildrenformulatequestionsanddevisesolutions.Deweysawthepupil’sownexperience,notinformationimpartedbytheteacher,asthecriticalpathtounderstanding.Deweyalsocontendedthatdemocracymustbethemainvalueineachschooljustasitisinanyfreesociety.TheeducationsysteminFinlandis,asSarasonpointedout,shapedbytheseideasofDeweyandflavoredwiththeFinnishprinciplesofpracticality,creativity,andcommonsense.WhattheworldcanlearnfromeducationalchangeinFinlandisthataccomplishingthedreamofagoodandequitableeducationsystemforallchildrenispossible.Butittakestherightmixofingenuity,time,patience,anddetermination.

TheFinnishWayofeducationalchangeshouldbeencouragingtothosewhohavefoundthepathofcompetition,choice,test-basedaccountability,andperformance-basedpaytobeadeadend.ThefutureofFinnisheducationdescribedabovecanmoreoverofferanalternativemeanstocustomizedlearning.FortheFinns,personalizationisnotabouthavingstudentsworkindependentlyatcomputerterminals.TheFinnishWayistotailortheneedsofeachchildwithflexiblearrangementsanddifferentlearningpaths.Technologyisnotasubstitutebutmerelyatooltocomplementinteractionwithteachersandfellowstudents.

Asacountervailingforceagainsttheglobaleducational-reformmovementdrivingschoolsystemsaroundtheworld,theFinnishWayrevealsthatcreativecurricula,autonomousteachers,courageousleadershipandhighperformancegotogether.TheFinnishWayfurthermoremakesplainthatcollaboration,notconflict,withteacherunionsleadstobetterresults.Theevidenceisclearandsoshouldbetheroadahead.

Notes

Introduction

1.TheWorldBankandOECDhaveusedFinlandasanexampleinAho,Pitkänen,&Sahlberg(2006)andOECD(2010c).McKinseyCompanyreferstoFinlandasaglobalbenchmarkofgoodpracticeinBarber&Mourshed(2007)andAuguste,Kihn,&Miller(2010).

2.TherewasapublicdebateintheFinnishmediasoonafterthefirstOECDPISAresultswerepublished.SeveralmembersoftheFinnishacademiccommunityrejectedtheresultsbyarguingthatthetestsdidn’tmeasure“pure”mathematicsorphysics,butrathersomeformsofcommoneverydayknowledgethatareirrelevantforfurtherstudiesinthesesubjects.

3.HowardGardnervisitedFinlandinMay,2010,andhisinterviewwaspublishedinHelsinginSanomatonMay28,2010(p.B9).

Chapter1

1.PeruskouluistheFinnishtermthatrefersto9-yearcompulsoryschoolconsistingofsixgradesoflower-comprehensiveschool(primaryschool)andthreegradesupper-comprehensiveschool(lower-secondaryschool).

2.TheSecondRepublicreferstotheperiodof1946–1994inFinnishhistoryinAlasuutari(1996).

3.Tenthgradeisavoluntaryadditionalyearfollowingthecompletionofcompulsoryeducation.Studentshavepersonalizedlearningplansthataretypicallyblendedwithacademicandpracticalsubjectsorthemes.Oneofthekeypurposesof10thgradeistoprovideyoungpeopleasecondchancetoimprovetheirknowledgeandskillssothattheywillbesuccessfullinupper-secondaryschool.Tenthgradeisarrangedaspartofnormalperuskouluandtaughtbytheirteachers.

4.AquariumProjectwasthegovernment-fundedschoolimprovementinitiativetosupporttheshiftfromacentrallysteeredsystemofmanagementtolocalleadershipandcontinuousimprovement.Agooddescriptioncanbefound(inFinnish)inthedoctoralthesisofHellström(2004).

Chapter3

1.BolognaProcessisanintergovernmentalinitiativethatcurrentlyhas46signatories.ItaimsatcreatingtheEuropeanHigherEducationAreawithharmonizeddegreesystemsandEuropeanCreditTransferSystem(ECTS).TeachereducationisdescribedinPechar(2007)andJakku-Sihvonen&Niemi(2006).

2.Pan-EuropeancollaborationinteachereducationhasincreasedduetotheBolognaProcessandspecificexchangeprogramsinEurope,butstrongandactiveresearchlinkshaveremainedbetweenFinnishandNorthAmericanandAustralianuniversities.

3.Therehasbeenacontinuousdebateaboutwhetherthematriculationexaminationnegativelyaffectsthewaythatteachersteachinupper-secondaryschools.SomeoftheempiricalresearchfindingsarereportedinHäivälä(2009).

Chapter4

1.Thesearetwomainacademicjournalsthatarededicatedtoschoolimprovementandeducationalchange.

2.Theinitialideaof“aneweducationalorthodoxy”isfromAndyHargreaves.SeeSahlberg(2011a).

3.IwasleadinganationalprojectcalledCreativeProblem-SolvinginSchoolsthathadcloselinkstoFinnishinnovationenterprisessuchasNokia,Kone,andVaisala.ItwasadministratedandfundedbytheNationalBoardofGeneralEducation.PartoftheinspirationtothisprojectwastheCreativeProblemSolvinginitiativebasedinBuffalo,NY.

4.TheWorldEconomicForum(WEF)isaSwitzerland-basedinternationalorganizationthatcoordinatesresearchoneconomics.SimilarcomparisonsofnationaleconomiccompetitivenessaredonebytheInternationalInstituteforManagementDevelopment(IMD).IntheEuropeanUnion’sinternalrankingofitsmemberstates’economiccompetitiveness,FinlandrankedatthetopwithSwedenin2010.

5.Thisquoteisfrommypersonalnotes,takenwhenIwasleadingthenationalcurriculumTaskForceforScienceeducationfrom1992to1994.

6.TheseissueswerewidelyreportedbyHelsinginSanomat,themajordailynewspaperinFinland,initsmonthlymagazine,Kuukausiliite,intheSeptember2010issue.

Chapter5

1.Asalientexampleofthisaccountabiltycultureisthewell-knownandcontroversial“deliverology”approach,whichreliesontargets,measuring,andaccountabilitytomanageandmonitortheimplementationofeducationreformpoliciesandstrategies.Foraprodeliverologyperspective,seeBarber,Moffit,andKihn’s(2011)“fieldguide.”Foracriticalperspective,seeSeddon’s(2008)critique.

2.Forexample,Hargreaves(2003),Schleicher(2007),andGrubb(2007)haveunderscoredtheimportanceofalternativeeducationpoliciesintranscendingtheconventionaleducationalreforms.

3.CulturalfactorshavebeendiscussedbyexternalobserversofFinnisheducation.SeeHargreavesetal.(2008),Schleicher(2006),andGrubb(2007).

4.AnarchiveofmediacoverageofFinnisheducationsincethe2000PISAsurveycanbefoundonlineatwww.pasisahlberg.com.

5.ToreadaboutPekkaHimanenandhisSchool2.0seewww.pekkahimanen.org/.

References

Adams,R.J.(2003).Responseto“CautionsonOECD’srecenteducationalsurvey(PISA)”OxfordReviewofEducation,29(3),377–389.

Aho,E.(1996).Myrskynsilmässä[Intheeyeofthestorm]:Kouluhallituksenpääjohtajamuistelee.Helsinki:Edita.

