EI School Leadership Meeting, Birmingham, 15-16 May 2007

SCHOOL GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP IN FINLAND

Peter Johnson

Principal, PhD Education

Kokkola, Finland

President, Finnish Principals Association, SUREFIRE

Chairman, OAJ’s Advisory Council of School Leaders

Trade Union of Education in Finland

1 Introduction – Finnish School and Society

One of the basic premises of Finnish education policy is to guarantee everyone equal opportunities in education and training. This objective has required the formal education system to be clearly structured and all study tracks available in qualification-oriented education and training to be open from pre-primary education through to tertiary education. Education has always played a significant role for Finns in terms of guaranteeing upward social mobility. The learning outcomes of Finnish basic education are among the best in the world. (OPH 2006)

Would it be so great to work as a Finnish headmaster at the moment? Yes or no? The answer is yes, if we think about the success in international learning assessments like OECD’s PISA (2001; 2005). Actually is has been a big surprise for Finnish school administrators and principals. The successful results have been explained in many ways. Researchers (Aho & al. 2006; Simola 2005; Välijärvi & al.; Sahlberg 2007) have made some conclusions which offer explanations like:

(1) Comprehensive schools that offer all children the same top quality, publicly financed education — not only excellent teaching but counselling, health, nutrition and special-education services as well — seems to play a key role in building a high-performing education system. Good school for all, not for some, is the core value that drives education in Finland.

(2) Education reform has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary in Finland. From very early on, all stakeholders accepted and understood that there are no quick fixes in building a system to provide good education for all — and that very few short-term changes will be sustainable. Finnish schools have learned to change and changed to learn.

(3) Success of the education system is politically, culturally and economically intertwined with other sectors of society. The same factors that promote a well-functioning economy, strong public institutions, the rule of law and a democratic civil society also support academic achievement. To analyse and understand an education system, one also must examine its political and economic contexts.

(4) A stable political environment is crucial. But Finland has succeeded in creating sustainable leadership and education reforms because policies and principles have been based on firm long-term vision, hard work, good will, consensus, and respect for the professionals whose knowledge and understanding ultimately yield the best solutions and decisions. (Aho & al. 2006)

It has been also observed that Finland’s high achievement seems to be attributable to a whole network of interrelated factors in which students’ own areas of interest and leisure activities, the learning opportunities provided by school, parental support and involvement as well as social and cultural context of learning and of the entire education system combine with each other. (Välijärvi & al. 2002)

Finnish education context preserves and enhances trust among teachers, students, school leaders and education authorities in the accountability processes and involves them in the process, offering them a strong sense of professional responsibility and initiative None of three major global education reform elements, like standardisation, focusing on literacy and numeracy or consequential accountability, has been adopted in Finland as they have been within education development policies of many other nations. (Sahlberg 2007).

Table 1. Some aspects of global education reform trends and education policy principles in Finland since the 1980s (Sahlberg 2007)

______

Education policies and reform principles

______

Global education reform trends Education policies in Finland

______

Standardization Flexibility and loose standards

Setting clear, high and centrally prescribed Building on existing good practices and

performance standards for schools, teachers innovations in school-based curriculum

and students to improve the quality of development, setting of learning targets and

outcomes. networking through steering by information and

support.

Focus on literacy and numeracy Broad learning combined with creativity

Basic knowledge and skills in reading, writing, Teaching and learning focus on deep and broad

mathematics and natural sciences as prime learning giving equal value to all aspects of an

targets of education reform. individual’s growth of personality, moral,

creativity, knowledge and skills.

Consequential accountability Intelligent accountability with trust-based

professionalism

The school performance and raising student Adoption of intelligent accountability policies and

achievement are closely tied to the processes of gradual building of a culture of trust within the

promotion, inspection and ultimately education system that values teachers’ and

rewarding or punishing schools and teachers headmasters’ professionalism in judging what is

based on accountability measures, especially best for students and in reporting their learning

standardised testing as the main criteria of success. progress.

