PraisefortheFirstEditionofFinnishLessons“Likeotherprofessionals,asPasiSahlbergshowsinhisbookFinnishLessons,Finnishteachersaredrivenbyasenseofintrinsicmotivation,notbythehopeofabonusorthefearofbeingfired.”

—DianeRavitchintheNewYorkReviewofBooks

“FinnishLessonsprovidesvaluableevidencethatinvestinginteachersandinstruction—ratherthanintestsandinspections—canbringaboutadmirable,evenexcellent,results.”

—ConnieGoddardintheTeachersCollegeRecord

“Thisbookisaneye-openerfortheignorant.ItmakesclearwhythedevelopmentofschoolsystemsinSweden(andintheU.S.,UK…)issomiserable.”

—Sven-EricLiedmaninDagensNyheter

“SimplyputtheonemustreadtobegintounderstandhowFinlandhasbuiltperhapstheworld’smostsuccessfuleducationalsystemoverthepastfewdecades.”

—KennethBernsteinforDailyKos

“FinnishLessonskills99.9%ofGERMs.”

—NiallMacKinnonintheTimesEducationSupplement

“ThestoryofFinnisheducationalsuccessastoldbySahlbergintheslimvolumeFinnishLessonsisremarkable….FinnishLessonsisanimportantbookandeducatorsneedtoreadit.”

—GaeaLeinhardtinEducationalResearcher

“Sahlberg’sbookcontainsimportantlessonsforabroadrangeofacademics,educators,politicians,andthepublic.Iespeciallyappreciateditsdemonstrationthattopacademicperformancecanbeachievedwithlowinequality,comprehensiveschoolforallstudents,lowdropoutrates,lowschool-relatedanxiety,andahighdegreeoffreedomforteachers.Infact,Finlandteachesthatalltheseaspectsneedtobeconsideredwhengivingdirectionsforeffectiveandsustainableeducationalreform.”

—HenrikSaalbachinScience

“Iknowmanyreformersandpoliticianswillnotwanttoreadthisbookbecauseitwillnegateallthe‘reform’thathasbeenembracedbyourcountry,butwewillallmissoutonsomeveryimportantopportunitiesiftheydon’t.NeitherthesizeofFinlandnorthecountry’sdemographicsshouldbeusedasanexcusebyanystateorbytheUnitedStatesnottopayattentiontowhatworks.Thisbookwillgivehope,vision,andstrategiestoanyonewhoissincereinbringingagreateducationtoeverychild.Pickitupandreadit.”

—JohnWilsoninEducationWeek

FinnishLessons2.0WHATCANTHEWORLDLEARNFROMEDUCATIONALCHANGEINFINLAND?

SECONDEDITION

PASISAHLBERG

ForewordsbyDianeRavitchandAndyHargreaves

AfterwordbySirKenRobinson

TeachersCollegeColumbiaUniversityNewYorkandLondon

PublishedbyTeachersCollegePress,1234AmsterdamAvenue,NewYork,NY10027

Copyright©2015byTeachersCollege,ColumbiaUniversity

Lyricsfrom“Rumblin’”byNeilYoungarereprintedwithpermissionfromHalLeonardCorporation.Copyright©2010bySilverFiddleMusic.

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopy,oranyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,withoutpermissionfromthepublisher.

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData

Sahlberg,Pasi.

Finnishlessons2.0:whatcantheworldlearnfromeducationalchangeinfinland?/PasiSahlberg;forewordbyDianeRavitch;afterwordbySirKenRobinson.—Secondedition.

pagescm

ISBN:978-0-8077-5585-3(pbk.:alk.paper)—

ISBN:978-0-8077-7329-1(ebook:alk.paper)

1.Educationalchange—Finland.2.Education—Finland.I.Title.

LA1013.7.S342015

370.94897—dc23

2014033085

ISBN:978-0-8077-5585-3(paper)

ISBN:978-0-8077-7329-1(ebook)

ForEinarFrithiofSahlberg(1895–1977)

Icanfeeltheweatherchanging

Icanseeitallaround

Can’tyoufeelthatnewwindblowing?

Don’tyourecognizethatsoundthatsound?

Andtheearthisslowlyspinning

Spinningslowly,slowlychanging.

—NeilYoung,“Rumblin’”

Contents

ForewordtotheSecondEdition:AnAlternateUniverseDianeRavitch

ForewordtotheFirstEdition:UnFinnishedBusinessAndyHargreaves

PrefacetotheSecondEdition

Acknowledgments

Introduction:Yes,WeCan(LearnfromOneAnother)

NorthernExposure

FinlandasanInspiration

LearningfromOthers

ThePlanofThisBook

1.  TheFinnishDream:AGoodSchoolforAll

PostwarFinland

UniversalBasicEducation

TheNewSchoolIsBorn

ExpandingUpper-SecondaryEducation

ImprovingEducationalAttainment

AGenerationofEducationalChange

TheFinnishEducationSystemin2015

2.  TheFinnishParadox:LessIsMore

FromPeripherytoLimelight

EducationalAttainment

EquityofOutcomes

StudentLearning

CostofEducation

FinnishParadoxesofEducation

3.  TheFinnishAdvantage:TheTeachers

TheCultureofTeaching

BecomingaTeacher

Research-BasedTeacherEducation

TeachersasResearchers

ProfessionalDevelopment

TeachersAreLeaders

SchoolLeadersAreTeachers

GoodTeachers,GreatSchools

WhatIfFinland’sGreatTeachersTaughtinYourSchools?

4.  TheFinnishWay:CompetitiveWelfareState

ThePowerofGlobalization

TheGlobalEducationalReformMovement

AnInnovationEconomy

Welfare,Equality,andCompetitiveness

ForeignInnovation,FinnishImplementation

TheFinnishDreamChallenged

5.  IstheFutureFinnish?

SuccessbyBeingDifferent

SuccessfulEducationalReform

TheTransferofChangeKnowledge

TheFutureofFinnishEducation

AfterwordSirKenRobinson

Notes

References

Index

AbouttheAuthor

ForewordtotheSecondEdition

AnAlternateUniversePasiSahlberg’sFinnishLessonswaspublishedexactlywhenitwasmostneeded.Whenitappeared,theso-callededucation“reform”movementwasascendantintheUnitedStatesandelsewhereandgrowingstronger.

PresidentBarackObamaandSecretaryofEducationArneDuncanwereenthusiasticsupportersof“reform.”Theirprogram,calledRacetotheTop,waslaunchedin2009,andit contained the key ingredients of the reform paradigm: testing, accountability, andchoice.Educatorswerecaughtbysurprise,as theyhadbeenledtoexpect thatPresidentObama would end President George W. Bush’s much-hated No Child Left Behind(NCLB).But theObamaprogramwasbuiltdirectlyon the shaky foundationofNCLB.Instead of jettisoning high-stakes testing, Race to the Top increased the importance oftesting.Now, not onlywould students and schools be held accountable for student testscores,butteacherswouldbegivenabonusorfiredbasedontestscores.

Thereformmovementmovedintohighgearin2010.Newsweekmagazineranacoverstory that spring declaring “we must fire bad teachers,” as though the schools wereoverrunby“bad”teachers.Thatfall,thefilmWaitingfor“Superman”wasreleasedwithmassive publicity. Its message: our public schools are failing, and the only hope forchildrenstuckin“failing”publicschoolsisescapetoaprivatelymanagedcharterschool.Thethen-chancelloroftheDistrictofColumbiapublicschools,MichelleRhee,becameamediasensation,withhertoughtalkabouttheschoolsandthepleasureshetookinfiringteachersandprincipals.

Someofthenation’srichestfoundations—theBillandMelindaGatesFoundation,theEli and Edythe Broad Foundation, theWalton Family Foundation, and many others—pouredmillions into this reformmovement, encouraging high-stakes testing, Teach forAmerica,charter schools,andeven (in thecaseof theWaltonFoundation)vouchers forreligiousschools.

Several states, includingWisconsin, Michigan, and Indiana, rolled back collectivebargainingrights,andteachers’unionsbecamescapegoats,blamedforlowtestscoresandfor driving up the cost of education because of their health care and pensions. Surveysshowed that teachers were demoralized—as well they should be—by the attacks uponthemandupontheirprofession.

Thus itwas thatwhenPasiSahlberg’sFinnishLessonswaspublished, it injected anew dimension into education debates. Finland had high test scores in internationalstudent assessments, and it was not doing anything that our American reformersdemanded. Ithadastrongpublicschoolsystem. Itdidnothavechartersorvouchers. Ithad very high standards for entry into teaching; there was no such thing as Teach forFinland that would allow inexperienced young college graduates to teach in Finnishschools. Sahlberg described a 5-year teacher preparation program that all teachersmustcompletetoteachinFinnishschools.

Teachersandprincipalsbelong to thesameunion,whichnotonlynegotiateswagesand working conditions, but advocates on behalf of children and schools. AlthoughFinland has a national curriculum, teachers havewide latitude to shape it to their ownneeds and strengths.Best of all, Finland does not subject students to standardized testsuntiltheendoftheirhighschoolyears.AsSahlbergwrites,theschoolsareastandardizedtesting–freezone.

WhatmanyAmerican educators loved aboutFinnish Lessons is that it portrays analternateuniverse,onethatrespectseducatorsandenablesthemtodotheirbestwork,onethat recognizes that society has an obligation to ensure the health and well-being ofchildren. Sahlberg knew that the Finnish story stood in sharp contrast with what washappeningintheUnitedStatesandothercountries.HereferstothismovementfortestingandchoiceasGERM:theGlobalEducationalReformMovement.

Yes, indeed, theUnited States,Britain, andmany other countries are infectedwithGERM.FinnishLessons2.0isadisinfectant.Itremindsusthatanationcanconsciouslybuildanadmirableschoolsystemif itpayscloseattention to theneedsofchildren, if itselectsandprepares itseducatorswell,and if itbuildseducationalcommunities thatarenotonlyphysicallyattractivebutconducivetothejoysofteachingandlearning.

—DianeRavitch

ForewordtotheFirstEdition

UnFinnishedBusinessInthe1960s,theRussianlaunchofSputnikpropelledamassivedrivetodevelopscienceandmathematics innovation inU.S. schools. In the 1980s and 1990s, the rising sun ofJapan and other Asian tiger economies prompted calls to copy Japanese educationalmethods—making schoolwork more rigorous, extending the impact of standardizedtesting,andincreasingthenumberofhoursofschoolingovertheschoolyear.Inthepastdecade, the burgeoning economies of India and China have provoked United Statescommissions and initiatives to advocate the teaching of 21st-century skills, toughercurriculum requirements, common national standards, yet more testing, increasedcompetitionbetweenteachersandschools,andharderworkforeverybody.Nevertheless,over the past quarter-century, the standards and performance ofAmerican teachers andschools have steadily declined in relation to international benchmarks. In spite of this,across more than 2 decades of educational reform, the United States, like many otherAnglo-Americannations,hasepitomizedEinstein’sdefinitionofmadness:keepdoingthesame thing while expecting to get a different result. Force, pressure, shame, top-downintervention,markets, competition, standardization, testing, easier and quicker passagesintoteaching,closureoffailingschools, thefiringof ineffectiveteachersandprincipals,and fresh starts with young teachers and newly established schools—the very reformstrategies that have failed dismally over 2 decades inmanyAnglo-Saxon nations—arebeingreinventedandreimposedandwithevengreaterforceanddetermination.

THELEMMINGRACETOTHETOP

Thecriticsarealreadyoutinforce.InternationalchangeadviserMichaelFullanpredictsthat President Obama’s Race to the Top strategy, with its intention to turn around thenation’s 5,000worst-performing schools, lift limits on establishing charter schools, andintroducemeasures suchasperformance-relatedpay to raise teacherquality,will end infailure(Fullan,2010).Thestrategy,Fullansays,payslittleornoattentiontodevelopingthecapacityof leadersand teachers to improve togetherorasasystem; it isbasedonafailedtheorythatteacherqualitycanbeincreasedbyasystemofcompetitiverewards,anditrestsonabadlyflawedmodelofmanagementwhereeveryonemanagestheirownunit,is accountable for results, and competeswith their peers—creating fiefdoms, silos, andlackofcapacityorincentivesforprofessionalstohelponeanother.

Former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch also condemns BarackObama’s“awfuleducationplan,”whichsheregardsasevenworsethanitsmuch-deridedpredecessor,NoChildLeftBehind (Ravitch,2010a).Theplanpromotescharterschoolseven though the evidence indicates that they do not consistently or even on averageoutperform their public school district alternatives, and that they simply “skim the beststudentsinpoorcommunities,”leavingtheresttoflounder(Ravitch,2010b).Meanwhile,performance-based pay ties teacher rewards to results on appallingly designed tests ofdubious validity and “destroys teamwork” among professionals who instead “need to

sharewhattheyknow.”Thereform,sheconcludes,is“mean-spirited,punitive,anddeeplyindifferenttotherealproblemsthatteachersface.”

Yong Zhao, the leading American expert on educational reform in China andSoutheast Asia, points out that China, the leading economic competitor of the UnitedStates,isactuallydecentralizingitscurriculum,diversifyingassessment,andencouraginglocal autonomy and innovation. Meanwhile, Zhao concludes, while China isdecentralizing and Singapore is promoting a creative environment characterized by theprinciple of “Teach Less, Learn More,” U.S. education has been stubbornly “movingtoward authoritarianism, letting the government dictate what and how students shouldlearnandwhatschoolsshouldteach”(Zhao,2009).

Inculture,politics,andbusiness—aswellasineducationalreform—toomanyAnglo-American cultures and societies have developed an unhealthy obsessionwith all that isbigger,harder, tougher, faster, and stronger.Companies that sacrificecustomer safety toshort-term shareholder value; businesses that wreak ecological havoc with excessivelybold and risky efforts to increase profitability; financial collapses that result fromastronomical levels of unrepayable debt; turnaround specialists who create arbitrarydisruptionby settingunrealistic targets forgrowth and equally arbitraryquotas for staffdismissals—these are the consequences of the impatience, hubris, arrogance, and greedthatcharacterizetheworstkindsofbusiness.Failure,firings,competition,andclosuresarethe educational equivalent of unsustainable change in business. What they offer isoversized,pumped-up,artificiallyenhancedschoolreformonsteroids.

Eveninbusiness,theselarger-than-lifestrategiesofturnaroundandimprovementdonotproducesustainableimprovement.Companiesmaybebrokenup,assetssoldoff,andemployeesfiredwithimpunity,andallthismightincreaseshort-termshareholderreturns,butfewstrategiesofthesesortssurviveinthelongterm,andmanyturnaroundcompanieseventually become casualties of their leaders’ reckless behavior. Indeed, managementexpertManfredKetsdeVriesexplainshowmanyso-calledturnaroundspecialistsarelittlemore than psychiatrically disturbed narcissists, sociopaths, and control freaks (KetsDeVries,2006).

THIRDANDFOURTHWAYSAHEAD

Theworst of the steroidal school reformmovement has been tempered by lighter, lesspunitive alternatives in other Anglo-American contexts. Here, the political targets andgoals for test-driven improvement in the fundamentals of literacy, mathematics, andsciencearestillimposedwithinsistentinflexibility,buttheyarenowmoderatedbyalessharshimprovementdiscourseandbyhigherlevelsofprofessionalsupportintheformofimprovedmaterials,increasedresources,andbettertraining.

About a decade ago in England, and more recently (and somewhat differently) inOntario, Canada, and Australia, a model has been advanced and advocated that standsbetween and beyond the complete professional autonomy of the 1970s, and themean-spirited,miserly,market-driven, and standardized reforms that characterizedEngland intheearly1990s,andotherplacesafterthat.

The“ThirdWay”ofeducationalchangereflectedinthemodelsoffersadoubletwistonmoreblatantlysteroidalreformefforts:

aclearemphasisonthemoralpurposeofeducationacommitmenttocapacitybuilding

These components soundmore professionally plausible and inspiring than their reformcounterparts that hounded and hectored the teaching profession into submission.Yet inreality,theyarestillhighlyproblematic.

First,theadmirableadvancementofmoralpurposeinThirdWayreformsrepeatedlyturns out, in practice, to be thesamemoral purpose irrespective of culture, country, orcontext—Raise the bar and narrow the gap to improve tested achievement scores inliteracyandmathematics(linkedtoimposedsystem-wideachievementtargets).Whetheritis Ontario, Australia, Bermuda, or Greater Manchester in England, the goal or moralpurpose is almost identical. The countries and culturesmay differ, but the consultants’PowerPointslidesremainprettymuchthesame.IntheThirdWay,peoplearen’tdefiningordevelopingtheirownsharedvisionsormoralpurposes.Theydon’towntheirvisions.Theyrentthemfromotherpeople.

Second,while theThirdWayhasanadmirablecommitment tocapacitybuilding, ithasoftendistortedthemeaningof“capacitypeople”anddivertedpeoplefromthenoblepurposes thatunderpinned itsorigins.The ideaofcapacitybuildingfirstemerged in thecontext of developing countries. Much like the concept and strategy of communityorganizing,capacitybuildingmeanthelpingacommunityhelpitself.Itwasahumanisticandempoweringconceptdirected towardassistingpeople to fulfill theirownpersonallycompellingpurpose.InThirdWaypolicies,though,capacitybuildinghasoftenturnedintosomething else—training people in prescribed strategies to deliver accountability goalsandtargetsimposedbyothers.

IntheThirdWay,capacitybuildingisabouttrainingforpolicydelivery.IntheFourthWayofinspiration,innovation,andcollectiveresponsibility,assetoutbyDennisShirleyandmyselfasaresultofourdirectworkinhigh-performingjurisdictionslikeFinlandandAlberta,Canada, capacity building ismore about self-directed growth and development(Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). In short, and to be very clear: The ThirdWay is aboutrenting and delivering the policies of others, while the Fourth Way is about sharedownershipanddevelopmentofacommunity’sowncompellingpurposes.

THENORTHERNLIGHTAPPROACH

Into all this policy mix has come the unlikeliest exemplar of educational success—Finland.With itsunexpectedlyandconsistentlysuperlativeperformanceoninternationaltests of student achievement, its possession of the narrowest achievement gaps in theworld, and its equally high rankings on ratings of economic competitiveness, corporatetransparency,andgeneralwell-beingandqualityoflife,thislittleNordiccountryofbarely5.5millionpeoplehasilluminatedadifferentpathtoeducationalandeconomicgoalsfromthosebeingforgedbytheAnglo-Americangroupsofnations.

Curious about and intrigued by Finland’s unusual example, educators andpolicymakers from all over the world have visited this Scandinavian country to try todiscover the secrets of its success. I have been fortunate enough to be among them. In2007,IhadtherareopportunitytotakeasmallteamfromtheOrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment (OECD) toFinland toexamine the relationshipbetween

thecountry’sachievementrecordanditsstrategiesofschoolimprovementandleadershipdevelopment(Hargreaves,Halasz,&Pont,2008).

UnlikemanyothercommentatorsontheFinnishexperience,wedidnotrelysolelyonsecondary sources, on a few interviews with senior policymakers, or on the availableeducational research literature.We observed and interviewed students, teachers, schoolanddistrictadministrators,universityresearchexperts,andMinistryofEducationstaffuptotheveryhighestlevel.WereadmaterialonthehistoryandorganizationofFinlandasasocietyandofitsdynamicleadingcompany,Nokia.Wewantedtounderstandthecountryanditshistoryaswellasitsschools,andtograspwhatexplaineditsdramaticeconomicandeducationalturnaroundafterthefalloftheBerlinWallandthecollapseofFinland’sprotectedSovietmarketsin1990.Inallthisresearch,itquicklybecameevidenttousthattheleadingauthorityonFinland’sdistinctiveeducationalreformstrategywasandstill isPasiSahlberg.

Sahlberg grew up in a Finnish educational family.He taught in the Finnish schoolsystemandthenattheuniversitylevel.Fromthere,hewentontooverseetheprofessionaldevelopment strategy for the Ministry of Education. Like all the best researchers andcommentators, Sahlberg was and remains both an insider and outsider. As a loyal andtrusted insiderwhonowheadsuponeofFinland’s leadingorganizations in the fieldofinnovation,Sahlbergpossessesarichandauthenticgroundinginandunderstandingoftheinner workings of the country’s educational and societal system that are often somysterioustooutsidevisitors.

LeavingFinlandforasignificantpositionwiththeWorldBank,PasiSahlbergquicklydevelopedthecapacitytounderstand,interpret,andprovidesystemicsupportforcountriesin Eastern Europe, Central Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East. In addition topublishing a range of key scholarly articles on Finland, he also wrote the definitivecountryreportonFinlandfortheWorldBank.

Pasi Sahlberg’s insider status here is critical. He is not only interested in systemiceducational reform in a cerebral sense.He cares passionately about and remainsdeeplyconnectedtothestudents,teachers,andcommunitiesthatreformsultimatelyserve.Oneofthedistinguishingfeaturesofhischaracteristhatuponenteringanewcountryanywhereintheworldtoprovidesystemicevaluationandsupport,oneofhisfirstprofessionalactsis always to teach a mathematics lesson and converse with the students in one of thecountry’severydaysecondaryschools.

PasiSahlberghelpedourOECDteamunderstand,ashewillhelpreadersofthisbookunderstand,whatmakes Finnish reform distinctively successful, andwhy it has provedinconvenient to the Anglo-American group of nations as an exemplar of educationalchange.Finland,heshows,

hasdevelopedandowneditsownvisionofeducationalandsocialchangeconnectedtoinclusivenessandcreativity,ratherthanrentingastandardizedvisionthathasbeendevelopedelsewhere;reliesonhigh-quality,well-trainedteachers,withstrongacademicqualificationsandmaster’sdegrees,whoaredrawntotheprofessionbyitscompellingsocietalmissionanditsconditionsofautonomyandsupport—comparedwiththerapidentry

strategiesofshort-termtrainingandhighteacherturnoveradvancedincountriessuchasEnglandandtheUnitedStates;hasaninclusivespecialeducationalstrategywherenearlyhalfofthecountry’sstudentswillhavereceivedsomespecialeducationsupportatsometimebeforecompleting9-yearbasicschool,ratherthanthespecialeducationstrategyoflegalidentification,placement,andlabelingofindividualsfavoredbyAnglo-Americannations;hasdevelopedteachers’capacitytobecollectivelyresponsiblefordevelopingcurriculumanddiagnosticassessmentstogetherratherthandeliveringprescribedcurriculaandpreparingforthestandardizedtestsdesignedbycentralgovernments;andhaslinkededucationalreformtothecreativedevelopmentofeconomiccompetitivenessandalsothedevelopmentofsocialcohesion,inclusiveness,andsharedcommunitywithinthewidersociety.

PasiSahlbergurgesusnottofollowtheeducationalreformstrategies(whichhecallsGERM)advancedbyAnglo-Americanpoliticalleadersandtheireducationaladviserswhodismiss the potential lessons of Finnish educational reform because of their ideologicalinconvenience. Nations that have become committed to and stuck with high rates ofeconomicinequalityrespondonlytopublicimpatiencefortoughtalkandshort-termgain.He shows how those who dismiss Finland (in favor of their own preferredmodels, ofcourse)onthegroundsofitsmodestsizeasanationoverlookhowitspopulationof5.5million isclose to theaverageofmostU.S.states,where thebulkofeducationalpolicydecisionsaremade.AgainsttheargumentthatFinlandisjusttoodifferentfromAmerica,England,orCanada(asifIndia,China,andJapanarenot!),SahlbergrevealshowFinlandhasdramaticallychangeditsidentityandorientationasanation,andhowothercountriescanandmustdosoaswell.

ThereareunresolvedquestionsinAnglo-Americaneducationalreformthatpumped-up steroidal reform strategies and the “lemming”Race to theTopwill never be able toanswerbutthatSahlberg’sworkprofoundlycan.ThisisnotjustbecausePasiSahlbergisthemost credible indigenous expert on his own country’s exemplary reforms. It is alsobecause,asaworld-rankingscholar,andformerWorldBankexpertonahostofcountriesand their educational systems, Sahlberg has developed an international perspective oneducationalreformingeneralaswellastheoutsider’sadvantageinbeingabletomakeallthatisfamiliarinFinlandfreshtoothers.

One of theways that teachers improve is by learning fromother teachers. Schoolsimprovewhentheylearnfromotherschools.Isolationis theenemyofall improvement.Wehave spentdecadesbreakingdown the isolationof teacherswithinandbetweenourschools.ItisnowtimetobreakdowntheideologyofexceptionalismintheUnitedStatesandotherAnglo-Americannationsifwearetodevelopreformsthatwilltrulyinspireourteacherstoimprovelearningforallourstudents—especiallythosewhostrugglethemost.Inthatessentialquest,PasiSahlbergisundoubtedlyoneoftheverybestteachersofall.

—AndyHargreaves

PrefacetotheSecondEdition

Attheturnofthismillennium,theglobaleducationlandscapelookedverydifferentthanitdoes today.Thereweremanycountriesand jurisdictions thatbelieved theyhad thebesteducation system in theworld.Vast financial investments innational education reformsloaded with promises of excellence and quick fixes carried the hope of global leadpositions in the international rankings.At that same time, therewereeducation systemsthatwerebuildingequityandequalityofopportunitytoensuresuccessfullearningforalloftheirchildren.Thesecountriesdidn’taimtobeamongthebestintheworldbutinsteadweretryingtoofferthebestfortheirownchildrenandtheparentsofthosechildren.Theironyisthattodaynoneofthecountriesthathaveaimedtobethebesthassucceededinbecomingthebest,andnoneofthecurrentsuccessfulschoolsystemseverintendedtobeonthetop.

Finnish Lessons was born from this new emerging global educational landscape.ResearchersaroundtheworldbegantosearchforcommonfactorsthatwouldexplaintheunexpectedlygoodeducationalperformanceofFinland,Korea,Canada,Japan,and laterSingaporeandEstonia.Thequestionthatwasbotheringmeevenmorethanthatwaswhatthesesuccessfulschoolsystemsdon’t do that theothersdo. I soon realized thatFinlandwas,inmanyways,anoutlieramongallcountries.Finlandseemedtohavemanycentralschool policies that were almost the opposite of those introduced in theUnited States,England,Australia,NewZealand, andmuch of the rest of theworld.Finnish Lessons,whichwaspublishedinlate2011,wasastoryofthealternativeeducationsolutionsbehindFinland’ssurprisinglygoodeducationalperformance.

WhenIaminvited tospeakaboutFinnishLessons—andIhavedone that since thebook firstwas published on all the continents of theworld—I always beginwith threepointsofwarningthatIwanttomentionhere.First,myintentioninthisbookandinmypresentationsof theFinnishschoolsystemisnot toconvincemyaudiences thatFinlandhas the best education system in theworld. Internationalmedia and some pundits havecreatedtheincorrectimpressionthatthereexistsaglobalmetrictodeterminewhatarethebest—and the worst—education systems in the world. Current international educationrankings only include a small number of academic subjects in their indices—typicallyliteracy,mathematics,andscience.Therefore,whenthefirstresultsoftheProgrammeforInternational Student Assessment (PISA) became public in December 2001 showingFinlandasbeingrankednumberone,someFinnssaidtothemselves:“Wemusthavedonesomething wrong to be the best in a standardized test–based assessment that measuresstudents’achievementinthreeacademicareas.”Therearefew,ifany,educatorsinFinlandwhowouldsaythattheFinnishschoolsystemisthebestintheworld.

Second, I am not claiming in this book or inmy talks that if only other countrieswouldimitateFinland’smodelinreformingtheireducationsystems,thenthingswouldget

better.Someeducationimprovementexpertsbeforemehavenotedthatschoolreformsarepoortravelers.Thismeansthatwhatseemstomakeaneducationsystemperformbeyondexpectations in one place may not have the same positive effect on school systemselsewhere.Toooften,Imustadmit,IhavemetpeoplewhohavevisitedFinlandorstudieditseducationsystembelievingthatiftheyonlyhadFinland’scurriculum,schoolbuildings,andteachers,theirowneducationalchallengeswoulddisappear.Thisbookandmyworkwith it around the world are meant to emphasize that we can learn from one another.Finlandmayoffer inspiration toeducators inothercountries to thinkmoredeeplyabouttheirownschoolsandcultures.Therearemanylessons,asIshareinthisbook,thatotherscan learn from us, just as Finland has been inspired by educators and school systemsaroundtheworld.

Finally, it is important to keep inmind thatmuchof thepedagogical innovation inFinnish classrooms and the inspiration for education policies has its origins in othercountries. In the early 20th century after Finland became an independent nation and itseducationsystembegantoshapeup,GermanyandSwitzerlandservedasamodelforthefirstFinnishschools.Then the ideaofanequitable,comprehensiveschool systemcamefrom neighboring Nordic countries, especially from Sweden. More recently, England,Scotland,Canada, and theUnitedStateshave served asplaceswhereFinnish educatorshave found good ideas to enrich teaching and learning in their schools. Curriculumtheories, teaching methods, student assessments, and school leadership models areexamplesof thepositive influence thatAmericaneducational researchanddevelopmenthashadinFinlandsincethe1980s.

ThissecondeditionofFinnishLessonsincludescomprehensiveupdatesonFinland’seducation scene as well as updates on international statistics measuring educationalperformance.ThisneweditionusesdatafromalltheinternationalstudiesandsurveysinwhichFinlandhasparticipatedsince2011.Basedonthisupdatedevidence,thiseditionofthe book also discusses how things are changing in Finland and what the possibleresponsestothesetrendsmaybe.AlsoincludedareanillustrationoftheearlychildhoodeducationcomponentthatisnowpartoftheFinnisheducationsystem,adescriptionoftherenewed special-needs education system, and a more detailed narrative of the upper-secondarymatriculationexamination.

FinnishLessonshashadasuccessfuljourneysofar.IhavepresentedtheideasinthisbookatParliamenthousesinScotland,England,Sweden,Australia,NewZealand,andtheEuropeanUnion.Ithasgivenmescoresofnewfriendsandcolleagues.In2013,FinnishLessons received theGrawemeyerAward,aprestigiousprizegivenby theUniversityofLouisvilleinKentuckythatrecognizesimportantideasineducationthathavethepotentialto change the world. Indeed, this book has brought me invitations to guest-lecture atleadinguniversitiesaroundtheworld.Iamgrateful toall thosehundredsofpeoplewhohavesentmetheircommentsandopinionsonthefirstedition.Manyofthesesuggestionsarenowincorporatedintothepagesofthisrenewededition.

IhopethatFinnishLessons2.0inspiresyouandconvincesyouthatthereisawaytobuildgoodpublicschoolsystemsthatserveallofourchildrenwell.TheFinnishrecipeforgoodeducationissimple:Alwaysaskyourselfifthepolicyorreformyouplantoinitiateisgoingtobegoodforchildrenorteachers.Ifyouhesitatewithyouranswer,don’tdoit.

—Cambridge,Massachusetts,autumn2014

Acknowledgments

Before writing this part, I went to my neighborhood bookstore and read theacknowledgmentsinseveralotherauthors’books.Manyofthemincludelengthylistsofnames—colleagues,friends,students,andsometimesopponents—whoaregivencreditinthe book. Some texts made me wonder if all those mentioned really deserved to bethanked.With thisbook, Icanassureyou thateveryonenamedbelowhashada role toplayindevelopingorwritingthisbook.Somecontributionsweresmallerthanothers,buttheywereallimportant.

Writingabookaboutatopicsoclosetoyourownlifeandworkisdifficultwithoutoccasionally soliciting an outsider’s perspective. For the writing of this book, I havedepended on the knowledge, wisdom, and experience of some close colleagues andfriends. Their confidence that the story of Finland isworth sharingwith otherswas animportantkickofftowritethisbook.Buttolistentoonlythosewhoagreewithyouwon’tmakeagoodstory.ThisiswhenIremembermygrandmother’swisdom:“Ifweallthinkthe sameway, noneof usprobably thinksverymuch.” In this regard, I amparticularlythankfultothosetrustedoneswhohavedaredtodisagreewithmeorraisetheirconcerns,butalwaysineloquentandrespectfulterms.

Specialthankstofollowingcolleaguesandfriends:ErkkiAho,LisaBelzberg,DavidBerliner, CIMO, Jean-Claude Couture, Linda Darling-Hammond, Carrie Fuller, SlavkoGaber, Howard Gardner, Kauko Hämäläinen, Andy Hargreaves, Tom Hatch, JarkkoHautamäki,HannahHayman,HenryHeikkinen,Olli-PekkaHeinonen,MarttiHellström,StephenHeyneman,Peter Johnson,BenLevin,HenryLevin,StephenMurgatroyd,CeraMurtagh(forinspiringmetofindthenameforthisbook),NicholasNegroponte,HanneleNiemi, DavidOldroyd, Lyda Peters, Diane Ravitch, Sir KenRobinson, Veera Salonen,LauraServage,RobertSchwartz,DennisShirley,TonyWagner,andWinWiencke.Iwantto thankSamAbrams forhis critical friendshipand thoughtful assistance inmorewaysthanonetomakemywritingsmoreunderstandabletoreaders.

AnimportantsourceofinspirationtowritethisbookhasbeenthetensofthousandsofpeoplearoundtheworldwhomIhavemetathundredsofconferences,seminars,andsymposia. They have taught me to understand better and to respect more deeply thecomplexity of educational change.As a consequence, I amhumbledby the questionofwhysomenationsdobetter at educating theirpeople thanothers. It is easy tooverlookcontextualdifferencesandgivesimpleexplanationsaboutwhyFinnishstudentsdobetteroninternationalteststhanmostothers.Questions,discussions,andcriticalconcernsinthislighthavebeenessentialformeingivingshapetothestoryofeducationaldevelopmentinFinland.MyinternationalstudentsattheUniversityofHelsinkihavealsobeenasourceofinspiration when we have explored the secrets of the Finnish education system fromperspectivesthatoftenincludeverydifferentexperiencesandexpectationsfromthoseof

Finnishstudents.Iamgratefultoallmyaudiencesandstudents,whohavemadewritingthisbookanexciting journeyandaprocessofpersonalgrowthforme.TheMinistryofForeignAffairs of Finland has generously disseminatedFinnishLessons at their eventsandtotheirguests,andforthatIamthankful.

Thisbookhasbeendevelopedfromearlierversionsofvariouspartsofmyanalyses,research, and arguments that can be found in the References section. Reviewers andeditors of the journals and edited volumes inwhichmy previousworks have appearedhave also played a significant role in enhancing my own argumentation and clarity intellingthestoryofFinland.

Iamforevergrateful toPetraforherenduringsupportandwisdomtoshowmethewayforwardwhenmypowerandwillhavebeenlow.Ourson,Otto,deservesabigkissforgivingmeanewreasontowriteabouttheeducationthatallchildrendeserve.

INTRODUCTION

Yes,WeCan(LearnfromOneAnother)

Duringthenext10yearsabout1.2billionyoung15-to-30-year-oldswillbeenteringthejobmarketandwiththemeansnowatourdisposalabout300millionwillgetajob.Whatwillweoffertheseyoung,aboutabillionofthem?Ithinkthisisoneofthegreatestchallengesifwewanttoachievepeacefuldevelopmentandhopefortheseyoung.

—MarttiAhtisaari,formerpresidentofFinland,1994–2000,andNobelPeacePrizelaureate

Ithasbecomecleareverywherethattheschoolswehavetodaywillnotbeabletoprovideopportunitiesforstudentstolearnwhatisnecessaryinthefuture.Thedemandforbetter-quality teaching and learning and more equitable and efficient education is universal.Indeed, educational systemsare facinga twin challenge:how to change schools so thatstudents may learn new types of knowledge and skills required in an unpredictablychanging knowledgeworld, and how tomake that new learning possible for all youngpeople regardless of their socioeconomic conditions. To be successful with thesechallengesisbothamoralandeconomicimperativeforoursocietiesandtheirleaders.Itis amoral obligation because each person’s well-being and ultimately happiness arisesfrom knowledge, skills, and worldviews that good education provides. It is also aneconomicimperativebecausethewealthofnationsdependsasneverbeforeonknow-how.The aftermath of the recent global economic crisis is showing how unemployed youngpeoplearebecominghopeless toanextent that isbringinggovernmentsdown.Manyofthese young people lack relevant education and training that would help them to helpthemselves.

ThisbookisaboutFinlandandhowtheFinns transformedtheireducationalsystemfrommediocre in the 1980s to one of themodels of educational excellence and equitytoday.InternationalindicatorsshowthatFinlandhasoneofthemosteducatedcitizenriesin the world, provides educational opportunities in an egalitarian manner, and makesefficient use of resources. Finnish education has recently attracted attention frommanyinternationalscholars.LindaDarling-Hammond(2010)writesextensivelyaboutitinherbook The Flat World and Education. Marc Tucker (2011) included Finland as oneexample of a high-performing model for the United States in the book SurpassingShanghaithatheedited.AndyHargreavesandDennisShirley(2012)choseFinlandasanexampleofanationthathassuccessfullytransformeditseducationsystemintheirbookThe Global FourthWay. Diane Ravitch (2013) refers to Finland in her bookReign ofError as an example for Americans that shows why preserving public education helpsbringaboutbettereducationforall.AchapteronFinnisheducationhasbecomeanintegralpart of any international handbook or volume that reports contemporary thinking andpractice in the field. International development agencies, consulting firms, and mediahousesrefertoFinlandasagoodmodeland“awitness”ofsuccessfultransformationofpubliceducation.1MonographsonFinnish schools and teachers havebeenpublished inChina, Korea, Japan, France, Slovenia, Mexico, and Germany, to mention just a few

countries.Thefirsteditionofthisbookwastranslatedinto20languages—clearly,thereisaglobalinterestinFinland’sexperience.

InleadingthewaytowardeducationalreforminFinlandintheearly1990s,Dr.VilhoHirvi,thendirectorgeneralofFinland’sNationalBoardofEducation,saidinaspeechtohis staff that “an educated nation cannot be created by force.” He acknowledged thatteachers and students must be heard, and that the way forward called for activecollaboration. In Finland, teachers and students were insisting on more flexibility andmore freedom indecidinghow todesign instruction,what to study, andwhen. “Wearecreatinganewcultureofeducationand there isnowayback,”Hirvi said.Basic to thisnewculturehasbeen the cultivationof trust betweeneducation authorities and schools.Such trust, aswehavewitnessed, creates reform that isnotonly sustainablebut is alsoownedbytheteacherswhoimplementit.

NORTHERNEXPOSURE

In the1990s,educationinFinlandwasnothingspecial in international terms.AllyoungFinns attended school regularly, the school network was wide and dense, secondaryeducationwasaccessibleforallFinns,andhighereducationwasarealisticoptionforanincreasing number of upper-secondary-school graduates. However, the performance ofFinnishstudentsoninternationalassessmentswasclosetointernationalaverages,exceptinreading,whereFinnishstudentsdidbetter thanmostof theirpeers inothercountries.Theunexpectedandjarringrecessionoftheearly1990sbroughtFinlandtotheedgeofafinancialbreakdown.Boldandimmediatemeasureswerenecessarytofixnationalfiscalimbalancesand revive the foreign trade thatdisappearedwith thecollapseof theSovietUnion in 1990. Nokia, the main global industrial brand of Finland, with its mobilecommunicationproducts,becameacriticalengineinboostingFinlandoutofthecountry’sbiggesteconomicdipsinceWorldWarII.AnotherFinnishbrandnotyetknowntomanypeopleabroadatthattime,peruskoulu,orthe9-yearcomprehensivebasicschool,wastheotherkeyplayerinthisturnaroundoftheFinnisheconomyandsociety.

There are countries around the world where education leaders find their owneducational systems in a situationvery similar towhatFinland faced in the1990s.Theglobal economic downturn has hit many schools, universities, and entire educationsystemshard.TakeIreland,Greece,England,ortheUnitedStates,forexample—studentachievementisnowhereclosetowhatitshouldbeintheseknowledge-basedeconomies,where productivity and innovation are necessary conditions for competitiveness and asustainable way of life. Students seem to find the teaching offered in schools anduniversitiesincreasinglyboringandirrelevanttotheirneedsinarapidlychangingworld.ThestoryofFinland’seducationaljourneyinthisbookbringshopetoall thosewhoareworried about whether improving their educational systems is even possible. It alsoprovidesfoodforthoughttothosewhoarelookingforwaystoadjusteducationpoliciestofit the realities of economic recovery. The lessons from Finland should be refreshingbecause they depart from the ideas commonly presented in books or journals oneducational development. Moreover, these lessons show that systemic improvement isindeedpossibleifonlypoliciesandstrategiesaredesignedinsmartandsustainablewaysandteachersandschoolleadersareinvolvedinplanning,implementing,andreviewingallaspectsofintendedchanges.

Althoughtheselessonsholdgreatpromise,theyalsocallforpatience.Inthisageofimmediateresults,educationrequiresadifferentmindset.Reformingschoolsisacomplexandslowprocess.Torushthisprocessistoruinit.Thestorytoldinthisbookmakesthisclear.Stepsmustbegroundedinresearchandimplementedincollaborationbyacademics,policymakers,principals,andteachers.

ThisbookisabouthowsuchaprocessevolvedinFinlandsinceWorldWarII.Itisthefirst bookwritten for international readers that tells the story of howFinland created asystempraised asmuch for its equity as for its highquality.Manyof theworld’sgreatnewspapersandbroadcastservices—theNewYorkTimes,WashingtonPost,CNN,TimesofLondon,LeMonde,ElPaís,NationalPublicRadio,NBC,DeutscheWelle,andBBC—have covered this Finnish educational miracle. Filmmaker Morgan Spurlock becameintriguedbyFinnishschoolsandincludedtheminhiseducationepisodeofInsideManonCNN. Thousands of official delegations have visited Finnish authorities, schools, andcommunitiestolearnaboutwhatdrivestheirexcellenceineducation.Thisstory,however,hasuntilnownotreceivedthebook-lengthtreatmentnecessaryforenumerating,linking,andexplainingthemanyplayers,institutions,andimpersonalforcesinvolved.

Myapproachinthisbookisbothpersonalandacademic.ItispersonalbecauseofmyintimaterelationshipwitheducationinFinland.IwasborninnorthernFinlandandraisedin a village primary school, where both of my parents were teachers. Most of mychildhoodmemories are in oneway or another linked to school. I had the privilege oflookingbeyondthesecretsof theclassroomaftereverybodyelsewasgone,andIfoundthatworld to be rich. Itwasmy home—and itwas an enchanted one. It is perhaps nosurprise,then,thatIwentontobecomeateachermyself.MyfirstteachingpositionwasatajuniorhighschoolinHelsinki.Itaughtmathematicsandphysicstherefor7years.Later,I spentenough time ineducationaladministrationand inuniversity teachereducation tounderstandthedifferencebetweeneducationinschoolandout.AsapolicyanalystfortheOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an educationspecialist for theWorldBank, andaneducationexpert for theEuropeanCommission, Igained the global perspective necessary for a deeper appreciation of Finland’s distinctplaceineducation.

AsarepresentativeofFinlandinthesedifferentcapacities,Ihavealsobeenforcedtodevelop a keener understanding of what distinguishes Finnish methods by answeringquestions fromaudiencesandmediaaround theworld.During thepast10years, Ihavegivenmorethan400keynoteaddressesand200interviewsabouttheFinnisheducationalsystemaroundtheworld. Ihavehadconversationswith thousandsofpeople,whichhastaughtme tobe sensitive to the complexityof educational change.These conversationswithpeoplewhoareinterestedineducation,asIam,havegreatlyadvancedthewritingofthisbook.ThefollowingaresomeofthequestionsthatIhavebeenaskedoverandoveragain: “What is the secret of Finnish educational success?” “How do you get the bestyoungpeopleintoteachinginFinland?”“Howmuchdoeslackofethnicdiversityhavetodowith good educational performance there?” “How do you know that all schools aredoing what they should when you don’t test students or inspect teachers?” “How didFinlandsaveitseducationsystemduringtheeconomicdownturninthe1990s?”Forsuchquestionsandalsoforcriticalremarksrelatedtomythinking,Iamgrateful.Withoutthem,IwouldneverhavebeenabletohonemyassessmentofFinnishdifferences.

ThisbookalsohasanacademicorientationbecauseitstemsfromresearchthatIhavebeenpartofoverthepast2decadesasanauthor,coauthor,orcritic.Thisbookisthusnotatypicalmonograph,writtenastheresultofaresearchprojectoraparticularevent.Itisasynthesis of a decadeof policy analysis, experience as a teacher and administrator, anddialoguewith thousandsofeducatorsaround theworld. Ihavebeenprivileged tospendenough time outside of Finland and toworkwith a number of foreign governments tobetterunderstandthetruenatureandpeculiarityofFinnisheducationandlifeinFinnishschools.

For many years I taught a course titled “Introduction to the Finnish EducationSystem”attheUniversityofHelsinki.Mystudentscamefromallovertheworld.MostofthemcametostudyforafullyearinFinlandbecausetheywantedtobetterunderstandthestructure and spirit of the Finnish school system. Teaching at Harvard University’sGraduateSchoolofEducationhasintroducedmetoAmericanstudentswhoareinterestedineducationaroundtheworld.TheopportunitytoteachstudentsinacademicinstitutionshasbeenthebestwaytoenhancemyownunderstandingoftheFinnisheducationsystem.IhaveimprovedandupdatedthissecondeditionofFinnishLessons through listening tomystudents,audiences,andcolleaguesandlearningfromthem.

FINLANDASANINSPIRATION

Public education systems are in crisis in many parts of the world. The United States,England, Sweden, Norway, and France, to mention just a few advanced nations, areamong those countrieswhere public education is increasingly challenged because of anendemic failure to provide adequate learning opportunities for all children. Toughsolutions are not uncommon in these countries: Tougher competition between schools,strongeraccountabilityforstudentachievement,performance-basedpayforteachers,andclosingdowntroubledschoolsareallpartof therecipetofixfailingeducationsystems.This book does not suggest that tougher competition, more data, abolishing teacherunions,openingmorecharterschools,oremployingcorporate-worldmanagementmodelsineducationsystemswillbringaboutaresolutiontothesecrises—quitetheopposite.Themainmessageofthisbookisthatthereisanotherwaytoimproveeducationsystems,onethatisdifferentfromthemarket-basedreformideologymentionedabove.Thisotherwayincludes improving the teaching force, limitingstudent testing toanecessaryminimum,placingresponsibilityandtrustbeforeaccountability,investinginequityineducation,andhandingoverschool-anddistrict-levelleadershiptoexperiencededucationprofessionals.Thesearecommoneducationpolicy themes insomeof thehigh-performingcountries—Finland among them—in the 2012 Programme for International Student Assessment(PISA)of theOECD(2013b;2013d).Thechaptersof thisbookoffer five reasonswhyFinland is an interesting and relevant source of inspiration for other nations that arelookingforwaystoimprovetheirowneducationsystems.

One, Finland has a unique educational system because it has progressed frommediocritytobeingamodelcontemporaryeducationalsystemanda“strongperformer”inabout2decadessincelate1970s.Finlandisspecialalsobecauseithasbeenabletocreatean educational system where students learn well and where equitable education hastranslatedintolittlevariationinstudentperformancebetweenschoolsindifferentpartsofcountry,asshowninallPISAstudiessincetheyear2000.Thisinternationallyrarestatus

has been achieved by using reasonable financial resources and less effort than othernationshaveexpendedonreformefforts.

Two, because of this proven steady progress, Finland demonstrates that there isanotherway to build a successful education systemusing solutions that differ from themarket-driveneducationpolicies thathavebecomecommoninmanypartsof theworld.TheFinnishwayofchange,asdescribedbyAndyHargreavesandDennisShirley(2009)inThe FourthWay, is one of trust, professionalism, and shared responsibility. Indeed,Finland is an example of a nation that lacks school inspection, reliance on externallycollected data, standardized curriculum, high-stakes student testing, test-basedaccountability,andarace-to-the-topmentalitywithregardtoeducationalchange.

Three, as a consequence of its success, Finland can offer some alternativeways tothink about solutions to existing chronic educational problems in the United States,England, and other Nordic countries, such as high school dropout rates, early teacherattrition,andinadequatespecialeducation.TheFinnishapproachtoreducingearlyschoolleavers, enhancing teacher professionalism, implementing intelligent accountability, andemploying smarter student assessment in schools can offer inspiration to other schoolsystemslookingforapathtosuccess.

Four, Finland is also an international high performer in commerce, technology,sustainable development, good governance, prosperity, gender equality, and child well-being,thusraisinginterestingquestionsconcerninginterdependenciesbetweeneducationandothersectorsinsociety.Itappearsthatotherpublicpolicysectors,suchashealthandemployment,seemtoplayarolealsoinlong-termeducationaldevelopmentandchange.InFinland,thisholdstrueaswellregardingincomeparity,socialmobility,andtrustwithinFinnishsociety,asthechaptersthatfollowwillshow.

Finally,weshouldlistentothestoryofFinlandbecauseitgiveshopetothosewhoarelosingtheirfaith inpubliceducationandwhether itcanbeimproved.Thisbookrevealsthatthetransformationofeducationalsystemsispossible,butthatittakestime,patience,anddetermination.TheFinnishstory isparticularly interestingbecausesomeof thekeypolicies andchangeswere introducedduring theworst economiccrisis thatFinlandhasexperienced sinceWorldWar II.This suggests that a crisis can spark the survival spiritthat leads to better solutions to acute problems than a “normal situation” would bringabout. This book speaks against those who believe that the best way to solve chronicproblemsinmanyeducationsystemsistotakecontrolawayfromschoolboardsandgiveit to those who might run schools more effectively, by charters or other means ofprivatization.AlthoughtherearelimitstotheideasthatcanbetransferredfromFinlandtoothernations,certainbasiclessonsmayhavegeneralvalueforothereducationalsystems,such as the practices of building on teacher strengths, securing relaxed and fear-freelearningforstudents,andgraduallyenhancingtrustwithineducationalsystems.

As this book illustrates, there is no single reason why any educational systemsucceedsorfails.Instead,thereisanetworkofinterrelatedfactors—educational,political,andcultural—thatfunctiondifferentlyindifferentsituations.Iwould,however,liketocitethreeimportantelementsofFinnisheducationalpoliciessincetheearly1970sthatappeartotranscendculture.

Thefirstisaninspiringvisionofwhatgoodpubliceducationshouldbe:Finlandhasbeenparticularlycommitted tobuildingagood,publicly financed,and locallygovernedbasic school for every child. This common educational goal, which placed equity ineducationas thekeypriority,becamesodeeply rooted inpoliticsandpublicservices inFinland that it survived opposing political governments and ministries unharmed andintact. Since the introduction of peruskoulu in early 1970s, there have been 20governmentsrepresentingdifferentpoliticalcolorsand27ministersofeducationinchargeofeducational reforms inFinland.Thiscommitment tohavingagreatpublic school foreverychildhasbeensostrongthatsomecallittheFinnishDream.Thisnameprovidesahint forothernationswhenitcomes toeducational transformation: It isbetter tohaveadreamofyourownthantorentonefromothers.

The secondaspectof educational change thatdeservesattention is thewayFinlandhastreatedadviceofferedbyfriendsandneighboringcountries.MuchoftheinspirationinbuildingindependentFinlandsince1917hascomefromitsallies,especiallySweden.Thewelfare state model, health-care system, and basic education are good examples ofborrowed ideas from ourwestern neighbor. Later, Finnish education policieswere alsoinfluenced by guidance from supranational institutions, especially the OECD (whichFinlandjoinedin1969)andtheEuropeanUnion(whichFinlandjoinedin1995).Inthisbook,Ilaunchanargumentthat,despiteinternationalinfluenceandborrowingeducationalideas from others, Finland has in the end created its ownway to build the educationalsystemthatexiststoday.IcallthistheFinnishWaybecauseitisdifferentfromwhatmuchoftherestoftheworldhasdoneineducationalimprovementduringthepast25years.TheFinnishWayof changepreserves thebest ofFinland’sown traditions andpresent goodpractices, and combines these with innovations received from others. Cultivating trust,enhancingautonomy,andtoleratingdiversityarejustafewoftheexamplesofthereformideasfoundinFinnishschoolstoday.Manypedagogicalideasandeducationalinnovationsare initially imported from other countries, often from North America or the UnitedKingdom. These include curriculum models from England, California, and Ontario;cooperative learning from the United States and Israel; portfolio assessment from theUnitedStates;theteachingofscienceandmathematicsfromEngland,theUnitedStates,andAustralia;andpeer-assistedleadershipfromCanadaandtheNetherlands,tomentionjust a few.At the same time, theFinnishDreamofeducation is “made inFinland”andthereforeisownedbyFinnsratherthanrentedfromothers.

The third aspect of change is a systematic development of respectful and inspiringworking conditions for teachers and principals in Finnish schools. This book raises animportantquestionthatisrepeatedwhenwhole-systemeducationalreformsarediscussed:Howdoweget thebest andbrightest youngpeople to choose teachingas their career?Experience from Finland, as illustrated in Chapter 3, suggests that it is not enough toestablishworld-classteachereducationprogramsortopayteacherswell.Finlandhasbuiltworld-classteachereducationprograms.AndFinlandpaysitsteacherswell.ButthetrueFinnish difference is that teachers in Finland are expected to exercise their fullprofessional knowledge and judgment both independently and collectively in theirschools. They control curriculum, student assessment, school improvement, andcommunityinvolvement.Thisiscalledteacherprofessionalism.Muchasteachersaroundtheworld enter the professionwith amission to build community and transmit culture,

Finnishteachers,incontrasttotheirpeersinsomanycountries,havethelatitudeandthepowertofollowthrough.

LEARNINGFROMOTHERS

Can Finland be a model for educational change in other countries? Many people arefascinatedbythefactthatFinlandhasbeenabletotransformitseducationalsystemfromsomething elitist, unknown, and inefficient into a paragon of equity and efficiency(Schleicher,2006).Finlandisalsooneofthefewnationsamongthe34OECDcountriesthat has been able to improve educational performance as measured by internationalindicators and student achievement tests. Furthermore,many foreign visitors have beenparticularly surprised to find out that teaching has become the number-one professionamong young Finns—above medicine and law—and that primary teacher education inFinnishuniversitiesisoneofthemostcompetitivechoicesofstudy.AlltheseaspectsoftheFinnisheducationalsystemareexploredfurtherinthisbook.

There are, however, those who doubt that Finland has much relevance to othereducationalsystemsbecauseofitsspecialcharacteristics.ThemostcommonlypresentedargumentisthatbecauseFinlandissoexceptional,ithardlyprovidesanythingmeaningfultotheUnitedStates,England,Australia,France,orothermuchlargernations,orthatitis“toodifferenttoserveasmodelsforwhole-systemreformforNorthAmericaasawhole,”as Michael Fullan (2010, p. xiv) writes. Two points are often emphasized when therelevanceofFinlandasamodelforeducationalchangeisconsidered.

First,FinlandisculturallyandethnicallystillratherhomogeneousandthustoounliketheUnitedStates,forexample.Fairenough,butthesameholdstrueforJapan,Shanghai,Korea,Estonia,orPoland.Theproportionofforeign-borncitizensinFinlandwas5.2%in2013 and the number of non-Finnish-speaking citizens was just over 10% (StatisticsFinland, 2014a). It is noteworthy that Finland is a trilingual country, where Finnish,Swedish,andSamiareallofficial languages.Thelargest languageandethnicminoritiesareRussian,Estonian,andSomali.ThediversificationofFinnishsocietysince themid-1990shasbeenthefastestinEurope,atarateof800%.WhenIbeganmyteachingcareerinHelsinkiinthemid-1980s,itwasraretohaveanybodyinmyclassroomwholookedorsounded different from the others. The number of foreign-born citizens in Finland hasnearlytripledduringthefirstdecadeofthe21stcentury.Finlandisnotthathomogeneousanymore, but, of course, it still doesn’t compare to theUnited States orAustralia as amulticulturalnationasfarasethnicdiversityisconcerned.

Second,Finlandisconsideredtoosmalltobeagoodmodelforsystem-widereformfor North America. This is a trickier argument to defend. When the size factor ineducational reforms is considered, it is necessary to note that inmany federal nations,states, provinces, or regions are to a large extent autonomous in terms of educationalmanagement and the running of their schools. This is the case in the United States,Canada,Australia,Brazil,andGermany,forexample.ThepopulationofFinlandtodayis5.5million.ThisisaboutthepopulationofMinnesotaintheUnitedStatesorVictoriainAustralia,and justslightlymore than thesizeof thepopulationofAlberta inCanadaorNord-Pas-de-Calais in France. Indeed, about 30 states of the United States have apopulationthatisclosetoorsmallerthanFinland’s.TheseincludethestatesofMaryland,Colorado,Oregon,andConnecticut.ThepopulationsofthestatesofWashington,Indiana,

andMassachusetts are also smallish and are close toFinland in size. InAustralia, onlyNew South Wales has a slightly larger population than Finland’s; all other Australianstates are smaller. In France, Île-de-France is the only region that surpasses Finland inpopulation size. In Canada, onlyOntario is significantly larger in population (and landarea) thanFinland;allotherprovincesaresimilar in size. If these jurisdictionshave thefreedomtosettheirowneducationalpoliciesandconductreformsastheythinkbest,thenthe experiences of an educational system the size of Finland’s should be particularlyinterestingandrelevanttothem.Franceistheonlycountrymentionedabovethatemployscentralized educational management, and therefore the French education policymakerscouldarguefortheirrelevanceofsmallereducationsystemsasmodelsfortheirreforms.

Finally, there are some who doubt that international comparisons are relevant orreliableinwhattheyclaimtoshow.Onepointofviewisthatacademicachievementtests,such as the OECD’s PISA, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study(TIMSS),andProgress in InternationalReadingLiteracyStudy(PIRLS), focusonareasthat are too narrow to capture the whole spectrum of school education, and thus theyignore social skills, moral development, creativity, or digital literacy as importantoutcomesofpubliceducationforall(seeChapter2forreferencestothisargument).Thereisalsoagrowingconcernthatthesecomparisonsareinfluencingeducationalpoliciesandendorsingthecultureof“governingbynumbers”(Grek,2009;Meyer&Benavot,2013;Zhao, 2014). Another skeptical group simply argues that the chosen measurementmethodologiesincurrentinternationaltestsfavorFinlandbecausetheymatchbetterwiththecultureofteachinginFinland;thisgroupincludesbothFinnishandforeignscientistsandexperts.2Recently,Harvard’sHowardGardnerwarnedhisaudienceinFinlandtotreatthesecurrentstudentassessmentstudieswithcaution,3 contending that results in studieslike these always depend on the subject-area knowledge tested and the respectivemethodologiesofthestudiesused.Inaddition,thesestudiesdonotmeasureinterpersonal,spatial, or creative skills, and these skill sets are increasingly important in ourcontemporary world. There seems to be a growing group of people who question thecredibilityofPISA,andwhochallengetheneweducationalworldordercreatedinalargedegreebythisonemeasurement.

AlthoughFinlandhaspersistentlyoutperformedothernations,itsachievementshavebeendownplayed innumerousaccountsof recommendedpolicy. Inan influential reportbyMcKinseyandCompany(Mourshed,Chijioke&Barber,2010),forexample,Finlandwasnotevenlistedasa“sustainedimprover”inthelistingofpotentialmodelcountriesforeducation reformers. The consequence is that policymakers in many contexts will notconsider Finnish strategies as they develop their repertoire of school improvementpractices. Recent national education strategies and policy guidelines, such as the 2010SchoolsWhitePaperinEngland(DepartmentforEducation,2010),LessonsfromPISAfortheUnitedStates (OECD,2013f), and theWorldBankEducationStrategy2020 (WorldBank, 2011), often refer to common features of high-performing education systems asdesired criteria for improvement. Focuses on teacher effectiveness, school autonomy,accountability,anddataareallcentralelementsofeducationsystemsinKorea,Singapore,Alberta,andFinland,butinverydifferentways.Asthisbookwillshowagainandagain,Finland isunique in termsofhow theseveryaspectsofeducationpolicyareemployed.TheFinnishexperienceshowsthatconsistentfocusonequityandcooperation—notchoice

andcompetition—can lead toaneducationsystemwhereallchildren learnwell.Payingteachers based on students’ test scores or converting public schools into private onesthroughchartersorothermeansareideasthathavenoplaceintheFinnishrepertoireforeducationalimprovement.

ThesizeofFinland’spopulationandtherelativehomogeneityofitssocietyobviouslymakemany aspects of setting education policies and implementing reforms easier thanwould be the case in larger, more diverse jurisdictions. But these factors alone don’texplainall theprogressandachievements inFinnisheducationthataredescribedin thisbook,andtheyshouldnotstopusfromlearningfromoneanotheraswestrivetoimproveeducationforallstudents.Finlandis,however,veryuniqueamongnationsintermsofitsvalues, cultural determinants, and social cohesion, as André Noël Chaker eloquentlydescribes in his book, The Finnish Miracle (2011/2014). Fairness, honesty, and socialjusticearedeeplyrootedintheFinnishwayoflife.Peoplehaveastrongsenseofsharedresponsibility,notonlyfor theirownlives,butalsofor thelivesofothers.Fosteringthewell-beingofchildrenstartsbeforetheyarebornandcontinuesuntiltheyreachadulthood.Day care is a right of all children before they start school at age 7, and public healthserviceiseasilyaccessibletoeveryoneduringchildhood.EducationinFinlandiswidelyseen as a public good and is therefore protected as a basic human right to all in theconstitution. Adages such as “Small is beautiful” and “Less is more” are typicaldescriptorsofeverydaycultureinFinland.

In this book, I describe how Finns have built a functional, sustainable, and justcountrywithanequitablepubliceducationsystembydoingthingsintheirownway.TheFinnishGovernment’sCountryBrandDelegation thatwaschairedbyex-CEOofNokiaJormaOllilawrote in 2010 that “in Finland, people do not aspire to do everything thesamewayastheothers,todressortolivelikeothers.Ratherthanthe‘donething,’Finnsdowhattheythinkistherationalthingtodo”(MinistryofForeignAffairs,2010,p.59).The intense individuality of Finns, blended with a low degree of hierarchy and atraditional willingness to work with others, has opened pathways to endless creativepotential.The inspirationandvision tocreateasocietywithaneducationsystemthat isgoodandaccessibletoallwasdrawnfromthispoolofcreativepotential.

Data for this book come not from one source alone, nor does this book claim thateducational excellence could be justified by any single international study. Evidence isdrawnfromtheavailableinternationaldatabases,suchasPISAandTIMSS,fromglobaleducationindicators,andfromversatileofficialstatisticsinFinland.

THEPLANOFTHISBOOK

ThefirsteditionofFinnishLessonsofferedmeaccesstorichanddetailedconversationsabouteducationalchangeingeneralandabouttheFinnisheducationmodelinparticular.This second edition includes updates to international performance data, more detaileddescriptions of equity in Finnish education, and a revised outline of the structure ofFinland’s education systemafter reformsmade in2013. Iwill also answer thequestionthatmanyhaveaskedsincethePISA2012resultsbecamepublic:WhatexplainsFinland’sdeclineintheglobalPISAleaguetables?

Thisbookdrawsfromthefollowing10notions,whichareexplainedindetailinthe

pagesofthisvolume:

1. Finlandhasaneducationsysteminwhichyoungpeoplelearnwellandwhereperformancedifferencesamongschoolsaresmall—andallwithreasonablecostandhumaneffort.

