Introduction to

Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn

from educational change in Finland?
In the course of about three decades (1980-2010), the national education system of Finland progressed
from one which was "nothing special" to one that produces students whose academic achievement is so
consistently outstanding that Finland's system is often referred to as the best in the world. This book
describes how Finland achieved that transformation.

In Finnish Lessons, Pasi Sahlberg Director General of the Centre for International Mobility and
Cooperation at the Finnish Ministry of Education, details the policy decisions that guided that
transformation. He documents the choice of policies that chose not to embrace "tougher competition,
more data, abolishing teacher unions, opening more charter schools, or employing corporate-world
management models in education systems." To the contrary, Finnish policies focused on "improving the
teaching force, limiting student testing to a necessary minimum, placing responsibility and trust before
accountability, and handing over school- and district-level leadership to education professionals." The
result is an educational system that "lacks school inspection, standardized curriculum, high-stakes
student assessments, test-based accountability, and a race-to-the-top mentality with regard to
educational change."

Sahlberg characterizes the policies of the current system as (a) having a vision of education committed to
building a publicly financed and locally governed basic school for every child, (b) building on educational
ideas from other nations to produce the unique "Finnish Way" that "preserves the best of traditions and
present good practices," and (c) systematically developing respectful and interesting working conditions
for teachers and leaders in Finnish schools. The Finnish experience in building an education system in
which all students learn well is one that has focused on equity and cooperation rather than choice and
competition and that rejects the paying of teachers based on students' test scores or converting public
schools to private schools.

The text of Finnish Lessons details ten underlying notions.

1. The current Finnish system of education is one in which students learn well and performance
differences among schools are small.
2. The above has not always been so.
3. Teaching is widely viewed as a prestigious profession.
4. Finland has one of the world's most competitive teacher-preparation systems.
5. Finnish teachers have a great deal of professional autonomy and lifelong access to purposeful
professional development.
6. Those who become teachers typically are "teachers for life."
7. Almost half of the students completing the Finnish nine-year comprehensive school (the
peruskoulu) have experienced some sort of special education.
8. Finnish teachers invest less time in teaching and Finnish students spend less time in studying
than do their peers in other countries.
9. Finnish schools do not engage in standardized testing, test preparation, or private tutoring.
10. The policies and practices of Finnish education are contrary to those of those of most other
countries of the world -- specifically, those of the United States.

The current, and highly effective Finnish system of education is the result of decades of determined and
continuous refinement of policies and practices. Finland did not attempt to simply transplant the ideas of
education into the Finnish system; rather it modified promising ideas to fit the Finnish context. Neither did
the process for improving education Finland jump from one "big idea" to another; rather, it committed to
informed, long-term refinement of policies and practices based upon educators' evaluation of the effects
of those policies and practices on student learning.
 Notes regarding
Finnish Lessons: What can the world learn
from educational change in Finland?
Pasi Sahlberg, Teachers College Press, 2011, 167 pages

These notes were prepared by Bob Kansky (robk@tribcsp.com), a faculty member of the Department of
Mathematics at the University of Wyoming, to provide a brief overview of Dr. Sahlberg's book on the
Finnish system of education. Since any effort to condense carries the danger of unintended distortion,
readers should consult the original document for further information.

Structure of the Finnish Education System

As of the year 2011, the Finnish education system was defined as having three principal stages.

Compulsory education (peruskoulu) includes grades 1-9 and is designed for all students 7-16 years
old. Grades 1-6 of peruskoulu are referred to as Primary Education; grades 7-9 are referred to as
Lower Secondary Education. [A year of preschool (for students 6 years old ) is offered prior to the
peruskoulu; however, the text does not indicate that preschool is part of compulsory education.]