______

But if we think about the flexibility and loose standards and intelligent accountability with trust-based professionalism from the perspective of an individual principal, it can also mean very demanding challenges for principals in the work field. Educational leadership has diffused from the centre to local levels. Leadership is not only limited to daily managerial duties and administration

but especially addresses the responsibility and right to lead continuous development of the education system. (Sahlberg 2007) It also means that the traditional role of school leader must develop. As Swedish professor Berg (2003) has illustrated.

Table 2. Professional aspects of school leader. (Berg 2003)

The role of

school
leader
Profession
attribute / The top of the
management / The person in charge
(Pedagogical leader)
Autonomy / In the frames of rule system and the apparatus administration / In the frames which are limited by the scope of the free space/ choices of the school
Professional norms and ethics / School leader controls over school administration and teachers’ classroom work / School leader utilises the free space / choices for the benefits of the pupils and pedagogy
Knowledge basis / Administratively focused knowledge basis / Expansive and wide knowledge basis

1.1 Finnish Educational System

The Finnish educational system (2007) – the whole picture.

Table 3. Finnish educational System. (National Board of Education)

The Finns have confidence in their schooling system and teachers; they also have a high opinion of schooling. The schools have a statutory obligation to maintain contact with homes. Nevertheless, more work should be done to raise parent participation. Today, schools receive direct feedback from parents and students. Alongside parents’ increased educational awareness, the amount of feedback relating to instruction and assessment has grown slightly in recent years. In Finland, schooling is seen as a very significant guarantor for the success and well-being of individuals, communities and the whole society. (Finnish Ministry of Education 2007)

1.2 Finnish school leader qualification and status

Table 4. Teacher and school leader qualifications, credits and working area.

In Finland the principal must have the teacher’s qualification suitable for the school or institution level she/he is working at and 25 credits school administrative studies in university which include the syllabus for the certificate in educational administration. The studies are carried out as part-time flexible mode studies (lectures, teamwork, learning assignments, literature, work over the web, possibly visits to schools and meetings with school leaders), they take usually 1–1.5 years to complete, and they usually comprise 8–12 contact teaching periods.

In principle, school leadership education can be divided into preparatory (25 credits) and continuing

professional education. The supply of continuing professional education in school leadership is very mixed and providers are numerous – from consulting companies to university continuing

education centres. The Specialist Qualification in Management (JET) focusing on developing management competencies has been very popular in Finland (in 2004, about 700 participated). It is provided both as training in an educational institution and as apprenticeship training. The programmes consist of preparatory training and a competence test. These programmes usually last for 2–2½ years and they are attended while continuing to work. JET training programmes concentrate on leadership development in a very practice-oriented way.

Because the supply of training is very mixed and there are many training providers,

practically no external evaluation of their effectiveness has been performed. The only institution providing actual university-level post-basic education in educational leadership is the Institute of Educational Leadership at the University of Jyväskylä. They have a 35 ECTS study programme. These studies are targeted at educational leaders holding an office and aspiring to develop their competence through practical leadership training based on university research. In Finland, about 20 doctoral degrees have been attained in educational leadership, which is quite a small number, but the interest is growing all the time. Actually school leadership training is a new thing in Finland, but the results have been quite good so far.

In the case of general education, school leadership is generally conceived as being the remit of principals and vice-principals. In secondary education, in addition to school principals and vice-principals, responsibility for school leadership in vocational education and training is also assumed by heads of department and training managers. Municipal educational administrations employ directors of educational departments, directors of educational and cultural services, heads of general education divisions and development managers. Their work relates to general administrative leadership tasks in municipal educational and cultural administration. In many small municipalities, a school principal, besides being the director of the educational department, can also administer tasks of other sectoral directors, such as the director of cultural services, etc. (Finnish Ministry of Education. 2007)

The official status of school leadership is stipulated for each municipality and education

provider by codes and ordinances. In the national legislation, a principal’s tasks are

described very broadly with a general statement that each school shall have a principal who

is responsible for the school’s operation. Additionally, by means of decrees, responsibilities

relating to pupil and student assessment have been incorporated into a principal’s tasks.

