1

FINNISH MODEL OF BASIC EDUCATION

Reijo LaukkanenDocent, PhD

University of TampereFinland

Utrecht 16 – 17 April 2015

2

PRESENTATION STRUCTURE

• 1) CONTEXT• 2) CERTAIN HIGHLIGHTS• 3) EVALUATION• 4) CURRICULUM CHANGE• 5) REASONS WHY FINLAND HAS SUCCEEDED

3

1) CONTEXT

4

Finland in Brief

Independent since 1917

Member of the European Union

Population 5.4 million (17 inhabitants / km2)

Two official languages: Finnish (91.2%), Swedish (5.5%)

Religion: Lutheran (81.8%), orthodox (1.1%), others (1.2%), no religious affiliation (15.9%)

Immigrants: 3,6 % of population

Main exports: electronics, forest industry, metal and engineering

Father Christmas

5

Population with at least upper secondary education – 2011 (OECD 2013, 36)

Age group % Age group % Age group %

25 - 64 25 - 34 55 - 64

Australia 74 84 61

United Kingdom 77 84 67

Finland 84 90 71

Korea 81 98 45

Netherlands 72 82 60

USA 89 89 90

OECD average 75 82 64

Brazil 43 57 26

6

5

4

3

2

1

Universities

4

3

2

1

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

3

2

1

School yearsAge

Pre-primary education in schools or

children’s day care centres

Compulsory

education

Basic education

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

Work experience

Workexperien

ce

Specialist vocational

qualifications

Further vocational

qualifications

3

2

1

Polytechnics

Vocational uppersecondary education

and training

General uppersecondary education

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF FINLAND

7

BASIC VALUES

• EQUITY: equal opportunities & fairness

• SUPPORT RATHER THAN CONTROL

• TRUST: culture of trust

8

Characteristics of Finnish Policy

• EXPERIMENTING

• CONSULTING

• USING RESEARCH DATA

• INCREMENTAL CHANGE

• BUILDING ON THE PRESENT

9

Quick look at policy developments in basic education

• 1970’s Centralized system• 1985 Decentralisation begins• 1994 Decentralization deepens• 2004 A step back towards centalisation• 2014 More detailed curricular steering

10

2) CERTAIN HIGHLIGHTS

ResourcesTeachers

Evaluation

11

RESOURCES FOCUSED TO STRATEGIC NEEDS

• More to the lower secondary level (1985)

• Flexible use of teaching groups

• Part-time special needs education

• Remedial education

12

Country Pre-primary Primary Lower secondary

Upper secondary

Tertiary

Finland 5372 7624 11705 7912 9802

Korea 6739 6601 6652 9477 8226

Netherlands 7664 7954 11925 11750 17161

OECD Average 6762 7974 8893 9322 9274

Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student 2010

(OECD 2013, 174) US $

13

Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student (2007, 202) US $

14

DEDICATED,SATISFIED TEACHERS

• Teacher education is very popular choise

• Research-based teacher education

• All teachers have MA degree

• Why profession is so attractive?

15

Teacher salaries 2011 after 15 years experience

COUNTRY PRE-PRIMARY EDUCATION

PRIMARY EDUCATION

LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION

UPPER SECONDARY EDUCATION

SPAIN 41,339 41,339 45,689 46,479

ENGLAND 44,269 44,269 44,269 44,269

FINLAND 29,125 37,886 40,917 43,302

JAPAN n.a. 45,741 45,741 45,741

KOREA 46,904 48,251 48,146 48,146

NETHERLANDS 52, 292 52,292 63,695 66,117

OECD average 36,135 38,602 39,934 41,665

(OECD 2013, 388-389), US $

16

Why is the teaching profession so popular?

1) Not for the salary?2) Become a teacher and change the world?3) High academic degree – respected!4) Autonomy in work – professionals!5) Finnish society respects education.6) Teachers are satisfied.

17

3) EVALUATION

EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

• Evaluation approach supports Local/school liberties

• Sample based evaluation

• No ranking lists – individual feedback

• School based/municipal evaluation

• Challenge – How to use the findings?

Example of feedback sent to schools

Lines of marks in school reports

020406080

100

poor

adeq

uate

mod

erat

e

satis

fact

ory

good

very

goo

d

exce

llent

different marks used

aver

age

(%) o

f cor

rect

an

swer

s in

the

test

school X the whole sample

EXAMPLE OF FEEDBACK TO A DISTRICT

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1

Continent

Disctrict A

21

4) CURRICULUM CHANGE

1972 - 2016

22

CHANGE IN DETAILENESS OF THE NATIONAL CORE CURRICULUM

• 1972 – 700 pp-• 1985 – around 300 pp.• 1994 – 110 pp.• 2004 - around 300 pp.• 2014 – around 470 pp.

23

NATIONAL CORE CURRICULUM 2016

• Value background • Conseption of learning• Learning culture• Learning environments• Wellbeing• Work accross subjects• Evaluation• Support• School – home cooperation• Wellfare servises

• Languages and cultures• Worldviews/ideologies• Optional issues• Issues that can be decided

locally

SUBJECTS• Year classes 1 – 2 (goals,

assessment)• Year classes 3 – 6• Year classes 7 - 9

24

7 COMPETENCE AREAS

• Thinking skills and learning to learn• Knowledge of cultures, interaction and impression• Taking care of oneself an everyday skills• Multible reading competency• ICT skills• Working life competencies and entrepreneurship• Sustainable future: participating, effecting and

striving to reach it

25

CURRICULUM

• Municipality decides on the curriculum structure

• Can be same for all schools or same only partly

26

5) REASONS WHY FINLAND HAS SUCCEEDED

StrategyPolicy instruments

27

STRATEGY

• National will for everybody’s success• High expectations• Teacher education at the MA level• Strong allocation of resources to lower

secondary level• Support for weak studenta• Consensus and respect between stakeholders

28

POLICY INSTRUMENTS USED

1) Setting goals2) Resources3) Teacher education4) Transparency/stakeholder involvment5) Centralization/desentralization6) Use of piloting projects/research, etc.[7) Inspection][8] Text books control]

29

THANK YOU!

reijo.laukkanen@uta.fi