Aho,E.,Pitkänen,K.,&Sahlberg,P.(2006).PolicydevelopmentandreformprinciplesofbasicandsecondaryeducationinFinlandsince1968.Washington,DC:WorldBank.

Alasuutari,P.(1996).Toinentasavalta:Suomi1946–1994.Tampere,Finland:Vastapaino.

Allerup,P.,&Mejding,J.(2003).Readingachievementin1991and2000.InS.Lie,P.Linnakylä,&A.Roe(Eds.),NorthernlightsonPISA:UnityanddiversityinNordiccountriesinPISA2000.Oslo:UniversityofOslo,DepartmentofTeacherEducationandSchoolDevelopment(pp.133–146).

AlquézarSabadie,J.,&Johansen,J.(2010).Howdonationaleconomiccompetitivenessindicesviewhumancapital?EuropeanJournalofEducation,45(2),236–258.

Amrein,A.L.,&Berliner,D.C.(2002).High-stakestesting,uncertainty,andstudentlearning.EducationPolicyAnalysisArchives,10(18).

Atjonen,P.,Asplund,R.,&Maliranta,M.(2006).Productivitygrowth:Theroleofhumancapitalandtechnologyintheroadtoprosperity.InA.Ojala,J.Eloranta,&J.Jalava(Eds.),Theroadtoprosperity:AneconomichistoryofFinland(pp.263–283).Helsinki:SKS.

Atjonen,P.,Halinen,I.,Hämäläinen,S.,Korkeakoski,E.,Knubb-Manninen,G.,Kupari,P.…Wikman,T.(2008).Tavoitteistavuorovaikutukseen.Perusopetuksenpedagogiikanarviointi[Fromobjectivestointeraction:Evaluationofthepedagogyofbasiceducation].Koulutuksenarviointineuvostonjulkaisuja,30,197.Jyväskylä,Finland:Koulutuksenarviointineuvosto.

Au,W.(2009).Unequalbydesign:High-stakestestingandthestandardizationofinequality.NewYork:Routledge.

Auguste,B.,Kihn,P.,&Miller,M.(2010).Closingthetalentgap:Attractingandretainingtopthirdgraduatestoacareerinteaching.London:McKinsey&Company.

Baker,E.,Barton,P.,Darling-Hammond,L.,Haertel,E.,Ladd,H.,Linn,R.…Shepard,L.(2010).Problemswiththeuseofstudenttestscorestoevaluateteachers:Briefingpaper278.Washington,DC:EducationPolicyInstitute.

Barber,M.,Moffit,A.,&Kihn,P.(2011).Deliverology101:Afieldguideforeducationalleaders.ThousandOaks:Corwin.

Barber,M.,&Mourshed,M.(2007).TheMcKinseyreport:Howtheworld’sbestperformingschoolsystemscomeoutontop.London:McKinsey&Company.

Bautier,E.,&Rayon,P.(2007).WhatPISAreallyevaluates:Literacyorstudents’universesofreference?JournalofEducationalChange,8(4),359–364.

Berry,J.,&Sahlberg,P.(2006).Accountabilityaffectstheuseofsmallgrouplearninginschoolmathematics.NordicStudiesinMathematicsEducation,11(1),5-31.

Biddle,B.J.,&Berliner,D.C.(2002).Researchsynthesis:Smallclasssizeanditseffects,EducationalLeadership,59(5),12–23.

Bracey,G.(2005).Research:PutoutoverPISA.PhiDeltaKappan,86(10),797.Brophy,J.(2006).Graderepetition.Educationpolicyseries6.Paris:

InternationalInstituteforEducationalPlanning.Carnoy,M.(withA.Gove,&J.Marshall).(2007).Cuba’sacademicadvantage.

WhystudentsinCubadobetterinschool.Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress.

Castells,M.,&Himanen,P.(2002).Theinformationsocietyandthewelfarestate:TheFinnishmodel.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Coleman,J.,Campbell,E.,Hobson,C.,McPartland,J.,Mood,A.,Weinfeld,F.,&York,R.(1966).Equalityofeducationalopportunity.Washington,DC:GovernmentPrintingOffice.

CommitteeReport.(2005).Reportofthecommitteeontransitionfrombasictosecondaryeducationandtraining.ReportsofMinistryofEducation33.Helsinki:MinistryofEducation.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2006).Powerfulteachereducation:Lessonsfromexemplaryprograms.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond,L.(2010).Theflatworldandeducation.HowAmerica’scommitmenttoequitywilldetermineourfuture.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

DepartmentofEducation.(2010).Theimportanceofteaching:Theschoolswhitepaper.London:DepartmentofEducation.

Dohn,N.B.(2007).KnowledgeandskillsforPISA.Assessingtheassessment.JournalofPhilosophyofEducation,41(1),1–16.

Elley,W.B.(Ed.).(1992).Howintheworlddostudentsread?Hamburg:Grindeldruck.

EuropeanCommission(2004).CommonEuropeanprinciplesforteachercompetencesandqualifications.Brussels:Directorate-GeneralforEducationandCulture.Retrievedfromhttp://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/01-en_principles_en.pdf

Fullan,M.(2010).Allsystemsgo:Thechangeimperativeforwholesystemreform.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.

Fullan,M.(2011).Choosingwrongdriversforwholesystemreform(Seminarseries204).Melbourne:CentreforStrategicEducation.

Gameran,E.(2008,February29).WhatmakesFinnishkidssosmart.WallStreetJournal.Retrievedfromhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html

Goldstein,H.(2004).Internationalcomparisonsofstudentattainment:SomeissuesarisingfromthePISAstudy.AssessmentinEducation:Principles,PolicyandPractice,11(3),319–330.

Grek,S.(2009).Governingbynumbers:ThePISA“effect”inEurope.JournalofEducationPolicy,24(1),23–37.

Grubb,N.(2007).Dynamicinequalityandintervention:Lessonsforasmallcountry.PhiDeltaKappan,89(2),105–114.

Häivälä,K.(2009).Voiceofupper-secondaryschoolteachers:Subjectteacher$$$$$perceptionsofchangesandvisionsinuppersecondaryschools.AnnalesUniversitatisTurkuensisC283(inFinnish).Turkey:UniversityofTurkey.

Hargreaves,A.(2003).Teachingintheknowledgesociety.Educationintheageofinsecurity.NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Hargreaves,A.,Crocker,R.,Davis,B.,McEwen,L.,Sahlberg,P.,Shirley,D.,&Sumara,D.(2009).Thelearningmosaic:AmultipleperspectivesreviewoftheAlbertainitiativeforschoolimprovement.Edmonton:AlbertaEducation.

Hargreaves,A.,Earl,L.,Moore,S.,&Manning,M.(2001).Learningtochange:Teachingbeyondsubjectsandstandards.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves,A.,&Fink,D.(2006).Sustainableleadership.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Hargreaves,A.,&Goodson,I.(2006).Educationalchangeovertime?Thesustainabilityandnonsustainabilityofthreedecadesofsecondaryschoolchangeandcontinuity.EducationalAdministrationQuarterly,42(1),3–41.

Hargreaves,A.,Halasz,G.,&Pont,B.(2008).TheFinnishapproachtosystemleadership.InB.Pont,D.Nusche,&D.Hopkins(Eds.),Improvingschoolleadership,volumevol.2:Casestudiesonsystemleadership(pp.69–109).