Non-compulsory secondary education provides students with three options.

a) 10th Grade (an elective addition to peruskoulu): This is an option for students choosing not to
immediately enter upper-secondary education or employment. The curriculum appears to
include arts, crafts, and manual trades. About 35% of those completing grade 10 go on to
General Upper-Secondary School; about 48% go on to Vocational Upper-Secondary School.
b) General Upper-Secondary School: This secondary school option is about 3 to 3.5 years in
duration. It requires completion of at least 75 courses of 38 lessons each. About 50 courses
focus on the study of 18 required subjects; about 25 courses are student-selected. Students
successfully completing all coursework receive a general upper-secondary education diploma.
Student access to individual courses offered by a Vocational Upper-Secondary School is
possible. Also, it is possible for a student to transfer from General Upper-Secondary School to
Vocational Upper-Secondary School.
Students completing all 50 required courses take the National Matriculation Examination,
passage of which is required for entrance into higher education. Graduates of general upper-
secondary school may apply to either polytechnics or universities.
c) Vocational Upper-Secondary School: This secondary school option also is about 3 to 3.5
years in duration. Completion of 120 "credits" selected from 130 programs of study is required
for each of 52 "vocational qualifications." Of the 120 units of study, 30 are devoted to general
or elective courses and 20 are on-the-job training.
Student access to individual courses offered by a General Upper-Secondary School school
is possible. Also, it is possible for a student to transfer from Vocational Upper-Secondary
School to General Upper-Secondary School.
Vocational Upper-Secondary School graduates have the option of taking the National
Matriculation Examination. Few do. However, graduates of Vocational Upper-Secondary
School may apply to either polytechnics or universities.
Figure 1.2 (page 22) indicates that completion of Compulsory education or of any level of Non-
Compulsory secondary education leads to employment.

Higher education in Finland provides two alternatives.

a) Vocational College (Polytechnic): This option requires about 3 - 3.5 years of study. The
length of a polytechnic program appears to depend upon the specific field being pursued.
b) University: The university option requires about 3 - 6 years of study. Again, the length of a
university program appears to depend upon the specific field being pursued and, perhaps, the
level of the degree sought.
Educational Attainment

The discussion of Finnish non-compulsory educational attainment (completion) is summarized in a table

that is reproduced below.

Table 1.1. Termination of Upper-Secondary and Higher Education in Finland in

Academic Year 2007-2008 as a Percentage of Total Number of Students

Type of Education Academic Year 2007-08

General Upper Secondary 2.0
Vocational Upper Secondary 9.2
Polytechnic 6.8
University 4.8

In this table, "Termination" refers to the percentage of students dropping out of each category of non-
compulsory education during the 2007-08 Academic Year. Thus, for instance, the percentage of students
abandoning enrollment in General Upper-Secondary School during the 2007-08 Academic Year was 2%
and, conversely, the percentage of students NOT abandoning enrollment in General Upper-Secondary
School during 2007-08 Academic Year was 98%.

The discussion of educational attainment in Finland includes the following observations.

 "Overall graduation rates in Finland are internationally high. Only 0.2% of the age cohort will not
complete compulsory education successfully" (page 29). [That is, 99.8% of each age cohort does
successfully complete the 9 years of peruskoulu.]
 The text proposes that the ideal completion time for Vocational or General Upper-Secondary School
is 3.5 years. On that basis, it is concluded from the data in Table 1.1 (copied above) that "...about
three out of four students successfully completed their studies in that desired time." 1
 "The upper-secondary education graduation rate in Finland in 2008 was 93% compared to 76% and
77% in Canada and the United States, respectively" (page 29). 2
 Table 1.1 shows that 2% of General Upper-Secondary School students terminate their study without
completing it. Page 30 states that approximately the same number of students (2%) move from
General- to Vocational-Secondary School and complete their studies there.
 "As far as upper-secondary education is concerned, about 6% of students terminated their studies in
the academic year 2008-2009..." (page 30). 3

