Finland country case study; Country case study prepared for the 2017/8 Global education monitoring report, Accountability in education: meeting our commitments; 2017

International community 
While the present involvement of international actors in the Finnish education system might be seen as limited, 
their influence in shaping the education system should not be undermined. ‘In the early 20
th
century after Finland 
became an independent nation and its education system began to shape up, Germany and Switzerland served 
as a model for the first Finnish schools’ (Sahlberg, 2014, p. xxii). Later, in the educational reforms of the second 
half of the 20
th
century, ‘the idea for an equitable, comprehensive school system came from neighbouring Nordic 
countries, especially from Sweden. More recently, England, Scotland, Canada, and the United States have served 
as places where Finnish educators have found good ideas to enriching teaching and learning in their schools 
(Sahlberg, 2014, p. xxii). International institutions such as the OECD and EU have also guided Finnish education 
policies (Sahlberg, 2014, p. 8). The OECD especially has been recognised as ‘a catalyst for the development of 
Finnish educational policies, especially in serving as a political forum for national discussion’ (Aurén and Joshi, 
2015, p. 64). 
One source of international influence, which could be viewed as a type of accountability measure are the 
international comparisons in which Finland participates: OECD’s Programme for International Student 
Assessment (PISA), Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), Teaching and 
Learning International Survey (TALIS), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) by the 
International Association for Educational Assessment’s (IEA), and Trends in International Mathematics and 
Science Study (TIMSS). The actor mainly responsible for gathering information for international comparisons is 
the Finnish Institute for Educational Research at the University of Jyväskylä. The Institute for Educational 
Research and FNBE also publish Finland’s results in international comparisons, and shape policy 
recommendations based on the results (e.g. Välijärvi, 2014). For example, Finland’s PISA results can be seen as 
an indicator of the state of comprehensive education, shaping educational policies especially in terms of 
recognising development needs (Immonen, 2012). 
Education providers: Local responsibility and autonomy 
The responsibilities for providing basic education defined in Finnish legislation do not focus on individual schools, 
but rather on education providers (European Commission, 2015). Education providers are mostly local 
authorities, as the overwhelming majority of comprehensive, upper secondary and vocational schools in Finland 
are public. Private education providers play a minor role in Finland. According to the Association of Finnish 
Independent Schools, there are a total of 85 private schools in Finland, including comprehensive schools, upper 
secondary schools, and upper secondary schools for adults (Association of Finnish Independent Schools, accessed 

---

6 
2016). Only 1.5 % of the students attend private comprehensive schools (Välijärvi, 2013). Private schools are also 
publically funded, as ‘only about 2% of money invested in education in Finland is private – the smallest figure in 
the world’ (Aurén and Joshi, 2015, p. 66). The number of private kindergartens providing early childhood and 
pre-primary education has been growing in recent years, although municipalities still run over 90% of the 
kindergartens (Kauppalehti, 2014). For information about the provision of higher education, see section 3.6 
below. Furthermore, local authorities provide the majority of pre-primary education, either at kindergartens 
(over 80% of children attending pre-primary education) or at schools (slightly less than 20%) (Ministry of Finance, 
2016). Although exact figures at the national level could not be found, the share of private providers of pre-
primary education is also small. 
Within a local authority or municipality, the decision-making power is in the hands of the elected municipal 
council, which appoints the executive board and advisory boards. One of the boards is typically responsible for 
education (Välijärvi, 2013). The local authorities decide how to allocate the funding from the state as well as the 
local curricula within the framework of the national core curriculum and the recruitment of personnel (MoEC, 
2016b; Välijärvi, 2013). 
Education providers are responsible for the effectiveness and quality of the education they provide. There are, 
for example, no regulations governing class size and the education providers and schools are free to determine 
how to group pupils and students. Local authorities determine how much autonomy is passed on to schools. The 
schools have the right to provide educational services according to their own administrative arrangements and 
visions. In many cases for example budget management, acquisitions and recruitment is the responsibility of the 
schools (MoEC, 2016b). 
Accountability measures for education providers include the legal obligation of the local authorities to ‘evaluate 
their own education provision and to participate in national evaluations’ (European Commission, 2015, p. 157), 
the findings of which must be published. The self-evaluation obligation dictates that either the local authority or 
the schools themselves are required to ‘have a plan for evaluation and quality development’ (European 
Commission, 2015, p. 157). There are no nation-wide exams in the comprehensive school and school inspections 
were removed in the early 1990s. An important tool for the national evaluation of education in basic education 
and vocational education are the learning outcome assessments, which are further explored in section 4. The 
matriculation exam at the end of upper secondary school is the only nationally administered examination, and it 
pertains only to students attending upper secondary schools. The Matriculation Examination Board, which is 
nominated by the Ministry of Education, at the suggestion of the National Board of Education and higher 
education institutions is responsible for arranging and administering the exam. 
The Regional State Administrative Agencies (Aluehallintovirastot) monitor the provision of basic public services, 
including education from early childhood education to upper secondary education. Among their tasks are 
handling complaints from the citizens, requests for rectification and issuing of statements in education and 
cultural services, as well as requests for rectification in students assessments (Regional State Administrative 
Agencies, 2013). The accessibility of basic services is assessed annually in each region. The Evaluation Section of 
the Advisory Committee on Local Government Finances and Administration publishes the Report on Basic Public 
Services, which reveals the current state of services provided by the local authorities: education services (early 
childhood, pre-primary, basic, upper secondary, and vocational education), culture and library services, sports 
services, youth services, and social welfare and healthcare services. The report, which is freely accessible online, 
draws on data supplied by the National Institute for Health and Welfare, the Ministry of Education and Culture, 
the Regional State Administrative Agencies, Statistics Finland, and various other government reporting and 
control systems (Ministry of Finance, 2016). 