Paris:OECD.Hargreaves,A.,&Shirley,D.(2009).TheFourthWay:Theinspiringfutureof

educationalchange.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.Hautamäki,J.,Harjunen,E.,Hautamäki,A.,Karjalainen,T.,Kupiainen,S.,Laaksonen,S.…Jakku-Sihvonen,R.(2008).PISA06Finland:Analyses,reflectionsandexplanations.Helsinki:MinistryofEducation.

Hellström,M.(2004).Muutosote.Akvaarioprojektinpedagogistenkehittämishankkeidentoteutustapajaonnistuminen[Thewayofchange—TheimplementationandsuccessofpedagogicaldevelopmentprojectsattheexperimentalschoolsoftheAquarium-project].Helsinki:UniversityofHelsinki.

Itkonen,T.,&Jahnukainen,M.(2007).AnanalysisofaccountabilitypoliciesinFinlandandtheUnitedStates.InternationalJournalofDisability,DevelopmentandEducation,54(1),5–23.

Kangasniemi,S.(2008,February27).Milläammatillapääseenaimisiin?[Withwhichprofessiontogetmarried?]HelsinginSanomatKoulutusliite,,pp.4–6.

Jakku-Sihvonen,R.,&Niemi,H.(Eds.)(2006).Research-basedteachereducationinFinland:ReflectionsbyFinnishteachereducators.Turkey:FinnishEducationalResearchAssociation.

Jennings,J.,&StarkRentner,D.(2006).TenbigeffectsoftheNoChildLeftBehindActonpublicschools.Washington,DC:CenteronEducationPolicy.

Jimerson,S.(2001).Meta-analysisofgraderetentionresearch:Implicationsforpracticeinthe21stcentury.SchoolPsychologyReview,30,420–437.

Jokinen,H.,&Välijärvi,J.(2006).Makingmentoringatoolforsupportingteachers’professionaldevelopment.InR.Jakku-Sihvonen,&H.Niemi(Eds.),Research-basedteachereducationinFinland:ReflectionsbyFinnishteachereducators(pp.89-101).Turku:FinnishEducationalResearchAssociation.

Joyce,B.,&Weil,M.(1986).Modelsofteaching(3rded.).EnglewoodCliffs:PrenticeHall.

Jussila,J.,&Saari,S.(Eds.).(2000).Teachereducationasafuture-mouldingfactor:InternationalevaluationofteachereducationinFinnishuniversities.Helsinki:HigherEducationEvaluationCouncil.

Kasvio,M.(Ed.).(2011)Thebestschoolintheworld:SevenFinnishexamplesfromthe21stcentury.Helsinki:MuseumofFinnishArchitecture.

Kauffman,S.(1995).Athomeintheuniverse.Thesearchforthelawsofself-organizationandcomplexity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

KetsDeVries,M.(2006).Theleaderonthecouch.SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.Kiuasmaa,K.(1982).Oppikoulu1880–1980:Oppikoulujasenopettajat

koulujärjestyksestäperuskouluun[Grammarschool1880–1980:Grammarschoolanditsteachersfromschoolordertocomprehensiveschool].Oulu,Finland:KustannusosakeyhtiöPohjoinen.

Kivi,A.(2005).Sevenbrothers[SeitsemänveljestäR.Impola,Trans.].Beaverton,ON:AspasiaBooks,Inc.(Originalworkpublished1870)

Koskenniemi,M.(1944).Kansakoulunopetusoppi[Didacticsofprimaryschool].Helsinki:Otava.

Kumpulainen,T.(Ed.).(2008).OpettajatSuomessa2008[TeachersinFinland2008].Helsinki:Opetushallitus.

Kupari,P.,&Välijärvi,J.(Eds.).(2005).Osaaminenkestävälläpohjalla.PISA2003Suomessa[Competencesonthesolidground.PISA2003inFinland].Jyväskylä:InstituteforEducationalResearch,UniversityofJyväskylä.

Kuusi,P.(1961).60-luvunsosiaalipolitiikka[Socialpoliticsofthe1960s].Porvoo:WSOY.

Laukkanen,R.(1998).Accountabilityandevaluation:Decision-makingstructuresandtheutilizationofevaluationinFinland.ScandinavianJournalofEducationalResearch,42(2),123–133.

Laukkanen,R.(2008).Finnishstrategyforhigh-leveleducationforall.InN.C.Sognel,&P.Jaccard(Eds.),Governanceandperformanceofeducationsystems(pp.305–324).Dordrecht:Springer.

Lavonen,J.,Krzywacki-Vainio,H.,Aksela,M.,Krokfors,L.,Oikkonen,J.,&Saarikko,H.(2007).Pre-serviceteachereducationinchemistry,mathematicsandphysics.InE.Pehkonen,M.Ahtee,&J.Lavonen(Eds.),HowFinnslearnmathematicsandscience(pp.49–68).Rotterdam:SensePublishers.

Lehtinen,E.(2004).Koulutusjärjestelmäsuomalaisenyhteiskunnanmuutoksessa[EducationsysteminthechangingFinnishsociety].Helsinki:Sitra.

Lehtinen,E.,Kinnunen,R.,Vauras,M.,Salonen,P.,Olkinuora,E.,&Poskiparta,E.(1989).Oppimiskäsitys[Conceptionofknowledge],Helsinki:Valtionpainatuskeskus.

Levin,B.(1998).Anepidemicofeducationpolicy:(What)canwelearnfromeachother?ComparativeEducation,34(2),131–141.

Lewis,R.(2005).Finland,culturallonewolf.Yarmouth,ME:InterculturalPress.Liiten,M.(2004,February11).Ykkössuosikki:Opettajanammatti[Topfavorite:

TeachingProfession].HelsinginSanomat.Retrievedfromhttp://www.hs.fi/artikkeli/Ykk%C3%B6ssuosikki+opettajan+ammatti/1076151893860

Linnakylä,P.(2004).Finland.InH.Döbert,E.Klieme,&W.Stroka(Eds.),Conditionsofschoolperformanceinsevencountries.Aquestfor

understandingtheinternationalvariationofPISAresults(pp.150–218).Munster:Waxmann.

Linnakylä,P.,&Saari,H.(1993).Oppiikooppilasperuskoulussa?Peruskouluarviointi90-tutkimuksentuloksia[Doespupillearninperuskoulu?FindingsofthePeruskoulu90reserach].Jyväskylä:Jyväskylänyliopistonkasvatustieteidentutkimuslaitos.

MacKinnon,N.(2011).TheurgentneedfornewapproachesinschoolevaluationtoenableScotland’sCurriculumforExcellence.EducationalAssessment,EvaluationandAccountability,23(1),89–106.

Martin,M.O.,Mullis,I.V.S.,Gonzales,E.J.,Gregory,K.D.,Smith,T.A.,Chrostowski,S.J.,Garden,R.A.,&O’Connor,K.M.(2000).TIMSS1999internationalsciencereport:FindingsfromIEA’srepeatofthethirdinternationalmathematicsandsciencestudyattheeighthgrade.ChestnutHill,MA:BostonCollege.

Matti,T.(Ed.).(2009).NorthernlightsonPISA2006.DifferencesandsimilaritiesintheNordiccountries.Copenhagen:NordicCouncilofMinisters.

Miettinen,R.(1990).Koulunmuuttamisenmahdollisuudesta[Aboutthepossibilitiesofschoolchange].Helsinki:Gaudeamus.