1
The 75% completion rate isn't obvious from the data in Table 1.1. However, applying the drop-out rates of Table 1.1
to a cohort from each of the two kinds of secondary school groups for a period of 4 years (rather than "ideal" 3.5
years), estimates can be made. For each 100 students in an initial General Upper-Secondary School cohort, the
annual 2% termination rate (compounded across four years) would leave about 92 students (100 x 0.984) enrolled at
the end of year four. Turning to the 2006-09 data in the Figure 1.3 on page 28, a rough estimate is that for every 100
students going in the General Upper-Secondary School cohort, there were about 80 students in the Vocational
Secondary Education School cohort. For each of those 80 students in the Vocational Upper-Secondary School
cohort, the annual 9.2% drop-out rate (compounded across four years) would leave about 54 students (80 x 0.9084)
enrolled at the end of year four. So, of the mix of each 180 students in the two forms of secondary education,146
remain. This would give a combined secondary education completion rate of 81% (about 4 out of 5) rather than 75%
(3 out of 4) as stated on page 29.
2
Given the success rate of "3 out of 4" made in bulleted item above, it would seem reasonable to assume that the
upper-secondary education referred to here is restricted to the General Upper-Secondary School. Based upon the
2% termination rate reported for that group in Table 1.1, the completion rate for a 4-year General Upper-Secondary
School cohort would be about 92% (0.984).
3
This statement calls upon (unreported) data that is beyond the 2007-2008 data reported in Table 1.1. Also, "upper-
secondary education" would seem to include both General Upper-Secondary and Vocational Upper-Secondary.
Lack of specific data makes the exact reference of the "6%" uncertain -- albeit the claim seems reasonable.
Four Domains of Education System Progress

Domain 1: Level of Educational Attainment (1970-2010)

BASIC SECONDARY HIGHER

YEAR EDUCATION EDUCATION EDUCATION
1970 79% 14% 7%
1990 50% 32% 18%
2010 33% 39% 28%

Figure 2.1 (page 44), reproduced above, shows a dramatic change in the highest level of education
achieved by Finnish adults (aged 15 and older). The text notes:

 As of 2010, school-attendance expectancy in Finland (beginning at age 5) was over 20 years.

 Only 2.5% of Finnish educational expenditures come from private sources. Data from 2008 published
by the OECD in 2010 indicated that, in the U.S., 34% came from private sources. [With regard to
"educational expenditures," the text did not specify whether those expenditures were restricted to the
costs of instruction and school administration or if they included the funding of such things as inter-
institutional athletic competition (at any level) or the funding of research activity in higher education.]

Domain 2: Educational Equity

It is asserted that equity in education is an important feature in a Nordic welfare state. "Nordic welfare
state" is defined (page 112) as a post-World War II "state where basic social services, including
education, became public services for all citizens." The text then notes several specific aspects of
educational equity in the Finnish education system.

 In Finland, higher education -- whether university or polytechnic -- is free.

 On page 114, it is noted that Finland was "the first country to make a broadband Internet connection a
human right for all citizens."
 By age 16, 50% of all Finnish students have experienced one of two forms of special education,
either as small-group instruction as a part of general education or as separate courses taught in the
student's school or in a separate institution.
 Finnish education makes a practice of early intervention and prevention. The text claims that
intensive "special support" in the 3Rs declines by the end of "primary school" (grades 1-6). In school
year 2008-09, about one third of all peruskoulu (grades 1-9) students were enrolled in some form of
special education.
 PISA 2009 data for 29 OECD nations indicate that Finland had the lowest between-school variance in
reading performance (about 7%). Between-school variance for the U.S. was about 45%; the highest
between-school variance was in Italy, where it is over 75%.

Domain 3: Student Learning

Sahlberg asserts that the "ultimate quality of a national system is how well students learn" and that
"[m]athematics is often used as a proxy for general academic performance" (page 49). Table 2.2 (page
50) traces the growth in mathematical achievement of Finnish students on international assessments
beginning with the First International Mathematics Study (FIMS) in 1962 and ending with PISA 2009.
Sahlberg proposes three possible reasons for the improvement shown.

1.Mathematics teaching is strongly embedded in primary education; 15% of primary teachers specialize
in mathematics teaching.
2.Both teacher education and the mathematics curriculum focus on problem solving and linking
mathematics to the real world of students.
3.Education of mathematics teachers involves close collaboration between faculty of mathematics and
faculty of education.
In science, performance on the 6-level 2006 PISA Science survey shows about 55% of Finnish students
achieving Level 4 or above; about 28% of U.S. students reached Level 4 or above. By contrast, only
about 3% of Finnish students were at Level 1 or below, whereas 23% of U.S. students were at Level 1 or
below. Again, Sahlberg proposes three possible sources for the difference.

