Education policies for raising student learning: the Finnish approach

Abstract

This article argues that system‐wide excellence in student learning is attainable at reasonable cost, using education policies differing from conventional market‐oriented reform strategies prevalent in many other countries. In this respect, Finland is an example of a nation that has developed from a remote agrarian/industrial state in the 1950s to a model knowledge economy, using education as the key to economic and social development. Relying on data from international student assessments and earlier policy analysis, this article describes how steady improvement in student learning has been attained through Finnish education policies based on equity, flexibility, creativity, teacher professionalism and trust. Unlike many other education systems, consequential accountability accompanied by high‐stakes testing and externally determined learning standards has not been part of Finnish education policies. The insight is that Finnish education policies intended to raise student achievement have been built upon ideas of sustainable leadership that place strong emphasis on teaching and learning, intelligent accountability, encouraging schools to craft optimal learning environments and implement educational content that best helps their students reach the general goals of schooling.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Henry Heikkinen, David Oldroyd and Kari Pitkänen for their valuable suggestions on the article. I also wish to acknowledge several colleagues in Finland who provided comments and suggestions to the text above. However, any lack of clarity, errors and omissions are the author's responsibility.

Notes

1. Accountability policy in Finland is described in ‘A framework for evaluating educational outcomes in Finland’ (National Board of Education, 1998) and stipulated in the Law on Education (1998). These two documents provide the operational framework for the intelligent accountability and define the roles of various stakeholders of the education process.

2. Finland has participated in two IEA studies and two PISA cycles since 1980. Figure 4 is a composition of mathematics results in SIMS 1981, TIMSS‐R 1999 and PISA 2003 in different mathematical domains. Relative distance of Finnish students' average results in these domains is calculated as percentages from the international averages respectively. Comparing performance of any country during the course of time with these international studies is complicated due to the fact that the tests have been different and the same countries have not participated in these studies.