Abstract
Over the past two decades, Finland has seen a decline in their Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) scores. This declining trend contrasts with the appraised Finnish education success seen in the early 2000s. The rising inequalities in the PISA scores are also alarming for the Finnish education system. This study contributes to situating Finland’s PISA reading score trends in the broader ecological context of Finnish society, as well as investigating the link between inequalities in reading skills and the declining trend in PISA scores.
Introduction
The PISA results of Finland, particularly in the domain of reading literacy, have exhibited a downward trend subsequent to its initial success in achieving the highest score among OECD countries in the first PISA test conducted in 2000. Researchers from all around the world have been attracted to Finland in hopes of understanding how a country could so quickly achieve such high scores on PISA. Why should a country like Finland, which by many is understood as a country free of assessment, be concerned about declining PISA scores?. However, the PISA scores bring to light the inequities between groups seen in the Finnish education system, specifically in reading literacy.
Methodology
In working to gain more insight into declining PISA scores in Finland, the team–consisting of four members–conducted a literature review of qualitative and quantitative research studies, curriculum, national test scores, and pamphlets produced by Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture. We also interviewed and consulted one member of The Finnish National Agency for Education and an assessment expert from a professional global assessment organization, as well as sought literature suggestions regarding the problem at hand. Team members, working in pairs, searched databases such as Hollis, JSTOR, Google Scholar, and ERIC by using keywords associated with the identified problem. In total, 33 peer-reviewed journal articles, professional organization reports, and executive reports were consulted out of which 22 have been referenced in this review.
Finland and The PISA Scores
Since the middle of the 20th century, a shifting focus has been observed on measuring student outcomes through different methods, particularly in the West. Mons & Pons (2009) argued that standardized tests have long been a popular method in developed countries to measure students’ learning outcomes.
PISA scores are being referenced to justify systems-level policies and reforms. When the OECD conducted the first round of PISA in 2000, Finland scored highest in reading literacy and was ranked 3rd and 4th among OECD countries in scientific literacy and Mathematics (OECD, 2001). However, a declining trend has been observed in Finland’s PISA scores (OECD, 2018). Not only has Finland’s ranking compared to other OECD countries fallen over time, but its raw scores declined over the years in PISA assessments as well (OECD, 2018). The Reading Literacy score (520 in the PISA 2018 survey) has dropped by 16 points relative to 2009 and 26 points relative to Finland’s PISA 2000 average of 546 points. Scores declined in Mathematics by 29 points (536 in 2000 to 507 in 2018) and 24 points in Scientific Literacy scores (546 in 2000 and 522 in 2018) (OECD, 2018b).
Apart from the declining trends in PISA scores, PISA 2018 results suggest that Finland has disparities in educational outcomes within gender, socioeconomic backgrounds, and immigrant status. Finland has the widest gender gap among the 79 participant countries in the PISA 2018 in reading literacy. Girls, on average scored 52 points higher than boys in PISA 2018 surveys. However, the gender gap in reading scores in Finland is not new. Since the first PISA survey in 2000, girls have performed better than boys. According to the OECD (2009), boys in Finland did not perform poorly compared to other countries; the girls performed exceptionally better. It is not the case that Finnish students do not perform well on average. Finland has the highest overall percentage of excellent readers who perform at the highest levels (reading levels 5-6 on a six-point scale) in PISA, and the proportion of excellent readers has remained steady over the years. However, only 9% of boys compared to 20% of girls in Finland achieved the highest reading levels (OECD, 2019a). On the contrary, the number of poor readers (below level 2 on PISA, referring to the SDGs, has been identified as the minimum level of competency that every child should attain at the completion of their secondary school) among boys has increased significantly compared to their girl counterparts in recent years. On the 2018 PISA survey’s reading assessment, 20% of boys compared to 7% of girls performed poorly. Since 2009, there has been a 7 percentage point increase in the proportion of boys who are low-performing readers. Admittedly, the number of poor readers has doubled within the last 10 years. It appears that in Finland, along with other OECD countries, more young individuals now than ever in the twenty-first century have reading skills that are inadequate for learning and participating in society (Ahonen, 2021).
Another concerning factor is the role of family background in students’ performance, which is ever-growing in Finland. The difference between advantaged and disadvantaged students in average Reading scores was larger than the gender gaps, with a 79 points difference in PISA 2018 scores despite having one of the largest percentages of top performers (6%) among disadvantaged students in OECD countries (OECD, 2018). In the last decade, the score of the bottom quartile in PISA scores has declined significantly. As Ahonen (2021) pointed out, while the average of the top quarter remained relatively stable at 565 in 2009 to 562 in 2018, the bottom quarter scored 583 on average, 21 points lower than in 2009. Presently, it is seen that approximately 14% of the youth population in Finland fail to attain a satisfactory level of reading literacy, hence impeding their preparedness for future educational pursuits and integration into society as active participants (Ahonen, 2021).