1.More primary school teachers' education included the study of science.

2.Science teaching was redesigned to emphasize experimental and hands-on science.
3.The science curriculum in the peruskoulu has moved from "academic knowledge-based to
experiment- and problem-oriented."

Interestingly, Sahlberg notes that Finnish educators are not excited by assessments such as PISA. They
see PISA as focusing on a narrow portion of the curriculum and that, as in sports, emphasis on
international competitions "may lead to unethical means of temporarily boosting performance just to get a
better position in the results tables" (page 56).

Domain 4: Cost

Sahlberg posits that efficiency is more important to educational performance than is the level of
expenditure. Specifically, Finns have identified grade repetition as inefficient, costly, and ineffective.

 In the old Finnish system, 12% of the students in each grade of grammar school did not advance to
the next grade; up to half of the students completing grammar school had repeated at least one
grade. This academically untargeted repetition was inefficient and was demoralizing to students.
Students were labeled as "failing students"; teachers lowered their expectations.
 In the current peruskoulu, systemwide special education (as previously described) has resulted in
reduced grade repetition.
 In Finnish secondary schools, students build their own personalized learning schedules from a menu
of courses. They repeat only those courses not completed satisfactorily; they do not repeat an entire
"grade."

Three Finnish Education Paradoxes

Sahlberg claims that "Finns rely on straight talk and simple procedures. They want to solve problems, not
to talk about them. ...Most of all, Finns don't seem to believe that doing more of the same in education
would necessarily make any significant difference for improvement."

Paradox 1: Teach Less, Learn More

A 2008 study of intended instructional hours for students aged 7-14 in 19 selected OECD countries (not
including the U.S.) identified Finland as having the least total number of hours of instruction (about 5400);
the Netherlands had the most (about 7900).

Finnish students are free to go home after their shorter days of instruction, but they also may participate
in voluntary after-school activities and "clubs" that are judged to contribute to their social and personal
development and, hence, to their educational performance. Finnish teachers use their non-teaching time
to attend to such duties as assessing students' achievement and overall progress, developing their
school's curriculum, and providing remedial help to individual students.

Finnish educators do not believe in homework that focuses on routine and intellectually unchallenging
drill. Finnish students rarely get more than 30 minutes of homework per day; most are able to complete
that before leaving school.

The 2008 OECD study found that students aged 7-14 in Italy (about 7500 total hours of instruction) had
about 2 more years of schooling than did Finns. Estimates from some U.S. states placed the number of
hours at about 7500 -- the same as Italy. Moreover, since many U.S. students begin school at age 5,
such students would, by age 15, have had 4 years more years of schooling than their Finnish
counterparts.

In comparing instructional time in the lower secondary school (grades 7-9) of Finland with that in grades
7-9 in the United States, the text found that the American teacher of grades 7-9 engages in about 1.75
times the number of annual hours of instruction as a Finnish teacher at that level. The data of Figure 3.2
(page 91) present slightly different U.S./Finnish ratios of annual instructional hours, ratios that increase
across of three levels of schooling: 1.60 in grades 1-6; 1.81 in grades 7-9; and 1.95 in secondary school.
Paradox 2: Test Less, Learn More

Finland does not engage in standardized-test based accountability. PISA data in three testing years
(2000, 2003, 2006) showed that PISA mathematics performance scores in accountability-policy nations
were in decline. Mean scores on those assessments of U.S.15-year-olds declined from about 490 to
about 475. Finnish scores increased from about 535 to about 545. This suggests that frequent
standardized testing is not a necessary or sufficient condition for improving education.

The Finnish education system does include a three-part assessment component: (1) teacher-designed
classroom-based diagnostic, formative, and summative assessment; (2) semi-annual comprehensive
evaluation of each student's progress as a collective judgment of the student's teachers; and (3) a 3-to-4
year cycle of sample-based (about 10% per age cohort) national assessment to measure students'
learning in reading, mathematics, science, and other subjects. Schools not included in the national
sample may purchase the tests. While classroom assessment occupies "a significant amount of out-of-
classroom working time" of teachers, the total annual cost of national assessment is less than $5 million.

