Explaining the Finnish Miracle In Teachers We Trust

An interesting coincidence having said at the end of yesterdays blog that wed next be posting on the subject of the education system in Finland, this morning we came across a tweet from Mike Baker advertising the Finnish Institute of London and a series of events which explore the way the Finns do education. Finnish education has recently gained substantial interest among British politics and education experts, as well as the general public, mainly due to its top rankings in the OECDs PISA (Programme for International Students Assessment) studies. Interestingly, Finlands success seems to be based on principles that differ from the ideals of the British education. Major differences can be found, for example, in the emphasis on evaluation and competition between both students and schools and in education and the role of teachers. But what are the sources of the Finnish success in education? Can these elements be adopted to the UK or are the states and their cultures just too different? Is there a real political will to adopt these elements and if yes, how to make this change happen? The Finnish Institute in London and the Embassy of Finland in London are organising together with various partners a series of independent events in spring 2012. This event series goes beyond the obvious discussion about the success of Finnish education and lessons for the UK education sector. The series includes events targeted at different audiences, examining the education challenges and the lessons learned from the Finnish model from various perspectives. The next seminar also includes the launch of a novel book Miracle of Education: The Principles and Practises of Teaching and Learning in Finnish Schools. So here we go, with a brief look at the Finnish system, and with quotations from a paper by Irmeli Halinen of the Finnish National Board of Education The steering of all levels of education is based on clearly defined, common national objectives. Instead of controlling and monitoring, the focus is on supporting and developing the work of schools and teachers. There is neither an inspection system of schools in Finland nor national tests in learning outcomes during basic education on the basis of which schools could be placed in an order of superiority. There are no ranking lists of comprehensive schools. Learning outcomes are assessed on the basis of national evaluations based on samples and the information gathered from these evaluations is used in the development of education and in the training of teachers. Mutual trust is an important prerequisite for the development of the Finnish education. The national core curriculum and the local curricula are considered as constantly developing, living documents. In-service training of teachers is based on working in networks which offers the opportunity to receive guidance from national experts and, above all, to share experiences and learn from the practices of other teachers and schoools. [Very similar to the Schools Council model which existed in the UK not so very long ago?]

The level of education among teachers is high and the profession is respected. Teachers are involved in the drawing up of their own schools and municipalitys curriculum. Teachers are heard and they influence strongly also the outlining of the national core curriculum with their expertise. A school is not left alone as the challenges to secure the learning and well-being of pupils are growing continuously. A very central characteristic of the Finnish educational policy is giving versatile and strong support to students. The assessment of pupils is encouraging and its important task is to help pupils to understand and appreciate themselves as learners and to take responsibility for their own learning process. The central objective of the Finnish education policy is currently to combine high standard teaching and good learning outcomes and well-being of students. The Finnish steering system of education is characterised by its clear and non-bureaucratic structure, flexibility and interactiveness. The administrative system does not include controlling elements such as inspecting schools. The central objective is giving support. [Just as HMI set out to do in pre-Ofsted days?] Learning outside the school is more and more connected to school learning. Practices for recognising and acknowledging learning elsewhere are developed quickly.

Explaining the Finnish Miracle Part Two

As we outlined in Part One of our focus on the Finnish education system, the curriculum is seen not only as continually under review those who review it are all educational professionals including practising senior teachers in schools. Recommendations are not subject to political or bureaucratic vetos, since Finlands professional educators are held in high esteem and trusted to make good decisions on behalf of all learners. The Curriculum as a document guiding the schools activities The national core curriculum and the local curricula based on it deal extensively with the whole area of schools operations. The curriculum does not only define the aims and contents of subjects. All sectors that affect the schools work are central. These sectors include common values, general aims of teaching and education, conception of learning, development of the learning environment, the schools operational culture, decisions regarding the organisation of work, the allocation of teaching hours, and the choice of teaching and working methods.