MinistryofEducation.(2004).Developmentplanforeducationandresearch2003–2008.Helsinki:Author.

MinistryofEducation.(2007).Opettajankoulutus2020[TeacherEducation2020].CommitteeReport44.Helsinki:Author.

MinistryofEducation(2009).Ensuringprofessionalcompetenceandimprovingopportunitiesforcontinuingeducationineducation(Committeereport16).Helsinki:Author.

MinistryofForeignAffairs.(2010).HowFinlandwilldemonstrateitsstrengthsbysolvingtheworld’smostintractableproblems:Finalreportofthecountrybranddelegation.Helsinki:Author.

Mortimore,P.(2009).Alternativemodelsforanalysingandrepresentingcountries’performanceinPISA.PapercommissionedbyEducationInternationalResearchInstitute.Brussels:EducationInternational.

Mourshed,M.,Chijioke,C.,&Barber,M.(2010).Howtheworld’smostimprovedschoolsystemskeepgettingbetter.London:McKinsey.

Murgatroyd,S.(2007).Accountabilityprojectframework—Developingschoolbasedaccountability.UnpublishedReport.Edmonton:TheInnovationExpeditionInc.

NationalYouthSurvey.(2010).KNT2010.Helsinki:15/30Research.NationalBoardofEducation.(1999).Aframeworkforevaluatingeducational

outcomesinFinland.Helsinki:Author.Newsweek.(1999,May24).ThefutureisFinnish.Retrievedfrom

http://www.newsweek.com/1999/05/23/the-future-is-finnish.htmlNewsweek.(2010,August17).Theworld’sbestcountries.Retrievedfrom

http://www.newsweek.com/feature/2010/the-world-s-best-countries.htmlNichols,S.L.,&Berliner,D.C.(2007).Collateraldamage:Howhigh-stakes

testingcorruptsAmerica’sschools.Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.

Niemi,H.(2008).Research-basedteachereducationforteachers’lifelonglearning.LifelongLearninginEurope,13(1),61–69.

Nuikkinen,K.(2011).Learningspaces:Howtheymeetevolvingeducationalneeds.InM.Kasvio(Ed.),Thebestschoolintheworld:SevenFinnishexamplesfromthe21stcentury(pp.10–19).Helsinki:MuseumofFinnishArchitecture.

OECD.(2001).Knowledgeandskillsforlife:FirstresultsfromPISA2000.Paris:Author.

OECD.(2004).Learningfortomorrow’sworld.FirstresultsfromPISA2003.Paris:Author

OECD.(2005a).Equityineducation.ThematicreviewofFinland.Paris:Author.OECD.(2005b).Teachersmatter:Attracting,developingandretainingeffective

teachers.Paris:Author.OECD.(2007).PISA2006.Sciencecompetenciesfortomorrow’sworld(Vol.1).

Paris:Author.OECD.(2008).Trendsshapingeducation.Paris:Author.OECD.(2010a).Educationataglance.Educationindicators.Paris:Author.OECD.(2010b).PISA2009results:Whatstudentsknowandcando.Student

performanceinreading,mathematicsandscience.Vol.1.Paris:Author.OECD.(2010c).Strongperformersandsuccessfulreformersineducation.

LessonsfromPISAfortheUnitedStates.Paris:Author.Ofsted(OfficeforStandardsinEducation,Children’sServicesandSkills)

(2010).Finnishpupils’successinmathematics.FactorsthatcontributetoFinnishpupils’successinmathematics.Manchester:Author.

O’Neill,O.(2002).Aquestionoftrust.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.Pechar,H.(2007).“TheBolognaProcess”:AEuropeanResponsetoGlobal

CompetitioninHigherEducation.CanadianJournalofHigherEducation,37(3),109–125.

Piesanen,E.,Kiviniemi,U.,&Valkonen,S.(2007).Opettajankoulutuksenkehittämisohjelmanseurantajaarviointi.Opettajientäydennyskoulutus2005jaseuranta1998–2005oppiaineittainjaoppialoittaineri

oppilaitosmuodoissa[Follow-upandevaluationoftheteachereducationdevelopmentprogram:Continuingteachereducationin2005anditsfollow-up1998–2005byfieldsandteachingsubjectsindifferenttypesofeducationalinstitutions].Jyväskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä,InstituteforEducationalResearch.

Popham,J.(2007).Theno-winaccountabilitygame.InC.Glickman(Ed.),Letterstothenextpresident.Whatwecandoabouttherealcrisisinpubliceducation(pp.166–173).NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Prais,S.J.(2003).CautionsonOECD’srecenteducationalsurvey(PISA).OxfordReviewofEducation,29(2),139–163.

Prais,S.J.(2004).CautionsonOECD’srecenteducationalsurvey(PISA):RejoindertoOECD’sresponse.OxfordReviewofEducation,30(4),569–573.

Ravitch,D.(2010a,June22).Obama’sawfuleducationplan.HuffingtonPost.Retreivedfromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-awful-education-pl_b_266412.html

Ravitch,D.(2010b,July6).SpeechtotheRepresentativeAssemblyoftheNationalEducationAssociation,NewOrleans,LA.

Ravitch,D.(2010c).ThedeathandlifeofthegreatAmericanschoolsystem.Howtestingandchoiceareunderminingeducation.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Riley,K.,&Torrance,H.(2003).Bigchangequestion:Asnationalpolicy-makersseektofindsolutionstonationaleducationissues,dointernationalcomparisonssuchasTIMSSandPISAcreateawiderunderstanding,ordotheyservetopromotetheorthodoxiesofinternationalagencies?JournalofEducationalChange,4(4),419–425.

Rinne,R.,Kivirauma,J.,&Simola,H.(2002).Shootsofrevisionisteducationpolicyorjustslowreadjustment?JournalofEducationPolicy,17(6),643-659.

Robinson,K.(withAronica,L).(2009).TheElement:Howfindingyourpassionchangeseverything.NewYork:VikingBooks.

Robitaille,D.F.,&Garden,R.A.(Eds.).(1989).TheIEAstudyofmathematicsII:Contextandoutcomesofschoolmathematics.Oxford:PergamonPress.

Routti,J.,&Ylä-Anttila,P.(2006).Finlandasaknowledgeeconomy.Elementsofsuccessandlessonslearned.Washington,DC:WorldBank.

Saari,J.(2006).Suomenmallininstitutionaalinenrakenne[TheinstitutionalstructureoftheFinnishmodel].InJ.

Saari(Ed.),Suomenmalli—Murroksestamenestykseen?[TheFinnishmodel—Fromreformationtosuccess].Helsinki:Yliopistopaino.

Saari,S.,&Frimodig,M.(Eds.).(2009).Leadershipandmanagementofeducation.EvaluationofeducationattheUniversityofHelsinki2007–2008.AdministrativePublications58.Helsinki:UniversityofHelsinki.

Sahlberg,P.(2006a).Educationreformforraisingeconomiccompetitiveness.JournalofEducationalChange,7(4),259–287.

Sahlberg,P.(2006b).Raisingthebar:HowFinlandrespondstothetwinchallengeofsecondaryeducation?Profesorado,10(1),1–26.

Sahlberg,P.(2007).Educationpoliciesforraisingstudentlearning:TheFinnishapproach.JournalofEducationPolicy,22(2),173–197.

