What is behind Finnish school achievement?

Maija Lanas (PhD)post-doctoral researcher, teacher educator

University of Oulu, Finland

”The PISA miracle” in brief

Reading literacy: highest performance in 2000 and 2003, second highest in 2006 and 2009. Mathematical literacy: 4th in 2000, 1st in 2003, 2nd in 2006 and 2009Science literacy: 1st in 2006 and 2009

The “achievement gap” between the high and low performers is small. both high average quality and high equality of educational outcomes.

The common first places to look for answers:

Teaching practices? Traditional, often teacher directed

Early start? 7 years, it is encouraged that children do not learn school topics before that

More time spent on education? teachers teach less and students spend less time studying both in and out of schools than their peers in most other countries. Basic school is finished at the end of 9 years age 15 or 16.

Different kinds of schools? Class sizes 20-30, lessons 45min, 15min break

Teachers teach to the test? In general, PISA does not interest Finnish teachers

School Leadership?

=> What is the answer then?

The core findings are often frustrating to the international community because:

- They offer no receipies- No one responsible agent but responsibility is shared in the society

Reasons found for Finnish school success:

1. Collaboration between educational policies and other policies is in the society

2. Absence of ability tracking or institutional differentiation

3. Professional teacher development

4. Teacher’s autonomy and professional trust

Comprehensive school is not just an educational structure but instead a philosophy and a part of general policy that permeates all sectors.

Finland has had a very consistent long-term educational policy and commitment to the common policy.

Success is a result of systematic analysis and this long-term educational policy.

Derives from: Education utilized in overcoming the national challenges: civil war divide, compensations to Soviet Union, Long border with Russia ”Unifying the nation” Emphasis on equity

1. Collaboration between educational policies and other policies in the society

High standards and equity, which means keeping all students together as far as possible

all education, including higher education is free of charge and there are hardly any private schools .

Schools and teachers have explicit strategies and approaches for teaching heterogeneous groups of learners

Students are offered a variety of extra-curricular activities Schools offer differentiated support structures for students

2. Absence of ability tracking or institutional differentiation

Instead,

Almost half of the 16-year-olds, when they leave the comprehensive school, have been engaged in some sort of special education (integrated in mainstream classes), personalized help or individual guidance within their schools. Guidance and counselling are considered important to support students’ individual learning processes.

Keeping all students together is a demanding model and requires economical and other mental and physical resources:

e.g. • relevant curricula, • high demands to teachers’ professional skills, • co-operation with professionals of other fields, • support systems (tutors, counsellors, school doctors and

nurses, classroom assistants, special needs teachers, social workers, psychologists),

• gaining support from pupils’ homes, • commitment and responsibility of national, regional and

particularly local administration.

3. Professional teacher development

High level of teacher education and continuing professional development

• M.Ed• teaching is a prestigious profession, and many students aspire to be

teachers.• Teacher training schemes are selective, competitive teacher-education

system (e.g.1/50) • Continuing professional development is a constitutive part of the system• Special attention is paid to the professional development of school

management personnel.

4. Teacher’s autonomy and professional trust

Finland has not taken part in the international accountability movement to make schools and teachers accountable through assessments and inspection.All traditional forms of control over the teacher’s work were abandoned in the beginning of the 1990.

There is no• school inspectorate, • detailed national curriculum, • officially approved teaching materials, • class diary where the teacher has to record what is taught each hour

Instead, there is: professional autonomy and access to purposeful professional development throughout their careers

It is estimated that Finnish teachers have the most freedom in the world

Basics about curriculum and educational planning

Decentralization in the 70s:

The goals of education: national framework for curriculum approved by the Finnish National Board of Education

The contents for education: the school-based curricula prepared by municipalities and schools in collaboration with parents and students

The methods for education: Teachers

Þ The decisions regarding the specific contents and methods of education are made by the teachers.

National core curriculum for mathematics (10 pages):

Divided into three sets of grades 1-2, 3-5, 6-9. For each set, core curriculum states:-the objectives, - core contents, - description of a good performance (at the end of the grades 2 and 5) or final assessment criteria (at the end of school)

EXAMPLE:

Basics about evaluation

Evaluation for learning, not of learning. The ‘results’ are evaluated only in the final assessment at the end of the 9 years.

Grading is not obligatory before the 8th school yearOnly one compulsory national test: Matriculation exam (at the end of 12 years)

Teachers create their own ways to measure and report student progress

No standardized testing or test-preparation, However, feedback and different forms of evaluation are considered important parts of learning cycles

Despite the lack of external control there are high expectations for teachers:

Teachers are considered to be responsible and accountable, and expected to continuously develop their work through self-evaluation as individuals and as a group of professionals.

As professionals they should not need external control for their high aspirations.

Emphasis is on giving support for teachers instead of more pressure

“knowledge-rich profession in which schools and teachers have the authority to act, the necessary knowledge to do so wisely, and access to effective

support systems”. (Schleider 2005)

Scientific backup: Research shows that intrinsic motivation is reduced by external rewards and punishments

"tangible rewards tend to have a substantially negative effect on intrinsic motivation (...) Even when tangible rewards are offered as indicators of good performance, they typically decrease intrinsic motivation for interesting activities.“(Deci et al 1999)

"overjustification" hypothesis suggested by self-perception theory: intrinsic interest in an activity may be decreased by inducing him to engage in that activity as an explicit means to some extrinsic goal(Lepper et al 1973)

Intrinsic motivation to work well (to teach or to learn)

is not increased by external rewards

In fact, on the contrary:

in the long run, external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation

Leadership: Direction of responsibility and support

student

policies

teacher

Responsible to support the teacher

Responsible to support the students

School leadership

student

policies

teacher

School leadership

With standardized tests and accountability the direction of responsibility is the opposite:

Student achievement is the measure of teacher

skill and motivation

Teachers present their skills and motivation to their leaders

Some sources

http://www.oph.fi/english/publications/2009/national_core_curricula_for_basic_education

Aho, Pitkänen and Sahlberg (2006) Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. World Bank: Education Working Paper Series number 2. http://siteresources.worldbamk.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/ 547664-1099079967208/Education_in_Finland_May06.pdf, p. 9-13.

Deci EL, Koestner, R, Ryan RM (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull. Nov;125(6):627-68; discussion 692-700.

Jäppinen, A. (2005). Development and structure of the Finnish education system. Paper presented in the international conference Finland in PISA-studies – Reasons behind the results. Helsinki 14-16 March 2005. http://www.palmenia.helsinki.fi/congress/pisa2005/program.asp

Lepper, Mark R.;Greene, David;Nisbett, Richard E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 28(1), Oct 1973, 129-137. doi: 10.1037/h0035519

Sahlberg, P. (2011) Finnish lessons. What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York: Teachers College Press.

Schleicher, A. (2005) Analysis of the PISA process and its results. Paper presented in the international conference Finland in PISA-studies – Reasons behind the results. Helsinki 14-16 March 2005.http://palmenia.helsinki.fi/congress/pisa2005/program.asp

Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education. Comparative education, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 455-470.