Paradox 3: More Equity Through Growing Diversity

Ethnic diversity in Finland is increasing. In 1980, about 12,850 residents were foreign-born. In 2010, that
number had increased 19-fold to about 248,100 and accounted for 4.7% of Finland's inhabitants. In the
peruskoulu of Helsinki, 10% of students are immigrants; 40 languages are spoken.

The main policy goal behind the development of the peruskoulu was equal education for all. Therefore,
all students are placed in regular schools unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. Research on
the effect of increased ethnic diversity found: (a) PISA data prior to 2009 showed that immigrant students
perform significantly better in Finnish schools than in other countries; and (b) overall classroom
performance in Finland began to decline when the proportion of foreign students reached 20%.

Poverty (defined as family income that is 50% below the national average) effects teaching and learning.
The poverty rate in Finland is 3.4%; in the U.S., it is 21.7%. Finland gives systemic attention to social
justice and early intervention for those in need. The level of student performance has continuously
increased and variation in student performance has decreased during a period when Finnish society has
become more culturally diverse and socially complex.

The Finnish Advantage: Teachers

The role of teachers is identified as the "factor that trumps all others" in the success of Finland's
educational system. It is a role in which "teachers' work in schools is based upon professional dignity and
social respect" and in which teachers' work is "a balance between classroom teaching and collaboration
with other professionals." The Finnish education system is distinctly different from the U.S. in that: (a) it
does not employ external standardized student testing; (b) teachers are empowered to create their own
school-based work plan and curriculum; and (c) all education is publicly financed. Opinion polls
document that teaching is rated as a profession desired above medical doctors, lawyers, and architects
and is "regarded as an independent high profession that enjoys public respect and praise."

Finland has five categories of teachers.

1. Kindergarten teachers. Teachers of both kindergarten and preschool children.
2. Primary teachers. Teachers of multiple subjects in one of grades 1 to 6 of the peruskoulu.
3. Subject teachers. Teachers of from 1 to 3 subjects in grades 7-9 of the peruskoulu and in
secondary school (both General and Vocational).
4. Special education teachers. Teachers who work with individuals or groups in the peruskoulu.
5. Vocational education teachers. Teachers of students in the Vocational Upper-Secondary
School. They must have at least 3 years of classroom experience before being admitted to
the vocational teacher preparation program.
Approximately 20,000 Finns apply for the 5700 total new openings in teacher education programs
available each year through Finland's eight universities.
Finnish primary teachers (grades 1-6)are drawn from the top 20% of secondary school graduates.
Acceptance to preparation in primary teacher education is based upon a record of past academic
performance, out-of-school accomplishments (e.g., prior work with children), matriculation examination
scores, a national entrance examination, and an interview. As part of pre-college preparation, all Finnish
upper-secondary school graduates are required to have completed a study program of 18 subjects such
as "physics, chemistry, philosophy, music, and at least two foreign languages" (page 81).

Subject matter teacher preparation follows two pathways that involve the same curriculum but are
scheduled differently. One route is to complete a master's degree in a given subject (and one or two
minors) and then pursue pedagogical studies in the Department of Teacher Education. The other
pathway is to apply directly to Teacher Education and to begin pedagogical studies after completing two
years of subject study.

Teachers are esteemed professionals with the professional autonomy to plan, teach, diagnose, and
practice. Interviews found that teachers do not cite salary as a reason for leaving the profession. Rather,
they would do so if they were to lose professional autonomy in their schools and classrooms, if an outside
inspector were to judge their work, if frequent standardized tests were to be used to judge student
progress, or if merit-based compensation were imposed.

Teacher education is an important part of higher education in Finland. For all teachers, permanent
employment requires a masters degree that includes a (defended) thesis. The preparation of subject
teachers (see above definition) includes the study of content-specific pedagogy. The high quality of
candidates has led to a demanding curriculum that is described as academic -- that is, a curriculum
supported by research and focused on the thinking processes and cognitive skills needed to design and
conduct educational research. Only university preparation leads to a license to teach; there is no
alternative route (as in the U.S.).