2. Thishasnotalwaysbeenso.3. InFinland,teachingisaprestigiousprofession,andmanyyoungFinnsaspiretobe

teachers.4. Therefore,theFinnsprobablyhavethemostcompetitiveandacademically

challengingteachereducationsystemintheworld.5. Asaconsequence,teachersinFinlandhaveagreatdealofprofessionalautonomy

andaccesstopurposefulprofessionaldevelopmentthroughouttheircareers.6. Finnisheducationpoliciessincethe1970shaveaimedathavingagoodschoolfor

everychildratherthanrankinghighoninternationaleducationtables.7. AlmosthalfofFinnish16-year-olds,whentheyleavecompulsoryeducation,have

hadsomesortofspecialeducation,personalizedhelp,orindividualguidanceduringtheirtimeinschool.

8. InFinland,teachersteachlessandstudentsspendlesstimestudying,bothinandoutofschool,thantheirpeersinothercountries.

9. Finnishschoolslackthecensus-basedstandardizedtesting,testpreparation,andprivatetutoringcommonintheUnitedStatesandmuchoftherestoftheworld.

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

After this Introduction, the book has five chapters. Chapter 1 explains both thepolitical and historical realities in Finland afterWorldWar II and how they shaped themovetowardtheideaofcommonbasicschoolforallbytheendofthe1960s.IntellingthestoryofeducationalchangeinFinlandtoscoresofforeignvisitors,Ihavelearnedthatit is important togobackfurtherintimethanthebirthofperuskoulu (IusethisFinnishterm because there isn’t an English equivalent to it) in 1970. Chapter 1 illustrates theprocess of reforming the old school system, which divided pupils into two tracks andrelied heavily on privately governed and cofinanced grammar schools, into acomprehensive,publiclymanagedandfundedsystem.Italsooutlinesthemainfeaturesofpost-compulsoryeducation thatemergedsoonafter implementing theperuskoulu reformin the late 1970s. The main characteristics of the iconic Finnish MatriculationExamination,a test students takewhen they leavegeneralupper-secondaryeducation inFinland,arealsodescribedinthischapter.

Chapter 2 tackles a fundamental question: Was Finland also a high performer ineducationinthepast?Theanswerprovidedinthischapterisasexpected:no.Thisanswerimmediatelyinvitesacorollaryquestion:WhatconstitutesagoodeducationalsystemandwhicheducationalreformshavemadesuchimpressiveprogresspossibleinFinland?Thecore of this chapter is the insight that Finnish educational success in internationalcomparisons can, at least to some extent, be understood through paradoxes. We cancrystallizethisnotionwithasimpleprincipleineducationalreform:Lessismore.Chapter

2providesevidence-basedexamplesofhowthisparadoxical ideaappearsintheFinnisheducationalsystemtoday.

Chapter3 is about teachers and the teachingprofession inFinland. It examines thecrucialrolethat teachersplayinFinlandanddescribesthemainfeaturesof theteachingprofession, teacher education, and teacher responsibilities in Finland. This chaptersuggests that whereas high-quality, university-based teacher education and continuousprofessional development are necessary conditions for attracting the most talented andcommittedyoungpeopleintoteaching,theyarenotsufficientalone.Teachershavetobeprovidedwithaprofessionalworkingenvironmentsothattheyfeeldignifiedandareabletofulfilltheirmoralpurposesinschools.Thischapteralsolooksatteacherleadershipandits manifestations among Finnish teachers, including the findings from the OECD’sTeaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 regarding the teachingprofessioninFinland.

SinceFinland’samazingrecoveryfromagraveeconomicrecessionintheearly1990s—andmore recently from theglobal financial crisisof2008—manyhave spokenaboutthe Finnish model of building an inclusive information society and a competitiveknowledgeeconomy(Castells&Himanen,2002;Dahlman,Routti,&Ylä-Anttila,2006;Halmeetal.,2014).WhatissignificantinFinland’sprocessofeconomicrecoveryisthatatthesametimewhentheFinnisheconomyandespeciallythepublicsectorwasadjustingto toughercompetitionandbetterproductivity, theperformanceof theeducationsystemwas steadily improving. Chapter 4 illustrates some interdependencies between Finnisheducationalpolicyandotherpublic sectorpolicies that are at theheartof the economiccomeback.Furthermore,itsuggeststhatprogressintheeducationalsectorhashappenedintandem with changes in government that have improved economic competitiveness,transparency,andwelfarepolicy.

Finally,Chapter5 asks a question that is, surprisingly, not often askedofFinns bytheirvisitors:WhatisthefutureofFinnishschooling?Beinginthegloballimelighttakesits toll. Although Finns have hosted thousands of foreign education pilgrims since late2001,theyhavehadonlyalittletimeandenergytothinkaboutwhattheirowneducationsystemshouldlooklikeinthefuture.Thefirstsignsoftheimpactofthiswerereportedinthe PISA 2009 study and were reconfirmed in the PISA 2012 analysis. Chapter 5culminatesby insisting that an important lesson forFinland from its ownpast is that itneedstobeclearaboutwhattodonext.Iconcludethatbeingatthecenteroftheeducationreform debate has prevented Finns from thinking aboutwhat kind of educationwill beneeded in the future.The chapter closeswith adiscussionabout theneed to change, inspite of the fact that the current system is praised for its excellence and seems to beworkingwell.

There isan importantnote that the readerof thisbookshouldkeep inmind. Inmyresearch Ihaveuseddataprimarily from thedatabasesofOECDandStatisticsFinland,which are publicly available for interested readers. I have constructed graphs showingcorrelation, or absence of it, between two variables—for example, the relationshipbetweencostofeducationandeducationalperformanceindifferentcountries.Oldwisdominstatisticsand in science states thatcorrelationdoesnot implycausation; thismustberemembered also while reading this book. What this means is that even if there is a

correlation between two variables, it does not automatically mean that one causes theother. Correlation is necessary for linear causation, and often suggests that indeed onevariablecausestheother.Figures2.8,2.10,4.1,and5.1presentsuchlinearcorrelations.

CHAPTER1

TheFinnishDreamAGoodSchoolforAll

Godmendus!Thefactisthatwedon’tevenknowthefirstletterofthealphabet,andthatknowinghowtoreadisthefirstdutyofeveryChristiancitizen.Thepoweroflaw,ofchurchlaw,mayforceustoit.AndyouknowwhatkindofcontraptiontheStatehaswatching,eagertosnapusupinitsjawsifwedon’tobedientlylearntoread.Thestocksarewaitingforus,mybrothers,theblackstocks;theircrueljawsgapingwidelikethoseofablackbear.Theprovosthasthreateneduswiththosehellishpincers,andheisboundtocarryouthisthreatunlessheseesuseagerlystudyingeveryday.

—AleksisKivi,SevenBrothers

ThestoryofFinlandisastoryofsurvival.ItiseloquentlycapturedbyAleksisKiviinthefirstFinnishnovel,SevenBrothers,whichwaspublishedin1870.It isastoryoforphanbrotherswhorealizethatbecomingliterateisthekeytohappinessandagoodlife.Sincethosedays,readinghasbeenanintegralpartofFinnishculture.Educationhasservedasthemainstrategy forbuildinga literatesocietyandanation that is todayknownby theworldforitsculturalandtechnologicalachievements.Therefore,SevenBrothersbelongstothelistofcoretextsinmostFinnishschoolstoday.

BeingarelativelysmallnationsituatedbetweenmuchlargerpowersoftheEastandtheWest has taught Finns to accept existing realities and take chances with availableopportunities.Diplomacy,cooperation,problemsolving,andseekingconsensushavethusbecomehallmarksofcontemporaryFinnishculture.Thesetraitsallplayanimportantpartin building an educational system that has enjoyed global attention due to its equitabledistributionofgoodteachingandlearningthroughoutthenation.

ThischapterdescribeshowFinlandhasprogressedfrombeingapoor,agrarian,andonly modestly educated nation to a modern, knowledge-based society with a high-performing education system and a world-class innovation environment. Expandingaccess to education fromearlychildhoodeducationall theway to thehighest academicdegreesandadultlearninghasbeenalong-termidealinFinnishsociety.Thischapterfirstprovides a historic and political context for realization of this Finnish Dream. It thendescribestheevolutionof theunifiedcomprehensivebasicschool,orperuskouluas it iscalledinFinnish,andsomeprinciplesofupper-secondaryeducationthatareanimportantpart of Finnish educational success.1 Present structures and policies of the Finnisheducationsystemarebrieflyoutlinedattheendofthechapter.

POSTWARFINLAND

Warranksamongthemostseriousofimaginablecrisesforanydemocraticnation.Exceptforashortperiodofceasefire,FinlandwasatwarfromDecember1939tothespringof1945.Thecostofwarforthatyoung,independentdemocracywithapopulationoffewerthan4millionwasenormous:90,000deadand60,000permanently injured. Inaddition,25,000werewidowedand50,000childrenwereorphaned.ApeacetreatywiththeSovietUnionwassignedinMoscowonSeptember19,1944,butmilitarycampaignstoremove

German troops from Finland continued until April 1945. The conditions that the Finnsacceptedweresevere.Finlandhadtohandover12%ofitsterritorytotheSovietsandhadtorelocate450,000people—11%ofFinland’s totalpopulation.TheFinnishconcessionsto the Soviets were estimated to reach 7% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). ApeninsulanearHelsinkihad tobe rented to theSovietarmyasamilitarybase,politicalprisonershad tobe released, andwartime leaderswere judged inwar tribunals.Severalpoliticalassociationswereprohibited,andtheCommunistPartywasestablishedasalegalFinnishpoliticalentity.Theseconcessionsledtosuchfundamentalpolitical,cultural,andeconomicchangesinFinlandthatsomehaveidentifiedthepostwareraastheemergenceofa“SecondRepublic.”2

Most important, Finland had fought for its freedom and survived. External threatsexperiencedduringandafterWorldWarIIunitedFinns,whostillfeltthewoundsoftheprevious1918civilwar.Thepost–WorldWar II erawasoneofpolitical instability andeconomictransformation,butitalsogaverisetonewsocialideasandsocialpolicies—inparticular the idea of equal educational opportunities. It is difficult to understand whyeducation has become one of the trademarks of Finlandwithout examining these post–WorldWarIIpoliticalandsocialdevelopments.EvenamongFinns, therearethosewhoargue that the search for key success factors in the Finnish educational system has toextendmuchearlierthan1970,ayearoftenrecognizedasahistoricalmilestoneinFinnisheducationforreasonsexplainedlaterinthischapter.

Historyisofteneasier tounderstandwhenit issegmentedintoperiodsorphasesofdevelopment,andtherecenthistoryofFinlandisnoexceptiontothisstrategy.Althoughthere are many ways to recount Finland’s history depending on the purposes andperspectivesofitsauthors,inthiscaseitishelpfultoillustratecongruenciesbetweenthedevelopment of Finland’s education system and three stages of economic developmentfollowingWorldWarII:

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

The1950swerealreadyatimeofrapidchangestoFinland’seconomicstructure,butthe1960shavebeencharacterizedasphenomenalbyinternationalstandards(Aho,Pitkänen,&Sahlberg,2006;Dahlman,Routti,&Ylä-Anttila,2006).Thedecadeofthe1960ssawFinnishsociety, inmoregeneral terms,relinquishmanyof itsoldvalues,andtraditionalFinnish institutions began to transform. Public services—especially basic education—wereamongthemostvisiblesitesofchange.Whenthetimefordecisivechangearrived,itsspeedandthoroughnesstookmanyFinnsbysurprise.

TheendofWorldWarIIpromptedsuchradicalchangestoFinnishpolitical,social,andeconomicstructuresthatimmediatechangestoeducationandothersocialinstitutions

were required. Indeed, education soonbecame themainvehicleof social andeconomictransformation in the postwar era. In 1950, educational opportunities in Finland wereunequalinthesensethatonlythoselivingintownsorlargermunicipalitieshadaccesstogrammarormiddle schools.Mostyoungpeople left schoolafter6or7yearsof formalbasic education.Where private grammar schools were available, pupils could apply toenrollinthemafter4,5,or6yearsofstate-runbasicschool,butsuchopportunitieswerelimited.In1950,forexample,just27%of11-year-oldFinnsenrolledingrammarschoolsconsistingof5-yearmiddle schools and3-yearhigh schools.Analternative educationalpathafterthecompulsory7yearsofbasiceducationwas2or3yearsofstudyinoneoftheso-calledcivicschools,offeredbymostFinnishmunicipalities.Thisbasiceducationcould be followed by vocational training and technical education, but only in largermunicipalitiesandtownsthathousedtheseinstitutions.

In1950, therewere338grammarschoolsoffering furthereducationalopportunitiesafterthe6-yearbasicschoolinFinland(Kiuasmaa,1982).TheFinnishstateoperated103of these schools, andmunicipalities ran18.The remaining217grammar schools, abouttwo-thirds of the total, were governed by private citizens or associations. The majorburden of the rapid expansion of education following basic schoolingwas absorbed bytheseprivateschools.Asignificantsocial innovationin1950wasissuanceoflegislationthat guaranteed state subsidies to private schools, and simultaneously extended thegovernment’scontrolover theseschools.Thischangemadeitpossible torespondto thepublic’sgrowinginterest ineducationbyopeningnewprivateschools,as their financialriskswerediminishedthroughstatefunding.

In the early years after Finland’s independence, teaching in primary schools wasformal, teacher-centered, and focused more on moral than cognitive development.Although pedagogical ideas aimed at social gains and more holistic interpersonaldevelopment were known in Finland as early as the 1930s, school education was notgreatly influenced by them (Koskenniemi, 1944). Three dominant themes in Finnishnationaleducationpolicybetween1945and1970wouldcometochangethis traditionalmodel:

Thestructureoftheeducationsystemwouldprovideaccesstobetterandmoreeducationforall.Theformandcontentofcurriculawouldfocusondevelopmentofindividual,holisticpersonalitiesofchildren.Teachereducationwouldbemodernizedtorespondtoneedsarisingfromthesedevelopments.ThefuturedreamofFinlandwasbuiltonknowledgeandskills;thus,educationwasseenasafoundationforestablishingthefuture(Aho,Pitkänen,&Sahlberg,2006).

Finland’seconomicstructurein1950,comparabletoSweden’seconomyin1910,wasin transition.Key industrieswereshifting fromfarmingandsmallbusiness to industrialandtechnologicalproduction.Thenewpoliticalenvironmentinthepostwarerahadalsoactivated working-class families, who insisted that their children should haveopportunities to benefit from extended public education. Consequently, a model forcomprehensiveschoolsofferinguniversalaccessandaunifiedcurriculum,firstproposed

inthe1920s,wasrevivedandenterededucationpolicydiscussionssoonaftertheendofWorldWar II. It was clear that to become a recognizedmember of the community ofWesterndemocraciesandmarketeconomies,Finlandneededabetter-educatedpopulation.Thiswasavisionfortheentirenation.

UNIVERSALBASICEDUCATION

The first 2 decades after World War II were politically turbulent in Finland. TheCommunistPartyreturnedtothemainstageofdailypoliticsinthefirstpostwarelectionsin1944, and identified education asoneof its primary strategies for building aFinnishsocialistsociety.Inthe1948elections,threepoliticalpartiesreceivednearlyequalseatsinthe Finnish national Parliament: the Social Democratic Party (50 seats), the AgrarianCentreParty (49 seats), and theCommunistParty (49 seats).The rebuildingofFinlandbegan;politicalconsensuswasapreconditionforreforms,includingrenewingtheFinnisheducational system. The Conservative Party increased its popularity in the 1950s andbecameafourthpoliticalforcetobereckonedwithinFinnishparliamentarynegotiations.ThepoliticaleducationcommitteesplayedparticularlyimportantrolesasthegroundworkforcomprehensivebasicschoolingforallFinnishstudentswaslaid,andthevisionfinallyrealizedin1970.

Three politically oriented education committees are particularly worth mentioning.First, in June 1945, the government established the Primary School CurriculumCommittee.The secretaryof that committeewasMattiKoskenniemi (1908–2001),whohad, a few years earlier, written a seminal book on primary school didactics(Koskenniemi, 1944). Through his contributions, perspectives on curriculum in Finlandshifted from focusing on syllabi (the German term lehrplan) to describing educationalobjectives, process of education, and evaluation. These reforms were the first tomodernize the Finnish curriculum by international standards, and they still resonate incontemporarycurriculumthinking.

ThereareseveralreasonswhythiscommitteeholdsacentralplaceinthehistoryofFinnish education. First, the members devoted special attention to formulating newobjectives for education, thereby deviating fromGerman tradition inFinnish education.The committee put forth the idea that school should aim at educating young people torealize themselves as holistic individuals, possessing intrinsic motivation for furthereducation.Thecontentofeducationthatwouldleadtothisgeneralaimwasgroupedintofivethematic,cross-curricularareas,whichlaterbecameamodelfortheComprehensiveSchoolCurriculumCommitteein1970.

Second,curriculumreformwasgroundedinempiricalstudiesconductedin300fieldschools involving 1,000 teachers. In this way, research became part of educationpolicymaking. Third, and as a corollary of the previous two reasons, the quality of thecommittee’s work was regarded as exceptionally high. The Final Memorandum of thecommittee, published in 1952, has merit in its systematic formulation of educationalobjectives, broad child-centered perspective, modernized presentation and richness ofeducationalcontent,andemphasisontheprimacyofsocialcohesionasoneimportantgoalin education. Significant milestones in the postwar history of Finland were realized in1952: hosting the SummerOlympics inHelsinki, the coronation ofMiss FinlandArmiKuuselaasthefirst-everMissUniverse,andcompletionofheavyreparationstotheSoviet

Union. It is appropriate, also, to include in Finland’s 1952 milestones the new,internationallycomparablecurriculumforFinland’sprimaryschoolsystem,whichpavedthewaytoeducationalsuccesssomehalfacenturylater.

Asecondcommitteeofsignificance, theEducationSystemCommittee, launched itsworkin1946toestablishregulationsforcompulsoryeducationandacommonframeworkof principles for determining how different parts of the education system should beinterlinked.Thecommitteeincludedrepresentativesofallof theleadingpoliticalpartiesofthattimeandwaschairedbytheNationalBoardofEducation’sdirectorgeneral,YrjöRuutu,allyoftheFinnishCommunistParty.Lessthan2yearsaftercommencingitswork,thiscommitteeproposedthatthefoundationoftheFinnisheducationalsystemshouldbean 8-year compulsory basic school thatwould be common to all children regardless oftheir socioeconomic situation. The committee advised that this school system ought toavoidtrackingmoreablestudentsto“academic”subjectsandto“vocational”studiesthosepreferring to learn manual skills, as was done in the then-current parallel educationsystem.

However, the committee retained the standard that only those students who hadlearnedforeignlanguagesduringbasicschoolwouldbeallowedtoenterupper-secondaryschoolorgymnasium—whichrepresentedtheonlypathwaytohighereducation.Althoughthe idea of comprehensive schoolwas clearly formulated, itwas not acted upondue tobittercriticismfromuniversitiesandtheGrammarSchoolTeachers’Union.However,thecommittee’sproposalstimulatedfurtherdebatewithinFinnishsocietyaboutsocialjusticeandequal educationalopportunities—tenets that, 2decades later,wouldbe realizedandentrenchedasfoundationsofFinnisheducationpolicy.

Developmentofdifferentsectorsofeducationcontinuedinthe1950s.ThebabyboomafterWorldWarIIledtorapidexpansioninthenumberofschools.Newlawsstipulatedthatcompulsoryeducationwastoconsistof6yearsofprimaryschooland2yearsofcivicschool for those who didn’t advance further to grammar schools. The new curriculumlaunchedin1952begantochangeworkandlifeinschools.Vocationaleducationbecamepartoftheeducationsector.Finland’sdreamofcommonschoolingforallwasalive,but,inpractice,parallelschoolingstructuresremained.Consequently,athirdcommitteeofkeysignificance,theSchoolProgramCommittee,wasestablishedin1956tounifytheFinnisheducationsystemandbringcoherencetochangesinvarioussubsectorsofeducation.Theestablishmentof this committeeunder the leadershipofReinoHenrikOittinen, directorgeneraloftheNationalBoardofEducationandaSocialDemocrat,wasonefurthersteptowardthebigdreamofFinnisheducation.

Theworkof thiscommitteewasbuiltonanunprecedentedanalysisof internationaleducation policies. Particularly significantwas the committee’s observation thatNordiccountries shared much in common regarding their education policies at that time.Increasingequalityofeducationalopportunities—apriorityatthetimeinEnglandandtheUnitedStates—becameacentralthemeinthecommittee’sstrategicthinking.Theperiodfrom1956to1959,duringwhichthispoliticallybroad-basedcommitteeconductedalmost200 meetings, was particularly turbulent: Global economic recession, tough politicalconflicts both domestically andwith the SovietUnion, and the launch ofSputnik soonimpactededucationalreformsaroundtheworld.Nevertheless,thecommitteepersevered,

anditsworkbecameacornerstoneinthehistoryofeducationalreformsinFinland.

The School Program Committee published its recommendations in the summer of1959. The committee suggested that future compulsory education in Finland should bebasedona9-yearmunicipalcomprehensiveschoolwiththefollowingstructure:

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

The committee was unable to unify political will around this structure ofcomprehensive school; indeed, strong disagreement arose even within the committeeabout main policy principles. The proposed system would, however, gradually mergeprivategrammarandpubliccivicschoolsintoanewmunicipalstructure,anddiminishtheroleofprivateschools.Overall,theworkofthiscommitteeinitiateddeepandsignificantdebate about core values in education in Finnish society. The key question was: Is itpossible, inprinciple, thatallchildrencanbeeducatedandcanachievesimilar learninggoals?Answers to thisquestioncreateddividedopinions,evenwithin families.Primaryschool teachers believed all students could learn equally well, universities typicallydoubtedtheproposition,andpoliticiansremaineddivided.Atthattime,givenitsneedtoadvancebothpoliticallyandeconomicallyontheworldstage,Finlandhadnochoicebuttoacceptthepropositionthatanyone—ifgivenadequateopportunitiesandsupport—couldlearn foreign languages and advance to higher levels of education than had previouslybeen believed. It wasmore difficult formany politicians to accept that the educationalarchitectureoftheday,whichmaintainedandactuallymoredeeplyentrenchedinequalityinFinnishsociety,wouldbeunableinthelongruntoensurethatFinlandwouldachieveitsgoalofbecomingaknowledgesociety.Figure1.1illustrates thecharacteristicsof theparalleleducationalsystemuntiltheearly1970s,whichdividedpupilsattheageof11or12 into one of two separated streams. There was practically no possibility to movebetweenthesestreamsoncestudentshaddecidedwhichpathwaytofollow.

Figure1.1.StructureoftheEducationSysteminFinlandBefore1970

Theoriginal1959proposaloftheSchoolProgramCommitteewasfurtherelaboratedbytheNationalBoardofGeneralEducationintheearly1960s,andthenfinallytakentoParliament on November 22, 1963. The ensuing debate was harsh. Some predicted agloomyfutureforFinlandifthenewideasrelatedtocommonunifiedpublicschoolforallwere approved: declining level of knowledge; waste of existing national talent; andFinland,asanation,beingleftbehindintheinternationaleconomicrace.Inthefinalvote,theproposalfor theneweducationalsysteminFinlandpassed,with123votinginfavorand68against.ThecelebrationofthebirthofthenewschoolinFinlandwasdisturbedbyanannouncementbythespeakerof theParliament:U.S.PresidentJohnF.KennedyhadbeenassassinatedinDallas,Texas,justminutesearlier.Itwouldbeinappropriatetoclaimthat the birth of the newFinnish comprehensive school orperuskoulu system,which isfrequentlyidentifiedasastructuralfoundationforFinland’seducationalfametoday,wascreated by politicians and authorities alone. Many other people, including both schoolpractitionersandacademics,contributedtotheprocessofdefiningFinland’snewschoolsystem. Particularly significant was the role played by some of Finland’s civil societyorganizations. It is beyond the scope of this chapter to conduct deeper analysis of theinfluence thatmanyof thesegroups exertedonFinnish educational reform.However, agood example of civil society involvement in education policy development is the roleplayedbytheFinnishPrimarySchoolTeachers’Association(FPSTA).Asearlyas1946,FPSTAhadexpresseditssupportfortheideaofaunifiedbasicschoolsystem.Inthemid-1950s,theassociationpublisheditsowneducationdevelopmentprogramaccompaniedbyadetailed,well-arguedproposal for a unified, comprehensive school system.Whatwasunusualaboutthisproposedprogramwasthat,unliketheappealsofunion-basedteachers’associations, it was progressive and future-oriented. It was widely supported by theFPSTAmembers, representing nearly 90% of all Finnish primary school teachers. The

FPSTA’sproposaltook5yearstocompleteandstimulatedanationaldiscussionthatwasclearly focused on the need to enhance equality and social justice in Finnish societythroughamoreequitableeducationsystem.Perhapsmostimportant,thepublicationoftheFPSTA’s program proposal was a clear sign that schools and teachers were ready forradicalchange.

In 1955–1956, the nation’s grammar schools enrolled approximately 34,000 pupils.Five years later, enrollment had swelled to 215,000 and it continued to soar, rising to270,000in1965andto324,000in1970(Aho,Pitkänen,&Sahlberg,2006).Finland’soldsystem could barely hold together as parents demanded an improved and morecomprehensivebasiceducationfor theirchildren in thehopeofsecuringbetter lives forthem. Such social pressure introduced a new theme in the education policy debate: theindividual’spotentialforgrowth.Researchersthenarguedthatanindividual’sabilitiesandintelligence always rose to the level required by society, and that education systemsmerelyreflectedtheselimitsorneeds.

THENEWSCHOOLISBORN

Newlegislation(1966)andanationalcurriculum(1970)werepreparedinthesecondhalfofthe1960s.ThesocialpolicyclimateatthetimehadconsolidatedthevaluesofequalityandsocialjusticeacrossthesocialclassesofFinnishsociety.Theexpendituresincurredbythe idealofawelfarestatewereseen,asarguedbyprominentFinnishpoliticalscientistPekkaKuusi, as an investment in increasing productivity rather than a necessary socialcost ofmaintaining an industrial society (Kuusi, 1961).Thenewcomprehensive schoolsystemwaspoisedforimplementationin1972.Accordingtotheplan,awaveofreformwastobegininthenorthernregionsofFinland,andwouldreachthesouthernurbanareasby1978.

A fundamental belief related to the old structure was that everyone cannot learneverything; in otherwords, talent in society is not evenly distributed in terms of one’sabilitytobeeducated.InFinland,therewereechoesoftheColemanReportpublishedinthe United States, favoring the view that a young person’s basic disposition andcharacteristicsweredeterminedinthehome,andcouldnotbesubstantiallyinfluencedbyschooling (Coleman et al., 1966). It was important that the new peruskoulu shed thesebeliefsandthushelpbuildamoresociallyjustsocietywithhighereducationlevelsforall.

The central idea of peruskoulu, as shown in Figure 1.2, was to merge existinggrammar schools, civic schools, and primary schools into a comprehensive 9-yearmunicipal school. This meant that the placement of students after 4 years of primaryeducationintogrammarandcivicstreamswouldcometoanend.Allstudents,regardlessoftheirdomicile,socioeconomicbackground,orinterestswouldenrollinthesame9-yearbasic schools governed by local education authorities. This implementation wasrevolutionary,althoughasnotedpreviously,theideabehinditwasnotnew.Criticsofthenewsystemmaintainedthatitwasnotpossibletohavethesameeducationalexpectationsforchildrencomingfromverydifferentsocialandintellectualcircumstances.OpponentsarguedthattheentirefutureofFinlandasadevelopedindustrialnationwasatriskbecauseoveralleducationattainmentwouldhave tobeadjusteddownward toaccommodate lesstalentedstudents.

Figure1.2.StructureoftheEducationSysteminFinlandSince1970

As planned, thewave of implementation began in the northern parts of Finland in1972. The National Curriculum for the Comprehensive School steered the content,organization,andpaceof teaching throughout thecountry.Although thestructureof thecomprehensive school was similar for all students, the National Curriculum providedschoolswithtoolstodifferentiateinstructionfordifferentabilitygroupsandpersonalities.Foreign languages andmathematics teaching, for example,were arranged in away thatofferedstudentsoptionsforthreelevelsofstudyingrades7through9:basic,middle,andadvanced.Thesyllabusofthebasicstudyprogramcorrespondedtowhathadpreviouslybeen offered in civic schools, and the advanced study program was equivalent to thatofferedbytheoldgrammarschools.Thereasoningbehindthesedifferentiatedsyllabiwasthat if learning foreign languageswasmade a requirement for all, then there had to bedifferentcoursesofstudyfordifferentkindsofstudents.

The last of the southern municipalities shifted to the new comprehensive schoolsystemin1979.Abilitygroupingwaseventuallyabolishedinallschoolsubjectsin1985.Sincethen,allstudentshavestudiedaccordingtothesamecurriculaandsyllabi.

Comprehensiveschoolreformtriggeredthedevelopmentofthreeparticularaspectsofthe Finnish education system,whichwould later prove to be instrumental in creating awell-performingeducationsystem.First,bringingtogetherawidevarietyofstudentswithoften very different life circumstances and aspirations to learn in the same schools andclasses required a fundamentally new approach to teaching and learning. The equal

opportunityprincipleinsistedthatallstudentsbeofferedafairchancetobesuccessfulandenjoylearning.Fromearlyon,itwasunderstoodthattheeducationofpupilswithspecialneedswouldonlybesuccessful if learningdifficultiesandother individualdeficitswereidentifiedearlyandpromptlytreated.Specialeducationquicklybecameanintegralpartofschoolcurricula,andallmunicipalitiesandschoolssoonhousedexpertstrainedtosupportspecial-needs pupils. Special education is discussed in more detail in the followingchapter.

BOX1.1:WHATISTHEFINNISHCONSENSUS?

TheFinnishParliamentreachedadecision-in-principleforcomprehensiveschoolreforminNovember1963.Thedecisionwasnotunanimous;thebasisofthemajorityconsistedoftheAgrarianPartyandtheleftists.Thisdecision,perhaps themost importantsingleconsensus in thehistoryofFinnisheducation,wouldnothavebeenpossiblewithoutthesupportoftheAgrarianPartyandwidernationalconsensusforthecommongood.

TheAgrarianPartyhadforalongtimeresistedtheideaofacomprehensiveschoolsystem.TheyouthwingofthatpartyunderstoodthatrestructuringoftheFinnisheconomyandrelatedurbanizationrequiredthedevelopment of the old-fashioned education system existing at that time. Itwas particularly important tosecureaccesstogoodeducationinruralpartsofFinlandthatweresufferingfromrapidmigrationtourbancentersand toSweden.The interestingquestion is:Whydid theAgrarianParty support education reformthatwasbasedontheideaofcommoncomprehensiveschoolforall?Anewgenerationofpoliticianswhowere close to the Primary School Teachers’ Association became convinced that all children could havesimilarlearninggoalsandthattheycouldbetaughtinthesameschools.ThepresidentofFinlandandformerAgrarianPartymemberUrhoKekkonenwasoneofthesupportersofthisreform.

ThedreamofacommonpublicschoolforallFinnishchildrenhadexistedsincethebirthoftheFinnishFolkSchoolinthe1860s.TheprocessthatledtoParliament’sdecisionin1963wasstrictlyapoliticalone.Itguaranteed that the political elite of Finland would be strongly committed to the comprehensive schoolreform.Politicalsupportforthereformwasimportantbecauseitmadeitpossibletoproceedswiftlywithoutbeinghaltedby thenewgovernment.The foundation fora sustainableeducationpolicywascreated.ThissameprincipleoftheFinnishconsensushascarriedthroughoutthedecadesuntiltoday.

The implementation of comprehensive school reform required several other political compromises.ProfessorPauliKettunenhassaidthattheNordicwelfarestatewasconstructedusingthreepoliticalideals:thelegacyofliberatedpeasants,thespiritofcapitalism,andtheutopiaofsocialism.Equality,efficiency,andsolidarity—theessentialprinciplesof these threepolitical ideals—merged intoaconsensuswhere theyallenrichedoneanother.IthinkthisistherootofthesolidgroundonwhichFinnisheducationpolicyhasbeenestablished.

ErkkiAho,DirectorGeneral(1973–1991)NationalBoardofGeneralEducation

Second, career guidance and counseling became a compulsory part of thecomprehensiveschoolcurriculainallschools.Itwasassumedatthetimethatifallpupilsremainedinthesameschooluntiltheendoftheircompulsoryeducation,theywouldneedsystematiccounselingontheiroptionsaftercompletingbasicschool.Careerguidancewasintended to minimize the possibility that students would make inappropriate choicesregarding their future. In principle, students had three options: to continue education inupper-secondary general school, to go on to vocational school, or to find employment.Bothtypesofupper-secondaryeducationofferedseveralinternaloptions.Careerguidanceandcounselingsoonbecameacornerstoneofbothlower-andupper-secondaryeducation,and has been an important factor in explaining the low rates of grade repetition anddropout in Finland (Välijärvi& Sahlberg, 2008). Career guidance has also served as abridge between formal education and the world of work. As part of the overall careerguidancecurriculum,eachstudentinperuskouluspends2weeksinaselectedworkplace.

Third,thenewperuskoulurequiredthatteacherswhowereworkinginverydifferentschools—namely,theacademicgrammarschoolsandwork-orientedcivicschools—hadtobegintoworkinthesameschoolwithstudentswithdiverseabilities.AsJouniVälijärviexplains,comprehensiveschool reformwasnot justanorganizationalchangebutanewphilosophy of education for Finnish schools (Hautamäki et al., 2008; Välijärvi et al.,2007). This philosophy included the beliefs that all pupils can learn if they are givenproperopportunitiesandsupport,thatunderstandingandlearningthroughhumandiversityis an important educational goal, and that schools should function as small-scaledemocracies, just as John Dewey had insisted decades before. The new peruskoulu,therefore, required teachers to employ alternative instructionalmethods, design learningenvironmentsthatenabledifferentiatedlearningfordifferentpupils,andperceiveteachingasahigh-statusprofession.Theseexpectationsledtowide-scaleteachereducationreformin 1979: a new law on teacher education, emphasizing professional development andfocusingonresearch-basedteachereducation,thatisdiscussedindetailinChapter3.

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

EXPANDINGUPPER-SECONDARYEDUCATION

Thegeneralupper-secondaryschoolhadatraditionalschool-likeorganizationuntil1985whenthenewActonGeneralUpper-SecondaryEducationabolishedtheoldsystemandintroducedamodularcurriculumstructure.Twoannualsemesterswerereplacedbyfiveorsixperiodsperschoolyear,basedonhowschoolsplannedtheirteaching.Thismeantthatteachingandstudyingwerereorganizedinto6-or7-weekperiodsduringwhichstudentswould complete the courses theyhad chosen.This change enabled schools to rearrangeteachingschedules,and, in turn,affected localcurriculumplanningbecauseschoolshadmore flexibility to allocate lessons into these periods differently (Välijärvi, 2004). Thenextphaseofdevelopmentwastoreplaceagecohort–basedgroupingofstudentswithanonclass organizational system in the mid-1990s. This new general upper-secondaryschoolorganizationisnotbasedonfixedclassesorgrades(previouslycalled10th,11th,or 12th grades). Students thus have greater choice available to them in planning theirstudies in terms of both the content and the sequencing of their courses. The newcurriculum framework places a stronger emphasis on understanding students’ cognitivedevelopment and also invites schools to make the best use of their own and theircommunity’s strengths. Although students now havemore freedom to plan and choosetheir studies, all students are still obliged to study the basics of the 18 compulsorysubjects.Students have to successfully complete at least 75 coursesof 38 lessons each.About two-thirdsof thesearecompulsoryand the restare freelychosenbystudents fortheir general upper-secondary education diploma. Normally, students exceed thisminimumlimitandstudymore,typicallytakingbetween80and90courses.

Studentassessmentsandschoolevaluationsareadditionalimportantfactorsaffectingthenatureofteachingandlearningingeneralupper-secondaryschool.Teachersassesstheachievement of each student at the endof eachperiod (of 6 or 7weeks),whichmeans

students are assessed five or six times per school year. The National MatriculationExaminationthatstudentstakeaftersuccessfullycompletingallrequiredcoursesisahigh-stakes external examination (for students), and therefore it has a notable effect oncurriculum and instruction. A frequently expressed criticism by teachers and schoolprincipalsinFinlandisthatthematriculationexaminationresultsin“teachingtothetest”and thus narrows curriculum and increases stress among students and teachers. As aformermathematicsandscienceteacher,Iconcur.

Vocationalupper-secondaryeducationalsounderwentsignificantadaptationstobettersuit new economic and political situations. Structures, curricula, and methodology ofvocational education were renewed to meet the expectations of a knowledge-basedeconomyandprovide required laborknowledge and skills.OneofFinland’skeypolicytargets has been to increase the attractiveness of vocational education at the upper-secondarylevel(MinistryofEducation,2004;Sahlberg,2006b).Currently,about42%ofstudentswho transit fromperuskoulu toupper-secondary education start their studies invocationalschools.

The structure of vocational education was simplified and all initial vocationalqualificationstodayconsistof120credits,equivalent to3yearsoffull-timestudy.One-quarter of the study time is allocated to general or optional courses. The number ofvocationalqualificationswasreducedfrommorethan600to52,andrelatedprogramsofstudyto113.Inprinciple,vocationalschoolstudentsareeligibletotakethematriculationexamination,althoughveryfewdo.Moreover,providersofupper-secondaryeducationarerequired to promote transferability, ensuring that students have access to general upper-secondaryschoolsfromvocationalschools,andviceversa,iftheywishtoincludecoursesfromotherschoolsintheirlearningplans.

Curriculum and study programs in vocational schools were revised to match thechangesmade in upper-secondary education, especially themodular-based structure, aswell as the needs of labor markets in a knowledge society. The new curriculum wasdesigned to balance the need for more general knowledge and skills and specificprofessional competences required in each vocational qualification. Performanceassessments of achieved professional knowledge and skills are developed viacollaboration among three key stakeholders: schools, employers, and employees’representatives.

Methods of instruction and training have been gradually changing in vocationalsecondary schools. At least one-sixth of the training has to be arranged as on-the-joblearning, and this is an integral part of the curriculum. Alternative workshops,apprenticeship training, and virtual learning have become commonplace in upper-secondary education. A results-based component of the funding system for vocationalschools allocates a factor of 6% at the top of the school’s core funding for staffdevelopment.Vocational schools are increasingly investing these funds to upgrade theirteachers’pedagogicalknowledgeandskills.

Twokey factors appear to influence the efficacy of students’ choices at the criticalpointof transition toupper-secondaryeducation.First,when theyenterupper-secondaryeducation, Finnish students have no experiencewith high-stakes standardized testing inschool,unlike theirpeers inmanyother countrieswhere testinghasbecomean integral

element of school life. In a comparative study of teachers’ experiences under differentaccountability regimes, we concluded that “the pressure of a structured instructionalmodel of teaching and external assessment of pupils’ achievement is having dramaticconsequencesaccordingtosometeachers”(Berry&Sahlberg,2006,p.22).Consequencesof the high-stakes testing environment include avoidance of risk taking, increasedboredom,andfear.ThestudyalsosuggestedthatinFinland,mostlower-secondaryschoolteachers teach in order to help their students learn, not pass tests. The PISA studiesprovide further evidence for this argument: Finnish students experience less anxiety inlearningmathematics comparedwith their peers in other countries (Kupari&Välijärvi,2005;OECD,2013c).

Asecondcontributingfactortothesuccessfultransitiontoupper-secondaryschoolingis that students are well prepared to make decisions about post-compulsory education,becausecounselingandcareerguidancearewidelyavailableinbasicschool.Duringtheir3-yearlower-secondaryschool,allstudentsareentitledto2hoursaweekofeducationalguidance and counseling. This reduces the risk that students will make ill-informeddecisionsregardingtheirfurtherstudies.Italsohelpsstudentsputmoreeffort intothoseareasoftheirstudiesthataremostimportantfortheiranticipatedrouteinupper-secondaryschool.

Finnishstudentstodayenterthetransitionpointbetweenlower-andupper-secondaryeducationwith amore effective set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes than in the past.Implemented reforms to upper-secondary education in Finland have had a fundamentalimpact on school organization, especially with respect to teaching and learning.Traditionalschoolorganizationbasedonpresentation-recitationmodelsofinstruction,agegrouping,fixedteachingschedules,andthedominanceofclassroom-basedseatworkhasbeengradually transformed toprovidemore flexible,open,and interaction-rich learningenvironments,whereanactiveroleforstudentscomesfirst.Ongoingschoolimprovementhas therefore been facilitated by the implementation of structural changes in upper-secondary school and by the enrichment of schools and classrooms with alternativeinstructionalarrangementsandteachingmethods.

IMPROVINGEDUCATIONALATTAINMENT

Comprehensive school reform has generated obvious consequences. As the number ofgraduates from these schoolshas increased, so toohas thedemand forupper-secondaryeducation.Annually,about94%ofstudentswhograduate fromperuskoulu immediatelycontinue their studies in one of the two types of upper-secondary education settings orenrollinanadditional10thgradeofperuskoulu.Somestudentswhodonotcontinuetheirformaleducationimmediatelyafterperuskouluenrollinnonformaleducationalprograms,andwillreturnlatertoadulteducationalprograms.Forexample,abouthalfofthosewhoenroll in vocational upper-secondary schools are graduates of peruskoulu of that sameyear.Figure1.3illustratesthechoicesmadebystudentsleavingperuskoulubetween2000and 2012, who were given the option of participating immediately after completingperuskouluingeneralorvocationalupper-secondaryeducation,takinganadditional10thgrade,3orexitingformaleducation.Vocationaleducationhasbecomeatruealternativeformanystudentsbecauseofitsmoregenerallyorientedcurriculaandalsobecausetherearemoreopportunities tocontinuestudies inhighereducationafter receivingaprofessional

qualificationfromvocationalschool.

As shown in Figure 1.3, in 2012 about 94% of those who completed compulsorybasic education immediately continued their studies at the upper-secondary level orundertook an additional 10th grade of peruskoulu. In 2012, the number of studentsenrolledingeneralandvocationalupper-secondaryeducationstoodat50.0%and41.5%,respectively.Inabsolutenumbers,the2009–2010schoolyearmarkedthefirsttimewhenmoreyoungpeopleenrolledinvocationalupper-secondaryschoolsthaningeneralupper-secondary schoolswhenall studentswerecounted (grossenrollment rate includes thosewhoenrollinvocationalschoolsaftertheageof16).In2012,about6.5%,or4,000ofthestudentsleavingbasicschool,optednottocontinuestudyinginupper-secondaryeducationor 10th grade ofperuskoulu. Some of these students enrolled in other post-compulsoryeducationalprograms,suchasarts,crafts,ormanualtrades.

Therelativelylargenumberofstudentsleavingbasicschoolwhodon’tcontinuetheirformaleducationimmediatelyaftergraduationhasbecomeasocialandpoliticalproblemin Finland.Although the total number of young Finnswho don’t even apply to upper-secondaryeducationislessthan1,000annually,thosewholeavetheeducationsystemare,in the long run, becoming an economicburden for the society. It is estimated that eachyoung person who doesn’t complete upper-secondary school will, on average, cost 1.4millionU.S.dollarstothesocietyinlosttaxrevenues,increasedhealthandsocialcosts,andoftenchronicunemployment.Thecurrentcoalitiongovernmentthereforelaunchedacampaign in 2011 to guarantee a study place or apprenticeship to all students leavingperuskoulu andothersunder25yearsof age.Onepartof this initiativewas to enhanceyouth education and employment opportunity by extending compulsory education fromage16 toage17,butamajorityofpoliticiansandkeystakeholderswerenotconvincedthatoneobligatoryyearofschoolingforthosewhoarenotinspiredtogotoschoolwouldbeagoodidea.Asaconsequence,compulsoryeducationinFinlandendsattheageof16.

Figure1.3.TransitionfromPeruskoulutoUpper-SecondaryEducationasaPercentageofAgeCohortsBetween2000and2012

Source:StatisticsFinland(n.d.a).

It is noteworthy that in Finland upper-secondary education remains noncompulsoryafter a person turns 16. Rather than making upper-secondary education compulsory,Finnisheducationpolicieshavereliedondevelopingequalopportunitiesforeveryonetoparticipate in upper-secondary education as a matter of individual choice, while at thesame time creating incentives for young people to stay in the education system aftercompleting their compulsory education. Since the introduction of the comprehensiveschoolinthe1970s,theaimsofeducationpolicyhavebeentoprovideaplaceofstudyforallyoungpeopleinpost-compulsoryeducationalinstitutions(Aho,Pitkänen,&Sahlberg,2006).Most general and vocational upper-secondary schools today are undermunicipal(and in some cases regional) administration, and municipalities therefore determinepoliciesregardingprovisionandaccessionforpost-compulsoryeducation.However,thisdoes not mean that local authorities have complete freedom; curricula, teachers’professional requirements, and expectations regardingoverall pedagogical environmentsare fairly unified throughout the country and create a common culture of schooling inFinland.

Animportantindicatorofthesuccessofpost-compulsoryeducationisthecompletionrate. As part of the newly introduced education efficiency system in Finland, stateauthorities have, since 1999, been collecting systematic data and analyzing completionratesinupper-secondaryeducation.Ifanidealcompletiontimeforvocationalorgeneralupper-secondary studies is set at 3.5 years, then about three out of four studentssuccessfully completed their studies in the desired time. Table 1.1 shows how manystudentsterminatedtheirupper-secondaryandhighereducationinFinlandintheacademicyear2011–2012.Overall,graduationratesinFinlandareinternationallyhigh.Only0.2%oftheagecohortdidnotcompletetheircompulsoryeducationasplanned.Lessthan4%ofthosewhograduatedperuskouluin2012receivedtheirdiplomafromaninstituteotherthan school (students living abroad and home schooled, for example). The first-timegraduationrateinupper-secondaryeducationinFinlandin2012was93%,comparedwith88%and79%inCanadaandtheUnitedStates,respectively.TheOECDaverageupper-secondaryeducationgraduationrateis84%(OECD,2014a).

Table1.1.TerminationofUpper-SecondaryandHigherEducationinFinlandinAcademicYear2011–2012asaPercentageoftheTotalNumberofStudents

Source:StatisticsFinland,2014b

Because personalized learning plans in upper-secondary school are not tied to agegroupsorclasses,somestudentswilltakemoretimetocompletetheirstudiesthanothers.Somewill leave the education systemwithout a qualificationor diploma.Early school-leaving rates thus provide a furthermeasure of the quality and efficiency of secondaryeducation.According to national statistics in Table 1.1, in recent years about 3.5% perannumofgeneralupper-secondaryschoolstudentsterminatetheirstudieswithoutmovingontosomeotherformofupper-secondaryeducationortraining.Approximatelythesamenumberofstudentsmovesfromgeneraltovocationalsecondaryeducationandcompletesstudiesthere.Invocationalsecondaryeducation,thesituationisabitworse.Forexample,intheschoolyear2011–2012,8.7%ofvocationalschoolstudentsterminatedtheirinitialstudies;oftheseabout2%continuedtheireducationinsomeotherschoolorinstitution.

DropoutsfromformaleducationandtraininginFinlandareslowlydeclining,andinupper-secondaryeducation,dropoutratesaresubstantiallylowerthanthoseofmostothercountries.As far as allupper-secondaryeducation is concerned, about5.5%of studentsterminated their studies during the academic year 2011–2012 without immediatelycontinuing their studies in someotherdegreeprogram.Theneed toprevent educationalfailure and dropouts is greatest in upper-secondary and higher vocational education.Keeping students in education has become a particular incentive for schools through aresults-based central government funding scheme, which was introduced in upper-secondary vocational education in the early 2000s and will be extended to all upper-secondaryeducationby2015.Whentheresults-basedfinancingindexforeducationandtrainingprovidersiscalculated,reduceddropoutratesandimprovedcompletionrateshaveapositiveeffectontheoverallissuedbudget.Althoughthefinancingindexconcernsonlyasmallpartofoveralleducationbudgets,ithasbeenasufficientincentivetorapidlyfocusthe attention of schools and teachers onmeasures to improve the early recognition andprevention of problems thatmight lead to dropout and on improved direct supports forstudents’learningandoverallwell-beinginschool.Moreover,becausethebasicfundingofschoolsistiedtostudentnumbers,successinpreventingdropouthasapositiveimpactontheschoolbudget.Vocationalschoolsinparticularhavedevelopedinnovativesolutionsfor those students whose learning styles work best with a more practically orientedcurriculum. For example, practice-oriented workshops where students can design andbuild concrete forms have become a popular way to increase the attractiveness andrelevanceofsecondaryeducationformanystudentswhoareatriskofleavingschool.

MatriculationExamination

Students who have passed the required courses in upper-secondary general school areeligibletotaketheNationalMatriculationExamination.TheexaminationisorganizedbytheMatriculationExaminationBoardandisadministeredatthesametimeinallschoolsnationwide. There is no national examination for students graduating from upper-secondaryvocationalschools.Instead,vocationalschoolsassess theformandcontentofcertificationexaminations.Studentswhosuccessfullycompleteeither trackcanapply toinstitutionsofhighereducation,namelypolytechnicsoruniversities.However,vocationalschoolgraduatesmakeupalessershareoftotalenrollmentinhighereducation.

The Matriculation Examination first debuted in 1852 as an entrance test for the

University of Helsinki. Students had to show sufficient evidence of general academicknowledgeandbeproficientinLatin.Today,thepurposeoftheexaminationistodiscoverwhetherstudentshaveassimilatedtheknowledgeandskillsrequiredbythenationalcorecurriculum,aswellaswhethertheyhavereachedalevelofmaturitythatisinlinewiththegoals of upper-secondary general school. Students take tests in at least four subjects.Passing thematriculation examination, which is given only in upper-secondary generalschools,entitlescandidatestocontinuetheirstudiesathighereducationinstitutions.

TheMatriculation Examination is administrated by an external board appointed bytheMinistry of Education andCulture. The board has about 40members,who includeuniversity professors, high school teachers, and education policymakers. Exams areprepared and marked by separate subject committees that have altogether some 330associatemembers,mostofthemcurrentorpreviousschoolteachers.Thesecretariatoftheboard that is responsible for technical matters related to employing, safeguarding, andmanaging the examination has a staff of 22 people. The typical examination fee perstudent for five exams is about 200 U.S. dollars. The entire administration of theexamination,whichcosts about10millionU.S.dollars annually, is financed from thesestudent-paidfees.

Whatisthestructureofthisexamandwhatdoesitmeasure?First,studentsmustpassat least four individual tests in order to be awarded the Matriculation Examinationcertificate. An exam assessing students’ competency in their mother tongue (Finnish,Swedish, or Sami) is compulsory for everybody. Second, each student chooses threeadditional tests from the following pool: a second domestic language (for example,Swedish), foreign language (most often English), mathematics, and one test from thehumanitiesandsciencescategory.Studentsmayalsoaddoptionalexamsinthefollowingsubjects: various foreign languages, history, civics, biology, geography, physics,chemistry, health education, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and religious studies.Studentshaveamaximumof6hourstocompleteeachexam.

Exams are offered twice a year, in September and March–April. Students mustcompleteallrequiredtestsoftheexaminationwithinthreeconsecutiveexamperiods—inotherwords,within 1 year from the time they sit for their first exam.All tests, exceptlistening and reading comprehension in second domestic and foreign languages, arepencil-and-papertests,whichtypicallyrequireextensivewritinginopen-endedtasks.Theexaminationprocesswillbecomedigitalin2016.

Teacherswhosestudentsaretakingtheexaminschoolfirstreadthetestpapersandgive their initial marks. Then the board’s subject committee members give their finalmarks independently, not regarding what teachers have marked on each exam. Thiscombinedprocessthenleadstoafinalgrade.Subjectsaregradedusingaseven-pointscalethatisadjustedtonormaldistribution.Thismeansthatthenumberoftopgradesandfailedgrades in each exam is approximately 5%. Students can have one failed exam if theyperform well in the other exams. The exams and their grades are included in theMatriculationExaminationCertificate that is awarded to studentswhosuccessfullypassthemandatoryexamsandsufficientlycompletetherequiredhighschoolstudies.

The FinnishMatriculationExamination is ameasure of students’ general academicmaturity,includingtheirreadinesstocontinuetheirstudiesinhighereducation.Students’

successful performance on the Matriculation Examination becomes an asset to theiruniversity application. The nature of these individual exams is to try to test students’ability to cope with unexpected tasks. Whereas the California High School ExitExamination(CAHSEE),4forexample,isguidedbyalistofpotentiallybiased,sensitive,orcontroversialtopicstobeavoided,theFinnishexaminationdoestheopposite.Studentsareregularlyaskedtoshowtheirabilitytodealwithissuesrelatedtoevolution,losingajob, dieting, political issues, violence, war, ethics in sports, junk food, sex, drugs, andpopularmusic.Such issuesspanacrosssubjectareasandoftenrequiremultidisciplinaryknowledgeandskills.

Herearesomeexamplesfromthespring2014MatriculationExamination:

Sampleessaytopicsinmothertongue:

“Some politicians, athletes and other celebrities have publicly regretted andapologizedforwhattheyhavesaidordone.Discussthemeaningoftheapologyandacceptingitasasocialandpersonalact.”

“Hasyourbodybecomeyourhobby?”

“Mediaiscompetingforaudiences—whataretheconsequences?”

“Choose three world religions and compare the role and use of a holy imagewithinthem.”

Samplehealtheducationquestions:

“WhatisthebasisofdietaryrecommendationsinFinlandandwhatistheiraim?”

“Comparechlamydiaandcondyloma.”

Samplepsychologyquestion:

“Design a study to find out how personality affects individuals’ behavior onFacebookorothersocialmedia.Discusstheethicalconsiderationsforthattypeofstudy.”

Samplehistoryquestion:

“KarlMarxandFriedrichEngelspredictedthatasocialistrevolutionwouldfirsthappen incountries likeGreatBritain.WhatmadeMarxandEngelsclaim thatandwhydidasocialistrevolutionhappeninRussia?”

Samplephilosophyquestion:

“Inwhatsensearehappiness,goodlife,andwell-beingethicalconcepts?”

Sampleethicsquestion:

“Highschoolstudentsoftenrequirethattheyareservedaparticulardietastheirschool lunch. Reasons may be medical, religious, ethical or moral. Describestudents’requirementsandtheirreasons;andassesstherighteousnessofhavinganyparticulardietinschool.”

Insteadofanationalexamination,vocationalstudentstakeaschool-levelassessmentof learning outcomes and skills. The principle behind the assessment is to develop a

positiveself-imageandpersonalgrowthinstudentswithdifferentkindsofcompetencies.Studentsaregaugedaccordingtotheirownself-assessments,aswellasthroughinterviewswith their teachers. In addition, their on-the-job training instructors participate inworkplaceassessments.Performanceisgradedfrom1(satisfactory)to3(excellent).Intheabsenceofanationalvocationaleducationexamination,theNationalBoardofEducationissuesrecommendationstoensureequalityinschool-basedperformanceassessments.

A current topic of debate in vocational education is how to ensure the quality ofcertification from school to school. Parliament passed an act on this issue in 2005, andcertificationwillnowincludeboththeteachers’assessmentandademonstrationofskillstoprovethatastudenthasachievedthevocationalproficiencysetoutinthecurriculum.These skills demonstrationswill take place,wherever possible, atwork sites,mostly inconjunction with periods of on-the-job learning. Representatives of employers andemployees will also take part in assessment. Depending on the program, students canexpect toundergofrom4 to10demonstrationsofproficiencyduring thecourseof theirstudies.

AGENERATIONOFEDUCATIONALCHANGE

BecausetheterrainofeducationalchangehasnotbeenexploredmuchinFinland,itissafetosuggesttheoriesofchangeandconceptualmodelstoorganizethethinkingaboutwhathashappenedandwhy.Afterthecomprehensiveschoolreforminthe1970s,educationalchangeinFinlandcanbedescribedintermsofthreephases(Sahlberg,2009):

Rethinkingthetheoreticalandmethodologicalfoundationsofteachingandlearning(1980s)Improvementthroughnetworkingandself-regulatedchange(1990s)Enhancingefficiencyofstructuresandadministration(2000–present)

ThisprocessisillustratedinFigure1.4.Eachphaseconveysacertainpolicylogicandtheoryofchange.Bytheearly1980s,thestructuralreformsthatledtocreatingperuskouluwere completed. After that, attention was focused on conception of knowledge andconceptionoflearningintheschoolpracticesthatwereembeddedintothephilosophyofperuskoulu. The second phase emerged from the liberalization of Finnish educationgovernance, a period characterized by the self-directed networking of schools andcollaborationamongindividuals.Thethirdandongoingphasewasinitiatedbyaneedtoraise productivity in the public sector, andwas accelerated by publication of the initialPISA results inDecember 2001 and later by the 2008 economic downturn. This phasefocusesonreformingthestructuresandadministrationofeducationandiscarefultoavoiddisturbing the sensitivebalanceof awell-performingeducation system in thepursuitofenhancedefficiency.

Phase1:RethinkingtheTheoreticalandMethodologicalFoundations(1980s)

Severalresearchanddevelopmentprojectslaunchedwithinthenewcomprehensiveschoolsystem in the late 1970s and early 1980s led to criticism of then-current pedagogicalpractices, especially teacher-centeredmethods of teaching in Finnish schools. The newschoolsystemwaslaunchedwithphilosophicalandeducationalassumptionsthatinsistedthat the role of public education must be to educate citizens to think critically and

independently.Oneofthemainthemesofschooldevelopmentthenwastherealizationofamore dynamic conceptionof knowledge.As a result, renewed approaches to teachingwould lead tomeaningful learningandunderstanding, teachersbelieved (Aho,1996).Asignificant driver of this change was emerging information and communicationtechnologies in schools at that time.Some feared, quite correctly, that the expansionofcomputers in classrooms would lead to problems, including isolated knowledge,unnecessaryinformation,andtechnologicaldeterminism.

Figure1.4.ThreePhasesofEducationalChangeinFinlandSincethe1980s

Technological development corresponded with the revolution in learning sciences.The dominance of cognitive psychology, along with the emergence of constructivisttheoriesof learningand theadvances inneuroscienceson thehorizon, attractedFinnisheducational researchers to analyze existing conceptions of knowledge and learning inschools. Several influential and teacher-friendly readers were published and sent toschools.TheyincludedConceptionofKnowledge(1989),ConceptionofLearning(1989),andAboutPossibilitiesofSchoolChange (1990).Questions like“What isknowledge?,”“How do pupils learn?,” and “How do schools change?” were common themes forteachers’inservicetrainingandschoolimprovementuntiltheendofthe1990s(Lehtinenetal.,1989;Miettinen,1990;Voutilainen,Mehtäläinen,&Niiniluoto,1989).

Froman international perspective, this first phase of educational change inFinlandwas exceptional. At the same time that Finnish teachers were exploring the theoreticalfoundations of knowledge and learning and redesigning their school curricula to becongruentwiththem,theirpeersinEngland,Germany,France,andtheUnitedStateswerestruggling with increased school inspection, controversial externally imposed learningstandards,andcompetitionthatdisturbedsometeacherstothepointthattheydecidedtoleavetheirjobs.InEnglandandtheUnitedStates,forexample,deeperanalysisofschoolknowledgeand implicationsofnewresearchon learningmainlyremained issuesamongacademicsorreachedonlythemostadvancedteachersandleaders.Perhapsitwasduetothese philosophical aspects of educational change that Finland remained immune to thewinds of market-driven education policy changes that arose in many other OECDcountriesduringthe1990s.

Although the nature of educational development in Finland during this phase wasgenuinelyFinnishwork,itisimportanttogivecredittotheknowledgeandideasthatwere

broughtfromabroad,especiallyfromtheUnitedStates,Canada,andtheUnitedKingdom,aswell as other Nordic countries. Particularly significant was the role of teaching andstudent assessment methods—especially those published by the Association forSupervision andCurriculumDevelopment (ASCD)—thatwere developed in theUnitedStates and then adopted into Finnish culture and educational practice. Two examplesdeserve to bementioned here. First, Finlandwas one of the first countries to launch alarge-scaleimplementationofcooperativelearninginselectFinnishuniversitiesandlaterinschools.Researchanddevelopmentworkdoneat theUniversityofMinnesota(Davidand Roger Johnson), Stanford University (Elizabeth Cohen), Johns Hopkins University(Robert Slavin), and Tel Aviv University (Shlomo Sharan and Yael Sharan) had animportantroletoplayinthetransformationofteachingandlearninginschoolsaccordingtothephilosophicalprinciplesdescribedintheFinnishreadersmentionedabove.Second,inthelate1980s,theNationalBoardofGeneralEducationinFinlandlaunchedanationalinitiative todiversify teachingmethods in science teaching.TheModels of TeachingbyBruce Joyce and Marsha Weil (later with Beverly Showers) was the main source ofinspirationandideasforthiswork(Joyce&Weil,1986).BruceJoycevisitedFinlandinthe late 1980s, and hiswork has left a permanent impression on the history of Finnishschool improvement that still exists today in hundreds of Finnish schools throughexpanded repertoires of teaching methods. Work by David Berliner in educationalpsychology, Linda Darling-Hammond in teacher education, and Andy Hargreaves andMichael Fullan in educational change has been closely studied and implemented indevelopingFinnish education since the1970s.The secret of the successful influenceoftheseeducationalideasfromtheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,andCanadaisthattherewasfruitfulgroundinFinnishschoolsforsuchpragmaticmodelsofchange.Interestingly,theFinns themselveshavedevelopedonlya littlenovelpedagogicalpractice thatwouldhavehadmoreinternationalsignificance.

There is surprisingly little reliable research on how this first phase of educationalchangeactuallyaffectedteachingandlearninginFinnishschools.ErnoLehtinen(2004),oneofthekeyfiguresinFinlandofthattimeandauthorofsomeofthereadersmentionedearlier,wascautiouslyreservedabouttheimpact:

Discussiononconceptionsofknowledgeandlearninghasclearlyaffectedhowteacherstalkaboutlearningandteaching.Earlierdiscoursethatwascharacterizedbytraditionalvaluesofsocializationandteachingoffactsandautomatedidealsofmasteryhasbeenreplacedbyunderstanding,criticalthinking,problemsolving,and learning how to learn. Expanding the conceptions of knowledge and learning was also reflected inimplementationof thenewcurriculuminthemid-1990satall levelsofschooling,andalsointhenationalcurriculumreformsinthisnewdecade.(p.54)

This phase of educational change in Finland has been characterized as a time thatchallenged conventional beliefs, searched for innovation, and increased trust in schoolsand their abilities to find the bestways to raise the quality of student learning.Deeperunderstanding of knowledge and learning strengthened schools’ moral foundations. ArecentevaluationofeducationinFinnishcomprehensiveschoolsconcludedthat“teacherspay conscious attention to diversifying teaching and learning environments. Teachersthink that the use of versatile teaching methods is important both to planning andclassroomwork” (Atjonen et al., 2008, p. 197). This suggests that schools have madeprogressinteachingandlearning,atleastmodestly.

Phase2:ImprovementthroughNetworkingandSelf-Regulation(1990s)

The National Curriculum Reform of 1994 is often regarded as the major educationalreforminFinland,alongwiththeComprehensiveSchoolReformofthe1970s.Themainvehicleofchangewastheactiveroleofmunicipalitiesandschoolsincurriculumdesignandtheimplementationofrelatedchanges.Schoolswereencouragedtocollaboratewithother schools and to network with parents, businesses, and nongovernmentalorganizations. At the level of central administration, this new collaborative and self-directedmovement culminated in theAquariumProject, anational school improvementinitiative enabling all Finnish schools, principals, and teachers to network with oneanother.5TheaimoftheAquariumProjectwastotransformschoolsintoactivelearningcommunities. According to Martti Hellström (2004), this project was “a unique self-directedschoolimprovementnetworkthatwasopentoallactiveeducators”(p.179).Asaformofpractice,thiswaspreviouslyunheardofinFinnisheducationaladministration,andonlyrarelyfoundelsewhere.

