The Comparison Between the Education System of the Philippines and Finland

Education is vital in almost every part of the world. It has a very important role to
help students identify and develop their talents through learning opportunities and
specialized programs. Every individual has unique skills, and whether they will succeed
in developing them or not, depends on their ambition, but also on the school curriculum.
Education system is important to build a brighter future for our nation's students as
professional and as citizens, which hinges on its ability to providing students with the
skills to obtain well-paying valued careers. This research shows the differences
between the education systems in Finland and the Philippines.

The education systems in both countries have significant differences in terms of

policies, teacher qualifications, and curriculum structure. In terms of structure, the
Finnish educational system has a 6-3-3 structure, consisting of six years of primary
education, three years of lower secondary education, and three years of upper
secondary education. Students typically begin primary school at age 7 and complete
upper secondary education by age 18. In contrast, the Philippine educational system
follows a K-12 structure, comprising kindergarten, six years of elementary education,
four years of junior high school, and two years of senior high school. Students typically
start kindergarten at age 5 and complete senior high school by age 17 or 18.
Based on compulsory education, Finland spans nine years, from ages 7 to 16. All
children are required to attend primary and lower secondary education. Upper
secondary education is optional, but most students choose to continue their schooling
while in the Philippines, compulsory education extends to 12 years, from ages 7 to 19.
Students must complete elementary and junior high school, and senior high school is
optional. However, the Philippine government is working to make senior high school
mandatory.
In terms of curriculum, the Finnish educational system is characterized by a
decentralized curriculum, giving teachers significant autonomy in designing their
lessons. This approach allows teachers to tailor their instruction to the specific needs
and interests of their students. On the other hand, the Philippine educational system
follows a centralized curriculum, developed and mandated by the Department of
Education (DepEd). This approach ensures consistency across the country, but it may
limit teacher flexibility.

Another difference of Finland from the Philippines is that, Finland does not rely
on standardized testing to assess student performance. Instead, teachers use a variety
of methods, such as portfolios, projects, and classroom observations, to evaluate
student progress while in the Philippines, student performance is measured through the
National Achievement Test (NCAE) and School Based Assessment (SBA). The NCAE
is administered to students in Grades 3, 6, 10, and 12, while the SBA is conducted
regularly throughout the school year.
 In Finland, to become a teacher, individuals must complete a rigorous master’s
degree program in education. This program emphasizes pedagogy, subject matter
knowledge, and classroom practice. On the other hand, the minimum qualification to
become a teacher in the Philippines, is a bachelor’s degree in education or a Diploma
Four degree from a teacher training institution. However, there is a growing movement
to require master’s degrees for all teachers.

Then, if we’re talking about the salary, Finnish teachers are among the highest
paid in the world, with an average monthly salary of approximately €3,570 (roughly
equivalent to ₱205,917). This high level of compensation contributes to the prestige of
the teaching profession in Finland. Philippine teachers, on the other hand, are among
the lowest paid in Southeast Asia. The average monthly salary for a public-school
teacher in the Philippines is approximately ₱20,000 (roughly equivalent to €340). This
low salary has led to teacher shortages and teacher dissatisfaction.

Finland has a favorable student-teacher ratio of approximately 1:13. This means

that there is one teacher for every 13 students, allowing for more individualized attention
and support for students. In contrast, the Philippines has a relatively high student-
teacher ratio of approximately 1:35. This means that there is one teacher for every 35
students, creating a more challenging learning environment for both teachers and
students.

In conclusion, Finland has a highly decentralized curriculum that allows teachers

to develop their own curriculum according to the needs and interests of students, while
the curriculum in the Philippines is centralized and designed by the central government.
The quality and competence of teachers in Finland are also higher compared to those in
the Philippines, where a Bachelor's or Diploma Four degree is the minimum requirement
for teaching. Finland's success in education can be attributed to the government's
persistence and consistency in implementing education policies formulated over the
years, and their emphasis on teacher quality and competence. On the other hand, the
Philippines has struggled to improve the quality of education, with some policies having
little to no positive impact.
Recommendation:

Given the differences between the two education systems, I like Finland's
policies, teacher qualifications, and curriculum structure because Finland’s education
system have a greater impact in any aspects such as for the learners as well as to the
teachers than the Philippines. So, if there’s something that I would like to change is first,
the amount of salary given to the teachers because teaching in the Philippines is not
easy due to the student- teacher ratio 1:35 and some of them have not just only 35
students but 40 and above, the reason why the teachers in the Philippines deserves a
higher salary than a Finland teacher. Another thing that I would like to change is,
Philippines should learn from Finland Education System and adopt some of its policies
to improve our own education system. By doing so, our country can improve the quality
of education and potentially achieve the same success that Finland has achieved. We
should also be focused on improving skills that are useful and necessary for the actual
application and work.

