On the paradox of lower performing Swedish speaking schools in Finland

1
On the paradox of lower performing Swedish
speaking schools in Finland An educational
leadership perspective

• Michael Uljens and Johan Korhonen
• Åbo Akademi, Vasa, Finland
• NERA, March 2012
• Copenhagen

2

1. The neo-liberal educational paradigm school in
   the accountability era.

3

• 2. PISA09 Finland

• Reading comprehension from 546 to 536p
• No differences between North, East, West or South
  of Finland (13p, ns.)
• Differences do exist
• Between finnish and swedish schools, 27p.
• Explained by higher number of bi-lingual students
  in swedish speaking schools and learning
  strategies (?)
• Between swedish sp. regions in Finland, 28p.
• Between schools (Fi-Swe 145p, Fi 272p)!
• Between individuals (500p, 200-700)
• Boys and girls biggest in PISA.

4
3. Regional differences within Svenskfinland (raw
data, 28p)
5
Variation within each region large

Metropol Övr.Nyland Åboland Österbotten Åland
Språköarna
6
Regional differences eliminated by controlling
SCES, exc. for Åland!
7
Problem Åland achieved better than expected -
why?

• A school (or student) may achieve better (or
  worse) than what could be expected with respect
  to the sociocultural composition of students of
  the school.
• To the extent a school (or student) performs
  better than expected, the school/student is an
  overachieving school.

8
Research problem How do OA-UA schools look like?

• Method
• To operationalize over/under achievement a value
  was created for every student equal to the
  discrepancy between their actual score in reading
  and their expected score based on individual
  SCES.
• unstandardized residuals in a regression
  analysis with SCES predicting reading scores
• Data PISA09 Finland

9
Residual the distance to the regression line
10
Over-underachieving regions in Swedish speaking
parts of Finland (reading compr., SCES controlled)
11
Åland Islands what happened?

• Active leadership initiative from the regional
  level !
• Open dialogue, trust, no ranking
• Regular meetings on developmental issues among
  principals
• Time plan was analyzed and reallocated
• All districts follows same curriculum
• 26 (!) follow up studies 2003-2012 and they are
  used
• Coordination of continuing education
• Hiring and education of principals renewed
• Special agreements with principals concerning
  tasks
• and responsibility
• - Principals visit classrooms and discuss with
  teachers
• Positive mix with teachers from Finland and
  Sweden
• Cooperation with social-, youth-,
  healthcare/service and homes

12
Exempel på finlandsvenska metropoler Huvudst.
reg. (528 p) och Vasa (544 p)
Inom varje finlandssvensk region finns
högre/lägrepresterande kommuner.

Metropol Vasa
Kovariat hem F(1, 1045)5,77, plt.05
13
Over/underachieving schools(effect of home/SECS
controlled, Variation still104p, swe)
14

• Over/underachieving schools may be found in
• - all swedish speaking regions in Finland - in
  urban and rural areas - on mainly one- and
  bilingual areas.
• But how do they look like?
• Contextual factors
• Size and rescources
• Pedagogical activities
• Leadership and policy

15
1. Contextual factors   School community (size of community village, small town, town, city)       .44
Opportunity to choose between school (2, 1, 0 schools in the area) -.14 ns.
First language not test language -.19 ns.
16
2. School size and teaching resources Proportion of qualified teachers (as experienced by principals)   .30
  Teacher shortage (number of qualified teachers of total number)   -.28
Total school enrollment (school size as number of students) .36
Teacher-student ratio (number of students in relation to teachers) .38
Extra-curricular activities offered by school .20 ns.  
17
 3. Pedagogical activities supportive climate
Teacher stimulation of reading activities - as exp. by students/school level -.17 ns
Teacher structuring and scaffolding - as exp. by students/school level - teachers explaining, follow up/monitoring, dialogue, responsiveness   Teacher caring, attention, support (stud. exp/school level)   Schools support for future orientation in life - as exp. by students/school level .06 ns.     .15 ns.   .33
Disciplinary climate during lessons (as exp. by students/school level) -.14 ns
Teacher behavior - as exp. by principals - Teacher expectations sensitivity conc. students, teacher resistance to change   Student behavior (as exp. by principals) - Student disturbing teaching, teasing/mobbing, drugs, etc   .21 ns.     -.03 ns.
18
  4. Leadership and policy   School leadership - as experienced by principals goal orientation, teacher support, student/class monitoring     .11 ns.
School responsibility curriculum and assessment   School responsibility for resource allocation - e.g. hiring teachers, budget, salaries .16 ns.   .07 ns.
Teacher participation in decision making concerning curriculum, assessment, resources   -.02 ns.
19
Over/under achieving - students and schools
Student level Student level Student level Student level Student level Student level
Stud. exp. of schools support for future orientation Teacher caring, attention, support (stud. exp.) Disciplinary climate Teacher stimulation of reading activities Teacher structuring and scaffolding (stud. exp)
Over/under achievement .19 .19 .07 .01 ns. .18
School level School level School level School level School level School level
Stud. exp. of schools support for future orientation Teacher caring, attention, support (stud. exp) Disciplinary climate Teacher stimulation of reading activities (stud. exp) Teacher structuring and scaffolding (stud. exp)
Over/under achievement .33 .15 ns. -.14 ns. -.17 ns. .06 ns.
20