TheAquariumProject offered schools a new context for improvement—somethingthat combined traditional communityworkwithmodern social networking. It has closelinkstotheideasoftheAlbertaInitiativeforSchoolImprovement(AISI),auniquelong-term government-funded school and teacher development program in Alberta, Canada(Hargreaves et al., 2009). Research has shown that school improvement throughnetworkingandself-regulationhaspositivelyimpactedtheengagementlevelofschoolsindevelopmentinFinlandandAlberta.Particularlyimportantisthefactthatthemajorityofschoolsinvolvedintheseinitiativesreportedthatduringatimeofeconomicdownturnanddecreasing resources, teachers believed they had succeeded in improving their schools.Despite different educational governance systems, theAquariumProject andAISI havestimulated local innovations and research activity among principals and teachers whopursuedadvancededucationalstudiesinuniversities.Theyalsohavedemonstratedthatitistheschool,notthesystem,thatisthelocusofcontrolandcapacity—apointreinforcedbyHellström(2004)andMurgatroyd(2007).Alberta’sgovernmentterminatedfundingforAISIin2013aspartoftheprovince’sfiscaladjustmentprocedures.

Atthebeginningof1997,thereweremorethan1,000projectsin700schoolsand163municipalitiesparticipatingintheAquariumProject.Mybestestimateisthatthisincludedabout 5,000 teachers and 500 principals who were directly involved in this schoolimprovement initiative. The project was in accord with new ideas of decentralization,increased school autonomy, and stronger school identity in the1990s.As a strategy forschoolimprovement,thisprojectstressedsharedresponsibilityinschools,personalization,andcollaborativeefforts toenhance thequalityof learning. In this sense, theAquariumProject incorporated features consistent with neoliberal education policies, andoccasionally, these characteristicswere seen as signals of increased competition amongschools in the education sector. It is true that school choice creates a competitiveenvironment, but the school improvement network transformed bold competition intomutualstrivingforbetterschools.ThestrongsocialaspectoftheAquariumProjectvaluedsharing ideas and solving problems together, thus preventing schools fromviewing oneanother as competitors. In this respect, the project relied on earlier values of equaleducational opportunities and social responsibility, rather than competition andadministrativeaccountability.PerhapsthispoliticaldualityservedastheAchilles’heeloftheAquariumProject.Theprojectwasterminatedbyapoliticaldecisioninearly1999at

thedawnoftheeraofenhancedefficiencyofadministrationandstructuralreforms.

Phase3:EnhancingEfficiencyofStructuresandAdministration(2000–thepresent)

ThefirstPISAresults,publishedonDecember4,2001,tookeveryonebysurprise.Inallthree academic domains—reading literacy, mathematics, and science—Finland was thehighest-performingnationoftheOECDcountriesasmeasuredbystandardizedtests.ThisnewinternationalstudyrevealedthatearlierstudentperformancegapswithJapan,Korea,and HongKongwere closed. Finns seemed to learn all the knowledge and skills theydemonstrated on these tests without private tutoring, after-school classes, or the largeamounts of homework that are particularly prevalent among students in East Asia.Furthermore, the relative variation of educational performance between schools in thesamplewasexceptionallysmallinFinland.

Initial reactions after the first PISA results within the education community wereconfusing.SomeFinnisheducatorswondered if therewassomethingwrongbecause thetest scores in academic school subjects were so high. Since the 1970s, education inFinlandhadhadasstrongafocusonmusic,arts,crafts,socialstudies,and lifeskillsastherewasonreading,mathematicsandscience.TheworldmediaimmediatelywantedtoknowthesecretbehindgoodFinnisheducation.Withinthefirst18monthsafterthePISAresultswerepublished,severalhundredofficialforeigndelegationstouredFinlandtolearnhow Finnish schools operate and how their teachers teach. Questions from the foreignvisitors regarding the“Finnishmiracle”wereoftensuch thatFinns themselveswerenotpreparedtorespondwithreliableanswers.ThenexttwoPISAcycles,in2003and2006,advanced and consolidated Finland’s reputation even further, thus elevating the worldmedia’s interest in Finnish education. PISA 2009 and 2012 showed some decline inFinnish students’ academic performance, which will be discussed further in the nextchapter. Overall, PISA data show that Finland, Canada, Japan, and Korea produceconsistently high learning results regardless of their students’ socioeconomic status(OECD,2013b).England,Germany,France,andtheUnitedStates,amongothercountries,havebothaverageachievementscoresandawideperformancevariance.

WhatPISAsurveys,ingeneral,haverevealedisthateducationpoliciesthatarebasedontheprincipleofequaleducationalopportunitiesandequityineducationandthathavebroughtteacherstothecoreofeducationalchangehavepositivelyimpactedthequalityofeducationsystems.FurtheranalysisofPISAdatainFinlandindicatesthatfactorsrelatedto domicile and place of living also play visible roles in Finland in explaining thevariationsinassessedstudentlearningandstudents’futurecareerpathsaswell(Välijärvi,2008). Apparently, the variations in student performance caused by students’socioeconomic factors are increasing. There is growing skepticism among teachers andresearchersinFinlandregardinglimitationsthatinternationalstudentassessmentsimposeontheirdefinitionofstudentperformanceandeducationalsuccess.

CombiningPISAresultswithotherglobaleducation indicatorsandnationalsurveysofpeople’ssatisfactionwithschools,itissafetoconcludethatFinland’seducationsystemis in very good condition by international standards. This is obviously a challenge toFinnisheducationpolicymakersandtotheschoolimprovementcommunity—afterall,itisdifficulttorenewasystemthatisalreadyperformingwell.PerhapsthisexplainstheratherconservativemodewhenitcomestoreformingprimaryandsecondaryschoolsinFinland

recently.Structural reformshave focusedon regulatory changes related to the lengthofcompulsory education, administration of postsecondary education, and the efficiency ofthe entire education system. In the Finnish school system, multiculturalism, specialeducation, and abolishing the administrative line between primary and lower-secondaryschoolshavebeenthemainareasofdevelopmentsincetheyear2000.Anothersignificantchange since the beginning of 2013 has been tomove early childhood education awayfrom social issues administration to make it an integral part of the Finnish educationsystem. The National Curriculum Frameworks for comprehensive and upper-secondarygeneraleducationwererevisedinearly2000sbutnosignificantchangeswereintroduced.ThenextrenewedNationalCurriculumFrameworkforBasicSchoolandGeneralUpper-SecondarySchoolwillbeput intoeffectduring the2016–2017schoolyear.A focusonenhancedefficiencyandproductivityhasledtoshrinkingschoolbudgetsinmanypartsofthecountry,whichmeansthereisnowaneedtodomoreorthesameasbeforewithfewerresources.Manypractitioners,amongthemschoolleadersandteacherleaders,havebeenwaiting for new directions in school improvement to make up for these negativedevelopments in resourcing. Some of the possible trends for Finnish primary andsecondaryeducationwillbediscussedinChapter5.

THEFINNISHEDUCATIONSYSTEMIN2015

Oneofthekeymessagesofthisbookisthatunlikemanyothercontemporarysystemsofeducation, the Finnish system has not been infected bymarket-based education reformmodels,suchastoughercompetitionbetweenschoolsoverenrollment,standardizationofteachingandlearninginschools,andhigh-stakestestingpolicies.ThemainreasonforthisisthattheeducationcommunityinFinlandhasremainedunconvincedthatthesegloballyfashionable directions in improving education would be good for Finnish schools. Theultimate success of a high-stakes testing policy is whether it positively affects studentlearning,notwhetherit increasesstudentscoresonaparticular test(Amrein&Berliner,2002). If student learning remainsunaffected,or if testing leads tobiased teachingas itincreasinglydoesnowadays inmanypartsof theworld, thevalidityofsuchhigh-stakestestsmust bequestioned.Finnish education authorities and especially teachershavenotbeenconvincedthatfrequentexternalcensus-basedtestingandstrongeraccountabilityforteacherswouldbebeneficialtostudentsandtheirlearning.

Educationpoliciesarenecessarilyintertwinedwithothersocialpolicies,andwiththeoverallpoliticalcultureofanation.ThekeysuccessfactorinFinland’sdevelopmentofasuccessfulknowledgeeconomywithgoodgovernanceandarespectededucationsystemhas been its ability to reach broad consensus on most major issues concerning futuredirectionsforFinlandasanation.TheconclusionisthatFinlandseemstodoparticularlywellinimplementingandmaintainingthepoliciesandpracticesthatconstitutesustainableleadership and change (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006). Education in Finland is seen as apublicgoodandthereforehasastrongnation-buildingfunction.

EducationpoliciesdesignedtoraisestudentachievementinFinlandhaveputastrongaccent on teaching and learning by encouraging schools to craft optimal learningenvironmentsandestablishinstructionalcontentthatwillhelpstudentsreachthegeneralgoals of schooling. This is the opposite of policies in many other countries whereexternallydesigneddirectivesareimposeduponschools,suchastheCommonCoreState

Standards in the United States, the National Standards in New Zealand, or the NewEducationStandardsinGermany.ItwasassumedveryearlyinFinland’sreformprocessthat teachers and teachingare thekeyelements thatmakeadifference inwhat studentslearn in school, not standards, assessment, or alternative instructional programs.As thelevelofteacherprofessionalismgraduallyincreasedinFinnishschoolsduringthe1990s,the prevalence of powerful teaching methods and pedagogical classroom and schooldesignsincreased.AnewflexibilitywithintheFinnisheducationsystemenabledschoolsto learn from one another and thus make their best practices universal by adoptinginnovativeapproaches toorganize schooling. It alsoencouraged teachersandschools tocontinuetoexpandtheirrepertoiresofteachingmethods,andtoindividualizeteachinginorder tomeet the needs of all students. The structure and the internal dynamics of theeducationsysteminFinlandareillustratedinFigure1.5.

Sincethebeginningof2013,earlychildhoodeducationhasbeenpartoftheFinnisheducationsystem.Untilthen,itfellundertheumbrellaofsocialandhealthadministration.In Finland, early childhood education refers to the education and care children receivebeforetheystartprimaryschoolattheageof7.Beforetheygotoschool,allchildrenhavethesubjectiverighttodaycare,eitherfamily-basedorinkindergarten.Finnisheducationsystem offers, as Figure 1.5 shows, all children an opportunity to attend voluntarypreschoolattheageof6.Let’stakeacloserlookatwhatFinnishchildrendobeforetheyenterprimaryschool.

Figure1.5.TheEducationSysteminFinlandin2015

TheFinnishsocialwelfaresystemprovidesparentsofnewbornstherighttoparentalleavetobeathomewiththebaby.Mothersnormallystartmaternityleaveabout2monthspriortotheirduedateandareentitledtocontinuethatleaveforabout5monthsafterthechild’s birth.Maternity leave is followed by parental leave,which should be shared bybothparents and can last about 8months.Parentswill continue to receive their normalmonthly salaries during these leaves through the State Insurance Institution of Finland(Kela). Fathers are continuously encouraged to take part in parental leave and to spendtimeathomewithfamily.

Thevastmajorityofchildrenstayhomeduringtheirfirstyear.Thechild’srighttodaycaremeans that themunicipality where the family lives is responsible for offering thechildaplaceinkindergartenorfamily-baseddaycare.Therearethreetypesofdaycareoptionsforthechild:municipaldaycare,privatelyprovideddaycare,andprivatefamily-baseddaycare.AccordingtotheNationalInstituteforHealthandWelfarein2012,6about40%of1-to2-year-oldsand75%of3-to5-year-oldsareindaycare.Optionalpreschoolattheageof6isverycommon,andsome98%ofchildrenareenrolled.Preschoolhoursarenormallyonlyheld in themorning,whichmeans that70%of6-year-oldsare indaycareintheafternoons.Sixty-threepercentofall1-to6-year-oldchildreninFinlandarein

daycare,with92%oftheseinpublickindergartensorfamily-baseddaycareand8%inpubliclysubsidizedprivatedaycare.

The new administrative system that makes early childhood education part of theeducation system will help provide better-coordinated and higher-quality services tochildrenandfamilies.Probablymost important, therewillbeamoreseamless transitionfrom early childhood to preschool and primary school for those children who requirespecial support. In 2014, one-third of the teaching staff working in kindergartens inFinlandhasahighereducationdegree.MostofthemstudyinthedepartmentsofteachereducationwhereallotherteachersareeducatedinFinland.ThereisashortageofqualifiedkindergartenteachersatthemomentandthereforetheMinistryofEducationandCulture,whichregulatesthenumberofnewstudentsintheuniversities,istemporarilyincreasingtheintakeofnewkindergartenteachereducationprograms.

Whathappensinkindergartensandpreschoolsissteeredbynationalframeworksforearlychildhoodcareandpreschooleducation.Themainaimofearlychildhoodeducationfor1-to5-year-oldsistoenhancethehealthandwell-beingofeachchild.TheNationalFramework for the Early Years of 2005 states that educators in kindergartens areresponsiblefor:

1. enhancingthepersonalwell-beingofchildren;2. enforcingbehaviorsandhabitsthattakeintoaccountotherpeople;and3. increasingindividualautonomygradually.

Theseguidelinesalsostresstheimportanceofthejoyoflearning,enrichinglanguageandcommunication,andtheroleofplayinchildren’sdevelopmentandgrowth.Thecorecontentof early childhoodeducation is ledby sixorientations:mathematical, scientific,historical,aesthetic,ethical,and religious.Thesearenotcontentareas thatare taught tochildrenbut,rather,broaderframeworkswithinwhichactionforchildrenwillbeplanned.Kindergarten in Finland doesn’t focus on preparing children for school academically.Instead, the main goal is to make sure that all children are happy and responsibleindividuals. It is a common practice for all 1- to 5-year-olds to nap every day in theafternoon.

Similarly, preprimary school is guided by the National Framework for PreprimaryEducation, which stipulates the overall goals of preprimary education and specificeducational objectives. Again, the aim of preprimary school in Finland is not “schoolreadiness”butratherto“promotechildren’sgrowthintohumaneindividualsandethicallyresponsible members of society by guiding them towards responsible action andcompliance with generally accepted rules and towards appreciation for other people”(National Board of Education, 2010). This framework emphasizes the development ofthinking in relation to language and communication, mathematics, ethics and religion,environmentalissues,physicaldevelopment,andartsandculture.Allthesedomainsmustbehandledinawaythatsupportschildren’sholisticgrowthandmustbediscussedwithchildren’sparents.“Schoolreadiness”inFinlandmeansthatallschoolsmustbereadytoreceive all children just as they are. This is one reasonwhy Finland’s early childhoodeducation, including preschool, doesn’t prioritize reading, writing, and mathematics ascoreskillstodeterminechildren’ssuccessfulentryintoprimaryschool.

What the scheme shown in Figure 1.5 is not able to reveal are the principles ofindividualizededucationandthesystematiccareofallchildrenthataretypicalinFinnishschools today.For example, schools are encouraged tomaintain strong support systemsfor teaching and learning—nutritious, free school meals for all pupils, health services,psychological counseling, and student guidance are normal practices in every school.AnotherstrongelementoftheeducationsysteminFinlandisabuilt-innetworkofschoolsandcommunitiesofteachersinmunicipalitiesandschoolimprovementinitiatives.Theseprinciplesmake theFinnish school system—as I see it—oneof themost individualizedschoolsystemsintheworld.AndreasSchleicher(2006),whoisdirectoroftheeducationdepartment and the chief of PISA at the OECD, concluded in his analysis of Finnisheducationthatbuildingnetworksamongschoolstostimulateandspreadinnovationhelpsexplain Finland’s success in making “strong school performance a consistent andpredictable outcome throughout the education system, with less than 5% variation instudent performance between schools” (p. 9). The question is:Has Finland always hadsuch a well-performing education system? If the answer is no, then it is worth askinganotherquestion:WhatfactorshavecontributedtoFinland’seducationalimprovement?

CHAPTER2

TheFinnishParadoxLessIsMore

Ifeverybodythinksthesameway,nobodythinksverymuch.

—Mygrandmother’sadvicetomeforsucceedinginlife

Today Finland is regarded as one of theworld’smost literate societies.As a nation ofmodestpeople,Finlandneveractually intendedtobe thebest in theworld ineducation.Finnsliketocompete,butcollaborationisamoretypicalcharacteristicofthisnation.Intheearly1990swhenFinnisheducationwasknowninternationallyasaverage,theFinnishministerofeducationvisitedhercolleague inneighboringSweden tohear,amongotherthings,thatbytheendofthatdecadetheSwedisheducationsystemwouldbethebestintheworld. The Finnishminister replied that the Finns’ goal ismuchmoremodest thanthat.“Forus,”shesaid,“it’senoughtobeaheadofSweden.”Thisepisodeisanexampleof the close sibling-like relationships and coexistence between Finland and Sweden. Infact, companionship is more common than rivalry between these neighboring Nordicnations,whichsharemanyvaluesandprinciplesintheireducationsystemsandsocieties.

This chapter answers questions such as: Has the Finnish education system alwaysbeena topperformer?Whatdowemeanbyasuccessfuleducationsystem?Howmuchdoes homogeneous society or culture explain Finland’s good educational performance?This chapter also describes how Finland has been able to improve participation ineducation, creating equal educational opportunities for all, andhow it has spreadgood-quality teaching tomost schools and classroomswithmodest overall cost. Rather thanincreasing timefor teachingandlearning, testingstudentsmorefrequently,and insistingthat students work harder on their homework, Finland has done the opposite, as thischapter illustrates. The key lesson fromFinland is: There are alternativeways to buildgood public education systems that differ from those commonly offered in worldeducationpolicyforums.

FROMPERIPHERYTOLIMELIGHT

In the 1980s the Finnish education system had only a few features that attracted anyinterest among international educators.Many aspects of education policywere adoptedfromFinland’swealthierwesternneighbor,Sweden.Ininternationalcomparisons,Finnisheducationwasexceptionalononlyoneaccount:Finnish10-year-oldswereamongthebestreadersintheworld(Allerup&Medjing,2003;Elley,1992).Otherthanthat,internationaleducationindicatorsleftFinlandintheshadowsoftraditionaleducationsuperpowerssuchasSweden,England,theUnitedStates,andGermany.WhatisnoteworthyisthatFinlandhas been able to upgrade human capital by transforming its education system frommediocre tooneof thebest internationalperformers ina relativelyshortperiodof time.Thissuccesshasbeenachievedthrougheducationpoliciesthatdifferfromthosefoundinmanyothernations. Indeed, someofFinland’s educational reformpolicies appear tobe

paradoxes because they depart so clearly from global educational reform thinking thatofteninsistsuponhard-handcontrol,moredata, tougheraccountability,andharderworkfromallinvolvedinschooling.

When theOECDcountries in themid-1990s first discussed the need to create newmetrics and measurements to compare educational performance in the most developedcountries,Finnishauthoritieswereconcernedaboutwhether thiswasagood idea.TheyquestionedwhetherafairsinglemeasureforsuchadiversesetofcountriesandeconomiesastheUnitedStates,Japan,Italy,andFinland,forexample,wouldbepossibleinthefirstplace.Theywerealsoafraidthatthisnewstudentassessmentprogramwouldbecomeaninternationalleaguetable,rankingentireeducationsystemsfromthebesttotheworstbyusing one single criterion. These views were overruled and the inauguration of theProgramme for International Student Assessment (PISA) was set for the year 2000.Becausethemassiveamountofdatafromthe28countriesthatwerethenOECDmembersand4partnercountries tooksometimetoprocess, thefirstresultswerescheduledtobereleasedinDecember2001.

PISAisastandardizedassessment thatmeasures theextent towhichstudentsat theendofcompulsoryeducationcanapplytheirknowledgetoreal-lifesituationsandhowfartheyareequippedforfullparticipationinsociety.OECDdescribestheessenceofPISA(atpisa.oecd.org):

Sincetheyear2000,everythreeyears,fifteen-year-oldstudentsfromrandomlyselectedschoolsworldwidetaketestsinthekeysubjects:reading,mathematicsandscience,withafocusononesubjectineachyearofassessment.Thestudentstakeatestthatlasts2hours.Thetestsareamixtureofopen-endedandmultiple-choicequestionsthatareorganizedingroupsbasedonapassagesettingoutareal-lifesituation.

More than70countries (andcities)havesignedup to takepart in the test for2015thatwill focus on science. It is important to keep inmind that PISA is a sample-basedassessment that uses statistical methodology to analyze collected data to makegeneralizations. PISA is methodologically similar to other international studentassessments, such asTIMSS andPIRLS, but itmeasures different types of learning, asmentionedabove.

Prior to the first cycle of the PISA in 2000, many countries thought that theireducationsystemswereworld-classandthatstudentsintheirschoolswerebetterlearnersthanthoseelsewhere.Educationalindicatorsabouteducationalattainment,spending,andcollege graduation rates, as well as academic competitions such as the InternationalOlympiadsinmathematics,physics,andchemistry(andlaterinsubjectssuchascomputerscience, biology, and philosophy), had given these nations reason to celebrate therespectiveperformancesoftheirschoolsystems.Inacademicscholarlycompetitions,highschool–aged students compete to demonstrate advanced-level knowledge in their fields.Naturally, those education systems that have established effective selection systems toidentifytalentsandspecialabilitiesearlyonandthenprovidegiftedstudentswithoptimallearningopportunitieshavesucceededwell in thesegames.Population-richnationswithlargenumbersofstudents,suchasChina,theUnitedStates,andtheformerSovietUnion,haveacquiredreputationsashigh-performingeducationnationsonthebasisofacademicOlympiads. Interestingly, severalCentral andEasternEuropean countries—among themHungary,Romania, andBulgaria—are ranked high in the overall league tables of theseOlympiads.Table2.1 illustrates the top12countries inmathematicsOlympiadsand the

positionofFinlandandsomeofitsneighborsamongthembetween1959and2013.

Success in these academicOlympiadswas often used as a proxy for the quality ofnational educational systems. Even if Finnish students’ performance in mathematics isadjustedforpopulationsize,therelativepositionofFinlandhasfluctuatedbetween25thand35thintheoverallglobalranklist.Until2001—andinsomecircles,forquitesometimeafterthat—acommonconceptioninFinlandwasthatthelevelofmathematicalandscientificknowledgeandskillsofFinnishstudentswasinternationallymodest,atbest.

Table2.1.FinnishUpper-SecondarySchoolStudents inMathematicsOlympiadsComparedwiththeirPeers inSelectedCountriesin1959–2013

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

In2008,OECDlaunched theTeachingandLearning InternationalSurvey (TALIS),whichexploredvariousaspectsofteachingandlearningin24participatingcountries.Thesecond cycle ofTALISwas conducted in 2013 in 34 countries. Finland and theUnitedStatesdidnotparticipate in2008,butbothdidso in2013.TALISasksa representativesampleof teachersandschoolprincipals ineachcountryabout theirworkingconditionsand learning environments. According to the OECD (2014b, p. 26), “[TALIS] aims toprovide valid, timely and comparable information to help countries review and definepolicies for developing a high-quality teaching profession.” This survey, OECD says,enables teachers and school leaders to provide input into educational policy anddevelopment inkey areas.TALIS results arebasedonopinions, views, andperceptionsfromteachersandschoolprincipals.Datathatarecollectedforthesesurveysarethereforesubjective.They include teachers’andschoolprincipals’voices,whichsometimesdifferfromtheobjectivelycollecteddatainresearchprojects.SomefindingsofTALIS2013arediscussedinthefollowingchapters.

AsFinlandattractsglobalattentionduetoitshigh-performingeducationsystem,itisworthaskingwhethertherehasreallybeenanyprogressintheperformanceofitsstudentssince the 1970s. If such progress in any terms can be reliably identified, then,consequently, thequestionbecomes:What factorsmightbebehindsuccessfuleducationreform?Wheneducation systemsarecompared internationally, it is important tohaveabroaderperspectivethanjuststudentachievement.WhatissignificantfromthisanalysisisthesteadyprogressFinlandhasmadeduringthepast3decadeswithinfourmaindomains:

1. Increasedlevelsofeducationalattainmentoftheadultpopulation2. Widespreadequityintermsoflearningoutcomesandperformanceofschools3. Improvedstudentlearningasmeasuredbyinternationalstudentassessments4. Efficiencyinusinghumanandfinancialresources,almostsolelyfrompublicsources

Letusnexttakealookateachofthesedomainsinmoredetail.

EDUCATIONALATTAINMENT

Finland’s people remained rather poorly educated until the 1960s. Education wasaccessibleonlytothosewhocouldafforditandwhohappenedtoliveclosetoagrammarschool and university. When peruskoulu was launched in the early 1970s, for three-quartersofadultFinns,basicschoolwastheonlyformofeducationtheyhadcompleted.Holdinganacademicdegreewasrare,asonly7%ofFinnsheldsomekindofuniversitydegree. Overall progress since 1970 in educational attainment by the Finnish adultpopulation(15yearsandolder)isshowninFigure2.1.Thecurrentsituationiscongruentwithatypicalprofileoftheeducationalattainmentpyramidinadvancedsocieties,whereabout30%ofthepopulationhashighereducationalattainmentsandabout40%areupper-secondaryeducationdegreeholders.

Figure2.1indicatesthattherehasbeensteadygrowthinparticipationinalllevelsofeducationinFinlandsince1970.Thegrowthwasespeciallyrapidintheupper-secondarysectorinthe1980sand,then,withinthehigherandadulteducationsectorsinthe1990sanduptothepresent.PoliciesthathavedrivenFinnisheducationreformsince1970haveprioritizedcreatingequalopportunitiesforallchildrentoagoodeducation,improvingthequalityofteachingandlearning,andincreasingparticipationwithinalleducationallevelsacrossFinnishsociety.Asaresult,eachyearmorethan99%oftheagecohortsuccessfullycompletes compulsory education, about 95% continue their formal education in upper-secondary schoolsor in theadditional10thgradeofperuskoulu (3%) immediatelyaftergraduation, and 95% of those starting upper-secondary education eventually graduate,whichisalicensetohighereducation(StatisticsFinland,n.d.a).

AccordingtoOECD,two-thirdsoftheFinnishadultpopulationparticipatedinformalornon-formaladulteducationprogramsin2012,morethaninanyothercountry(OECD,2014a).Whatissignificantaboutthisexpansionofparticipationineducationisthatithastakenplacewithoutshiftingtheburdenofcoststostudentsortotheirparents.Accordingto recent global education indicators, only 2.4% of Finnish expenditure on educationalinstitutions (at all levels of education) comes from private sources, compared with anaverageof 16.1%of total educational expenditure (OECD,2014a).For example, in theUnited States 32.1% and in Canada 23.6% of all funding for educational institutions

comesfromprivatesources.

Figure2.1.LevelofEducationalAttainmentAmongtheFinnishAdultPopulationSince1970

Source:StatisticsFinland(n.d.a).

OECDconductedthefirstcycleoftheProgrammefortheInternationalAssessmentofAdultCompetences (PIAAC)study in24countries, includingFinland, in2012 (OECD,2013h).Thestudyassessedselectedbasicskillsthatadultsneedindifferentlifesituations,includingwork and everyday living.Reading literacy, numeracy, and practical problemsolving in technology-rich environments form themain areasof thePIAACstudy.Thisstudy provides further information about the quality of educational attainment amongadult Finns, and how they are likely to cope with different issues as citizens and inworkinglife.

So,what does PIAAC2012 tell about adult Finns’ knowledge and skills related toeverydaylife?TheaveragereadingliteracyskillsinFinlandareexcellent.OnlyJapanhasbetter overall adult competences. Two out of three adults in Finland are either good orexcellentreaders.InCanada,justoverhalfandintheUnitedStatesalmosthalfofadultsreachthesesamelevelsinreadingliteracy.ThemathematicalskillsofFinnishadultsareatthe same high international level; 57% of all adult Finns have either good or excellentskillsinnumeracy.Again,JapanwastheonlycountrythatexceededFinlandinnumeracy.InbothCanadaandtheUnitedStates,adults’everydaymathematicsskillsfallbelowtheOECDaverage,withtheproportionofgoodorexcellentnumeracyskillsbeing45%and34%,respectively.InFinland,41%ofadultshavegoodorexcellentproblem-solvingskillsintechnology-richcontexts.Andagain,inCanadaandtheUnitedStates,thenumbersofadults with good or excellent problem-solving skills are 36% and 31%, respectively.Sweden is the only country that did better than Finland in this aspect of adultcompetencies.Finland’sgoodperformanceinPIAAC2012wasinalargedegreethankstotheyoungersegmentofadultsbetweentheagesof20and39.Proficiencyinbasicreading,mathematical,andproblem-solvingskillsisstronglyconnectedtoeducationalbackgroundinallcountriesthatparticipatedinthissurvey,includingFinland.

Finland’s school life expectancy, which predicts the duration of a citizen’s formal

educationattheageof5,isoneofthehighestintheworld,atover20yearsin2013.Thisismainlybecauseeducationispubliclyfinancedandhenceavailabletoall.Thetwotypesof higher education institutions offer a place of study for about two-thirds of the agecohort. Because studying in Finnish universities and polytechnics is tuition-fee free,higher education is an equal opportunity for all thosewhohave successfully completedupper-secondary education. The current challenge in Finnish higher education is toencouragestudentstocompletetheirstudiesfasterthantheydidbeforeandtherebyenterthe labormarket sooner. The government of Finland is introducing new conditions forfinancialaidforstudentsthatareencouragingstudentstograduateontime.Totalmonthlyfinancial aid for higher education students is about 1,000US dollars, ofwhich 55% isgovernment-guaranteed bank loans and the rest is government grant. A student whograduatesontimemaydeductannual interestpaidforherstudent loanfromher incometax.

EQUITYOFOUTCOMES

Peoplesometimes incorrectlyassume thatequity ineducationmeansall studentsshouldbetaughtthesamecurriculum,orshouldachievethesamelearningoutcomesinschool.Thiswas also a commonbelief inFinland for a long time following the equality-basedschoolreformthatwasfirstlaunchedintheearly1970s.Rather,equityineducationmeansthatallstudentsmusthaveaccesstohigh-qualityeducation,regardlessofwheretheylive,whotheirparentsmightbe,orwhatschooltheyattend.Inthissense,equityensuresthatdifferences in educational outcomes are not the result of differences inwealth, income,powerorpossessions—inotherwords,homebackground.

Equity of education systems is measured in international student assessments bycalculating the strengthof the relationshipbetween students’ achievement in schoolandvariousaspectsoftheirhomebackground.OECDusesanindexthat includeseconomic,social,andculturalstatus(ESCS)bycalculatingavalueforequityforeachstudentbasedon parents’ education, occupations, wealth, and some aspects of socioeconomicbackground. In more equitable education systems, students’ learning in school is lessdependenton their familybackground.Countriesvarygreatly in termsofhowmuchofstudentachievementisassociatedwithfamilybackground,justliketheyaredifferentwithregardtostudentachievementinreading,mathematicsandscienceinschool.

EqualityofeducationalopportunityandequityofoutcomesareimportantfeaturesinNordicwelfare states.Theymeanmore than just ensuring that everybodyhas access toschool.InFinland,equitymeanshavingasociallyfairandinclusiveeducationsystemthatprovides everyone with the opportunity to fulfill their intentions and dreams througheducation. As a result of the comprehensive school reform of the 1970s, educationopportunities for good-quality learninghave spread rather evenly acrossFinland. In theearly1970s,atthestartoftheimplementationofthecomprehensiveschoolreform,therewasasignificantachievementgapamongyoungadultsduetoverydifferenteducationalorientationsassociatedwiththeoldparallelsystem(seeFigure1.1).Thisknowledgegapstronglycorrespondedwith thesocioeconomicdividewithinFinnishsocietyat the time.Althoughstudents’learningoutcomesbegantoevenoutbythemid-1980s,thestreamingof pupils according to ability grouping in mathematics and foreign languages kept theachievementgaprelativelywide.

After abolishing streaming in comprehensive school in the mid-1980s and raisinglearning expectations for all students, the achievement gap between low- and high-achieversbegantodecrease.Thismeantthatallpupils,regardlessoftheirsocioeconomicconditions or interests, studied mathematics and foreign languages in the same non-streamedclasses.Earlier,thesesubjectshadthreelevelsofcurriculatowhichpupilswereassignedbasedon their prior academicperformance in these subjects and alsooftenontheirparents’orpeers’influence.

UntilthefirstPISAstudyin2000,itwasnotclearifequality-basededucationpoliciesandheavyinvestmentsinenhancingequitywereactuallyanygoodforraisingthequalityoflearningoutcomesatthesystemlevel.Manythoughtthathavingequalityandequityasthe key drivers in national education policywould prevent the system from cultivatingindividualtalentandtherebyimprovingquality.OneoftheunexpectedaspectsofthefirstPISAfindingswasthatmostoftheeducationsystemswithhighoverallstudentlearningwere also the most equitable. Since then PISA has revealed, among other things, thatFinlandhasthesmallestperformancevariationsamongschools inreading,mathematics,andsciencescalesofallOECDnations(OECD,2001;2004;2007;2010b;2013b).

Calculatinghowmuchofthetotalvariationinstudentperformanceisassociatedwithvariationwithin schools andhowmuchwithbetween-schoolvariation indicates anotheraspect of equity and equality in education systems. Between-school variation inperformanceindicateshowdifferentschoolsarestatisticallyinanygivencountry.IntheNetherlands,Belgium,andGermany, forexample,variationofstudent learningbetweenschools is larger than within schools, which suggest that there is a big gap betweenschools in terms of their performance overall. Figure 2.2 shows performance variancewithinandbetweenschoolsintheOECDcountriesasassessedbythemathematicsscalein 2012 (OECD, 2013b). Across OECD countries, 37% of the overall performancedifferences are observed between schools and 63% within schools. Total variation ofeducationalperformanceasaproportionoftheOECDvariationinFinlandis86%.

AccordingtoFigure2.2,Finlandhasabout6%between-schoolvarianceonthePISAreadingscale,whereastheaveragebetween-schoolvariancesinCanada,theUnitedStates,and the United Kingdom are 18%, 23%, and 30%, respectively. Performance variationbetweendifferentschoolsinFinlandin2012wasatalevelsimilartowhatwasshowninthepreviousPISAcycles.Thefact thatalmostallvariation(orinequality)occurswithinschools, as shown inFigure2.2,means that the remainingdifferences are probablyduemainly to variation in students’ natural talent. Accordingly, variation between schoolsmostlyrelatestosocialinequality.BecausethisisasmallsourceofvariationinFinland,itindicatesthatFinnishschoolssuccessfullydealwithsocialinequalities.Furthermore,thissuggests,asNortonGrubbobservedinhisreviewofequityineducationinFinland,thatFinnisheducationalreformhassucceededinbuildinganequitableeducationsysteminarelatively short time, amain objective of Finland’s education reform agenda set in theearly 1970s (OECD, 2005; Grubb, 2007). Relatively small between-school variation inperformancemeans that inFinland parents rarely areworried about the quality of theirneighborhoodschool.Whilechoosingaschoolotherthantheneighborhoodschoolisanincreasingphenomenon in largerurbanareas inFinland,parentsmostoften look for anordinary,safeschoolfortheirchildren.

Strong emphasis on equity in education gives different meaning to schoolperformanceandhowitismeasured.Standardizedtestinghasbecomethemostcommonwaytomeasureschoolperformanceinmanypartsoftheworld.Test-basedaccountabilityreliesondatafromthesetests.Teachersandadministratorsareheldaccountablefortheirstudents’ learningbasedon thesedata—butnot inFinland.Theabsenceof standardizedtestsinFinlandleavesschoolsresponsibleforassessingstudentachievementthemselves.A high-performing school in Finland is one where all students perform beyondexpectations. Inotherwords, thegreater theequity, thebetter theschool isaccording totheFinnishcriterion.

Figure2.2.VarianceWithinandBetweenSchoolsinStudentMathematicsPerformanceonthe2012PISAStudy

Source:OECD(2013b).

Aneducationalsystemthatisequitableandwherestudentslearnwellisalsoabletoredress theeffectsofbroadersocialandeconomicinequalities.Since the1970s,Finnisheducationpolicieshavefosteredhighoveralllevelsofstudentachievementwhilelimitingthe influenceof studentbackgroundson learningoutcomesand therebyattainingahighlevel of equity. Some havewonderedwhy Finns think this is so important. Inequity ineducationalsystemsinFinlandisseenasparticularlyproblematicbecauseitdemonstratesa failure to utilize students’ cognitive potential fully.As a small nation, Finland cannotleaveanychildbehind.Evidencealsoshowsthatstrengtheningequityineducationcanbecost-beneficial. The OECD, after examining the four cycles of PISA data, recentlyconcludedthatthehighest-performingeducationsystemsacrossOECDnationsarethosethat combine quality with equity (OECD, 2012). Other research (Cunha & Heckman,2010) demonstrates that investing as early as possible in high-quality education for allstudents, and directing additional resources toward the most disadvantaged students asearly as possible, is a cost-effective strategy that will produce the greatest impact onimprovingoverallacademicperformance.

HowhasFinlandturnedthesefindingsintopracticesthatenhanceequityinschools?TheuniversalrightthatallFinnishchildrenhavetohigh-qualityearlychildhoodeducationis one thing. The other, equally important, is the inclusion of children with specialeducational needs inmainstream schooling, which is an important guiding principle ofFinnish education. All schools must have special education teachers and classroomassistantswhocanhelpchildrenwithspecialneeds.Therearenotabledifferencesbetweenhowspecial education is defined anddelivered inFinland and inmanyother countries,including the United States. Most important, special education in Finland is for allstudents,basedontheassumptionthatatsomepointsofourlivesallofusneedsupportandhelptomoveforward.

First, in Finland, special education is defined primarily as addressing difficultiesrelatedtolearning,suchasreadingandwriting,andlearningdifficultiesinmathematicsorforeignlanguages.IntheUnitedStatesandmanyothernations,studentsareidentifiedaspossessing special education needs if theymeet criteria that often refer to a variety ofdisabling conditions, such as sensory and speech-language impairments, intellectualdisabilities,andbehavioraldifficulties.

Second, inFinland special educationneeds are identified and addressed as early aspossible;preventionisacommonstrategywithinspecialeducation.Thismeansthatthereis a larger number of special education children in Finland compared with the UnitedStates or other nations, especially during the early years of schooling. In Finnishcomprehensiveschools,correspondingtoK–9educationintheUnitedStates,almostone-thirdofallpupilswereinpart-orfull-timespecialeducationin2012.

Finally,thenewspecialeducationsysteminFinlandsince2011isdefinedunderthetitleLearningandSchoolingSupport,andallspecialeducationstudentsare increasinglyintegratedintoregularclassrooms.Therearethreecategoriesofsupportprovidedtothosepupils with special needs: (1) general support, (2) intensified support, and (3) specialsupport. The first includes actions by the regular classroom teacher in terms ofdifferentiationaswellaseffortsbytheschooltocopewithstudentdiversity.Thesecondcategory consists of remedial support by the teacher, co-teaching with the special

education teacher, and individual or small-group learning with a part-time specialeducationteacher.Thethirdcategoryincludesawiderangeofspecialeducationservices,fromfull-timegeneraleducationtoaplacementinaspecialinstitution.Allstudentsinthiscategory are assigned an Individual Learning Plan that takes into account thecharacteristics of each learner and thereby personalizes learning tomeet each learner’sabilities. As a consequence of this renewed special education policy, the number ofstudents in intensifiedsupporthas increasedand in special supportdecreased. In schoolyear 2013–2014 in peruskoulu, 6.5% received intensified support and 7.3% specialsupport. In 2013, about 22%of all students inperuskouluwere in part-time general orintensified support. Total percentage of students in special education in Finnishperuskouluin2013was28%,accordingtoStatisticsFinland.

ManybelievethatFinland’sspecialeducationsystemisoneofthosekeyfactorsthatexplain theworld-class results in achievement and equityofFinland’s school system inrecentinternationalstudies.Mypersonalexperience,basedonworkingwithandvisitinghundreds of Finnish schools, is thatmost schools pay very particular attention to thosechildrenwhoneedmorehelptobecomesuccessful,comparedwithotherstudents.ManyteachersandadministratorswhohavevisitedFinnishschoolsthinkthesameway,buttheyare often stuck in the middle of excellence versus equity quandaries due to externaldemands and regulations in their own countries. Standardized testing that comparesindividuals to statistical averages, competition that leaves weaker students behind, andmerit-based pay for teachers all jeopardize schools’ efforts to enhance equity. None ofthesefactorscurrentlyexistsintheFinnisheducationsystem.

At thedawnofperuskoulu reform,Finlandadopteda strategyof early interventionandpreventiontohelpthoseindividualswithspecialeducationalneedsofsomekind.Thismeans that possible learning and development deficits are diagnosed during earlychildhood development and care, before children enter school. In the early years ofprimaryschool,intensivespecialsupport—mostlyinreading,writing,andarithmetic—isofferedtoallchildrenwhohavemajororminorspecialneeds.Asaresult,theproportionof students in special education in Finland in the early grades of primary school isrelativelyhigherthaninmostothercountries.AsFigure2.3shows,thenumberofstudentswhoreceivespecialsupportinschoolinFinlanddeclinesbytheendofprimaryschoolandthen slightly increases as students move to subject-based lower-secondary school. Thereasonfortheincreasedneedforspecialsupportinlower-secondaryschoolinFinlandisthat the unified curriculum sets certain expectations for all students, regardless of theirabilities or prior learning.The common strategy internationally is to repair problems inprimaryandlower-secondaryeducationastheyoccurratherthantrytopreventthemfromhappening (Itkonen& Jahnukainen, 2007).Countries that employ the strategy of repairhave an increasing relative number of special-needs students throughout primary andlower-secondaryeducation,asFigure2.3shows.

ThehighlyequitableeducationsysteminFinlandisnotaresultofeducationalfactorsalone. Basic structures of the Finnish welfare state play a crucial role in providing allchildrenandtheirfamilieswithequitableconditionsforstartingasuccessfuleducationalpathat theageof7.Extendedparental leave,comprehensiveandpreventivehealthcarefor all infants and their mothers, and systematic monitoring of children’s physical andmental development are accessible to everybody regardless of life circumstances or

wealth.Earlychildhoodeducation,voluntaryfreepreschoolthatisattendedbysome98%of six-year-olds, comprehensive health services, and preventive measures to identifypossible learning and development difficulties before children start schooling areaccessible to everyone. Finnish schools also provide each childwith a free and healthyluncheveryday, regardlessof theirhomesocioeconomicsituation.Childpoverty isataverylowlevel—about5%ofthechildpopulation,comparedwithover23%intheUnitedStatesand13%inCanada.Inorder topreventprimaryschoolpupilsfrombeingrankedaccording to their educational performance in schools, grade-based assessments are notnormallyusedduringthefirst5yearsofperuskoulu.Thishasbeenanimportantprinciplein developing elementary education in Finland: Structural elements that cause studentfailure in schools should be removed. That iswhy grade retention and overreliance onmeasured academic performance, which is discussed next, have gradually vanished inFinnishschools.

Figure2.3.EstimatedRelativeNumberofStudentsinPart-TimeorFull-TimeSpecialEducationinFinlandandOtherCountriesDuringPrimaryandLower-SecondaryEducation

STUDENTLEARNING

Theultimatecriterionof thequalityofanationaleducationsystemishowwellstudentslearnwhattheyareexpectedtolearn.Internationalcomparisonsofeducationsystemsputastrongemphasisonscoresinstandardizedachievementtests.Althoughitisdifficulttocomparestudents’learningoutcomestodaywiththosein1980,someevidenceofprogressinstudentachievementinFinlandcanbeofferedusingIEA(InternationalAssociationfortheEvaluationofEducationalAchievement)studies,andfromresearchrecordssincethe1970s (Kupari & Välijärvi, 2005; Martin et al., 2000; Robitaille & Garden, 1989).Becauseitisimpossibletoconcludewhethertherehasbeenprogressinstudentlearningingeneral,letuslookatsomeschoolsubjectsindividuallyinstead.

Mathematicsisoftenusedasaproxyforgeneralacademiceducationalperformance.ThestudiesavailableincludetheSecondInternationalMathematicsStudy(SIMS)in1981(8th grade, 20 nations), Trends inMathematics and Science Repeat Study (TIMSS) in1999andTIMSS2011(4thand8thgrades),andfivePISAsurveyssince2000(15-year-olds). These are the international student assessment studies in which Finland hasparticipatedsince1980.Becausethenationsparticipatingineachinternationalsurveyarenot the same and the scope of IEA and OECD surveys are different, the internationalaverageasabenchmarkingvaluedoesnotalwaysprovideafullycomparableorcoherent

picture.

Table 2.2 shows Finland’s performance in international student assessment studiessincetheearly1960swhentheFirstInternationalMathematicsStudywaslaunched.Thesestudies normally compare student achievement in reading comprehension,mathematics,and science at three points of education: at the end of elementary school (age 10), inlower-secondary school (age 14), and in upper-secondary school (age 17). Finnishstudents’performanceontheSecondInternationalMathematicsStudy(publishedin1981)was, in all areas of mathematics, at the international average. The national averageperformanceofFinlandwasclearlybehindthatofHungary,theNetherlandsandJapaninlower-andupper-secondaryeducation.In1999,theThirdInternationalMathematicsandScience Study ranked Finland 10th in mathematics and 14th in science among 38participatingcountries.InTIMSS2011,Finnish4th-and8th-graderswererankedeighthofallparticipatingcountriesandoneof thebesteducationnationsoutsideofEastAsia.SincethefirstcycleofPISAin2000,Finlandhasbeenoneofthetop-performingnationsin mathematics among all OECDmember states. Progress has been similar in sciencesince the Second International Science Study in the early 1980s. It is noteworthy thatFinnishstudentshavealwaysperformedwellinternationallyinreading:Finnish4th-gradestudentswerethebestreadersintheReadingLiteracyStudyinthelate1980sandFinnish15-year-oldsachievedtoprankingsinallfourPISAcycles.

IEApublishedits2011resultsof4th-and8th-gradestudentachievement inreading(PIRLS) and mathematics and science (TIMSS) in December 2012. Finnish 4th-gradepupils tookpart in reading literacy tests for the first time since IEA’sReadingLiteracyStudy in 1988. Finland had opted out ofTIMSS after a 1999 repeater study because itjoinedPISAin2000.Inthelate1980sReadingLiteracyStudy,Finnish4th-gradepupilswere the best readers of all 32 participating countries. TIMSS 1999, which measuredmathematicsandscience, includedarepresentativesampleofFinnish7th-gradestudentsthat deviates from normal procedure of IEA, which normally includes a representativesampleof4thand8th-grade students.The resultsof the1999TIMSSstudyshowed thatamong38participatingcountries,Finnishstudentsweredoingwellabovetheinternationalaverage, and among participating OECD countries, Finnish students were close to theOECDaverage.

Table2.2.PerformanceofFinnishStudentsinInternationalStudentAssessmentStudiesSincetheEarly1960s

The release of TIMSS and PIRLS results in 2012 receivedmuch less internationalmediaattentionthanwhenPISAstudieswerepublishedin2013.1Onemajordifferenceinthesetwotypesofinternationalstudentassessmentsisthatall34OECDmembercountriestakepartinPISA,whereasonlysomeofthemareincludedinPIRLSandTIMSS.In2011,PIRLScovered48andTIMSS63countriesorregionsaroundtheworld.Overall,FinnishstudentswereclosetothetopinallPIRLSandTIMSSscalesin2011.Finnish4th-gradepupilsweresecondinreadingandthirdinscience.Inmathematics,Finnish4th-and8th-grade students were eighth overall. IEA’s TIMSS and PISA 2011 studies suggest thatFinnishstudentsareclose to theworld’s topperformers inallmeasuredschoolsubjects.However,themainconcernthatthesestudiesalsorevealisalowlevelofmotivationandengagementamongstudentsinFinnishschools.

What might explain this evident improvement in student achievement in Finnishschools on the international student assessments since the 1980s?There has been someresearch on this question, but it has producedmore speculation andqualitative analysisthanreliableanswers(Hautamäkietal.,2008;Linnakylä,2004;Ofsted,2010;Välijärvietal., 2007). Three possible explanations appear. First, mathematics teaching is stronglyembedded in curriculum design and teacher education in Finnish primary schools. For

example,intheUniversityofHelsinkieachyearabout15%ofstudentsinprimaryschoolteachereducationprogramsspecializeinteachingmathematics.Thisallowsthemtoteachmathematicsinlower-secondaryschoolsaswell.Asaconsequence,mostprimaryschoolsinFinlandhaveprofessionalswhounderstandthenatureofteachingandlearning—aswellasassessing—mathematics.Second,both teachereducationandmathematicscurriculuminFinlandhaveastrongfocusonproblemsolving,therebylinkingmathematicstotherealworld. Mathematics tasks on PISA tests are based on problem solving and usingmathematics in new situations rather than showing mastery of curriculum and syllabi.Third,theeducationofmathematicsteachersinFinlandisbasedonsubjectdidacticsandclosecollaborationbetweenthefacultyofmathematicsandthefacultyofeducation.Thisguaranteesthatnewlytrainedteacherswithmaster’sdegreeshaveasystemicknowledgeandunderstandingofhowmathematicsislearnedandtaught.Bothfacultieshaveasharedresponsibility for teacher education that reinforces the professional competences ofmathematicsteachers.

PISAisincreasinglybeingadoptedasaglobalmeasuretobenchmarknations’studentachievement at the end of compulsory education. All 34 OECD member nationsparticipate in these triannualassessmentsof reading,mathematics,andscience literaciesof 15-year-olds.There is also an increasing number of countries and jurisdictions (e.g.,EastAsiancities)takingpartinthisstudy.PISAfocusesonyoungpeople’sabilitytousetheirknowledgeandskillstomeetreal-lifechallenges.PISAusestheconceptofliteracyto refer to “students’ capacity to apply knowledge and skills in key subjects, and toanalyse,reasonandcommunicateeffectivelyastheyidentify,interpretandsolveproblemsinavarietyofsituations”(OECD,2013a,p.24). It isnoteworthythatPISAisbasedontestingasampleof15-year-oldstudentsineachparticipatingcountry,notallthestudents.PISA results are therefore an outcome of complicated statistical calculations that areexplainedinthetechnicaldocumentsavailableontheirwebsite(www.pisa.oecd.org).

FinlandwasthetopoverallperformeramongtheOECDcountriesin2000and2003PISAstudies,andtheonlyonethatwasabletoimproveperformance.Inthe2006PISAsurvey, Finland maintained its high performance in all assessed areas of studentachievement. In science, the main focus of the PISA 2006 survey, Finnish studentsoutperformed their peers in all 56 countries, some of which are shown in Figure 2.4(OECD, 2007). In the 2009 PISA study, Finlandwas again the best-performingOECDcountry,withhighoveralleducationalperformanceandequitablelearningoutcomeswithrelativelylowcost.Significantinthisnationallearningprofileisarelativelylargenumberofbestperformers(level6)andasmallproportionoflowachievers(level1andbelow).MorethanhalfofFinnishstudentsreachedlevel4orhigherincomparisontotheUnitedStates, where approximately one quarter of all students was able to do the same. TheCanadianprovincesAlberta,BritishColumbia,Ontario,andQuebecalsohavemorethan40%ofstudentsshowingatleastlevel4performance.

ThefifthPISAcyclein2012confirmedtheweaksignalthatthepreviouscyclehadsent to the Finns: Student achievement in this international ranking had continued todecline. In PISA 2009, reading slid 11 points from the 2006 results, from 547 to 536;math,7points,from548to541;andscience,9points,from563to554.Nationalstudentassessments and academic research in Finland had showed already, before PISA 2012becamepublic, thatstudents’knowledgeandskills inreadingandmathematicswerenot

what they used to be. A study from theUniversity of Helsinki that compared learningoutcomesinperuskouluin2001and2012foundasignificantdropin15-year-oldstudents’learningofskills(Hautamäkietal.,2013).PISA2012thereforerevealednobigsurprisesin Finland. The score in reading dropped 12 points since the last administration of theexam3yearsearlier,from536to524;inmath,thescoredropped22pointsfrom541to519;andinscience,itdropped9points,from554to545(OECD,2013a).

Figure2.4.PercentageofStudentsatEachProficiencyLevelonthePISA2006ScienceScaleinSelectedOECDCountriesandSomeCanadianProvinces(*)

Source:OECD,2007

Manyhaveasked:WhathasgonewronginFinland?Whyarescoresnowdropping?Is it because something that was driving improvement earlier has disappeared fromFinnish schools? Or is it due to changes in Finnish society or homes? Whatever thereasons behind the changes, Finns must adopt smart responses and avoid hasty, falserecoveries; they must analyze past data again; and they must learn more from othercountries,boththeirsuccessstoriesandtheirfailedreforms.

The unexpected position as a global educational leader and role model may havedisturbedFinland’spreviouscommitmenttocontinuousimprovementandrenewal.Someargue that complacency and a focus on explaining the past to thousands of educationtouristshaveshiftedattentionawayfromdevelopingFinland’sownschoolsystemforthefuture.Others contend that the high profile of PISA has led other nations to alter theircurricula. Such observers point to the usage of PISA questions to shape lessons andcoachingstudentstotakePISA-liketests.Asanorm-referencedtest,PISAisgradedonacurve.WhatothernationshavelearnedfromFinlandandputintopracticehasnecessarily

broughtdownFinland’sownresults.

Figure2.5showsotherdivergencesinFinnishstudents’learningperformancetrendsasmeasuredbythePISAmathematicsandsciencescalesincomparisonwithsomeotherOECDcountriesovertime(OECD,2001,2004,2007,2010b,2013a).Itisnoteworthythatstudent achievement in Finland consistently demonstrated progress until 2006 in allmeasuredsubjects,accordingtothePISAdata,whichwasnotthecaseformanyeducationsuperpowers.Itisimportanttonotethatanyeffectsteachingmayhavehadontheresultsin a given education system primarily reflect the influence of education policies andreformsthatwereimplementedinthe1990s—notthemostrecenteducationreforms.ThereasonsbehindFinland’sinconvenientdownwardtrendinmeasuredstudentachievementarefurtherdiscussedlaterinthischapterandinChapter5.

Another intriguing question emerges from Figure 2.5:What could explain Finnishstudents’exceptionallygoodperformanceinscience?ThestrengthofFinland’sschools,asfar as its success in PISA is concerned, seems to be science education. Some factorssuggested by Finnish science educators include the following: First, primary schoolteachereducationhasforthepast2decadesfocusedonredesigningscienceteachingandlearning in schools so that students have opportunities for experiential and hands-onscience. At the same time, more and more new primary school teachers have studiedscience education during their teacher education—more than 10% of graduates of theUniversity of Helsinki have studied some science education in their master’s degreeprograms.Theseuniversitystudies,aspartofthenormalteachereducationprogram,havefocusedonbuildingpedagogicalcontentknowledgeandanunderstandingofthescientificprocessinknowledgecreation.Second,thesciencecurriculumhasbeentransformedfromtraditional academic knowledge-based to one oriented to hands-on experiments andproblem solving in the classroom. This change has been followed bymassive nationalprofessionaldevelopmentsupport forallprimaryschoolscience teachers.Third, teachereducationinallFinnishuniversities,includingthefacultiesofscience,hasbeenadjustedto theneedsof thenewschoolcurriculum.Today, science teachereducation iscoherentandconsistentwith thecurrentpedagogicalprinciplesofcontemporaryscience teachingandlearningthathavebeeninspiredbyideasandinnovationfromtheUnitedStatesandEngland.

Figure 2.5. Student Achievement in Mathematics and Science on PISA Surveys Between 2000 and 2012 inSelectedOECDCountries

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

There are few international student assessments that focus on subjects other thanreading,mathematics,andscience.TheIEAInternationalCivicandCitizenshipEducationStudy(ICCS) isonesuchassessment,and it is the thirdIEAstudydesigned tomeasurecontextsandoutcomesofcivicandcitizenshipeducation(Schulz,Ainley,Fraillon,Kerr,& Losito, 2010). The ICCS of 2009 that built on IEA’s Civic Education Study 1999studiedthewaysinwhichyoungpeopleinlower-secondaryschools(typicallygrade8)arepreparedtoundertaketheirrolesascitizensin38countriesinEurope,LatinAmerica,andthe Asia-Pacific region. A central aspect of the study was the assessment of studentknowledgeaboutawiderangeofcivic-andcitizenship-relatedissues.Inthisstudy,civicknowledgereferstotheapplicationofthecivicandcitizenshipcognitiveprocessestocivicand citizenship content. Civic knowledge is a broad term that includes knowing,understanding, and reasoning. It is a key outcome of civic and citizenship educationprogramsandisessentialtoeffectivecivicparticipation.

In the 2009 ICCS, Finnish 8th-grade students scored the highest average score incivicknowledge,alongsidetheirDanishpeers(seeFigure2.6).AsinthePISAandTIMSSresults,Finlandhadthesmallestbetween-schoolvariationinstudentperformanceontheISSC 2009 study. The ICCS 2009 shows a strong relationship between the HumanDevelopmentIndex(HDI)andcivicknowledgeatthecountrylevel.ThevariationinHDIexplains 54% of the between-country variation in civic knowledge. This shows thatnational averages of civic knowledge are related to factors reflecting the generaldevelopment and well-being of a country. This finding is similar to those from otherinternationalstudiesofeducationaloutcomes,butitdoesnotnecessarilyindicateacausalrelationship between civic knowledge and the overall development of a nation.Paradoxically, this studyalso found thatFinnishyouth feel the least engaged inpoliticsandcivicissuesintheireverydaylives.

AllfivePISAsurveycyclessince2000indicatethatFinnisheducationalperformanceisconsistentacrossallassessededucationaldomains,andthatFinnishstudentsonaveragescore high in every survey across all measured subjects (reading, mathematics, andscience). The quality of Finnish public education as measured by international studentassessmentstudieshasbeensteadilyimprovingsincetheearly1970s.PISA2009wasthesecondcyclethatfocusedonreadingliteracyafter2000,andPISA2012wasthesecondtimemathematicswas in focus.Thesestudies thereforeprovideauniqueopportunity tolookatthetrendinhowwellstudentsunderstandandcanusewhattheyhavelearnedinreadingandmathematicsinschool.Althoughthenationalaverageofstudentperformancein 2012 declined from 2000, especially in mathematics, as Figure 2.7 shows, Finnishstudents’readingandmathematicalliteraciesremainataninternationallyhighlevel.WhatisalarminginthemostrecentPISAdata,however,isrelatedtofindingthatFinnishyoungpeoplereadlessforpleasuretodaythantheydid10yearsago.Halfof15-year-oldFinnishboys reported that they don’t read for pleasure. This is also clearly visible in nationalstudies of reading comprehension and habits in Finland. It appears that the observeddownturn of Finland’s educational performancemay be associated with boys and theirloosergriponschoollearning.

Figure2.6.CivicKnowledgeScoresof8th-GradeStudentsintheOECDCountriesThatParticipatedinthe2009InternationalCivicandCitizenshipEducationStudy(ICCS)

Source:Schulzetal.(2010).

AccordingtotheOECD(2011a,p.117),“Finlandisoneoftheworld’sleadersintheacademicperformanceofitssecondaryschoolstudents,apositionithasheldforthepastdecade. This top performance is also remarkably consistent across schools. Finnishschoolsseemtoserveallstudentswell,regardlessoffamilybackground,socio-economicstatus or ability.” The strength of Finland’s educational performance is its consistentlyhighlevelofstudentlearning,whichisequitablydistributedacrossschoolsthroughoutthecountry.

Since its inauguration in 2000, PISA has had a huge impact on global educationreformsaswellasnationaleducationpoliciesintheparticipatingcountries.IthasbecomeasignificantpretextforeducationaldevelopmentinAsia,Europe,andNorthAmerica,andis gaining interest in the rest of the world. Large-scale education reforms have beeninitiated (in the United States, England, New Zealand, Germany, Korea, Japan, andPoland), new national institutions and agencies have been created, and thousands ofdelegations have visited well-performing education jurisdictions, including Finland,Alberta,Ontario, Singapore, andKorea, to discover the “secrets” of good education. Inmostofthemorethan70participatingeducationsystemsorregions,PISAisasignificantsourceofeducationpolicydevelopment.

Figure2.7.PerformanceofFinnishStudentsinReading,Math,andScienceonPISASurveys,2000–2012

Source:www.pisa.oecd.org

Perhaps it is surprising thatFinnisheducatorsarenotasexcitedbyPISAresultsasmany foreigners would expect.Many Finnish teachers and school principals think thatPISAmeasures only a narrow band of the spectrum of school learning. There are alsoFinns who see that PISA is promoting the transmission of educational policies andpractices that arenot transferable.Thiswill, theymaintain, lead to a simplisticviewofeducational improvement. Just like in sports, too strong an emphasis on internationalcomparisons (or competitions) may lead to unethical means of temporarily boostingperformancejusttogetabetterpositionintheresultstables.Agoodeducationsystemandhigheducationalperformancearemuchmorethanjustmeasuredacademicscores.Someteachers in Finland are afraid that the current movement, which judges the quality ofeducationsystemsbyusingacademicunitsofmeasurementonly,willeventually leadtonarrowingcurriculumandthedominanceofthemeasuredsubjectsattheexpenseofsocialstudies,arts,sports,music,andwhole-childdevelopment.

There is, indeed, an increasing debate about what these international tests reallymeasureandwhetherPISAalonecanbeusedtojudgethequalityofeducationsystems.Earlier critics’ and defending proponents’ arguments are available in the educationalliterature (Adams,2003;Bautier&Rayon,2007;Bracey,2005;Dohn,2007;Goldstein,2004; Kreiner & Christensen, 2013; Mortimore, 2009; Prais, 2003, 2004; Riley &Torrance,2003;Schleicher,2007).Morerecently,commentatorsonPISA,mostofwhomare internationally recognized scholars, have insisted that politicians and the public atlarge (including media) must understand better what PISA can and cannot do. Amongthem is David Spieghalter (2013) of the University of Cambridge, who wrote in theGuardian,“IfPISAmeasuresanything,itistheabilitytodoPISAtests.Aligningpolicyalong a single performance indicator can be damaging.We need to look at the wholepicture.”YongZhao of theUniversity ofOregon has argued thatwhile the EastAsiansystems may enjoy being at the top of PISA tests, they are not happy at all with theoutcomesof theireducation.“Theyhaverecognized,”Zhaowrites inhisblogpost,“the

damages of their education for a long time and have taken actions to reform theirsystems.” In his book Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon Zhao (2014) offers acomprehensivesummaryofthemostrecentcritiqueofPISAandconcludesthatthecoreof Chinese education, including Shanghai’s high PISA scores, are the three basics:“Chinese families’ high expectation, hard work and diligence, and the examinationsystem” (2014, p. 187). Howard Gardner (2010) of Harvard University wrote in hiscommentarytitled“TheMinisters’Misconception”followingthe2009PISAresults:“Iamconstantlysurprisedatthepersistence,inministerialtalkandwriting,ofallegiancetothe‘transmissiontheory’ofeducation…andthenotionthatthebestquestionshaveasinglecorrectanswerandaresultingsuspicionofmultipleplausibleanswers,productiveerrorsandcreativeleaps.”Finally,SamSellarandBobLingard(2013)arguethat“PISA,andtheOECD’s education work more broadly, has facilitated new epistemological andinfrastructuralmodesofglobalgovernancefortheOECDineducation.”

