Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland © European Union, 2022 Published version Harju-Luukkainen, Heidi Katarina; Sulkunen, Sari; Maunula, Minna Harju-Luukkainen, H. K., Sulkunen, S., & Maunula, M. (2022). Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland. In L. Volante, S. V. Schnepf, & D. A. Klinger (Eds.), Cross-National Achievement Surveys for Monitoring Educational Outcomes : Policies, Practices and Political Reforms within the European Union (pp. 136-152). European Commission. EUR : Scientific and technical research series. https://doi.org/10.2760/59628 2022 CHAPTER 7 Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland Heidi Katarina Harju-Luukkainen, Sari Sulkunen and Minna Maunula Abstract This chapter provides information on results of international achievement surveys and their use in monitoring educational outcomes in Finland. The educational monitoring system in Finland differs from that of many other countries. So far, little attention has been paid to its lack of standardised measurements and official control. Furthermore, Finnish education policies are strongly driven not by the aim to reach high rankings in international assessments but rather by the emphasis on quality and equity of education. This chapter describes the Finnish education system, its core curriculum for basic education and teacher training. We also review international achievement survey results and the education policy monitoring of the country in general. At the end of the chapter, we take a closer look at some monitoring results that have had an impact on political reforms and policy changes. 137 Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland | Introduction to the Finnish education system Along with other Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden), Finland follows a ‘Nordic model’, which is also called a ‘Nordic dialogue’ (Antikainen, 2006; Garvis and Eriksen Ødegaard, 2017; Telhaug et al., 2006). The Nordic countries continually score highly on quality of life measures, and many Nordic countries achieve above-average educational outcomes (Garvis et al., 2019, p. 1). The model aims to provide equal opportunities regardless of students’ socioeconomic status or residential area. Although the Nordic education systems are often considered to be alike, there are significant differences between them (Garvis et al., 2019). The previous chapter discussed the Swedish context; this chapter focuses on the Finnish education system. The Finnish system is regarded as a cornerstone of the welfare of society, and it aims to offer Finnish citizens equal opportunities in education. However, this goal has not been fully met, as is evident in the international assessment results reviewed below (see also Saarinen et al., 2021). The Finnish education system consists of early childhood education and care, and pre-primary, basic, general upper secondary, vocational, higher and adult education. Compulsory education consists of 1 year of preschool, 9 years of basic education and, since August 2021, also some years of upper secondary education. Children enter preprimary education at the age of 6 and start their basic education the year they turn 7 years old. After basic education, students continue in either general or vocational upper secondary school. Students’ compulsory education ends when they reach the age of 18 or when they complete their upper secondary qualifications (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2020). The general structure of the current compulsory education system in Finland was founded in the educational reform at the beginning of the 1970s, and since then its core has been the comprehensive 9-year basic education. However, after that reform, some adjustments were made. For instance, the ability grouping that was widely used during the 1970s was officially abolished in the mid 1980s. Figure 7.1 presents the structure of the Finnish education system in more detail. The arrows show the different educational paths the students can take. The educational paths’ main feature is that students can move freely from one level to the next. In contrast to other European countries, in Finland not only is compulsory education free of charge for students, but the costs of textbooks and other materials, a daily meal, in some cases travel expenses, school healthcare and other welfare services are also covered. In most cases, children attend their local school for compulsory education. However, some schools are specialised in specific subject areas, such as music, languages and sports, and these schools may request that the children sit an entrance examination. The emphasis on children attending the local public school was further strengthened in legislation in 2011 (Thuneberg et al., 2013). | Cross-national Achievement Surveys for Monitoring Educational Outcomes 138 Figure 7.1: The structure of the education system in Finland 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 