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

Table 1. Stakeholders of FINEEC 
Name
Role 
Ministry of Education and Culture 
Appoints the Evaluation Council (the strategic decision-
making body of FINEEC) 
Provides the funding for FINEEC 
Approves the National Plan for Education Evaluation 
every four years 
FINEEC sends all of its evaluation reports to MoEC, 
invites MoEC representatives to events where results of 
evaluations are published 
Education and Culture Committee of the 
Parliament 
The Committee handles all legislation regarding 
education. The Committee may invite FINEEC experts to 
be heard and to give statements.
Finnish National Board of Education 
Exchange of information between staff. FNBE provides 
information to FINEEC for its evaluations. FNBE asks for 
feedback on core curriculum drafts. FINEEC provides its 
evaluation reports to FNBE.
Ministry of Finance 
Steers and coordinates the financial administration of 
the state, including that of FINEEC.
FINEEC is also held responsible by external actors, for example the Higher Education Unit is regularly reviewed 
by the European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA). The self-assessment reports by the Unit are available to 
the public on FINEEC’s website. In addition, FINEEC organises hearings for its partners and stakeholders, 
publishes all of its evaluation results online and distributes them in print, and collects feedback from the subjects 
of evaluation at the end of each evaluation. 
The guiding principle of FINEEC, enhancement-led evaluation, is mentioned in the Act on the Finnish Education 
Evaluation Centre (1295/2013). In order for evaluation to further enhancement and development of education, 
those being evaluated must participate in the evaluation at every step of the evaluation process (Knubb-
Manninen et al., 2013). This means that the evaluation process should be reciprocal and participatory. When 
evaluation is enhancement-led, it gives schools, education providers, policy-makers and other stakeholders 
relevant information on the processes, which furthers learning by individuals and organisations (Knubb-
Manninen et al., 2013). Trust between the evaluator and the one being evaluated is related to inclusion and 
involvement. The relationship is not based on control from the outside, but on cooperation, and equality 
(Räkköläinen, 2011, p. 45). 
FINEEC implements different types of evaluations for different purposes. There are thematic and system-wide 
evaluations at all levels of the education system, including evaluations which cross different sectors. For example, 
an evaluation project studies student transitions and study paths at educational transition phases from basic 
education to upper secondary education, vocational education and training, and higher education (FINEEC, 
2016b). The three types of evaluations in higher education have already been explained above. In vocational 
education, FINEEC conducts thematic and system-wide evaluations as well as learning outcomes assessments. In 
addition, FINEEC is currently conducting an external evaluation of the quality systems in vocational education 
and training. For basic education, FINEEC conducts sample-based learning outcome assessments, in which ‘the 
results in core subjects are monitored on regular basis with national surveys where schools and students (6-8 
per cent of an age cohort) are selected randomly’ (Välijärvi, 2013). The assessments are founded on the 
‘objectives defined in the core curricula’ (FINEEC, 2016b). The results of learning outcome assessments for basic 
education are published at the national level, but individual schools participating in the surveys only receive their 

---

12 
own results and development recommendations – avoiding the possibility to compare results among different 
schools is intentional. What is common to all of FINEEC’s evaluations is that the information they provide is 
utilised in the development of education both at the national decision-making level, for steering and policy-
making, and at the level of education providers. However, at the level of individual education providers, there is 
trust that the education providers will implement the development recommendations rising from the 
evaluations, and this implementation is not further monitored. FINEEC faces the challenge of communicating the 
evaluation results in a way that is relevant to individual teachers teaching the subjects which are being evaluated, 
as well as informing policy-makers who steer the education providers at the national level.
5.
 
Policy Recommendations 
The following policies could improve the effectiveness of accountability in Finnish education: 

FINEEC should emphasise active and efficient communicaton of its evaluation results at each relevant 
level of the education system, and to the educational institutions and education providers as well as 
policy-makers and the public. The challenge of making the communication relevant and understable to 
each actor can be tackled through continuous and close stakeholder cooperation. 

FINEEC must have sufficient resources to conduct timely evaluations, especially regarding system-wide 
changes implemented in the education sector. If the results of evaluations are published several years 
after policy reforms or budgetary changes have been implemented, the impact could be already severe 
and perhaps difficult to reverse. 

The government must pay more attention to the differences in the resources of local authorities (both 
financial resources as well as expertise) and the impact it has on the equity of basic education, 
especially in the planning of current regional government reform to take place from the beginning of 
2019. 

---

13 
6.
 
Bibliography 
Aamulehti. 11.8.2016. ‘Euroopan tilastot paljastivat julman faktan: Jo joka kuudes nuori aikuinen on syrjäytynyt 
Suomessa.’ [European statistics revealed a cruel fact: Already one in six among young adults is excluded in 
Finland.] (In Finnish.) http://www.aamulehti.fi/kotimaa/euroopan-tilastot-paljastivat-julman-faktan-jo-joka-
kuudes-nuori-aikuinen-on-syrjaytynyt-suomessa-23847682/ Accessed 1 November 2016. 
Association of Finnish Independent Schools. http://www.yksityiskoulut.fi/ Accessed 1 December 2016. 
Aurén, H. and Joshi, D. 2015. Teaching the world that less is more: Global education testing and the Finnish 
national brand. In Smith, W. (Ed.) The Global Testing Culture: Shaping education policy, perceptions, and practice. 
Oxford, Symposium Books.