TheseobservationsaregoodremindersthatPISAisagoodservantbutabadmaster.Evenif itmaybeat themoment thebest internationalassessmentforcomparingschoolsystems, itneverthelessmeasures thebestof thepast.Furthermore, therearemanywhoare afraid that PISA, like many other social indicators, verifies Campbell’s Law.Campbell’sLawstates that“themoreanyquantitativesocial indicator isusedforsocialdecision-making, themore subject itwillbe tocorruptionpressuresand themoreapt itwill be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended tomonitor” (Campbell,1976,p.49).OECD’sownanalysis showshowPISAhasbecomean increasinglyhigh-stakessocial indicatorfornationalpoliciesandtheir implementationinseveralcountries(Breakspear, 2012).Many Finns—myself included—would like to see lower stakes fortheseinternationalstudentassessmentsamongnationalpolicymakersandabroaderscopeof student learning reflected in assessments, including learning-to-learn skills, socialcompetencies,self-awareness,andcreativity.

COSTOFEDUCATION

UntilnowwehaveseenhowFinlandhastransformeditseducationsystembyincreasingyouthandadultparticipationinalltypesofeducation,makingapubliclyfundededucationsystem accessible to a large proportion of its population, and achieving internationallyhighlearningoutcomeswithverysmallperformancedifferencesbetweenschoolsacrossthenation.Allofthishasbeenaccomplishedbyfinancingeducation,includinghigherandadult education, almost exclusively from public sources. One more question regardingsuccessfuleducationsystemremainstobeaddressed:HowmuchdoesallthiscostFinnishtaxpayers?

In OECD nations for which data on comparable trends are available for alleducationallevelscombined,publicandprivateinvestmentinFinnisheducationincreased34%from1995to2004inrealterms,whiletheOECDaverageforthesameperiodwas42%. Total public expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP inFinlandwas6.5%in2011 (OECD,2014a).This isclose to theOECDaverageof6.1%andlessthanspendingintheUnitedStates(6.9%ofGDP)andCanada(6.8%ofGDP).Asmentionedearlier,only2.4%oftotalFinnishexpenditureoneducationinstitutionscomesfromprivatesources.

TheRelationshipBetweenCostandStudentPerformance

Figure2.8summarizesstudents’meanperformanceonthePISAreadingscaleinrelationtocumulativeeducationalspendingperstudent(between6and15yearsofage)in2009inU.S.dollarsandadjustedtopurchasingpowerparities(OECD,2010,2013f).Thesedata,firstofall, indicate that thereseems tobenopositivecorrelationbetweenspendingandmeasured outcomes in education. Second, Finland has accomplished world-classeducationalperformanceatareasonablecost.Forexample,theUnitedStatesandNorwayhave high levels of spending in education but their student outcome results are onlymoderate. This, of course, does not suggest any causal logic between educationexpenditures and learning outcomes, although regression indicates a small negativeinterdependency (R2=0.133) between education spending and student achievement.Efficiency is therefore more important to good educational performance than level ofexpenditure.Moneyrarelyisthesolutiontotheproblemsineducationsystems.

Figure 2.8. Relationship Between PISA Performance in Reading and Cumulative Expenditure per StudentBetweenAges6and15inOECDCountriesin2009

Source:OECD(2010,2013f).

TheCostofGradeRepetition

Oneofthecostfactorsineducationisgraderepetition.Thismeansthatastudentisaskedtorepeatagradebecauseheorshefailedtosuccessfullymasterthesubject(s)coveredthefirst time. Repetition is a commonly used method of treating individual deficits andproblems.Notonlyisgraderepetitionanineffectivewaytohelpstudentswhoareinneedofhelp,butit isalsoexpensiveforeducationsystems.HowdoesFinlandcopewiththiscommonglobalphenomenon?

GraderepetitionintheoldFinnishparallelschoolsystemwasnotrareinelementaryschools,anditwasanintegraleducationalprincipleofgrammarschool.Insomecases,astudent repeated the3rdgradeofelementaryschool inorder to improveknowledgeandskills required in thegrammar schooladmission test at theendof the4thgrade.At thetimeoftheintroductionofthenew9-yearschool,approximately12%ofstudentsineach

grammarschoolgradedidnotprogressfromtheirgrade.Graderepetitionatthattimewasnot evenly distributed between schools or grades. For example, in general upper-secondaryschool,oneinsixstudentsrepeatedagrade.Wehaveestimatedthatuptohalfofthosegraduatingfromupper-secondarygrammarschoolrepeatedoneormoregradesatsome point in their schooling (Välijärvi & Sahlberg, 2008). Furthermore, significantnumbersofstudentsdroppedoutofschoolbeforecompletion—oftenafternotbeingabletoprogressfromonegradetothenext.InadequateprogressinmathematicsorSwedish(asasecondlanguage)werethemostcommonlycitedreasonsforgraderepetition,althoughsomestudentshadtorepeatagradebecauseofbehavioralorattendanceproblems.

Peruskouluwasbuiltonthesocialvalueofequityandwasdrivenbytheideathatallstudents are able to achieve common academic and social goals through choice-basededucational streams in the upper grades of comprehensive school. In the old schoolsystem,graderepetitionwasamethodofdifferentiationforteachers.Problemsrelatedtoretentionwerewellknownattheinceptionofthenewschoolsystemintheearly1970s.The impact of being sent back to the same grade with younger students was oftendemoralizingandrarelypaved thewayfor theexpectedacademic improvementsamongstudentsrepeatingagrade(Brophy,2006;Jimerson,2001).Afterall, repeatinganentiregradewasaninefficientwaytopromotelearningbecauseitdidnotfocusonthosespecificparts of the curriculum inwhich a student needed targeted help. Studying for a secondtime those subjects that a student had already successfully completed was rarelystimulating for either students or their teachers. Students were sent to the same classwithoutanyplantospecifytheareasthatneededimprovement,letalonethemethodsofachievingmosteffectivelytherequiredlevelsofknowledgeandskills.

In the early days of comprehensive school reform, grade repetitionwas seen as aninadequateand incorrect strategy for fixing individual learningor socialdeficiencies. Inthe elementary school, grade repeaterswhohaddifficulties inoneor two subjectswereoften labeled“failing” studentswhoalsohadbehavioral andpersonalityproblems.Thiseducationalstigmanormallyhadadramaticnegativeimpactonstudents’self-esteemandthereby their motivation and efforts to learn. It also lowered teachers’ expectationsregardingthesestudents’abilitytolearn.Graderepetitioncreatedaviciouscirclethatformany young people cast a negative shadow right into adulthood. Educational failure islinked to an individual’s role in society and is characterized by unfavorable attitudestoward learning and further education. Leaving this role behind was possible only foryoung people who had strong identities and high social capital in the form of friends,teachers,andparents.Finnishexperienceshowsthatgraderepetition,inmostcases,ledtoincreased social inequality and did not help students overcome academic and socialproblems.

Peruskouluchangedgraderepetitionpoliciesandpractices.Althoughthenewsystemdidnotcompletelyremovetheproblemofrepeatinggrades,thenumberofstudentswhorepeated grades in the comprehensive school decreased significantly. Personalizedlearninganddifferentiationbecamebasicprinciples inorganizingschoolingforstudentsacrosssociety.Theassumptionthatallstudentscanachievecommoneducationalgoalsiflearningisorganizedaccordingtoeachstudent’scharacteristicsandneedsbecameanotherfoundation. Retention and ability grouping were clearly against these ideals. Differentstudentshavetolearntoworkandstudytogetherinthesameclass.Diversityinstudents’

personalities, abilities, andorientationshas tobe taken into account in crafting learningenvironmentsandchoosingpedagogicalmethodsinschools.Thisturnedouttobeoneofthe most demanding professional challenges for teachers. Even today, schools aresearching for an optimal educational and economic solution to dealwith the increasingdiversity.

Minimizing grade repetition has been possible primarily because special educationhasbecomeaninclusiveandintegralpartofeveryschoolinFinland.Everychildhastherighttohavepersonalizedsupportprovidedearlyonbytrainedprofessionalsasanormalpart of schooling. This special support is arranged in many different ways today. Asdescribed earlier, special education in Finland is increasingly organized within generalmainstreamschooling.Specialeducationhasakeyrole toplay in improvingequityandcombatingeducationalfailureinFinnishschools.

Upper-secondary schools—both general and vocational—operate using modularcurriculumunitsratherthanyear-basedgrades.Thus,graderepetitioninitsconventionalformhasvanishedfromFinnishupper-secondaryschools.Today,studentsbuildtheirownpersonalizedlearningschedulesfromamenuofcoursesofferedintheirschoolorbyothereducation institutions. Studying in upper-secondary school is therefore flexible, andselectedcoursescanbecompletedatadifferentpacedependingonstudents’abilitiesandlifesituations.Ratherthanrepeatinganentiregrade,astudentonlyrepeatsthosecoursesthatwerenotpassedsatisfactorily.Moststudentscompleteupper-secondaryschoolintheprescribed timeof 3years, although someprogress fasterwhile othersneedmore time.This structure that is not tied to yearly classes has also abolished cohorts inwhich thesamegroupofstudentsmovesfromonelessontoanotherandfromonegradetothenext.

Finlandhaschosenapolicyofautomaticpromotioncombinedwith theprincipleofearly intervention to help students with special needs. Such attention to dynamicinequalitiesinallschools,asNortonGrubbpointsout,iswhatdistinguishesFinlandfrommany other countries (Grubb, 2007). This process requires systematic counseling andcareerguidanceasyoungpeoplestart tothinkabouttheireducationalpathways.Indeed,fewerthan2%ofstudentswholeavethecompulsory9-yearcomprehensiveschooltodayattheageof16haverepeatedagradeatsomepointintheirschooling.GraderepetitionisatasimilarlevelinotherNordiccountriesbutismuchhigherelsewhereinEurope:Aboutone-third of students in France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain and one-fifth ofstudents inGermanyandSwitzerland repeat agradeat leastonce.Figure2.9 illustratesnegativecorrelationbetweengraderepetition(percentageofstudentswhohaverepeatedagradeatleastonceinprimaryorsecondaryschool)andequity(strengthoftherelationshipbetweenstudentachievementinschoolandtheirfamilybackground).

Figure2.9GradeRepetitionandEquityinEducationinOECDCountriesin2012

Source:OECD(2013d).

FINNISHPARADOXESOFEDUCATION

Finlandhasbeenapopulardestination formanyeducatorsandpoliticians looking foraway to get out of lower-than-expected educational performance and education reformdeadlock. Most visitors to Finland discover elegant school buildings filled with calmchildrenandhighlyeducatedteachers.Theyalsorecognizethelargeamountofautonomythat schoolsenjoy: little interferenceby thecentral educationadministration in schools’everydaylives,systematicmethodsforaddressingproblemsinthelivesofstudents,andtargetedprofessionalhelpforthoseinneed.Muchofthismaybehelpfulinbenchmarkingother countries’ practice in relation to a leading education nation such as Finland.However,muchofthesecretofFinland’seducationalsuccessremainsundiscovered:

Whathastheeducationalchangeprocessbeenlike?Whatistheroleofotherpublicsectorpoliciesinmakingtheeducationsystemworksowell?Whatroledocultureandotherinvisiblefactorsplay?HowmuchdidFinnisheducatorstakenoteofglobaleducationreformmovementsincreatingtheirownapproaches?

In many ways, Finland is a nation of strange paradoxes. Home of thetelecommunicationindustryandoneofthehighestmobilephonedensities,Finlandisalsoknown for its introverted, less talkative people. Finns often prefer isolation to socialinteraction,buttheylovetodancethetango.Theyevenselectanationaltangoqueenandking during the annual tango festival. Furthermore, with their tough, northern climate,Finns rank among the world’s happiest people and live in one of the world’s mostprosperous nations. Finnish sisu, a cultural trademark that refers to strength of will,determination,andpurposefulactioninthefaceofadversity,coexistswithcalmnessandtenderness, asLewis (2005) andChaker (2011/2014)havenoted. Indeed, paradoxes aremorehelpfulthanrationallogicwhenitcomestounderstandingsomeofthekeyfeatures

oftheFinnishpeopleandtheireducationsystem.

Avoidanceof“smalltalk”isawell-knownculturalcharacteristicoftheFinns,asthefollowing traditional story illustrates. Two men met unexpectedly after a long time.Becausetheyhadbeengoodfriendssinceboyhood,theydecidedtogoandcelebratetheirpleasant,unexpectedencounterwithadrinkortwo.Theysoonfoundabar,lookedforaquiettable,andorderedtheirfirstdrinks.Nowordswereexchangedandthedrinksweresoonfinished.Theirseconddrinkswereorderedandenjoyed,yettherewasstillnotalk.Their third drinks went down in silence, but when the fourth drinks were about to besipped,oneofthemenraisedhisglassforatoastandcheerfullysaid,“Kippis”(whichisequivalentto“cheers”inEnglish).Thecompaniongavehimapuzzledlookandreplied,“Didwecomeheretodrinkortotalk?”

MinimalismisalsofavoredinotherwalksoflifeinFinland.Arts,music,design,andarchitecturealldrawtheirinspirationfromsmall,clear,andsimpleideas.Finnishpeoplethinkthat“smallisbeautiful.”Inbusiness,politics,anddiplomacy,Finnsrelyonstraighttalkandsimpleprocedures.Theywanttosolveproblems,nottalkaboutthem.Inventionsand innovations inFinland areoften such that simple ideasmake abigdifference. It isperhaps not surprising, then, that these same principles and values are embedded inFinnish education. One of Finland’s educational values is to put teaching and learningbeforeanythingelsewheneducationpoliciesandreformsareunderconsideration.Mostofall, Finns don’t seem to believe that doing more of the same in education wouldnecessarilymakeanysignificantdifferenceforimprovement.

Paradox1:TeachLess,LearnMore

TheFinnishexperiencechallengesthetypicallogicofeducationalimprovementthinkingthat tries to fix lower-than-expected student performance by increasing the length ofeducation, duration of teaching, and students’ homework load. For example, whenstudents are not learning enoughmathematics, a common cure is a revised curriculumwithmorehoursofclassroominstructionandhomework.Inmosteducationsystems,thisalsorequiresmoreteachingtimeforteachers.Twointernationalindicatorsprovideavividpictureofnationaldifferencesinhowmuchstudentsareexposedtoinstructionandhowmuchtimeteachersspendteaching.

First,asFigure2.10shows,therearebigdifferencesinthetotalnumberofintendedinstructionhoursinpublicinstitutionsbetweentheagesof7and14inOECDcountries.There appears to be very little correlation between intended instruction hours in publiceducation and resulting student performance, as assessed by PISA. Interestingly, high-performingnationsinallacademicdomainsincludedinPISArelylessonformalteachingtimeasadriverofstudentlearning(Finland,Korea,Estonia),whereasnationswithmuchlower levels of academic achievement (Spain, Israel, and France) require significantlymore formal instruction for their students. When these differences are converted intoschoolyears,Australian15-year-olds,forexample,haveattendedatleast2moreyearsofschoolingthantheirFinnishpeers.Moreover,inFinland,childrenstartschoolattheageof7,whereasmanyAustralianchildrenstartschoolat theageof5,whichaddsevenmoreformal learning timefor them(OECD,2014a).Thesestatisticsdon’t tellanythingabouthowmuchtimestudentsspendinprivatetutoringorotherafter-schoolclassesontopoftheirformalschoolhours—commonpracticeinallhigh-performingschoolsystems.

TherearenocomparabledataavailableregardingcompulsoryinstructiontimeintheUnitedStatesintheOECDdatabase.However,estimatesfromsomestatesoftheUnitedStates suggest that total instruction time between 6- and 17-year-old students is about9,500 hours; that is close towhat students experience in theNetherlands andSpain, asshowninFigure2.10.Furthermore,accordingtotheOECDstatistics,Finnish15-year-oldstudentsspendlesstimeonhomeworkthandoanyoftheirpeersinothernations.Thisisyet another difference between Finland and many other countries where “minimumhomeworkminutes”andothermeanshavebeenintroducedtomakesurethatstudentsarekept busy studying after school. Finnish schools seem to followSugataMitra’s idea of“minimally invasiveeducation,”whichproposes that childrencan learn inunsupervisedenvironmentsbythemselvesandbyhelpingoneanother.

Figure2.10.TotalNumberof Intended InstructionHours inPrimaryandLower-SecondarySchools inOECDCountriesin2012

Source:OECD(2014a).

With schooldays running shorter inFinland than inmanyother countries,whatdochildrendowhen their classes are over? In principle, pupils are free to gohome in theafternoon unless there is something offered to them in the school. Primary schools arerequired toarrangeafter-schoolactivities for theyoungestpupils andareencouraged to

offereducationalorrecreationalclubsforolderones.Finnishyouthandsportassociationsplay an important role in offering youth opportunities to participate in activities thatsupporttheiroveralllearningandgrowth.Two-thirdsof10-to14-year-oldsandmorethanhalf of 15- to 19-year-olds belong to at least one youth or sport association.TheThirdSector,asthenetworkofthesenongovernmentalgroupsiscalledinFinland,contributessignificantly to thesocialandpersonaldevelopmentofyoungFinnsand therebyalso totheeducationalperformanceofFinnishschools.

Another way to illustrate the quantity versus quality paradox is to examine howteachers spend their working time across nations. Again, variance among countries issignificant,asshowninFigure2.11. In lower-secondaryschoolsandprimaryschool,onaverage,Finnishteachersannuallyteachabout590hoursand670hours,respectively(thatis,800and900lessonsof45minuteseach,respectively).Thiscorrespondstoaboutfourlessonsdaily.According to theOECD (2014a), in theUnitedStates the average annualtotal teaching time in primary and lower-secondary schools is 1,131 hours and 1,085hours,respectively,whichequalssixormoredailylessonsorotherformsofinstructionof50 minutes each. Canadian teachers (the numbers vary across the provinces) teachapproximately 800 hours in primary schools and 750 hours in lower-secondary schoolseach year.Lower teaching hours provide teacherswithmore opportunities to engage inschoolimprovement,curriculumplanning,andpersonalprofessionaldevelopmentduringtheirworkinghours.

OECD’sTALIS2013providesadditionalinformationaboutteachers’workingtimeinFinland and other OECD countries (OECD, 2014b). Lower-secondary teachers’ totalweeklyworkingtimeinFinlandwas31.6hours;thatissignificantlylessthaninAustralia(42.7 hours), the United States (44.8 hours), England (45.9), Singapore (47.6 hours),Alberta(48.2hours),orinthesurveyed34countriesonaverage(38.3hours).Onaverage,about80%oflower-secondaryteachers’workingtimeisspentteachingandlearningwithstudents.Finnishteachersreportedthattheyteachonaverage20.6hoursaweek,whereastheirpeersinAlbertateach26.4hours,inAustralia18.6hours,intheUnitedStates26.8hours, and in Singapore 17.1 hours. In the OECD countries, lower-secondary teachersteachanaverageof19.3hoursaweek.

Figure2.11.NumberofTeachingHoursperYearinPrimary,Lower-SecondaryandUpper-SecondarySchoolsinOECDCountriesin2012

Source:OECD(2014a).

How is a typical school day different in Finnish and American upper-secondaryschools(orhighschools)?Firstofall,AmericanteachersspendalmosttwiceaslongeveryweekteachingorworkingwithstudentsastheirFinnishpeers.Teaching6hours(orfourperiods) daily is a tough job that leavesmany teachers too tired to engage in anythingprofessional when teaching is done. Teachers’ work in the United States is thereforeprimarily defined as teaching in and out of classroom. In a typical Finnish upper-secondaryschool,ontheotherhand,teachersteach,onaverage,4hoursaday.Despitethefactthatteachersarepaidbythenumberoflessonstheyteach,theyalsohavetimeeverydaytoplan,learn,andreflectonteachingwithotherteachers.TeachersinFinnishschoolshavemanyotherresponsibilitiesbesidesteaching:Theyassesstheirstudents’achievementand overall progress, prepare and continuously develop their own school curriculum,participate in several school health andwell-being initiatives concerning their students,and provide remedial support to those students who may need additional help. ManyFinnishschoolsare,byvirtueofauniquedefinitionofteachers’workandbytheirnature,professional learningcommunities.Ofcourse, thereareexceptionsto thisgeneral image

of teachers’ work. Most primary schools, nevertheless, are truly professional learningcommunitieswhereteachingisaholisticprofessionthatcombinesworkwithstudentsintheclassroomandcollaborationwithcolleaguesinthestaffroom.

Finnish educators don’t believe that more homework necessarily leads to betterlearning,especiallyifpupilsareworkingonroutineandintellectuallyunchallengingdrills,whichisunfortunatelywhatschoolhomeworkassignmentsoftenare.Accordingtosomenational surveys and international studies, Finnish students in primary and lower-secondary school have the lightest load of homework of all. TheWall Street Journalreported that Finnish students rarely getmore than half an hour of homework per day(Gameran,2008).Itistruethatmanyprimaryandlower-secondaryschoolpupilsareabletocompletemostoftheirhomeworkbeforetheyleaveschoolfortheday.AccordingtotheOECD,Finnish15-year-oldstudentsdon’ttakeprivatetutoringoradditionallessonsotherthan what is offered by their school (OECD, 2013b). Seen in this light, the highachievement of Finnish students on international tests is amazing. In Korea, Japan,Singapore, andShanghai,China—jurisdictions that areonparwithor aboveFinland inreading, mathematics and science—most children spend hours and hours after theirregularschooldaysandonweekendsandholidaysinprivateclassesandtestpreparationschools.

Interestingly, evidence from themost recent studies indicates that Finnish studentsexperience less anxiety and stress in school thanmanyof their peers in other countries(OECD, 2004, 2007). PISA concludes that only 7% of Finnish students said they feelanxietywhenworking onmathematics tasks at home, comparedwith 52% and 53% inJapan and France, respectively (Kupari & Välijärvi, 2005). Similar observations fromFinnish classrooms have been reported by scores of journalists around the world. Arelaxed culture of learning and a lack of stress and anxiety certainly play a role in theachievementofgoodoverallresultsinFinnishschools.

Paradox2:TestLess,LearnMore

Theglobaleducationalreformthinkingincludesanassumptionthatcompetition,choice,andmorefrequentexternaltestingareprerequisitesforimprovingthequalityofeducation.Since theEducationReformAct1988waspassed inEngland, test-based accountabilitypolicies have increased the frequency of standardized testing in many school systemsaround the world. Judging the annual progress of students’ and schools’ performanceimprovements is almostwithout exceptionbasedon these external standardized tests ofreading, mathematics, and science achievements. An important question is, Are thoseeducationsystemswherecompetition,choice,andaccountabilitybasedonmorefrequentuseofstandardizedtestsshowingprogressininternationalcomparisons?

Using the PISA database to construct such a comparison, a suggestive answeremerges.Mostnotably,theUnitedStates,England,NewZealand,Japan,theNetherlands,and some parts of Canada and Australia can be used as benchmarks. Figure 2.12demonstrateshow15-year-oldstudents’averageperformances in reading literacy in fivePISA surveys from2000 to 2012have changed in these countries (OECD,2001, 2004,2007,2010b,2013a).TrendsinmathematicsandscienceachievementinthesesametestsareshowninFigure2.5earlierinthischapter.

The trendof students’performance in all test-basedaccountability-policynations issimilar—ithasnotbeenimprovingbetween2000and2012.Competitionbetweenschoolsoverenrollment, increasedschoolchoice, and tougheraccountability through intensifiedstandardizedtestingbecamecommonpolicyprioritiesintheseeducationsystemsstartingin the 1990s. Although this does not constitute evidence that those market-basededucational reformpolicieshave failed (remembermycorrelation-causationwarning), itdoes suggest that there must be another way to improve the quality and equity ofeducation,ashasbeendemonstratedbymoresuccessfuleducationsystemsrecently.

Figure 2.12. Average National Reading Literacy PISA Scores in Some OECDCountriesWhere Competition,Choice,andStandardizedTestingHaveaCentralPlaceinNationalEducationPolicies,2000–2012

Source:OECD(2001,2004,2007,2010b,2013a).

AlthoughstudentsarenottestedinFinlandastheyareinmanyothercountriesusingfrequentstandardizedtests, thisdoesnotmeanthatthereisnoassessmentofstudentsinFinland or any data about students’ learning—quite the opposite. In principle, studentassessmentinFinlandcanbedividedintothreecategories.Firstisclassroomassessmentbyteachers;thisincludesdiagnostic,formative,andsummativeassessmentofstudentsaspartof teachingand learning. Inall schools, this is solely the responsibilityof teachers.All teachers are prepared to design and use various assessmentmethods in theirwork.Classroomassessmentoccupiesasignificantamountofout-of-classroomworkingtimeforteachers.

Thesecondcategoryofstudentassessmentiscomprehensiveevaluationofstudents’progress after each semester. Students receive a report card that indicates theirperformance in academic and nonacademic subjects as well as in behavior andengagement.Students’reportcardsarealwaysacollectiveprofessionaljudgmentbytheirteachers.Itisuptotheschooltodecidethecriteriaforthisevaluation,basedonnationalstudentassessmentguidelines.Thismeansthatreportcardsissuedbydifferentschoolsare

notnecessarilyfullycomparablebecausetheyarenotbasedonstandardizedandobjectivemeasures. Many teachers, however, believe that this is less of a problem than havingstandardizedcriteriaand tests thatwould impersonalizeschoolsand lead to“teaching tothetest.”

Third, students’ progress in school is also assessed externally in Finland. Regularnationalassessmentsarecarriedoutusingsample-basedmethodologythatincludesabout10% of an age cohort (6th- and 9th-grade students, for example). These assessmentsmeasurestudents’learninginreading,mathematics,science,andothersubjectsin3-or4-yearcycles.Subjectsareincludedintheseassessmentsaccordingtotheneedsorrequestsofnationalauthorities.SchoolsthatarenotincludedinthesesamplesmaypurchaseoneormoreofthesetestsfromtheNationalCenterforEducationEvaluationtobenchmarktheirperformance to thatofother schools.Aboutone-fifthofall students in thegradecohorttakepartinthisvoluntaryassessment.Asanexample,aschoolof500studentspaysabout5,000U.S. dollars for each such test,which includes an analysis of results.The annualstudentassessmentinthestatebudgetinFinlandislessthan5millionU.S.dollarsfortheentireschoolsystem.Inanequal-sizestateorprovinceinNorthAmerica—forexample,inMassachusettsorAlberta—thestudenttestingbudgetcanbe10timeshigherthanthis.

Testingwhatstudentshavelearnedinschoolisnotabadthingaslongasitdoesnotharmteachingandlearning.Problemsarisewhentestsbecomehigherinstakes,whentheyareofpoorquality,andwhenstudents’testscoresareusedtojudgeotherthings,suchasthequalityofteachersorschools.Therearealarmingreportsfrommanypartsoftheworldwherehigh-stakestestshavebeenemployedaspartofpunitiveaccountabilitypoliciesineducation(Amrein&Berliner,2002;Au,2009;Nichols&Berliner,2007;Popham,2007,Ravitch,2013).Evidencesuggeststhatteacherstendtoredesigntheirteachingaccordingto these tests, give higher priority to those subjects that are tested, and adjust teachingmethodstodrillingandmemorizinginformationratherthanunderstandingknowledge.Itishighlyquestionablehowmucheducationalvaluesuchstandardizedtests,whicharehighstakesforteachersandschools(linkedtoteacherevaluation,promotion,salary,reputation,or accreditation) and no stakes for students, add to student learning and schoolimprovement. Since there are no standardized high-stakes tests in Finland before theMatriculation Examination that students take at the end of their upper-secondaryeducation,teacherscanfocusonteachingandlearningwithoutthedisturbanceoffrequentteststhathavetobepassed.

OthersignsofweakeningrelianceoncompetitionandtestingineducationcomefromrecentpolicychangesinEnglandandWales,andfromtheCanadianprovinceofAlberta,wheresomeofthenationalstandardizedtestshavebeenbannedandreplacedbysmarterwaysofassessingstudentsandschools.Alberta,forinstance,hadestablishedasystemofprovincial achievement tests (PATs) that were used to measure pupils’ performance inreading,mathematics,andsciencetoinformdecisionmakersofoveralleducationalqualityinthejurisdiction.Althoughtheprovinceauthoritiesavoidedusingthetestingdatatorankschools or point out failing districts, therewere some otherswho did so. Teachers andparents became very frustratedwith the situation, inwhich a lot of good teachingwassacrificedinpursuitofraisingtestscores.Inthespringof2009, theAlbertanProvincialAssembly voted in favor of removing grade 3 tests, and in 2012 the same governmentdecided to redesign the entire provincial assessment system. As a consequence, the

Accountability Department in Alberta Education (the Ministry of Education) wasdissolved. Thiswas a sign that theremust bemore intelligentways to assess students’learning.AneighboringprovinceofAlberta,Saskatchewan,hasnoexternalcensus-basedstandardized tests at all. In other jurisdictions around the world, however, winds areblowingintheoppositedirection.

Paradox3:EnhancedEquityThroughGrowingDiversity

ThemainpolicyprincipleofFinland’scomprehensiveschoolreformofthe1970swastoprovideequaleducationalopportunitiesforall,aswasdescribed inChapter1.Thisalsoincluded the idea that student achievement should be evenly distributed across socialgroups and geographic regions. It is true that Finland long remained ethnicallyhomogeneous.However,sinceit joinedtheEuropeanUnionin1995,culturalandethnicdiversificationhasprogressed faster inFinland than inotherEuropeanUnioncountries,especially in larger cities’ districts and schools, where the proportion of the first- andsecond-generationimmigrantpopulationaccountsforone-quarterofthetotalpopulation.Table 2.3 shows how the number of foreign-born citizens and residents issued FinnishcitizenshiphasgrowninFinlandsince1980.In2013,approximately5.2%ofinhabitantsin Finland were foreign-born citizens and thus nonnative-Finnish speakers. The lownumberofcitizenshipsissuedinFinlandismostlyduetotherequirementthatallcitizensmustbeproficientinoneofthethreedomesticlanguages.Allofthese—Finnish,Swedish,and Sami—are not spoken anywhere outside of Scandinavia and therefore are rarelyspokenbythoseimmigratingtoFinlandfromotherplaces.

Finnishschoolshavehadtoadapttothischangingsituationwithinaveryshorttime.As a consequence, some municipalities are introducing limits to the proportion ofimmigrantstudentswhoattendeachschooltoavoidsegregation.Forexample,inthecityof Espoo, there are schools withmore than 40% immigrant student populations, whilesome schools have practically no immigrants. In 2013, for example, 4,000 new peoplemoved to live in Espoo. Three-quarters of these new inhabitants were non-Finnishspeakers.Cityauthoritiesbelieve thatamoreevendistributionof immigrantstudents intheir schools would benefit both students and schools. However, school principals aredoubtfulaboutsuchforcefulpoliciesandtheirimpactoncommunities.Theproportionofimmigrantchildren inperuskoulu inHelsinki isover10%and thenumberof languagesspokenintheseschoolsexceeds40.ThistrendisevidentinallmajorcitiesinFinland.

The Finnish education system follows the principle of inclusiveness regarding thetreatmentofstudentswhohavedifferingcharacteristicsandneeds.Studentsareplacedinregular schoolsunless there is a specific reason todootherwise.Therefore, in a typicalFinnishclassroom,onefinds teachers teachingstudentswithdifferentabilities, interests,andethnicities,oftenwiththehelpofassistantteachers.CulturalheterogeneityinFinnishsocietywouldsuggestthatvarianceinstudentlearningamongschoolsmaybecomewider.However,asFigure2.2 shows, a very highoverall student performance inmathematics(and in reading and science) is evenlydistributed throughout schools acrossFinland. Inother words, Finland has been able to enhance equity in education while schools andclassroomhavebecomemorediverse.

Table2.3.Foreign-BornCitizensandResidentsIssuedCitizenshipinFinlandBetween1980and2010

Source:StatisticsFinland(2011).

TheFinnish sociocultural situation,which is experiencing a rapiddiversificationofschools and communities, offers an interesting case for research. JarkkoHautamäki hasexplored the influence of increased immigration on student learning in schools. Twointerestingfindingsemerge.First,basedonthePISAdata,immigrantstudentsinFinnishschools seem to perform significantly better than immigrant students in many othercountries in PISAbefore 2009 (Hautamäki et al., 2008). Immigrant students in Finlandscoredonaverage50pointshigherthantheirpeersinothercountries.Second,accordingtothissamestudy,intheproportionofimmigrantstudentsperclassthereseemstobeathreshold after which the learning achievement of all students in that class begins todecline.ThatproportionofimmigrantpupilsinHelsinkiwhennotableeffectsofdiversityonstudentachievementareobservableisabout20%.

According to PISA 2012, pupils with immigrant background performed worse inmathematics thanbefore.First-generation immigrant students scoredup toone standarddeviation lower in mathematics compared with their Finnish-born peers. Helpingimmigrant students catch up in learning the Finnish language is one of the biggestchallengesforlargerurbanschoolsystems.

Povertyisanotherfactorthataffectsteachingandlearninginschools.Childpovertycanbedefinedasthepercentageofchildrenlivinginhomeswithanincomethatisbelow50%ofthenationalaverage.Basedonthatdefinition,accordingtotheUNICEFInnocentiResearchCentre, 5.4%of children inFinland live in poverty.This is the smallest childpoverty rate after Iceland (4.7%). In theUnitedStates 23.1%, inCanada 13.3%, in theUnited Kingdom 12.1%, and in Australia 10.9% of children live in poverty (UNICEF,2012).TheequitableFinnisheducationsystemisaresultofsystematicattentiontosocialjustice and early intervention to help those with special needs, as well as the closeinterplaybetweeneducationandothersectors—particularlyhealthandsocialsectors—inFinnish society. It is important to note that the level of student performance hascontinuously increased and student performance variance has decreased, while Finnishsocietyhasbecomemoreculturallydiverseandsociallycomplex.

CHAPTER3

TheFinnishAdvantageTheTeachers

Youhavetwoearsandonemouth—usetheminthatsameproportion.

—Mygrandmother’sadvicetomeforbeingagoodteacher

ManyfactorshavecontributedtoFinland’seducationalsystem’scurrentfame,suchasits9-yearcomprehensiveschool(peruskoulu) forallchildren,modern learning-focusedandteacher-designed curricula, systematic care for studentswith diverse special needs, andlocalautonomyandleadership.However,researchandexperiencesuggestthatonefactorisanecessaryconditionforallthesementionedsuccessfactors:thedailycontributionsofexcellentteachers.

Thischapterexamines thecentral role thatFinnish teachersplayanddescribeshowteacher education and a systematic focus on teacher professionalism aremakingmajorcontributionstotransformingFinland’seducationalsystemintoaglobalsubjectofinterestandanobjectofstudy.Thischaptersuggests,however, that it isnotenough to improveteachereducationortohave“thebestandthebrightest”teachinginschools.TheFinnishexperience shows that it is more important to ensure that teachers’ work in schools isbasedonprofessionaldignity,socialrespect,andcollegialitysothattheycanfulfilltheirintentionofselecting teachingasa lifetimecareer, togetherwith their likemindedpeers.Teachers’workshouldstrikeabalancebetweenclassroomteachingandcollaborationwithother professionals in school, as this chapter argues. This is the best way to create animageof teachingamongyoungpeople thatwillattractyoung, talentedprofessionals tochooseteachingastheircareer.BeforedescribingcurrentprinciplesandpoliciesrelatedtoFinnish teachers and teacher education, it is useful to review some relevant culturalaspectsoftheteachingprofessioninFinland.

THECULTUREOFTEACHING

EducationhasalwaysbeenanintegralpartofFinnishcultureandsociety.Althoughaccessto6-yearbasiceducationbecamealegalobligationandrightforallasfarbackas1922,Finns have understood that without becoming literate and possessing broad generalknowledge, itwouldbedifficult tofulfill their lifetimeaspirations.Beforeformalpublicschooling began to spread during the 1860s, cultivating public literacy was theresponsibility of priests and other religious brethren in Finland as early as the 17thcentury.Catechist schools offered religious-oriented initial literacy education in SundayschoolsanditinerantschoolswithinvillagesandinremotepartsofFinland.Bytradition,theabilitytoreadandwritewasrequiredforlegalmarriagebythechurchforbothwomenandmen.Becomingliterate,therefore,markedanindividual’sentryintoadulthood,withits associateddutiesand rights.Teachersgraduallyassumed these responsibilitiesas theFinnishpublicschoolsystembegantoexpandintheearly20thcentury.Primarilyduetotheir high social standing, teachers enjoyed great respect and also uncontested trust in

Finland. Indeed, Finns continue to regard teaching as a noble, prestigious profession—akin to medicine, law, or economics—driven mainly by moral purpose, rather than bymaterialinterest,careers,orrewards.

Until the1960s, the levelofFinnisheducationalattainment remainedrather low,asFigure2.1 showed. For example, in 1952,whenFinland hosted theSummerOlympics,nine out of ten adult Finns had completed only 7 to 9 years of basic education. Auniversity degree was regarded as an exceptional attainment at that time in Finland(Sahlberg,2010a).TheFinnish educational levelwas close to thatofMalaysiaorPeru,andlaggedsignificantlybehindScandinavianneighborsDenmark,Norway,andSweden.In the 1960s, elementary school teachers were still prepared in 2- or 3-year teachereducationseminars,notbyacademic institutionsbut ratherbyunits thatofferedshorter,practical training in teaching.One graduate of a teacher preparation seminar in the late1950s, Martti Ahtisaari, went from being a primary school teacher, to being aninternationaldiplomat,tobeingthepresidentofFinland(1994–2000),andisnowaNobelPeace Prize laureate and praised global peacemaker. Today, when celebrating itseducational achievements, Finland publicly recognizes the value of its teachers andimplicitly trusts their professional insights and judgments regarding schooling. Statedquiteplainly,withoutexcellentteachersandamodernteachereducationsystem,Finland’scurrentinternationaleducationalachievementwouldhavebeenimpossible.

The Finnish education system is distinctly different from public education in theUnitedStates,Canada, orEngland. Somedifferences are closely related to thework ofteachers.Forexample,theFinnisheducationsystemlacksrigorousschoolinspection,anditdoesnotemployexternalstandardizedstudenttestingtoinformthepublicaboutschoolperformanceorteachereffectiveness.Teachersalsohaveprofessionalautonomytocreatetheir own school-basedwork plan and curriculum.All education in Finland is publiclyfinanced,includingteachereducationinFinland’sresearchuniversities.

Finnish teacher education today is fully congruent with these characteristics ofeducationalpolicyinFinland.Fivecategoriesofteachersexist:

1. Kindergartenteachersworkinkindergartensandarealsolicensedtoteachpreschoolchildren.

2. Primaryschoolteachersteachingrades1to6in9-yearcomprehensiveschools.Theynormallyareassignedtoonegradeandteachseveralsubjects.

3. Subjectteachersteachparticularsubjectsintheuppergradesofbasicschool(typicallygrades7to9)andingeneralupper-secondaryschool,includingvocationalschools.Subjectteachersmayteachonetothreesubjects—forexample,mathematics,physics,andchemistry.

4. Specialeducationteachersworkwithindividualsandstudentgroupswithspecialneedsinprimaryschoolsandtheuppergradesofcomprehensiveschools.

5. Vocationaleducationteachersteachinupper-secondaryvocationalschools.Theymustpossessatleast3yearsofclassroomexperienceintheirownteachingfieldbeforetheycanbeadmittedtoavocationalteacherpreparationprogram.

Inadditiontothesefiveteachercategories,teachersinadulteducationinstitutionsarerequired to have similar pedagogical knowledge and skills. Each academic year,

approximately6,000newopeningsbecomeavailableinallteachereducationprogramsinFinland.ThischapterfocusesontheeducationofprimaryandsubjectteachersintheK–12partoftheFinnisheducationalsystem,whichconstitutesabouttwo-thirdsofallteachereducationstudents.

Teaching as a profession is closely tied to sustaining Finnish national culture andbuildinganopenandmulticulturalsociety.Indeed,onepurposeofformalschoolingistotransferculturalheritage,values,andaspirationsfromonegenerationtoanother.Teachersare, according to their own opinions, essential players in building the Finnish welfaresociety. As in countries around the world, teachers in Finland have served as criticaltransmitters of culture. Through the centuries, Finland has struggled for its nationalidentity,mothertongue,anditsownvalues,first,during6centuriesundertheKingdomofSweden; next formore than a century under theRussian Empire; and then for anothercentury as a newly independent nation positioned between its former patrons and thepowersofglobalization.ThereisnodoubtthatthishistoryleftadeepmarkonFinnsandtheirdesireforpersonaldevelopment througheducation,reading,andself-improvement.Literacy is the backbone of Finnish culture, and reading for pleasure has become anintegralpartoftheculturalDNAofallFinns.

Itisnowonder,then,thatteachersandteachingarehighlyregardedinFinland.TheFinnishmediaregularlyreportresultsofopinionpollsthatdocumentfavoriteprofessionsamong general upper-secondary school graduates. Surprisingly, teaching is consistentlyrated as one of themost admired professions, ahead ofmedical doctors, architects, andlawyers, typically thought tobedreamprofessions(Liiten,2004).Teachingiscongruentwith thecore socialvaluesofFinns,which includesocial justice, caring forothers, andhappiness,asreportedbytheNationalYouthSurvey(2010).Teachingisalsoregardedasan independent high profession that enjoys public respect and praise. It is particularlypopular among youngwomen—more than 80% of those accepted for study in primaryteachereducationprogramsarefemale(NationalBoardofEducation,2013).

Inanationalopinionsurvey,about1,300adultFinns (ages15 to74)wereasked iftheir spouse’s (or partner’s) profession had influenced their decision to commit to arelationship with them (Kangasniemi, 2008). Interviewees were asked to select 5professionsfromalistof30thattheywouldpreferforaselectedpartnerorspouse.Theresponseswere rather surprising. Finnishmales viewed a teacher as themost desirablespouse,ratedjustaheadofanurse,medicaldoctor,orarchitect.Women,inturn,identifiedonlyamedicaldoctorandaveterinarianaheadofateacherasadesirableprofessionfortheir ideal husband. In the entire sample, 35% rated teacher as among the top fivepreferred professions for their ideal spouse.Apparently, onlymedical doctors aremoresoughtafterinFinnishmatingmarketsthanteachers.Thisclearlydocumentsboththehighprofessionalandsocial status that teachershaveattained inFinland—both inandoutofschools.

BOX3.1:WHYDOIWANTTOBEATEACHER?Becomingateacherwaseasyforme.Actually,itwasnotachoiceatall,butratheraprocessthatgrewfromachildhooddreamintoarealisticgoalasanadult.Ihavemanyeducatorsinmyfamilyandteachingisinmyblood.Myparentshaveencouragedmetotakethisdirection.TheyhelpedmefindsummerjobsandhobbieswhereIhadachancetoworkwithchildren.Ialwaysfoundthosejobsrewarding,fun,andmorallyfulfilling.ItwasthatfunaspectofworkingwithchildrenthatinfluencedmewhenIgraduatedhighschoolandmoved

oninmycareer.

Duringmypart-time teaching inschoolandalsocurrently in teachereducation in theuniversity, therosypictureofteachinghasfromtimetotimebeentarnished,buteverytimeshinesagain.Now,whenIamabouttograduateandgetmymaster’sdegreetoteachinprimaryschool,Ihavestartedtothinkaboutwhatitis tobea teacher.WhydoIdo this?First is the internaldrive tohelppeoplediscover theirstrengthsandtalents,butalsotorealizetheirweaknessesandinadequacies.IwanttobeateacherbecauseIwanttomakeadifferencetochildren’slivesandtothiscountry.Myworkwithchildrenhasalwaysbeenbasedonloveandcare,beinggentle,andcreatingpersonalrelationswiththosewithwhomIwork.IthinkthisistheonlywayIwillattainfulfillmentinmylife.

ButIalsounderstandthat inmywork,Iwillfacehugeresponsibilityforamodestsalaryandheavyworkload. I also know that shrinking financial resources for schoolswill continue andwill influencemyworkinschool.InHelsinki,thesocialproblemsthatchildrenincreasinglyfaceintheirliveswillalsobepartofmyworkintheclassroom.IneedtobeabletoobservediverseindividualsandofferhelpinsituationsforwhichIamprobablynotyetprepared.IacceptthatmyworkisnotonlyteachingthethingsIlikebutalsoworkingoutconflictsituations,workingwithcolleagueswhodonotnecessarily think thesamewayIdo,andcollaboratingwithdifferentparentsineducatingtheirchildren.Withoutadoubt,Iwillcontinuetoaskmyselfwhetherthisworkisreallyworthallthat.

Thewell-knownFinnisheducatorMattiKoskenniemiusedthetermpedagogicallove,whichisalsoacornerstone of my own theory of action as a teacher. Teaching is, perhaps more than any other job, aprofessionthatyoucansuccessfullydoonlyifyouputyourheartandpersonalityintoplay.Eachteacherhasherownstyleandphilosophyofteaching.Theremaybemanymotivesforbecomingateacher.Myownisthat Iwant todogood forotherpeople, tocareaboutand love them. Ido love themand thus Iwillbeateacher.

—VeeraSalonen,PrimarySchoolTeacher,Helsinki

BECOMINGATEACHER

Dueto thepopularityof teachingandbecominga teacher,onlyFinland’sbestandmostcommitted are able to realize those professional dreams. Every spring, thousands ofFinnishgeneralupper-secondary schoolgraduates, includingmanyof themost talented,creative, andmotivated youngsters, submit their applications to departments of teachereducation in eight Finnish universities. Thus, becoming a primary school teacher inFinlandishighlycompetitive.Itisnormallynotenoughsimplytocompletegeneralupper-secondaryschoolsuccessfullyandpassarigorousmatriculationexamination(seeChapter1). Successful teacher education candidates must also possess high scores, positivepersonalities, excellent interpersonal skills, and a commitment to work as a teacher inschool.Annually,onlyabout1ofevery10applicantswillbeacceptedtoprimaryschoolteachereducationmaster’sprogramsinFinnishresearchuniversities.Forexample,3,200candidatesappliedtodifferentteachereducationprogramsattheUniversityofHelsinkiin2013. Only 340 of themwere accepted. The total annual Finnish applicants in all fivecategories of teacher education programs in eight universities that educate teachersnumberabout20,000.

Primary school teacher education candidates are selected in two phases: First,students takeawrittenexaminearlyMay that is thesameforalleightuniversities thatoffer teacher education programs. This exam is based on a set of scientific andprofessionalarticlesthatareannouncedandmadeavailabletostudentsinlateMarch.In2014, therewere six articles tobe read for the examand they covered awide rangeofissues, such as “Development and assessment of working memory in childhood,”“Equality and justice in basic education placement and selectivity,” and “Change ineducationpolicyandschool’spositioninEurope.”Basedonstudents’performanceinthis

exam,theyaretheninvitedtothesecondphaseoftheselectionprocess,whichvariesfromoneuniversitytoanother.Itisworthnotingthatthisfirst-phaseexamputsallcandidatesbehindthesameline:gradesormeritsdonotmatteringettingtothesecondphase,onlytheexammark.ThereforethosewhoclaimthatFinlandrecruitsitsteachersfromthetop10% of each cohort graduate from upper-secondary school are not exactly right.Nevertheless, it is safe to say that there is careful quality control at the entry into theteachingprofession inFinland. It is difficult to get into teacher educationwithout solidknowledge,skills,andmoralcommitmenttoteach.

Thepurposeofthesecondphaseistotestthecandidate’spersonality,knowledge,andoverallsuitabilitytobecomeateacher.Mostuniversitiesrequirecandidatestodemonstratehow they can create ideas, plan, and work with other people. All candidates will gothrough individual interviews that, among other things, often ask candidates to explaintheir reasons for choosing to become a teacher. In their final selection of successfulcandidates,universitiesmay take intoaccount the resultsof the firstphaseof theexam,gradesinMatriculationExamination,andastudent’sdiploma,aswellashisorhermeritsinarts,sports,andanyotheractivitiesthattheyseeasrelevanttotheteachingprofession.

Asthesetwoselectionphasessuggest,accesstoFinnishteachereducationishighlycompetitive.Normally,atleastsomepriorexperienceinteachingorworkingwithchildrenisrequiredforsuccessfulcandidates.In2014,totalapplicationstoprimaryschoolteachereducation programs reached 8,400, with candidates competing for only 800 availablestudent positions in eight Finnish universities. Figure 3.1 summarizes the trend in totalannualapplicantsbetween2001and2014,disaggregatedbygender.

Twophenomenaareapparent.TheFinnishteachingprofessioninprimaryschoolshasbecome increasingly attractive. Also, the proportion of male primary school teachersremainsrelativelysmall.Thestateof theFinnisheconomyisreflectedin thenumberofteacher education applicants; when the prospects of employment are dimmer, youngpeople head toward teaching, as can be seen during the latest economic downturn inFinland that started in 2008. Although the number of Finnish students who do notcompletetheirstudiesandthusfailtoearnadegreeissmall,arelativelylargernumberofmalestudentsendupstudyinginotherdisciplinesorworkingbeforetheygraduate.

Finland isoneof the fewnationsable to select thebest andmostmotivatedyoungpeople for primary school teacher educationprogramsyear after year.A similarly goodsituationexistsinSingapore,SouthKorea,Ireland,andinsomeothercountries.Thishascreated a strong moral and professional foundation for teaching in Finnish primaryschools,whereFinnishchildrenspendtheirfirst6schoolyearswithable,knowledgeableprofessionals.

WhatMakesTeachingaTopJob?

IfweuseFinnisheducationasareference,threeconditionsemergeforattractingthebestyoungpeopleintoteachingandkeepingtheminschools.First,andmost important, it isparamountthatteachers’workplacesallowthemtofulfilltheirmoralmissions.InFinland,asinmanyothercountries,ateachingcareeristheresultofaninnerdesiretoworkwithpeopleandtohelpbothpeopleandsocietythroughteaching.TeachersinFinlandpossessastrongsenseofbeingesteemedprofessionals,similar tomedicaldoctors,engineers,or

lawyers.Teachersatalllevelsofschoolingexpectthattheywillbegiventhefullrangeofprofessionalautonomytheyneedtopracticewhattheyhavebeeneducatedtodo:toplan,teach,diagnose,execute,andevaluate.Theyalsoexpecttobeprovidedwithenoughtimetoaccomplishallof thesegoals,both insideandoutsideofnormalclassroomduties.AsdescribedinChapter2,inFinland,teachersspendrelativelylesstimeteachingthantheirpeers inmanyothercountriesdo.Forexample, inNorthAmericanschools, teachersareengagedinteachingduringthevastmajorityoftheirdailyworkingtimeinschool,whichleaves little space for any other professional activities. The concept of the professionallearning community (PLC) is often applied to the way teachers work in schools,frequentlyontheirowntime.However,inFinland,Korea,andJapan,forinstance,schoolsare regarded as professional learning communities because of the inherent nature andbalanceofteachers’dailyprofessionalwork.

Figure 3.1. Total Annual Applicants and Accepted Students to Finnish Primary School Teacher EducationProgramsin2001–2014

Source:UniversityofHelsinki(2014,www.helsinki.fi/vakava/koepisteet.html).

IhavetalkedwithFinnishprimaryschoolteachersintheearlyphasesoftheircareersin order to understand what would prompt them to leave their chosen profession(Sahlberg, 2012). Interestingly, practically nobody cites salary as a reason for leavingteaching.Instead,manypointoutthatiftheyweretolosetheirprofessionalautonomyinschoolsandinclassrooms,theircareerchoicewouldbecalledintoquestion.Forexample,if an outside inspector were to judge the quality of their work or if a merit-basedcompensationpolicyinfluencedbyexternalmeasureswereimposed,manywouldchangetheirjobs.Finnishteachersareparticularlyskepticalofusingfrequentstandardizedteststodeterminestudents’progress in school.ManyFinnish teachershave toldme that if theyencountered external pressure regarding standardized testing and high-stakesaccountability,similartowhattheirpeersinEnglandortheUnitedStatesface,theywouldseekotherjobs.Inshort,teachersinFinlandexpectthattheywillexperienceprofessionalautonomy, prestige, respect, and trust in their work. First and foremost, the workingconditionsandmoralprofessionalenvironmentarewhatcountwhenyoungFinnsdecide

whethertheywillpursueateachingcareerorseekworkinanotherfield.

Second,teachereducationshouldbesufficientlycompetitiveanddemandingtoattracttalentedyounghighschoolgraduates.TeachereducationattractsmanyofFinland’shighschool graduates because it constitutes a master’s degree program and is thereforechallenging enough for them. In addition, due to the high quality of Finnish studentsentering teacher education programs, the curricula and requirements have become verydemanding, comparable to other degree programs offered by Finnish academicuniversities.Graduateswhoholdamaster’sdegreecan,without furtherwork, apply fordoctoralstudies.Thatsamedegreealsoqualifiesanindividualtoworkingovernmentorlocaladministration,teachintheuniversity,orcompetewithothermaster’sdegreeholdersin private sector employment. It has been questioned in Finland now and thenwhetherprimary school teachers necessarily need master’s-level academic and research-basedqualifications.However,Finnishexperiencesuggests that if theprimaryschool teachingdegree requirement were lowered, many potential teachers would seek studies inprofessional fields that would give them higher academic status and thus open moreemploymentopportunitieslaterintheircareers.

Third, the salary level is not the main motive to become a teacher in Finland.Teachers earn slightly more than the national average salary. The annual statutoryteacher’s salary in the upper grades of peruskoulu after 15 years of experience (inequivalentU.S.dollars,convertedbyusingpurchasing-powerparity)isabout42,600U.S.dollars (OECD, 2014a). That is close to what teachers earn, on average, in OECDcountries.ThecomparableannualsalaryintheUnitedStatesis47,000U.S.dollars,andinKorea,50,000U.S.dollars.

Althoughmakingmoneyisnotthemainreasonforbecomingateacher,thereshouldbea systematicway for salaries to increase.Finnish teachersclimb the salary ladderastheir teaching experience grows, reaching the peak after about 20years of service.Thesamesalaryschemeisappliedinallpartsofthecountryandisdeterminedinanationallaborcontract that theTradeUnionofEducationnegotiateswith theLocalGovernmentEmployers that promotes the interests of Finland’s municipalities and joint municipalauthorities on the labormarket. However, there are a number of factors that affect thepaycheck.

First, teachers’paydependson the typeofschool(e.g.,primaryorupper-secondaryschool).Althoughteachers’payinFinlandisnotlinkedtotheirstudents’achievementinany way, the salary structure is based on merit and performance. Then, basic salaryincludesthebasepaydeterminedinthelaborcontractandanadditiondeterminedlocallydepending on required particular skills, responsibilities, social skills, and workingconditionsthatmayvarygreatlyfromschooltoschool.Next,thereisapersonalbonusineach teacher’s salary thatdependsonoverall jobperformance (including feedback fromparents, colleagues, and the principal), yet it is not measured by student achievement.Thereisalsoextrapayforadditionalhoursontopoftheminimumrequiredteachingloadtogetherwithotherpossible compensation.Threehours aweekof collaboration, schoolimprovement, or other collegial activities are included in each teacher’s basic salary.Finally, teachersmayreceiveaperformancebonusawarded to their schoolorclusterofschoolsasacollectiverewardforespeciallysuccessfulworkaccomplishedtogether.Asa

consequence, theremay be variation in teachers’ earnings evenwithin the same schooldependingonseniority,thenatureoftheirwork,andoverallperformancethatisnormallyjudgedbytheprincipal.

RESEARCH-BASEDTEACHEREDUCATION

Untiltheendofthe1970s,primaryschoolteacherswerepreparedinteachercollegesorspecial teachereducationseminars.Lower-andupper-secondary school subject teachersstudiedinspecificsubject-focuseddepartmentswithinFinnishuniversities.Bytheendofthe 1970s, all teacher education programs became a part of academic higher educationand, therefore, were only offered by universities. A master’s degree became the basicqualification for teaching in Finnish schools. Simultaneously, scientific content andeducationalresearchadvancesbegantoenrichteachereducationcurricula.Finnishteachereducationisnowacademic,meaningthatitmustbebasedonandsupportedbyscientificknowledgeandmustbefocusedonthethinkingprocessesandcognitiveskillsneededtodesignandconducteducationalresearch(Jakku-Sihvonen&Niemi,2006;Niemi,2008).A particular principle of research-based teacher education in Finland is the systemicintegration of scientific educational knowledge, didactics (or pedagogical contentknowledge), and practice to enable teachers to enhance their pedagogical thinking,evidence-based decisionmaking, and engagement in the professional community ofeducators. Consequently, the basic requirement today for permanent employment as ateacher inallFinnishcomprehensiveandupper-secondaryschools is thepossessionofaresearch-basedmaster’sdegree,asshowninTable3.1.

TeachereducationisanimportantandrecognizedpartofhighereducationinFinland.Inmanyothernations,thesituationisdifferent:Teacherpreparationisfrequentlyviewedas semiprofessional training arranged outside of academic universities. In the Acts onTeacherEducation in1978–1979, theminimumrequirement forpermanent employmentasateacherwasraisedtoamaster’sdegreethatincludesanapprovedmaster’sthesiswithscholarlyrequirementssimilartothoseinanyotheracademicfield.ThislegislativepolicyservedastheimpetustotransferallteachereducationprogramsfromcollegestoFinnishuniversities.Theseedsweresownforbelieving that the teachingprofession isbasedonscholarly research.An important side effect of this transitionwas the unificationof theFinnishteachingcohort,whichhadbecomedividedbytheComprehensiveSchoolReformof the 1970s into primary school teachers and subject teachers working in lower- andupper-secondaryschools.

Table3.1.RequiredTeacherQualificationsbyTypeofFinnishSchool

Source:Sahlberg(2012).

TheroleoftheTradeUnionofEducationinFinland(OAJ),establishedin1973,hasbeenbothanegotiatorofthetermsofteachers’employmentcontractsandanadvocateforeducation (www.oaj.fi). The union represents teachers at various school levels andinstitutes,rangingfromkindergartenteachers to instructors invocationalschools,andtoschoolprincipalsandlecturersinuniversities.Morethan95%ofteachersinFinlandareOAJmembers.

Asmentioned above, all Finnish teachersmust hold amaster’s degree. Themajorsubject in primary school teacher education programs is education. In subject-focusedteacher education programs, students concentrate within a particular subject—forexample,mathematicsorforeignlanguages.Subject-focusedteachercandidatesalsostudydidactics, consisting of pedagogical content knowledge (subject didactics) within theirownsubjectspecialty.Today,successfulcompletionofamaster’sdegree—whichincludesa bachelor’s degree—in teaching takes, in theory, 5 years, but in reality the averagegraduationtimeisover6years,accordingtotheFinnishMinistryofEducation(MinistryofEducation,2007).Therearenoalternativewaystoearnateacher’sdiplomainFinland;onlytheuniversitydegreeconstitutesalicensetoteach.IntheUnitedStates,forexample,the Teach for America program admits college graduates, immerses them in pedagogycourses for several weeks over a summer, and then sends them to schools in need ofteachers—where theyoften findclassroomchallenges tobeexceedinglydifficult.Therearesimilarteachercertificationinitiativesin40countrieswithintheTeachforAllnetworkin2014, such asTeachFirst in theUnitedKingdom,NewZealand, Israel andNorway,TeachforIndia,TeachforSouthAfrica,TeachforChina,andEnseñaChile.

Academic teacher education in Finland focuses on the balanced development of aprospective teacher’s personal and professional competences. Particular attention isdevotedtobuildingpedagogicalthinkingskills,enablingteacherstomanageinstructionalprocessesinaccordwithcontemporaryeducationalknowledgeandpractice(Toometal.,2010; Westbury, Hansen, Kansanen, & Björkvist, 2005). In Finnish primary teachereducation,thisischaracterizedbythestudyofeducationasamainsubject,composedof

threethematicareas:

1. Theoryofeducation2. Pedagogicalcontentknowledge3. Subjectdidacticsandpractice

Finnish research-based teachereducationprogramsculminate ina requiredmaster’sthesis.Prospectiveprimaryschoolteachersnormallycompletetheirthesesinthefieldofeducation.Typically, the topicofamaster’s thesis is focusedonor isclose toastudentteacher’s own school or classroom practice, such as mathematics teaching or learning.Subject-focusedstudentteachers, inturn,selectathesistopicwithintheirmajorsubject.The level of scholarly expectations for teacher education studies is similar across allteacherpreparationprograms,fromelementarytoupper-secondaryschool.

TeachereducationinFinlandisalignedwiththeframeworkoftheEuropeanHigherEducationArea that isbeingdevelopedunder theongoingBolognaProcess.1 Currently,Finnish universities offer a two-tier degree program. First is an obligatory 3-yearbachelor’s degree program that qualifies students for a 2-yearmaster’s degree programthatistheminimumqualificationforalicensetoteachinFinland.Thesetwodegreesareofferedinmultidisciplinaryprogramsconsistingofstudiesinatleasttwosubjects.Studiesare quantified in terms of credit units within the European Credit Transfer andAccumulationSystem(ECTS)within46Europeannations.ECTS,whichwillbecometheguiding policy for the European Higher Education Area, is a student-centered systembasedonthestudentworkloadrequiredtoachieveprogramobjectives.

The objectives are normally specified in terms of the learning outcomes andcompetencies tobeacquired.ECTSisbasedon theassumption that60credits representtheworkloadofafull-timestudentover1academicyear.Theannualstudentworkloadfora full-time studyprogram inEurope equals, inmost cases, about 1,500 to 1,800hours.Therefore, one ECTS credit represents about 25 to 30 working hours a week. Teachereducation requires 180 ECTS credits for a bachelor’s degree (which doesn’t meet thequalifications for a teaching diploma or enable permanent employment as a teacher),followedby120additionalECTScreditsforamaster’sdegree.

A broad-based teacher education curriculum ensures that newly prepared Finnishteacherspossesswell-balancedknowledgeandskills inboth theoryandpractice. It alsoimplies that prospective teachers develop deep professional insight into education fromseveralperspectives,includingeducationalpsychologyandsociology,curriculumtheory,student assessment, special needs education, and didactics (pedagogical contentknowledge) in their selected subject areas. It is noteworthy that contemporary FinnishteachereducationhasbeenstronglyinfluencedbyresearchanddevelopmentinthisfieldinAmerican,Canadian,andBritishuniversities.2Toillustratewhatteachersstudyduringtheir preparation program, Table 3.2 illustrates primary school teacher education topicswith required credit units, as offered by the Department of Teacher Education at theUniversity of Helsinki. All eight Finnish universities that offer teacher education havetheir own nationally coordinated teacher education strategies and curricula, ensuringcoherence but encouraging local initiative to make the best use of each university’sresourcesandnearbyopportunities.

Table 3.2. Summary ofPrimaryTeacherEducationMaster’sDegreeProgramat theUniversity ofHelsinki in2014

Asageneralrule,teachereducationpreparingteachersforthelowergrades(typically,grades1to6ofcomprehensiveschools)includes60ECTScreditsofpedagogicalstudiesand at least 60 additional ECTS credits for other courses in educational sciences. Anintegral part of these additional educational studies is a master’s thesis requiringindependentresearch,participationinresearchseminars,anddefendingofthecompletededucational study. The commonly assigned credit for this research work within alluniversitiesis40ECTScredits.

TherevisedteachereducationcurriculuminFinlandrequiresprimaryschoolteachercandidatestocompleteamajorineducationalsciencesandearn60ECTScreditsinminorstudies within subjects included in the National Framework Curriculum forComprehensiveSchool,which is regularly updatedby theNationalBoardofEducationandtheMinistryofEducation.