4 2 2 Master's degrees Universities of applied sciences Master's degrees Universities Specialist vocational qualifications Further vocational qualifications Initial vocational qualifications Vocational education Matriculation examination General upper secondary education Work experience 3 years Voluntary additional year of basic education Doctoral degrees Licentiate degrees Universities Preprimary education Early childhood education and care Finnish national qualifications framework levels EDUCATION SYSTEM IN FINLAND Bachelor's degrees Universities Bachelor's degrees Universities of applied sciences Basic education leaving certificate Basic education Source: Finnish National Agency for Education (2021). Core curriculum for basic education The first national core curriculum for basic education was published in 1970 in Finland, and it was a document strongly emphasising the centralised character of the system. After multiple reforms, a direction for decentralisation and teacher autonomy was set (Vitikka et al., 2012), building the foundations of the Finnish curriculum, in which teachers and local authorities are given a large degree of autonomy. The curriculum for basic education is renewed approximately every 10 years. In addition, smaller refinements are made when needed. Every time a curriculum is renewed, the relevant stakeholders, including principals, teachers, education experts, organisations, researchers and policymakers, take part in 139 Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland | the drafting process. In the final phases, a larger audience is also consulted so that, for instance, parents can comment on the draft. Curricular reforms aim to reflect on changes and challenges in the globalised world in order to proactively prepare children for their future (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016). The latest core curriculum for basic education was implemented for grades 1–6 in 2016 and for grades 7–9 in 2017–2019. The nationwide core curriculum is considered a starting point for equality in and the quality of the entire education system. The national core curriculum provides a common direction and basis for renewing education and instruction in schools. The fundamental value of the core curriculum in basic education is that every pupil is ‘unique and has the right to high-quality education. Pupils are heard, valued and encouraged. They feel that their learning and well-being matter. Pupils are guided towards a sustainable way of life and understanding the importance of sustainable development’ (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, p. 2). It also has an important role in steering the Finnish education system, and it is a framework for local curricula. The local (as well as national) curriculum serves as a concrete guiding tool for teachers in their work, and it also highlights schoolspecific needs and opportunities. The curriculum sets out pedagogical content and goals, and the teacher can apply pedagogical freedom in its implementation. The latest core curriculum (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016) stipulates content for each school subject. The central aim of the new curriculum is to promote instruction with an integrated approach. The intention is to facilitate students’ understanding of the relationships and interdependencies between different types of content. Therefore, the new core curriculum describes seven transversal competence areas (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016, p. 2). These are: 1. thinking and learning to learn; 2. cultural competence, interaction and expression; 3. taking care of oneself and managing daily life; 4. multiliteracy; 5. ICT competence; 6. working life competence and entrepreneurship; 7. participation, involvement and building a sustainable future. Furthermore, multidisciplinary learning modules support the dialogue between different subjects, and schools have to organise one module at least once every year. Teacher training guaranteeing high-quality education One important aspect of the Finnish education system for guaranteeing a good-quality and equal education for all is the high-quality university-level teacher education. A high level of education for teachers is seen as important, because Finnish teachers work fairly autonomously without pedagogical supervision. Teacher training in Finland has a long history dating back to the country’s independence in 1917. In the 20th century, two important steering documents were developed that helped shape the Finnish education system. First, in 1921 the Act on Compulsory | Cross-national Achievement Surveys for Monitoring Educational Outcomes 140 Education (Laki oppivelvollisuudesta) (11) was implemented, followed by the development of teacher training (Kuikka, 1988). This legislation required all municipalities throughout the country to provide education to all children aged 7–12 