Sahlberg,P.(2009).Ideat,innovaatiotjainvestoinnitkoulunkehittämisessä[Ideas,innovationandinvestmentinschoolimprovement].InM.Suortamo,H.,Laaksola,&J.Välijärvi(Eds.),Opettajanvuosi2009–2010(pp.13–56).[Teacher’syear2009–2010].Jyväskylä:PS-kustannus.

Sahlberg,P.(2010a).Rethinkingaccountabilityforaknowledgesociety.JournalofEducationalChange.11(1),45–61.

Sahlberg,P.(2010b).EducationalchangeinFinland.InA.Hargreaves,A.Lieberman,M.Fullan,&D.Hopkins(Eds.),Secondinternationalhandbookofeducationalchange(pp.323–348).NewYork:Springer.

Sahlberg,P.(2011a)ThefourthwayofFinland.JournalofEducationalChange,12(2),173–185.

Sahlberg,P.(2011b).BecomingateacherinFinland:Traditions,reformsandpolicies.InA.Lieberman&L.Darling-Hammond(Eds.),Highqualityteachingandlearning:Internationalperspectivesonteacher.NewYork:Routledge.

Sarason,S.(1996).Revisiting“thecultureoftheschoolandtheproblemofchange.”NewYork:TeachersCollegePress.

Schleicher,A.(2006).Theeconomicsofknowledge:WhyeducationiskeyforEurope’ssuccess.Brussels:TheLisbonCouncil.

Schleicher,A.(2007).CancompetenciesassessedbyPISAbeconsideredthefundamentalschoolknowledge15-year-oldsshouldpossess?JournalofEducationalChange,8(4),349–357.

Schulz,W.,Ainley,J.,Fraillon,J.,Kerr,D.,&Losito,B.(2010).ICCS2009InternationalReport:Civicknowledge,attitudesandengagementamonglowersecondaryschoolstudentsinthirty-eightcountries.Amsterdam:IEA.

Seddon,J.(2008).Systemsthinkinginthepublicsector:Thefailureofthereformregime…andamanifestoforabetterway.Axminster,UK:TriarchyPress.

Simola,H.(2005).TheFinnishmiracleofPISA:Historicalandsociologicalremarksonteachingandteachereducation.ComparativeEducation,41(4),

455–470.Ståhle,P.,&Wilenius,M.(2006).Luovatietopääoma:Tulevaisuudenkestävä

kilpailuetu[Creativeintellectualcapital:Sustainablecompetitiveadvantageofthefuture],Helsinki:Edita.

Ståhle,P.(Ed.).(2007).FivestepsforFinland’sfuture.Helsinki:TEKES.StatisticsFinland.(n.d.a).Education.Retrievedfrom

http://www.stat.fi/til/kou_en.htmlStatisticsFinland.(n.d.b).Researchanddevelopment.Retrievedfrom

http://www.stat.fi/til/tkke/index_en.htmlStatisticsFinland.(n.d.c).Incomeandconsumption.Retrievedfrom

http://www.stat.fi/til/tul_en.htmlStatisticsFinland.(2011).Populationstructure.Retrievedfrom

http://www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2010/vaerak_2010_2011-03-18_tie_001_en.html

Steinbock,D.(2010).Winningacrossglobalmarkets:HowNokiacreatesadvantageinafast-changingworld.NewYork:Jossey-Bass.

Toom,A.,Kynäslahti,H.,Krokfors,L.,Jyrhämä,R.,Byman,R.,Stenberg,K.,Maaranen,K.,&Kansanen,P.(2010).Experiencesofresearch-basedapproachtoteachereducation:Suggestionforthefuturepolicies.EuropeanJournalofEducation,45(2),331–344.

UNDP.(2007).Humandevelopmentreport.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.UNICEF.(2007).Childpovertyinperspective:Anoverviewofchildwell-being

inrichcountries.Florence:InnocentiResearchCentreReportCard2007.Usher,A.&Medow,J.(2010).Globalhighereducationrankings2010.

Affordabilityandaccessibilityincomparativeperspective.Toronto:HigherEducationStrategyAssociates.

Välijärvi,J.(2004).ImplicationsofthemodularcurriculuminthesecondaryschoolinFinland.InJ.vandenAkker,W.Kuiper,&U.Hameyer(Eds.),Curriculumlandscapesandtrends(pp.101–116).Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Välijärvi,J.(2008).Mitenhyvinvointitaataantulevaisuudessakin?[Howtoguaranteewelfarealsoinfuture?].InM.Suortamo,H.,Laaksola,&J.Välijärvi(Eds.),Opettajanvuosi2008–2009[Teacher’syear2008–2009](pp.55–64).Jyväskylä:PS-kustannus.

Välijärvi,J.,Kupari,P.,Linnakylä,P.,Reinikainen,P.,Sulkunen,S.,Törnroos,J.,&Arffman,I.(2007).FinnishsuccessinPISAandsomereasonsbehinditII.Jyväskylä:UniversityofJyväskylä.

Välijärvi,J.,Linnakylä,P.,Kupari,P.,Reinikainen,P.,&Arffman,I.(2002).FinnishsuccessinPISAandsomereasonsbehindit.Jyväskylä:InstituteforEducationalResearch,UniversityofJyväskylä.

Välijärvi,J.,&Sahlberg,P.(2008).Should“failing”studentsrepeatagrade?AretrospectiveresponsefromFinland.JournalofEducationalChange,9(4),385–389.

Voutilainen,T.,Mehtäläinen,J.,&Niiniluoto,I.(1989).Tiedonkäsitys[Conceptionofknowledge].Helsinki:Kouluhallitus.

Westbury,I.,Hansen,S-E.,Kansanen,P.,&Björkvist,O.(2005).Teachereducationforresearch-basedpracticeinexpandedroles:Finland’sexperience.ScandinavianJournalofEducationalResearch,49(5),475–485.

Wilkinson,R.,&Pickett,K.(2009).Thespiritlevel.Whymoreequalsocietiesalmostalwaysdobetter.NewYork:AllenLane.

WorldBank.(2011).LearningforAll:Investinginpeople’sknowledgeandskillstopromotedevelopment.Washington,DC:WorldBank.

Zhao,Y.(2009).Catchinguporleadingtheway:Americaneducationintheageofglobalization.Alexandria,VA:ASCD.

Index

Thepagereferencesinthisindexcorrespondtotheprinteditionofthisbook.Pleaseusethesearchfunctionofyoure-readertolocatethetopicsandtermslistedherein.

Anfortafterapagenumberindicatesafigureortable,respectively.