Most students in primary teacher education programs enter their studieswith solidknowledgeandskillsintherangeofsubjectsthatarestudiedinupper-secondaryschool.InFinland,unlikeintheUnitedStatesorEngland,allupper-secondaryschoolstudentsareobligedtocompletesuccessfullyastudyprogramincludingupto18requiredsubjects—such as physics, chemistry, philosophy, music, and at least two foreign languages inaddition to two domestic languages. Normally, students accepted in Finnish primaryschool teacher education programs have earned higher than average grades in thesesubjects. For example, at the University of Helsinki, some 15% of students selectmathematicsas theirminorsubject,whichearns thema license to teachmathematicsassubject teachers ingrades7 to9 (Lavonenet al.,2007).Scienceeducation is alsoquitepopularamongprimaryschoolteacherstudents;eachyearapproximately10%takebasicoradvancedstudiesinscienceteaching.ItisclearthatprimaryschoolteachersinFinland,ingeneral,possessstrongmasteryofthesubjectsthattheyteachbecauseoftheirbroadlybased upper-secondary school studies and because primary teacher education programsbuilduponthatsolidbase.

Finnish subject teacher education follows the same principles as primary schoolteachereducationbutisarrangeddifferently.Therearetwomainpathwaystobecomingasubjectteacher.Moststudentsfirstcompleteamaster’sdegreeintheiracademicprogramswithonemajorsubject,suchastheFinnishlanguage,forexample,andoneortwominorsubjects,suchasliteratureanddrama.StudentsthenapplytotheDepartmentofTeacherEducation for their subject teacher educationprogram. In pedagogical studies, themainfocus is on subject-oriented teaching strategies equivalent to 60 ECTS credits, andrequiresoneacademicyeartocomplete.Theotherpathwaytobecomingasubjectteacheris for students to apply directly to teacher education to pursue amajor subject in theirselectedacademicprogram.Normally,after2yearsofsubjectstudies,studentsstarttheirpedagogical studies in their university’s faculty of education. The curriculum for thissecondpathwayisidenticaltothatofthefirstroute,onlyitisscheduleddifferentlywithinthebachelor’sandmaster’stracks,typicallyoverfouracademicterms,asillustratedbytheprogramattheUniversityofHelsinkishowninTable3.3.

Prospectivesubjectteachersdecidetomajorinfieldsthattheywillbeteaching,suchasmathematicsormusic.Formajorsubjects,advancedstudiesinvolving90ECTScreditsarenormallyrequired.Inaddition,60ECTScreditsarerequiredinasecondsubjectthat

willbetaughtinschools.Generally,departmentsofteachereducationorganizecoursesinpedagogicalstudiesincollaborationwithsubject-matterdepartmentsintheiruniversities.Each subject-matterdepartment is also responsible for the teachereducationof studentsseeking certification in that particular subject. Exceptions include teacher education forsome subjects that are included in the National Curriculum Framework for thecomprehensive school, such as textile work and crafts, special education, studentcounseling, and music, which are organized within departments of education. Teachereducationformusic,arts,andphysicaleducationusuallyoccursinseparatedepartmentsorinstituteswithinauniversity.ItisalsointernationallyuniquethatFinnishacademicsubjectfaculties—not the department of teacher education—issue master’s degrees for subjectteachersandthusplayimportantrolesinFinnishteachereducation.

Table3.3.StructureofthePedagogicalComponentoftheSubjectTeacherEducationProgramattheUniversity

ofHelsinkiin2014

Bachelor’s level (25 European Credit Transfer andAccumulationcredits) Master’slevel(35credits)

FIRSTTERM(18CREDITS)

Developmentalpsychologyandlearning(4)

Specialeducation(4)

Introductiontosubjectdidactics(10)

THIRDTERM(17CREDITS)

Social, historical, and philosophical foundations ofeducation(5)

Evaluationanddevelopmentofteaching(7)

Advancedteachingpracticeinteachertrainingschoolorfieldschool(5)

SECONDTERM(7CREDITS)

Basicteachingpracticeinteachertrainingschool(7)

FOURTHTERM(12CREDITS)

Researchseminar(teacherasaresearcher)(4)

Finalteachingpracticeinteachertrainingschoolorfieldschool(8)

ASPARTOFMASTER’SPROGRAM:

Researchmethodology(6)

TEACHERSASRESEARCHERS

Instruction inFinnish teacher education departments is arranged to support pedagogicalprinciples that newly prepared teachers are expected to implement in their ownclassrooms. Although all university teachers have full pedagogical autonomy, everydepartmentof teachereducation inFinlandhasadetailedandoftenbindingstrategyforimproving the quality of teacher education programs. Subject-focused pedagogy andresearch in science education within Finnish universities, for example, are regarded asadvanced by international standards (Lavonen et al., 2007). Moreover, cooperativelearning, problem-based learning, reflective practice, and computer-supported educationare now implemented—at least to some extent—in all Finnish universities. A Finnishhighereducationevaluationsystem thatofferspublic recognitionofand financialprizesforeffective,innovativeuniversityteachingpracticehasservedasanimportantdriverofthesepositivedevelopments.

Research-basedteachereducationmeansthattheintegrationofeducationaltheories,researchmethodologies,andpracticeallplayimportantrolesinFinnishteachereducationprograms. Teacher education curricula are designed so that they constitute a systematiccontinuum from the foundations of educational thinking, to educational researchmethodologies,andthenontomoreadvancedfieldsofeducationalsciences.Eachstudentthereby builds an understanding of the systemic, interdisciplinary nature of educationalpractice.Finnishstudentsalsoacquiretheskillsofdesigning,conducting,andpresentingoriginal researchonpracticalor theoreticalaspectsofeducation.An integralelementofFinnish research-based teacher education is practical training in schools—a keycomponentofthecurriculum,asdocumentedinTables3.2and3.3.

BOX3.2:RESEARCH-BASEDTEACHEREDUCATIONInmy long career as a teacher educator, themost significant policy changewas the requirement that allteachers must hold an academic master’s degree in education or in the subject they teach in school. Itlaunchedadevelopmentchainthatelevatedallteachersasprofessionalswho,amongotherthings,areabletounderstandteachingholisticallyandimprovetheirownworkcontinuously.InFinland,ittookmorethan20years to build common understanding among teacher educators, university professors, and practitionersabout thecomplexityof the teachingprofession.Research-basedteachereducationhas thefollowingthreekeyprinciples:

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

ManypeopleaskwhyFinnishstudentsperformsowellinschoolandwhymanyyoungFinnschooseteachingas their career.There isno regular standardized testing, school inspection, teacher evaluation,orrankingofschools inFinland.Publiceducationhasacentral role inenhancingequalityandwell-being inFinnishsociety.High-qualityacademicteachereducationensuresreadinesstoworkinmanyotherareasoftheFinnish labormarket.Most important, inFinlandteachersandschoolsenjoystrongpublicconfidence.Parentstrustteachersthewaythattheytrusttheirdentists.Parentsdonotneedtoworryaboutfindingagoodschoolfor theirchildren.Manythinkthat thenearestschool in theircommunityisgoodenough.Ibelievethatbecauseteachers—asaresultoftheiracademiceducation—haveclearmoralpurposeandindependentprofessionalethos,theyaretrusted.Research-basedteachereducationisessentialinmakingthatpossible.

—HanneleNiemi,ProfessorofEducation,UniversityofHelsinki

There are, in principle, two kinds of practicum experiences within Finnish teachereducation programs.Aminor portion of clinical training occurs in seminars and small-group classeswithin a department of teacher education (part of a faculty of education),where students practice basic teaching skills with their peers. Major teaching practiceexperiencesoccurmostlywithinspecialteachertrainingschoolsgovernedbyuniversities,whichhavecurricula andpractices similar to thoseofordinarypublic schools.Studentsalso use a network of selected field schools for practice teaching. In primary schoolteacher education, students devote approximately 15%of their intended study time (forexample,intheUniversityofJyväskylä,40ECTScredits)practiceteachinginschools.Insubjectteachereducation,theproportionofteachingpracticeinschoolsconstitutesaboutone-thirdofthecurriculum.

TheFinnish teacher education curriculum, as summarized inTables3.2 and 3.3, is

designed to integrate teaching practice in theoretical and methodological studiessystematically. Teaching practice is normally divided into three phases over the 5-yearprogram:basic(orientation)practice,advanced(minorsubject)practice,andfinal(master)practice.Duringeachphase,studentsobserve lessonsbyexperiencedteachers,completepractice teaching observed by supervisory teachers, and deliver independent lessons todifferent pupil groups, all evaluated by supervising teachers and department of teachereducation professors and lecturers. Evaluations of Finnish teacher education haverepeatedlyidentifiedthesystematicnatureofteachereducationcurriculaasakeystrengthandacharacteristicthatdistinguishesFinnishteachereducationfromthatofmanyothernations(Darling-Hammond,2006;Jussila&Saari,2000;Saari&Frimodig,2009).

The Finnish teacher education program represents a spiral sequence of theoreticalknowledge, practical training, and research-oriented inquiry into teaching. Teachereducationresponsibilitiesareintegratedwithintheactivitiesofacademicuniversityunits.At theUniversity ofOulu, three faculties—science, humanities, and education—deliverteacher education courses for their students. They include staff (normally universitylecturersandprofessors)whospecializeinsubject-orientedteachingmethodologies.TheircurriculaarecoordinatedwiththeDepartmentofTeacherEducation,whichisresponsiblefortheoverallorganizationofteachereducation.

Although teacher trainingschoolsconstitute themainportionof thenetworkwithinwhichFinnishstudentscompletetheirpracticeteaching,someordinarymunicipalpublicschools(calledmunicipalfieldschools,orMFS)alsoservethesamepurpose.One-thirdofall teaching practice at theUniversity ofOulu occurs in thesemunicipal field schools.Teacher training schools where practice teaching occurs have higher professional staffrequirements; supervising teachers must prove their competency to work with studentteachers.Teachertrainingschools(butnotMFS)arealsoexpectedtopursueresearchanddevelopmentroles in teachereducationincollaborationwith theuniversity’sdepartmentofteachereducation,andsometimesalsowiththeacademicunits’teachereducationstaff.For example, at the University of Oulu, the Faculty of Science and the Faculty ofHumanities assume teacher education roles and support appropriate staff. All teachertrainingschoolscan,therefore,introducesamplelessonsandalternativecurriculardesignstostudentteachers.Theseschoolsalsohaveteacherswhoareexperiencedinsupervision,teacher professional development, and assessment strategies. There are no specificqualificationstobedesignatedassuchateacher—itiseachindividual’sresponsibilitytobuild the needed knowledge and skills required for employment in a teacher trainingschool.

PROFESSIONALDEVELOPMENT

Because teaching is a much-desired profession in Finland, most new graduates fromFinnishdepartmentsof teacher education and subject-focusedprograms seek immediateschool employment. During their studies, students develop their impressions of whatschoollifefromateacher’sviewpointmaybelike.However,graduatesdonotnecessarilyacquireexperienceparticipatinginacommunityofeducators,assumingfullresponsibilityforaclassroomofstudents,orinteractingwithparents.Alltheseconsiderationsarepartofthe curriculum, but many licensed graduates discover that there is a chasm betweenlecture-hallidealismandschoolreality.

Induction of a new teacher into a first classroom assignment is relatively lessdeveloped in Finland than in the United States or England, although research anddevelopment work on teacher induction is rather active (Jokinen & Välijärvi, 2006;OECD, 2014b). It is up to each school and municipality governing these schools toincorporate new teachers’ needs for induction or mentoring into their teachingresponsibilities. Thus, practices regarding Finnish teacher induction are, admittedly,diverse. Some schools, as part of theirmission, have adopted advanced procedures andsupport systems fornewstaff,whereasother schoolsmerelybidnew teacherswelcomeand show them to their classrooms. In some schools, induction is a well-definedresponsibilityof schoolprincipalsordeputyprincipals,while inother schools inductionresponsibilitiesmaybeassignedtoexperiencedclassroomteachers.TeacherinductionisanareathatrequiresfurtherdevelopmentinFinland.

Itisrecognizedthatprofessionaldevelopmentandinserviceprogramsforteachersarenot aligned with initial teacher education and often lack focus on essential areas ofteaching and school development. Perhaps the main criticism deals with weakcoordinationbetween initial academic teachereducationand thecontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentofteachers(MinistryofEducation,2009).Municipalities,astheoverseersofprimaryand lower- andupper-secondary schools, are responsible forproviding teacherswith opportunities for professional development or inservice training, based on theirneeds. According to the employment contract, there are 3 mandatory professionaldevelopment days annually inwhich all teachersmust take part that are offered by thelocal education authorities. It is up to individual teachers or school principals to decidehowmuchtimebeyondthose3daysandwhattypeofprofessionaldevelopmentisneeded,andwhethersuchinterventions,infact,canbefunded.

InFinland,asignificantdisparityexistsamongmunicipalities’andschools’abilitytofinance professional development for teachers.Themain reason for this situation is theway that education is financed.Thecentralgovernmenthasonlya limited influenceonbudgetarydecisionsmadebymunicipalitiesorschools.Therefore,someschools receivesignificantlymoreallocationsforprofessionaldevelopmentandschoolimprovementthandoothers,particularlyduringtimesofeconomicdownturnwhenprofessionaldevelopmentbudgetsareoftenthefirsttovanish.

GovernanceofFinnisheducationisinconsistentthroughoutthenation.Someschoolsexperiencerelativelyhighautonomyover theiroperationsandbudgeting.Othersdonot.Therefore,Finnishteacherprofessionaldevelopmentappears inmanyforms.Ideally, theschool is the prime decisionmaker regarding the design and delivery of professionaldevelopment. Schoolsmay also bemotivated to lower operating expenses, such as fortextbooks,heating,andmaintenance,andmaydivertthosefundstoteacherdevelopmentpriorities. However, some Finnish municipalities still organize inservice programsuniformly for all teachers and allow little latitude for individual schools todecidewhatwould be more beneficial for them. According to a national survey conducted by theUniversityofJyväskylä in2007,onaverage, teachersdevotedabout7workingdays(or50 hours) annually to professional development; approximately half of that was drawnfromteachers’personaltime(Piesanen,Kiviniemi,&Valkonen,2007).

Participationinprofessionaldevelopment,accordingtoa2009reportbytheFinnish

Ministry ofEducation, is not at an adequate level amongFinnish teachers (Ministry ofEducation,2009).Thegovernment,therefore,isconsideringwaystostrengthenthelegalgrounds for teacher professional development by requiring that all teachers must haveaccesstoadequateprofessionalinservicesupport,fundedbymunicipalities.AccordingtotheNationalTeacherSurvey(NationalBoardofEducation,2014),in2013morethan80%ofFinnishteachershadparticipatedinsometypeofprofessionaldevelopmentduringthepast year. OECD’s TALIS survey confirmed that trend: The participation rate inprofessionaldevelopmentwas79%amongFinnishlower-secondaryteachers.Inthisarea,Finland is laggingbehindmanyother countries—theOECDaverage in that surveywas88%.

The Finnish state budget allocates normally about 30–40millionU.S. dollars eachyear to the professional development of teachers and school principals through variousformsofuniversitycoursesandinservicetraining.Themainpurposeofthisinvestmentinhumancapital is toensureequalaccess to further training,particularly for teacherswhoworkinmoredisadvantagedschools.Thisprofessionaldevelopmentsupportiscontractedtoserviceprovidersonacompetitivebasis.Thegovernmentinitiallydeterminesthefocusof the desired training, basedon current national educational development needs.Localeducation authorities that own the schools and also employ all the teachers make aninvestmentofsimilarscale in theprofessionaldevelopmentof theireducationpersonneleachyear.TheMinistryofEducation,incollaborationwithmunicipalities,planstodoublepublicfundingforteacherprofessionaldevelopmentby2016.

Finnish teachers possessing amaster’s degree have the right to engage in doctoralstudies to supplement their normal professional development opportunities. Primaryschoolteacherscaneasilybegintheirfurtherstudiesinthefacultyofeducation;theirPhDdissertationswillthenfocusonaselectedtopicintheeducationalsciences.Manyprimaryschoolteacherstakeadvantageofthisopportunity,oftenwhilesimultaneouslyteachinginschools. Doctoral studies in education for subject teachers who have their previousdegrees in some other academic field require more work. These teachers must firstcompleteadvancedstudiesintheeducationalsciencesbecausethemainsubjectrequiresashiftfromastudent’sinitialacademicmajor—forexample,chemistry—intoeducation,sothatstudentsarequalifiedtocompletetheirresearchineducation.

TEACHERSARELEADERS

TeachingiscommonlyviewedinFinlandasademandingprofessionthatrequiressuperioracademicqualifications,evenforteachersofveryyoungstudents.Sinceteachereducationbecame part of academic university studies in the 1970s, Finnish teachers’ identity andsenseofbelonging toahighlyregardedprofessionhavegradually increased.During thecourseofFinland’seducationreforms,asexplainedinChapter1,teachershavedemandedmore autonomyand responsibility for curriculumplanning and student assessment.Theprofessional context of teaching in Finland differs significantly from that in othercountrieswhen it comes to theway teachers experience theirwork. The professionallyrespectfulenvironmentthatteachersexperienceinFinlandisanimportantfactornotonlyfor teacher educationpolicies but also for explainingwhy somanyyoungFinns regardteachingasamuch-admiredcareer.

Curriculumplanningistheresponsibilityofteachers,schools,andmunicipalities,not

the state. Most Finnish schools today have their own customized curriculum that iscoordinatedwithandapprovedbytheirlocaleducationauthorities.Thiscorrectlyimpliesthatteachersandschoolprincipalshavekeyrolesincurriculumdevelopmentandschoolplanning. The National Framework Curricula for comprehensive school and for upper-secondaryschoolprovideguidanceandnecessaryregulationsthateachschoolmustkeepin mind in its curriculum development activities. However, there are no strict nationalstandards for or descriptions of student learning outcomes that Finnish schools mustinclude in theircurriculum,as is true in theUnitedStates,GreatBritain,orCanada, forexample.ThatiswhyFinnishcurriculumplanningandthecurriculathatresultfromitcanvaryfromschooltoschool.Theteachers’keyroleinpedagogicaldecisionmakingclearlyrequiresteachereducationtoinstallinallprospectiveteacherswell-developedknowledgeandskillsrelatedtocurriculumdevelopment,studentassessmenttheoryandpractice,andteacher leadership. Moreover, it has shifted the focus of Finnish teacher professionaldevelopment from fragmented inservice training toward more systemic schoolimprovementthatbuildsbetterethicalandtheoreticalgroundingforeffectiveteaching.

Anotherimportantteacherresponsibilityisstudentassessment.Asmentionedearlier,Finnishschoolsdonotemploycensus-basedstandardizedteststodeterminetheirprogressorsuccess.Therearefourprimaryreasonsforthis:

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

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

3. Determiningstudents’personalandcognitiveprogressisregardedasaresponsibilityoftheschool,notofexternalassessmentsorassessors.MostFinnishschoolsacknowledgesomeshortcomings,suchascomparabilityorconsistency,whenteachersdoallstudentassessmentsandgrading.Atthesametime,thereiswideacknowledgmentthattheproblemsthatareoftenassociatedwithexternalstandardizedtestingcanbeevenmoretroublesome.Theseproblems,accordingtoteachers,includeanarrowingcurriculum,teachingtothetest,andunhealthycompetitionamongschoolsandteachers.Classroomassessmentandschool-basedevaluationarethereforeimportantandvaluedcomponentsofFinnishteachereducationcurriculaandprofessionaldevelopment.

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

The only external “standardized” assessment of student learning is the NationalMatriculationExaminationthatstudentstakeat theendofupper-secondaryschoolwhenthey are 18 or 19 years old, as described in Chapter 1. It has exerted, many Finnisheducation specialists argue, a discernible effect on curriculum and teaching in generalupper-secondaryschool.3

AlthoughFinnish teachers’work consistsprimarilyof classroom teaching,manyoftheir duties are performedoutsideof class.Formally, teachers’working time inFinlandconsists of classroom teaching, preparation (in the case of lab-based subjects such asbiology),and3hoursweeklyofplanninganddevelopmentworkwithcolleagues.Unlikeinmanyothernations,Finnishteachersdonotneedtobepresentatschooliftheydonothaveclassesoriftheschoolprincipalhasnotrequestedthattheyperformotherduties.

The average net teaching hours as reported by the governments to the OECD arepresentedinFigure3.2.Schools inFinlandareautonomous in termsofscheduling theirwork,buttheyarerequiredtohavea15-minuterecessforevery45-minutelesson,whichis often a welcome break for teachers. Recently, schools have sought alternativearrangements to allow more time for teachers to collaborate—for example, combininglessons or classes into longer periods or larger groups and thereby providing morediscretionarytimeduringtheschooldayforteachers.

Figure3.2 revealsnotabledifferences in theaveragenet teachinghoursofprimary,lower-secondaryandupper-secondaryteachersbetweentheUnitedStatesandFinlandin2012.Evenifteachingtimeisadjustedtoannualschooldays,itappearsthatteachersinFinlandspendlesstimeeachdayinteaching.Aquestionarises:WhatareFinnishteachersdoingwhen teachers inothercountriesare still teaching their students?An important—andstillvoluntary—partofFinnishteachers’workisdevotedtoschoolimprovementandworkwiththecommunity.ItisworthrecallingthatFinnishschoolsareresponsibleforthedesign and continuous development of their school curriculum. Students receive theirgrades from teachers whose duties include designing and conducting appropriateassessmentsandteststomonitortheirstudents’progressinschool.Finnishteachershaveacceptedcurriculumdevelopment,experimentationwithteachingmethods,responsibilitytoengageinstudentwelfaresupport,andcollaborationwithparentsasimportantaspectsoftheirworkoutsideofclassrooms.ThesearealsosomeofthemostessentialelementsofteacherleadershipinFinnishschools.

Figure3.2.AverageNetTeachingTime inHoursperSchoolYear inFinland, theUnitedStates,and inOECDCountriesonAveragein2012

Source:OECD(2014a).

ForeignvisitorstoFinnishschoolsoftenaskhowteachereffectivenessisdetermined.Theyarealsocurioustoknowhowadministratorsknowwhichareeffectiveteachersandwhere bad teachers are. The overall answer is simple: There are no formal teacherevaluationmeasuresinFinland.Becausetherearenocensus-basedstandardizedtestdataaboutstudentachievementavailable,itisnotpossibletocompareschoolperformanceorteachereffectivenessinthesamewaysthatitismeasuredintheUnitedStatesorAustralia.TheonlyexceptionistheuseofmatriculationexaminationresultsbycertainmediaeveryspringtorankFinnishhighschoolsaccordingtotheirstudents’gradesontheexams.Thatannualearly-summernewsrarelygetsanysignificantattentionfromparentsorschools.

The questions of teacher effectiveness or the consequences of being an ineffectiveteacher are not relevant in Finland. As described earlier, teachers have time to worktogetherduring the schooldayand tounderstandhow theircolleagues teach.This isanimportantconditionforreflectingonteachers’ownteachingandalsoforbuildingasenseof professional leadership and shared accountability between teachers. The schoolinspection system that previously provided external feedback and evaluation of howteachers taught and schools operated was abolished in the early 1990s. Today, schoolprincipals, aided by their own experience as teachers, are able to help their teachersrecognize strengths and areas ofwork that need improvement.The basic assumption inFinnishschoolsisthatteachers,bydefault,arewell-educatedprofessionalsandaredoingtheirbestinschools.Inrealprofessionallearningcommunities,teacherstrustoneanother,communicate frequently about teaching and learning, and rely on their principals’guidanceandleadership.

Internationally, identifying teacher effectivenesshasbecomeanew trend in findingways to improve education. Novel statistical techniques, called value-added modeling

(VAM), are intended to resolve the problemof socioeconomic and other differences byadjustingforstudents’priorachievementanddemographiccharacteristics.AlthoughVAMapproachesarefairercomparisonsofteachersthanjudgmentsoftheirstudents’testscores,closeranalysisofVAMresultshasledresearcherstodoubtwhetherthismethodologycanidentifygoodorbadteachersaswellasitsdesignersclaim(Bakeretal.,2010).Itissafetobelieve that suchquantitativemeasuresare rarely the soleor even theprimary factorwhenitcomestoidentifyingagoodorpoorteacher.Evensomemanagementexpertsfromthe business world warn against using such measures for making salary or bonusdecisions, as has been done, for example, in paying teachers according to theirperformancemerits(usingstudenttestscoresasthemainsourceofevidence).“InboththeUnitedStatesandGreatBritain,”reportsareviewoftheproblemswithusingstudenttestscores to evaluate teachers by the Education Policy Institute, “governments haveattemptedtorankcardiacsurgeonsbytheirpatients’survivalrates,onlytofindthattheyhadcreatedincentivesforsurgeonstoturnawaythesickestpatients”(Bakeretal.,2010,p.7).Payingteachersbasedontheirstudents’standardizedtestscoresisanalienideainFinland.Authoritiesandmostparentsunderstandthatcaringforandeducatingchildrenistoocomplexaprocess tobemeasuredbyquantitativemetricsalone.InFinnishschools,theoperationalprincipleisthatthequalityofteachingandoftheschoolisdefinedthroughthemutual interaction between the school and the students, togetherwith their parents.ThesearealsotheessentialingredientsofteacherleadershipinFinland.

SCHOOLLEADERSARETEACHERS

Regardless of how well teachers are trained in any education system, consistent higheducationalperformancerequiresgoodprofessional leadershipat theschool level.Somecountries allow their schools to be led by noneducators, hoping that business-stylemanagement will raise efficiency and improve performance. Similarly, local educationauthorities and administrators are sometimes personswithout experience in teaching orleading schools. In Finland, educational leadership in municipal education offices iswithoutexceptioninthehandsofprofessionaleducatorswhohaveexperienceinworkingin the field of education. This is an important factor in enhancing communication andbuildingtrustbetweenschoolsandeducationaladministration.

In Finland, school principals have to be qualified to teach in the schools that theylead, and they must have strong track records as teachers. They also must havesuccessfully completed academic studies on educational administration and leadershipofferedbyuniversitiesinFinland.ThismeansthatacorporateCEOoraretiredmilitarychiefwithoutthesemeritswouldnotbequalifiedtoleadaschoolinFinland.Withoutanexception the school principal is an experienced teacher with proven leadershipcompetencies and a suitable personality. Inmany schools, principals also have a smallnumberofclassesthattheyteachthemselveseachweek.AccordingtoTALIS2013,threeoutof four lower-secondaryschoolprincipals inFinlandhave teachingduties inschool,comparedtojustone-thirdofprincipalswithteachingresponsibilitiesinTALIScountriesonaverage(OECD,2014b).Pedagogicalleadershipisoneofthekeyareasofprofessionalschool leadership in Finland. Teachers rely on their leaders’ vision and the principalunderstandsand trusts teachers’work.Therefore, leadershipandmanagement inFinnishschools are informal but effective, as foreign observers have witnessed (Hargreaves,Halasz,&Pont,2008).

Before the 1990s, becoming a school principal was often a reward for successfulserviceasa teacher. Insomecases,however,a ratheryoung teacherwasappointedasaschool leader. Leadership experience or qualitieswere rarely examinedwhen filling anopen principal’s post in schools. Nor did school principals need to be experts inadministration, financial management, or political lobbying as they must today. In theearly 1990s, this situation rapidly changed. One driver of this change was the suddendecentralizationofpublicsectormanagementandeducationaladministrationinFinlandatthat time. A new financing scheme that increased the autonomy of the municipalitiesimmediately affected schools inmost parts of the country. School principals offered tocontrol their school budgets; in some cases, that included teachers’ salaries and allrecurrentcosts.

Second, and a related driver of change,was an unexpected financial crisis that hitFinlandharder thanmanyotherWestern countries in the early1990s.Schoolprincipalsbecame the operational arms of themunicipalities in deciding how forthcoming budgetcuts,whichweretypicallydouble-digitinmagnitude,wouldbemanaged.Finnishschoolprincipals found themselves inasituationsimilar to thatofcorporateCEOswhohad toadjust their firms into shrinkingmarkets.Thenostalgic imageof theheadof the schoolhadchanged.Majoreducationalchanges—suchasthecurriculumreformsof1994—havebeenimplementedsuccessfullyprimarilyduetotheprofessionalattitudeandpedagogicalleadership of school principals. Ever since, this leadership community in Finland hasservedasacriticalvoiceinshapingeducationpoliciesandsteeringschoolimprovementbased on the needs of teachers, students, and society.Based on these experiences, it isdifficult to imagine that market-based education reforms, which often undermine thecentral roleofpedagogical leadership,couldhavebeen implemented inFinland.Schoolprincipals have been the first to stand between these intentions and the well-being ofschools.

GOODTEACHERS,GREATSCHOOLS

WhatelsedidOECD’sTALIS2013revealaboutFinland’slower-secondaryteachers?Thefollowingaresomeofthemainconclusions(OECD,2014b).Firstofall,aboutthreeoutof five teachers feel that their profession is valued in society, which is well above theaverageof31%intheother33countriesthattookpartinTALIS.Surveydatashowthatwhenschoolsprovidestaffwiththeopportunitytoparticipateinschooldecisionmaking,teachers are more likely to feel that teaching is a valued profession. Second, the vastmajorityof teachers inFinlandreportbeingsatisfiedwith theirwork.Morespecifically,95%ofteachersreportthattheadvantagesofbeingateacheroutweighthedisadvantages;thisiswellabovetheaverageof77%intheothercountriessurveyed.Similarly,85%ofFinnishlower-secondaryschool teacherswouldchoosetheprofessionagainandjust5%of teachers regret becoming a teacher, compared with the averages of 78% and 9%,respectively, in other countries. Finally, 91%of teachers inFinland report that they aresatisfiedwiththeirjobs.

However, TALIS 2013 also casts some worrying shadows on teachers and theteachingprofessioninFinland.First,28%oflower-secondaryschoolteachersinFinlandsaidthattheywerenotatalloronlysomewhatpreparedforteachingthecontentoftheirsubjects,whilemorethanone-thirdreportedbeingnotatalloronlysomewhatpreparedto

teach their subjects’ pedagogyor practical components.This is surprising and stands incontradictionwith Finnish research on teachers’ preparedness towork after their initialteacher education (Niemi, 2011). In these studies, Finnish teachers said they feltcompetent with planning, teaching methods, student assessment, and mastering thecontent.Conflictresolution,collaborationwithparents,andteachingchildrenwithspecialneeds are commonly viewed as weaker areas in new teachers’ professional repertoires.Second,thereisnocommonframeworkforteacherappraisalinFinland.Therefore,almost28%ofteachersinFinlandteachinaschoolwheretheprincipalreportsthatteachersarenotformallyappraisedbytheprincipal.Instead,themainformofappraisaloccursthroughface-to-face and often informal dialoguewith the school leader. Third, 37% of Finnishlower-secondary school teachers report that they have never received feedback on theirteaching in school. Countries differ in the proportion receiving feedback and on thesourcesoffeedback.Theproportionofteacherswhohadneverreceivedfeedbackontheirteachingwas7%inAlberta,14%inAustralia,and1%inSingapore.Inthatcontext,42%ofteachersinFinlandreporthavingreceivedfeedbackfromtheirprincipaland43%saidtheyreceivedfeedbackfromotherteachersintheirschools.

Theseinternationallylowratesofformalteacherappraisalandfeedbackonteachingmay partially be explained by rather informal collegial personal relations in Finnishschools.Butifjust38%ofteachersinFinlandreportamoderateorlargepositivechangeinteachingpracticesfollowingthefeedback—thelowestnumberofallsurveyedcountries—then this may point to a chronic problem in Finland’s lower-secondary schools.Designing appraisal and feedback systems could be an opportunity to speed up schoolimprovementandtheprofessionaldevelopmentofteachersinFinland.TALIS2013datasuggestthatteacherswhothinkthatappraisalandfeedbackpositivelyinfluencetheirworkreporthigherconfidenceintheirteachingskills.

Insummary,whataretherelativestrengthsofteachereducationinFinland,basedoninternationalperspectives?First, although theBologna Process directs overall Europeanhighereducationstructuresandpolicies,itdoesn’tstipulatehowsignatorynationsshoulddesign curricula or arrange their teacher education. There are, andwill continue to be,significant differences in national teacher education policies and practices amongEuropeaneducationsystems.WithinthismosaicofEuropeanteachereducationsystems,Finlandhasthreepeculiarities.

1. Talented and motivated individuals go into teaching. Since it shifted primaryschoolteachereducationtotheuniversitiesandupgradedteacherdiplomastoarequiredmaster’s degree in the late 1970s, Finland has attracted some of its most talented andmotivated youth to become teachers. As described earlier, there is a strong culturalinfluence in the career planning of young Finns, but that alone does not explain thesustained popularity of teaching. Two other salient factorsmay be identified. First, therequired master’s degree in educational sciences provides a competitive professionalfoundation, not only for becoming employed as a primary school teacher but also formanyothercareers,includingeducationadministrationandworkintheprivatesector.Allgraduatingteachersarefullyeligibletoenroll indoctoralstudies,whicharestill tuition-freeinFinland.Second,manyyoungFinnsselectteachingastheirprimarycareerbecause

workinschoolsisperceivedasanautonomous,independent,highlyregardedprofession,comparable toworkingasamedicaldoctor, lawyer,orarchitect, forexample. Increasedexternal control over teachers’ work in schools through test-based accountability orcentrally mandated regulation would likely deflect more bright young people to otherprofessional careers where they have freedom tomake use of their own creativity andinitiative.

2.Thereisclosecollaborationbetweensubjectfacultiesanddepartmentsofteachereducation in Finnish research universities. Subject teacher education is organizedcollaboratively and is coordinated to ensure both a solidmastery of the subjects to betaughtandstate-of-the-artpedagogicalcompetencesforallgraduates.FacultiesinFinnishuniversities perceive teacher education as an important component of their academicprograms.Lecturersandsomeprofessors in thesubject facultieshavespecialized in theteaching of their own disciplines, which has enhanced cooperation among teachereducators. Faculties of education and various subjects within the university are alsopositivelyinterdependent:Theycanachievesustainablesuccessonlywhenallofthemdotheirbest.

3. Teacher education is research-based. Teacher education in Finland is alsorecognizedbecauseofitssystematicandresearch-basedstructure.Allgraduatingteachers,bythenatureoftheirdegree,havecompletedresearch-basedmaster’sthesesaccompaniedbyrigorousacademicrequirementsoftheory,methodology,andcriticalreflectionequaltoanyotherfieldofstudyinFinnishuniversitiesatthatlevel.Researchorientationtoteachereducation prepares teachers, at all levels, to work in complex, changing societal andeducational environments. Research-based academic training has also enabled theimplementation of more radical national education policies. For example, enhancedprofessional competencies have led to putting increased trust in teachers and schoolsregardingcurriculumplanning,studentassessment,reportingofstudentperformance,andschool improvement.Finlandhassuccessfully integratedresearch,knowledgeofcontentanddidactics,andpracticeintoitsteachereducationprograms.

Indeed, this research focus carries a twofold significance for teacher education.Research findings establish the professional basis for teachers to teach and workeffectivelywithinacomplexknowledgesociety.Teachereducation—withinanysociety—hasthepotentialtoprogressasaneffectivefieldofprofessionalactivityonlythroughandfrom robust contemporary empirical, scientific inquiry. Professionalism as the maincharacteristic of teaching requires teachers to be able to access and follow ongoingdevelopmentsintheirownprofessionandtofreelyimplementnewknowledgewithintheirown instructional work. Thus, further development of Finnish teacher education mustnecessarily be built upon ongoing, high-quality, internationally relevant research anddevelopmentachievements.

WhatcanwelearnfromFinland’steacherpolicies?Educationreformersoftenarguethatthewaytoimproveschoolsissimplytohavebetterteachers.TheFinnishexperience

suggests that real life in schools is more complicated than that. Drawing from whatFinlandandotherhigh-performingschoolsystemshavedonetogetthemostoutoftheirschools,twoconditionsmustexistregardingteachers.

First, teachers and studentsmust teach and learn in an environment that empowersthemtodotheirbest.Whenteachershavemorecontrolovercurriculumdesign,teachingmethods, and student assessment, they are more inspired to teach than when they arepressured todeliverprescribedprogramsandmust submit to external standardized teststhatdetermineprogress.Similarly,whenstudentsareencouragedtofindtheirownwaysof learning without fear of failure, most will study and learn more than when they’redriventoachievethesamestandardsunderthepressureofregulartesting.

I’ve argued elsewhere (Sahlberg, 2013a) that if education policies prevent teachersand students fromdoingwhat they think isnecessary forgoodoutcomes, even thebestteacherswillnotbeabletomakesignificant improvements.Competitionamongschoolsoverenrollment,standardizedteachingandlearning,andtest-basedaccountabilityarethemost common toxic aspects of today’s school systems globally. These are the wrongmeans for sustainable improvement, and they are often the main reason why so manyteachersleavetheprofessionearlierthanplanned.

Second,teachingisacomplexprofessionthatrequiresadvancedacademiceducation.Current trends inmanypartsof theworldsuggest just theopposite: Ifyou’resmart, thethinkinggoes,youcanteachbecauseteachingisnotrocketscience;withclearguidelinesandspecificstandardsinhand,almostanyonecanteach.Insomecountries,forexample,retiredmilitarypersonnelarebeingconvertedintoteachersandprincipalstoaddresstheteacher shortage caused by teachers who leave the profession early. In some othercountries,teachersarelicensedtoteachthroughonlinecoursesorfast-trackarrangementsthatgivethemonlylimitedinvolvementinrealclassroomlifeorworkinschoolpriortotheiremployment.

Teachingwillbecomeamorepopularcareerchoiceamongyoungpeopleifthebasicqualification tobecomea teacher iselevated toamaster’sdegreeonaparwithwhat isneeded for other esteemed professions. Professional leadership will flourish amongteachers only if they have the autonomy to influence what and how they teach and todetermine how well their students are performing. Achieving these essential elementsrequires a scientific approach to teacher education, in which curriculum, pedagogy,assessment, school improvement, professional development, and systematic clinicalpracticeplayanintegralpart.ThisisthefirstlessonthatcanbelearnedfromFinland.

Many visitors to Finland wonder why the Finnish education system hasn’t beeninfected by themarket-based reform ideas that are so prevalent around theworld. Theanswer is simple:Teachers inFinlandareprepared to resist these ideasbecauseof theiradvanced academic education and the collaborative nature of their profession, just asmedical doctors would reject any suggested cure for a disease if it were not based onreliableexperimentsandresearch.Notonlyarebetter-educatedteachersmoreeffectiveinthe classroom, but they’re also better equipped to keep their education systems healthyandfreefromreformideasthatareharmfultobothteachersandchildren.

Finnish teacher education’s greatest potential lies in the hundreds of talented and

motivated young people who, year after year, seek enrollment in teacher educationprograms.Thisisacrucialfactorforthecontinuedandfuturesuccessofteachereducationin Finland. Young Finns gravitate toward teaching because they regard it as anindependent,respected,andrewardingprofessionwithinwhichtheywillhavefreedomtofulfill their aspirations. However, general upper-secondary school graduates also weighthe quality of teacher education programswhen theymake decisions about their futurecareer. It is therefore paramount that Finnish teacher education continues to develop inorder to ensure that, in the future, it remains an attractive and competitive option forhighlyableyoungpeople.

Teachers’ professional status in Finnish society is a cultural phenomenon, but howteachersbecomepreparedtoteachinclassroomsandworkcollaborativelyinprofessionalcommunitiesisattributabletosystematicallydesignedandimplementedacademicteachereducation. For other nations, imitating the Finnish curriculum system or organizationalaspects of schools may not be a wise strategy. However, a positive lesson that Finnsthemselves have learned by raising the level of teacher education on par with otheracademicpursuits certainlymerits closer examination.Acritical condition for attractingthemostableyoungpeopleyearafteryear to teachereducation is thata teacher’sworkshouldrepresentanindependentandrespectedprofessionratherthanmerelyfocusingonthe technical implementation of externally mandated standards, endless tests, andadministrativeburdens.Indeed,teachingisnotrocketscience—itismuchharderthanthat.ThisisthesecondlessonthatFinlandcanoffertoothers.

WHATIFFINLAND’SGREATTEACHERSTAUGHTINYOURSCHOOLS?

IhavebeenprivilegedtomeetandhostscoresofforeigneducationdelegationstoFinlandin recent years in their quest to build higher-performing school systems in their owncountries.WhatmostofthesevisitorstakeawayisthatFinlandhasahighlystandardizedteacher education system that requires all teachers to holdmaster’s degrees that can beonlyearnedinthecountry’sresearchuniversities.Therefore,competitionintheseteachereducationprogramsistough.AvisittoanyoftheFinnishuniversitiesrevealsthatFinland,just like Singapore, South Korea, and Japan, has strict control over the quality ofapplicants at their entry into teacher education and only the best candidates will beaccepted.Thenumberofacceptedstudentsaccuratelycorrespondswith theneeds in thelabormarket after their graduation.Manyguests realize that allowing“bad” teachers toenterteachinginFinnishschoolsrarelyhappens.

AsaconsequenceoftheselessonsfromFinland,Ihaveoftenheardpeoplewonderingifthequalityoftheirownschoolsandentireeducationsystemwouldimproveifonlytheyhad teachers like theFinnshave—justashavinggood teachershas improvedschools inFinland,Singapore,andSouthKorea,forexample.Therehasbeenaglobalmovementtoturn attention to teacher quality and how it might be improved. Indeed, the desire toenhanceteacherqualitycomesfromthelessonslearnedfromeducationsystemsthatscorehighoninternationalstudentassessments.Eachofthesesuccessfulsystemshasmanagedtocreateasituationwhereteachingisregardingbyyoungpeopleasaninterestingcareerchoice.Mostteachersinthesecountriesspendmostoftheirworkinglivesservingschools.From the international perspective, however, there are three myths related to teacherqualityandschoolimprovementthatoftensteereducationpoliciesinthewrongdirection

incountrieswheretheteachingprofessionhasdeclinedinstatus(Sahlberg,2013b).

The first myth is that the most important single factor in improving quality ofeducationisteachers.ThisiswhattheformerWashington,DCschoolchancellorMichelleRheesaid inWaiting for“Superman” in2010andwhatmanyother school“reformers”repeat in theirchange rhetoric. If thiswasn’tamyth, then thepowerofa schoolwouldindeedbestronger thanchildren’sfamilybackgroundorotherout-of-schoolfactors,andallchildrenwouldachievemore ifonly thereweregoodenough teachers inall schools.Thismythhasoftenledtotheconclusionthatwhatneedstobedonefirstistogetridofpoorly performing teachers. However, there are two points of evidence that show thisnotionisindeedamyth.

First, since the Coleman Report in 1966, several studies have confirmed that asignificantpartofthevarianceinstudentachievementcanbeattributedtoout-of-schoolfactors such as parents’ education and occupations, peer influence, and students’individual characteristics. Half a century later, research on what explains students’measured performance in school concludes that 10–20% of the variance in measuredstudentachievementcanbeattributedtoclassrooms—thatis,teachersandteaching—anda similar amount of the variance comes from factors within schools—that is, schoolclimate, facilities, and leadership. In other words, up to two-thirds of what explainsstudentachievementfallsbeyondthecontrolofschools.

Second, over 30 years of systematic research on school effectiveness and schoolimprovementrevealsanumberofcharacteristicsthataretypicalofmoreeffectiveschools(Teddlie, 2010). Although school effectiveness research shows mixed findings, mostscholars agree that effective leadership is among the most important characteristics ofeffective schools, equally important as effective teaching. Effective leadership includesleader qualities, such as being firm and purposeful, having a shared vision and goals,promoting teamwork and collegiality, and frequent personal monitoring and feedback.Severalothercharacteristicsofmoreeffectiveschoolsincludefeaturesthatarealsolinkedto the culture of the school and leadership:maintaining focus on learning, producing apositive school climate, setting high expectations for all, developing staff skills, andinvolvingparents.Inotherwords,schoolleadershipmattersasmuchasteachersdo.

Thesecondmythisthatthequalityofaneducationsystemcannotexceedthequalityofitsteachers.ThisstatementbecameknownineducationpoliciesthroughtheinfluentialMcKinsey & Company report titledHow the World’s Best Performing School SystemsComeoutonTop (Barber&Mourshed,2007,p.40).Thesameargumentappears in themost recent and very influential PISA reports (OECD, 2013d, p. 96). Although thesereportstakeabroaderviewonenhancingstatusofteachersbypayingthembetterandbyselecting initialcandidates for teachereducationprogramsmorecarefully, the impactofthisstatementisthatthequalityofaneducationsystemisasimplesumoftheeffortsofitsindividuals—in other words, of its teachers. By saying this, the authors assume thatteachers work independently from one another and that what one teacher does doesn’taffecttheworkoftheothers.Thisisanarrowhumancapitalviewtochange.However,inmostschoolstoday,inFinland,theUnitedStates,andelsewhere,teachersworkasteamsandtheoutcomeof theirwork isa jointeffortof thewholeschool.Thismyth thereforeunderminestheimpactofteamworkandthesocialcapital thatitcreatesinmostschools

today.

Thismyth has found itsway into several national education policy documents andreformprogramstoday.However,therearestudiesonteam-basedschoolcultureandtheroleofcollegialityinschoolthatshowhowenhancedsocialcapitalthroughprofessionalcollaborationinschoolcanincreaseteachers’effectonstudents’learninginschool.Thisisthe main principle of Professional Capital (2012), an award-winning book by AndyHargreavesandMichaelFullan.Theroleofanindividualteacherinaschoolislikethatofaplayeronafootball team:All teachersarevital,butthecollegialcultureandteachers’professionaljudgmentintheschoolareevenmoreimportantforthequalityoftheschool.Teamsportsoffernumerousexamplesofteamsthathaveperformedbeyondexpectationsbecauseofleadership,commitment,andspirit.TaketheU.S.icehockeyteaminthe1980WinterOlympics,whena teamofcollegekidsbeatboth theSovietsandFinland in thefinalroundtowinthegoldmedal.TheoverallqualityoftheU.S.teamcertainlyexceededthe quality of its individual players.The same can be said for schools in the educationsystem.

Thethirdmythisthatifanychildrenhadthreeorfourgreatteachersinarow,theywouldsoaracademically,regardlessoftheirsocioeconomicbackground,whilethosewhohave a sequence of weak teachers will fall further and further behind. This theoreticalassumptionappearedinanimportantpolicyrecommendationcalledEssentialElementsofTeacher Policy in ESEA: Effectiveness, Fairness and Evaluation (Center for AmericanProgress&TheEducationTrust)presentedtotheU.S.Congressin2011.Greatteachersand great teaching here, again, aremeasured by the growth of students’ test scores onstandardizedmeasurements.

The assumption that students would perform well if they simply had more greatteachers presents a view that education reform alone could overcome the powerfulinfluenceoffamilyandsocialenvironmentmentionedearlier.Itmeansthatschoolsshouldget rid of low-performing teachers and hire only great ones. This myth has the mostpracticaldifficulties.Thefirstoneisrelatedtowhatitmeanstobeagreatteacher.Evenifthiswereclear,itwouldbedifficulttoknowexactlywhoisagreatteacheratthetimeofrecruitment.Becomingagreatteachernormallytakes5to10yearsofsystematicpractice,andtoreliablydeterminethe“effectiveness”ofanyteacherwouldrequireatleast5yearsofconsistent,accuratedata.Thiswould,ingeneral,bepracticallyimpossible.

Let’s return to the question in the heading of this section. Imagine that we couldtransportFinnish teachersandschoolprincipalswhoallholdmaster’sdegreesandhavebeen throughhighly regarded teacherpreparation to teach in, say, Indiana in theUnitedStates. Indiana’s own teachers and principals would go and work in Finnish schools.(Imagine that there would be no language barriers.) After 5 years—assuming thateducationpoliciesinbothIndianaandFinlandwouldcontinueastheyhavebeengoing—we would check what had happened to students’ test scores on mandatory studentassessments. I argue that if therewereanygains in Indiana students’ achievement, theywouldbeonlymarginal.Why?EducationpoliciesinIndianaandinmanyotherstatesintheUnitedStatescreateaprofessionalandsocialcontextforteachingthatwouldlimittheFinnishteacherswhenitcomestousingtheirknowledge,experience,andpassionforthegoodoftheirstudents’learning.IhavemetsomeexperiencedFinnishteacherswhoteach

intheUnitedStates,andtheyconfirmmyearlierhypotheticalreasoning.BasedonwhatIhaveheardfromsomeofthem,itisalsoprobablethatmanyofthosetransportedFinnishteacherswouldalreadybedoingsomethingelseotherthanteachingbytheendofthe5thyear—like their American peers. The other question is: Would Finnish school ratingscollapseasaconsequenceofAmerica teachers teaching in its schools?Most likelynot.Theeducationalculture inFinlandwould try toassist any teacherswhocannotperformaccording to expectations. Less time in the classroom would provide these foreignteacherswithmoretimetoworkwiththeircolleaguesandfindbetterwaystohelptheirstudentsbecomesuccessful.

Everybody agrees that the importanceof the teachingprofession and thequality ofteaching in contributing to learning outcomes is beyond question. It is thereforeunderstandablethatteacherqualityisoftencitedasthemostimportantin-schoolvariableinfluencing student achievement. But just having better teachers in schools will notautomatically translate into better learning outcomes. Lessons from high-performingschool systems, including Finland, suggest that we must reconsider the way we thinkaboutteachingasaprofessionandwhattheroleoftheschoolisinoursociety.Ratherthandreaming about having teachers like those in Finland, Canada, or Singapore, nationalpolicymakers should consider the following three aspects affecting the teachingprofession.

First, teachereducation shouldbemore standardizedandat the same time teachingand learning should be less standardized. Singapore, Canada, and Finland all set highstandards for their teacher preparation programs in academic universities. They don’tallow fast-track pathways into teaching or alternative training that doesn’t includestudyingtheoriesofpedagogyandrelatedclinicalpractice.Allthesecountriesmakeitaprioritytohavestrictqualitycontrolbeforeanybodywillbeallowedtoteach.

Second, the toxic use of accountability for schools should be redesigned. Currentpracticesinmanycountriesthatjudgethequalityofteachersbycountingtheirstudents’measured achievement alone is in many ways inaccurate and unfair. It is inaccuratebecausemost schools’ goals arebroader than just goodperformance in a fewacademicsubjects.Itisunfairbecausemostofthevariationinstudentachievementonstandardizedtests can be explained by out-of-school factors. In education systems that score high ininternational rankings, teachers feel that they are empoweredby their leaders andotherteachers. In Finland, the TALIS 2013 survey shows that teachers find their professionrewardingbecauseofprofessionalautonomyandthesocialprestigethatcomeswithit.

Third, changing teacher policies is not enough to make the teaching professionattractive—otherschoolpoliciesmustbechanged,too.Theexperiencesofthosecountriesthat do well in international rankings suggest that teachers should have autonomy inplanningtheirwork,freedomtouseteachingmethodsthattheyknowleadtobestresults,and authority to influence the assessment of the outcomes of their work. Schools andteachersmustalsobetrustedinthesekeyareasofteachingfortheteachingprofessiontoreallybecomeanattractivecareerchoiceformoreyoungpeople.

CHAPTER4

TheFinnishWayCompetitiveWelfareState

Realwinnersdonotcompete.

—SamuliParonen,Finnishauthor,1917–1974

WhatmakesFinnisheducationuniqueisitssteadyprogressfromasystemthatwasbarelyat international averages to one of the rare strong public educational performers today.Equally important, Finland has been able to create a network of schools where nearlyeverybody succeeds and failure is rare. Simultaneously, participation in and graduationfrompost-compulsoryeducationinFinland—bothupper-secondaryandhighereducation—have increased significantly. The success of Finnish education has been frequentlynoted by global media and various education development agencies. This exceptionaldevelopment was not accomplished by following the same education reform principlesthat are dominant in theUnitedStates,England,Australia, andmuch of the rest of theworld.

Finlandhasacompetitivenationaleconomy,lowlevelsofcorruption,goodqualityoflife,astrongsustainable-developmentlifestyle,andgenderequality.ThesequalitiesmakeFinland one of themost prosperous nations in the world. The success of Finland as asmall,remoteEuropeannationhasbeenbuiltuponflexibilityandasolutionorientationinallaspectsofsociety.InFinland’seducationsystem,theseprincipleshaveenabledschoolstoexperimentwithcreativityandtakeriskswhileseekingtoreachsetgoals,whetherthesegoalsrepresenteffectiveteachingorproductivelearning.Thisisinharmonywithpoliciesandstrategiesinotherareasofthepublicsector.Especiallyinterestinghasbeenthecloseinterplaybetweeneducationpoliciesandeconomicstrategiessincetheearly1990s.

This chapter discusses in more detail how education policies in Finland haverespondedtointernationaleducationalreformideasandhowtheyarelinkedtotheoveralldevelopment of the knowledge economy and welfare state. It describes the increasedinterdependency among public sector policies in Finland since 1970, and presents atentative typology to compare education reform principles and economic developmentpolicies inFinland.Themainpoint of this chapter is that educationpolicies for systemexcellenceneedtobebasedonasystemsviewofpolicymakingandsustainableleadershipthatdoesnotunderminecomplexrelationshipsbetweendifferentpublicsectorpoliciesinthesesocieties.

THEPOWEROFGLOBALIZATION

Internationalization has shaped Finland and the lives of its people during the past 2decades. Membership in the European Union and an active role in the OECD haveincreasedindividualmobilityandtheexchangeofpoliciesbetweenFinlandandtherestofthe developed world. Finnish people, however, remain divided regarding globalization.Manythinkthatglobalizationisleadingtoadiminishingrolefornation-statesandtheloss

of their sovereignty, as a result of the emergence of global hegemony of transnationalmoney, media, and entertainment corporations. Others argue that standardization ineconomies, policies, and cultures has become a new norm for competitive corporationsandnations, thusdiminishingFinnishcustomsand traditions.Changes inglobal culturealsodeeplyaffecteducationalpolicies,practices,andinstitutions.Itisobviousthatthereisnostraightforwardviewof theconsequencesof theglobalizationprocessoneducationalpolicies.

Globalization is a cultural paradox: It simultaneouslyunifies anddiversifies peopleandcultures.Itunifiesnationaleducationpoliciesbyintegratingthemwithbroaderglobaltrends. Because problems and challenges are similar from one education system to thenext,solutionsandeducationreformagendasarealsobecomingsimilar.Asaresultoftheinternational benchmarking of education systems by using common indicators andinternationalcomparisonsofstudentachievement,thedistinguishingfeaturesofdifferenteducationsystemsarebecomingmorevisible.Forexample,PISAhasmobilizedscoresofpoliticians and education experts to visit other places, especially Finland, Canada,Singapore, Shanghai, andKorea, in order to learn how to redefine their own educationpolicies and improve schools. As a consequence, globalization has also acceleratedinternational collaboration, the exchangeof ideas, and the transferof educationpoliciesamongeducationsystems.

Analyzingglobalpolicydevelopmentsandeducationreformshasbecomeacommonpractice in many ministries of education, development agencies, and consultant firms.Therefore, the world’s education systems are beginning to share some core values,functions, and structures, and evidently they look alike. The question arises whetherincreased global interaction among policymakers and educators, especially thebenchmarking of education systems through agreed-upon indicators and the borrowingand lending of educational policies, has promoted common approaches to educationreformthroughouttheworld.

ChangeknowledgeineducationhasbeencreatedanddisseminatedpredominantlybyEnglish-speaking countries.TheUnitedStates,Canada, and theUnitedKingdom in theWestandAustralia,NewZealandandSingaporeintheAsia-Pacificregionhavebecomethe centers of gravity for research and debate on school improvement, schooleffectiveness, andeducational change.Twoacademic journals,SchoolEffectiveness andSchool Improvement (established in 1990) and the Journal of Educational Change(established in 2000), are the key forums within which contemporary knowledge iscommunicated.1 Beyond the Anglo-Saxon world, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, andNorwayhaveengagedmostactivelyininternationaldialogueandresearchoneducationalchange.Surprisingly,Finland,Korea,andJapan—allcountrieswithhigh-performingandequitable education systems—have had only a modest role in the generation of globalknowledgeaboutchange.Eachof thesecountrieshas reliedheavilyon theresearchandinnovationfromtheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,Australia,andCanada.

In the business of global education development, it is important to be a criticalconsumer of the available evidence and research. Indeed, rather than shifting emphasistowardstandardizedknowledgeofcontentandmasteryofroutineskills,someadvancededucationsystemsarefocusingonflexibility,risktaking,creativity,andproblemsolving

through modern methods of teaching combined with community networks and smarttechnologies.Thenumberofexamplesisincreasing,includingChina,aneconomicpowerthatislooseningitsstandardizedcontrolovereducationbygraduallymakingschool-basedcurriculumanationalpolicypriority(Zhao,2014).JapanandSingaporeareadoptingtheidea of “less ismore” in teaching in order tomake room for creativity and innovation(OECD,2011a).Oneofthehighest-performingCanadianprovinces,Alberta,islooseningits grip on schools by removing standardized provincial assessments and creatingmoreintelligentaccountabilitypolicies,whichfocusonauthenticlearningandvarietyofstudentassessment methods. Wales has done this already. Scotland is also building smartercurriculum and accountability practices by staying away from heavy-handed externaltesting and school inspection. Even in England, once themost test-intensive educationsystem in the world, the government is putting an end to all standardized testing inprimaryschools.

As a reaction to the overemphasis on knowledge-based teaching and test-basedaccountability, authorities around the world are considering more dynamic forms ofcurriculum, introducing new forms of accountability, and enhancing leadership ineducationinordertofindalternativeinstructionalapproachesthatpromotetheproductivelearning required in knowledge economies. Instead of focusing on single institutions,educationreformsarebeginningtoencouragenetworkingofschoolsandcommunities.Atthecoreofthisideaiscomplementarity—thatis,cooperationbetweenschoolsanddistrictsandstrivingforbetter learninginthenetwork.Clusteringandnetworkingalsoappeartobe core factors in nations’ economic competitiveness and efforts to cope withglobalization.

Althoughtheimprovementofeducationsystemsisaglobalphenomenon,thereisnoreliable, recent comparative analysis abouthoweducation reforms indifferent countrieshavebeendesignedandimplemented.However, theprofessional literature indicates thatthefocusoneducationaldevelopmenthasshiftedfromstructuralreformstoimprovingthequalityofandaccesstoeducation(Hargreaves,Lieberman,Fullan,&Hopkins,2010).Asa result, curriculum development, student assessment, teacher evaluation, integration ofinformationandcommunicationtechnologiesintoteachingandlearning,andproficiencyinbasiccompetencies (that is, reading,writing,andarithmetic)and inscientific literacyhavebecomecommonprioritiesineducationreformsaroundtheworld.Inordertobringaboutthesechangesinschools,governmentsemployoftenoutdatedandbadmanagementmodelsfromthecorporateworld,suchascompetitionbetweenschools,standardizationofteachingandlearning,punitivetest-basedaccountability, ill-informedperformance-basedpay,anddata-drivendecisionmaking.IcallthistheGlobalEducationalReformMovement(Sahlberg,2006a,2007,2010a).

THEGLOBALEDUCATIONALREFORMMOVEMENT

The ideaof theGlobalEducationalReformMovement,or simplyGERM,evolves fromthe increased international exchange of policies and practices. It is not a formal globalpolicyprogram,butratheranunofficialeducationalagendathatreliesonacertainsetofassumptionstoimproveeducationsystems(Hargreaves,Earl,Moore,&Manning,2001;Hargreaves&Shirley,2009;Sahlberg,2011).GERMhasemergedsincethe1980sandisone concrete offspring of globalization in education. It has become accepted as “a new

educational orthodoxy” within many recent education reforms throughout the world,including reforms in the United States, many parts of Australia, Canada, the UnitedKingdom, some Scandinavian countries, and an increasing number of countries in thedevelopingworld.2

Tellingly, GERM is promoted through the strategies and interests of multinationalprivate corporations, supranational development agencies, international donors, privatefoundations,andconsultingfirmsthroughtheirinterventionsinnationaleducationreformsand policymaking processes around the world. In developing countries, global andregionaldevelopmentbanks;inindustrialnations,OECDandtheInternationalMonetaryFund (IMF); in theUnitedStates,wealthycorporationsand their foundationsaswellasPearson,McKinsey,andotherinfluentialcompanieshavebeentheadvocatesofcorporatemodels to national policymakers. Diane Ravitch (2013) has described how venturephilanthropyinjectsbillionsofdollarsintopubliceducationsystemsintheUnitedStates—and, to a lesser extent, in some other countries—and often insists on employingmanagement concepts and principles borrowed from the business world in the schoolsystems.Bydoingso, itpromotestheviralspreadofGERMnotonlywithintheUnitedStates but globally. There are only a small number of private foundations that providefundstopubliceducationinFinland,andtheyhavetooperateundertheclosesupervisionof the authorities. Their influence on education policies or the direction of educationreformsisnexttonone.

TheinspirationfortheemergenceofGERMcomesfromthreeprimarysources.Thefirst is the new paradigm of learning that became dominant in the 1980s. Thebreakthroughofcognitiveandconstructivistapproachestolearninggraduallyshiftedthefocus of education reforms from teaching to learning. According to this paradigm, theintended outcomes of schooling emphasize greater conceptual understanding, problemsolving, emotional and multiple intelligences, and interpersonal skills, rather than thememorizationoffactsorthemasteryofirrelevantskills.Atthesametime,however,theneedforproficiencyinliteracyandnumeracyhasalsobecomeaprimetargetofeducationreforms.

Thesecondinspirationisthepublicdemandforguaranteed,effectivelearningforallpupils.TheglobalcampaigncalledEducationforAllhasbeeninfluential inshiftingthepolicy focus ineducation from teachingof some to learning forall. Inclusiveeducationarrangementsandtheintroductionofcommonlearningstandardsforallhavebeenofferedasmeans to promote the ideal of education for all.This has led, generally speaking, toraisingexpectationsforallstudentsthroughnationalcurriculaandcommonprograms.

The third inspiration is the competition and accountabilitymovement in educationthat has accompanied the global wave of decentralization of public services. Makingschools and teachers compete for students and resources and then holding themaccountable for the results (that is, student test scores), this movement has led to theintroductionofeducationstandards,indicatorsandbenchmarksforteachingandlearning,alignedassessmentsand testing,andprescribedcurricula.AsJamesPopham(2007)hasnoted,variousformsoftest-basedaccountabilityhaveemergedwhereschoolperformanceand raising the quality of education are closely tied to the processes of accreditation,promotion,sanctions,andfinancing.Inotherwords,educationhasbecomeacommodity

wheretheefficiencyofservicedeliveryultimatelydeterminesperformance.

Since the 1980s, at least five globally common features of education policies andreform principles have been employed in attempts to improve the quality of education,especially in terms of raising student achievement. The first is increasing competitionamong schools. Almost all education systems have introduced alternative forms ofschooling to offer parents more choice regarding their children’s schooling (OECD,2013d).ThevouchersysteminChileinthe1980s,freeschoolsinSwedeninthe1990s,charterschoolsintheUnitedStatesinthe2000s,andsecondaryacademiesinEnglandinthe2010sareexamplesoffaithincompetitionasanengineofbettermentofeducation.Atthesametime,theproportionofmoreadvantagedstudentsstudyinginprivateschoolsorindependentschoolshasgrown(OECD,2013d). InAustralia, forexample,nearlyeverythirdprimaryandsecondaryschoolstudentstudies innongovernmentalschools (Jensen,Weidmann,& Farmer, 2013). Ranking schools based on their performance on nationalstandardizedassessmentshasfurtherincreasedcompetitionbetweenschools.OECDdatashowthataccordingtoschoolprincipalsacrossOECDcountries,morethanthree-quartersofthestudentsassessedbyPISAattendschoolsthatcompetewithatleastoneotherschoolforenrollment (OECD,2013d).Finally,students—especially inmanyAsiancountries—experiencestrongerpressuretoperformbetteragainsttheirpeersduetotoughcompetitionforentryintothebesthighschoolsanduniversities(Zhao,2014).