About 95% of Finnish educators -- teachers, principals, and university lecturers -- belong to a common
union, the Trade Union of Education in Finland.

Teacher induction and professional development are a "work in progress" in Finland. There are only 3
days of mandatory professional development per year; professional development and inservice programs
for teachers are not aligned with initial teacher education. On the other hand, the Finnish annual budget
allocates 6 times as much money to professional development ($30 million) as to student assessment ($5
million).

Over the course of the development of the present system of education, teachers have demanded more
autonomy and responsibility for curriculum planning and student assessment. Currently, curriculum
planning is the responsibility of teachers, schools, and municipalities rather than the state. Although local
planning is guided by regulations of the National Framework Curricula, curriculum planning varies from
school to school. Teachers currently devote 3 hours/week to collaborative curriculum planning with
colleagues. Schools now are considering scheduling changes (e.g., larger classes) to provide teachers
with more discretionary time during the day.

Educational administration comes from the teacher corps. Leadership at the municipal level is by
experienced teachers. The title "principal" in Finland reverts to its early mean of "principal teacher." A
school principal must be qualified/experienced in teaching at the school level he or she serves and must
have completed university studies in educational administration and leadership. It is noted that "Almost
all Finnish principals teach some classes each week" (page 119).

Education Policy: GERM versus "The Finnish Way"

Sahlberg uses the acronym GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) to refer to national education
reforms and policy-making procedures that employ "management models from the business world, such
as test-based accountability, merit-based pay, and data-driven administration" (page 99). He describes
GERM as a competition and accountability movement in education in which "education has become a
commodity where the efficiency of service delivery ultimately determines performance" (page 100).
Sahlberg lists five features of GERM.
 1. Standardization in education: the generally unquestioned belief that the setting of clear and high
performance standards for schools, teachers, and students will necessarily improve the quality of
desired outcomes.
2. Increased focus on core subjects in the curriculum: basic knowledge and skills in reading, writing,
mathematics, and natural sciences become the prime targets and indices of reform.
3. Prescribed curricula: curricula based on the search for low-risk ways to reach predetermined learning
goals with a focus on content that will best prepare students for tests.
4. Management models from the corporate world: educational policies and implementation principles
brought from outside the education system.
5. High-stakes accountability policies for schools: policies of merit-based pay and holding teachers
responsible based upon standardized tests and external evaluations that focus attention on limited
aspects of schooling.

Sahlberg concludes that, under GERM, leaders tend to choose the wrong "drivers for change":
accountability vs. professionalism; individual teacher quality vs. collegiality; technology vs. pedagogy; and
fragmented strategies vs. systems thinking.

Table 4.1 (page 103) presents a side-by-side comparison of the five GERM features with five features of
what Sahlberg calls "The Finnish Way."

1.Customizing teaching and learning: encouraging local solutions to goals set by a flexible national
framework for school-based curriculum planning.
2.Focusing on creative learning: giving equal value to the growth of personality, moral character,
creativity, knowledge, and skills.
3.Encouraging risk-taking: promoting school-based and teacher-owned curricula to facilitate finding
novel approaches to teaching and learning.
4.Learning from the past and owning innovations: honoring traditional pedagogical values such as the
teacher's professional role and relationship with students.
5.Shared responsibility and trust: building a culture of responsibility in which teacher and principal
professionalism determines what is best for students.

In summary, GERM assumes that "external performance standards ... lead to better performance for all"
(page 104). In contrast, The Finnish Way places "high confidence in teachers and principals regarding
the curriculum, assessment, organization of teaching and inspection of the work of the school" (page
105).

Sahlberg cautions (page 115) that "education system performance has to be seen in context of other
systems in the society, for example, health, environment, rule of law, governance, economy, and
technology. ...Attempts to explain the success of the education system in Finland should be put in the
wider context and seen as a part of the overall function of democratic civil society." [Table 4.2 (page 110-
111) traces interdependency among public sector policies in Finland from the 1970s to the 2000s.]