9-yearcompulsoryschool.SeePeruskouluAbilitygrouping,22“AboutPossibilitiesofSchoolChange,”34Academicrigorofteachereducation,77Accountability

basedonstandardizedtests,65–66,101,103tandcompetition,144focuson,100inteachingandlearning,130

Achievementgap,historical,45–46,46fActofBasicEducation,117ActonGeneralUpper-SecondaryEducation,25ActsonTeacherEducation,78Adams,R.J.,56Adulteducationalattainment,43–44,44fAgrarianCentreParty,16AgrarianParty,24Aho,Erkki,15,16,21,24,29,33,122,147Ahtisaari,Martti,1,71Ainley,J.,54,54tAksela,M.,81,83Alasuutari,P.,147AlbertaEducationAccountabilityDepartment,67AlbertaInitiativeforSchoolImprovement(AISI),36AlbertanProvincialAssembly,67Allerup,P.,42AlquézarSabadie,J.,107Amrein,A.L.,39,67

AquariumProject,36–37Architectureofschoolbuildings,128Arffman,I.,23,51,126,128Asplund,R.,107Assessment

inclass,66comprehensiveevaluationofstudentprogress,66external,67internationalrankings,49–57,50tmethodsof,34,130NationalMatriculationExamination,25,31–32,89–90asresponsibilityofteacher,89voluntarytesting,67

AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment(ASCD),34Atjonen,P.,35Au,W.,67,101Auguste,B.,147AuroraSchool(Espoo),119Automaticpromotion,60

Baker,E.,92Barber,M.,9,132,147Barton,P.,92Bautier,E.,56Berliner,D.C.,35,39,67,128,133Berry,J.,26Biddle,B.J.,128BigDream,139–140Björkvist,O.,79,129BolognaProcess,80,93Bracey,G.,56Brophy,J.,58Byman,R.,129

Campbell,E.,21Capacity-building,xviiCareerguidanceforstudents,23Carnoy,M.,112

Castells,M.,12,105Chijioke,C.,9Chrostowski,S.J.,49Civiceducationperformance,54Civicknowledge,54Civicschools,15Classroom-basedteaching,141Cohen,Elizabeth,34Coherenceofeconomicandsocialreforms,109,110/111tColeman,J.,21ColemanReport,21Collaborationforeducationalreform,35–36Commitmenttobasicschoolforall,6CommitteeReport(MinistryofEducation),30Commoneducationalgoal,6CommunistParty,16Complementarityprinciple,98,136Completionofupper-secondaryandhighereducation,29–30,30t

Comprehensivebasicschool.SeePeruskouluComprehensiveevaluationofstudentprogress,66

ComprehensiveSchoolCurriculumCommittee,17ComprehensiveSchoolReform,35–36Conceptionofknowledge,33,35“ConceptionofKnowledge,”34Conceptionoflearning,33,35“ConceptionofLearning,”34ConservativeParty,17Coreeducationalvalues,19,21Core-subjectfocus,100–101,103tCostofeducation,57–60CountryBrandDelegation,10,124Creativityascriterionforsuccess,143Creditsystemofteachereducationprograms,80–81,81tCrocker,R.,36Culturalandethnichomogeneity,8,68CulturalcharacteristicsofFinns,61CultureoftheSchoolandtheProblemofChange,The,144Curriculumforteachereducation,80–83,81t,82tCurriculumforthe

comprehensiveschoolframeworks,22,81,88,118,128,138

planning,88–89

reform,35Customizedlearningplans,141Cygnaeus,PastorUno,117

Darling-Hammond,L.,2,35,85,92,132Davis,B.,36DepartmentofEducation,9Developmentofpublicinstitutions,109Developmentofteachingprofession,7DevelopmentPlanforEducationandResearchfor2007–2012,134,138Dewey,John,144Differentiatedsyllabi,22Digitaltools,141–142Diversification,69Diversificationofsociety,68–69,68tDohn,N.B.,56DominantthemesinnationaleducationpolicyafterWWII,16“Driversofchange,”102Dropout,30

Earl,L.,99Earlychildhoodservices,48Earlyinterventionforspecialneeds,46–48,48fEarlyliteracy,128EconomicconditionsfollowingWWII,15,16Economicprogress,114–115Economicreform,contributingfactors,115–116Educatedlaborforce,116Educationalattainment,28–30,28f,30t,43–44,44fEducationalobjectives

focus,17Educationalparticipation,43–45,44fEducationalpoliciesthattranscendculture,6EducationalreforminAnglo-Americancultures,xix–xxEducationalreformin

Finlandcollaborationandnetworking,35–36contributingfactors,115–116general,24keyelements,103tphasesofchange,32–33,33fpost-WWII,17–21,20

principlessince1970,110/111tEducationforallnotion,100

EducationReformActof1988(England),65,122EducationschemeinFinland,40fEducationSectorProductivityProgramfor2006–2010,138Educationspendingrelationtostudentperformance,57,58fEducationSystem

Committee,17–18Educationsystemperformancelinktowelfarestate,112–118Efficiencyineducation,38Engagementascriterionforsuccess,142–143EngagementbetweenNokiaandFinnishschooling,118–121Equalopportunityprinciple,21,23,68,128–129Equityineducation,45–49Ethnicandculturalhomogeneity,8EuropeanCommission,86EuropeanCreditTransferandAccumulationSystem(ECTS),80EuropeanHigherEducationArea,80EuropeanUnion,7,106,108,109–112,110/111tExpansionofupper-secondary

education,25–27Externalassessment,67

Ferdinand,Reinhold,117Fink,D.,39,98,109Finnishbankingcrisis,106FinnishBusinessandPolicyForum(EVA),121FinnishConsensus,24FinnishDream,6FinnishFolkSchool,24,117FinnishPrimarySchoolTeachers’Association(FPSTA),20FinnishSchoolPrincipals,122Finnishspirit,108FinnishWay,7,103t,105–106,109,121,144FirstInternationalMathematicsStudy(FIMS),49,50tFirstInternational

ScienceStudy(FISS),50tFlatWorldandEducation,The,2FourthWay,The,xviii,2,5,102,105–106FPSTA,20Fraillon,J.,54,54tFrameworkforEvaluatingEducationalOutcomesinFinland,126

Frimodig,M.,85Fullan,M.,xi,8,35,102“FutureIsFinnish,The,”134FutureofFinnisheducation,136,138,140–145

Gameran,E.,65Garden,R.A.,49Gardner,Howard,9GERM.SeeGlobalEducationalReformMovement(GERM)Germanmodelof

education,117GlobalCompetitivenessIndex,114GlobalEducationalReformMovement(GERM),99–106,103t,124

versusFinnishapproach,102,103t,104–105GlobalHigherEducationRankings,49Globalizationandeducation,97–99GlobalstudentlearningandPISA,49–57Globalsystemformobilecommunications(GSM),117Goldstein,H.,56Gonzales,E.J.,49Goodgovernance,115Goodson,I.,98Graderepetition,58–60GrammarSchoolTeachers’Union,18Gregory,K.D.,49Grek,S.,9Grubb,N.,46,60,132,148

Haertel,E.,92Häivälä,K.,148Halasz,G.,92,126,131,132,148Halinen,I.,35Hämäläinen,S.,35Hansen,S-E.,79,129Hargreaves,A.,xviii,2,5,34,35,36,39,65,92,98,99,100,102,105,106,

109,126,131,132,148Harjunen,E.,51,69,126Hautamäki,A.,51,69,126Hautamäki,J.,51,69,126

Hellström,M.,36,119,147Hellström,Martti(schoolprincipal),119Helsinkiandimmigrantstudents,68,69Highacademicrequirementforteaching,129HigherEducationStrategyAssociates(Toronto),49Highregardforteachers,72–73Himanen,P.,12,105Himanen,Pekka,139Hirvi,Vilho,2,130Hobson,C.,21Homework,65Homogeneityfactor,8HumanDevelopmentIndex(HDI),54

ImmigrationtoFinland,68tIncomegap,139fIncomeinequalityandstudent

learning,113–114,113fIndividualizedlearningplan,141Individual’spotentialforgrowthnotion,21Inductionofanewteacher,86Inequalityineducation,138Informationsociety,107–108Instructionalmethods,23Instructionhours,Finland,62–65,63f,64f,76,91fInstructionhours,

international,90–91,91fIntegrationinpolicydevelopment,115Interdependencyamongpublicsectorpolicies,109InternationalCivicandCitizenshipEducationStudy(ICCS),50t,52,54InternationalEducationalAssessment(IEA),49,50tInternationalMathematical

