industry & reform
therefore is highly regarded, respected and
valued by young people, and trusted by
parents and politicians and society.
That has led to a situation where schools
have more professional autonomy and
freedom to create their own learning
environments for children based on their
particular nature.
And finally, another thing that may be
behind these good results is that Finland
has fewer quality control requirements
for schools, like standardised testing or
inspections or other controls – much less
than many other countries, certainly much
less than Australia.
These requirements often lead to
schools deviating from what they think
would be good for children, to what they
think they need to do to satisfy inspections.
Can you give some examples?
One of the biggest things is that every
school in Finland – and this includes every
teacher – is formally responsible and
expected to design its own curriculum.
These can be different from one school
to another. So Finnish teachers have more
freedom regarding what they want to
include in the school curriculum.
In Australia, you have NAPLAN, which is
a fairly systematic way of checking work
that teachers know and what they are able
to do in that certain age level or grade
level. Finland doesn’t have anything like
this, and it leads to more open options in
terms of deciding, for example, how to
teach mathematics.
Another big difference is that teachers
and students have much less programmed
time during the school day in Finland. The
school days are shorter for both teachers
and students, which obviously leads to
more opportunities for children and adults
in the school to do other things that are
not directly linked to classes.
Has respect for teachers always been a
part of Finnish culture?
I don’t think there has been a significant
difference in terms of how teachers have
been respected or viewed by the society
in Finland or in Australia, if you go back to
the 1950s, or probably earlier than that.
I think in all the developed countries, or
probably throughout the world, teachers
have enjoyed a valued position in society,
like judges, priests, medical doctors and
others. So why has the status of teachers
as professionals been declining in some
countries – for example, in Australia,
England and the US – and why has it
remained high status in Finland?
I think for a couple of reasons. As I
said earlier, teachers should be trained
and prepared like all the other high
professionals like medical doctors and
lawyers. They should study the same type
of degrees and in same institutions as
they do in Finland.
The other thing is that, if we regard
teaching as a high profession, then the
work of teachers should look like the
work that medical doctors and lawyers
and other high professionals do. That is,
independent and based on research and
the idea of continuous improvement.
In Finland, so many young people dream
about becoming a teacher and spending
their lives in classrooms, rather than
courtrooms or operation rooms, because
they see the similarities professionally.
Another big difference is that in Australia
the universities train many more teachers
than there are jobs in schools. You have
a surplus of teachers in most parts of
Australia, and in many other countries. But
in Finland, because teachers’ education
is fully paid for by the government, we
only educate teachers to fill open posts in
the labour market. So it means you pretty
much know you have a job, and that is
a very important part of the prestige of
teaching, because it’s one of those areas
that leads directly to employment, and
there are less and less of those specialties
in our societies.
You’re about to begin a role at UNSW.
What do you see as the biggest issues in
Australian education?
Well, first of all, I’m delighted to have an
opportunity to work not only with the
great University of New South Wales, but
also the Gonski Institute for Education.
I’m a huge fan of David Gonski’s work,
and his leadership in the issue of equity of
education, the equity of outcomes. I think
this is one of the key issues in Australia.
The Australian education system
overall is very good. It’s a very advanced,
modern, strong system that has many of
the elements that Finland has. But one
thing that is different in Australia is the
equity part of it. It’s something I’d like to
investigate further: how to enhance equity
in rural and remote Australia.
For example, 80 per cent of children
from Aboriginal families, and children
with special needs, are in government
schools. This means government schools
have a bigger and different job to do than
independent schools.
I would also argue, looking at the
international evidence, that if Australia
improved the way it thought about equity
of education, and followed the guidelines
that David Gonski commissioned, the
overall performance of the Australian
educational system would go back to
where it was 20 years ago.
I’m interested in your thoughts on the
link between multiculturalism and
equity in schooling. I understand there’s
a negative correlation in that regard,
and also between multiculturalism and
test scores like PISA. Given Australia
is so multicultural, how can Finnish
principles be applied to enhance the
schooling experience here, including in
standardised tests?
It’s a great question, and I think it depends
on what you mean by Finnish principles,
but the overall Finnish ideal is to see
every child as an individual, as somebody
who has different interests and different
backgrounds and different abilities and
starting points in life.
This has been interpreted, in Finnish
school practice, in a way that we do not
set a grade level or age level standards. So
I think the Finnish lesson for enhancing
education of diversity and multicultural
classrooms and communities probably
would be that we should care less about
age and grade level standards.
Is there anything else you’d like to add?
I’m the last one to insist that Australia has
to do what Finland has done to improve
its education. But Australian policymakers
and educators would benefit from some
of the solutions, practices and policies
of Finland.
I also think Finland could learn many
things from Australia. I would like to be a
kind of Australian-Finland ambassador for
children in both of our countries.
I’m very interested and happy to have
any type of conversation with anybody
regarding education in Australia, Finland
or anywhere else in the world. I also look
forward not only to conversations where
we agree on things, but also conversations
where we disagree and argue about
things, because that’s the only way to
move forward. ■
educationreview.com.au | 11