PISA 2018 results illustrate another discrepancy, reading literacy scores of immigrant students were significantly lower than those of their non-immigrant peers. Controlling parents’ socio-economic status, the difference between the immigrant and non-immigrant students’ average scores is 74 points in PISA scores, one of the highest among participating countries (OECD, 2018).
In the last two decades, a lot of focus has been put on studying the Finnish education system and its incredible PISA scores without focusing on the greater ecological context of Finnish society, overlooking the interconnectedness of literacy and other societal factors. In order to better understand Finland’s declining PISA scores and the increasing discrepancies in reading literacy scores among students, it is important to take into account the perceived role and status of education in the Finnish social fabric.
Unique Social Fabric of Finland and its Education System
For a long time, Finland has valued child agency at the center of their education system (Niemi & Loukomies, 2021). Prior to Finland’s civil war in 1918, students were expected to follow a very structured routine and were held to standards of obedience and self-discipline that juxtapose Finland’s national curriculums’ current desire for student autonomy (Helland et al., 2023). During and after the civil war, Finland saw a huge influx in ideologies that were rooted in the playground movement in which play and physical activity were seen as a way to save “children from external ill–including harmful ideologies such as socialism” (Helland et al., 2023, pp. 16-17). Not only did psychologists like G. Stanley Hall see a need for play in education to help further student’s development (Helland et al., 2023, p. 10)–a concept still valued in Finland’s education system. This belief echoes the similar reasons why teacher colleges were opened in the 1860s–to establish, foster, and disseminate a national identity distinct from Swedish and Russian identities. Over the years, many reforms have been pursued within the education system to ensure teacher competency and optimistic attitudes towards education.
In order to provide effective education in core subjects such as math and literacy while also incorporating “listening and responding to children’s interests, initiatives and experiences” (attributed to FNAE, 2018 as cited in Niemi & Loukomies, 2021, p. 112), teacher candidates are expected to perform at the top of their class. In fact, Finland was the first country in the world to require teachers to hold a master’s degree as a mandatory teaching qualification in 1979, including those teaching at primary schools (Ahonen, 2021). Overall, teacher programs are selective in Finland.
While 58% of teachers in Finland express that they feel as though teaching is viewed as a valuable profession, the most recent Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) report shows teacher satisfaction rates are on the decline due to the stress of changing curriculum, administrative tasks, and creating modifications for students in need (OECD, 2019b). Teachers are recently facing more pressure to meet national and local curricula, while still nurturing student’s agency.
Assessment has been folded into the national curriculum over the years, however, Finland’s perception of testing may not be aligned with that of PISA. It is true that PISA’s assessment of students goes beyond rote memorization of information, however, innately, in testing students on Math, Science, and reading, PISA suggests that skills directly related to these three areas are most important in assessing student competencies. The foundation of the Finnish national curriculum for basic education is the principle of developing human and social capital where “human capital consists of competence, whereas social capital comprises contacts, interaction, and trust between people” (OECD, 2018, p.17), which goes beyond PISA’s values in concrete subject competencies. Even in terms of assessment, Finland is focused on ensuring students feel safe and supported while receiving feedback directly from their teachers to help guide further learning (Finnish National Board of Education, 2016).
The Expansion of Literacy in Finland
The expansion of literacy in Finland commenced around the 16th century when it was under the rule of the Swedish Kingdom and schooling was initially provided at home. (Tveit, 1991, p. 244). In Nordic countries, the ability to read and write is not defined by one word, as in the term literacy in English. In Finland, the concept of literacy has developed over time in two distinct stages. The first stage was defined by the ability to read a previously memorized text. The second stage relates to the modern concept of literacy, encompassing reading and writing comprehension and skills (Tveit, 1991, p. 241-242).
Considering children in Finland were expected to learn to read at home through religious literature, a large concern amongst the general population was the high population of adults who were unable to read. By the end of the 17th century, the percentage of illiterate people in Finland was about 80%. Without the support of parents who are able to read, as well as a lack of priests to teach reading, children were unable to gain the educational instruction necessary for forming literacy skills (Tveit, 1991, p. 249). This cycle continued to perpetuate in various capacities until 1809 when Finland became a part of the Russian empire. An elementary school decree was instituted and made reading and writing skills available to everyone in Finland (Tveit, 1991, p.250). Even then, and as education laws continued to expand–in 1866 elementary education for all children was proclaimed through the School Law–very little attention in school was paid to writing proficiency.