Olympiad,43tInternationalmathrankings,51,65,66fInternationalOlympiads,42–43,43t

Internationalsciencerankings,51Internationalspendingoneducation,57Interpersonalskills,141–142Itkonen,T.,48

Jahnukainen,M.,48Jakku-Sihvonen,R.,51,69,78,148Jennings,J.,101Jimerson,S.,58

Johansen,J.,107JohnsHopkinsUniversity,34Johnson,David,34Johnson,Peter,137Johnson,Peter(directorofeducation),137Johnson,Roger,34Jokinen,H.,86JournalofEducationalChange,98Joyce,B.,35Jussila,J.,85Jyrhämä,R.,129Jyväskylä,Finland,117

Kangasniemi,S.,73Kansanen,P.,79,129Karjalainen,T.,51,69Kasvio,M.,126Kaufmann,S.,133Kekkonen,Urho,24Kerr,D.,54,54tKetDeVries,M.,xviiKettunen,Pauli,24Kihn,P.,147,148Kinnunen,R.,34Kiuasmaa,K.,15Kivi,A.,13,70Kiviniemi,U.,87Kivirauma,J.,131Knowledge-basedeconomy,106–112Knubb-Manninen,G.,35Kokkola,Cityof,137Korkeakoski,E.,35Koskenniemi,Matti,16,17,74Krokfors,L.,81,83,129Krzywacki-Vainio,H.,81,83Kumpulainen,T.,87Kupari,P.,23,27,35,49,51,64,126,128,130Kupiainen,S.,51,69

Kuusi,Pekka,21Kynäslahti,H.,129

Laaksonen,S.,51,69Ladd,H.,92LanguagesofFinland,8Laukkanen,R.,125Lavonen,J.,81,83LawonEducation,126Learningresults,37Legatum,114Lehtinen,Erno,34,35Lengthofschoolday,63–64Levin,B.,101Lewis,R.,61,112,130Liiten,M.,72Linn,R.,92Linnakylä,P.,23,51,123,126,128Long-termvision,115Losito,B.,54,54t

Maaranen,K.,129MacKinnon,N.,104Maliranta,M.,107Manning,M.,99Market-orientedreformideas,101,103tMartin,M.O.,49Master’sdegreerequirementforteaching,78,129Master’sthesis,80,81MathematicsOlympiad,42–43,43tMathematicsperformanceofFinnsonPISAstudy,56fMathematics

performanceonPISAstudy,51Mathematicsteaching,51MatriculationExamination,25,31–32,89–90Matti,T.,126McEwen,L.,36McKinseyandCompany,9McKinseyreport,132McPartland,J.,21

Medjing,J.,42Medow,J.,49Mehtäläinen,J.,34Miettinen,R.,34Miller,M.,147MinistryofEducation,26,30t,31,73,79,81,86,87,118MinistryofEducationreportonprofessionaldevelopment,87MinistryofForeignAffairs,10,124,134,136Modelsfromthecorporateworld,101,103tMood,A.,21Moore,S.,99Mortimore,P.,56,134MotherTonguetest,31Mourshed,M.,9,132,147Mullis,I.V.S.,49Municipalfieldschool(MFS),85Municipaloversightofschools,11t,86–88,93,126Murgatroyd,S.,36

NationalBoardofEducation,126NationalBoardofEducation(Finland),2,17,24,31,67,81,126NationalBoardofGeneralEducation,19,34–35NationalCurriculumfortheComprehensiveSchool,22NationalCurriculumFramework,128,138NationalCurriculumReformof1994,35NationalFrameworkCurricula,88NationalFrameworkCurriculumforComprehensiveSchool,81NationalFrameworkforScienceCurriculum,118NationalMatriculationExamination,25,31–32,89–90NationalYouthSurvey,73Networkingforeducationalreform,35–36NewClubofParis,134NewComprehensiveSchool,21Newglobalpartnership,139Newsweek,113t,135Nichols,S.L.,67,133Niemi,H.,78Niemi,Hannele(professorofeducation),84Niiniluoto,I.,34

NoChildLeftBehind(UnitedStates),xvi,132Nokia,2,106–107,116–118Nonclassorganizationalsystem,25Nontraditional“classroom,”141Nuikkinen,K.,128

OAJ,78,127Obama,PresidentBarack,xv,xviO’Connor,K.M.,49OECD,xiv,5,7,9,29,37,38t,44,45,46,51,55,56t,57,62,63,63t,64,64t,

65,66t,77,86,97,107,113,113t,120,129,131,132,138,147OfficeforStandardsinEducation(Ofsted),51,132Ofsted.SeeOfficeforStandardsinEducation(Ofsted)Oikkonen,J.,81,83Oittinen,ReinoHenrik,18Olkinuora,E.,34Ollila,Jorma,10,118O’Neil,O.,127Oppositiontoperuskoulu,121–123

“Paradoxes”ofFinnisheducation,62–69Paronen,S.,96PATs(Alberta),67Pechar,H.,148Pedagogicalconservatism,112Pedagogicalleadership,92Performanceininternationalstudentassessments,49–57,50tPermanentspecial

education,47Personalroadmapforlearning,140–141Peruskoulu

9-yearstructure,19centralidea,21–22,22fandComprehensiveSchoolCurriculumCommittee,17andComprehensiveSchoolReform,35–36defininganewschoolsystem,20andeducationalattainment,27–29,28f,30t,43–44elements,23andFinnisheconomyandsociety,2asFinnishicons,117–118

andgraderepetition,59–60opposition,121–123andstudentperformance,128–130andvalueofequity,59

Pickett,K.,113,138Piesanen,E.,87PISA

competitionandtest-basedaccountability,65andequaleducationalopportunity,37andFinlandperformance,50t,51–52,54,55,56f,120and“Finnishmiracle,”37asglobalmeasureofstudentachievement,51,100globalperformanceinmath,65,66fglobalperformanceinscience,53f(2),58fandglobalstudentlearning,49–57andimmigrantstudents,69impactonglobaleducation,55implicationsforFinland,135,138incomeandsciencelearning,113asindicatorofqualityofeducation,56limitations,134andschoolvariance,45–46,46fandsocioeconomicstatus,38fandstudentanxiety,26,64

Pitkänen,K.,15,16,21,29,122,147Politicalstabilityofeducationsystem,131Pont,B.,92,126,131,132,148Popham,J.,67,100Popularityofteachingasprofession,73Poskiparta,E.,34Post-WWIIFinland,14–17Povertyandeducation,69Practicumexperiences,83–86Prais,S.J.,56Preschoolservices,48Prescribedcurriculum,101,103tPrimarySchoolCurriculumCommittee,17Principlesofimprovinglearning,126–127Professionalautonomyofteachers,76

Professionalisminteaching,76Professionallearningcommunity(PLC),76Professionalteacherdevelopment,86–88ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment(PISA).SeePISAProgressin

InternationalReadingLiteracyStudy(PIRLS),9,50tProvincialachievementtests(PATs;Alberta),67