When teachers discuss these themes in their schools and write down their thoughts and ideas on the curriculum they learn to view the schools operations as a whole and also commit to take responsibility for the whole and not just for their own class or subject. In that process their expertise is strongly developed. Important sectors in the curriculum are the policies and action plans regarding student counselling support needed by pupils to learn special needs education multicultural education cooperation between home and school school meals school transport student welfare services

Each school draws up a knowledge strategy which defines how information and communications technology and virtual teaching are used in instruction; what kind of equipment is needed how the technical know-how of teachers is organised and developed

Schools also draw up a plan regarding how they attend to the safety of the learning environment, how they follow pupils absences and how they protect pupils from bullying, violence and harassment. Also written down in the curriculum are the principles of pupil assessment its implementation in practice how the school evaluates its own operations the objectives and principles of cooperation with parents objectives and principles of cooperation with other schools and other operators

The objectives of teaching and the abilities required for the future The importance of clear objectives in guiding and developing teaching is emphasised in the curricula. They are considered essential for the planning of teaching. The central objectives are common but they can be completed by local aims and they can be achieved through different contents and using different methods. Curriculum content can therefore be dealt with flexibly and the issues which are essential in a particular area or school can be emphasised. It is stated in the national core curriculum that the teacher selects the teaching and working methods. The methods must be selected in a way that they enhance abilities such as the willingness to learn the command of ones own learning programme the ability to work in a systematic and target-orientated way

the ability to acquire, apply and evaluate information communication and social skills.

[Motivation, autonomy, study skills, communication skills, plus personal and social intelligence!!!] This definition of objectives is a good example of Finnish education policy. The objectives are described through the abilities required for the future, and they are expressed as extensive competencies. This is also seen in the government decree of 2001 regarding common objectives for education. The decree states that instruction must set the basis for extensive general knowledge and offer ingredients and incentives for the for the extension and deepening of the world view. This requires knowledge of human feelings and needs religions ideologies history culture literature nature health economics technology

Teaching must offer aesthetic experiences from different cultural spheres opportunities to develop crafts and creativity opportunities to develop physical skills

The importance of thinking and communication are specifically emphasised. The objectives in the decree are divided into three main spheres: 1) Objectives regarding growth as a person and as a member of society are defined. These aims emphasise the stable growth of a person, a respectful attitude towards other people, and a respectful attitude towards the environment and work. Responsibility, cooperativeness, tolerance and activeness are stressed as well. [Personal and Social Intelligence] 2) Essential knowledge and skills. 3) The importance of learning to learn, and pupils legal right to receive teaching guidance and support in accordance with their level of development and needs. [See also the UNESCO Declaration on the Rights of the Child] Descriptions of good performance and the final evaluation criteria used at the end of basic education work as a tool for teachers, with the help of which they can relate their own assessment

with the national standard and, therefore, standardise pupil assessment throughout the country and enhance equal treatment of students in the assessment process. Subjects and Cross-Curricular Themes The national core curriculum defines the objectives and contents for all subjects and for the seven cross-curricular themes. The subjects in basic education are mother tongue and literature the second national language (Finnish or Swedish) foreign languages mathematics environmental and natural studies biology and geography physics and chemistry health education religion or ethics history social studies music visual arts crafts physical education home economics educational and vocational guidance

In addition pupils are offered school-specific optional subjects from which they may choose. How the lesson hours are divided is decided locally. The cross-curricular themes reflect the central phenomena of society. They are 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) growth as a person cultural identity and internationalism media skills and communication participatory citizenship and entrepreneurship responsibility for the environment, well-being and a sustainable future safety and traffic technology and the individual

These themes are implemented in the subjects and in the different activities of the school (eg festivities, excursions and school camps, school meals, club activities, etc) and thus connected with the operational culture of schools. The aim is to strengthen the extensive abilities of pupils and their ability to function in society. The implementation of the cross-curricular themes requires good cooperation between all the teachers and the schools other personnel, and also cooperation with partners outside school. Conception of Learning The premise for providing instruction is the conception of the pupil as an active learner.

