Finnish National Education System
vs.
Department of Education & Training (VIC)
The Finnish education system has long been the envy of international competitors the world over. There is a consistent focus, and an undertow of hero worship from many governments in light of Finnish student's high performance on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Press Commentators and politicians alike, cling to PISA results as they make sweeping recommendations on how such results could be replicated in Australia. Finland's success is reduced to a number of policies that are stated as self-evident due to their high achievement in such high-stakes international testing. While lagging PISA results create a sense of "educational crisis in Australia" (Reid as cited in Australian Education Union, 2014) Finland is exalted as the shining light for educators the world over.
An area where Finland and Australian practices differ substantially is assessment practice and policy. Due to the separation of powers that exist within the Australian constitution, we are unable to compare Finnish national policy to Australia's alike. The Australian government does not have a discernible assessment policy, However each state based education authority does, in this instance I have chosen to highlight the difference in the practical and ideological practices that are within each regulatory bodies policies. The Victorian state and Finnish national education systems are relatively equivalent in population size, and both offer interesting perspectives on assessment.
Consistencies between both systems are evident in the importance placed on ongoing assessment, and the ways that it informs teaching and learning practices for student learning. The Finnish National Board of Education states 'continuous assessment is to guide and help pupils in their learning process' (FNEB 2013, p. 16). Where the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority dictates that 'assessment be used to make informed and consistent judgements to improve the future learning and development of all students' (VCAA, 2015).
The differing use of high-stakes testing in both system highlights the ideological differences between the systems. Finland has no external high-stakes testing during basic education (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 155), while Victoria schools participate in the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) as of the age of eight - in their fourth year of basic education (NAP, 2013). They undertake the NAPLAN testing four times throughout their schooling. This is not to say that Finnish students do not undertake assessments under test conditions, quite the opposite. Finnish students will sit teachers designed exams 'numerous times' throughout their eduction (MEP, 2009, p. 22). The difference being that unlike the NAPLAN these exams are not used as a form of 'high stakes summative' testing, but rather used to inform planning. This difference in policy - the use of the testing, the creation of testing, and ultimately the ideological setting of the testing - shows a marked difference in systems. Finland empowers schools and teachers with the rights to make decisions about the performance of students, whilst Australia and consequently DET Victoria utilises external standardised tests. This 'one size fits all' approach to monitoring students achievement shows the starch contrast in approaches to assessment and performance management of students (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 155), as well as the difference in
Perhaps most telling is how each system utilises the data from high-stakes testing. Finnish media have no access to school based data relating to achievement on high-stakes standardised testing (Välijärvi, 2003, p. 38). Välijärvi states that 'information is supplied to schools for analysis and planning in the best interests of school and community also ensuring mutual trust and cooperation between schools' (Välijärvi, 2003, p. 40) In stark contrast is the ethos behind assessment data in Australia, and consequently Victoria. According to Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith the distribution of and the rhetoric surrounding data form high-stakes testing such as NAPLAN and PISA "applied pressure to schools to improve results as they are place in a competitive market against other schools for students. teachers, and funding." (2011, p. 8 - 10).
These key points show two systems at odds with each other, not only systemically but ideologically. The differences in the administration of high-stakes testing, and the varying uses of the data obtained by them shows two systems at odd. These are highlighted in the policies and attitudes relating to assessment and how they perpetuate the application of such high-stakes testing. Finally, the differences in the trust and status applied to the teaching profession within both systems shows that assessment is a highly contentious and political agenda.
An area where Finland and Australian practices differ substantially is assessment practice and policy. Due to the separation of powers that exist within the Australian constitution, we are unable to compare Finnish national policy to Australia's alike. The Australian government does not have a discernible assessment policy, However each state based education authority does, in this instance I have chosen to highlight the difference in the practical and ideological practices that are within each regulatory bodies policies. The Victorian state and Finnish national education systems are relatively equivalent in population size, and both offer interesting perspectives on assessment.
Consistencies between both systems are evident in the importance placed on ongoing assessment, and the ways that it informs teaching and learning practices for student learning. The Finnish National Board of Education states 'continuous assessment is to guide and help pupils in their learning process' (FNEB 2013, p. 16). Where the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority dictates that 'assessment be used to make informed and consistent judgements to improve the future learning and development of all students' (VCAA, 2015).
The differing use of high-stakes testing in both system highlights the ideological differences between the systems. Finland has no external high-stakes testing during basic education (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 155), while Victoria schools participate in the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) as of the age of eight - in their fourth year of basic education (NAP, 2013). They undertake the NAPLAN testing four times throughout their schooling. This is not to say that Finnish students do not undertake assessments under test conditions, quite the opposite. Finnish students will sit teachers designed exams 'numerous times' throughout their eduction (MEP, 2009, p. 22). The difference being that unlike the NAPLAN these exams are not used as a form of 'high stakes summative' testing, but rather used to inform planning. This difference in policy - the use of the testing, the creation of testing, and ultimately the ideological setting of the testing - shows a marked difference in systems. Finland empowers schools and teachers with the rights to make decisions about the performance of students, whilst Australia and consequently DET Victoria utilises external standardised tests. This 'one size fits all' approach to monitoring students achievement shows the starch contrast in approaches to assessment and performance management of students (Sahlberg, 2007, p. 155), as well as the difference in
Perhaps most telling is how each system utilises the data from high-stakes testing. Finnish media have no access to school based data relating to achievement on high-stakes standardised testing (Välijärvi, 2003, p. 38). Välijärvi states that 'information is supplied to schools for analysis and planning in the best interests of school and community also ensuring mutual trust and cooperation between schools' (Välijärvi, 2003, p. 40) In stark contrast is the ethos behind assessment data in Australia, and consequently Victoria. According to Klenowski and Wyatt-Smith the distribution of and the rhetoric surrounding data form high-stakes testing such as NAPLAN and PISA "applied pressure to schools to improve results as they are place in a competitive market against other schools for students. teachers, and funding." (2011, p. 8 - 10).
These key points show two systems at odds with each other, not only systemically but ideologically. The differences in the administration of high-stakes testing, and the varying uses of the data obtained by them shows two systems at odd. These are highlighted in the policies and attitudes relating to assessment and how they perpetuate the application of such high-stakes testing. Finally, the differences in the trust and status applied to the teaching profession within both systems shows that assessment is a highly contentious and political agenda.