finland homework ban

clock This article was published more than 5 years ago

What Finland is really doing to improve its acclaimed schools

Finland has been paid outsized attention in the education world since its students scored the highest among dozens of countries around the globe on an international test some 20 years ago.

And while it is no longer No. 1 — as the education sector was hurt in the 2008 recession, and budget cuts led to larger class sizes and fewer staff in schools — it is still regarded as one of the more successful systems in the world.

In an effort to improve, the Finnish government began taking some steps in recent years, and some of that reform has made for worldwide headlines. But as it turns out, some of that coverage just isn’t true.

A few years ago, for example, a change in curriculum sparked stories that Finland was giving up teaching traditional subjects. Nope .

You can find stories on the Internet saying Finnish kids don’t get any homework. Nope.

Even amid its difficulties, American author William Doyle, who lived there and sent his then-7-year-old son to a Finnish school, wrote in 2016 that they do a lot of things right:

What is Finland’s secret? A whole-child-centered, research-and-evidence based school system, run by highly professionalized teachers. These are global education best practices, not cultural quirks applicable only to Finland.

‘I have seen the school of tomorrow. It is here today, in Finland.’

Here is a piece looking at changes underway in Finnish schools by two people who know what is really going on. They are Pasi Sahlberg and Peter Johnson. Johnson is director of education of the Finnish city of Kokkola. Sahlberg is professor of education policy at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. He is one of the world’s leading experts on school reform and is the author of the best-selling “ Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn About Educational Change in Finland ?”

No, Finland isn’t ditching traditional school subjects. Here’s what’s really happening.

By Pasi Sahlberg and Peter Johnson

Finland has been in the spotlight of the education world since it appeared, against all odds, on the top of the rankings of an international test known as PISA , the Program for International Student Assessment, in the early 2000s. Tens of thousands visitors have traveled to the country to see how to improve their own schools. Hundreds of articles have been written to explain why Finnish education is so marvelous — or sometimes that it isn’t. Millions of tweets have been shared and read, often leading to debates about the real nature of Finland’s schools and about teaching and learning there.

We have learned a lot about why some education systems — such as Alberta, Ontario, Japan and Finland — perform better year after year than others in terms of quality and equity of student outcomes. We also understand now better why some other education systems — for example, England, Australia, the United States and Sweden — have not been able to improve their school systems regardless of politicians’ promises, large-scale reforms and truckloads of money spent on haphazard efforts to change schools during the past two decades.

Among these important lessons are:

Education systems and schools shouldn’t be managed like business corporations where tough competition, measurement-based accountability and performance-determined pay are common principles. Instead, successful education systems rely on collaboration, trust, and collegial responsibility in and between schools.
The teaching profession shouldn’t be perceived as a technical, temporary craft that anyone with a little guidance can do. Successful education systems rely on continuous professionalization of teaching and school leadership that requires advanced academic education, solid scientific and practical knowledge, and continuous on-the-job training.
The quality of education shouldn’t be judged by the level of literacy and numeracy test scores alone. Successful education systems are designed to emphasize whole-child development, equity of education outcomes, well being, and arts, music, drama and physical education as important elements of curriculum.

Besides these useful lessons about how and why education systems work as they do, there are misunderstandings, incorrect interpretations, myths and even deliberate lies about how to best improve education systems. Because Finland has been such a popular target of searching for the key to the betterment of education, there are also many stories about Finnish schools that are not true.

Part of the reason reporting and research often fail to paint bigger and more accurate picture of the actual situation is that most of the documents and resources that describe and define the Finnish education system are only available in Finnish and Swedish. Most foreign education observers and commentators are therefore unable to follow the conversations and debates taking place in the country.

For example, only very few of those who actively comment on education in Finland have ever read Finnish education law , the national core curriculum or any of thousands of curricula designed by municipalities and schools that explain and describe what schools ought to do and why.

The other reason many efforts to report about Finnish education remain incomplete — and sometimes incorrect — is that education is seen as an isolated island disconnected from other sectors and public policies. It is wrong to believe that what children learn or don’t learn in school could be explained by looking at only schools and what they do alone.

Most efforts to explain why Finland’s schools are better than others or why they do worse today than before fail to see these interdependencies in Finnish society that are essential in understanding education as an ecosystem.

Here are some of those common myths about Finnish schools.

First, in recent years there have been claims that the Finnish secret to educational greatness is that children don’t have homework.

Another commonly held belief is that Finnish authorities have decided to scrap subjects from school curriculum and replace them by interdisciplinary projects or themes.

And a more recent notion is that all schools in Finland are required to follow a national curriculum and implement the same teaching method called “phenomenon-based learning” (that is elsewhere known as “project-based learning”).