Supporting the individual learning process is important and essential, along with the importance of communal process and interaction for learning. The aims of learning are values knowledge and skills the ability to use the knowledge and skills the ability to reflect on ones actions in relation to values

Learning to learn and learning good working habits are considered more and more important. The learning environment and operational culture of the school are considered very important to learning: 1) Classrooms, corridors, common facilities, the playground and other nearby surroundings. 2) The learning environment is also formed from the psychological and social characteristics, and from the schools prevailing atmosphere. The national core curricula emphasise the development of an open, encouraging operational culture that is based on interaction. The schools organisation of work and teaching approaches create the pedagogical environment. Essential in the learning process is the acknowledging and setting of objectives, and the targetorientedness that follows. Learning happens in the best possible way by working on questions and solving problems. Knowledge is built little by little on the basis of earlier knowledge. The pupils are guided towards understanding their own learning processes their ability to guide their own learning and development, and to take responsibility for these processes is strengthened. What is important is that the whole school community develops its operations as a genuine learning community on the basis of the curriculum. In that way everyone, not just the pupils but the teachers and other personnel working in the school, have the opportunity and challenge for continuous lifelong learning. At all levels of education in Finland, trusting this willingness to learn and to take responsibility for ones own learning is of the utmost importance. The above information is taken from a paper by Irmeli Halinen of the Finnish National Board of Education. Any errors in transcription are the responsibility of 3Di Associates. 3Di invites readers to comment on the above in the feedback box below. We are keen to promote a conversation regarding the extent to which individual schools in Britain already work in similar ways to the Finnish model, and the extent to which our whole system is similar or dissimilar to the one acknowledged to be the world leader in enlightened policy and practice.

Explaining Finlands Miracle: Finlands School Success Part Three

3Di is indebted to Meredyth Byrd and her education blog Engaging Ideas for drawing our attention to this fascinating article in The Atlantic, written by Anu Partanen, a Finnish Journalist based in New York City: What Americans Keep Ignoring About Finlands School Success

The Scandinavian country is an education superpower because it values equality more than excellence. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-aboutfinlands-school-success/250564/ We suggest to our readers that you read this article in its entirety, but here are some extracts Everyone agrees the United States needs to improve its education system dramatically, but how? One of the hottest trends in education reform lately is looking at the stunning success of the Wests reigning education superpower, Finland. Trouble is, when it comes to the lessons that Finnish schools have to offer, most of the discussion seems to be missing the point. Lately Finland has been attracting attention on global surveys of quality of life Newsweek ranked it number one last year and Finlands national education system has been receiving particular praise, because in recent years Finnish students have been turning in some of the highest test scores in the world. Finlands schools owe their newfound fame primarily to one study: the PISA survey, [which] compares 15-year-olds in different countries in reading, math, and science. Finland has ranked at or near the top in all three competencies on every survey since 2000, neck and neck with superachievers such as South Korea and Singapore. In the most recent survey in 2009 Finland slipped slightly, with students in Shanghai, China, taking the best scores, but the Finns are still near the very top. Throughout the same period, the PISA performance of the United States has been middling, at best. Compared with the stereotype of the East Asian model long hours of exhaustive cramming and rote memorization Finlands success is especially intriguing because Finnish schools assign less homework and engage children in more creative play. So there was considerable interest in a recent visit to the U.S. by one of the leading Finnish authorities on education reform, Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Educations Center for International Mobility and author of the new book Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Earlier this month, Sahlberg stopped by the Dwight School in New York City to speak with educators and students, and his visit received national media attention and generated much discussion. It wasnt clear that Sahlbergs message was actually getting through. As Sahlberg put it to me later, there are certain things nobody in America really wants to talk about. One of the most significant things Sahlberg said passed practically unnoticed. Oh, he mentioned at one point, and there are no private schools in Finland. This notion may seem difficult for an American to digest, but its true. Only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland, and even they are all publicly financed. None is allowed to charge tuition fees. There are no private universities, either. This means that practically every person in Finland attends public school, whether for pre-K or a Ph.D. The irony of Sahlbergs making this comment during a talk at the Dwight School seemed obvious. Like many of Americas best schools, Dwight is a private institution that costs high-school students upward of $35,000 a year to attend not to mention that Dwight, in particular, is run for profit, an increasing trend in the U.S. Yet no one in the room commented on Sahlbergs statement. I found this surprising. Sahlberg himself did not.