---

7 
Regarding the quality assurance of education, the law leaves ‘a great deal of freedom to education providers,’ 
who may choose their approach to school evaluation, along with ‘the areas of focus, methods and frequency of 
the quality assurance procedures’ (European Commission, 2015, p. 42, 157). Education providers may also decide 
to delegate decision-making on quality assurance to schools. In 2009 the MoE
1
published a tool called ‘Quality 
Criteria for Basic Education’ to ‘recommend and support quality assurance work at school and municipal levels’ 
(European Commission, 2015, p. 42). Several stakeholders, including education providers and pedagogical 
experts participated in preparing the Quality Criteria. The guidelines laid out in the Quality Criteria are non-
binding, but widely used by schools and municipalities (European Commission, 2015, p. 157). The MoE describes 
the criteria as ‘a useful tool for local policy-makers for evaluating shorter- and longer-term effects of their 
decisions on school quality. At its best, the information gained with the help of quality criteria enable policy-
makers and authorities to identify shortcomings and put them right in the context of yearly operational and 
economic planning’ (MoE, 2009, p. 7). The quality criteria steer schools and education providers to assess both 
the quality of their structures (governance, personnel, economic resources and evaluation) and the quality of 
their operations, emphasising the point of view of the student. The Quality Criteria also encourage student 
participation in the school’s quality assurance through feedback systems for the students and the operation of a 
student council. The Quality Criteria recommend wide participation, encouraging schools to take into account 
‘the views of municipal decision makers, pupils and their guardians, teachers, principals and other stakeholders’ 
in their quality work (European Commission, 2015, p. 157). Students and parents are usually represented on the 
management boards of schools, together with teachers and non-teaching staff. The purpose of the management 
boards is to promote the development of the school’s activities as well as cooperation both inside the school and 
with parents and the local community (Välijärvi, 2013). 
Traditionally Finland has celebrated high equity among comprehensive schools throughout the country, and the 
differences for example in PISA results between the highest and lowest scoring schools have been low (Välijärvi, 
2013). However, the financial situations of municipalities affect the schooling they offer. Some municipalities 
where the financial situation is in good shape are able to offer their students in comprehensive schools extra 
lessons beyond the minimum required, adding up to several extra weeks of school each year, while those who 
struggle with finances are only just meeting the minimum required days (Lötjönen, 2016). This creates inequality 
among students, which should demand more attention nationally, especially in the face of the prolonged 
economic recession which Finland has suffered. 
In summary, while there are mechanisms in place for monitoring the provision of education from pre-primary to 
upper secondary education at the regional level, the quality of education rests on the autonomous responsibility 
of the education providers, supported by national steering rather than control, and enhanced through national 
evaluations, which are further explored in section 4.