All of these are false.

In 2014, Finnish state authorities revised the national core curriculum (NCC) for basic education. The core curriculum provides a common direction and basis for renewing school education and instruction. Only a very few international commentators of Finnish school reform have read this central document. Unfortunately, not many parents in Finland are familiar with it, either. Still, many people seem to have strong opinions about the direction Finnish schools are moving — the wrong way, they say, without really understanding the roles and responsibilities of schools and teachers in their communities.

Before making any judgments about what is great or wrong in Finland, it is important to understand the fundamentals of Finnish school system. Here are some basics.

First, education providers, most districts in 311 municipalities, draw up local curricula and annual work plans on the basis of the NCC. Schools though actually take the lead in curriculum planning under the supervision of municipal authorities.

Second, the NCC is a fairly loose regulatory document in terms of what schools should teach, how they arrange their work and the desired outcomes. Schools have, therefore, a lot of flexibility and autonomy in curriculum design, and there may be significant variation in school curricula from one place to another.

Finally, because of this decentralized nature of authority in Finnish education system, schools in Finland can have different profiles and practical arrangements making the curriculum model unique in the world. It is incorrect to make any general conclusions based on what one or two schools do.

Current school reform in Finland aims at those same overall goals that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development — which gives the PISA exams every three years to 15-year-olds in multiple countries — as well as governments and many students say are essential for them: to develop safe and collaborative school culture and to promote holistic approaches in teaching and learning. The NCC states that the specific aim at the school level is that children would:

understand the relationship and interdependencies between different learning contents;
be able to combine the knowledge and skills learned in different disciplines to form meaningful wholes; and
be able to apply knowledge and use it in collaborative learning settings.

All schools in Finland are required to revise their curricula according to this new framework. Some schools have taken only small steps from where they were before, while some others went on with much bolder plans. One of those is the Pontus School in Lappeenranta, a city in the eastern part of Finland.

The Pontus School is a new primary school and kindergarten for some 550 children from ages 1 to 12. It was built three years ago to support the pedagogy and spirit of the 2014 NCC. The Pontus School was in international news recently when the Finnish Broadcasting Company reported that parents have filed complaints over the “failure” of the new school.

But according to Lappeenranta education authorities, there have been only two complaints by parents, both being handled by Regional Authorities. That’s all. It is not enough to call that a failure.

What we can learn from Finland, again, is that it is important to make sure parents, children and media better understand the nature of school reforms underway.

“Some parents are not familiar with what schools are doing,” said Anu Liljestrom, superintendent of the education department in Lappeenranta. “We still have a lot of work to do to explain what, how and why teaching methods are different nowadays,” she said to a local newspaper. The Pontus School is a new school, and it decided to use the opportunity provided by new design to change pedagogy and learning.

Ultimately, it is wrong to think that reading, writing and arithmetic will disappear in Finnish classrooms.

For most of the school year, teaching in Finnish schools will continue to be based on subject-based curricula, including at the Pontus School.

What is new is that now all schools are required to design at least one week-long project for all students that is interdisciplinary and based on students’ interests. Some schools do that better more often than others, and some succeed sooner than others.

Yes, there are challenges in implementing the new ideas. We have seen many schools succeed at creating new opportunities for students to learn knowledge and skills they need in their lives.

It is too early to tell whether Finland’s current direction in education meets all expectations. What we know is that schools in Finland should take even bolder steps to meet the needs of the future as described in national goals and international strategies. Collaboration among schools, trust in teachers and visionary leadership are those building blocks that will make all that possible.

Pasi Sahlberg: What Can We Learn From Finland About Education Reform?

By Sarah Kingstone

This week, members of the EPPE program attended a talk by Finnish educator, author, and policy advisor, Pasi Sahlberg, on international and national assessment, professionalization, and equity in educational reform — themes that he made relevant to the Scottish education system and aspiring teacher candidates.

Main message

After waking everyone up with a video clip of Bruce Springsteen’s “Born to Run,” Sahlberg opened his talk by contextualizing Finland’s (admittedly) surprising global fame following the introduction of PISA in 2001. In the spirit of comparative education exercises, Sahlberg aims to create a space to learn from other countries, perspectives, and approaches to education, not encourage replication of the Finnish system. He, only somewhat facetiously, joked that his work should be prefaced with a “do not try this at home” warning sticker.

Myth Busting

Following his introduction and warning, Sahlberg explicitly addressed the myths about Finnish education and Finnish educational success that have been crafted, peddled out of context, and distributed, by the media in particular. Mythologizing these inaccurate interpretations of the Finnish system can have harmful, though unintended, consequences for students, teachers, and education systems. It is important that we unpack those inaccuracies interpretations here.