years. Consequently, however, these new requirements for compulsory education and teacher training led to a substantial teacher shortage (Määttä et al., 2013). Because of this shortage, teacher training colleges were created throughout Finland. After several decades, in 1971 the responsibility for teacher education was transferred to universities. The purpose of this shift was to both reassure the education research community and implement highquality teacher training at master’s level (Harju-Luukkainen et al., 2019). The main goal of Finnish teacher training is to develop enquiry-oriented teachers (Jyrhämä and Maaranen, 2012) who can adapt to their future local settings. The idea is that teachers will be able to combine theoretical knowledge and practice in the classroom. The teacher education programmes conduct research-based teaching that focuses on building studentfocused pedagogical skills and decision-making, especially regarding how to justify one’s own pedagogical decisions (see Kansanen, 2006). In contrast to many other European countries, in Finland the teaching profession is highly valued and competitive, meaning that only the best teachers can enter the profession. Teachers in Finland complete a master’s degree from a research university. For classroom teachers (for grades 1–6), the major subject is education. Subject teachers (grades 7–12) have a subject major and on top of that receive teacher training, called pedagogical studies. International achievement surveys in Finland The Finnish education system has repeatedly received international attention due to its students’ relatively high performance level in international educational assessment studies, such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) organised by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) organised by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) (see, for example, Mullis et al., 2017; OECD, 2016). In Finland, the average results are high despite relatively moderate average economic investments in education (OECD, 2018). Finnish schools also seem to be relatively equitable in terms of the performance differences between socioeconomic student groups (Willms, 2010). In addition, variation in performance between schools is among the smallest in the world (OECD, 2016). Finland has participated in the PISA assessments since the first cycle in 2000. In addition, Finland took part in the fourth-grade students’ PIRLS reading assessment in 2011 and 2016, and TIMSS in 1999 (seventh graders), 2011 (fourth, seventh and eighth graders), 2015 (fourth graders) and 2019 (fourth and eighth graders). Thus, of all these assessments, PISA provides the most regular data, on 15-year-old students for 20 years, allowing achievement trends to be observed. As PISA started with reading literacy as the (11) https://www.eduskunta.fi/pdf/saadokset/101-1921.pdf 141 Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland | main assessment area in 2000 and offers extensive data on main assessment areas at 9-year intervals, the reading achievement of Finnish 15-year-olds can be observed in three cycles, in 2000, 2009 and 2018. Next, we will review the Finnish achievement patterns and trends in PISA, with the main focus on reading. We will then briefly review the trends in the IEA studies PIRLS and TIMSS. In PISA 2000, the Finnish students outperformed their peers in all other participating countries with a reading mean score of 546, which was well above the OECD mean (500). In 2009, Finnish students’ average performance in reading decreased by 10 points, and in 2012 it decreased by a further 12 points (Välijärvi and Sulkunen, 2016). Since then the negative trend has stagnated, and in 2018 the average reading score of Finnish students was 520. Figure 7.2 illustrates the trends in average reading performance in the most recent cycles of PISA (2009–2018) and shows the 2000 mean scores from the first PISA main assessment of reading. Finnish students’ average reading performance has been clearly above the OECD average in each cycle. Despite the declining trend, Finland still ranks among the top OECD countries in PISA reading (OECD, 2019a, p. 57). Figure 7.2: Trends in PISA reading scores in Finland and the OECD average (23 countries) 546 536 524 526 520 500 499 501 497 493 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 PISA 2000 PISA 2009 PISA 2012 PISA 2015 PISA 2018 Finland OECD-23 Source: OECD, PISA 2018 database, Table I.B1.10. In addition to the decline in students’ average performance, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of low performers, and in 2018 nearly 14 % of Finnish 15-yearolds were below proficiency level 2 in reading. The increase in the proportion of low performers started in PISA 2009 and has developed since, as illustrated in Figure 7.3. However, the proportion of top performers has remained stable (approximately 14 %). In addition, in the OECD countries on average the trend has been