The authority and official status of school leaders vary greatly from one form of educational

institution to another, because of the municipal autonomy. (Finnish Ministry of Education. 2007)

2 Finnish Educational policy since 1970’s

If we look at the Finnish educational policy in the 1970’s, it was in those days more sustainable and based on laws, norm steering and inspection policies than today. Preparations for the modernisation of public administration started in the late 1980´s. This meant, among other things, overhauling funding mechanisms and introducing new planning and management methods. The effort took on new urgency with the economic recession. In retrospect, the confluence of events now seems a lucky coincidence, since it resulted in the delegation of decision-making to local governments and schools. Perhaps that is why Finland’s education system could sustain heavy budget cuts in the 1990s without any major erosion in results. In the beginning of the 1990s, Finland’s economy drifted into its deepest crisis in peacetime. Several factors contributed to the downturn, including the Soviet Union’s break-up. Finland’s GDP shrank by 12 percent from 1991 to 1993. Unemployment rates soared and by 1994 18 percent of the labour force was unemployed. Municipalities – which maintains 99% of the compulsory schools – saw their economic position erode rapidly and dramatically. Finland’s shifting fiscal situation forced education policymakers to adjust their focus. Instead of figuring out how to increase participation and ensure quality, they had to concentrate on improving the school system’s efficiency and prepare students for a harsher job market. Hard economic times in the early 1990s forced the government to adjust earlier education plans to these new and unanticipated political and fiscal realities. Over the decade, the education system managed to save the equivalent of one fifth of per-pupil expenditure. (Aho & al. 2006)

Finland recovered from the recession, but the economic crisis left its traces in the economy and the society. Today’s (2007) unemployment rate hovers around 7 percent, and continues to create problems for society. In addition, the rapid growth of public debt created punishing repayments that, in turn, led to continued budget savings. Finnish GDP has continued to grow at an annual rate of good 3% over the last three years (2004-2006). The corresponding growth rate in Europe has been 2%. In 2006 GDP was as much as 5, 5 % compared to the previous year. (Finnish Ministry of Education. 2007)

Finland has a long tradition of strong local government. In 2005, there were 432 municipalities which vary in size, averaging about 12000 inhabitants. The average debt of the municipalities per capita has doubled from 2000 to 2005 in spite of the good GPD growth during those years. There are also private models for the organisation of education, but in most cases municipalities own schools and vocational institutions and that causes many problems for the schools and local school administration. Finland’s ageing population, the exodus of people from rural municipalities and the eroding municipal economic base has made municipal structure and its methods for providing such basic services as education and health a hot political topic these days. (Aho & al. 2006)

The recent reform of education legislation largely meant codification of previous development, deregulation and modernisation. New legislation was came into force in 1999 and it continued the deregulation process and enhanced the decision-making powers of municipal authorities, individual schools and institutions. It also aimed to encourage innovation in education and training at the local and institutional levels. The technical reason for the reform of legislation was to reduce the number of separate legislative acts, sections and articles and to modernise education legislation. (Aho al. 2006) It has also been said, that the aspects of neo-liberalism has been one of the motifs as well (Johnson 2006, Hilpelä 2004).

The key to understanding education in Finland is the role of local authorities and schools in education management and sector development. Most schools (99%) are owned and operated by the municipalities. (See table 5)

Table 5. Administration of basic and upper secondary education. (Ministry of Education)

The new reform legislation made municipalities fairly autonomous in arranging their public services, including education. The entire education management structure is therefore light and simple. The Ministry of Education is in charge of policy, the legislative framework and financing of education. The National Board of Education takes care of curriculum development and evaluation of education, and provides professional support services to schools, principals and teachers. (Aho & al. 2006)