From his point of view, Americans are consistently obsessed with certain questions: How can you keep track of students performance if you dont test them constantly? How can you improve teaching if you have no accountability for bad teachers or merit pay for good teachers? How do you foster competition and engage the private sector? How do you provide school choice? The answers Finland provides seem to run counter to just about everything Americas school reformers are trying to do. For starters, Finland has no standardized tests. The only exception is whats called the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school, roughly the equivalent of American high school. Instead, the public school systems teachers are trained to assess children in classrooms using independent tests they create themselves. All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher. Periodically, the Ministry of Education tracks national progress by testing a few sample groups across a range of different schools. As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. Theres no word for accountability in Finnish, he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted. For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A masters degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principals responsibility to notice and deal with it. And while Americans love to talk about competition, Sahlberg points out that nothing makes Finns more uncomfortable. In his book Sahlberg quotes a line from Finnish writer named Samuli Paronen: Real winners do not compete. Its hard to think of a more un-American idea, but when it comes to education, Finlands success shows that the Finnish attitude might have merits. There are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland. The main driver of education policy is not competition between teachers and between schools, but cooperation. Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity. Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality. In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance. In fact, since academic excellence wasnt a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, when Finlands students scored so high on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland unlike, say, very similar countries such as Norway was producing academic excellence through its particular policy focus on equity. That this point is almost always ignored or brushed aside in the U.S. seems especially poignant at the moment, after the financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street movement have brought the problems of inequality in America into such sharp focus. The chasm between those who can afford $35,000 in

tuition per child per year or even just the price of a house in a good public school district and the other 99 percent is painfully plain to see. Samuel Abrams, a visiting scholar at Columbia Universitys Teachers College, has addressed the effects of size and homogeneity on a nations education performance by comparing Finland with another Nordic country: Norway. Like Finland, Norway is small and not especially diverse overall, but unlike Finland it has taken an approach to education that is more American than Finnish. The result? Mediocre performance in the PISA survey. Educational policy, Abrams suggests, is probably more important to the success of a countrys school system than the nations size or ethnic makeup. Despite their many differences, Finland and the U.S. have an educational goal in common. When Finnish policymakers decided to reform the countrys education system in the 1970s, they did so because they realized that to be competitive, Finland couldnt rely on manufacturing or its scant natural resources and instead had to invest in a knowledge-based economy. With Americas manufacturing industries now in decline, the goal of educational policy in the U.S. as articulated by most everyone from President Obama on down is to preserve American competitiveness by doing the same thing. Finlands experience suggests that to win at that game, a country has to prepare not just some of its population well, but all of its population well, for the new economy. To possess some of the best schools in the world might still not be good enough if there are children being left behind. Is that an impossible goal? Sahlberg says that while his book isnt meant to be a how-to manual, it is meant to be a pamphlet of hope. Sahlberg said during his visit to New York . . . Finlands dream . . . was that we want to have a good public education for every child regardless of where they go to school or what kind of families they come from, and many even in Finland said it couldnt be done. Clearly, many were wrong. It is possible to create equality. And perhaps even more important as a challenge to the American way of thinking about education reform Finlands experience shows that it is possible to achieve excellence by focusing not on competition, but on cooperation, and not on choice, but on equity. The problem facing education in America isnt the ethnic diversity of the population but the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addressed. More equity at home might just be what America needs to be more competitive abroad. Whether or not a better education system helps a country (or perhaps certain people and certain businesses within the country?) to be more competitive abroad, the main point of the Finnish reforms was surely to help create a better, healthier and happier society which is just what they have achieved, according to the international surveys. The main point here is that every country needs to stop putting the cart before the horse and to begin to address as a national priority the wellbeing and the education of its citizens and its children after which, whether or not the national economy prospers or its GDP increases or stays the same, its highly probable that you will thereby create a much healthier and happier and better educated society. (If any country really wants to improve the material well-being of its poorest and most disadvantaged citizens and children it could easily start by sharing out its collective national wealth more fairly billionaires such as Warren Buffet have even dared to suggest such a thing*.) Clearly this is not rocket science but social, political and educational changes require the understanding of the populace and the political will of the people to make these things happen.

Clearly there are societies around the world where these two conditions do not exist, and where existing power structures and vested interests will tend to ensure that these things do NOT happen. Britain appears to be one such country. (Although if Scotland and Wales decide to demand more autonomy and independence then it may be that England alone, within the British Isles, in the fullness of time, will continue to tread the pathway towards decline, greater inequality and a more divided society.)