similar, and Finland still has a below-average share of low performers and an above-average share of high performers. | Cross-national Achievement Surveys for Monitoring Educational Outcomes 142 Figure 7.3: Shares of low and high performers in PISA reading in 2009–2018 in Finland and the OECD average (35 countries) 8 15 11 13 11 14 14 14 19 7 19 8 21 8 23 9 0 5 10 15 20 25 Below level 2 Level 5 or above Below level 2 Level 5 or above Below level 2 Level 5 or above Below level 2 Level 5 or above PISA 2009 PISA 2012 PISA 2015 PISA 2018 Percentage Finland OECD-35a Source: OECD, PISA 2018 database, Table I.B1.7. Finnish students’ performance in mathematics and science in PISA has shown similar trends to those in reading literacy (Välijärvi and Sulkunen, 2016). The average performance in both started to show a significant decline in 2009, which continued in 2012, with the strongest decline in mathematics. Since 2012, the average performance in both mathematics and science has declined further (Leino et al., 2019). Moreover, in both assessment areas the share of low performers has increased and the share of high performers has decreased. In mathematics, Finnish students currently perform above the OECD average, but in science Finland is still among the top OECD countries. As mentioned above, Finland strives for equal educational opportunities for all. In the early cycles of PISA, the Finnish education system was found to have relatively equitable learning outcomes compared with other OECD countries. Since 2009, however, PISA results have shown slightly less equitable performance. In reading literacy, the standard deviation stayed below the OECD average until 2009 but has since been at the OECD average level (Leino et al., 2019). In addition, in many PISA cycles Finnish students’ economic, social and cultural background had a below-average relationship with performance in all areas assessed (OECD, 2010, p. 27; OECD, 2013, p. 37). However, between 2009 and 2018, the performance gap between advantaged students and disadvantaged students increased, for example in reading from 61 points to 79 points. Although the socioeconomic gap in reading in Finland is still below the OECD average (89 points in 2018), it has clearly widened. Furthermore, supporting students with immigrant backgrounds is a challenge for the Finnish educational system, as the gap between these students’ reading performance and non-immigrant students’ reading performance is among the largest in PISA, even 143 Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland | after accounting for socioeconomic status (OECD, 2019b, p. 185). Further equity concerns arise given the Finnish gender gap in reading, which has been among the widest in PISA since 2000. In 2018, girls outperformed boys by 52 points (OECD, 2019b, p. 143). Turning to the PIRLS assessment, Finnish fourth graders’ performance can currently be observed from 2011 and 2016 results. In both cycles, Finland has been among the top countries, and the average reading performance has been stable (Leino et al., 2017; Mullis et al., 2017). In addition, results related to equity have remained the same since 2011. This holds for the standard deviations illustrating the gap between lowand high-performing students and the gender difference. Furthermore, in the fourth grade, Finnish girls clearly outperform boys as the gender difference (22) is slightly above the international average and one of the largest among European countries. Moreover, the share of students achieving the advanced international benchmark has stayed the same (18 %; the international average is 10 %) since 2011. However, the share of students who did not achieve even the lowest benchmark doubled to 2 % from 2011 to 2016. Still, this was only half of the share of these students on average in PIRLS. In TIMSS, the most recent Finnish participants are fourth graders in the 2011, 2015 and 2019 rounds and eighth graders in the 2011 and 2019 rounds. In general, in mathematics Finnish students in both age groups have shown above-average performance in each cycle, and in science their performance has consistently ranked among the top countries (Vettenranta et al., 2020a,b). Nevertheless, consistently with PISA there has been a decline since 2011 in both mathematics and science, although for eighth-grade mathematics the decline was not statistically significant. For eighth-grade science, between 2011 and 2019, there was a 9-point decline (from 552 points to 543 points). For fourth graders, there was a 10-point decline in average performance in mathematics from 2011 to 2015 (with mean scores being 545 and 535, respectively) and a 16-point decline in science (with mean scores being 570 and 554, respectively). In both areas, there were no statistically significant changes in fourth-graders’ performance from 2015 to 2019 (in 2019, the mathematics mean score was 532 and the science mean score was 555). However, between 2015 and 2019, the