The second is standardization in education. Outcomes-based education reformbecamepopularinthe1980s,followedbystandards-basededucationpoliciesinthe1990s,initiallywithinAnglo-Saxoncountries.Thesereforms,quitecorrectly,shiftedthefocusofattention to educational outcomes—that is, to student learning and school performance.Consequently, a widely accepted—and generally unquestioned—belief amongpolicymakers and education reformers is that setting clear and sufficiently highperformance standards for schools, teachers, and students will necessarily improve thequalityofdesiredoutcomes.Theenforcementofexternalstandardizedtestingandschoolevaluation systems to judge how these standards have been attained emerged originallyfromthesestandards-driveneducationpolicies.Standardizationdrawsfromanassumptionthatallstudentsshouldbeeducatedtothesame,ambitiouslearningtargets.Thisnotion,inturn,hasledtotheprevalenceofprescribedcurriculaandhomogenizationofcurriculumpoliciesworldwide.TheNationalCurriculuminEnglandinthe1990s,theNewNationalEducationStandardsinGermanyinthe2010s,andtheCommonCoreStateStandardsintheUnitedStatesareexamplesofattemptstobringcoherenceandqualitytoteachingandlearninginallschools.

Thethirdcommonfeatureoftheglobaleducationreformmovementisfocusoncoresubjects in thecurriculum,suchas literacyandnumeracy.Basic studentknowledgeandskillsinreading,writing,mathematics,andnaturalsciencesareelevatedasprimetargetsand indices of education reforms. Due to the acceptance of international studentassessmentssuchasOECD’sPISAandIEA’sTIMSSandPIRLSasmetricsofeducationalperformance,thesecoresubjectshavenowcometodominatewhatpupilsstudy,teachersteach, schools emphasize, andnational educationpoliciesprioritize inmostparts of theworld.AccordingtotheOECDandresearchinanumberofcountries,nationaleducationpolicies are increasingly being influenced by the international student assessments,especiallyPISA.Breakspear(2012)summarizesPISA’spolicyinfluence:

TheresultsmakeclearthatPISAisbecominganinfluentialelementofeducationpolicymakingprocessesatthe national level. Furthermore, the findings provide preliminary evidence that PISA is being used andintegratedwithinnational/federalpoliciesandpracticesofassessmentandevaluation,curriculumstandardsandperformancetargets.(p.27)

Literacy and numeracy strategies that increased instruction time for so-called coresubjects in England and Ontario are concrete programmatic examples of the globaleducationalreformmovement.IntheUnitedStates,theNoChildLeftBehindlegislationledmostschooldistrictstostealteachingtimefromothersubjects—especiallyfromsocialstudies,arts,andmusic—andplaytimefromchildrenbyabolishingrecessinmanyschoolssostudentswouldbebetterpreparedforstateteststhatmeasuredstudentperformanceinliteracy and mathematics (Jennings & Stark Rentner, 2006; Robert Wood JohnsonFoundation,2010).At thesame time,however, tobesuccessful in lifeandemploymentrequiresyoungpeoplewhoarecurious,whoknowhowtoworkwithotherpeople,whocansolvedifficultproblems,andwhomasterleadership.

The fourth characteristic is test-basedaccountability—holding teachers and schoolsaccountable for students’ achievement through external standardized tests. Schoolperformance—especially raising students’ measured achievement—is intimately tied totheprocessesofevaluating,inspecting,andrewardingorpunishingschoolsandteachers.Performance-based pay, data walls in teachers’ lounges, and school rankings innewspapers are examples of new accountabilitymechanisms that often draw their dataprimarily fromexternal standardized student tests and teacher evaluations.Theproblemwith test-based accountability is not that students, teachers, and schools are heldaccountable per se, but rather theway accountabilitymechanisms affect teachers’workand students’ studying in school.Whenever school accountability relies on poor-qualityand low-cost standardized tests, as is the case in many places, accountability becomeswhatisleftwhenresponsibilityissubtracted.

The fifthgloballyobservable trend in educational reform is schoolchoice. ParentalchoiceisanideathatbecamecommonlyknownasaconsequenceofMiltonFriedman’seconomic theories in the 1950s. Friedman and many of his disciples and advisees—including presidentRonaldReagan—believe that parentsmust be given the freedom tochoosetheirchildren’seducation,therebyencouraginghealthycompetitionamongschoolssothattheybetterservefamilies’diverseneeds.Typically,schoolchoicemanifestsitselfthrough the emergence of private schoolswhere parents pay tuition for their children’seducation.Today, therearescoresofvarious typesofalternativeschoolsother thanfee-based private schools to expand choice in education markets. Charter schools in theUnitedStates,freeschoolsinSweden,upper-secondaryschoolacademiesinEngland,andreligious schools in the Netherlands are examples of mechanisms to advance parentalchoice. School choice ideologymaintains that parents should be able to use the publicfundssetaside for theirchildren’seducation tochoose theschools—publicorprivate—thatworkbestforthem.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education launched a competitive grant programnamedRacetotheTop(RTTT),whichwasintendedtoencourageandrewardstatesthatare creating conditions for innovation and reform. With its $4.35 billion budget, thisprogramwasdesignedtospurreformsinstateandlocaldistricteducationbydevelopingteacherandprincipalevaluationsystems thatsubstantially reliedonmeasuresofstudent

achievement and growth. It encourages competition among states and also betweendistricts as they seek more effective practices and practitioners. According to theEducationPolicy Institute’s evaluation conducted by their partner organizationBroader,BolderApproachtoEducationin2013,RTTTpolicieshadfallenshortintermsofteacherimprovementandhadfailedtoaddressthecoredriversofopportunitygaps.Furthermore,RTTT’s shortcomings have spurred state–district and union–management conflicts thathinder progress. The evaluation (Weiss, 2013, p. 8) concludes that “overall, thisassessment finds that the key tenet of Race to the Top—that a state hold teachers andschools accountable before helping them establish foundations for success—is deeplyflawed.”Amongotherexperts,DianeRavitch(2013)hasmadesimilarconclusionsaboutthis federal reformprogram.Table4.1also illustrateshoweducationpolicies inFinlandsincethe1980shavebeenalmosttheoppositethosesuggestedbyRTTT.

There are others who have analyzed global educational change efforts. Ben Levin(1998)haswrittenaboutanepidemicofeducationpolicyandanalyzed thecondition inwhich educational ideas can and cannot be transported across the borders. AndyHargreavesandDennisShirley(2009)havedescribedglobaleducationalchangebyusingthemetaphorof“Ways”intheirbookTheFourthWay,towhichIwillreturnlaterinthischapter.MichaelFullan(2011)hasusedtheterm“driversofchange,”suchaseducationpolicyor strategy levers,whichhave the best chances of catalyzing intended change ineducation systems. “In the rush tomove forward,”writes Fullan (2011, p. 5), “leaders,especially from countries that have not been progressing, tend to choose the wrongdrivers.”Theseincludeaccountability(versusprofessionalism),individualteacherquality(versus collegiality), technology (versus pedagogy), and fragmented strategies (versussystemsthinking).Theseineffectiveelementsofeducationreform,whichresonatecloselywith theaspectsofGERMdiscussedabove,have fundamentallymissed the targets (seeFigures 2.5 and 2.12 in Chapter 2) and continue to do so, according to Fullan. In hisanalysisofwhole-systemreformsintheUnitedStatesandAustralia,hegoesevenfurther:

Thereisnowaythattheseambitiousandadmirablenationwidegoalswillbemetwithstrategiesbeingused.No successful system has ever ledwith these drivers. They cannot generate on a large scale the kind ofintrinsic motivational energy that will be required to transform these massive systems. The US andAustralianaspirationssoundgreatasgoalsbutcrumblefromastrategyordriverperspective.(Fullan,2011,p.7)

Noneof theelementsofGERMshowninTable4.1hasbeenadopted inFinland inthewaysthattheyhavebeenwithintheeducationpoliciesofmanyothernations.This,ofcourse,doesnotimplythatthereisnoeducationalstandardization,learningofbasicskills,or accountability inFinnish schools.Nordoes it suggest that there is ablack-and-whitedistinction between each of these elements in Finland vis-à-vis other countries. But,perhaps, it does imply that a good education system can be created using alternativepoliciesthataretheoppositeofthosecommonlyfoundandpromotedinglobaleducationpolicymarkets.

GERMhashadsignificantconsequencesforteachers’workandstudents’learninginschoolswhereverithasbeenadominantdriverofchange(Sahlberg,inpress).Themostnotable impact is the standardization of educational and pedagogical processes.Performance standards set by educational authorities andconsultantshavebeenbroughtinto the lives of teachers and students without a full understanding that most of what

pupils need to learn in school cannot be formulated as a clear standard.New forms ofstudent assessments and testing that have been aligned to these standards are oftendisappointments and even bring new problems to schools. However, because thestandardizationagendapromisessignificantgainsinefficiencyandqualityofeducation,ithas been widely accepted as a basic ideology of change, both politically andprofessionally.

The voices of practitioners are rarely heard in the education policy and reformbusiness. The educational change literature is primarily technical discourse created byacademicsorchangeconsultants.Therefore,Idevotespaceheretoaschoolimprovementpractitioner from Scotland. This example is particularly relevant because Scotland iscurrentlyrecoveringfromaratherseriousGERMinfectionthatoccurredafewyearsback.The symptoms included top-heavy planning, rigid curriculum, fixed measures throughaudits,externalsnapshot inspection,andexternallyjudgedaccountability.Manyof theseproblemsarenowgraduallyfadingawayandgivingroomtomoreintelligentcurriculumand evaluation policies. Niall MacKinnon (2011), who teaches at Plockton PrimarySchool,makesacompellingappealfor“locallyownedquestionsandpurposesinrealizingpracticewithinthebroadernationalpolicyandpracticeframeworks.”HegetsrighttothepointofhowGERMaffectsteachersandschools:

Table4.1.GlobalEducationalReformMovementVis-à-vistheFinnishModelofEducationalChange

GlobalEducationReformMovement(GERM) TheFinnishModel

Competitionbetweenschools

The basic assumption is that competition works as amarketmechanism that will eventually enhance quality,productivity, and efficiency of service. When publicschools compete over enrollment with charter schools,free schools, independent schools, and private schools,theywilleventuallyimproveteachingandlearning.

Collaborationamongschools

The basic assumption is that educating people is acollaborative process and that cooperation, networking,andsharing ideasamongschoolswilleventually raise thequalityof education.Whenschools collaborate, theyhelpone another and help teachers create a culture ofcooperationintheirclassrooms.

Standardizedlearning

Settingclear,high,andcentrallyprescribedperformancetargets forall schools, teachers,andstudents to improvethe quality and equity of outcomes. This leads tostandardized teaching through externally designedcurriculumtoensurecoherenceandcommoncriteria formeasurementanddata.

Personalizedlearning

Settingaclearbutflexiblenationalframeworkforschool-basedcurriculumplanning.Encouragingschool-basedandindividual solutions to national goals in order to find thebestwaystocreatepersonalizedlearningopportunitiesforall.Usingindividualizedlearningplansforthosewhohavespecialeducationalneeds.

Focusonliteracyandnumeracy

Basic knowledge and skills in reading, writing,mathematics, and the natural sciences serve as primetargetsofeducationreform.Normallyinstructiontimeofthesesubjectsisincreasedattheexpenseofothersubjects(suchasartsandmusic).

Focusonthewholechild

Teaching and learning focus on deep, broad learning,giving equal value to all aspects of the growth of anindividual’s personality, moral character, creativity,knowledge,ethics, andskills.Aimof schooling is to findeachstudent’stalent.

Test-basedaccountability

SchoolperformanceandraisingstudentachievementareTrust-basedresponsibility

Gradually building a culture of responsibility and trust

closely tied to processes of promotion, inspection, andultimately rewarding schools and teachers. Teacher payandschoolbudgetaredeterminedbystudents’testscores.Sanctions often include terminating employment orclosing down the school. Census-based studentassessmentanddataareusedtoinformpolicymaking.

within the education system that values teacher andprincipal professionalism in judging what is best forstudents. Targeting resources and support to schools andstudentswhoareatrisktofailortobeleftbehind.Sample-based student assessmentsand thematic researchareusedtoinformpolicymaking.

Schoolchoice

Basicpremise is thatparentsmustbegiven thefreedomto choose their children’s education, while encouraginghealthy competition among schools to better servefamilies’needs.Ideally,parentsshouldbeabletousethepublic funds set aside for their children’s education tochoosetheschools—publicorprivate—thatworkbestforthem.

Equityofoutcomes

Basic premise is that all children should have equalprospects for educational success in school. Becauseschoollearningisstronglyinfluencedbychildren’sfamilybackground and associated factors, equity of outcomesrequires that schools are funded according to their realneeds tocopewith these inequalities.Schoolchoiceoftenleadstosegregationthatincreasesinequityofoutcomes.

Thereistherealpracticaldangerthatwithoutanunderstandingofrationaleandtheoreticalbasesforschooldevelopment, practitioners may be judged by auditors on differing underlying assumptions to their owndevelopmental pathways, and the universalistic grading schemas come to be applied as a mask or frontgivingpseudoscientific veneer to imposed critical judgmentswhich are nothingmore than expressions ofdifferentviewsandmodelsofeducation.Throughthemechanismofinspection,adifferenceofconceptualviewpoint,whichcouldpromptdebateanddialogueinconsiderationofpractice,iseliminatedinjudgmentaland differential power relations. One view supplants another. Command and control replaces mutuality,dialogue and conceptual exploration matched to practice development. Those who suffer are thoseinnovatingandbringinginnewideas.(p.100)

GERM has gained global popularity among policymakers and change consultantsbecause it emphasizes some fundamental new orientations to learning and educationaladministration. It suggests strong guidelines to improve quality, equity, and theeffectiveness of education, such as putting making learning a priority, seeking highachievementforallstudents,andmakingassessmentanintegralpartoftheteachingandlearning process. However, it also leads to the privatization of public schools. GERMassumes thatexternalperformancestandards,describingwhat teachers should teachandwhatstudentsshoulddoandlearn,leadtobetterlearningforall.Byconcentratingonthebasicsanddefiningexplicitlearningtargetsforstudentsandteachers,suchstandardsplacea strongemphasisonmastering thecore skillsof readingandwritingandmathematicaland scientific literacy. The systematic training of teachers and external inspection areessentialelementsofthisapproach.

IsthereanyevidenceofhowGERMhasaffectedstudentlearning?Evidenceisfoundin Figures 2.5 and 2.12,which show how some of theGERM-infected school systemshaveperformedonPISAsince2000.Noneofthecountriesthatjoined(orwereinfectedby)theGERM—theUnitedStates,theUnitedKingdom,Canada,Australia,NewZealand,theNetherlands,orSweden—hasbeenabletoimprovestudents’learningasshownintheresultsofthatinternationalsurvey.

In2012,whentheOECDcollectedthedataforthatstudyfrom65educationsystems,theOECD(2013d)madethisdetermination:

Sincetheearly1980s,reformsinmanycountrieshavegrantedparentsandstudentsgreaterchoiceintheschoolthestudentswillattend(p.54).Between2003and2012therewasacleartrendtowardschoolsusingstudent

assessmentstocomparetheschool’sperformancewithdistrictornationalperformanceandwiththatofotherschools(p.159).OnaverageacrossOECDcountrieswithcomparabledatafrom2003to2012,studentsin2012were20percentagepointsmorelikelythantheircounterpartsin2003toattendschoolswheretheuseoftestsorassessmentsofstudentachievementareusedtomonitorteacherpractice(p.160).

Many countries have carried out their own studies to understand how marketmechanisms affect the quality of their education systems. Wiborg (2010) studied theimpact of 20 years of the free-school system (government-funded private schools) inSwedenanddrewthefollowingconclusion:

[T]he Swedish experiment (using for-profit private providers) has proved expensive and has not led tosignificantlearninggainsoverall.AtthesametimetheSwedishreforms,albeitonasmallscale,appeartohaveincreasedinequality,eveninthecontextofthisveryegalitariansystem.(p.19)

TheAustralianGrattanInstituteexaminedhowmarketmechanisms,especiallyschoolcompetition,choice,andautonomy,impactschools’performance.Theconclusionwasthatrelyingonmarketsisnotthebestwaytoimprovestudentlearning.Thereportstatedthat

[b]y increasing competition, government policies have increased the effectiveness ofmany sectors of theeconomy.Butschooleducationisnotoneofthem.(Jensen,Weidmann,&Farmer,2013)

Do PISA data suggest that the notions behindGERM are correct? There are threedistinctfindingsinPISA2012thatareworthnotinginordertoseehowtheelementsofGERMareassociatedwithsuccessfulreformsworldwide.

Thefirstfindingisthateducationsystemsthatgiveschoolsautonomyovertheirowncurriculaandstudentassessmentsoftenperformbetter thanschools thatdonot (OECD,2013d,p.52).ThiscontradictsthebasicpremiseofGERM,whichassumesthatexternallysetteachingstandardsandalignedstandardizedtestingarepreconditionsforsuccess.PISAshows that success is often associated with balanced professional autonomy and acollaborative culture in schools. Evidence also shows that high-performing educationsystemsengagetheir teachers insettingtheirownteachingandlearningtargets,craftingproductivelearningenvironments,anddesigningmultipleformsofstudentassessmentstobestsupportlearningandschoolimprovement.

The second finding is that high average learningoutcomes and system-wide equityareofteninterrelated(OECD,2013b,p.27).Equityofoutcomesineducationmeansthatstudents’socioeconomicstatushaslittleimpactonhowwelltheylearninschool.Equityishighontheagendainallsuccessfulschoolsystems.Afocusonequitygiveshighpriorityto universal early childhood programs, comprehensive health and special educationservices in schools, and balanced curriculum that weighs arts, music, and sports, andacademicstudiesequally.Fairnessinresourceallocationisimportantforequity,too.PISA2012 (OECD, 2013b, p. 93) shows that fair resourcing is related to the success of theentire school system: High student performance tends to be linked to more equitableresourceallocationbetweenadvantagedanddisadvantagedschools.

The third finding is that school choice and competition do not improve theperformanceofeducationsystems(OECD,2013d,p.133).IntheOECDcountries,schoolchoiceandcompetitionbetweenschoolsarerelatedtogreaterlevelsofsegregationinthe

education system. That, in turn,may have adverse consequences for equity in learningopportunitiesandoutcomes.Indeed,successfuleducationsystemsdobetterthanthosethathaveexpandedschoolchoice.Allsuccessfulschoolsystemshaveastrongcommitmenttomaintaintheirpublicschoolsandlocalschoolcontrol.ThePISA2012datashowthattheprevalence of charter and free schools, and the related competition for students, has nodiscerniblerelationshiptoimprovingstudentlearning.

Table4.1suggeststhattheFinnishmodelofeducationalchangeisradicallydifferentfromGERM’s.AtypicalfeatureofteachingandlearninginFinlandishighconfidenceinteachers and principals regarding curriculum, assessment, organization of teaching, andevaluation of the work of the school. Another feature is the way schools encourageteachersandstudentstotrynewideasandapproaches—inotherwords,tomakeschoolacreative and inspiring place to teach and learn.Moreover, teaching in schools aims tocultivate renewalwhile respecting schools’pedagogic legacies.Thisdoesnotmean thattraditionalinstructionandschoolorganizationarenonexistentinFinland;infact,itisquitetheopposite.Whatisimportantisthattoday’sFinnisheducationpoliciesarearesultof3decades of systematic, mostly intentional development that has created a culture ofdiversity, trust, and respect within Finnish society in general and within the educationsysteminparticular.

IhavenamedthisalternativeapproachtotheglobaleducationalreformmovementtheFinnish Way. A similar attempt in the development of an information society andeconomic system is called the Finnish Model (Castells & Himanen, 2002; Dahlman,Routti&Ylä-Anttila, 2006).What distinguishesFinland frommost other nations is theprovenlevelofperformanceoftheeducationsystemthathasoccurredsimultaneouslyinlearning outcomes and equity in education. These are both the next-generationapplicationsoftheThirdWay,orradicalcentrism,whichbecamewellknowninthe1990sthroughtheleadershipofTonyBlair,BillClinton,andGerhardSchröder.Ineducation,theFinnishWayseemstohavestronglyinspiredtheFourthWay(2009):

TheFourthWayisawayofinspirationandinnovation,ofresponsibilityandsustainability.TheFourthWaydoes not drive reform relentlessly through teachers, use them as final delivery points for governmentpolicies, or vacuum up their motivations into a vortex of change that is defined by short-term politicalagendasandthespecialinterestswithwhichtheyareoftenaligned.(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009,p.71)

TheFinnishWayisaprofessionalanddemocraticpathtoimprovementthatgrowsfromthe bottom, steers from the top, and provides support and pressure from the sides.“Through high quality teachers committed to and capable of creating deep and broadteaching and learning,” as Hargreaves and Shirley describe the FourthWay, “it buildspowerful, responsible and lively professional communities in an increasingly self-regulatingbutnotself-absorbedorself-seekingprofession”(Hargreaves&Shirley,2009,p.107).IntheFinnishWay,teachersdesignandpursuehighstandardsandsharedtargets,andimprovetheirschoolscontinuouslythroughprofessionalcollaborationandnetworks,fromevidence,andfromliteratureintheirtrade.

ANINNOVATIONECONOMY

Themajor economic transformation and need for sophisticated knowledge and skills innewhigh-techindustriesprovidedtheFinnisheducationsystemwithuniqueopportunitiesfor radical renewal in the 1990s. This happened at the same time that three significant

economicandpoliticalprocesseswereunfolding:thecollapseoftheSovietUnion(1989–1991),adeepandsevereeconomicrecessiontriggeredbyaFinnishbankingcrisis(1990–1993), and integration with the European Union (1992–1995). Each of these changesinfluencedtheFinnisheducationsectoreitherdirectlyorindirectly.Bythemiddleofthe1990s,aclearFinnishconsensusemergedthatmobilecommunicationtechnologieswouldeventuallyfosterthetransformationtoaknowledgeeconomyandthatthiswasperhapsthebestwayoutoftheeconomiccrisisandintotheheartofEuropeanpower(Halmeetal.,2014).Itwasalsorealizedthattheknowledgeeconomyisnotonlyaboutpreparinghumancapital for higher know-how; it is also about having highly educated and criticalconsumerswhoareabletobenefitfrominnovativetechnologicalproductsinmarketsthatrequirebettertechnologicalliteracy.

At thebeginningof1993,Finlandwasin themostsevereeconomicrecessionsincethe 1930s. Unemployment was reaching 20%, Gross Domestic Product volume haddeclined13%, thebanking sectorwascollapsing, andpublicdebthadgone through theroof.Thegovernmentledbythenew,youngprimeministerEskoAhorespondedtothisnational crisis in an unexpected way. First, investments were heavily targeted towardinnovation instead of toward promoting a range of traditional activities. The survivalstrategy addressed diversification away from timber and conventional industries andtoward high-technology and mobile communication. It introduced a new nationalcompetitivenesspolicyandacceleratedtheprivatizationofgovernment-ownedcompaniesand public agencies. It also accelerated the liberalization of fiscal markets and foreignownership in Finland. The key assumption was that the facilitation of private sectorinnovation and reciprocal collaboration between public and private actors would besuperior to traditional direct intervention and investment in broader research anddevelopmentpolicy.Overcomingthecrisiswasmainlyaresultofthestrongconcentrationonthetelecommunicationindustry,andthesupportoftheNokiaCorporationinparticular.Nokia gave birth to a completely new electronics industry in Finland, which was anessentialpartofthesuccessfulFinnisheconomiccomebackinthe1990s.

Second, knowledge accumulation and development became the key turnaroundfeatureinpullingFinlandupfromdepression.Withoutmanynaturalresourcestorelyon,Finland’s main determinants for growth strategies became knowledge and the activeinternationalizationof its economyandeducation. In1998, theWorldEconomicForum(WEF) ranked Finland 15th in its global economic competitiveness index. By 2001,Finlandhadclimbedto the topposition in this influential ranking thatcoversmore than130 economies of the world (Alquézar Sabadie, & Johansen, 2010; Sahlberg, 2006a).Gross expenditure on research and development, commonly used as a proxy forcompetitivenessinknowledge-basedeconomies,increasedfrom2.0%in1991,to3.5%in2003, and to 3.9% in 2010, at the same time that the OECD average was fluctuatingbetween2.0%and2.3%(StatisticsFinland,n.d.b).ThenumberofknowledgeworkersintheFinnish labor force also increased significantly.The total research anddevelopmentlaborforcein1991wasexactlyattheOECDaverageatthattime—slightlymorethan5per1,000workers.By2003,thisnumberhadclimbedto22per1,000,almostthreetimeshigherthantheconcurrentOECDaverage.

The transformationof theFinnisheconomyintoaknowledge-economyisdescribedas“remarkable,notonlyinlightofitsearliereconomicdifficulties…[butbecause]itis

interesting to see that a knowledge economy can be built successfully in a small andcomparably peripheral country” (Dahlman,Routti&Ylä-Anttila, 2006, p. 4).Trust andincreasedinvestmentininnovationresultedineducationpoliciesinthe1990sthatfocusedon better knowledge and skills, along with creativity and problem solving. The strongfocus on mathematics, science, and technology contributed markedly to the growth ofNokia as a world leader in mobile communications and Stora Enso in papermanufacturing. Several Finnish universities were closely connected to research anddevelopmentinthesefirms.Indeed,governmentalinnovationagenciesactivelyfacilitatedinnovationasa thirdelement in theFinnishknowledgeand innovation triangle.Finnisheconomists who endorsed the importance of innovation and education in nationaldevelopmentpolicyalsoplayedanimportantrole.Educationwasseenasnecessaryandasa potential investment—not just an expenditure—in helping to develop innovation andadoptingmoreinnovationthroughouttheeconomy.Highlyeducatedpeoplearecertainly“irreplaceable for the implementation of new technologies from home and abroad”(Asplund&Maliranta,2006,p.282).

The information society and knowledge economy have been important contextualfactorsforeducationalchangeinFinlandsincethe1970s.TheeconomicsectorinFinlandhasexpectedtheeducationsystemtoprovideskilledandcreativeyoungpeoplewhohavethe competencies businesses need to deal with rapidly changing economic andtechnological environments. In their call for raising standards of knowledge and skills,Finnishemployers,forexample,werereluctanttoadvocatefornarrowspecializationandearlyselectiontoschools,unlikemanyothercountriesatthattime.WhileFinnishindustryactively promoted better learning of mathematics, sciences, and technology, it alsosupported rather innovative forms of school–industry partnerships as part of the formalcurriculum. The rapid emergence of innovation-driven businesses in the mid-1990sintroducedcreativeproblemsolvingandinnovativecross-curricularprojectsandteachingmethodstoschools.3SomeleadingFinnishcompaniesremindededucationpolicymakersoftheimportanceofkeepingteachingandlearningcreativeandopentonewideas,ratherthanfixingthemtopredeterminedstandardsandaccountabilitythroughnationaltesting.

Membershipin theEuropeanUnionin1995markedamentalchallengeandchangefor, andwithin,Finland.TheSovietUnionhaddisappearedonlya fewyearsearlier, anevent that boosted the consolidation of Finland’s identity as a fullmember ofWesternEurope. The accession process of becoming a European Union member state was asimportant as attaining actual membership in 1995. As a new Finnish identity emergedduringtheyearsofaccessiontotheEuropeanUnion,theFinnishpeopleweremotivatedtoensure that they and their institutions, including schools, were up to the level of otherEuropean nations. In fact, the poor reputation of mathematics and sciences in Finnishschools,comparedwiththeirEuropeanpeersinthe1970sand1980s,becameareasontotryharder to improveFinnish educational performance to theEuropean level.AlthougheducationisnotincludedinformalEuropeanUnionmembershiprequirementsorcommonpolicies,theaccessionprocessnonethelesshadatangiblepositiveimpactonstrengtheningpublic institutions, including theeducation system inFinland,especially in themidstofthe worst economic recession, described earlier in this chapter. Moreover, Finnisheducators became increasingly aware of various European education systems. Thiscertainly drove the ongoing education reform and the adoption of new ideas as more

informationbecamereadilyavailableaboutpracticeswithinothersystems.

History and the personalmindset of Finns suggest that they are at their bestwhenfacedwith these kinds of global challenges. For example, experiences such as thewaragainst the Soviet Union (1939–1944), the 1952 Olympics, and the deep economicrecession of the early 1990s provide good evidence of the competitive and resilientFinnish spirit, or sisu, as the Finns say. These educational and cultural attitudes werecomplementedbykeyeconomic,employment,andsocialpolicies thatevolvedsince the1970s, while the establishment of a welfare state and its institutions and policies wascompletedbytheendofthe1980s.SurvivalhasalwaysbeenthebestsourceofinspirationandenergyfortheFinnstogobeyondexpectations.

Analysisof educational changeoften includes speculationabout thebasicnatureofchange—thatis,whetheritisevolutionaryorrevolutionary.Thesetermsrefertochangeasbeingeithercontinuous,withsmoothdevelopmentfromonestagetoanother,oraradicaltransition, where entirely new institutions and rules are created. Educational change inFinlandhasdisplayedperiodicevolution,meaning that thenatureofeducationalchangehaschangedduringthesetimes.Whatisimportanttorealize,asshowninTable4.2,isthat1990marks an importantwatershed in history that distinguishes twoperiods inFinnisheducation. The time prior to 1990was characterized by the creation of institutions andframeworksforawelfare-basededucationsystem.Theyearssince1990havebeenmoreconcernedwithinterests,ideas,andinnovationsthathaveformedtheeducationsystemasanintegralpartofacomplexsocial,economic,andpoliticalsystem.PartofthesuccessoftheFinnishWayemergesfromanabilitytocreatepunctuatedequilibriumbetweenthesetwoperiodsofeducationalchange.

Two simultaneous processes have played an important role in developing theeducation system in Finland since 1970.On the one hand, increased interaction amongvarious public sector policies has strengthened the coherence of economic and socialreforms and, therefore, created conditions for what Hargreaves and Fink (2006) term“sustainable leadership” in education. This increased coherence enables a systematiccommitment to longer-term vision and intersector cooperation among different policiesand strategies.On the other hand, internationalization andFinland’s integration into theEuropeanUnionhaveharmonizedand intensified the consolidation anddevelopmentofpublicinstitutionsandtheirbasicfunctions.Inthislight,threeconclusionscanbedrawnregarding how Finnish educational success can be understood from an economic andpoliticalperspective:

Table4.2.IncreasedInterdependencyAmongPublicSectorPoliciesinFinlandSince1970

Source:Sahlberg(2010b).

1. ThesuccessofFinnisheducationreformismainlybasedoninstitutionsandinstitutionalstructuresestablishedinthe1970sand1980s,ratherthanonchangesandimprovementsimplementedfromthe1990s.Thestate-generatedsocialcapitalthatiscreatedthroughgovernmentregulationsandmotivatedbytheresponsibilitytoprovidebasicconditionsofwell-beingforallhasprovidedafavorablesocialcontextforeducationalachievement.

2. ChangesinFinnishprimaryandsecondaryeducationafter1990havebeenmoreaboutinterests,ideas,andinnovationsthanaboutnewinstitutionalstructures.Institutionalchangesinthe1990shavebeensmaller,exceptinhighereducation,whereanewpolytechnicsystemwasintroduced.Nonetheless,directionsremainclearandarebasedonearlierpolicies.

3. TheemphasisonnationalcompetitivenessthathasbeenakeydrivingforceinmostpublicsectorpoliciesintheEuropeanUnionhasnotbeenconvertedtocleartargetsoroperationsinFinnishpublicpolicysectorsduringthe1990sand2000s.Atthesametime,equalityandequityprinciplespromulgatedintheearly1970shavegraduallylostinfluenceinthesepolicies.

Tosumup,since1970therehavebeentwodifferingyet interconnectededucationalchangeperiods,whicharedistinguishedintermsofthetheoriesofchangeandsourcesofideas and innovation that drive them. On one hand, education reform principles haveincreasinglybeen created interdependentlywithother public policy sectors, following acomplementarityprinciple.Ontheotherhand,ideasforeducationalchange—particularly

forimprovingteachingandlearninginschools—havebeenbuiltuponpastgoodpracticesandtraditionsinFinland.Thishassometimesbeenlabeledpedagogicalconservatismandhas created a pedagogical equilibriumbetweenprogressivismand conservatism throughlearning from the past and teaching for the future (Simola, 2005, 2015). A commonconclusionabouttheroleofsocialandeconomicpoliciesinbuildingtheeducationsystemin Finland since the 1970s is that it demonstrates how context makes a difference ineducational achievement. In otherwords, it shows that individual well-being, equitabledistribution of income, and social capital can explain student learning in internationalcomparisons.

Let’s take a closer look at how social policies and the welfare state are linked toperformanceinFinland’seducationsystem.

WELFARE,EQUALITY,ANDCOMPETITIVENESS

Social policy decisions in the 1950s and 1960s in Finland underscored the economicimportance of farms run by families.However, the general perceived image of Finlandremainedagrariandespite rapid industrializationandagriculture’sdecliningcontributiontotheGDPoverthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury.RegardlessofdrasticchangesinthewayoflifeandemergingcosmopolitanismamongFinnishpeople,traditionalsocialvaluesendured.AccordingtoRichardLewis(2005),whohasstudiedtheFinnishcultureclosely,thesevaluesincludedsuchculturalhallmarksasalaw-abidingcitizenry,trustinauthorityincludingschools,commitmenttoone’ssocialgroup,awarenessofone’ssocialstatusandposition, and a patriotic spirit. Policies that guided education reforms since the 1970srelied on these cultural values and principles of consensus-building that have beendistinguishingcharacteristicsofFinnishsociety.

FinlandfollowedthemainpostwarsocialpoliciesofotherNordiccountries.Thisledtothecreationofatypeofwelfarestatewherebasicsocialservices,includingeducation,becamepublicservicesforallcitizens,particularlyforthosemostinneedofsupportandhelp. It increased the level of social capital, as did national government policies thataffected children’s broader social environment and improved their opportunities andwillingnesstolearn.MartinCarnoy(2007)callsthis“state-generatedsocialcapital”—thatis, thesocialcontextforeducationalachievementcreatedbygovernmentsocialpolicies.TheinfluenceofsocialrestructuringandeducationalreforminFinlandwasprofoundandimmediate.Eager to improve theirchildren’seconomicandsocialopportunities,Finnishparents turned to the education system,whichhas servedas an equalizing institution inFinnishsociety.

Incomeinequalityisoftenclaimedtoaffectpeople’slivesinmorewaysthanjusthowmuch they can afford to spend on their living. Are education systems in more equalsocieties performing better than elsewhere?RichardWilkinson andKate Pickett (2009)argue in their bookTheSpirit Level that indeed these systems are doingbetter inmorewaysthanone.Actually,WilkinsonandPickettshowhowincomeinequalityisrelatedtomanyother issuesinoursocietiesaswell.Incomeinequality,whichcanbemeasuredindifferent ways, calculates the gap between the wealthiest and poorest quintile in eachcountry.InFigure4.1,IusethedatafromtheOECD’sIncomeDistributionDatabaseandPISADatabase to construct a relationship between income inequality andmathematicslearning inOECD countries. It appears that there is a not strong but still recognizable

relationship between wealth distribution and student learning: In more equal societies,pupils seem to do better in school. Wilkinson and Pickett show how more equitablecountries (statistically) have more literate citizens, rarer school dropout, less obesity,bettermentalhealth,andfewerteenagepregnanciesthanthosecountrieswheretheincomegap between the poor andwealthy iswider.All these inequalities are closely linked toteachingandlearninginschool.

It is understandable that income inequality, child poverty, and lack of appropriatepupilwelfareinschoolsallplayanimportantpart inimprovingthequalityofeducationsystems. This has been well understood in Finland during the past half-century.Complimentary school lunches, comprehensive welfare services, and early support tothosewhoareinneedhavebeenmadeavailableforallchildreninallFinnishschools—freeofcharge.Everychildhas,bylaw,arighttothesewelfareservicesintheirschool.

Figure4.1.IncomeInequality(Gini)andMathematicsLearningOutcomes(PISA)inOECDCountriesin2012

Source: OECD (2013a) and OECD Income Distribution Database (www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm).

This chapter suggests that educationalprogress inFinland shouldbeviewedwithinthebroadercontextofeconomicandsocialdevelopmentandrenewal,bothnationallyandglobally. Interestingly, the growth of the Finnish education sector coincided with animpressive economic transformation from an agrarian, production-driven economy to amodern information society and knowledge-driven economy. Indeed, Finland hastransformed itself intoamodernwelfare statewithadynamicknowledgeeconomy inarelatively short time. The Finnish experience of the 1990s represents one of the fewdocumented examples of how education and therefore knowledge can become drivingforcesof economicgrowthand transformation.During thatdecade,Finlandbecame themost specialized economy in the world in telecommunications technology and thuscompleted its transition from being a resource-driven country to a knowledge-and

innovation-driveneconomicandeducationalsystem.

In the 2000s, Finland consistently scored high in international comparisons ofnational economic competitiveness, transparency and good governance, technologicaladvancement, innovation, implementation of sustainable development policies, and,surprisingly, happiness of the people. Finland was ranked as the most competitiveeconomy several times in the first decade of the 21st century by theWorld EconomicForum’s Global Competitiveness Index.4 This is significant, given that Finlandexperienced a severe economic crisis in the early 1990s. Becoming a competitiveknowledge economy, a leader in innovation and research, and the first country tomakebroadbandInternetconnectionahumanrightforallcitizensrequiredamajorrestructuringoftheFinnisheconomicsystem.Moreover,Finlandhasareputationforruleoflawand,asa consequence, enjoys a low level of corruption, which plays an important role ineconomicdevelopmentandtheperformanceofpublicinstitutions.

After the historic economic crisis of the 1990s, good governance, strong socialcohesiveness, and an extensive social safety net provided by the welfare state madeexceptionally rapid economic recovery possible. A similar turnaround of Finnisheconomic progress was recorded after the global financial crisis in 2008. One of thestrategic principles used in pulling the Finnish economy out of downturn has beencontinuoushighlevelsofinvestmentinresearchanddevelopment,asdescribedearlierinthischapter.Despiteseverecutsinpublicspending,bothintheearly1990sandafterthemost recent fiscal crisis, theFinnishbelief in knowledgegeneration and innovationhasremainedstrong.In2013,regardlessofstagnatedeconomicgrowth,Finlandspent3.6%ofitsGDPonresearchanddevelopment—oneofthehighestofalltheOECDcountries.

Asnoted,thischapterassertsthateducationsystemperformancehastobeseenwithinthecontextofothersystemsinthesociety—forexample,health,environment,ruleoflaw,governance,economy,andtechnology.NotonlydoestheeducationsystemoperatewellinFinland,butitispartofawell-functioningdemocraticwelfarestate.AttemptstoexplainthesuccessoftheeducationsysteminFinlandshouldbeputinthewidercontextandseenas a part of the overall function of democratic civil society. Economists have beeninterested in finding out why Finland has been able to become the most competitiveeconomy in the world. Educators are trying to figure out the secret of Finland’s higheducationalperformance.Thequalityofanationoritspartsisrarelyaresultofanysinglefactor. The entire society needs to perform harmoniously. This can be called systemexcellence.

Four common features are often mentioned as contributing factors for positiveeducational and economic progress. First, policy development has been based onintegration rather than exclusive subsector policies. Education sector development isdriven by medium-term policy decisions that rely on sustainable basic values, such asequalopportunitiesforgoodeducationforall,theinclusionofallstudentsinmainstreampubliclyfinancededucation,andstrongtrustinpubliceducationasacivilrightratherthananobligation.Thesemedium-termpolicies integrateeducationand training,and involvetheprivate sectorand industry in thecreationandmonitoringof their results.Similarly,economic and industrial policies have integrated science and technology policies andinnovation systemswith industrial clusters. Integrated policies have enhanced systemic

development and the interconnectedness of these sectors and have thus promotedmoresustainableandcoherentpoliticalleadershipfortheirsuccessfulimplementation.

Second,strategicframeworkdevelopmentandchangehavebeenbuiltuponalonger-termvision.Nationaldevelopmentstrategies,suchastheInformationSocietyProgramin1995, the National Lifelong Learning Strategy in 1997, and theMinistry of EducationStrategy2020,haveservedasoverarchingframeworksforthesectorstrategies.Theseandotherstrategieshaveemphasizedincreasingflexibility,coherenceamongvarioussectors,andthedevelopmentoflocalandregionalresponsivenessandcreativityininstitutions.

Third, the roles of government and public institutions have been central in policydevelopments and the implementation of both education and economic reforms. Goodgovernance, high-quality public institutions, and the rule of lawplay important roles inpolicydevelopmentandtheimplementationofplannedchanges.Evaluationapproachesinboth sectors are development-oriented, and various players in the system are heldaccountable for process and outcomes. Specific institutions, such as the ParliamentaryCommitteeoftheFuture,aresharedbyprivateandpublicrepresentativesaswellasbythekeystakeholdersofthesocietyforconsensus-buildingpurposes.

Fourth,ahighlyeducatedlaborforceandbroadparticipationineducationatalllevelsguaranteethestockofhumancapital that isnecessaryforbothagoodeducationsystemand economicgrowth.For instance, all teachers are required to hold amaster’s degree,andmostworkersareencouragedtoparticipateincontinuousprofessionaldevelopmentaspartoftheirwork.Teachersareconsideredprofessionalsintheirschoolsandarethereforeactivelyinvolvedinplanningandimplementingchangesintheirwork.

FlexibilityisoneofthekeydenominatorsofeducationandeconomicdevelopmentinFinland. The education systemwent through amajor transformation in the early 1990swhenmoststateregulationswereabolishedandpathwaystoeducationopportunitiesweredramatically increased. Similarly, private sector regulations were loosened and moreflexible standards were introduced, especially to foster networking among privatecompanies,universities,publicresearch,anddevelopmentinstitutions.

Strongintegratedpolicyframeworksandlonger-termstrategicvisionshaveenhancedsustainable leadership in education and private sector developments. Because of thissustainability factor, the education system has been resistant to the market-orientedprinciples of the Global Education Reform Movement. Frequent and open dialoguebetween private business leaders and the public education sector has increased mutualunderstanding of what is important in achieving the common good and promoting thedevelopmentofaknowledgeeconomy.Indeed,activecooperationbetweeneducationandindustry has encouraged schools to experiment with creative teaching and learningpractices,especially innurturingentrepreneurshipandbuildingpositiveattitudes towardwork.Mostimportant,themainprincipleinthedevelopmentofFinnishsocietyhasbeenencouragingintellectualgrowthandthelearningofeachindividual.Developingculturesofgrowthandlearningineducationinstitutionsaswellasinworkplaceshasprovedtobeoneofthekeysuccessfactors.

BOX4.1:LEADERSHIPINFINNISHSCHOOLSSchool sizes inFinland are increasing.Onehundred fifty years ago,when theFinnish public schoolwas

born,mostschoolshadonlyoneteacher.Today,theseschoolsdonotexist.Intoday’sschools,teachershavetobeabletoworktogetherinsharedspacesandalsoeducatestudentstogether.Eachteacherhastoadjusthisorherpedagogicalthinkingandprinciplestothoseofotherteachers.Itisthereforeessentialthattheschoolhas a common culture that enables consistent teaching and learning for shared purposes. This is why aprincipalisneededineachschool.

TheFinnishschoolprincipalisalwaysalsoateacher.AlmostallFinnishprincipalsteachsomeclasseseachweek.Finnish schoolprincipalshavean increasingamountof administrativeduties.Manycomplainthattheworkloadisbecomingtooheavy.Theprincipalneedsagoodtheoryofleadershipinordertocopesuccessfullywithalltasksandresponsibilitiesinschool.Iwouldsaythatprincipalsshouldalsohaveavisionofwhatagoodschoolisandshouldknowhowleadershipcanhelpachievethatvision.

Inmyworkasaprincipal,ImakebasicvaluesthefoundationonwhichIlaymyleadership.Ingoodschools,dailyroutinesworkwellandteachingiseffective.Mytaskistohelpmyteachersdotheirbest,andImakethenecessarydecisionssothatmyschooloperateswell.Iworkhardtocreateagoodatmosphereinschoolandtoinspireteachersandstudents.Asaleaderofmyownschoolandaspartofthenetworkofotherpublicschoolsinmydistrict,Imustknownationalandlocal-levelpolicies.Itisimportanttoguaranteethatpublicmoneyiswiselyspentinallschools,includingmine.That’swhatmakesagoodschoolprincipal.

Istrivetobeagoodprincipalinmyschool.ItmeansthatIhavetodomybestasamanager,leader,director, and pedagogic guide for teachers and students: In otherwords, Iwant to be a good and trustedperson.Thebiggestchallengeformeistocombinealltheseaspectsofmywork.Beingaschoolprincipalisnotlikebeinganadministratororthecoachofasportsteam.Aschoolprincipalisinchargeofthepartofacomplexsocialsystemthatiscontinuouslychanging.Withoutexperienceasateacher,thisworkwouldbeverydifficulttocarryoutsuccessfully.

—MarttiHellström,SchoolPrincipalEmeritusofAuroraSchool,CityofEspoo

FOREIGNINNOVATION,FINNISHIMPLEMENTATION

Many foreignobservershavebeen surprised that they seeonlya feworiginallyFinnishinnovations practiced in classrooms. A closer look at the origin of Finland’s currentpedagogicalmodels, school improvementpractices, andeducation innovation ingeneralrevealsanotherintriguingcharacteristicofFinland’sschools:Manyoftheinnovationsthathavemade Finnish schools blossom can be traced back to other countries, often to theUnited States. This is surprising given Finland’s strong position as one of the mostinnovativesocietiesandknowledgeeconomiesintheworld.

Another observation is that all successful education systems have derived criticallessonsandpracticalmodelsfromabroad.Singapore,oneofthemostsuccessfulreformersand highest performers in education, has been sending students to study education inAmerican and British universities and encouraged their own university professors tocollaborate in teaching and research with foreign colleagues. Japan, Hong Kong, andSouthKoreahavedonethesame.MorerecentlyChinahasalsobenefitedfromeducationinnovationimportedfromtheUnitedStatesandotherWesterneducationsystems.

Finland is no exception to this trend. The most successful practices in pedagogy,student assessment, school leadership, and school improvement in Finland arepredominantly foreign. Finnish students and principals study educational psychology,teachingmethods, curriculum theories, assessmentmodels, and classroommanagementresearched and developed inU.S. universities and research institutions. Primary schoolteacher education curriculum (presented in Table 3.2) in Finnish universities includestextbooksandresearcharticleswithmodels,methods,andtheorieswrittenbyinternationalscholars.Professionaldevelopmentandschoolimprovementcoursesandlongerprogramsoften includeguest speakers fromabroad to share their knowledge and experiencewithFinnish educators. So common is the reliance onU.S. ideas in Finland that some have

come to call the Finnish school system a large-scale laboratory ofAmerican educationinnovation.

Therelativelylowoverallratingof“innovationineducation”intheUnitedStatesinthe OECD’s innovation-in-education ranking (in which Finland did not participate) in2014 (OECD, 2014c) raises an interesting question: Why don’t current educationreformersintheUnitedStatesmakebetteruseoftheAmericaneducationinnovationsthatother countries have been able to utilize to improve the performance of their schoolsystemsduringthelastcentury?AccordingtotheOECD,theUnitedStatesexhibitsonlymodestinnovationinitseducationsystem,but,atthesametime,itistheworldleaderinproducing research, practicalmodels, and innovation for other countries.The followingfiveAmericaneducationalideashavebeeninstrumentalinacceleratingFinland’ssuccessineducation.

1.JohnDewey’sPhilosophyofEducation.TherootsofFinland’spedagogicalideasdateback to the1860swhenUnoCygnaeus,who issometimesreferredas thefatherofbasic education in Finland, said that in an ideal classroom, pupils speakmore than theteacher.Hewasalsoaproponentofpracticalaspectsofeducationandinsistedthatbothboysandgirlsmust learnall thepracticalskills thatpeopleneed ineveryday lives. It isunderstandablethatthepragmatic,child-centerededucationalthinkingofJohnDeweyhasbeenwidelyacceptedamongFinnisheducators.Dewey’sphilosophyofeducationformsafoundationforacademic,research-basedteachereducationinFinlandandinfluencedalsothework of themost influential Finnish scholar,MattiKoskenniemi, in the 1940s.Allprimary school teachers read and explore Dewey’s andKoskenniemi’s ideas as part oftheircoursesleadingtothemaster’sdegree.ManyFinnishschoolshaveadoptedDewey’sview of education for democracy by enhancing students’ access to decision-makingregardingtheirownlivesandstudyinginschool.

2. Cooperative Learning. Unlike inmost other countries, cooperative learning hasbecomeapedagogicalapproachthatiswidelypracticedthroughouttheFinnisheducationsystem.Finland’s9-yearcomprehensiveschool,launchedintheearly1970s,wasbuiltonanideaofregularsmall-grouplearningofstudentswithdiversebackgrounds.Butitwasthenationalcurriculumreform in1994 thatbroughtcooperative learningas it isknownnow to all Finnish schools. Before that, cooperative learning researchers and trainers,including David Johnson, Roger Johnson, and Elizabeth Cohen (and Yael and ShlomoSharan), hadvisitedFinland to train trainers and teacherson theirmethodsof teaching.Their books and articles were translated into Finnish and shared with all schools. The1994 National Curriculum included a requirement that all schools design their owncurricula in away thatwouldenhance teachingand learningaccording to constructivisteducational ideas. Although cooperative learning was not mentioned as an obligatorypedagogical practice in schools, there were several recommendations for teachers toinclude elements of cooperative learning into their regular teaching. Ever since,cooperative learning has become an integral part of initial teacher education in Finlandandoneof themostpopular themes inprofessionaldevelopmentof teachersandschoolleadersinFinland.

3.MultipleIntelligences.Thespiritof the1970sschoolreforminFinlandincludedanother idea thatderives fromU.S.universitiesandscholars:developmentof thewholechild. The overall goal of schooling in Finland was to support a child’s holisticdevelopmentandgrowthbyfocusingondifferentaspectsoftalentandintelligence.Afterabolishingallstreamingandtrackingofstudentsinthemid-1980s,botheducationpoliciesandschoolpracticesadopted theprinciple that all childrencan learn, that childrenhavedifferentkindsofintelligences,andthatschoolsmustfindwaystocultivatethesedifferentindividual aspects in balancedways.HowardGardner’s theory ofmultiple intelligences(Gardner, 1983) became a leading idea in transferring these policy principles to schoolpractice. Again, the 1994 National Curriculum emphasizes that school education mustprovide all students with opportunities to develop all aspects of their minds. As aconsequence, that curriculum framework required that all schools have a balancedprogram,blendingacademicsubjectswithart,music,crafts,andphysicaleducation.Thisframework,moreover,mandatedthatallschoolsprovidestudentswithsufficienttimefortheir self-directive activities. Gardner’s influence has also been notable in the Finnishsystembyconferringabroaderdefinitionof“talent.”Today,Finnishteachersbelievethatover 90% of students can learn successfully in their own classrooms if given theopportunitytoevolveinaholisticmanner.

4. Alternative Classroom Assessments.Without a system of frequent standardizedand census-based testing, the Finnish education system relies on local monitoring andteacher-made student assessments. A child-centered, interaction-rich, whole-childapproachinthenationalcurriculumrequires thatdifferentstudentassessmentmodelsbeused in schools. Furthermore, primary school pupils don’t get any grades in theirassessments before they are in 5th grade. It was natural that Finnish teachers foundalternative student assessment methods attractive. And it is ironic that many of thesemethodsweredevelopedatU.S.universitiesandyetarefarmorepopularinFinlandthanin the United States. These methods include portfolio assessment, performanceassessment, self-assessment and self-reflection, and assessment for learning methods.Teacher education programs in Finland include elements of study of educationalassessmentandevaluationtheoriesandalsoprovideallstudentswithpracticalknowledgeandskillsforhowtousealternativestudentassessmentmethodsintheclassroom.

5. Peer Coaching. Another surprising aspect of Finnish education is that it lacksmuch of the change knowledge that is normally expected to guide policymakers andeducation authorities in planning and implementing desired reforms in education.Researchanddevelopmentofsystem-wideeducationalreformandchangehasn’tbelongedtotherepertoireofFinnishacademia.Thenumberofresearchpapersrelatedtothatfieldhasthereforeremainedminimal.Instead,Finnisheducationexpertshavereliedonforeignsources of expertise and knowledge.A good example of an innovation designed in theUnitedStates ispeercoaching,whichevolved in the1980sand1990sasa resultof theresearch and development work of Bruce Joyce and his colleagues (Joyce& Showers,1995).BruceJoycealsovisitedFinlandinthe1980stotraintrainersandeducationleaders

on how the impact of professional development for teachers can be enhanced. Peercoaching—thatis,aconfidentialprocessthroughwhichteachersworktogethertoreflecton current practices; expand, improve, and learn new skills; exchange ideas; conductclassroomresearch;andsolveproblemstogetherinschool—havebecomenormalpracticeinschoolimprovementprogramsandprofessionaldevelopmentinFinlandsincethemid-1990s.

For many educators, including me, the United States is home to a great deal ofeducationalchangeknowledge,research,andinnovation.Thequestionofwhythisdoesn’tshow in international comparisons, like international student assessments or the recentreviewofinnovationineducationbytheOECD,isanimportantone.Indeed,visitors tothe United States often wonder why innovations that have brought improvement to allsuccessfuleducationsystemsintheworldhavenotbeenpracticedonalargescaleintheU.S. school system. Lessons from Finland suggest that it may be that the work of theschoolintheUnitedStatesissomuchsteeredbybureaucracies,test-basedaccountability,andcompetitionthatschoolsaresimplydoingwhattheyareforcedtodointhisawkwardsituation.Manyvisitors from theUnitedStatesoftennote thatwhat they see inFinnishschoolsremindsthemofpracticestheyhadseeninmanyschoolsintheUnitedStatesinthe1970sand1980s.

THEFINNISHDREAMCHALLENGED

It would be a mistake to think that the education reforms of the 1970s that createdFinland’speruskouluwere supported by all business leaders, politicians, and educators.Thecampaignagainstperuskouluwasparticularlyharshfromsomepartsofthebusinesscommunity. Finnish business leaders followed closely the way peruskoulu wasimplemented.Mostoftheprivatelygovernedgrammarschoolswereamalgamatedintothepublic school networks of the municipalities and all school fees were abolished. TheFinnish Business and Policy Forum (EVA), a policy and pro-market think tank, gavefundingtoafoundationthatwasopposedtothisongoingschoolreformandwantedtoseeprivateschoolsasalternatives to thesenewschools.TheParliament’sconservative rightaccused advocates of peruskoulu of being socialist, warning that the model wouldjeopardizethesteadyeconomicprogressandprosperityofFinnishsociety.TheothersideoftheaisledefendedthereformsbysayingtheywouldsecureagoodeducationforeverychildinFinlandandtherebyraisethewell-beingandprosperityofFinnishsociety.Therewasalsoadebateinthe1970sabouttheabilityofthenewperuskoulutokeepupwiththeinternational race for a knowledgeable and skilled labor force. These critics feared thatperuskouluwouldnotallowthemostableandtalentedtoprogressasfarastheyshouldinschool.

In the late 1980s, when opposition to ongoing education reform was particularlystrong,someparentsaswellaspoliticiansandbusinessleadersvoicedtheircriticismanddissatisfactionwithperuskoulu, where all streaming and tracking had been abolished afewyearsearlier.Accordingtothesecritics,theemphasisonsocialequalityhadledtoasuppressionofindividuality.Thisconcernwas,infact,voicedbytheprimeministerattheFinnishSchoolPrincipals’AnnualMeetinginNovember1987:

Whenbelieving thatanyonecan learneverything, thegoalsof thecomprehensiveschoolareset toohigh.

Whentryingtoeducatethewholepopulationtotheunattainablecomprehensiveschoollevel, thefinancialand mental resources of a small nation are being wasted on a hopeless task. These same educationalresources would be badly needed to educate those who have proven to be talented in different areas tointernational high standards. Only that way can wemaintain Finland’s position in the hard internationalcompetitioninscienceandtheeconomy.(Aho,Pitkänen,&Sahlberg,2006)

Triggered by this perception of the political leadership, Finnish business leaderslaunchedasurveyin1988tofindouttheactualstateofperuskouluasthemainmediumofeducationinFinland.Thegrimconclusionwasthatperuskouluwaskillingtalent.Inotherwords,itwasn’tallowingableandgiftedpupilstoprogresstotheirfullpotentialbecauseit insisted on social equality by employing a unified curriculum in all classrooms.Thiscoincidedwiththederegulationoftheeconomy.TheeducationsystemhadtosupportthetransitionofFinnishsociety intoamore liberalandcompetitivemarketeconomy.Therewerethose—includingthethen–primeministerofFinland—whoarguedthattheeconomictransformationfrompostindustrialtoknowledgeeconomyrequiresthatableandtalentedstudents should be offered opportunities to progress freely and not to “wait for themediocrestudents,”especiallyinmathematicsandscience.

ThecampaigntoreformtheFinnisheducationsystemaccordingtothemodelsoftheemergingNewPublicManagementmovement continued into the1990s.TheEducationReformActof1988inEnglandwiththefirstnationalcurriculumandcommonattainmenttargetsforall, theoutcome-basededucationpoliciesofNewZealand,andthestandards-basedmodeloftheUnitedStateswereallseenbysomeFinnsassuitablealternativestothenewFinnishWayineducation.Increasingchoice,competition,andspecializationwerecitedasawaytoimproveeducation.NationalassessmentsandregulartestingofstudentachievementwerepromotedasthenecessarywaytocatchuptoothereducationsystemsthatseemedtobeincreasingthegapbetweenthemandFinlandineducation.

Criticism continued and sharpened until the end of the 1990s, although researchfindings did not support the contention that students were learning less because ofperuskoulu(Linnakylä&Saari,1993).Shiftingtheresponsibilityofcurriculumplanning,school improvement, and student assessment to municipalities and schools in the mid-1990shadstrengthenedsupportfromteachersandprincipalstodeveloptheFinnishschoolsystem without using models of marketplace management. The critical voices weresuddenlymutedinearlyDecember2001whennewsofthefirstPISAstudywaspublishedin the global media: Finland had outperformed all other OECD countries in reading,mathematics, and sciencewhenmeasured at the endofperuskoulu. Indeed, theFinnishWaywasvalidated,andasmanyhavesaid,PISAhadsavedFinnishperuskoulufromthetoxicinfluencesoftheGlobalEducationalReformMovement.

CHAPTER5

IstheFutureFinnish?

Agoodhockeyplayerplayswherethepuckis.Agreathockeyplayerplayswherethepuckisgoingtobe.

—WayneGretzky,HallofFameCanadianhockeyplayer

Finlandhasbeenengagedincomprehensiveschoolreformsincethe1970s.Researchonspecificfeaturesofperuskoululedtothedevelopmentofappliededucationalsciences,orsubject didactics, in Finnish universities. However, more generic understandings ofeducational change remained relatively untouched. Even today, research on educationalchange, school improvement, and school effectiveness in Finland is modest byinternational standards. Much more analytical and research work on the Finnisheducationalsystemisconductedonthecountry’seducationalpoliciesatdifferentphasesofitshistory.Itissomewhatparadoxicalthatevenwithundevelopeddomesticeducationalchangeknowledge,Finlandhasbeenabletotransformitseducationsysteminonlyabout2decades,asthisbookdescribes.ModelsofchangeinFinlandhaveoftenbeenborrowedfrom abroad, but educational policies, as discussed earlier, were crafted and thenimplementedaccordingtotheprinciplesoftheFinnishWay.

NowFinlandisataforkintheroad.Until theendof the20thcentury,Finlandhadbeen following other countries, learning from them and sometimes adapting their goodideasforitsownrestructuringanddevelopment.Indeed,itiseasiertowalkthepathsthatothershavetraveledthantobeinthelead.Butthefuturerequiresnewwaysofthinking.Finlandhasshownthatinthepastithasbeenabletobeinnovativewhenneededandhasused its past experience as a basis for new policies and practices. The Country BrandDelegation—the Finnish government’s taskforce to uplift the international image of thenation—crystallized Finland’s greatest strength as “the unbiased, solution-focusedapproach toproblems,whichderives fromourhistory andculture.When facedwith animpossiblesituation,werollupoursleevesanddoubleourefforts”(MinistryofForeignAffairs,2010,p.3).Therefore, this finalchapterargues first thateducationalexcellencehasbeenattainedbecauseFinlandhaschosenanalternativewayinitseducationalreform,often almost in opposition to the Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM).Finland’s approach reflects a particular winning strategy: Achieving system excellencethatincludesstrongequityatthesametimeashighqualityofoutcomesisindeedpossibleby doing things differently fromothers.The chapter next discusses someof the factorsbehind theeducational success inFinland since the1970s. It then suggests thatFinlandneeds to work out a shared vision of the future that will inspire practitioners andcommunitiestocontinuouslyrenewteachinginschoolsandeducationinthecommunities.Ultimately, the core question considered is this: Will Finland be able to maintain itseducationalsuccessinthefuture?

SUCCESSBYBEINGDIFFERENT

In this book I have conveyed my concern that an insistence on following the GlobalEducationalReformMovementmayjeopardizeschools’effortstoteachchildrentolivea

good life that contributes to a sustainable future. It is common that district and wholesystem–leveleducationreforminterventionsrelyonstrategicprioritiesforsettinghigherexpectations,strengtheningaccountability,increasingautonomy,expandinglearningtime,intensifyingdatause,and investingmoreheavily inhumancapital in schools.Evidencesuggests that GERM is the wrong way to improve educational performance—in otherwords,thequalityandequityofeducationaloutcomes—andthereisnoreasontobelievethat the system-wide change would succeed by relying on these principles anywhere.Forgoing the tenets of GERM, Finland has demonstrated sustained educationalimprovement and strong overall performance since the early 1970s. Finnish schoolsoperate in congruence with an inclusive welfare state and a competitive knowledgeeconomy,aswasdescribedinpreviouschapters.Itisthereforeusefultolookathowthatsocietyhasrespondedtotheglobalchallengetotransformnationaleducationsystemstoincrease their overall effectiveness and relevance for 21st-century knowledge and skillsthatarerequiredforagoodlife.

Finland’ssuccessasanationowesmuchtobeingcourageouslydifferentfrommostothers.Whereas others have desired individual excellence, Finland has worked towardequity.Many countries allowanybody into the teachingprofession, butFinnish schoolsrequirehigherprofessionalismfromtheir teachers.Whenothershaveinvestedinhavingcostlyeducationaldatasystems,theFinnshavefocusedonteachingandlearning.Finnisheducational reform principles since the early 1990s—when much of the public sectoradministration went through a thorough decentralization—have relied on developingprofessional responsibility by educators and encouraging learning among teachers andschools,ratherthanbyapplyingbureaucratic,top-downaccountabilitypolicies.Therefore,sample-based testing of students, thematic assessments of schools, reflective self-evaluationsbyteachers,andanemphasisoncreativelearninghaveestablishedacultureofmutualtrustandrespectwithintheFinnisheducationsystem.Asthisbookhasdescribed,before the end of upper-secondary school in Finland no external high-stakes tests areemployed. There is no inspection of teachers, and only loose external teaching andlearningstandardstosteertheschools.Thesepracticesleaveteacherswiththeopportunityto focus on learning rather than be concerned about frequent testing and the publicrankings of their schools. Some policymakers predicted in the mid-1990s that FinlandwouldfollowtheschoolaccountabilitypolicymodelsemerginginmanyotherEuropeancountries. But in a review of policy development in Finland 20 years later, test-basedaccountabilitywasnotevenmentioned(Laukkanen,1998,2008).OtherNordiccountrieshave moved to adopt policies that are closer to GERM, and thus they have distancedthemselves from their eastern neighbor and more Nordic traditions of trust-basedresponsibilityandotherformsofcollaborativeschoolcultures.