References:

Alaçam, N., & Olgan, R. (2021). Pedagogical docu-mentation in early childhood

education: A systematic review of the literature. Ilkogretim Online, 20(1).
Bernardo, A. B., & Mendoza, R. J. (2009). Makabayan in the Philippine basic education
curriculum: Problems and prospect for reforming student learning in the Philippines.
Reforming learn-ing: Concepts, issues and practice in the Asia-Pacific Region, 181-197.
Brennfleck, K., & Brennfleck, K. M. (2004). Live your calling: A practical guide to finding
and ful-filling your mission in life. John Wiley & Sons.
Care, E., Kim, H., Anderson, K., & Gustafsson-Wright, E. (2017). Skills for a Changing
World: National Perspectives and the Global Move-ment. Center for Universal
Education at the Brookings Institution.
Halinen, I. (2018). The new educational curriculum in Finland. Improving the quality of
childhood in Europe, 7, 75-89.
Häkkilä, J., Karhu, M., Kalving, M., & Colley, A. (2020, October). Practical family
challenges of re-mote schooling during COVID-19 pandemic in Finland. In Proceedings
of the 11th Nordic con-ference on human-computer interaction: Shap-ing experiences,
shaping society (pp. 1-9).
Haapaniemi, J., Venäläinen, S., Malin, A., & Palojoki, P. (2021). Teacher autonomy and
collabora-tion as part of integrative teaching–Reflections on the curriculum approach in
Finland. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(4), 546-562.
Hyry-Beihammer, E. K., & Hascher, T. (2015). Mul-tigrade teaching in primary education
as a promising pedagogy for teacher education in Austria and Finland. In International
Teacher Education: Promising Pedagogies (Part C). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Labrague, L. J. (2013). Stress, stressors, and stress responses of student nurses in a
government nursing school. Health science journal, 7(4), 424.
Lakkala, S., Galkienė, A., Navaitienė, J., Cierpiałow-ska, T., Tomecek, S., & Uusiautti,
S. (2021). Teachers supporting students in collabora-tive ways—An analysis of
collaborative work creating supportive learning environments for every student in a
school: Cases from Aus-tria, Finland, Lithuania, and Po-land. Sustainability, 13(5),
2804.
Liao, K. A. S. (2020). Operation ‘Bring Them Home’: learning from the large-scale
repatriation of overseas Filipino workers in times of cri-sis. Asian Population Studies,
16(3), 310-330.
Malinen, O. P., Väisänen, P., & Savolainen, H. (2012). Teacher education in Finland: a
review of a national effort for preparing teachers for the future. Curriculum Journal,
23(4), 567-584.
Orbe, J. R., Espinosa, A. A., & Datukan, J. T. (2018). Teaching chemistry in a spiral
progression approach: Lessons from science teachers in the Philippines. Australian
Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 43(4), 17-30.
Peterson, P. E., Woessmann, L., Hanushek, E. A., & Lastra-Anadón, C. X. (2011).
Globally Chal-lenged: Are US Students Ready to Compete? The Latest on Each State's
International Standing in Math and Reading. PEPG 11-03. Program on Education Policy
and Govern-ance, Harvard University.
Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational
change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
Sasan, J. M., & Baritua, J. C. (2022). Distance learn-ing as a learning modality for
education dur-ing the COVID-19 pandemic. Science and Edu-cation, 3(8), 35-44.
Takayama, K. (2010). Politics of externalization in reflexive times: Reinventing
Japanese educa-tion reform discourses through “Finnish PISA success”. Comparative
Education Re-view, 54(1), 51-75.
Wagner, T. (2010). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach
the new survival skills our children need-and what we can do about it.
ReadHowYouWant. com.
 ASSIGNMENT IN THE
TEACHING PROFESSION
"The Comparison Between
the Education System of the
Philippines and Finland"

Submitted by:
Angella Z. Pacinio
Submitted to:
Mrs. Elanie C. Cervantes