Publicfinancingofeducation,44–45Publicinstitutions,centralroleof,115–116Publicschoolsystem,originof,117PublicsectorpoliciesinFinland,110/111tRacetotheTop,xvRavitch,D.,xvi,99,132Rayon,P.,56Readingliteracyperformance,PISAscale,56fReadingLiteracyStudy,50t,51Readingperformanceandsocioeconomicstatus,38tReinikainen,P.,23,51,126,

128RelevanceofFinlandasmodelforeducation,8–9Reportcards,66–67Research-basedteachereducation,78,83–85,94Responsibilitiesofteachersoutsidetheclassroom,90Retention.SeeGraderepetitionRiley,K.,56Rinne,R.,131Robinson,K.,140Robitaille,D.F.,49Routti,J.,12,15,105,106,107Ruutu,DirectorGeneralYrjö,17

Saari,H.,123Saari,J.,12,105Saari,S.,85Saarikko,H.,81,83Sahlberg,CarlReinhold,117Sahlberg,P.,xix,15,16,21,23,26,29,30,32,36,37,43,49,57,58,60,71,75,

76,79t,91t,99,102,107,122,126,147,148Salonen,P.,34Salonen,Veera(teacher-educationstudent),74Sarason,S.,144Schleicher,A.,7,40,56,127,148

School2.0,139SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,98Schoolprincipalqualifications,92–93SchoolProgramCommittee,18–19School-relatedstress,64–65SchoolsWhitePaper(England),9Schulz,W.,54,54tScienceeducation,52Scienceperformance,PISAscale,56fSecondInternationalMathematicsStudy

(SIMS),49SecondInternationalScienceStudy(SISS),50t,51Seddon,J.,148Self-regulationofschools,36SevenBrothers,13,70,132Sharan,Shlomo,34Sharan,Yael,34Shepard,L.,92Shiftingfocusofeducationalreform,99Shirley,D.,xviii,2,5,34,36,65,99,102,105,106Simola,H.,112,126,131Sisu,108Sizefactor,8–9Slavin,Robert,34Smith,T.A.,49SocialDemocraticParty,16Socialinequality,138Socialmedia,141–142Socialpolicieslinktoeducationsystemperformance,112–116Socialvalues,132SovietUnion,peacetreatywith,14SovietUnioncollapse,2,106,108SpecialcharacteristicsofFinland,8,10Specialeducation

ascategoryofteaching,71–72ascomponentofteachereducation,82tandcomprehensiveschoolreform,23enrollmentnumbers,47–48,48fandgraderepetition,60pathways,47

philosophy,46–47SpiritLevel,The,113Ståhle,P.,136,143Standardizationofteachingandlearning,100,103tStandardizedtesting,65–66,

67StanfordUniversity,34StarkRentner,D.,101“State-generatedsocialcapital,”112StatisticsFinland,8,44,107Steinbock,D.,120Stenberg,K.,129StoraEnso,107Structureofeducationsystem,20f,21,22fStudentassessment.SeeAssessment

StudentlearningandPISArankings,49–57Studentperformance

academicdomains,PISAresults,37civicknowledgescores,54,54fincoresubjects(Finland),56fandeducationspendingrelationship,57,58fandinstructionhoursrelationship,62–63,63f,64finmathematics,42–43,43t,66frankingininternationalassessmentstudies(Finland),50tinreading,38f,46finscience,international,53t(2),113f

StudyofReadingComprehension,50tSulkunen,S.,51,126Sumara,D.,36Sustainableleadershippoliciesandpractices,39Sustainededucationalleadership,131Swedenasmodel,6

Teachereducation

academicrigor,78–80annualapplicationtoprograms,75fcollaborationbetweensubjectfacultiesandschoolofeducation,94competitionforaccessto,74–75,75fcreditsystemofprograms,80–81,81tcurriculum,80–83,81t,82t

peculiaritiesofsystem,93–95primary-teacherprograms,81–82,81tprograms,51,52requirementsbytypeofschool,79tsubject-teacherprograms,82–83,82ttraditionalteacherpreparation,71trainingschools,83–86

Teachers’rolesassessstudents,66,89nonteachingresponsibilities,63–64asresearchers,83–86astransmittersofculture,72

TeachFirst,79TeachforAmerica,79Teachinghours.SeeInstructionhours,Finland;Instructionhours,international

Teachingprofessionattractionoftoptalent,76–77,93–94categorieswithinteaching,71–72developmentof,7effectivenessofteacher,90–92reflection,91regardfor,72–73,129salaries,77

Technologytools,141–142TelAvivUniversity,34Test-basedaccountability,65–66Thesisrequirementforteaching,78ThirdInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy,51ThirdSector,63“ThirdWay”ofeducationalreform,xvii–xviii,105TIMSS,49,50tToom,A.,129Törnroos,J.,51,126Torrance,H.,56TradeUnionofEducationinFinland(OAJ),78,127Traditionalmodelofeducation,15–16,112Traditionalteacherpreparation,71Traditionalviewsoneducation,71

TransferabilityofFinnishmodel,133Transitionfromperuskoulutoupper-secondaryeducation,27–28,28fTrendsin

InternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy(TIMSS),49,50tTrilingualnatureofFinland,8

Trustinschools,130–131

U2,124UNDP(UnitedNationsDevelopmentReport),113,113tUNICEF,69UNICEFInnocentiResearchCentre,69UnitedNations2006HumanDevelopmentReport,113UniversityofHelsinki,31,74,75,75f,81,82,82t,84UniversityofJyväskylä,81,81t,87UniversityofMinnesota,34UniversityofOulu,85Usher,A.,49

Välijärvi,J.,23,24,27,30,37,49,51,58,60,64,86,126,127–128,130Valkonen,S.,87Value-addedmodeling(VAM),91–92Vauras,M.,34Vocationaleducation,25–26,30,31,32Voluntarytesting,67Voutilainen,T.,34

WallStreetJournal,65Weil,M.,35Weinfeld,F.,21Welfareservices,48Welfarestatelinktoeducationsystemperformance,112–118Westbury,I.,79,129Wikman,T.,35Wilenius,M.,143Wilkinson,R.,113,138WinningAcrossGlobalMarkets,120WorldBank,9WorldBankEducationStrategy2020,9WorldEconomicForum(WEF),107,114

WrittenCompositionStudy,50t“Wrongdrivers,”102

Ylä-Anttila,P.,12,15,105,106,107York,R.,21

Zhao,Yong,xvi

AbouttheAuthor

PasiSahlberg,PhD,iscurrentlydirectorgeneralofCIMO(CentreforInternationalMobilityandCooperation)attheFinnishMinistryofEducationandCultureandamemberoftheboardofdirectorsoftheASCD(AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment)intheUnitedStates.Hehasworkedasateacher,teachereducator,andpolicymakerinFinlandandasanexpertforseveralinternationalorganizationsandconsultingfirms.Duringthelast2decadeshehasanalyzededucationreformsaroundtheworldandworkedwitheducationleadersintheUnitedStates,Canada,Europe,theMiddleEast,Africa,andAsia.Dr.SahlbergwasaformerstaffmemberoftheWorldBankinWashington,DC,andtheEuropeanCommissioninTurin,Italy.HecontinuestotrainteachersandleadersandtocoachschoolsinFinlandandabroad.HeisadjunctprofessorattheUniversityofHelsinkiandattheUniversityofOulu.Formoreinformationandupdatesonthisbook,pleasevisitwww.pasisahlberg.com.