Explainingtheeducationalsuccessofnationsorschoolsisbynomeanseasy.Finlandis said to have well-prepared teachers, pedagogically designed schools, good schoolprincipals,arelativelyhomogeneoussociety,aninclusivenationaleducationalvision,andan emphasis on special education needs—each of these separately and collectivelycertainly help the Finnish educational system to perform well (Hargreaves, Halasz, &Pont,2008;Hautamäkietal.,2008;Kasvio,2011;Matti,2009;Sahlberg,2010a;Simola,2015; Välijärvi et al., 2007). Critics claim that because Finland doesn’t have the verydiverseethnicpopulationthatcharacterizesmanyothernations,itsschoolsperformbetter.

Otherssuggestthatlowlevelsofchildpovertyandasociallycohesivesocietycanexplainthe good educational performance of Finnish students. I argue, however, that becauseFinlandhasestablisheduniversalearlychildhoodeducationandcareforallchildren,andbecauseithaskeptitsschoolsascentersoflearningandcaring,teacherscanconcentrateonwhatismostimportantandwhattheycandobest:helpingchildrenlearn.Theyarenotdisturbed by frequent testing applied to schools, competition against other schools, orperformancetargetsimposedbyadministrators.Sincethebeginningofthe1990s,Finnishschools have been systematically encouraged by educational authorities to explore theirown conceptions of learning, develop teaching methods to match their own learningtheories in action, and craft pedagogical environments to meet the needs of all theirstudents.ThisiswhymanyFinnishstudentslearnwellinallschools.

TheNationalBoardofEducation’s(1999)AFrameworkforEvaluatingEducationalOutcomes in Finland and the national Law on Education in 1998 stipulate therequirementsandbasicprinciplesofstudentassessmentandschoolevaluation.Teachersare responsible for the overall assessment of their students, using a mix of diagnostic,formative,performance,andsummativeassessments.Themunicipality’sresponsibilityisto plan and implement any necessary evaluationswithin and of their schools, based ontheir own and nationally expressed needs. Thus, current education policies encouragecooperation between schools and try to protect schools, teachers, and children fromunhealthycompetition.EducationpoliciesinFinlandencouragecollaborationandfriendlyrivalry,notcompetitionandchoice.

Finland is the landofnongovernmentalorganizations.There are130,000 registerednongovernmentalgroupsor societies inFinlandwitha totalof15millionmembers.Onaverage, each citizen belongs to three associations or societies. Young Finns are alsoactively involved in sports and youth associations that normally have clear educationalaimsandprinciples.Theylearnsocialskills,problemsolving,andleadershipwhentheyparticipate in these associations. It is commonly accepted in Finland that theseassociationsgiveapositiveaddedvaluetotheformaleducationofferedbyschools.

Finland’s recipe for improving learning for all students differs from those found inmanyothercountries:

1. Guaranteeequalopportunitiesforgoodpubliceducationforall.2. Strengthentheprofessionalismofandtrustinteachers.3. Engageteachersandprincipalsinallcentralaspectsofplanning,implementation,and

evaluationofeducation,includingcurriculum,assessment,andpolicy.4. Facilitatenetwork-basedschoolimprovementcollaborationbetweenschoolsand

nongovernmentalassociationsandlocalcommunities.

Thekeymessageofthisbookisthatschoolsincompetition-richenvironmentsarestuckina tough educational dilemma. Theway forward requires brave, new thinking about theprocessofschooling.Thecurrentcultureoftoxicaccountabilityinthepublicsector,asitis employed in England, North America, and many other parts of the world, oftenthreatensschoolandcommunitysocialcapital;itdamagesratherthansupportstrust.1Asaconsequence, teachers and school leaders are no longer trusted; there is a crisis ofsuspicion, as O’Neill (2002) has observed. Although the pursuit of transparency and

accountability provides parents and politicians with more information, it also buildssuspicion,lowmorale,andprofessionalcynicism.

SUCCESSFULEDUCATIONALREFORM

AtypicalfeatureofeducationinFinlandisthewayteachersandstudentsareencouragedtotrynewideasandmethods,learnfrominnovations,andcultivatecreativityinschools.At the same time, many teachers respect the traditions of good teaching. Educationpoliciestodayarearesultof3decadesofsystematic,mostlyintentional,developmentthathascreatedacultureofdiversity,trust,andrespectwithinFinnishsocietyingeneralandwithinitseducationsysteminparticular.

OECD’s education chief Andreas Schleicher (2006) suggests that one element ofFinland’ssuccesshasbeen“thecapacityofpolicymakerstopursuereforminwaysthatwent beyond optimising existing structures, policies and practices, andmoved towardsfundamentally transforming the paradigms and beliefs that underlay educational policyand practice until the 1960s” (p. 9). Although education policy discourse in Finlandchanged dramatically during the 1990s as a consequence of new public sectormanagementandotherneoliberalpolicies,Finlandhasremainedratherimmunetomarket-based educational reforms. Instead, education sector development has been built uponvalues grounded in equity and the equitable distribution of resources rather than oncompetition and choice. Importantly, the Trade Union of Education in Finland (OAJ),which represents more than 95% of all teachers in Finland, has consistently resistedadopting business management models in the education sector.Moreover, Finland is asociety where achieving consensus on important social and political issues is not rare.AlthougheducationispoliticizedinFinlandasitiseverywhere,Finnshavebeenabletoget together across political party lines and reach agreements. Peruskoulu is a goodexampleofthat.

A question asked repeatedly is this: Why are Finnish schools and students doingbetter in international comparison studies than most others? This book describes howFinland, by employing alternative approaches in education policies, has been able toimprove student achievement.2 JouniVälijärvi (2002),whohasworkedwith colleaguesforseveraldecadesoninternationalstudentassessments,observesthat

[F]inland’shighachievement seems tobe attributable to awholenetworkof interrelated factors inwhichstudents’ownareasofinterestandleisureactivities,thelearningopportunitiesprovidedbyschool,parentalsupportandinvolvementaswellassocialandculturalcontextoflearningandoftheentireeducationsystemcombinewitheachother.(Välijärvietal.,2002,p.46)

OneaccomplishmentoftheFinnisheducationsystemthatisoftenoverlookedistheespeciallyhighlevelofreadingliteracythatFinnishchildrenalreadypossessatanearlyage.Therearebotheducationalandsocioculturalreasonsforthis:Readinginstructioninschools is based on individual development and pace rather than on standardizedinstruction.Finnishparentsreadalot,booksandnewspapersareeasilyavailablethroughadense librarynetwork,andchildrenareexposed tosubtitled televisionandmoviesatanearlyage.GoodreadingcomprehensionandtheabilitytounderstandtextsfastisagreatadvantageinthemathematicsandsciencesectionsofPISAtests,whicharebasedonbeingabletounderstanddescriptivetasksinallmeasuredareas.

Another overlooked direction of Finnish educational development is the reform of

school architecture along the guidelines set out by theNationalCurriculumFrameworkand its pedagogical and philosophical principles. New school buildings are alwaysdesignedincollaborationwithteachersandarchitects,andtheyaretherebyadaptedtotheteachingandlearningneedsofspecificcommunities.Thephysicalenvironmentprovidesanimportantcontextforbothstudentsandteachers.“Ifthebuildingisconsciouslyviewedas an instrument of learning,” reasons Kaisa Nuikkinen (2011, pp. 13-14), “thearchitecture itself can serve as an inspirational, tangible teaching tool, offering a livingexample of such things as good ergonomic design and the principles of sustainabledevelopment.” The school building can create a sense of well-being, respect, andhappiness—allhallmarksofFinnishschools.

The following five interrelated factors are often mentioned when Finnish expertsexplainthereasonsbehindgoodeducationalperformance.Allarerelatedtoeducationorschool and should not suggest that social, community, physical environment, or familyfactorswouldnothaveimportantrolestoplay.

Peruskouluoffersequaleducationalopportunitiesforall.AllFinnishchildrenstarttheir formal schooling inAugustof theyear they turn7.Normally, class-basedprimaryschool lasts 6 years and is followed by 3-year lower-secondary school, although todayperuskoulu isformallyaunified9-yearschool.Todayit iswidelyrecognizedthatthe6-yearprimaryschoolprovidesasolidbasisforthehigh-qualityeducationsystem.Finnishexperience and international research show that investment in early childhooddevelopment andprimary educationpaysoff in later grades throughbetter aptitude andlearningskills,aswellasthroughpositiveoveralloutcomes(Cunha&Heckman,2010).Schoolsaretypicallysmall,withclasssizesrangingfrom15to25students.In2014,23%ofFinnishcomprehensiveschoolshadfewerthan50pupils;just7%ofschoolshadmorethan 500 pupils. In other words, Finnish schools are rather small by internationalstandards.Primaryschools(grades1to6)typicallyhavefewerthan300pupilsandoftenoperate separately from the upper grades (7 to 9), although the unified peruskoulu isgraduallybringingthesetwoschoolsunderthesameroof.Asaconsequenceoftighteningfinancial conditions in Finnishmunicipalities, about 1,000 comprehensive schools havebeen shut downduring the first decade of this century.Manyof themwere small ruralschools.

Teaching is an inspiring profession that attracts many young Finns. In Finnishsociety,theteachingprofessionhasalwaysenjoyedgreatpublicrespectandappreciation,as explained in Chapter 3. Classroom teaching is considered an independent, respectedprofessionthatattractssomeofthebestupper-secondaryschoolgraduateseachyear.Themainreasonforthestrongappealofteachingasacareeristhefactthatamaster’sdegreeis thebasic requirement forpermanentemploymentasa teacher inFinnishschools,andhavingamaster’sdegreeopens thedoor tootherfutureemploymentoptions.Therefore,individualswhochooseteachingastheirfirstcareerdonotfeelthattheirlivesarelimitedtoworkinginaschool.Indeed,teacherswithamaster’sdegreeoftenfindinterestintheircredentialsfromhumanresourcedepartmentswithintheFinnishprivatesectorandthird-sector organizations. They also have access to doctoral studies in Finnish universities.

During thepastdecade,Finnishschoolshavenotedanupsurge in schoolprincipalsandteacherswhopossessaPhDineducation.

Westbury and colleagues point out that preparing teachers for a research-basedprofessionhasbeenthecentralideaofteachereducationdevelopmentinFinlandsincethemid-1970s(Westburyetal.,2005).Teachers’higheracademicqualificationshaveenabledschools toplay an increasingly active role in curriculumplanning, evaluating educationoutcomes,andleadingoverallschool improvement.TheOECD(2005)reviewonequityineducation inFinlanddescribeshowFinlandhascreatedavirtuouscircle surroundingteaching:

Highstatusandgoodworkingconditions—smallclasses,adequatesupportforcounselorsandspecialneedsteachers,avoiceinschooldecisions,lowlevelsofdisciplineproblems,highlevelsofprofessionalautonomy—create largepoolsof applicants, leading tohighly selective and intensive teacherpreparationprograms.This,inturn,leadstosuccessintheearlyyearsofteaching,relativestabilityoftheteacherworkforce,andsuccessinteaching(ofwhichPISAresultsareonlyoneexample),andacontinuationofthehighstatusofteaching.(p.21)

Today, theFinnish teachingprofession isonparwithotherhighly regardedprofessions;teacherscandiagnoseproblemsintheirclassroomsandschools,applyevidence-basedandoftenalternativesolutions to them,andevaluateandanalyze the impactof implementedprocedures. Parents trust teachers as professionals who know what is best for theirchildren.

Finland has a smart policy for accountability. Finland has not followed theeducationalaccountabilitymovementthatassumesthatmakingschoolsandteachersmoreaccountablefortheirperformanceisthekeytoraisingstudentachievement.Traditionally,theevaluationofstudentoutcomeshasbeentheresponsibilityofeachFinnishteacherandschool.Duetotheabsenceofnationalstandardizedtests,studentassessmentisbasedonteacher-created tests at the school level and on sample-based national assessments.Normally, Finnish pupils are not assessed using numerical grades that would enable adirect comparison of pupilswith one another before 5th grade in primary school.Onlydescriptive assessments and feedback are employed, depending on how studentassessment is described in the school curriculum ormunicipal education plan. Primaryschool is, toa largeextent,a“standardizedtesting-freezone,”andpupilsareallowedtofocusonlearningtoknow,tocreate,andtosustainnaturalcuriosity.FearoflearningandanxietyarenotcommoninFinnishschools.

Educational accountability in theFinnish education context preserves and enhancestrustamong teachers, students, school leaders,andeducationauthorities,and it involvesthem in the process, offering them a strong sense of professional responsibility andinitiative. Shared responsibility for teaching and learning characterizes the wayeducational accountability is arranged in Finland. Parents, students, and teachers prefersmartaccountability that enables schools tokeep the focuson learningand thatpermitsgreaterfreedomincurriculumplanning,comparedwith theexternalstandardized-testingculturethatprevailsinsomeothernations.

Enhancing equity of outcomes has been the key education policy. The Finnish

Dreamwasbuiltontheideathatallchildrencanlearnandthattheymustbegivenequalopportunities to succeed inschool. In the1970sand the1980s,manypeople inFinlandfeared thatwhen equality and equity are the primary goals of education, the quality oflearningoutcomes suffer.TheFinnishWay to enhance equity included adjusting schoolfundingtotherealneedsofeachschool;makingspecialeducationuniversalandflexibleso that help is available early on; embedding health and well-being services in everyschool,foreverychild,everyday;ensuringbalancedcurriculumthroughoutschoolsystemthatwillservemultiple intelligencesanddifferentpersonalitiesevenly;andmakingsurethatgood teachersareemployed inall schools.Onlyafter the firstPISAresultsbecamepublic inlate2001didmanyadmit that thisFinnishstrategyofdrivingqualitygainsbyinvesting in equity in education was correct. Indeed, the most successful educationsystemsarethosethatcombinequalitywithequity.OECD(2012)concludedinitsreportEquityandQualityinEducationthat

[s]choolchoiceadvocatesoftenarguethattheintroductionofmarketmechanismsineducationallowsequalaccess tohighqualityschooling forall.Expandingschoolchoiceopportunities, it is said,wouldallowallstudents—includingdisadvantagedonesandtheonesattendinglowperformingschools—toopt forhigherquality schools, as the introductionof choice ineducationcan foster efficiency, spur innovationand raisequality overall. However evidence does not support these perceptions, as choice and associated marketmechanismscanenhancesegregation.(p.64)

Figure 5.1 shows how equity (the strength of the relationship between students’family background and their measured achievement in school) and quality (measuredlearningoutcomesinreading,mathematics,andscience)areassociatedwithoneanother.Following theOECDdefinitionofa successful (i.e.,highachievementandhighequity)educationsystem,Figure5.1 illustrates that themost successful school systems in2012wereCanada,Estonia,Finland,Japan,andKorea(inalphabeticalorder).

The association between students’ family background and their measuredachievement in school has been the subject of thousands of studies since the ColemanReportwasreleasedinthe1960s.Equityofoutcomesineducationsystemsdiminishesasthis associationbecomesmoreuncertain. Inotherwords,when students’ socioeconomicbackground doesn’t determine their school performance, the education system is moreequitable. In Figure 5.1 equity is determined by calculating the economic, social, andcultural status (ESCS) index and then by linking it to individual students’ measuredachievementinschool.Anotherwaytoestimatetheequityofeducationsystemsistolookatstudents’performancevariancewithinandbetweenschoolsinmeasuredsubjects,asweseeinFigure2.2.Athirdwaytoevaluate theequityofeducationsystemsis toseehowmanystudentswhocomefromdisadvantagedhomebackgroundscan“beattheodds”andexhibithigh levelsofachievement inschool.Thesestudentsarecalledresilientbecausetheyovercomeadversityandachieveacademicsuccess.

Figure 5.1. Relationship Between Quality of Learning Outcomes (in Mathematics) and Equity (ESCS) inEducationinOECDCountriesin2012

Weaknessoftherelationshipbetweenfamilybackgroundandschoolachievement(ESCSindex)

Theshareofresilientstudentsamongallstudentscanbecalculatedindifferentways.OECD’sPISA2012(OECD,2013b,p.194)surveyclassifiesastudentasresilientif“heorsheisinthebottomquarterofthePISAindexofeconomic,socialandculturalstatus(ESCS)inthecountryofassessmentandperformsinthetopquarterofstudentsamongallcountries,afteraccountingforsocio-economicstatus.”Bycalculatingtheshareofresilientstudents amongall students in the education system,we’ll get another indicationof theequityof that education system.Across allOECDcountries, 6.5%of the entire studentpopulationisresilient;inotherwords,theybeatthesocioeconomicoddsthatarestackedagainst them when compared with similar students in other countries. As Figure 5.2shows, Sweden has 4.3%, the United States 5.2%, Finland 8.1%, and Canada 8.3%resilientstudents.

Figure5.2.PercentageofResilientStudentsAmongAllStudentsinSelectedCountriesin2012

Source:OECD,2013b.

OECD(2011b)datasuggestthat“resiliencedoesnotappeartobeadomain-specificcharacteristic but rather a general feature of some disadvantaged students, theircommunitiesortheschoolstheyattendthathelpthemovercometheirsocialdisadvantageand become high performers” (p. 33). The percentage of resilient students among allstudents therefore indicates the equityof educationoutcomes.All thesedifferent equityindices show that Finnish education policies have been successful in offering a goodschool for all students. Strong equity in the Finnish school system is associated withuniversalaccess toearlychildhoodeducation;comprehensivespecial-needseducation;asystematic focusonstudents’health,well-being,andhappiness inschool;awhole-childapproach throughbalancedcurriculum;and research-basededucation forall teachers. Inother words, Finland has achieved great system excellence by creating individualopportunity.

TheFinnisheducationsystemhassustainableleadershipandpoliticalstability.ThesuccessofFinnisheducationisnottheresultofanymajornationaleducationreformperse.Instead,educationdevelopmentinFinlandhasbeenbasedonthecontinualadjustmentofschoolingtothechangingneedsofindividualsandsociety.RistoRinneandcolleagues(2002) claim that although the emergence of the new public sectormanagementmeantrevolutionary changes in Finnish educational discourse, the new rhetoric and practiceshavenot been able to take root in education as easily as inother parts of society.As aconsequence, thebasicvaluesandthemainvisionofeducationasapublicservicehaveremainedunchangedsincethe1970s.Governmentsfromboththepolitical leftandrighthave respected education as the key public service for all citizens and havemaintainedtheir belief that only a highly and widely educated nation will be successful in worldmarkets.

In education systems that undergo wave after wave of reforms, frequently theemphasisisontheimplementationandconsolidationofexternallydesignedchanges.The

main result is frustration and resistance to change rather than the desire to improveschools.Asteadypoliticalsituationsincethe1980sandsustainededucationalleadershiphave enabled Finnish schools and teachers to concentrate on developing teaching andlearning.Ratherthanrepeatedlyallocatingfinancialresourcesandtimetoimplementnewreforms, teachers in Finland have been given the professional freedom to developpedagogical knowledge and skills related to their individual needs. After a decade ofcentralized inservice teacher education, following the launch of comprehensive schoolreforminthe1970s,thefocusofprofessionaldevelopmentprogramshasshiftedtomeettheauthenticdemandsandexpectationsofschoolsandindividuals.

THETRANSFEROFCHANGEKNOWLEDGE

Today,Finland isoftenusedasamodelof successfuleducationalchange.“Associetiesmove beyond the age of low-skill standardization,” writes Andy Hargreaves andcolleagues (2008, p. 92), “Finland contains essential lessons for nations that aspire,educationally and economically, to be successful and sustainable knowledge societies.”However,reformideasandpolicyprinciplesthathavebeenemployedinFinlandsincethe1970s will not necessarily work in other cultural or social contexts. For example, inFinland,asinotherNordiccountries,peopletrustoneanotherandthereforealsotrusttheirteachers and principals more than is the case in many other countries (OECD, 2008).Similarly,thereareothersocioculturalfactorsthathavebeenmentionedbysomeexternalobservers,suchassocialcapital,ethnichomogeneity,andthehighprofessionalstatusofteachers, that may play a key role when considering the transferability of educationmodelsandpolicies.3

Indeed,manywanttolearnhowtodevelopagoodeducationsystemfromtheFinns(Barber &Mourshed, 2007; Darling-Hammond& Lieberman, 2012; Hargreaves et al.,2008;Mortimore,2013;OECD,2011a,2013g;Ofsted,2010).Sincetheearly2000stensof thousands visitors have traveled from great distances to learn Finnish lessons aboutsuccessful educational improvement. Understanding Finnish educational success,however, needs to include an awareness of the sociocultural, political, and economicperspectives.Icalltheminvisiblefactorsbecausetheyoftenremainhiddenduetovisiblefactors,suchasschoolenvironment,teachers,curricula,technology,andsoon.

There ismore to the picture thanmeets the eye.An externalOECD expert reviewteamthatvisitedFinlandobserved that“it ishard to imaginehowFinland’seducationalsuccess could be achieved ormaintainedwithout reference to the nation’s broader andcommonly accepted system of distinctive social values that more individualistic andinequitable societies may find it difficult to accept” (Hargreaves et al., 2008, p. 92).AnothervisitingOECDteamconfirmedthattheFinnishapproachestoequitableschoolingrelyonmultipleandreinforcingformsofinterventionwithsupport that teacherscangetfromothers,includingspecialeducationteachersandclassroomassistants(OECD,2005).Furthermore, Finland has shown that educational change should be systematic andcoherent, in contrast with the current haphazard intervention efforts of many othercountries. The conclusionwas that “developing the capacities of schools ismuchmoreimportantthantestingthehelloutofstudents,andthatsomenonschoolpoliciesassociatedwiththewelfarestatearealsonecessary”(Grubb,2007,p.112).ScoresofnewsarticlesonFinnisheducationhaveconcludedthattrust,teacherprofessionalism,andtakingcareof

those with special needs are themain (visible) factors that distinguish Finnish schoolsfrom most others.4 There are also theories of change that represent very differentparadigmsfromthatoftheFinnishWay.

These observations about the problem of the transferability of educational changeknowledge contradict the thinking of thosewho claim that context, culture, politics, orgovernancearenotvery important toa school systemand its leaderswhenseeking realimprovementineducationaloutcomes.InternationalconsultingcorporationMcKinsey&Companyanalyzededucationpoliciesandpracticesin25countrieshopingtofindouthowtheworld’sbest-performingschoolsystemscomeouton top.Whileacknowledging thatthe context determines the course the system leaders must follow for achieving realimprovementinoutcomes,McKinseyarguesthatculture,politics,orgovernancewillnotbeas important to theschoolsystemandits leadersas thefollowingeducationalreformprinciples:

1. Thequalityofaneducationsystemcannotexceedthequalityofitsteachers;2. Theonlywaytoimproveoutcomesistoimproveinstruction;and3. Achievinguniversalhighoutcomesisonlypossiblebyputtinginplacemechanisms

toensurethatschoolsdeliverhigh-qualityinstructiontoeverychild(Barber&Mourshed,2007,p.40).

McKinsey’s view of educational improvement belongs to a mechanistic andreductionistparadigmthatisbuiltonaclassicaltheoryofhumancapital.EachofthethreeelementsofMcKinsey’stheoryofchangeisfragileinlightofcontemporaryconceptionsof systemic educational change. I alreadypointedout theweaknessofMcKinsey’s firstreformprinciple inChapter3. The second and third principles undermine the power ofsocialcapitaland influenceofout-of-school factors inexplainingeducationaloutcomes.Interestingly,theFinnishexperiencedoesnotconfirmthefindingsandrecommendationsofMcKinsey&Company.

Another example of educational change in contrast to the FinnishWay is theU.S.educationreformknownasNoChildLeftBehind.Thisreform,whichwasapprovedbybothmajorpoliticalpartiesin2002,requiresstates,schooldistricts,andschoolstoensurethatall studentsareproficient ingrade-levelmathandreadingby2014.Due to the factthat the federal role in education in theUnited States is limited, the states definewhatgrade-level performance means. According to this federal law, however, schools mustmake“adequateyearlyprogress”sothatproficiencyratesincreaseintheyearsleadingupto 2014. If one child in school doesn’t meet the proficiency target, the school will belabeledasa“low-performingschool.”Themainmechanismsforachieving the intendedchange are accountability, standardized testing, school improvement, corrective actions,and restructuring. Failure tomeet the adequate yearly progress goalmay lead to losingstudents or closing down the school. This legislation, according to many teachers andscholars, has led to fragmentation in instruction, further interventions that wereuncoordinatedwith thebasic classroom teaching, anda largernumberofpoorly trainedtutorsworkingwithstudentsandteachers(Darling-Hammond,2010;Ravitch,2010c).Asa consequence, schools have experienced too many instructional directions for anystudent, with an increase in unethical behaviors such as students cheating on tests and

administratorsmanipulatingstudentassessmentprotocols,aswellasalossofcontinuityininstructionandinsystematicschoolimprovement.

The perverse nature of NCLB became evident in Vermont, a small U.S. state innorthernNew England. InAugust 2014, the year when the reform should have led allstudents to be proficient in reading andmathematics, Vermont’s secretary of educationRebeccaHolcombesenta letter toallparentsandcaregivers inherstate.Shewantedtoinformcitizensaboutthefactthatinthatyear,everyschoolwhosestudentstooktheNewEngland Common Assessment Program (NECAP) tests in the previous year was nowconsidereda“low-performing”schoolbytheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.Vermont isone of the highest-performing states in theU.S. inNationalAssessment ofEducationalProgress,has thebestgraduation rate in thenation, and is ranked second in childwell-being. Inher letter thesecretaryalsowrote that theVermontAgencyofEducationdoesnotagreethatalloftheirschoolswerelow-performingschools.ItisdifficulttoimagineaneducationreformthatwouldbemoredistantfromtheFinnishWay—oreducationpoliciesinanyotherhigh-performingcountry—thanNCLB.

ThedifferencesbetweentheseapproachestoeducationalchangeandtheFinnishWaydescribedinthisbookareindeednotable:Ratherthanrelyingondata-drivenbureaucraticdelivery of education policies and reforms with detailed target-setting, the Finns havegradually built trust in schools and strengthened professional responsibility amongteachersandleaderssothattheeducationsystemworksasaself-improvingorganization.Ratherthanbelievingthatstandardizedinstructionandrelatedtestingcanbebroughtinatthelastminutetoimprovestudentlearningandturnaroundfailingschools,theFinnshaveworkedsystematicallyover thepast30years tomake sure that competentprofessionalswhocancraftthebestlearningconditionsforallstudentsareworkinginallschools.Therational andbureaucratic approaches toeducational changeabove resonatewith thekeyideas ofGERM and can be found in the educational policies of numerous nations andjurisdictionsaroundtheworld,butnotinFinland.

Importing specific aspects of the education system from Finland—whether thoseincludecurricula,teachertraining,specialeducation,orschoolleadership—isprobablyoflittle value to those who hope to improve their own education systems. The Finnishwelfaresystemguaranteesallchildrenthesafety,health,nutrition,andmoralsupportthattheyneed to learnwell in school.As the passage from the novelSevenBrothers at thebeginning of Chapter 1 illustrates, literacy and education in general have historicallyplayedacentralroleinwhatitmeanstobeafullmemberofFinnishsociety.Onelessonwe can learn from Finland is, therefore, that successful change and good educationalperformanceoftenrequireimprovementsinsocial,employment,andeconomicsectors.AsdescribedbyStuartKauffman (1995), the separateelementsofacomplexsystemrarelyfunction adequately in a new environment and in isolation from their original system.Therefore,ratherthanonlyspecificaspectsorinnovationsfromothereducationsystems,itmaybethefeaturesandpolicyprinciplesofalarger,complexsystem—inthiscase,theFinnish Way—that should be borrowed. In a complex system, interactions amongelements of the systemdetermine thebehavior of that systemasmuch as its individualelementsalone.SomeissuesthatshouldbeconsideredwhencontemplatingthetransferofideasfromtheFinnisheducationsystemtoothercountriesinclude:

1. Technicaldriversofgoodeducationalperformance.Theseincludecommoncomprehensiveschoolforall,research-basedteachereducation,professionalsupportforteachers,smartaccountabilitypolicies,relativelysmallschools,andgoodeducationalleadership,especiallywithinschools.

2. Socioculturalfactors.Theseincludealongrelianceonthesocialvalueofliteracyandeducation,strongprofessionalethics,trustinpublicinstitutions(includingschools),andstate-drivensocialcapitalcreatedbyawelfarestate.

3. Linkstootherpublicpolicysectors.Thesuccessofonesectordependsonthesuccessofallothers.Therefore,goodeducationalperformancemayonlybeexplainedthroughlargerpolicyprinciples,includingotherpublicpolicies,suchashealth,youth,andemploymentpolicies.

Finnishpeoplealsoneedtobecarefultoavoidtheillusionthatthecurrentmethodsofmeasuringtheperformanceofeducationsystemswilllastforever.Althoughthereareclearadvantagestorelyingonglobaleducationindicators—especiallythosethatarerelatedtothe economics of education—and student achievement numbers produced by PISA andothersurveys,therewillbeagrowingpressureinthecomingyearstodevelopeducationalunitsofmeasurement thatbettercoverabroaderrangeof learningandacknowledgethechanging faceof future societies.PISA looksat justonepartof thedesiredoutcomeofeducation.Atthesametime,asPeterMortimore(2009)writes:

PISAalsosufferssomelimitations:Itassessesaverylimitedamountofwhatistaught in schools; it canadoptonlya cross-sectionaldesign; it ignores the roleandcontributionof teachers;and theway its resultsarepresented—insome,atleast, of its tables—encourages a superficial, “league table” reading of whatshouldbeamoreinterestingbutessentiallymorecomplexpicture.(p.2)

Many teachers and principals in Finland hold a skeptical view of internationalmeasurementsandbenchmarkingtools.Theyperceive teachingandlearningascomplexprocessesandareawarethatquantifyingtheireffectivenessisdifficult.

IsthereanythingwecanlearnfromtheFinns?Iamnotsuggestingthatothernationsshould adopt the Finnish education system or even its elements, such asperuskoulu oracademicteachereducation,asIhaveclearlypointedoutabove.However,therearemanythings that we can learn from one another in education. Although sensitivity to theproblemsoftransferringeducationalideasfromoneplacetoanotherisessential,Iwouldpropose that there are three main lessons from Finland that are relevant in trying toimprovequalityandequityofeducationinotherplaces.

First, we should reconsider those education policies that advocate choice,competition, and privatization as the key drivers of sustained educational improvement.None of the best-performing education systems today currently rely primarily on them.Indeed, the Finnish experience shows that a consistent focus on equity and sharedresponsibility—notchoiceandcompetition—canleadtoaneducationsysteminwhichallchildrenlearnbetterthantheydidbefore.

Second,weshouldreconsiderteacherpoliciesbygivingteachersagovernment-paidmaster’sdegree–leveluniversityeducation,providingbetterprofessionalsupport intheirwork, andmaking teaching a respected profession.As long as teachers’ practice is not

trustedandtheyarenotrespectedasprofessionals,talentedyoungpeopleareunlikelytoconsiderteachingastheirlifelongcareer.Eveniftheydo,theywilllikelyleaveteachingearly because of the lack of a respectful professional working environment. TheexperienceofFinlandandothersuccessfuleducationsystemsspeaksclearlytothisfact.

Finally,thankstointernationalstudentassessmentstudiesandeducationalindicators,thedifferencesbetweenhigh-performingeducationsystemsandthosethatarestrugglingarebecomingmorevisible.ThesecretofFinland’ssteadyimprovementandoverallhigheducational performance is the result of a smart combination of national traditions andforeigninfluence.Ininternationaleducation,beingaforerunnerandashiningstarisnotnecessarily the best position to hold when transforming education systems tomeet theneedsof the future.Therefore, aimingmerely tobe close to the leaders is probably thebestplan.

THEFUTUREOFFINNISHEDUCATION

Inthefirstdecadeofthismillennium,Finlandestablishedaglobalreputationasamodeleducational nation. International media played a key role in promoting Finland’s newpositionintheglobal limelight.Newsweek titled itsMay24,1999,articleaboutFinland“TheFutureIsFinnish.”ThearticlepraisedthesmartwayFinlandhasbeenabletocreateanationalvision for an innovation-based society that combinesmobile communicationsandinformationtechnologiesunlikeanyother(Newsweek,1999).ThisbookhasdescribedhowFinland’s education system has progressed steadily since the early 1970s until themid-2000s.Mobilephonemakers, symphonyorchestraconductors,gamedesigners, andFormula1driversaresymbolsofwhataFinnishcultureandsocietythatvaluesingenuity,creativity, and risk taking is able to nurture. But will the Finnish education systemcontinuetobeamodelinthefuture?

Ontheonehand,Finland’ssystemiceducationalleadershipsincethe1970s,itsstablepolitical structure, and its established complementarity among public policy sectorssuggest that its educational performance will remain good. On the other hand, PISAsurvey results, in particular, have created a feeling of complacency among educationpolicymakers,politicians,andthepublicatlargeregardingthestatusofFinnisheducation.Thismayleadtoaconditionthatfavorsthestatusquo,whereeducationpoliciesandtheleaders of a high-performing system are motivated more by a desire to maintain thecurrentsituationthantoseewhatpossiblereformsthefuturemightrequireoftheFinnisheducation system.Onlynow, after international student assessments have sentworryingsignalsofdecliningstudentperformance,haveFinnishauthoritieslistenedmorecarefullytocallsforrenewaloftheeducationsystem.

FinlandhasdonelittletoimproveitsschoolssincethefirstPISAresultswerereleasedin2001.ManyofusinFinlandhavenotedthatothercountrieshavecontinuedtoimprovetheirschoolsystems,butFinlanddidnotfollowsuit.Atthesametime,whenthefinancialsituation inmanymunicipalities significantlyworsened, authorities andmany educatorsspenttimeandintellectualefforttofigureouthowFinland’sinternationalreputationasaneducation leadercouldbeconverted intocommercialproductsandeconomicprofit.TheeducationsituationinFinlandappears tobesimilar to thesituationin2013whenNokiasolditsmobilephonebusinesstoMicrosoft.It is tellingthatwhenApplecameoutwiththeiPhone,Nokiaheldthedominantpositioninthecellphoneindustryand,blindedbyits

success,failedtorecognizethechallenge.Nokiahadinventedthetouchscreen,butfailedto take thenextstep.Appledid take thatstep,and,asa result, leapfroggedoverNokia.Whathappenedthereissimilar tothesituationinFinnisheducationat themoment.Thehuge flow of foreigners from all over the world who come to visit the remarkablysuccessfulFinnishschoolshavemadetheauthoritiesafraidtochangeanything.Thedrivefor change led by education activists in the 1990s has been extinguished.Although theFinnisheducationsystemstillperformswellinternationally,therearesomesignsthatpartsofthestrongandequitableeducationsystemmaybebreakingdown.Alargemajorityofschoolexpendituresarecoveredbylocaltaxes.Catastrophiceconomicsituationsinmanymunicipalities, asPeter Johnsondescribes inBox5.1, have lowered teachermorale andjeopardizedmany support functions for students at a timewhen the need for help andcounselingisevengreaterthanbefore.HistorymayonedayshowthatFinlandhasfailedto learn from its own lessons and thus became lost in the journey toward educationalchange.

EducationalchangeinFinlandhasbeendrivenbycultureandemotioninthecontextofsocial,political,andeconomicsurvival.Finlandhasshownthatthereisanalternativewayofchangetotheprocessmanyothercountrieshaveemployed.Finnsthemselveshavelearned that technicalknowledgeandpolitical interestsarenotenough to renewsocietywithoutemotionalengagement.Indeed,globaleducationalreformsshowthattoorationalanapproachtochangedoesnotwork.Renewalrequiresenergy,andenergyisdrivenbyemotion. In an era of big changes, emotional passion often emerges from crisis—or asense of survival—as it did in Finland. But it can also come from recognizing neweconomical,technological,orculturalopportunitiesandinnovation.

At thebeginningof the21st century,Finlandhas becomeamodel nation for otherreasons:ItbuiltacompetitiveknowledgeeconomywhilemaintainingmuchofthesocialjusticeoftheNordicwelfarestatemodel.Ahigh-levelthinktankcalledtheNewClubofParis considered possible futures for Finland and stated that survival is no longer theimpetusformaintainingallthegoodthatFinlandhasbuilt.InitsrecommendationstotheFinnishgovernment,theNewClubofParissuggestedthat

Other drivers with emotional effect need to be identified. The question is how to broaden the scale ofemotionalrecognitionandexploitation.Insteadofsurvivalthedriverforchangecouldbeapowerfulvision,ortheBigDreamofFinland.Ifpeopledonotlovetheidea,itisfutiletopublishnewstrategies.Thenewstrategy with cultural and emotional dimensions should be simple; a couple of words that people canimmediatelyandemotionallyrelateto.Thisiscurrentlymissing.(Ståhle,2007,p.2)

Some Finns are concerned about how the country is seen by other nations in thiscompetitive,globalizedworld.SeveralinternationalcomparisonsindicatethatFinlandhasbecomeoneofthemostfunctionalandattractivecountriesinmanyways—includingwell-being, governance, economic performance, sustainable development, education, andhappiness.Forarathersmallandyoungnation,thatseemstobegoodenough.In2008theMinistry of ForeignAffairs invited an influential delegation of thought leaders to thinkabout how to insure this positive situation—or even strengthen it—in the future. Thegroup’sfinalreportsuggestedthatfunctionality,nature,andeducationareseenasthekeythemes onwhich the future of Finland should be built. It also insisted that—despite orperhaps because of the current positive situation—Finland must continue to ask itself“whatshallwedonext”inallfieldsofoperations(MinistryofForeignAffairs,2010).

BOX5.1:LEADINGALOCALSCHOOLDISTRICT

The development of the education system is based on systematic and sustainable fiscal policies. Finnisheducationdependsheavilyonpublic funding.Asa resultof theglobal financial crisis, theFinnishpublicsectorhasbeenhithard.Municipalitiesareexperiencingrapidlytighteningbudgets.Duringthelastdecade,thedebtburdenofFinnishmunicipalitieshastripledandtheFinnishnationaldebtisbiggerthaneverbefore.IncreasingproductivityandcuttingpublicspendingarenowcommonpublicpoliciesinFinland.Mergingorclosingdownsmallschoolsisoneresultofthesepolicies.

Froman internationalperspective,Finland is still a countryof small schools.The average sizeof acomprehensiveschoolinFinlandis200students.In2008,therewere2,988comprehensiveschools.Since2004, thatnumberhasdecreasedby14%.A totalof1,900comprehensiveschoolshavedisappearedsince1990.Thishas radicallychanged thedensityandnatureof thecomprehensive schoolnetwork inFinland.More students now travel longer distances to school.Many small villages are affectedwhen their schoolcloses down. Much of this structural change has been steered by economic rather than educationalconsiderations.

The worsening situation of the Finnish public sector has also caused many municipalities to usetemporary layoffs of teachers as a cure for their chronic financial crisis. Teachers have been sent homewithoutpayforafewdaysor,insomecases,weeks.Whileteachersareonthisforcedunpaidleave,otherteachers have to take care of their classes and students. Savings have often beenminor, but the negativeimplicationsofthispracticefortheschoolshavebeensevere.

I am concerned about the longer-term effects of these public sector policies. Economic forecasts inFinlanddonotpromisebettertimesahead.Ononehand,weknowfromexperiencethatsimplyincreasingfinancial resources does not solve the daily problems of schools. But sustained shrinking of educationbudgets creates a situation in which some essential structures will be jeopardized. Will schools andmunicipalities be able to achievemorewith less in the future? I think it is possible, but itwill require acarefulanalysisofcurrentstructuresandpractices.Weneedtobeclearaboutwherethesavingscanbemadeandwhereresourcescanbetransferredtowarddevelopmentandrenewal.However,withoutasufficientslicefromtheoverallpublicbudgettoeducation,thisrenewalwillbeverydifficult.Cuttingbudgetsandmakinghigh-qualityeducationlesslikelyisnotasmartwaytorewardpeoplefortheirgoodwork.

—PeterJohnson,DirectorofEducation,CityofKokkola

Thespiritofthesegeneralrecommendationsshouldalsobeconsideredwhenitcomestoeducation.ThechiefinstrumentthatguidesFinnisheducationpoliciesandeducationalrenewaltodayistheDevelopmentPlanforEducationandResearchfor2011–2016.Likethe previous document for 2007–2012, this plan continues earlier policies anddevelopment principles. These documents emphasize securing equal opportunities,improving the quality of education, preparing skilled workers, developing highereducation, and dignifying teachers as the main resources for a good education.Furthermore, thesedocumentsplaceastrongemphasison thecomplementarityprincipleby developing the education system as a whole. All this assumes that the Finnisheducationsystemwillcontinue toperformwell in thecomingyears.However, therearesometrendswithinthegovernanceoftheeducationsystemandwithinFinnishsocietyingeneralthatseemtobecauseforconcern.

First, national education authorities have tightened their control over schools. Thisshiftsignalsthatconfidenceinschools’abilitytojudgewhatisbestfortheirownpupilsand parents is declining. For example, the National Curriculum Frameworks of 2004reducedschools’roleincurriculumplanning.TheNewNationalCurriculumFrameworksof2016arenotgoingtochangethetraditionalorganizationofworkinschools;itmerelyaddsnewexpectationsonthetopoftheoldstructure.

Second,thegovernmentalEducationSectorProductivityProgramfor2006–2010andthe new government program for 2011–2015 call for municipalities and schools to do

morewith fewer resources, which often leads to schoolmergers and increasing schoolsizes. In some cases, productivity gains are sought by reducing after-school activities,specialeducation,andstudentcounselingservices.ThismayturnouttobeharmfulforthedevelopmentofsocialcapitalinFinnishschools.Moreover,thereisnoclearideawithinthe Finnish education system about what direction public education should take in thefuture.

Third,Finlandisslippingawayfromits toppositionas themost transparentnation,thecountrywiththemostcompetitiveeconomy,andasociallyequalsociety,accordingtothemostrecentinternationalindices.PISA2012datashowthatpartofFinland’sdeclineishappeningbecausepoorlyperformingstudentsandschoolshavebeendecliningtobecomenotablyworsethantheywerebefore.Inthe2003PISAsurvey,theFinnishsampleshowed6.8%poor-performingstudents (belowlevel2)and6.7%highest-performingstudents inmathematics(level6)(OECD,2004).Nineyears later,whenmathematicswasagainthemain focus of the PISA survey, Finland had 12.2% poor performers and 3.5% highestperformers. This is a significantly negative change but keeps Finland still above theaverages. In2012,OECDaverageswere23.0%and3.3%,respectively(OECD,2013a).OECD’sTALIS2013alsoshowedsomealarmingtrendsamongFinnishlower-secondaryschool teachers:Participationinprofessionaldevelopmentis low,teachersrarelyreceivefeedbackontheirteaching,andmanyteachersfeelunpreparedtoteachintoday’sschools.Perhaps the most troublesome finding is the overly traditional nature of teaching andlearninginFinnishlower-secondaryclassrooms.Onlylower-secondaryschoolteachersinJapan and Croatia report lower rates of using technology, small-group learning, andprojectsthattakelongerthan1week.

OtherindicatorsalsosuggestthatinequalitiesinFinnishsocietyandinitseducationsystem are increasing. Figure 4.1 suggested that when income equality in a countrydiminishes, there is bad news on the horizon. In terms of income equality, Finland hasbeenamong the topcountries in theworld, togetherwithotherNordiccountries.Figure5.3 shows how income inequality has changed in Finland over the past 2 decades.Increasing inequality is often related to growing social problems, such as increasingviolence, diminishing social trust, worsening child well-being, increased poverty, anddeclining educational attainment. Therefore, the challenge for Finland—where incomeinequalityhasincreasedfasterthaninotherOECDcountries—isnotjusttotrytomaintainhigh studentperformancebut to strive tokeep thecountryanequal societyand toholdontoitsleadingpositionasthemostequitableeducationsystemintheworld.

In reforming its education system Finland has actively listened to other countries’adviceaboutwhatisnecessaryforraisingthequalityofstudentlearningandmeetingnewchallenges ineducation.Finnisheducationauthoritieshavebeenparticularlyattentive towhat supranational organizations—the OECD, the European Commission, and UnitedNationsagencies—haveconsideredthenecessarystepsforFinland’seducationalpolicies.TheeducationalresearchcommunityinFinlandhasadoptedmodelsandideasfromtheirforeign colleagues. InFinland’s current situation, a neworientation is needed. It is stillimportanttomaintainongoing,activecommunicationandcollaborationwithinternationalpartners.Today,however,Finlandhasbecomemoreofagivingpartner thanareceivingone.As a result, Finlandneeds to be prepared to collaborate and exchange experienceswithothereducationsystemsthataretrustedsourcesofinspiration,ideas,andinnovation.

Ihavesuggestedthatanewglobalpartnershipfortheleadershipofeducationalchangeisneeded.Thispartnershipshouldbebasedonsystemsexcellenceandgoodpractices,andawillingnesstomovefearlesslytoimplementinnovativeideasandsolutionsforthefutureofeducation.Finlandholdsaplace in this leagueofneweducation leaders.But itcan’thold that positionwithout an inspiring vision for education. To date, Finnish educationauthorities have invested more time in thinking about how to turn Finland’s globaleducational fame into a profitable business rather than building real internationalpartnerships thatmighthavebeenhelpful in shapingamuch-neededvision.AfterPISA2000madeFinnisheducationaninternationalposterboy,educationpolicieshavebroughtfragmentedprojectsandpiecesofnewlegislationthatmunicipalitieshavebeenobligedtoimplementwithoutasharedviewoftheoveralldirection.

Figure5.3.IncomeInequalityinFinlandUsingGini(%)Coefficientfor1991–2012

Source:StatisticsFinland(n.d.c).

Anymovementneedsafoundationthatdrawsfromacoresetofvalues,philosophies,and a commonly shared vision. As I see it, Finnish school 2.0 should be based on acommunity of learners where learning sparks from individual interests, passion, andcreativityandaimstohelpeachlearnertofindhisorherowntalent.Whateverthevisionis,completelynewformsofschoolhavetobeconsidered.Thenewglobalpartnershipineducationalchangeshouldkickofffromthisstartingpoint.

Theinspiringidea—orBigDream—hasoftenunitedtheFinnishpeopleandprovidedthemwithasourceofemotionalenergythattheycanusetomakechanges.AfterWorldWar II, the ideawas togiveallFinnsanequalopportunity for agoodpublic educationregardlessof theirdomicile, socioeconomicstatus,orother lifeconditions.Thisbecamethemainprinciplebehindbuildingperuskouluintheearly1970s.ThefirstPISAsurveyin2000provedthattheFinnishDreamwasfulfilled.ThefifthPISAstudyin2012insiststhatanewFinnishdreamisurgentlyneeded.

In the midst of one of the worst post–WorldWar II economic crises in the early1990s,Finlandturnedagaintoeducationandinsistedthatnothinglessthanbecomingtheleading and most competitive knowledge economy of the world was enough to bringFinlandbacktothetrajectoryofotheradvancedeconomies.Thedreamthenwastomakethe education system bring about the social cohesion, economic transformation, andinnovation that would help Finland become a fullmember of the EuropeanUnion andremain a fully autonomousnation.The education systemwas, as has beendiscussed inpreviouschapters,thekeydriverthatraisedthenationoutoftheeconomiccrisis.Thepastvisionsofeducationhavebeenaccomplished,andnowitistimetoformanewvisionthatis capable of steering educational change in Finland over the next few decades. Inconclusion,IoffersomeseedsforcreatingthisnewvisionforthefutureofeducationinFinland.

TheFinnishDreamforthefutureofFinnisheducationshouldbesomethinglikethis:Helpallstudentsfindtheir talentandpassioninschool.That talentmightbeacademic,artistic,creative,kinesthetic,orsomethingelse.Passionsparkswhencuriositydrivesthediscovery of each person’s unique talent. Every school needs to be a safe learningcommunity for all students to engage, explore, and interact with other people. Schoolshouldteachknowledgeandskillsasthey’vealwaysdone,buttheymustprepareyoungpeople to bewrong, too. If people are not prepared to bewrong, as SirKenRobinson(2009) says, theywill not come upwith any valuable new ideas.Beingwilling to takerisksandtotoleratebeingwrongaretheonlywaystheFinnscanmakethebestuseofourscarcehumanresources.

Theexistingformatofschoolingrequiresradicalchanges.Firstandforemost,Finnishschools must restore the student engagement that was once a hallmark so that morepersonalized learning occurs in school. Personalization doesn’tmean replacing teacherswith technology and individualized study. The new Finnish school must be a sociallyinspiringandsafeenvironmentwhereallpupilscan learn thesocial skills that theywillneedintheirlives.Personalizedlearningandsocialeducationleadtomorespecializationbutbuildonthestrongercommongroundofknowledgeandskills.Inthisnewvisionforschools,thefollowingthemesofchangewouldemerge.

1. Less classroom-based teaching. Developing customized and activity-basedlearningeventuallyleadstoasituationwherepeoplecanlearnmostofwhatisnowtaughtinschoolsthroughdigitaldevices,anytimeandanyplace.Handheldportabledeviceswillprovide online access to knowledge and other learners. Shared knowledge andcompetencies that are becoming an integral part of modern expertise and professionalworkwillalsobecomepartofschoolsandtraditionalclassrooms.Finlandandsomeother

countrieshaveshownthatitisnotthelengthoftheschoolyearorschooldaythatmattersmost. Less teaching can actually lead tomore student learning if the circumstances areright and the solutions are smart. Those correct circumstances include trust in schools,adequatesupportandguidanceforallstudents,andcurriculumthatcanbelocallyadjustedtomeettheinterestsandrequirementsoflocalcommunities.

Instead of continuing to think of future schooling in terms of allocating time tosubjects,rightnowweshouldmakeaboldmoveandrethinkthewaytimeisorganizedinschools. This wouldmean devoting less time to conventional subjects, such asmothertongue, mathematics, and science, and more time to integrated themes, projects, andactivities.Naturally, organized lessons should bemore available in the lower grades ofprimaryschool,andthenshouldgraduallydecreaseaspupils’abilitytomanagetheirownbehavior and learning develops. This would also mean making a shift from commoncurriculum-basedteachingtoasystembasedonindividuallearningplans.Doingsowouldgive all students extended time to spend engaged in personallymeaningful workshops,projects,andthearts.

2. More personalized learning. It is important for each young person to acquirecertainbasicknowledge,suchasreading,writing,andusingmathematics.Inthefuture,itwillbeimportantforstudentstohavealternativewaystolearnthesebasicthings.Childrenwilllearnmoreandmoreofwhatweusedtolearninschooloutofschool,throughmedia,theInternet,anddifferentsocialnetworkstowhichtheybelong.Asaresult,anincreasingnumber of students will find teaching in school irrelevant because they have alreadylearnedwhatismeaningfulforthemelsewhere.

Acommon trend inmostOECDcountries is a steadilyweakeningengagement anddeclininginterestamongyoungpeopleinschoollearning.Finlandisnoexception.Somesuggestthattheolderourchildrenget,thelessmotivatedtheyarewhenitcomestowhatgoesonintheirschools.Myownobservationaftervisitingschoolsandclassroomsaroundthe world is that what is most often missing is a real spirit of curiosity—among bothchildrenandadults.Ifcuriosityisrelatedtoexploration,investigation,andlearning,thenit should be a central element of school learning for children at all ages. Curiosityrepresents a thirst for knowledge and is therefore a major force behind learning andachievement.

We need to rethink schools so that learning relies more on customized individuallearning plans and less on teaching drawn from a standardized curriculum. The art ofeducation in the future will be to find a balance between these two. Because of theexpandingeducationalpossibilitiesinourdigitalworld,youngchildrenenterschoolswithhugedifferencesbetween theminwhat theyalreadyknowandareable todo.Thisalsomeansthatyoungpeopleareinterestedinagreatvarietyofissuesthatmaybecompletelyforeigntoteachersintheirschools.CustomizedstudyplansorpersonalizedlearningmustnotmeanthatstudentswillstudyalonewithtoolsandinformationfromtheInternetonly.Instead,theyshouldhavewell-prepared,rich,andeducationallyjustifiedindividualplansfor learning that are jointly designed and agreed upon by teachers, parents, and thestudentsthemselves.

3.Focusonsocialskills,empathyand leadership. In the future,peoplewill spendmoretimeonandgivemorepersonalattentiontomediaandcommunicationtechnologiesthantheydotoday.Fromaneducationalpointofview,thismeanstwothings.First,peoplewillgenerallyspendlesstimetogetherinaconcretesocialsetting.Socialinteractionwillbe based on using social networking and other future tools that rely on digitaltechnologicalsolutions.Second,peoplewilllearnmoreabouttheworldandotherpeoplethroughmediaandcommunication technologies.Expandingengagement insocialmediaand networks will create a whole new source of learning from other people who havesimilarinterests.Bydefault,thesenewsocialtoolswillincreaseopportunitiesforcreativeaction, as people can become part of open source projects designing games or digitalsolutionsincollaborationwithothersinthesenetworks.

Schoolsneed to rethinkwhat their core task shouldbewhen it comes to educatingpeople.Thepointofschoolcannotremainwhatitistoday:toprovidetheminimumbasicknowledge and skills that youngpeoplewill need in the future.The future is now, andmany young people are already using those skills in their lives today. Schools need tomakesurethatallstudentsbecomefluentinreading,mathematics,andscienceconcepts,andpossessthecoreofculturalcapitalthatisessential.Equallyimportant,however,isforallstudentstodeveloptheattitudesandskillstheyneedtousetheavailableinformationandopportunities.Theywillalsoneedtodevelopbetterskillsforsocialinteraction—bothvirtualandreal—learntocooperatewithpeoplewhoareverydifferentfromthemselves,andlearntocopeincomplexsocialnetworks.Whatmostpeople in thefuturewillneedthat they are not likely to learn anywhere other than school is real problem solving incooperation with other people. This will become one of the basic functions of futureschools: to learnempathy,cooperation,andcreativeproblemsolving in smallgroupsofdiverseindividuals.

4.Thepurposeofschoolingistofindyourtalent.Currenteducationsystemsjudgeindividual talent primarily through standardized knowledge tests. At worst, these testsincludeonlymultiple-choice tasks.Atbest, theyexpandbeyond routineknowledgeandrequireanalysis,criticalthinking,andproblem-solvingskills.However,theyrarelycovernonacademic domains that include creativity, artistic skills, complex handling ofinformation,orcommunicatingnewideastoothers.Itisnotonlyimportanttoassesshowstudents learn the basic knowledge and skills in school, but also to know how theydeveloptheircommunication,problem-solvingskills,andcreativity.

Conventionalknowledgetestsasweknowthemnowwillgraduallygivewaytonewforms of assessment in schools. As schools move to emphasize teaching skills thateverybodyneedsinacomplexandunpredictableworld,thecriteriaofbeingasuccessfulschoolwillalsohavetochange.Peoplewilllearnmoreofwhattheyneedthroughdigitaltoolsandmedia,andthereforeitwillbecomeincreasinglydifficulttoknowexactlywhatroleschoolshaveplayedinstudents’learning(ornotlearning,ifyouwish).Twothemeswillbeimportantaswemovetowardtheendofthisdecade.

First, curiosity in schoolwill bemore important than ever, serving as an engineof

learning and thereby engaging all students in intellectual, social, cultural, and physicalactivities.Alackofengagementisthemainreasonforthechallengesthatteachersfaceinschools and classrooms today. By the end of peruskoulu, a growing number of youngpeoplefindschoollearningirrelevant,andareseekingalternativepathwaystofulfilltheirinterests. Therefore, curiosity and engagement in productive learning in school shouldbecomeanimportantcriterionforjudgingthesuccessorfailureofschoolsinthefuture.

Second,students’abilitytocreatesomethingvaluableandnewinschoolwillbemoreimportantthanever—notjustforsomestudents,butforallofthem.Ifcreativityisdefinedas coming up with original ideas that have value, then creativity should be just asimportant as literacy and should be treated with the same status. Finnish schools havetraditionallyencouragedrisktaking,creativity,andinnovation.Thesetraditionsneedtobestrengthened.Whentheperformanceofstudentsorthesuccessofschoolsismeasured,thecreative aspect of both individual learning and collective behavior should be valuedhighly. Inotherwords,asuccessfulschool isone that isable to takeevery individual—both students and teachers—further in their development than they could have gone bythemselves.

IsFinlandnowontherightcoursetowardthenewkindofschooldescribedbythesefourthemesofchange?Thecountry’sdecliningpositioninOECD’sPISArankingssince2009 has forced Finnish policymakers to do something. Worsening mathematics andreading literacy skills that were exposed by a large-scale national research studycomparingFinnishlower-secondaryschoolstudents’learning-to-learnskillsbetween2001and 2012 was an alarming signal and the first wakeup call for Finnish authorities andpoliticians (Hautamäki, Kupiainen,Marjanen, Vainikainen, &Hotulainen, 2013). Threeweeksafterthisstudywasreleased,the2012PISAresultsconfirmedthesedisappointingtrends in student achievement. Education authorities decided to announce a nationalcampaignto turnaroundnegativedevelopment. It iscalled“TheFutureofPeruskoulu.”This campaign is led by the minister and steered by two task forces. The ratherconservativeworkingmethods of this campaign beg the question ofwhether the Finnscould have learned something fromAlberta andOntario,where similar initiatives havebeensuccessfullydesignedandimplementedbyengaginglargenumbersofteachersandprincipalsineducationalrenewal.

However, the Trade Union of Education in Finland (OAJ) had already invited itsmembersand thewide stakeholder community to thinkabout the futureof education inFinlandin2012.ThiswasFinnishteachers’reactiontotheleadershipvacuumandthelackof systematicdialogue about thedirectionFinnish education shouldbe taking.OAJhasmobilized teachers and citizens all over Finland to share their views on how educationshould be handled in the future. Neither of these two initiatives suggests any radicalchangestothecurrentstructureorlogicofschoolinginFinland.Moreover,theywillnotbringanysignificantnewresourcesorinvestmentsthatwouldspeeduptherenewalatthetimeofdeepeconomiccrisisinFinland.

Twenty-threehundredyearsago,Aristotlesaidthathappinessistheultimatepurposeofhumanexistence.Happinesshasindeedbecomeoneoftheindicesusedtomeasurethesuccess of nations. Some education systems, like Finland’s, view children’s well-being

andhappiness as integralgoalsof schools. Ibelieve thathappinessoccurswhenpeoplecan do the things they like and that they find meaningful and rewarding. Happinessflourishes whenwe get closer to our element, which Sir Ken Robinson (2009) says is“aboutdiscoveringyourself, andyou can’t do this if you’re trapped in a compulsion toconform.Youcan’tbeyourself ina swarm” (p.148).Today,oureducation systemsarebecomingobsoleteandtheyneednotmorereformbutatotalredesign.

WhatweneedtoturnmysuggestedfourchangethemesintorealityinFinlandisnotjustanothereducationalreformbutarenewal,acontinuousandsystemictransformationof teaching and learning, moving step-by-step toward the new big dream. Finland haswhatittakestomakethathappen.Itrequiresanewglobalpartnershipandleadershipineducationalchange.AnimportantlessonfromFinlandisthattherearedifferentpathwaysto educational excellence. These paths differ from the Global Educational ReformMovement discussed in the previous chapter. One way of increasing productivity andimprovedefficiencymayleadtofinancialsavingsandperhapstemporarilybetterservices,but,asFinnishfuturologistsPirjoStåhleandMarkkuWilenius(2006)pointout,shrinkingbudgets will never create sustainable improvements unless there are simultaneousinvestmentsinsomethingnew.ForecastsfortheFinnisheconomyandsocietyingeneralsuggest thatmore investments are needed to bring about new ideas and innovations inbotheducationandeconomicdevelopment,andtomaintainthehighlevelofsocialcapitalthathastraditionallybeenthedriverofstrongeducationalperformanceinFinland.

Attheendofthe1990s,Finlandwasabletobenefitfromoneofthemostcompetitivenationaleconomies.Experimentation,creativity,andnetworkingwereseenastheheartofschoolimprovement,andtrustinteachersandschoolswasendorsedasakeyprincipleofeducationmanagement. Educational change should provide encouragement and supportfor risk takingso thatcreativitywill flourish inclassroomsandschools, leading tonewideasandinnovation.ThisispossibleonlywithcontinuousrenewalofFinnisheducation,guidedbywiseeducationalleadershipincloserelationwithotherpublicsectorpolicies.

Whatmany countries are looking for now is a socially just education systemwithschoolsthatinspireteachersandstudentsaliketodotheirbest.SeymourSarason(1996)reminded educational reformers that “teachers cannot create and sustain contexts forproductivelearningunlessthoseconditionsexistforthem”(p.367).Finnisheducationalpolicy fits precisely with this conviction. The Finnish government understands theimportanceofteachersandaccordinglyinvestsheavilynotonlyinteachereducationandprofessionaldevelopmentbut also inwork-conducive environments so that the teachingprofessionattractsandretainstalent.

Wellbefore the surge inattention toFinnisheducation following thepublicationofthePISA2000results,IhadtheprivilegetohostSeymourSarasoninHelsinkiforaweekin 1995.Hewas finalizing the revision of his bookTheCulture of the School and theProblemofChange,fromwhichtheobservationaboveisdrawn.ItookSeymourtovisitschools, talk toprofessors,andtellsenioreducationauthoritiesabout the lawsofschoolchangeashesawthem.HealsoreadtheFinnish1994NationalCurriculumFrameworksforcomprehensiveandupper-secondaryschoolsandtheeducationdevelopmentplanswehad prepared for the future of schooling. In our final meeting, I asked Seymour tosummarizehisfindings.Hesaid:“Whydidyoubringmehere?Yourschoolsystemtome

looksvery close towhat JohnDeweyhad inmind andwhat I havebeenwriting aboutteachingandschoolsforthelastthreedecades.”

Indeed, John Dewey dreamed of the teacher serving as a guide to help childrenformulate questions and devise solutions. Dewey saw the pupil’s own experience, notinformation imparted by the teacher, as the critical path to understanding. Dewey alsocontendedthatdemocracymustbethemainvalueineachschool,justasitisinanyfreesociety.TheeducationsysteminFinlandis,asSarasonpointedout,shapedbytheseideasofDewey’s and flavoredwithFinnishprinciplesof practicality, creativity, and commonsense.WhattheworldcanlearnfromeducationalchangeinFinlandisthatcreatingagoodandequitable education system for all children ispossible, but it takes the rightmixofingenuity,time,patience,anddetermination.

The FinnishWay of educational change should be encouraging to thosewho havefound the path of competition, choice, test-based accountability, andperformance-basedpaytobeadeadend.Moreover,thefutureofFinnisheducationdescribedabovecanofferanalternativemeans to customized learning.For theFinns,personalization isnot abouthavingstudentsworkindependentlyatcomputerterminals.TheFinnishWayistoaddressthe needs of each child with flexible arrangements and different learning paths. ThewisdomofFinnisheducationissimple:Theteacher’staskistohelpstudentstodotheirbest.

