The Finnish Way

7/29/2019 The Finnish Way

1/42

www.pasisahlberg.com

FINNISH LESSONSWhat can British Columbia learn from educational

change in Finland?

Pasi Sahlberg, PhDCIMO

Helsinki

14 April 2011

BCSTA Annual MeetingVancouver, CANADA


2/42

Finland?


3/42

A cultural lone wolf


4/42

Finnovations


5/42

Wife Carrying World Championships


6/42

Finland today


7/42


8/42

Education system performance over

time in Finland and developed nations

learning, participation, equity and efficiency

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010


9/42

I

Recovery from thecrisis


10/42

1990

Rapid economic

growth

Deregulation offinancial markets

Collapse of theSoviet Union

Carelessborrowing and

lending

CRASH


11/42

Unemployment rate (%) in Finland

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source:Sta+s+csFinland

Educationalp

erforman

ce


12/42

GDP at market prices in Finland (Mil )

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

1985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009


Educationalp

erforman

ce


13/42

Education expenditure (% of GNI) in Finland

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Source:tradingeconomics.com

Educationalp

erforman

ce


14/42

Policies that saved education


15/42

Professionalization


16/42

Local innovation


17/42

Partnerships


18/42

Research and development expenditure as a percentage

of GDP in Finland

0

1

2

3

4

5

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Education

alperform

ance


19/42

Youth activity


20/42

Youth activity (10-29-year olds)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Members (in 1000)

1990 1995 2000


21/42

II

Education in Finland


22/42

Education system in 2011

Preschool

Basic school

Age

6

7

16

Compu

lsoryschooling

1

9

10

Generalupper secondary

school

Vocational schoolApprenticeship

training1

2

3

17

18

19

Universities

1

23

4

5

20

2122

23+

Polytechnics

Work

experience

Specialistvocational

qualifications

Further

vocationalqualifications

Work

experience

55% 40%

60%

Grades


23/42

Less is more


24/42


25/42

Number of teaching hours per year in lower secondaryeducation (2008)

Net contact time in hours per year in public institutions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

UnitedStates

Mexico

New

Zealand

Russ

ianFederation

Scotland

Chile

Australia

Brazil

Israel

Germany

Portugal

Netherlands

Ireland

Spain

Slovenia

Belgium(

Fl.)

Iceland

Belgium(

Fr.)

Norway

Denmark

Luxembourg

C

zechRepublic

France

Estonia

Austria

Italy

Finland

Greece

Hungary

Korea

Hours per year

OECD 2010


26/42

How much teachers teach? (2008)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Primary

Lower secondary

Upper secondary

United States

OECD average

Finland

Total annual teaching time in 60-minute hours

OECD 2010

Total number of intended instruction hours in public


27/42

Total number of intended instruction hours in publicinstitutions between the ages of 7 and 14 (2008)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Finland

Sweden

Korea

Norway

Germany

Greece

Japan

Austria

Denmark

OECD

average

Portugal

Belgium

Spain

Ireland

England

France

Mexico

Italy

Australia

Netherlands

Ages 12-14

Ages 9-11

Ages 7-8

Total compulsory instruction hours between 7 and 14 year-olds

OECD 2010


28/42

460

480

500

520

540

560

580

50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000

Norway

Finland

Korea

Portugal

United States

Austria Switzerland

Denmark

Germany

Canada

Greece

Italy

Spain

France

IrelandSweden

Belgium

UK

Australia Netherlands

Japan

Cumulative cost in USD (2006)

PISAsciencescorein200

6

Student achievement and the cost of schooling

OECD 2010


29/42

Test less,learn more


30/42


31/42

400 450 500 550 600

Mexico

Luxemburg

Greece

Chile

Austria

Spain

Belgium

Norway

New Zealand

United Kingdom

Estonia

Switzerland

Italy

Ireland

Poland

Sweden

Korea

Denmark

Finland

Civic knowledge of 8th grade students in some OECD countries

ICCS 2010


32/42

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Level 1 and below Level 2 -3 Level 4 - 5 Level 6

Student learning in science (2006)

OECD 2007

St d t l i


33/42

Student learning

National averages of 15-year-old students learning outcomes in mathematics 2000-06

OECD 2001-07

460

480

500

520

540

560

USA UK Canada Australia Japan New Zealand Ireland Finland

2000

2003

2006


34/42

Equity of outcomesVariation in student performance in reading (2009)

Performance variation of students within schools

Performance differences between schools

Finland7.7

%

OECDaverage42%


35/42

The FinnishAdvantage


36/42

Applicants to primary school teacher education 2001-10

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Male

Female

Accepted

Admission: 1st Phase 2nd Phase 3rd Phase- high school merits - exam - role play/micro teaching

- other merits - interview

6600 2000 660


37/42

The Finnish Way

Global Trends vs The Finnish Way


38/42

Global Trends vs. The Finnish Way

Global educational reform movement (germ) Alternative policies

Teaching core subjects Broad and creative learning

Standardization Personalization

Test-based accountability Professional responsibility

Market-based management Educational leadership

Data and control Collaboration and trust


39/42

What can we learn from Finland?


40/42


41/42

FINNISH LESSON:

There is another way


42/42

Kiitos!

pasisahlberg.com

The Finnish Way

Documents

Transcript of The Finnish Way