The uses of the national PISA results by Finnish officials in central government

Abstract

In this article we attempt to analyse how OECD knowledge production is integrated with the process in which Finnish education policy takes shape. This is done by analysing the uses of the OECD PISA Study by Finnish central government officials. The main question posed is: How do these officials interpret the PISA results so as to justify the decisions made in Finnish education policy in the past or to point out new areas of development concerning basic education? The analysis shows that the interpretations of the PISA results tend to favour those responsible for actions within the central government. In the texts analysed, the scientificity of the PISA programme is presented as beyond question, while the direct usefulness of the research results for the further development of national education is also proclaimed. As to the specific results of PISA, the excellent learning outcomes of Finnish students are claimed to be due to educational reforms conducted and decisions made by the central government, whereas shortcomings and areas in which the officials see a need for improvement are argued to be dependent on the actions of other agents. Thus, the analysis shows that the conclusions drawn from the PISA results in texts representing the views of central government are biased and serve to justify its policy agenda.

Keywords:

• OECD
• PISA Study
• global governance
• Finnish central government officials
• Finnish education policy
• discourse and rhetorical analysis

Acknowledgements

The support from the Academy of Finland‐funded project ‘Knowledge production, power, and global social change: The interplay between the OECD and Nation States’ (code 208094) is greatfully acknowledged. We would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Education Policy whose constructive comments helped us to improve this paper.

Notes

1. The OECD's knowledge production in education divides roughly in four main categories: synthesised formulations of central policy issues, policy examinations of individual countries or groups of countries (so‐called country reviews), yearly publications of statistics and indicators, and ever increasingly also thematic reviews focusing on a specific form of education or educational issue (Rubenson 2008).

2. In the study by Kallo (2006), the impacts are analysed from two different perspectives: first, how the OECD may affect national education policies and second, how individual member countries may contribute to the education policy of the OECD.

3. For Finland's entry to the OECD in 1969 see historical reviews by Karjalainen and Tarkka (1989) and Seppinen (1997).

4. The PISA Study is an OECD‐led international comparative learning assessment measuring 15‐year‐old students' knowledge and skills in reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. For further information about the study see the OECD PISA home page at http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html.

5. The number of participating countries has varied during PISA's history. There were 43 participants in 2000, 41 in 2003, 57 in 2006, and there will be 67 participating countries in 2009, the next study (PISA 2008).

6. In all PISA assessments conducted thus far Finland has scored very high in each area evaluated. For more detailed results of Finland see the Finnish PISA website maintained by the University of Helsinki at http://www.pisa2006.helsinki.fi/finland_pisa/results/2006/2006.htm.

7. For the duties and sphere of authority of the Ministry of Education in Finland see the Ministry's website at http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Ministerioe_ja_hallinnonala/?lang=en

8. For the duties and sphere of authority of the Finnish National Board of Education see the NBE's website at http://www.oph.fi/english/SubPage.asp?path=447,2783.

9. In Finland there are lot of educational development work and reforms which do not receive the form of legislation (Lampinen 1998, 163).

10. The interview request was sent altogether to seven government officials in the central government. One of them declined to give an interview and another forwarded the request to another colleague already selected for interview. The five expert interviews conducted for the study were conducted in the time period of June–September in 2005, during the period the results of the second round of the PISA Study were already public.

11. Bulletins were collected in autumn 2006.

12. (MINEDU 2006b; Välijärvi 2002, 7, 2005, 4–5), LI 4, LI 5.

13. (Välijärvi 2002, 4–5), LI 5.

14. LI 3, LI 4, LI 5.

15. (Välijärvi 2002, 2, 5–6; Välijärvi et al. 2002, 201), LI 2.

16. (Kupari and Välijärvi 2005b, 225–6, 28; MINEDU 2006a; NBE 2006; Välijärvi et al. 2002, 196–8, 200) LI 1, LI 2, LI 3, LI 4.

17. (MINEDU 2006a; Välijärvi et al. 2002, 200) LI 1, LI 3, LI 4, LI 5.

18. (Kupari and Välijärvi 2005b, 230; NBE 2006) LI 1, LI 2, LI 3, LI 5.

19. (MINEDU 2006a; NBE 2006; Välijärvi et al. 2002, 200) LI 1, LI 3, LI 4.

20. (Kupari and Välijärvi 2005b, 232; MINEDU 2006a; NBE 2006) LI 1, LI 3, LI 4.

21. LI 2, LI 4.

22. (MINEDU 2006a; NBE 2006) LI 2, LI 4.

23. (Kupari and Välijärvi 2005b, 226; MINEDU 2006a; NBE 2006; Välijärvi et al. 2002, 195, 200) LI 2.

24. (Kupari and Välijärvi 2005b, 226) LI 5.

25. (MINEDU 2006a; NBE 2006) LI 1, LI 3.