FINLAND AT A GLANCE independent since 1917, member of the European Union since 1995 total area 338,000 km2, population 5.2 million (17 inhabitants / km2) two official languages: Finnish 92 %, Swedish 6 %, (Saami 0,03%) religion: Lutheran (85 %), orthodox (1 %) immigrants: 2 % of population main exports: electronics, metal and engineering, forest industry 3 493 basic schools / 564 000 pupils 439 general upper secondary schools / 113 000 students 205 vocational upper secondary schools / 140 000 students

From parallel to comprehensive school system Parallel system until 1970s with three tracks: 1) Civic school Grammar school divided to (2) Intermediate with 5 grades and (3) High school with 3 grades Traditional matriculation examination after high school Parliament made decision in 1963 – Act on education system in 1968 Ample experiments since 1968 Implementation of comprehensive school in 1972 – 1982 Finally, in 1985 ability courses in some subjects was abolished Result: Finnish Basic education (primary 1 – 6, lower secondary7 – 9)

Result: Education System of Finland in 2005 4 4 3 POLYTECHNICS (AMK INSTITUTIONS) 3 SPECIALIST VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS UNIVERSITIES 2 2 1 Work experience 1 FURTHER VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 3 UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOLS 3 VOCATIONAL EDUCATION 2 2 1 1 Work experience 10 16 9 15 8 14 7 13 6 12 COMPULSORY EDUCATION 5 BASIC EDUCATION 11 4 10 3 9 2 8 1 7 Pre-school education in schools or children’s day care centres 6 Age School years

Via Centralisation to the most decentralised Public Education System among OECD Countries in 1990s In decentralisation process (started in middle of 1980s) focus was on the increase of decision-making powers of municipalities Still, the basic elements and frameworks of the education system decided at central level, e.g.: Structure of the system Degrees, examinations, certificates Establishment of new institutions (except basic schools) Per capita (pupil/student) state funding of education Qualifications of teachers National core curriculum Result: Basic structures and principles follow nation-wide decisions.

School autonomy in principle -contents Municipality decides on distribution of decision making power. Curriculum National Core Curricula by NBE – goals of good learning outcomes in subjects and themes Guidelines by the municipality – local orientation School-based curriculum free space at lower grades of basic school 10 % at upper grades of basic school 20 % at upper secondary 25 % Profiling of schools by contents Text books and other materials Approval procedures abolished 1993 Teachers decide Pedagogical autonomy of teachers (with M.Sc. degree) Schools decide on group forming, daily work rhythm and other practices Voluntary participation in national development programs

School autonomy - resources Decisions by principal and School Board (teacher recruiting, school budget, school-specific curriculum, annual work plan, school regulations) Annual work plan and budget No national regulation of class sizes Maximum number of teaching hours (according to a formula) by Education Committee of Municipality Budget Teachers salaries and frame for other expenditure according to formulas Recruitment of teachers and staff Acted qualifications Principal, teachers and School Board Result: Hopefully, sustainable high level of performance

Accountability – follow-up of results No national examination after basic school National Matriculation Examination – final examination after upper secondary general school No inspection of schools Mandatory self-evaluation of schools National evaluation system of school education NBE evaluates learning outcome on a sample basis (5 – 10 % of pupils) – Also, selling of tests Schools receive their result profile and the average profiles of tested schools Evaluation Council organises thematic evaluations No ranking lists – evaluation is for development Result: Contemporary culture in Finnish schools

Basic operational Culture inside the Finnish Education System Trust on schools, principals, teachers and students School Autonomy – School operational culture Influence of the local community Comprehensive basic school with extensive special and remedial teaching Limited competition between basic schools Heavy competition between schools after that, covering the whole country Schools compete for best youngsters Youngsters compete for best study places

6 x Structure of schools administration Municipal of Nakkila Municipal council ( 27 members) e.g. budget and maintenance of schools Structure of schools administration Municipal board (7 members) e.g. decides executions of municipal council Municipal manager e.g. leads the municipal office Joint municipal authority Local education board (9 members) e.g. choose the teachers Principal Vocational school Director of education e.g. follows,leads and supervises education Principal Principal Principal Junior high school 7-9 year classes Comprehensive school 1-6 year classes + special classes 3 + pre-school classes Senior high school 6 x