• Educational leadership - a detail
• Principals in swedish speaking schools experience
  themselves significantly more active than
  principals in finnish speaking schools.
• More
• School development based on evaluation
• Educational support to teachers
• Classroom visits follows students work
• Goal oriented
• Focused on teachers competence and development
• Attention to school climate
• Distribution of responsibility

21
Conclusions1. Different explanations on various
levels of analysisa. Finnish-Swedish speaking
schools (27p) Home and school language
different Learning strategies Not educational
level of homesb. Regions within swedish parts
of Finland (28p) Educational level of homesc.
School level (145 p) Structure and resources
(choice, school size) Leadership matters
superintendent, principal Teachership
22

• II. Explaining variation within a country should
  not
• be forgot in the PISA era.
• III. Focusing on large regions within countries
• hides actual variation between schools within
  these regions.
• IV. Strategy of focusing over/underachieving
  schools appears educationally fruitful and
  useful for school developmental work.
• V. Comparative leadership research!

23
Konklusioner

• 1. Konstruktivt arbete med evaluering för
  utveckling
• Ett demokratiskt skolideal en skola för alla
  har varit vårt framgångskoncept och som nu
  erövrar världen.
• Vi skall inte ge upp det.
• Bevara den respekt för lärarens professionalitet
  som präglat den
• finländska traditionen.
• Offentlig rangordning blir lätt kontraproduktivt
  skampedagogik bör undvikas.
• 2. Lärar- och ledarprofessionaliteten bör
  utvecklas
• En ny syn på lärar- och ledarprofessionalitet som
  inkluderar skolutvecklingsarbete behöver
  utvecklas.
• Förena pedagogisk forskning, skolutveckling och
  lärar- och ledarskapsfortbildning.
• Rektorsutbildningen och fortbildningen genomgås.
• Lärarutbildningen ökar praktik och forskning
  minskar på annan ledd undervisning.
• Former för stöd / samverkan med skoldirektörer
  utvecklas.

24

• 3. Helhetssyn kring samverkan och
  utvecklingsarbetet
• Klokt att aktörer med reellt ansvar för
  verksamheten (universiteten, kommunerna och
  statliga myndigheter) leder utvecklingsarbetet
  (lärarutbildning och fortbildning, forskning,
  utbildningsadministration, läroplansarbete,
  utvärdering).
• Regionala pedagogiska skolutvecklingscentra som
  samverkar med och stöds av Utbildningsanordnare
  (kommun), Utbildningsstyrelsen och Universiteten
  för att arbeta med Utbildning och Undervisning
  (U5)?
• Kommunreformen bör medtänka hur
  skolutvecklingsarbetet skall organiseras.

25

• TY
• )

26
Over/under achieving - students and schools
Student level Student level Student level Student level Student level Student level
Approaches to learning Approaches to learning Approaches to learning Joy read Diversity reading
Memori-sation Elaboration Control
Over/under achievement .08 .12 .23 .41 .34
School level School level School level School level School level School level
Approaches to learning Approaches to learning Approaches to learning Joy read Diversity reading
Memorisation Elaboration Control
Over/under achievement .03 ns. .07 ns. .22 ns. .48 .35
27
variable over/under achievement
Proportion of qualified teachers .30
School leadership .11 ns.
Teacher shortage -.28
Educational resources .01 ns.
Extra-curricular activities offered by school .20 ns.
Teacher behaviour .21 ns.
Student behaviour -.03 ns.
School responsibility resource allocation .07 ns.
School responsibility curriculum and assessment .16 ns.
Total school enrollment .36.
Teacher-student ratio .38
Ratio of computers and school size -.24 ns.
Proportion of computers connected to the internet -.09 ns.
School community .44
Available schooling (competition) -.14 ns.
First language not test language -.19 ns.
28

• Detta syns i skolvärlden på olika sätt
• Redovisningsskyldighet (Accountability)
• Sättet att använda mätresultat är nytt -
  rangordning
• Valfrihet föräldrars val av närskola
• Decentralisering av läroplansarbetet
• Profilering och specialisering
• Ny indirekt, transnationell styrning
• Evaluering styr planering den som styr
  evaluering styr.
• Ny professionalitet? Teaching for testing
• Ledarskap
• Utbildningsexport
• Differentiering av skolsystemet inifrån, AB
  Lärande OY
• Privata aktörer träder in på området