finland at a glance independent since 1917, member of the european union since 1995
DESCRIPTION
FINLAND AT A GLANCE independent since 1917, member of the European Union since 1995 total area 338,000 km 2 , population 5.2 million (17 inhabitants / km 2 ) two official languages: Finnish 92 %, Swedish 6 %, (Saami 0,03%) religion: Lutheran (85 %), orthodox (1 %) - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1 For learning and competence
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
2 For learning and competence
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)
3 For learning and competence
Result: Education System of Finland in 2005
BASIC EDUCATION
Pre-school education in schools or children’s day care centres
AgeSchool years
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CO
MP
UL
SO
RY
ED
UC
AT
ION
UPPERSECONDARYSCHOOLS
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION
UNIVERSITIESPOLYTECHNICS(AMKINSTITUTIONS)
1
2
3 3
33
2
2
2
1 1
1
4 45
SPECIALIST VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
FURTHER VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
Wor
k ex
peri
ence
Work experience
4 For learning and competence
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.
5 For learning and competence
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
6 For learning and competence
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
7 For learning and competence
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
8 For learning and competence
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
9 For learning and competence
Comprehensive school1-6 year classes6 x
Principal
+ special classes 3+ pre-school classes
Junior high school7-9 year classes
Senior highschool
Principal Principal
Director of educatione.g. follows,leads and supervises education
Local education board (9 members)
e.g. choose the teachers
Municipal managere.g. leads the municipal office
Municipal board (7 members) e.g. decides executions of municipal council
Municipal council ( 27 members)e.g. budget and maintenance of schools
Vocational school
Joint municipal authority
Principal
Municipal of Nakkila
Structure of schools administration
10 For learning and competence
Municipal of Nakkila
Structure of civilizations administration
Municipal council ( 27 members)
Municipal board (7 members)
Local education board (9 members)
Library-Culture board (7members)Board for leisure activities ( 7 members)
Director of schoolsSuperhead of library Secretary of culture
Secretary of sports Secretary of the youth
Music institute Civic institutePurchase service Purchase service
11 For learning and competence
Comprehensive school
Costs/Year/Student
6500 € total
5500 € State
1000 € Municipal
12 For learning and competence
Key features of PISA 2003 Information collected
–volume of questions3½ hours of mathematics assessment1 hour for each of reading, science and problem solving
–each student2 hours on paper-and-pencil tasks (subset of all questions)½ hour for questionnaire on background, learning habits, learning environment, engagement and motivation
–school principalsquestionnaire (school demography, learning environment quality)
Coverage–275,000 students in 41 countries
–PISA covers roughly nine tens of the world economy
13 For learning and competence
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.
14 For learning and competence
PISA provides five key benchmarks for the quality of education systems
11.. Overall performance of education systems
2.2. 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
3.3. Consistency of performance standards across schools
4.4. Gender differences
5.5. Foundations for lifelong learning
– Learning strategies, motivation and attitudes
15 For learning and competence
OECDLevel 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Level 1
BelowLevel 1
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 2.5a, p.354.
What students can do in mathematics
15%
21%
22%
18%
10%
4%
11%
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 situationsMathematics 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.
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.
16 For learning and competence
7 8 6 7 8 7 9 6 7 4 4 5 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 0
17 1715
18 16 1418
14 1412 12 13
12 12 11 912 10 9 9 8 8 7 8 6 5 3 3
0
26 2525
23 2423
2123 22
23 22 2122 20 21
2021
19 19 19 18 18 18 1713 13
11 7
3
28 2426 23 22
24 2024 23
26 26 24 26 26 25 2823
25 25 26 24 25 27 24
23 24
2014
10
1617 18 18 16 18 16 19 19 20 21 20 20 22 22 24 19 24 24 23 24 25 25 24
25 27
26
22
21
5 7 8 8 9 10 910 10 11 11 12 11 12 13 12
12 13 14 14 15 15 1516
19 19
21
25
28
2 3 2 3 5 5 7 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 5 9 7 7 7 8 7 8 10 13 1118
2838
0 %
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
Fin
land (
1-3)
Kore
a (
2-5
)
Canada (
4-7
)
Neth
erl
ands
(1-5
)
Japan (
2-7
)
Sw
itzerl
and (
4-9
)
Belg
ium
(4-8
)
Aust
ralia (
7-9
)
New
Zeala
nd (
7-1
0)
Icela
nd (
10-1
3)
Denm
ark
(10
-14)
Czech R
ep. (9
-14)
Fra
nce (
11-1
5)
Sw
eden (
12-1
6)
Aust
ria (
13-1
8)
Ire
land (
15-1
8)
Germ
any (
14-1
8)
Slo
vak R
ep. (1
6-2
1)
Norw
ay (
18-2
1)
Luxem
bourg
(19
-21)
Hungary
(19
-23)
Pola
nd (
19-2
3)
Spain
(22-2
4)
Unit
ed S
tate
s (2
2-2
4)
Ita
ly (
25-2
6)
Port
ugal (2
5-2
6)
Gre
ece (
27-2
7)
Turk
ey (
28-2
8)
Mexic
o (
29-2
9)
Percentage of students at each of the proficiency levels on the mathematics scale
Level 3
Level 1
Below Level 1
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 2
OECD (2004), Learning for tomorrow’s world: First results from PISA 2003, Table 2.5a, p.354.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
12
25
26
27
28
29
17 For learning and competence
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
18 For learning and competence
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
19 For learning and competence
Public and private schools
0 20 40 60 80 100
Luxembourg
J apan
I taly
Switzerland
Finland
Denmark
Czech Republic
Sweden
Hungary
Austria
Portugal
United States
Netherlands
Slovak Republic
Korea
I reland
Spain
Canada
Mexico
New Zealand
Germany
OECD
United Kingdom
Government schools
Government dependent private
Government independent private
-15
0
-10
0
-50
0 50 100
Observed perf ormance diff erence
Diff erence af ter accounting f or socio-economic background of students
Diff erence af ter accounting f or socio-economic background of students and schools
Private schools perform better
Public schools perform better
20 For learning and competence
Organisation of instruction In the focus countries–Schools and teachers have explicit strategies and approaches for teaching
heterogeneous groups of learnersA high degree of individualised learning processesDisparities 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 studentsE.g. school psychologists or career counsellors
–Institutional differentiation is introduced, if at all, at later stagesIntegrated approaches also contributed to reducing the impact of students socio-economic background on outcomes
21 For learning and competence
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
For learning and competence
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
PISA country participation