1. Finland is NOT ditching traditional subjects for topics/themes/projects

Sahlberg tackles this myth in his Washington Post article : Schools in Finland are continuing to teach traditional subjects, but educational reforms will provide students with learning periods that look at broader, cross-curricular, multi-disciplinary topics like climate change and more local micro-histories. These opportunities will look different from one school or region to another — with a decentralized education system, school municipalities have considerable freedom and autonomy to make decisions that align with the national guiding framework .

2. Finland has NOT done away with homework

Sahlberg clarified that as radically and appealing as this idea might be for many young people, homework has not been banned in Finnish schools. That being said, the ‘2 hours of homework’ standard that had been common in Finland was removed so that teachers no longer feel obligated to give students homework every night, regardless of relevance. Students now have considerably fewer hours of homework, in order to open up more time to engage in creative play.

3. Finland does NOT only employ the academically ‘best and brightest’ in the teaching profession.

Although many countries, including England, and the OECD* have moved to targeting the academically strongest applicants for the teaching profession, Finnish teacher education programs select a breadth of applicants based on consideration of academic performance, skills, and education-related experiences, which results in a cohort of aspiring teachers with Matriculation Examination scores spanning the full academic spectrum. Sahlberg reiterated that academic success in school does not predict teacher quality, but did accept the validity of Schleicher’s comments on the importance of quality initial teacher preparation programmes. In light of this fact, Finnish teacher education programs only accept 1 in 10 applicants and demand at least five years of study. This policy recognizes that “it is better to design initial teacher education in a way that will get the best from young people who have natural passion to teach for life.”

Research Questions

It was evident through the early portion of the presentation, that Sahlberg has spent a considerable amount of time and effort clarifying the misconceptions that have flourished through poorly researched media attention and the desire for governments to find a simple ‘secret’ to solve education’s ‘wicked’ problems.

Spoiler alert, there are no easy solutions. But understanding why some education systems are succeeding while others are continuing to struggle is an appropriate and effective place to start.

Using data collected by the OECD, Sahlberg laid out the stark contrasts between successful and struggling education systems. This gave us all an opportunity to think about how our own national or state/provincial education systems compare. The research suggests that systems that have experienced limited growth or even failure place considerable emphasis on the standardization of excellence. They rank and measure student, teacher, and school success through test-based accountability and competition, and teacher professionalization and capacity-building is dismissed as irrelevant. Successful systems, on the other hand, approach education creatively — there is space in and around the classroom for collaboration; teachers are not overly evaluated or held accountable through bureaucratic mechanisms, but provided with trust-based responsibility; professionalism is ensured through high-quality teacher training and continuous professional development and upgrading programs and opportunities; and the system itself ultimately values equity above excellence.

Keys to Better Education

Sahlberg argues that aspiring to an equitable system — that which can provide young people with what they individually need to achieve success — is necessary to effectively achieve high quality education. He closed by reviewing the 4 ‘keys’ to better education in any nation.

First, governments must invest fairly in all institutions for all students. For nations already divided by high levels of inequality and inequity, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, initial investment should target the most vulnerable, marginalized, and disenfranchised parts of the population.

Second, special education in the broadest sense — for vulnerable or at-risk populations, students with learning differences, etc — must be strengthened, ultimately focusing on preventing the need for responsive or reparatory programs.

Third, teacher professionalism should be built through high quality teacher training and education programs and continuous professional development and upgrading programs that increase, enhance, and develop teacher knowledge, skills, and capacity.

Fourth, teacher and student well-being should be targeted in a way that takes a holistic approach to education, acknowledging the impact that external stressors have on the quality and effectiveness of the experience in the classroom. The final message that Sahlberg provided reiterated this point. Let the children play! Schools and teachers should be committed to providing children with the time and space to explore, reflect, and have fun the service of positive youth development. Especially relevant to us in the audience, Sahlberg announced that he is using Scotland as a positive case study in his latest book, Let The Children Play.

In his concluding remarks, Sahlberg reiterated the significance of context when discussing the reform of our education systems. Additionally, we should not get ahead of ourselves with idealistic thoughts of educational reform without remembering the powerful role political regimes play in strengthening or undermining equity.

*Andreas Schleicher, OECD Director of Education and Skills: “We need to attract the best and brightest to join the profession. Teachers are the key in today’s knowledge economy, where a good education is an essential foundation for every child’s future success. A quality initial teacher preparation programme, which prepares prospective teachers for the challenges of today’s classrooms, is essential to ensuring teacher quality”

Thanks to Sarah for her contribution this week. If you have any questions or comments in response to this presentation and post, please leave a message below or get in touch via our Twitter account.