Some Summary Observations

Sahlberg, reflecting on the development of the present system of education in Finland, makes some
summary observations regarding the system's strengths and shortcomings. They include the following.

 Finland's research on educational change, school improvement, and school effectiveness is

"modest." More is needed.
 In contrast to GERM, "sample-based testing, thematic assessments, reflective self-evaluations
and emphasis on established a culture of mutual trust and respect within the Finnish education
system" (page 125).
 Finland is "the land of nongovernmental organizations. There are 130,000 registered groups or
societies... On average, each Finn belongs to three associations or societies. ...Young people
learn social skills, problem solving, and leadership when they participate in these associations"
(page 126).
 Finns have achieved a high level of reading literacy. Parents read a lot; books and newspapers
are easily available; children are exposed to subtitled TV and cinema at an early age.
 Peruskoulu, especially grades 1-6, provides the solid base of the education system. Experience
and research show that the investment in grades 1-6 pays off in later grades.
  Teaching is a high-status profession with good working conditions (e.g., small classes, support for
counselors and special needs teachers, a voice in school decisions, low levels of discipline
problems, and high levels of professional autonomy).
 There is a smart accountability policy. Student assessment is based on teacher-created tests at
the school level and on sample-based national assessments.
 People trust the schools. Education authorities and political leaders believe that teachers, in
collaboration with principals, parents, communities, know how to provide the best education for
their youth.
 The system has political stability. Government respects education as a key public service for all
citizens. The focus of professional development has shifted to meet authentic demands and
expectations of schools and individuals.

Exporting Educational Reform

Sahlberg warns that Finnish reform ideas and policies are not immediately exportable to other cultural
and social contexts. He observes that Finland has been an importer of ideas leading to the reform of its
system of education, but that these are probably of little direct value to the improvement of other
education systems. He presents the general caution that "successful change and good educational
performance often require improvements in social, employment, and economic sectors" (page 133).

Having issued this caveat regarding the problems of transferring educational ideas from one place to
another, Sahlberg suggests three lessons that others can learn from the Finnish experience.

1.Reconsider education policies that advocate choice, competition, and privatization as the drivers of
sustained educational improvement. None of the best-performing education systems depend
primarily on them.
2.Reconsider teacher policies. Give teachers government-paid, master's level university education,
provide better professional support for their work, and make teaching a respected profession.
3.There is much to be learned from current education leaders.

Improving Finnish Education: Looking Ahead

Sahlberg cautions that Finland cannot just kick back and rest on its education laurels. Hence, the closing
pages of the book consider the concerns and vision of a currently successful system, the Finnish system,
as it looks forward.

A Finnish vision for the future is to "Create a community of learners that provides the conditions that allow
all young people to discover their talent." Such would require the following "themes of change."

 Development of personal road maps for learning: This will require rethinking learning in schools
so that it relies "more on individual customized learning plans and less on teaching drawn from a
standardized curriculum for all." Owing to educational opportunities provided by the digital world,
students will enter school with broad differences in what they know and can do.
 Less classroom-based teaching: People can learn much of what now is taught in schools using
digital devices. There will be more time for integrated themes, projects, and activities. This
translates into extended time for student engagement in personally meaningful workshops,
projects, and the arts.
 Development of interpersonal skills and problem solving. Sahlberg's vision for the future is one in
which people will spend less time together in concrete social settings; social interaction will move
to social networking and other tools that rely on technology. "What most people in the future will
need that they are not likely to learn anywhere else is real problem-solving in cooperation with
other people. This will become one of the basic functions of future schools; to teach cooperation
and problem solving in small groups of diverse people."
 Engagement and creativity as pointers of success: New forms of assessment in schools will be
necessary. Engaging all students in school learning will be of increasing importance as will
"students' ability to create something valuable and new."
This book is supported by a bibliography of 151 references, 130 of which are in English. Also,
Sahlberg has a blog at:
http://www.pasisahlberg.com/blog/?cat=1
that includes several essays in English.