While literacy related to religion was an important factor in teaching children to read, when looking at the 1998 Second International Adult Literacy Survey (SIALS), one can see that reading and writing became more than a way to learn about religion (Linnakylä et al., 2000). In fact, “literacy was examined as an adult skill using printed and written information for acting in society, achieving one’s goals, and developing one’s knowledge and potential” (Latomaa & 2002, p.115). The conception of literacy was constructed through proficiency in “three domains: prose literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy” (Latomaa & 2002, p.115). Two-thirds of Finnish adults showed proficiency in all three domains, with around 20% being at the highest scoring level (Latomaa, 2002). This data helps us understand that the conception of literacy in Finland evolved through the years and does not simply include the ability to read and understand unfamiliar text.
Trevit (1991) pointed out that the shift in the focus from only reading to incorporating writing proficiency in literacy was brought about due to the change in the rapidly developing society which required its citizens to master new skills. A decline in literacy has been shown to hinder the economic development of society, as well as prosperity in cultural and social life (Tveit, 1991, p.251). Looking at how Finland has viewed and addressed the concept of literacy throughout history, and how it is connected to the country’s development can help us understand why the declining trends of PISA scores are crucial for examining and understanding.
Due to the declining trends in reading scores, and findings from studies showing a strong correlation between the desire for reading for pleasure beyond school and reading skills (Elinet, 2016), a lot of attention is being paid to the concept of reading for pleasure among children.
Finally, if we have a glimpse into what Finland views for their citizens in the future in regard to literacy, we can see how dramatically through the years this concept has changed. In the National Literacy Strategy 2030, provided by the Finnish National Agency for Education, a new term for literacy is developed–multiliteracy, which involves “capacities to engage with multimodal texts depending on the situation; an ability to interpret, produce, and critically evaluate texts on different platforms and in ways suitable for different situations” (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2023, p.11)
Conclusion
Following its achievement in leading the world in PISA reading literacy scores in 2000, Finland has subsequently been experiencing a declining trend in reading scores. The proportion of low scores is increasing with a greater representation of students who are boys, socioeconomically underprivileged, and immigrant students compared to girls, privileged and the non-immigrant students. This study takes a holistic approach to address the reading score discrepancies in Finland, a high-performing country in general, focusing on how various factors, such as the unique nature of the Finnish social fabric, its education system, teacher education, and society’s perception of children, intersect to shed light on Finnish students’ declining outcomes in PISA to inform policy and practice.
References
Ahonen, A. K. (2021). Finland: Success Through Equity—The Trajectories in PISA Performance. In N. Crato (Ed.), Improving a Country’s Education: PISA 2018 Results in 10 Countries (pp. 121–136). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59031-4_6
European Literacy Policy Network (ELINET). (2016, March). Literacy in Finland: Country Report Children and Adolescents. Lifelong Learning Program, European Commission. https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/203613/1/Finland_Long_Report.pdf
Helland, H. S., Pedersen, S. H., & Skivenes, M. (2023). Comparing population views on state responsibility for children in vulnerable situations – the role of institutional context and socio-demographic characteristics. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 17(3), 453‑474. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2022.2051674
Knut Tveit (1991) The Development of Popular Literacy in the Nordic Countries. A Comparative Historical Study, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 35:4, 241-252, DOI: 10.1080/0031383910350401
Latomaa, S., & Nuolijärvi, P. (2002). The Language Situation in Finland. Current Issues in Language Planning, 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664200208668040
Mons, N., & Pons, X. (2009). Pourquoi le pilotage par les résultats ? Une mise en perspective héorique et historique de ce nouveau mode de gouvernance, Cité par Mons, N. (2009) Les évaluations tandardisées des élèves en Europe: objectifs, organisation et utilisation des résultats. Bruxelles: EACEA et Eurydice.
Niemi, R., & Loukomies, A. (2021). ‘Should we ask the students’ opinions first?’ Practice architectures of student participation from the perspective of teachers. Improving Schools, 24(3), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480220974225
OECD. (2009). Equally prepared for life? OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/33083/equally-prepared-for-life/
OECD (2001), Knowledge and Skills for Life: First Results from PISA 2000, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264195905-en.
OECD. (2018a). Finland: Student Performance (PISA 2018). Education GPS, OECD. https://gpseducation.oecd.org/CountryProfile?primaryCountry=FIN&topic=PI&treshold=10
OECD. (2018b). Country Note: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2018. [Fact sheet]. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_FIN.pdf
OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 results. Volume I. What students know and can do? Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
OECD (2019b), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
Secretary General of the OECD. (2018). Country Note: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2018. [Fact sheet]. OECD. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/publications/PISA2018_CN_FIN.pdf
Finnish National Board of Education . (2016). National core curriculum for basic education 2014. (ISBN-13:9789521362590; ISBN-10:1319353320)
write