Quality of Education - Teachers' Professional Training and Development Education Evaluation in Finland Implications for educational policy and practice Jari Rajanen Ministry of Education Quality of Education - Teachers' Professional Training and Development Athenes 2 -3 June 2003

Historical background Up to 1970: Local school inspections 1970-1980: Inspection became the responsibility of the Provincial Governments 1994: Framework for evaluating educational outcomes 1997: Strategy for Educational evaluation was published by the Ministry of Education 1999: The new era of educational evaluation: The first time it was defined in education legislation 2003 National Council for Educational Evaluation will begin its work 2. Historical backround The historical background of the education evaluation in Finland can be found in the work of the local school inspectors (primary school inspections). Their main work was not only to control the regulations were observed but also it was expected guiding, counselling and making proposals for the various improvements in the field of teaching and school management. The whole country was divided into districts of primary school inspectors. All the schools were ”inspected” by the Provincial Governments every third year. A change was made in 1976, allowing the inspections to be carried out only if neccesary In 1970 inspections became the responsibility of the Departments of Education of the Provincial Governments (Act 534/1968, §9) due to unified comprehensive school system was to implemented. This means the whole country all the children of 7-16 of age were to attend the sam type of school called comprehensive school. The transfer process took from 1970-1981. At the same time the inspection were re-named as counselling and follow-up activities. Since 1980 these activities expanded to cover the sector of vocational education by the Provincial Governments. They carried out their work under states central administration.

Why is the Council for Educational Evaluation founded? There are development needs in the national evaluation activities concerning the organization, the administration and the resources The independence, credibility and transparency will be increased The national administration and the decision-making process does not rule the Council for Educational Evaluation The relation to the educational administration and the development activities will be maintained The role of evaluation in the development of the education will be reinforced and the co-operation and information flow between various educational actors will be improved

PARLIAMENT GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF EDUCATION EDUCATION PROVIDERS Responsible for evaluation policy in the education sector. Leads and coordinates national and international cooperation in the field of evaluation. Responsible for external evaluations and the development of evaluation together with the Evaluation Council. Invites max. 14 members to the Evaluation Council for a four-year term at a time and appoints the chairperson and vice-chairperson from amongst them. Agrees with the University of Jyväskylä on the general secretary and secretariat of the Council and relevant clerical work. EVALUATION COUNCIL Assists the Ministry of Education and supports education and training providers in matters relating to evaluation. Draws up a programme for external evaluation of education and training provision within a framework determined by the Ministry of Education. Working as an expert network, organises external evaluations relating to education policy and education and training provision. Sees to it that the salient findings of evaluation are published, Makes proposals for the development of evaluation and promotes research and cooperation relating to evaluation. NETWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROVINCIAL STATE OFFICES STATISTICS FINLAND NATIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION RESEARCH INSTITUTES Evaluation of basic services Official education and training Asesses learning outcomes according to Separate evaluation projects core curricula and qualification requirements EDUCATION PROVIDERS Evaluate their own provision and its impact SCHOOLS AND OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTES Evaluate their own provision and its impact

Principles for educational evaluation Evaluation is based on education policy decisions (development aspect). The legitimacy is founded on educational legislation. Education evaluation should be transparent. The essential outcomes need to be published. Methods used are to be recorded and justified, as reliable,valid and comparably as possible.

The aim of national evaluation system is: to support local administration of education and the development of schools as goal-orinted and open units, to produce and provide comprehensive, up-to-date and reliable information on the operational context, functioning, results and effects of the education system in core target areas within the national and international frameworks, to support the continuous development of education in order to facilitate the improved learning, to enhance the realisation of equality among people within the Finnish education system.

The National Evaluation System the supply of and demand for education, access to education and student flows the structure and functiong of the whole education system and of its parts the realtionship between educational quality and resources available development trends in education policy curricula and syllabi topical areas of emphasis in evaluation

PISA – Implications for educational policy and practice Strengthening national strategy for knowledge-based society   Consolidating the strengths of the education system Anticipation of future threats and trends Special attention to at-risk pupils and students Securing basic resources for teaching and learning Investing in teachers and school communities Increasing cooperation between school administration and other sectors

How has Finland achieved the objectives set for basic education? In the most important subjects and contents, the learning outcomes in the Finnish comprehensive school are good, and differences between pupils, schools and regions are relatively small. Finland has always attached great importance to regional aspects in comparisons of learning outcome. In view of the social, economic and cultural diversity in Finland, it is to be expected that the pupils' social and economic backgrounds are reflected in learning outcome as variation. Since the PISA findings, Finnish researchers have identified faint signs of differences in learning outcomes between comprehensive schools in different parts of the country and in different operational environments.

Why is it important to react to the current trend by means of education policy? To consolidate basic security in education, To ensure an efficient, effective and cost-effective steering system in education, To prevent early selection and polarisation of pupils, schools and regions, To enhance the quality of school activities to better support learning and growth, To clarify objective-setting in education policy and to ensure planned activities and effective implementation at different levels of administration, To develop educational welfare and to prevent exclusion.

Basic security in education entails That there are no systematic differences between learning outcome and educational arrangements which are largely attributable to the school. The fact that there are differences in learning outcome between pupils and schools is not surprising. But in education policy terms it is vital to ascertain how and why the differences come about and to decide how big differences can be tolerated.

Means used in education policy: To improve the effectiveness of the education system, To intensify the production of research and evaluation data and its use in decision-making, To develop curricula, To improve intervention methods, and To use positive discrimination.