Danish and Finnish PISA results in a comparative, qualitative perspective: How can the stable and distinct differences between the Danish and Finnish PISA results be explained?

Abstract

The research project presented in this article was designed to provide a better understanding of the stable and significant differences in the PISA results between two otherwise very similar Nordic welfare states, Denmark and Finland. In the PISA studies, Finnish students repeatedly achieve the highest Nordic (and partly worldwide) scores in e.g. reading, science and math, while Danish students score lower. Even though Denmark has one of the world's most expensive educational systems, the OECD ranks the Finnish school system as the world's best both in terms of quality and equity (OECD 2004). The basic research question is why these differences continue to persist. The case study methodology was mainly inspired by Kirsti Klette's classroom research (Klette 2003) which involves both interviews and observations. Thus, the overall design could be labeled mixed methods (Johnson and Onwuegbuzie Educational Researcher, 33(7): [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] 2004). Five regular public schools in each country were sampled for the comparative classroom studies. The basic theoretical approaches follow Hundeide's theory of pedagogical communication and relations (2003) and Csikszentmihalyi's flow-theory (1992). Both this study and statistical studies (Sørensen 2008) show that the difference in the Danish and Finnish PISA results mainly consists in the relatively better score by the lowest scoring 25% of the Finnish pupils compared to the lowest scoring Danish quartile. The results of this study point to a number of possible classroom related reasons why the Finnish school system can produce a better outcome for the lowest scoring quartile of pupils. These reasons are presented and discussed in the article. The study underlines the need to focus more on good classroom management in Denmarkand recommends further international, comparative research in order better to

Finnish Case of Basic Education for All – With Quality Learning Outcomes

“…Interestingly, despite the fairly similar societal welfare environment of the Nordic countries and their comprehensive school systems, only Finland has exhibited excellent PISA assessment outcomes (Andersen, 2010;Wiborg, 2012). The difference was discovered as early as the 1990s when inter-Nordic education research showed the Finnish students having e.g.…”

“…The difference was discovered as early as the 1990s when inter-Nordic education research showed the Finnish students having e.g. better reading skills (Andersen, 2010). Reasons for this difference have been estimated to come from the higher teacher qualification level, the participatory classroom management in Finland, and the fact that Finland"s lowest scoring 25% of the students achieve better than their peers in the other participating countries.…”

“…It is a fact that in Finnish basic education, the early intervention methods are well developed and used as soon as a need is diagnosed, to prevent the students from losing track (e.g. Andersen, 2010;Sahlberg, 2006;Välijärvi, 2011).…”

“…This kind of classroom management ensures that every student may be able to have flow experiences in learning, i.e. total immersion in the joy of understanding, making findings, building new solutions and boosting self-esteem (Andersen, 2010). Further, the Finnish school pupils are tested regularly on average every three or four weeks with a diagnostic purpose: to track if sufficient learning is taking place, and whether early intervention support measures such as extra attention to the child, remedial teaching, special education methods or psychological support are needed.…”

Governing Public School Districts: Insights from Economics, Political Science, and Business Management

“…U.S. systems were also rated the lowest in terms of local (that is, school district) autonomy. That observation aside, this review generally omits from consideration analyses of the causes of productivity heterogeneity based on international and inter-state comparisons using PISA, TIMSS and NAEP scores, primarily because they do not address district-level governance issues, but also because differences seem to reflect deep structural features at the societal level, although it looks like there is something special about Finland and its school system (Andersen, 2010). 4 Indeed, based on structured interviews with 490 school board members and 82 school superintendents and briefer interviews with 91 board members and 12 superintendents from districts in 13 large metropolitan areas, Zeigler, Jennings, and Peak (1974) found that superintendents generally dominated district boards, especially in districts with relatively politically responsive school boards.…”