As a countervailing force against the Global Education ReformMovement that isdrivingschoolsystemsaroundtheworld,theFinnishWayrevealsthatcreativecurricula,autonomous teachers, courageous leadership, and high performance go together. TheFinnishWaymakesplainthatcollaborationwithteachers,notconfrontation,isthepathtobetterresults.Theevidenceisclear—andtheroadaheadshouldbe,too.

Afterword

I amoftenasked if thereareanycountries that areprovidingnationally for the sortsofeducationthatIadvocate.Finland,Isay,andoverthepast204pages,PasiSahlberghasclearlyexplainedwhythatmightbe.HehasdescribedhowandwhytheFinnishsystemhas evolved as it has, how it works now, the principles on which it is based, and thechallengesitfacesinfuture.IseducationinFinlandperfect?Ofcoursenot.Willitstayasitisforever?Howcouldit?

Likeallhumansystems,Finnisheducationisinaconstantprocessofbecoming.Itisembedded in the numerous economic, social, and cultural changes that are affectingFinland’soverallwayof life.And they, in turn, arepart of largerglobal trends that areaffecting all of us, whereverwe are. National systems of education have to evolve forpreciselythatreason.Howtheyshouldevolveisexactlywhatthisbookisabout.

ThemainthemeofFinnishLessons is that transformingeducation isaboutcreatingthebestconditionsforyoungpeopletobecomeengagedlearners,fulfilledindividuals,andcompassionate,productivecitizens.TheGlobalEducationReformMovement(orGERM,asPasisodeftlyputs it)maydeclare this intention,but thepractices ithaspromoted inschools have largely had the opposite effects. In country after country, the standardsmovement has narrowed curricula, dampened morale, lowered aspirations, heightenedanxiety,andhamperedachievementamongstudentsandteachersalike.Thecountriesthathave done well on the standards agenda are often paying a heavy price in a loss ofcreativity, innovation,andengagement instudents, theveryqualitiesonwhichpersonal,cultural,andeconomicvitalitynowdepend.

Inrecentyears,myownworkhasfocusedontheimportanceofcreativityinschoolsand on enabling students to develop their personal talents and passions. In his finalchapter,PasiarguesthatthesemustbeprioritiesinthenextphaseofevolutioninFinnisheducation.Whatdoesthatinvolve?

Idefinecreativityas theprocessofhavingoriginal ideas thathavevalue.Therearevariousmisconceptionsaboutcreativity.Oneisthatit isaspecialpowerthatonlyafewpeoplehave.Itisnot.Itisaprocessthatdrawsonawiderangeofcapacitiesthatweallhave.Anotheristhatcreativityislimitedtocertainsortsofactivities,especiallythearts.Itisnot.Asessentialastheyareineducation,creativityisnotjustaboutthearts.Wecanbecreative in any activity that involves our intelligence, includingmathematics, sciences,technology,andwhateverelseyoumightdo.

Imakeadistinctionbetweengeneralandpersonalcreativity(Robinson,2011).Oneof theobstacles tooriginal thinking isconventionalpatternsof thought thatwe take forgranted:wecanallbetooeasilyentrappedin“commonsense.”Therearetechniquesofgeneral creative thinking that anyone can learn and practice for challenging acceptedhabitsofthoughtandforgeneratingnewideasandperspectives.Thesetechniquesshould

be taught routinely in schools like other core skills. They should also be part of theprofessionaldevelopmentof teachersso that theycanuse themfor themselvesandhelptheirstudentstodothesame.

InTheElement:HowFindingYourPassionChangesEverything,Ilookmorecloselyatpersonal creativity (Robinson, 2009). We all have unique patterns of aptitudes andinterests.BeinginyourElementispartlyaboutfindingwhatthoseare.It’snotenoughtoknowwhatyou’regoodat.Manypeoplearegoodatthingstheydon’tcarefor.Youmayhaveanaptitudeformusicormathordesignorcooking,butnotenjoyit.TobeinyourElement,youhavetoloveit.Ifyoudolovesomethingthatyou’regoodat,itneverfeelslikework.Onthecontrary,yougetenergyfromdoingitandoftenanewsenseofpurpose,too.

Therearesomethingsthatwewantallstudentstoknow,understand,andbeabletodo.Buttheyalsoneedtodiscoveranddeveloptheiruniqueinterestsandabilities.Whentheydo,theyaremuchmorelikelytofacetheirliveswithconfidenceandenthusiasmandtomeetthechallengestheyfacewithresilienceandresourcefulness.

Helping all students to find their Element has implications for the structure of theschool curriculum, for methods of teaching and learning, and for assessment andaccreditation. It is also at the heart ofwhat itmeans to personalize education.As Pasiargues,doingthatinafull-bloodedanddeterminedwayisnowtheleadingchallengeforeducationsystemsthatareseriousabouthelpingyoungpeoplesucceedinaworldthatischangingmorerapidlythaneverbefore.

Forthepast15years,Finlandhasbeenwellaheadofthecurveineducation.Therestof theworldhasmuch to learn from theseFinnishLessons.Oneof themost importantlessonsisthatthisstoryisstillevolvingandisfarfromover.

—SirKenRobinsonLosAngeles,September2014

Notes

Introduction

1.TheWorldBankandOECDhaveusedFinlandasanexample inAho,Pitkänen,andSahlberg(2006)andOECD(2011a).TheMcKinseyCompanyreferstoFinlandasaglobalbenchmarkofgoodpractice inBarber andMourshed (2007) andAuguste,Kihn,andMiller(2010).

2.Therewasapublicdebate in theFinnishmedia soonafter the firstOECDPISAresultswerepublished.SeveralmembersoftheFinnishacademiccommunityrejectedtheresultsbyarguingthatthetestsdidn’tmeasure“pure”mathematicsorphysics,butrathersomeformsofcommoneverydayknowledgethatareirrelevantforfurtherstudiesinthesesubjects.

3.HowardGardnervisitedFinlandinMay2010,andhisinterviewwaspublishedinHelsinginSanomatonMay28,2010(p.B9).

Chapter1

1. Peruskoulu is the Finnish term that refers to 9-year compulsory school, whichconsistsofsixgradesoflowercomprehensiveschool(primaryschool)andthreegradesofuppercomprehensiveschool(lower-secondaryschool).

2. The Second Republic refers to the period of 1946–1994 in Finnish history inAlasuutari(1996).

3.Tenthgradeisavoluntaryadditionalyearfollowingthecompletionofcompulsoryeducation. Students have personalized learning plans that are typically blended withacademic andpractical subjectsor themes.Oneof thekeypurposesof10thgrade is toprovideyoungpeoplewithasecondchancetoimprovetheirknowledgeandskillssothatthey will be successful in upper-secondary school. Tenth grade is arranged as part ofnormalperuskouluandistaughtbytheirteachers.

4. www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/03/20/weird-list-of-topics-avoided-on-california-high-school-exit-exam/

5.TheAquariumProjectwasagovernment-fundedschoolimprovementinitiativetosupport theshift fromacentrallysteeredsystemofmanagement to local leadership andcontinuous improvement. A good description can be found (in Finnish) in the doctoralthesisofHellström(2004).

6.TheNationalInstituteforHealthandWelfare(THL;www.thl.fi/en/web/thlfi-en)isa research and development institute under the FinnishMinistry of Social Affairs andHealth.THL seeks to serve the broader society in addition to the scientific community,actorsinthefield,anddecisionmakersincentralgovernmentandmunicipalities.Theaim

istopromotehealthandwelfareinFinland.

Chapter2

1. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievementconducts PIRLS and TIMSS studies in 4-year or 5-year cycles. TIMSS (Trends inInternational Mathematics and Science Study) measures trends in mathematics andscienceachievementatthe4thand8thgrades.Ithasbeenconductedonaregular4-yearcycle since1995,makingTIMSS2011 the fifthassessmentofmathematicsand scienceachievement trends.PIRLS(Progress in InternationalReadingLiteracyStudy)measurestrendsinreadingcomprehensionatthe4thgrade.Firstassessedin2001,PIRLShasbeenonaregular5-yearcyclesincethen.BothTIMSSandPIRLSwereassessedin2011,whenthecyclesofbothstudiescameintoalignment.Moreinformationandresultsareavailableattimssandpirls.bc.edu.

Chapter3

1. The Bologna Process is an intergovernmental initiative that currently has 46signatories.ItaimsatcreatingaEuropeanHigherEducationAreawithharmonizeddegreesystemsandtheEuropeanCreditTransferSystem(ECTS).TeachereducationisdescribedinPechar(2007)andJakku-SihvonenandNiemi(2006).

2.Pan-EuropeancollaborationinteachereducationhasincreasedduetotheBolognaProcess and specific exchangeprograms inEurope,but strongandactive research linkshave remained between Finnish universities and their North American, British, andAustraliancounterparts.

3. There has been continuous debate over whether the matriculation examinationnegatively affects theway that teachers teach in upper-secondary schools. Some of theempiricalresearchfindingsarereportedinHäivälä(2009).

Chapter4

1.These are the twomain academic journalsdedicated to school improvement andeducationalchange.

2.The initial ideaof“aneweducationalorthodoxy”comesfromAndyHargreaves.SeeSahlberg(2011).

3. Iwas leadinganational project calledCreativeProblem-Solving inSchools thathadcloselinkstoFinnishinnovationenterprisessuchasNokia,Kone,andVaisala.Itwasadministrated and funded by the National Board of General Education. Part of theinspirationfor thisprojectwastheCreativeProblemSolvinginitiativebasedinBuffalo,NewYork.

4. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Switzerland-based internationalorganization that coordinates research on economics. Similar comparisons of nationaleconomic competitiveness are done by the International Institute for ManagementDevelopment (IMD). In the European Union’s internal ranking of its member states’economiccompetitiveness,FinlandrankedatthetopwithSwedenin2010.

Chapter5

1.Asalientexampleofthisaccountabilitycultureisthewell-knownandcontroversial“deliverology”approach,whichreliesontargets,measuring,andaccountabilitytomanageandmonitor the implementation of education reform policies and strategies. For a pro-deliverology perspective, see Barber, Moffit, and Kihn’s (2011) “field guide.” For acriticalperspective,seeSeddon’s(2008)critique.

2. For example, Hargreaves (2003), Schleicher (2007), and Grubb (2007) haveunderscored the importance of alternative education policies in transcending theconventionaleducationalreforms.

3.Cultural factors havebeendiscussedby external observers ofFinnish education.SeeHargreavesetal.(2008),Schleicher(2006),andGrubb(2007).

4.AnarchiveofmediacoverageofFinnisheducationsincethe2000PISAsurveycanbefoundonlineatwww.pasisahlberg.com.

References

Adams, R. J. (2003). Response to “Cautions on OECD’s recent educational survey (PISA).” Oxford Review ofEducation,29(3),377–389.

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

Aho, E., Pitkänen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondaryeducationinFinlandsince1968.Washington,DC:WorldBank.

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

Allerup,P.,&Mejding,J. (2003).Readingachievement in1991and2000. InS.Lie,P.Linnakylä,&A.Roe(Eds.),Northern lights onPISA:Unity and diversity inNordic countries inPISA 2000 (pp. 133–146).Oslo,Norway:UniversityofOslo,DepartmentofTeacherEducationandSchoolDevelopment.

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

Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education PolicyAnalysisArchives,10(18).

Asplund,R.,&Maliranta,M. (2006).Productivity growth:The role of human capital and technology in the road toprosperity.InA.Ojala,J.Eloranta,&J.Jalava(Eds.),Theroadtoprosperity:AneconomichistoryofFinland(pp.263–283).Helsinki,Finland:SKS.

Atjonen, P., Halinen, I., Hämäläinen, S., Korkeakoski, E., Knubb-Manninen, G., Kupari, P.,…Wikman, T. (2008).Tavoitteistavuorovaikutukseen.Perusopetuksenpedagogiikanarviointi[Fromobjectivestointeraction:Evaluationof the pedagogy of basic education].Koulutuksen arviointineuvoston julkaisuja, 30, 197. Jyväskylä, Finland:KoulutuksenArviointineuvosto.

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

Auguste,B.,Kihn,P.,&Miller,M. (2010).Closing the talentgap:Attractingandretaining top thirdgraduates toacareerinteaching.London,England: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,CA:Corwin.

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

Bautier,E.,&Rayon,P. (2007).WhatPISAreallyevaluates:Literacyorstudents’universesof reference?Journal ofEducationalChange,8(4),359–364.

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

Bracey,G.(2005).Research:PutoutoverPISA.PhiDeltaKappan,86(10),797.

Breakspear,S.(2012).ThepolicyimpactofPISA:Anexplorationofthenormativeeffectsofinternationalbenchmarkingin school systemperformance (OECDEducationWorking Papers, No. 71). OECD Publishing. Retrieved fromdx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en

Brophy, J. (2006).Grade repetition. Education policy series 6. Paris, France: International Institute for EducationalPlanning.

Campbell,D.T. (1976).Assessing the impactofplannedsocialchange.Paper#8.Hanover,NH:DartmouthCollege,ThePublicAffairsCenter.

Carnoy,M. (withA.Gove& J.Marshall). (2007).Cuba’s academic advantage:Why students in Cuba do better inschool.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

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

Center for American Progress & The Education Trust. (2011). Essential elements of teacher policy in ESEA:Effectiveness, fairness, and evaluation. Retrieved fromwww.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/02/23/9167/essential-elements-of-teacher-policy-in-esea-effectiveness-fairness-and-evaluation/

Chaker,A.N.(2014).TheFinnishmiracle.Helsinki,Finland:Talentum.(Originalworkpublished2011)

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

Cunha, F., & Heckman, J. (2010). Investing in our young people (NBER working paper 16201). Cambridge, MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.Retrievedfromwww.nber.org/papers/W16201.pdf

Dahlman,C.,Routti, J.,&Ylä-Anttila,P. (2006).Finlandasaknowledgeeconomy:Elementsofsuccessand lessonslearned.Washington,DC:WorldBank.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006).Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

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

Darling-Hammond,L.,&Lieberman,A. (Eds.). (2012).Teachereducationaround theworld:Changingpoliciesandpractices.NewYork,NY:Routledge.

DepartmentforEducation.(2010).Theimportanceofteaching:Theschoolswhitepaper.London,England:DepartmentforEducation.

Dohn,N.B. (2007).Knowledge and skills forPISA.Assessing the assessment.JournalofPhilosophyofEducation,41(1),1–16.

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

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

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

Gameran, E. (2008, February 29). What makes Finnish kids so smart? Wall Street Journal. Retrieved fromonline.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html

Gardner,H.(1983).Framesofminds:ThetheoryofMultipleIntelligences.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.

Gardner,H. (2010,January10).Theministers’misconception.Retrievedfromwww.thegoodproject.org/the-ministers-misconceptions/

Goldstein, H. (2004). International comparisons of student attainment: Some issues arising from the PISA study.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:Subjectteachers´perceptionsofchangesandvisionsinupper-secondary schools. Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, C 283 (in Finnish). Turku, Finland: University ofTurku.

Halme,K.,Lindy,I.,Piirainen,K.,Salminen,V.,&White,J.(2014).Finlandasaknowledgeeconomy2.0:Lessonsonpoliciesandgovernance.Washington,DC:WorldBank.

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

Hargreaves, A., Crocker, R., Davis, B.,McEwen, L., Sahlberg, P., Shirley, D., & Sumara, D. (2009). The learningmosaic: A multiple perspectives review of the Alberta initiative for school improvement. Edmonton, Alberta,Canada:AlbertaEducation.

Hargreaves, A., Earl, L., Moore, S., & Manning, M. (2001). Learning to change: Teaching beyond subjects and

standards.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

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

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan,M. (2012).Professional capital. Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY:TeachersCollegePress.

Hargreaves,A.,Halasz,G.,&Pont,B.(2008).TheFinnishapproachtosystemleadership.InB.Pont,D.Nusche,&D.Hopkins(Eds.), Improvingschool leadership,volume2:Casestudiesonsystem leadership (pp.69–109).Paris,France:OECD.

Hargreaves,A.,Lieberman,A.,Fullan,M.,&Hopkins,D.(Eds.).(2010).Secondinternationalhandbookofeducationalchange.NewYork,NY:Springer.

Hargreaves,A.,&Shirley,D.(2009).TheFourthWay:Theinspiringfutureofeducationalchange.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.

Hargreaves,A.,&Shirley,D.(2012).TheGlobalFourthWay:Thequestforeducationalexcellence.ThousandOaks,CA:Corwin.

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

Hautamäki, J., Kupiainen, S., Marjanen, J., Vainikainen, M-P., & Hotulainen, R. (2013). Oppimaan oppiminenperuskoulunpäättövaiheessa.Tilannevuonna2012jamuutosvuodesta2001.[Learningtolearnattheendofbasiceducation.Results in2012andchanges from2001.]FacultyofBehavioralSciences,DepartmentofTeacherofEducationResearchReportNo347.Helsinki,Finland:UniversityofHelsinki.

Hellström,M. (2004).Muutosote.Akvaarioprojektinpedagogistenkehittämishankkeiden toteutustapa jaonnistuminen[Thewayofchange—TheimplementationandsuccessofpedagogicaldevelopmentprojectsattheexperimentalschoolsoftheAquariumProject].Helsinki,Finland:UniversityofHelsinki.

Itkonen, T., & Jahnukainen, M. (2007). An analysis of accountability policies in Finland and the United States.InternationalJournalofDisability,DevelopmentandEducation,54(1),5–23.

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

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

Jensen,B.,Weidmann,B.,&Farmer,J.(2013).Themythofmarketsinschooleducation.Melbourne,Australia:GrattanInstitute.

Jimerson, S. (2001).Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. SchoolPsychologyReview,30,420–437.

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

Joyce,B.,&Showers,B.(1995).Studentachievementthroughstaffdevelopment:Fundamentalsofschoolrenewal(2nded.).WhitePlains,NY:Longman.

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

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

Kangasniemi, S. (2008, February 27). Millä ammatilla pääsee naimisiin? [With which profession to get married?]HelsinginSanomatKoulutusliite,pp.4–6.

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

Kauffman, S. (1995).At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity.Oxford,England:OxfordUniversityPress.

KetsDeVries,M.(2006).Theleaderonthecouch.SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.

Kiuasmaa,K. (1982).Oppikoulu1880–1980:Oppikoulu ja senopettajat koulujärjestyksestäperuskouluun[Grammarschool1880–1980:Grammarschoolanditsteachersfromschoolordertocomprehensiveschool].Oulu,Finland:

KustannusosakeyhtiöPohjoinen.

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

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

Kreiner,S.,&Christensen,K.B.(2013,June).Analysesofmodelfitandrobustness:AnewlookatthePISAscalingmodelunderlyingrankingofcountriesaccordingtoreadingliteracy.Psychometrika,1–22.

Kupari,P.,&Välijärvi, J. (Eds.). (2005).Osaaminenkestävälläpohjalla.PISA2003Suomessa [Competenceson thesolid ground. PISA 2003 in Finland]. Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, University ofJyväskylä.

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

Laukkanen,R. (1998).Accountability andevaluation:Decision-making structures and theutilizationof evaluation inFinland.ScandinavianJournalofEducationalResearch,42(2),123–133.

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

Lavonen,J.,Krzywacki-Vainio,H.,Aksela,M.,Krokfors,L.,Oikkonen,J.,&Saarikko,H.(2007).Pre-serviceteachereducation in chemistry,mathematics and physics. InE.Pehkonen,M.Ahtee,& J.Lavonen (Eds.),HowFinnslearnmathematicsandscience(pp.49–68).Rotterdam,TheNetherlands:SensePublishers.

Lehtinen, E. (2004).Koulutusjärjestelmä suomalaisen yhteiskunnanmuutoksessa [Education system in the changingFinnishsociety].Helsinki,Finland:Sitra.

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

Levin, B. (1998).An epidemic of education policy: (What) canwe learn from each other?ComparativeEducation,34(2),131–141.

Lewis,R.(2005).Finland,culturallonewolf.Yarmouth,ME:InterculturalPress.

Liiten, M. (2004, February 11). Ykkössuosikki: Opettajan ammatti [Top favorite: Teaching Profession]. HelsinginSanomat.Retrievedfromwww.hs.fi/artikkeli/Ykk%C3%B6ssuosikki+opettajan+ammatti/1076151893860

Linnakylä,P.(2004).Finland.InH.Döbert,E.Klieme,&W.Stroka(Eds.),Conditionsofschoolperformanceinsevencountries:AquestforunderstandingtheinternationalvariationofPISAresults(pp.150–218).Munster,Germany:Waxmann.

Linnakylä,P.,&Saari,H.(1993).Oppiikooppilasperuskoulussa?Peruskouluarviointi90-tutkimuksentuloksia[Doesthepupillearninperuskoulu?FindingsofthePeruskoulu90reserach].Jyväskylä,Finland: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.,…O’Connor,K.M.(2000). TIMSS 1999 international science report: Findings from IEA’s repeat of the third internationalmathematicsandsciencestudyattheeighthgrade.ChestnutHill,MA:BostonCollege.

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

Meyer,H-D.,&Benavot,A.(2013).PISAandtheglobalizationofeducationgovernance:Somepuzzlesandproblems.InH-D.Meyer&A.Benavot (Eds.),PISA,power,andpolicy theemergenceofglobaleducationalgovernance(pp.9-26).Oxford,England:SymposiumBooks.

Miettinen, R. (1990). Koulun muuttamisen mahdollisuudesta [About the possibilities of school change]. Helsinki,Finland:Gaudeamus.

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

Ministry of Education. (2007).Opettajankoulutus 2020 [Teacher Education 2020]. Committee Report 44. Helsinki,Finland:Author.

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

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

Mortimore, P. (2009). Alternative models for analysing and representing countries’ performance in PISA. PapercommissionedbyEducationInternationalResearchInstitute.Brussels,Belgium:EducationInternational.

Mortimore,P.(2013).Educationundersiege.Whythereisabetteralternative.Bristol,England:PolicyPress.

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

Murgatroyd,S.(2007).Accountabilityprojectframework—Developingschoolbasedaccountability.Unpublishedreport.Edmonton,Alberta,Canada:TheInnovationExpeditionInc.

NationalBoardofEducation.(1999).AframeworkforevaluatingeducationaloutcomesinFinland.Helsinki,Finland:Author.

NationalBoardofEducation. (2010).NationalCoreCurriculum forPre-primaryEducation2010.Helsinki, Finland:Author.Retrievedfromwww.oph.fi/english/

NationalBoardofEducation.(2013).Korkeakouluunhakeneet,hyvaksytytjaopiskelupaikanvastaanottaneet.Helsinki,Finland:Author.Retrievedfromhttps://opintopolku.fi/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/YO-Hakeneet-hyväksytyt-ja-paikanvastaanottaneet.pdf

NationalBoardofEducation.(2014).OpettajatSuomessa2013[TeachersinFinland2013].Helsinki,Finland:Author.

NationalYouthSurvey.(2010).KNT2010.Helsinki,Finland:15/30Research.

Newsweek. (1999, May 24). The future is Finnish. Retrieved from www.newsweek.com/1999/05/23/the-future-is-finnish.html

Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007).Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools.Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.

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

Niemi,H.(2011).Educatingstudentteacherstobecomehighqualityprofessionals:AFinnishcase.CEPSJournal1(1),43–66.

Nuikkinen,K.(2011).Learningspaces:Howtheymeetevolvingeducationalneeds.InM.Kasvio(Ed.),Thebestschoolin theworld:SevenFinnishexamples fromthe21stcentury (pp.10–19).Helsinki,Finland:MuseumofFinnishArchitecture.

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

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

OECD.(2005).Equityineducation:ThematicreviewofFinland.Paris,France:Author.

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

OECD.(2008).Trendsshapingeducation.Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2010).PISA2009results:Whatstudentsknowandcando.Studentperformanceinreading,mathematicsandscience(Vol.1).Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2011a).Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons fromPISA for theUnited States.Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2011b).Againsttheodds:Disadvantagedstudentswhosucceedinschool.Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2012).Equityandqualityineducation.Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2013a).PISA2012results:Whatstudentsknowandcando.Resources,policiesandpractices (Vol.1).Paris,France:Author.

OECD. (2013b).PISA 2012 results: Excellence through equity. Resources, policies and practices (Volume 2). Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2013c).PISA2012results:Readytolearn.Resources,policiesandpractices(Vol.3).Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2013d).PISA2012results:Whatmakesschoolssuccessful?Resources,policiesandpractices (Vol.4).Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2013f).Educationataglance:Educationindicators.Paris,France:Author.

OECD. (2013g). Lessons from PISA 2012 for the United States: Strong performers and successful reformers ineducation.Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2013h).OECDskillsoutlook:Firstresultsfromthesurveyofadultskills.Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2014a).Educationataglance:Educationindicators.Paris,France:AuthorOECD.

OECD.(2014b).TALIS2013results:Aninternationalperspectiveonteachingandlearning.Paris,France:Author.

OECD.(2014c).Measuringinnovationineducation:Anewperspective.Paris,France:Author.

Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills). (2010). Finnish pupils’ success inmathematics:FactorsthatcontributetoFinnishpupils’successinmathematics.Manchester,England:Author.

O’Neill,O.(2002).Aquestionoftrust.Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Pechar,H.(2007).“TheBolognaProcess”:AEuropeanresponsetoglobalcompetitioninhighereducation.CanadianJournalofHigherEducation,37(3),109–125.

Piesanen, E., Kiviniemi,U.,&Valkonen, S. (2007).Opettajankoulutuksen kehittämisohjelman seuranta ja arviointi.Opettajientäydennyskoulutus2005jaseuranta1998–2005oppiaineittainjaoppialoittainerioppilaitosmuodoissa[Follow-upandevaluationoftheteachereducationdevelopmentprogram:Continuingteachereducationin2005and its follow-up 1998–2005 by fields and teaching subjects in different types of educational institutions].Jyväskylä,Finland:UniversityofJyväskylä,InstituteforEducationalResearch.

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

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

Prais, S. J. (2004). Cautions on OECD’s recent educational survey (PISA): Rejoinder to OECD’s response.OxfordReviewofEducation,30(4),569–573.

Ravitch, D. (2010a, June 22). Obama’s awful education plan. Huffington Post. Retrieved fromwww.huffingtonpost.com/diane-ravitch/obamas-awful-education-pl_b_266412.html

Ravitch, D. (2010b, July 6). Speech to the Representative Assembly of the National Education Association, NewOrleans,LA.

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

Ravitch,D.(2013).Reignoferror:ThehoaxoftheprivatizationmovementandthedangertoAmerica’spublicschools.NewYork,NY:AlfredA.Knopf.

Riley,K.,&Torrance,H. (2003).Big change question:As national policy-makers seek to find solutions to nationaleducationissues,dointernationalcomparisonssuchasTIMSSandPISAcreateawiderunderstanding,ordotheyservetopromotetheorthodoxiesofinternationalagencies?JournalofEducationalChange,4(4),419–425.

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

RobertWoodJohnsonFoundation.(2010).Thestateofplay:Gallupsurveyofprincipalsonschoolrecess.Princeton,NJ:Author.

Robinson,K. (withL.Aronica). (2009).Theelement:Howfindingyourpassionchangeseverything.NewYork,NY:VikingBooks.

Robinson,K.(2011).Outofourminds:Learningtobecreative.Chichester,England:CapstonePublishing.

Robitaille,D.F.,&Garden,R.A. (Eds.). (1989).The IEA studyofmathematics II:Context andoutcomesof schoolmathematics.Oxford,England:PergamonPress.

Saari, S., & Frimodig,M. (Eds.). (2009). Leadership andmanagement of education. Evaluation of education at theUniversityofHelsinki2007–2008.AdministrativePublications58.Helsinki,Finland:UniversityofHelsinki.

Sahlberg, P. (2006a). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 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 [Teacher’syear2009–2010](pp.13–56).Jyväskylä,Finland: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,NY:Springer.

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

Sahlberg, P. (2012). The most wanted: Teachers and teacher education in Finland. In L. Darling-Hammond & A.Lieberman(Eds.)Teachereducationaround theworld:Changingpoliciesandpractices (pp.1–21).NewYork,NY:Routledge.

Sahlberg,P.(2013a).TeachersasleadersinFinland.EducationalLeadership,71(2),36–40.

Sahlberg,P.(2013b,May15).WhatifFinland’sgreatteacherstaughtinU.S.schools?WashingtonPost.Retrievedfromwww.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/15/what-if-finlands-great-teachers-taught-in-u-s-schools-not-what-you-think.

Sahlberg,P.(inpress).TheGlobalEducationalReformMovementanditsimpactonschooling.K.Mundy,A.Green,R.Lingard,&A.Verger(Eds.),Thehandbookofglobalpolicyandpolicy-makingineducation(pagesnotavailable).NewYork,NY:Wiley-Blackwell.

Sarason, S. B. (1996).Revisiting “the culture of the school and the problem of change.” NewYork, NY: TeachersCollegePress.

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

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

Schulz,W.,Ainley, J.,Fraillon, J.,Kerr,D.,&Losito,B. (2010). ICCS2009 InternationalReport:Civicknowledge,attitudes and engagement among lower-secondary school students in thirty-eight countries. Amsterdam, TheNetherlands:IEA.

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

Sellar,S.,&Lingard,B.(2013).TheOECDandtheexpansionofPISA:Newglobalmodesofgovernanceineducation.BritishEducationalResearchJournal.doi:10.1002/berj.3120

Simola,H.(2005).TheFinnishmiracleofPISA:Historicalandsociologicalremarksonteachingandteachereducation.ComparativeEducation,41(4),455–470.

Simola,H.(2015).TheFinnisheducationmystery.HistoricalandsociologicalessaysonschoolinginFinland.London,England:Routledge.

Ståhle,P.(Ed.).(2007).FivestepsforFinland’sfuture.Helsinki,Finland:TEKES.

Ståhle,P.,&Wilenius,M.(2006).Luovatietopääoma:Tulevaisuudenkestäväkilpailuetu[Creativeintellectualcapital:Sustainablecompetitiveadvantageofthefuture].Helsinki,Finland:Edita.

Statistics Finland. (2011). Population structure. Retrieved from www.stat.fi/til/vaerak/2010/vaerak_2010_2011-03-18_tie_001_en.html

Statistics Finland. (2014a). Nearly every fifth Finn is aged 65 or over. Retrieved fromtilastokeskus.fi/til/vaerak/index_en.html

StatisticsFinland.(2014b).Discontinuationofeducation.Retrievedfromwww.stat.fi/til/kkesk/index_en.html

StatisticsFinland.(n.d.a).Education.Retrievedfromwww.stat.fi/til/kou_en.html

StatisticsFinland.(n.d.b).Researchanddevelopment.Retrievedfromwww.stat.fi/til/tkke/index_en.html

StatisticsFinland.(n.d.c).Incomeandconsumption.Retrievedfromwww.stat.fi/til/tul_en.html

Spieghalter, D. (2013, December 3). East Asian countries top global league tables for educational performance.Retrievedfromwww.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/east-asian-top-oecd-education-rankings

Teddlie,C.(2010).Thelegacyoftheschooleffectivenessresearchtradition.InA.Hargreaves,A.Lieberman,M.Fullan,& D. Hopkins (Eds.), The second international handbook of educational change (pp. 523–554). Dordrecht,Netherlands:Springer.

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

Tucker, M. (2011). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems.Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress.

UNICEF.(2012).Measuringchildpoverty:Newleaguetablesofchildpovertyintheworld’srichestcountries.Florence,Italy:InnocentiResearchCentreReportCard#10.

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

Välijärvi, J. (2008).Mitenhyvinvointi taataan tulevaisuudessakin? [How toguaranteewelfarealso in future?]. InM.Suortamo,H.,Laaksola,&J.Välijärvi(Eds.),Opettajanvuosi2008–2009[Teacher’syear2008–2009](pp.55–64).Jyväskylä,Finland:PS-kustannus.

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

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

Välijärvi, J.,&Sahlberg,P. (2008).Should“failing” students repeat agrade?A retrospective response fromFinland.JournalofEducationalChange,9(4),385–389.

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

Weiss,E.(2013).MismatchesinRacetotheToplimiteducationalimprovement:Lackoftime,resources,andtoolstoaddress opportunity gaps puts lofty state goals out of reach. Washington, DC: Broader, Bolder Approach toEducation/EducationPolicyInstitute.

Westbury, I., Hansen, S-E., Kansanen, P., & Björkvist, O. (2005). Teacher education for research-based practice inexpandedroles:Finland’sexperience.ScandinavianJournalofEducationalResearch,49(5),475–485.

Wiborg,S. (2010).Swedish freeschools:Do theywork?London,England:Centre forLearning andLifeChances inKnowledgeEconomiesandSocieties,www.llakes.org.

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

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

Zhao,Y. (2009).Catching up or leading theway: American education in the age of globalization.Alexandria,VA:ASCD.

Zhao,Y. (2013,December 2).Reading thePISA tea leaves:Who is responsible for Finland’s decline and theAsianmagic? Retrieved from zhaolearning.com/2013/12/02/reading-the-pisa-tea-leaves-who-is-responsible-for-finland’s-decline-and-the-asian-magic/

Zhao,Y.(2014).Who’safraidofthebigbaddragon:WhyChinahasthebest(andworst)educationsystemintheworld.SanFrancisco,CA:JosseyBass.

Index

Thepagereferencesinthisindexcorrespondtotheprinteditionofthisbook.Pleaseusethesearchfunctionofyoure-readertolocatethetopicsandtermslistedherein.

fortfollowingapagenumberreferstoafigureortable,respectively.nreferstoanote.

Abilitydifferences,23,28,30,62,66–67,96,123

Abilitygrouping,23,28

Accountability,63,137–138,144,175,177n1,180

Achievementgap,62

ActonGeneralUpper-SecondaryEducation,31

ActsonTeacherEducation,108–109

Adams,R.J.,79

Adequateyearlyprogress,187

Administration.SeeSchooladministration

Adulteducationlevel,58–61,100

After-schoolactivities,89

AgrarianParty,29

Aho,E.,19,21,26,29,36,43,154,171

Ahtisaari,M.,1

Ainley,J.,76–77

Aksela,M.,114,116

Alasuutari,P.,18n2

Alberta,Canada,andstandardizedtesting,95

AlbertaInitiativeforSchoolImprovement(AISI),46

Allerup,P.,55

AlquézarSabadie,J.,155

Alternativeschooling.SeeSchoolchoice

Amrein,A.L.,48,94

AnecdotesfromFinnisheducators,29,102,117,165,193

Anxiety,31,91

AppleInc.,191

Appliededucationalsciences,173

AquariumProject,45–46,45n5

Arffman,I.,30,71,175,178

Aristotle,201(ASCD)AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment,44

Asplund,R.,156

Assessments.SeealsoHigh-stakestesting;Standardizationinlearning/testing.Seealsointernationalassessmentslistedbyname

informal,63,93–95,123,168–169,180–181

national,94

NationalMatriculationExamination,31,38–41,95,124

inupper-secondaryeducation,31–33

AssociationforSupervisionandCurriculumDevelopment(ASCD),44

Atjonen,P.,45

Au,W.,94

Auguste,B.,2n1

Australia,xv–xvi

AustraliaGrattanInstitute,151

Authenticlearning,202

Automaticpromotion,84

Autonomy,10,100,122–124,131–132,152

Bachelor’sdegreeineducation.SeeTeachereducation:degreeprograms

Baker,E.,125–126

Barber,M.,2n1,11,135,177n1,185–186

Basicschoolinggoal,8

Bautier,E.,79

Benavot,A.,11

Berliner,D.C.,48,94

Berry,J.,33

Björkvist,O.,180

BolognaProcess,110,110n1,129–130

Bonuspay,107

Borrowedideas,xxii,8,44,166–170,190,195

Bracey,G.,79

Breakspear,S.,80,145

Broader,BolderApproachtoEducation,147

Brophy,J.,83

Bush,G.W.,xi.SeealsoNoChildLeftBehind

Businessmodel,143

Campbell,D.T.,80

Campbell,E.,27

Careerguidanceandcounseling,30,33

Carnoy,M.,160

Castells,M.,15,153

Causalityandcorrelation,16

CenterforAmericanProgressandtheEducationTrust,136

Centralizededucationalmanagement,11

Certificationinvocationaleducation,41

Chaker,A.N.,12,86

Charterschools.SeeSchoolchoice

Chijioke,C.,11

Childdaycare,51

China,xiv

Christensen,K.B.,79

Chroniceducationproblems,7

Civicknowledgelearningoutcomes,76–77

Civilsocietyinvolvement,25–26

Classroomassessment.SeeAssessments:informal

Classsize,179

Coleman,J.,27“ColemanReport,”27,134,182

Collaboration.SeeInternationalcollaboration;Professionalcollaboration

Communitywork,124

Competitionbetweenschools,46,92–93,132,144,146,149t,152,177

Competitionwithinteachingfield,13,103–104,106,133

Competitiveeconomy,xvi,xviii,15,139,142,155,162,162n4

Complacency,191–192

Complementarityprinciple,142,159,194

Comprehensivebasicschool.SeePeruskoulu

ComprehensiveSchoolCurriculumCommittee,22

ComprehensiveSchoolReform(1970s),28–29,41–42,45,62,83

Compulsoryeducation,22–24

Conceptionofknowledge,43

Consensus,29,178

Contextforreform,185

Cooperation

amongeducators,130,142,149t,176

betweeneconomicsectors,157,164

Cooperativelearning,44,167–168

Core-subjectsfocus,145–146

CorevaluesinFinland,12,17,24,86,101,160,173–174

Corporatemodels,143

Correlationandcausality,16

Costofeducation,59–60,80–82

Costsofwar,18

CountryBrandDelegation,12,173–174

Coursecredits,32,110–114

CreativeProblem-SolvinginSchools,156n3

Creativity,202,205–206

Crocker,R.,45

CulturalcharacteristicsofFinnishpeople,11–13,17,24,86,157,160,173–174

CulturalheritageofFinland,100–101

Cultureofteaching,99–101

CultureoftheSchoolandtheProblemofChange,The(Sarason),203

Culture-transcendingpolicies,7–9

Cunha,F.,65,179

Curiosity,199,202

Curriculum

andcooperativelearning,167–168

development,122–124

inearlychildhoodeducation,52

mathemphasis,71

underreform,26,28,45,48,171,178,184,194

scienceemphasis,74

standardization,145,149

inteachereducation,110–116,118

unified(Finland),21–23

invocationaleducation,32

Cygnaeus,U.,167

Dahlman,C.,19,153,155

Darling-Hammond,L.,2,118,185–186

Davis,B.,46

“Deliverology,”177n1

Democraticschooling,30

DepartmentforEducation(UK),11

DevelopmentPlanforEducationandResearch,194

Dewey,J.,30,167,203–204

Didactics,173

Differentiatinginstruction,28,30

Diversity,10,66,83–84,95–97

Dohn,N.B.,79

Domicile,48

“Driversofchange,”147

Droppingout.SeeSchoolleaving

Duncan,A.,xi

Earl,L.,143

Earlychildhoodeducation,48,50–53,67–68

Economic,social,andculturalstatus(ESCS)index,61,182–183

Economicclimateandconditionsforreform,48–53,154–160

Economiccrisis,3,154–155,162

EconomicdevelopmentinFinland,19–21,202–203

Economicopportunities,1,104

Educationalattainment,34–41,58–61,99–100

Educationaldevelopmentinpostwarperiod,19–21

Educationaljurisdictions,10–11

Educationalleadership,184–185

EducationforAll,143–144

EducationPolicyInstitute,147

Educationreform,Finland.SeeFinnishWay

Educationreform,international.SeeGlobaleducationreformmovement(GERM)

EducationSectorProductivityProgram,194

EducationSystemCommittee,22–23

Effectiveness,125–126,135

Efficiency,13,42f,47–48

Element,206

Element,The(Robinson),206

Elley,W.B.,55

Emotionalengagement,192

Employmentpolicies,158t

Engagementinschool,199–200,202,206

England,xv–xvi

Equal-opportunityprinciple,28,179

Equitableeducation,17,26,185.SeealsoEquityofoutcome;Variationinlearningoutcomes

EquityandQualityinEducation(OECD),181–182

Equityofoutcome,61–68,95–97,149t,152,158t,180–184.SeealsoEquitableeducation;Variationinlearningoutcomes

ESCS(economic,social,andculturalstatus)index,61,182–183

EssentialElementsofTeacherPolicyinESEA(CenterforAmericanProgressandtheEducationTrust),136

EuropeanCreditTransferandAccumulationSystem(ECTS),110

EuropeanHigherEducationArea,110,110n1

EuropeanUnion,8,95,140,154,156–157

Evolutionofnationaleducationsystems,205

Expendituresoneducation,59–61,80–82,94.SeealsoInvestmentineducation

Failingeducationsystems,3,5–6

Familybackground,61,84,134,149,182.SeealsoSocioeconomicfactorsineducationaloutcomes

Farmer,J.,144,151

Financialaidforhighereducation,61

Financingindex,37

Fink,D.,49,157

FinnishBusinessandPolicyForum(EVA),170

FinnishDream,8,197

FinnishLessons(Sahlberg),xi–xii,xxi–xxii

FinnishLessons(2ndedition)

organization,13–16

FinnishModel.SeeFinnishWayFinnishperformanceoninternationalassessments

civics,70t,76,77t

incoresubjects,69,70t,71–78

declinesin,73–74

internationalattention,55–58,186n4

overallachievement,72,73f

PISA,70t,72–77,78f

FinnishPrimarySchoolTeachers’Association(FPSTA)proposal,26

FinnishWay

about,xii,xviii–xix,8,173–174,204

contextforsuccess,177–178

featuresofsuccess,179–185

futureofeducation,194–204

goingagainstthegrain,174–177

negativetrends,200–201

phasesofreform,41–48

andqualityofeducation,152–154

relevancetoothercountries,xix,9–11,15–16

transferringchangeknowledge,185–190

FirstInternationalMathematicsStudy,69

Fiscalconcerns,202–203

FlatWorldandEducation,The(Darling-Hammond),2

Flexibility,164

Focusonliteracyandnumeracy,149t

Foreign-bornpopulation,10,95–97

Foreigninnovation.SeeBorrowingideas

Foundationsofschooling,42–45

FourthWay,6,153

FourthWay,The(Hargreaves&Shirley),147

Fraillon,J.,76–77

FrameworkforEvaluatingEducationalOutcomesinFinland,A(NationalBoardofEducation),176

Frimodig,M.,118

Fullan,M.,xiii–xiv,9,136,142,147–148

Gameran,E.,91

Garden,R.A.,68

Gardner,H.,11n3,79,168

Genderandteaching,104

GERM(globaleducationreformmovement).SeeGlobaleducationreformmovement(GERM)

Globaleconomy,1

Globaleducationdevelopment,140–142

Globaleducationreformmovement(GERM)

about,xi–xv,xii,xxi,174,205

agents/discourse,148,150

basisof,142–144

commonfeaturesforschoolimprovement,144–148

effectonoutcomes,150–152

GlobalFourthWay,The(Hargreaves&Shirley),2

Globalizationeffectoneducationpolicycollaboration,140–141

Globalpartnership,196–197

Goldstein,H.,79

Graderepetition,82–84,85f

Grading,168–169,180–181

Graduationrateforupper-secondaryeducation,36–37

Grammarschools,20,25f,27,82

GrawemeyerAward,xxiii

Grek,S.,11

Gretzky,W.,173

Grubb,N.,63,84,178n2,186

Guaranteedlearning,143–144

Gymnasium.SeeUpper-secondaryschool

Häivälä,K.,124n3

Halasz,G.,xvii,127,175,185

Halme,K.,15,154

Hansen,S.E.,180

Happiness,201

Hargreaves,A.,xvi,xvii,2,6,43,45,49,127,136,142–143,147,153,157,175,178n2,185

Hautamäki,J.,30,71,97,175,201

Heckman,J.,65,179

Hellström,M.,45–46,45n5,165

HelsinginSanomat,11n3

Hiddenfactorsofsuccess,185

Highereducation

participationin,36,38,59t,60–61

andreform,3,19,24,27,158

andteachereducation,108,116

High-stakestesting,xi–xiii,31,33,49,92–93

Himanen,P.,15,153

Hirvi,V.,2

Hobson,C.,27

Holcombe,R.,187

Holisticeducation,20,22,168–169

Homework,91–92

Homogeneity,10

Hopkins,D.,142

Hotulainen,R.,201

HowtheWorld’sBestPerformingSchoolSystemsComeOutonTop(Barber&Mourshed),135

Humancapital,164

Immigrantpopulation,10,95–97

Inclusivity,28,30,96

Income,161,195,196f

Individuality,12–13

Individualizedlearningplans.SeePersonalizedlearningplans

IndividualLearningPlan,66

Inequality,195,196f

Innovation,xiii,202–203,205

InsideMan(Spurlock),4

Institutionalplacement,66

Institutionsestablishment,158t,159

Instructionhours,87–91,124,125f

Integration.SeeInterdependencies

Interdependencies,7,15,139–140,158–159,163

Internationalassessments.Seebyname

InternationalAssociationfortheEvaluationofEducationalAchievement(IEA),68,71n1

InternationalCivicandCitizenshipStudy(ICCS),77f

Internationalcollaboration,111n2,195–197

Internationalcomparisonsineducation.SeealsoGlobaleducationreformmovement(GERM).Seealsointernationalassessmentsbyname

about,11

adultcompetencies,60

competitionandchoice,144–145

educationalpolicies,49

educationreformoutcomes,149–150

equity,182f

graderepetition,85f

instructionaltime,88,90f,105,125f

learningoutcomes,56,57t,182,195

natureofschooling,195

resilientstudents,183f

schoolimprovement,134–135

specialeducationenrollment,65–66,67f

teachers/teaching,100,104,107,109,114,126,129,134–135

variationinstudentperformance,62–63,64f,85f

Internationalinfluence.SeeBorrowedideasInternational

InstituteforManagementDevelopment,162n4

Internationalmetrics,xxiii,11,55–58,60.SeealsoInternationalassessmentsbyname

InternationalMonetaryFund(IMF),143

InternationalOlympiads,56,57t

Intersectorcooperation,157,164

Investmentineducation,80–81,155–156,158t,159.SeealsoExpendituresoneducation

Investmentininnovation,154–156,158t,162–163

Itkonen,T.,67

Jahnukainen,M.,67

Jakku-Sihvonen,R.,108,110n1

Jennings,J.,146

Jensen,B.,144,151

Jimerson,S.,83

Johansen,J.,155

Johnson,P.,193

Jokinen,H.,119

JournalofEducationalChange,141

Joyce,B.,44,169

Jussila,J.,118

Kangasniemi,S.,101

Kansanen,P.,180

Kasvio,M.,175

Kauffman,S.,188

Kekkonen,U.,29

Kela(StateInsuranceInstitutionofFinland),51

Kerr,D.,76–77

KetsDeVries,xv

Kettunen,P.,29

Kevi,A.,17

Kihn,P.,2n1,177n1

Kindergarten,51–52,100

Kinnunen,R.,43

Kiuasmaa,K.,20

Kivi,A.,17

Kiviniemi,U.,121

Kivirauma,J.,184

Knowledge-basedeconomy,155,162–163

Knowledgegap,62

Koskenniemi,M.,20–21,102

Kreiner,S.,79

Krokfors,L.,114,116

Krzywacki-Vainio,H.,114,116

Kupari,P.,30,33,68,71,91,175,178

Kupiainen,S.,201

Kuusi,P.,26

Laukkanen,R.,175

Lavonen,J.,114,116

LearningandSchoolingSupport,66

Learningcommunities,45–46

Learningtheory,143

Lehtinen,E.,43–44

“Lessismore”approach,14

Levin,B.,147

Lewis,R.,160

Lieberman,A.,142,185

Liiten,M.,101

Lindy,I.,15,154

Lingard,B.,80

Linnakylä,P.,30,71,171,175,178

Literacy,17,99,101,146,178,200–201.SeealsoReading/literacyoutcomes

Long-termvisionofeducation,163–164

Losito,B.,76–77

Lowercomprehensiveschool.SeePrimaryschool

Lower-secondaryschool

andcivicknowledge,76–77

homework,91–92

internationalmetrics,67f,69,70t,76–77,89,90f,121,127,129

leadership,127

negativetrends,195,201

underreformsystem,18n1,27f

specialeducation,67

andteachers/teaching,89,90f,108t,128–130

MacKinnon,N.,150

Mainstreaming,28,30,96

Maliranta,M.,156

Manning,M.,143

Marjanen,J.,201

Martin,M.O.,68

Master’sdegreeprogram.SeeTeachereducation:degreeprograms

Mathlearningoutcomes,61,63–64,68,75,85,161,182.SeealsoTIMSS(TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy)

MatriculationExamination.SeeNationalMatriculationExamination

MatriculationExaminationBoard,38

Matti,T.,175

McEwen,L.,45

McKinseyandCompany,11,135,143,186

McPartland,J.,27

Mehtäläinen,J.,43

Mejding,J.,55

Meyer,H.-D.,11

Miettinen,R.,43

Miller,M.,2n1

“Minimallyinvasiveeducation,”88

MinistryofEducation,32,109,120–121

MinistryofEducationandCulture,38,51

MinistryofForeignAffairs,12,174,192,194

MinistryofSocialAffairsandHealth,51n6

Mitra,S.,88

Modelforeducation,xvi–xvii,xxi–xxii,1–2,4,6

ModelsofTeaching,The(Joyce&Weils),44

Moffit,A.,177n1

Mood,A.,27

Moore,S.,143

Moralpurposeofeducation,xv–xvi

Mortimore,P.,79,185,189

Mourshed,M.,2n1,11,135,185–186

Multipleintelligences,168

Municipalitiesroleineducation,36,45–46,120–123,158t,171,193

Murgatroyd,S.,46

NationalBoardofEducation,2,25,52,101,121,176

NationalBoardofGeneralEducation,44

Nationalcompetitivenessgoal,159

NationalCurriculumfortheComprehensiveSchool,28

NationalCurriculumFrameworks,48,178,194

NationalCurriculumReformof1994,45

NationalInstituteforHealthandWelfare,51,51n6

NationalMatriculationExamination,31,38–41,95,124,124n3

NationalTeacherSurvey,121

NationalYouthSurvey,101

NegativetrendsinFinnisheducation,73–74,191,195,200–201

Networkingforreform,42f,45–46,49–50,53

NewClubofParis,192

“Neweducationalorthodoxy,”143,143n2

NewEnglandCommonAssessmentProgram(NECAP),187

Newsweek,xi,190

Nichols,S.L.,94

Niemi,H.,108,110n1,117,129

Niiniluoto,I.,43

NoChildLeftBehind,xi,146,187

Nokia,3,154–155,191

Nonacademicskills,11,47,149t

Nonclassorganizationalsystem,31

Nongovernmentalorganizations,176

Nuikkinen,K.,178

Numeracyfocus,146

Numeracylearningoutcomes.SeeMathlearningoutcomes;TIMSS(TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy)

Obama,B.,xi,xiii–xiv.SeealsoRacetotheTop

OECD(OrganisationforEconomicDevelopment).SeealsoPIAAC(ProgrammefortheInternationalAssessmentofAdultCompetencies);PIRLS(ProgressinInternationalReadingLiteracyStudy);PISA(ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment);TALIS(TeachingandLearningInternationalSurvey)

about,55,61,80,140

adultcompetencies,59–60

civicknowledge,77f

costofeducation,80–81

familybackground,47,61

Finlandstudy,xvii–xviii

Finnisheconomy,155,163

Finnishmodel,2n1,177,180–181,185

Finnishperformance,69–70,199

globalreform,141,143–145,151–152,167

incomeinequality,161

instructionhours,87–90,92,124–125

learningoutcomes(math),61,63–64,85,182

professionaldevelopment,119

secondaryschoolperformance,77–78

studentanxiety,33,91

teacherpay,106–107

upper-secondaryeducationgraduationrate,37

variationinlearningoutcomes,47,62–64

OECD(reportcitationsonly),6,11,57,65,72–75,93,127–128,135,161,183–184,195

Ofsted,71,185

Oikkonen,J.,114,116

Oittinen,R.H.,23

Olkinuora,E.,43

Ollila,J.,12

O’Neill,O.,177

Ontario,Canada,xv–xvi

On-the-jobtraining,32

Othercountries’learningoutcomes.Seeinternationalassessmentsbyname;Internationalcomparisonsineducation

ParadoxesofFinnisheducation

equitythroughdiversity,95–97

teachless,learnmore,86–92

testless,learnmore,92–95

Paralleleducationsystem,23–25,82

Parentalchoice.SeeSchoolchoice

Parentalleave,51

Paronen,S.,139

Partner/spouseoccupationpreference,101

Passion,149t,197,206

Pechar,H.,110n1

“Pedagogicallove,”102

Peercoaching,169

Personalizedlearningplans,13,37,52–53,83–84,149t,198–199

Peruskoulu

definition,3,18n1

andFinnishDream,8

andgraderepetition,82

idealsof,26–30

introductionof,25–28,30

oppositionto,170–172

Phasesofreform,42–48

Philanthropy,143

PIAAC(ProgrammefortheInternationalAssessmentofAdultCompetencies),60

Pickett,K.,160

Piesanen,E.,121

Piirainen,K.,15,154

PIRLS(ProgressinInternationalReadingLiteracyStudy),11,69–71,71n1

PISA(ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment)

about,55–56,71–74,78–80

criticismsof,11n2,189

expendituresoneducation,81–82,81f

familybackground,97,161,182f

globaleducationreformfeatures,general,150–152

immigrantstudents,97

instructiontime,87–88

mathematicsoutcomes,75f,161,182f

negativetrendsforFinland,191,195,200–201

overallperformance,47–48,70t,72–73,76–77,78f,181,195–196

readingoutcomes,81

relevanceof,11,79–80

schoolcompetition,144

scienceresults,73,75f

standardization,145

studentanxiety,33

studentresilience,183–184

teachingquality,135

test-basedpolicy,92–93

variationinlearningoutcomes,6,62–65

Pitkänen,K.,19,21,26,36,171

Placeofliving,48

Pont,B.,xvii,127,175,185

Popham,J.,94,144

Poskiparta,E.,43

Postwarperiod,18–22

Poverty,68,97,175

Practicumexperiences,118–119

Prais,S.J.,79

Preprimaryschool,52

Preschool,50–51,68,108

Preventionversusrepair,65–67

Primaryschool

assessment,168–169,180–181

historyofreform,21–23,27

learningoutcomes,71,74

schoolstructure,18n1,179

andspecialeducation,67,100

andteachers/teaching,71,74,102–107,108t,111

PrimarySchoolCurriculumCommittee,21–22

Principal.SeeSchooladministration

Priorexperience,104

Privateinterests,xi,143

ProfessionalCapital(Hargreaves&Fullan),136

Professionalcollaboration,xix,135–136,149t

Professionaldevelopment,119–122

Professionallearningcommunity(PLC),105

Proficiencydemonstration,41

Proficiencytargets,187

ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment.SeePISA(ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment)

ProgrammefortheInternationalAssessmentofAdultCompetencies(PIAAC),60

ProgressinInternationalReadingLiteracyStudy(PIRLS),11,69–71

Publicfundingforeducation,60–61,100,193.SeealsoWelfarestate

Public-sectorpolicies,158t,159

RacetotheTop,xi,xiii–xiv,147

Rankingschools,144

Ravitch,D.,xiv,2,143,147,186–187

Rayon,P.,79

Reading/literacyoutcomes,11,69–71,71n1,81

Reformrenewal,191–194,202–203

ReignofError(Ravitch),2

Reinikainen,P.,30,71,175,178

RelevanceofFinnishModeltoothercountries,xix,9–11,15–16

Remedialeducation,66

Reportcards,93–94

Researchanddevelopment,155

Research-basededucation,22,43,116–119,131

Researchineducation,173

Resilientstudents,183–184

Retention,82–84,85f

Rhee,M.,xi,134

Riley,K.,79

Rinne,R.,184

RobertWoodJohnsonFoundation,146

Robinson,K.,197–198,201,206

Robitaille,D.F.,68

Routti,J.,19,153,155

Ruralemigration,29

Ruutu,Y.,22–23

Saari,S.,118,171

Saarikko,H.,114,116

Sahlberg,P.(citationstootherworks),19,21,26,32–33,36,42,45,82,97,99,106,108,125,132,134,142–143,143n2,148,155,158,171,175

Sahlberg,P.,background,xvii–xviii,4–5

Salminen,V.,15,154

Salonen,P.,43

Salonen,V.,102

Sarason,S.B.,203

Schleicher,A.,9,53,79,177,178n2

Schooladministration,127–128,135,165

Schoolchoice,144,146–147,149t,151–152

Schoolculture,135–136

SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement,141

Schoolenrollments,34–35

Schoolimprovementmyths,134–138

Schoolinspections,126

Schoolleaving,34–37

School-lifeexpectancy,60–61

SchoolProgramCommittee,23–25

Schoolrankings,125,144,151

“Schoolreadiness,”52

Schoolrecords,104

Schools.SeeBylevel

Schulz,W.,76–77

Sciencelearningoutcomes,73,75f.

SeealsoTIMSS(TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy)

Scotland,148,150

Secondaryeducationexpansion,31–33

SecondInternationalMathematics

Study(SIMS),68–69

SecondRepublic,18n2

Seddon,J.,177n1

Self-regulation,46

Sellar,S.,80

SevenBrothers(Kevi),17

Sharedresponsibility,6,12,46,181,190

Shirley,D.,2,6,43,45,143,147,153

Showers,B.,169

Simola,H.,159,175,184

Sisu,86

Socialcapital,158t,195

Socialcohesion,12–13

Socialpolicies,158t

Socialskills,199–200

Socioeconomicfactorsineducationaloutcomes,47–48,61,134–135,152,160–162,182

SovietUnion,18,154

Specialeducation,28,65–67,84,100

Spieghalter,D.,79

SpiritLevel,The(Wilkinson&Pickett),160

Spouse/partneroccupationpreference,101

Stabilityofeducationsystem,184–185

Ståhle,P.,192,202

Standardizationinlearning/testing,xiii,95,123–124,144–146,149t,180,200,205

StarkRentner,D.,146

StateInsuranceInstitutionofFinland(Kela),51

StatisticsFinland,10,36–37,59,96,155,196

Streaming,23–25,62

Stress,31,91

Structureofeducationsystem,25f,27f,50f

Sulkumen,S.,30,71,175

Sumara,D.,45

SurpassingShanghai(Tucker),2

Swedenandreform,151

Talent,170–171,197,200,205

TALIS(TeachingandLearningInternationalSurvey),57–58,89,121,127–129,138,195

Teachereducation

academicrigor,107–109

candidateselection,103–104

degreeprograms,110–116,121–122,180

pedagogicalfocus,116–119

practicumexperiences,118–119

professionaldevelopment,119–122

trainingschool,115t

Teachers/teaching.SeealsoTALIS(TeachingandLearningInternationalSurvey)

academicrigor,107–109

accountability,xii,151

attitudes,128–129

attractiontoprofession,9,103–107,130,132–133,179–180

andautonomy,130

categoriesof,100,108–109

evaluationandfeedback,125–126,129,151,195

andFinnishreform,9,13–15,98

firstassignment,119–120

andgender,101

historicalrole,99–102

instructionhours,87–91,124,125f

leadership,122–128

nonteachingresponsibilities,91

pay,105–106,126

pedagogicalfocus,116–119

primaryteacher,111–114

professionaldevelopment,119–122

professionalism,49,98,175,190

qualificationsbylevel,100,108–109

andqualityofeducation,133–138,186

responsibilities,122–124

specialeducation,100

subjectteacher,100,114–116,130

test-driveninstruction,31,94–95

tradeunion,109

traditionalmodel,20,190

workconditions,98,105

TeachforAllnetwork,109

TeachforAmericaprogram,109

TeachingandLearningInternationalSurvey(TALIS).SeeTALIS(TeachingandLearningInternationalSurvey)

Teachingtothetest,31,94–95

Technologyuse,43,199–200,202

Teddlie,C.,135

Tenthgrade,34n3

“TheFutureIsFinnish”(Newsweek),190

ThirdSector,89

ThirdWay,xv–xvi,153

TIMSS(TrendsinInternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy),11,68–71,71n1,76

Toom,A.,109–110

Törnroos,J.,30,71,175

Torrance,H.,79

Tracking,23,28

TradeUnionofEducation(OAJ),109,177,201

Traditionalmodelofeducation,20,190

Transferabilityofchangeknowledge,185–190

Transparency,194–195

Trust,2,99,149t,152–153

Tucker,M.,2

UNICEF,97

Universalbasiceducation(Finland),21–26

Universitycollaboration,130

UniversityofHelsinkiteachereducationprograms,103,111t–113t,115t

UniversityofJyväskylä,120–121

UniversityofOulu,118–119

Untestedskills/knowledge,11,47,149t

Upper-comprehensiveschool.SeeLower-secondaryschool

Upper-secondaryschool

2015reformsystem/structure,50f

curriculum,114

educationalattainment,34–38,59

graderepetitions,82–84

historicalstructure(gymnasium),23,25

internationalassessments,57t,69,90–91,100,108

reformsystem,27f,30–33,158t

andteachers/teaching,90–91,100,108

U.S.DepartmentofEducation,147

U.S.NationalAssessmentofEducationalProgress,187

U.S.nationalreform,147–148.SeealsoRacetotheTop

Vainikainen,M.-P.,201

Välijärvi,J.,30–31,33,48,68,71,82,91,119,175,178

Valkonen,S.,121

Value-addedmodeling(VAM),126

Variationinlearningoutcomes,47–48,62–64,76,85f,134–135

Vauras,M.,43

Vermont,187

Visionofeducation,xvi,8,184,197–200

Vocationaleducation.SeealsoUpper-secondaryschool2015

reformstructure,50f

assessmentandcertification,41

andeducationalattainment,35

historicstructureofschooling,23–25

methods,32–33,119

participationin,34–38

teaching,100,107–108

Voluntaryadditionalyear(beyondcompulsoryschool),34n3

Voutilainen,T.,43

Waitingfor“Superman,”xi,134

WallStreetJournal,The,91

Weidmann,B.,144,151

Weil,M.,44

Weinfeld,F.,27

Weiss,E.,147

Welfarestate,67,101,157,158t,160–164,188

Westbury,I.,180

White,J.,15,154

Wiborg,S.,151

Wilenius,M.,202

Wilkinson,R.,160

Workconditions,98,105

WorldBank,11–12

WorldEconomicForum(WEF),155,162n4

WorldEconomicForum(WEF)GlobalCompetitiveIndex,162

Ylä-Anttila,P.,19,153,155

York,R.,27

Zhao,Y.,xiv,11,79,141,145

AbouttheAuthor

Pasi Sahlberg, PhD, is currently visiting professor of practice at Harvard University’sGraduate School of Education. He is former director general of CIMO (Centre forInternationalMobility)attheFinnishMinistryofEducationandCulture.Hehasworkedas a schoolteacher, teacher-educator, and education policy adviser in Finland and as aneducationexpertforseveralinternationalorganizationsandconsultingfirms,includingtheWorldBank,OECD,theEuropeanCommission,andUNorganizations.Duringthelast2decades he has analyzed education reforms around the world and has worked witheducationleadersintheUnitedStates,Canada,Europe,Australia,theMiddleEast,Africa,andAsia.Dr.SahlbergwasaformerstaffmemberoftheWorldBankinWashington,DC,andtheEuropeanTrainingFoundationinTurin,Italy.Hewonthe2012EducationAwardinFinland,the2013GrawemeyerAwardintheUnitedStates,andthe2014RobertOwenAward in Scotland for his work on equity and excellence in education. He is adjunctprofessor at the University of Helsinki and at the University of Oulu. For moreinformation,pleasefollowhimonTwitter@pasi_sahlbergorvisitwww.pasisahlberg.com.