Structure of civilizations administration Municipal of Nakkila Structure of civilizations administration Municipal council ( 27 members) Municipal board (7 members) Superhead of library Secretary of culture Secretary of sports Secretary of the youth Director of schools Board for leisure activities ( 7 members) Local education board (9 members) Library-Culture board (7members) Purchase service Purchase service Music institute Civic institute

Comprehensive school Costs/Year/Student 6500 € total 1000 € Municipal 5500 € State

Key features of PISA 2003 Information collected Coverage volume of questions 3½ hours of mathematics assessment 1 hour for each of reading, science and problem solving each student 2 hours on paper-and-pencil tasks (subset of all questions) ½ hour for questionnaire on background, learning habits, learning environment, engagement and motivation school principals questionnaire (school demography, learning environment quality) Coverage 275,000 students in 41 countries PISA covers roughly nine tens of the world economy

Deciding what to assess... looking back at what students were expected to have learned …or… looking ahead to what they can do with what they have learned. For PISA, the OECD countries chose the latter.

PISA provides five key benchmarks for the quality of education systems 1. Overall performance of education systems 2. Equity in the distribution of learning opportunities Measured by the impact students’ and schools’ socio-economic background has on performance… … not merely by the distribution of learning outcomes 3. Consistency of performance standards across schools 4. Gender differences 5. Foundations for lifelong learning Learning strategies, motivation and attitudes

What students can do in mathematics Mathematics Level 6: Conceptualise, generalise and use information based on investigations and modelling of complex problems Link different information sources and representations and flexibly translate among them Show mathematical thinking and reasoning Formulate and precisely communicate their actions and reflections regarding their findings, interpretations, arguments and the appropriateness of these to the original situations OECD 4% Level 6 Mathematics Level 2: Interpret and recognise situations in contexts that require no more than direct inference Extract relevant information from a single source and make use of a single representational mode Employ basic algorithms, formulae, procedures or conventions Make literal interpretations of results. 10% Level 5 18% Level 4 22% Level 3 21% Level 2 15% Level 1 Mathematics Level 1: Answer questions in familiar contexts where all relevant information is present Carry out routine procedures according to direct instructions in explicit situations. Below Level 1 11% OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 2.5a, p.354.

Percentage of students at each of the proficiency levels on the mathematics scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Below Level 1 OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 2.5a, p.354.

Gender differences In reading, girls are far ahead In all countries, girls significantly outperform boys in reading In mathematics, boys tend to be somewhat ahead In most countries, boys outperform girls … but mostly by modest amounts… … and mainly because boys are overrepresented among top-performers while boys and girls tend to be equally represented in the “at risk” group Within classrooms and schools, the gender gap is often larger Strong problem-solving performance for girls suggests… … that it is not the cognitive processes underlying mathematics that give boys an advantage… … but the context in which mathematics appears in school Gender differences in interest and attitudes towards mathematics are significantly greater than the observed performance gap Girls report much lower intrinsic (though not instrumental) motivation in mathematics, more negative attitudes and much greater anxiety with mathematics… … and this may well contribute to the significant gender difference in educational and occupational pathways in mathematics-related subjects

Sympathy doesn’t raise standards – aspiration does In the focus countries National research teams report a strong “culture of performance” Which drives students, parents, teachers and the educational administration to high performance standards PISA suggests… … that students and schools perform better in a climate characterised by high expectations and the readiness to invest effort, the enjoyment of learning, a strong disciplinary climate, and good teacher-student relations Among these aspects, students’ perception of teacher-student relations and classroom disciplinary climate display the strongest relationships

Private schools perform better Public schools perform better Public and private schools Private schools perform better Public schools perform better

Organisation of instruction In the focus countries Schools and teachers have explicit strategies and approaches for teaching heterogeneous groups of learners A high degree of individualised learning processes Disparities related to socio-economic factors and migration are recognised as major challenges Students are offered a variety of extra-curricular activities Schools offer differentiated support structures for students E.g. school psychologists or career counsellors Institutional differentiation is introduced, if at all, at later stages Integrated approaches also contributed to reducing the impact of students socio-economic background on outcomes

Support systems and professional teacher development In the focus countries Effective support systems are located at individual school level or in specialised support institutions Teacher training schemes are selective The training of pre-school personnel is closely integrated with the professional development of teachers Continuing professional development is a constitutive part of the system Special attention is paid to the professional development of school management personnel

PISA country participation OECD countries participating from PISA 2000 OECD countries participating from PISA from 2003 OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2000 OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2003 OECD partner countries participating from PISA 2006