share of fourth-grade students below the low international benchmark in both mathematics and science increased by 2 percentage points to 5 % and 3 %, respectively. The share of students reaching the advanced benchmark also increased (by 3 percentage points in mathematics and 2 percentage points in science), resulting in 11 % high achievers in mathematics and 15 % in science in 2019. For eighth graders, there was a 3 percentage point increase in students below the low benchmark in mathematics and a notable 5 percentage point increase in in the same figure for science (7 % in maths and 6 % in science in 2019). In science, there was also a 3 percentage point increase in the share of students achieving the advanced benchmark, which resulted in 16 % of Finnish students achieving this benchmark in 2019. All in all, the shares of students achieving TIMSS benchmarks are at a high level internationally. The results of the assessments, particularly those of early cycles of PISA, showed that the Finnish education system, which aims for educational equity, ranked relatively well in international comparisons, as high-performing students did not do any worse than their peers in other countries, whereas the weakest students outperformed their international counterparts (Hautamäki et al., 2009). Thus, the results may have contributed to basic education legislation changes that have strengthened the main principles of the Nordic | Cross-national Achievement Surveys for Monitoring Educational Outcomes 150 Jyrhämä, R. and Maaranen, K. (2012), ‘Research orientation in a teacher’s work’, in Niemi, H., Toom, A. and Kallioniemi, A. (eds), Miracle of Education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 97–114. Kansanen, P. (2006), ‘Constructing a research-based program in teacher education’, in Oser, F. K., Achtenhagen, F. and Renold, U. (eds), Competence Oriented Teacher Training – Old research demands and new pathways, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam and Taipei, pp. 11–22. Kauppinen, M. and Marjanen, J. (2020), Millaista on yhdeksäsluokkalaisten kielellinen osaaminen? Suomen kielen ja kirjallisuuden oppimistulokset perusopetuksen päättövaiheessa 2019 (Achievement in mother tongue and literature at the end of basic education), No 13:2020, Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, Helsinki. Kivinen, O. and Hedman, J. (2017), ‘Moniselitteiset PISA-tulokset ja niiden ongelmalliset koulutuspoliittiset tulkinnat’ (‘Ambiguous PISA results and their problematic interpretations in education policy’), Politiikka, Vol. 59, No 4, pp. 250–263. Kuikka, M. T. (1988), ‘Opiskelijoiden rekrytointi maamme kansakouluseminaareihin 1920-ja 1930-luvuilla’ (‘The recruitment of the students for our country’ s primary schoolteacher colleges in the 1920s and 1930s’), in Jouko, K. (ed.), Tutkimuspohjaista koulutusta kohti – Professori Veikko Heinosen juhlakirja 7.5.1988 (Towards Research Base Education – The yearbook of Professor Veikko Heinonen 7.5.1988), University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland, pp. 54–80. Leino, K., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E. and Rautopuro, J. (2017), Lukutaito luodaan yhdessä: kansainvälinen lasten lukutaitotutkimus (PIRLS 2016), Finnish Institute for Education, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland (http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-7292-9). Leino, K., Ahonen, A., Hienonen, N., Hiltunen, J., Lintuvuori, M., Lähteinen, S. et al. (2019), PISA 2018 ensituloksia – Suomi parhaiden joukossa (PISA 2018 First Results – Finland among the best), No 2019:40, Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki. Literacy Movement (2018), ‘Literacy Movement promotes the literacy and multiliteracy of Finnish children and youth’ (https://lukuliike.fi/the-literacy-movement/). Literacy Movement at School (2019), Lukuliike koulussa -kampanjan loppuraportti (Final report of the Literacy Movement at School campaign) (https://lukuliike.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/ Lukuliike-koulussa-kampanjan-loppuraportti-2019.pdf). Määttä, K., Uusiautti, S. and Paksuniemi, M. (2013), What are Finnish teachers made of? A glance at teacher education in Finland formerly and today, Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, New York. Mäkinen, M. (2021), ‘Perustaidot osallisuuteen kompleksisessa maailmassa’ (‘Basic skills to participation in a complex world’), Finnish Journal of Education Kasvatus, Vol. 52, No 1, pp. 116–121. Ministry of Education and Culture (2000), Finland Can Read – Literacy in the information age, No 4:2000, Ministry of Education and Culture, Helsinki. Ministry of Education and Culture (2017), ‘The Minister of Education and Culture is worried about the weakening of literacy – a National Literacy Forum is set to challenge the declining of literacy and people’s willingness to read’, press release, 31 October (https://minedu.fi/-/kansallinenlukutaitofoorumi-vastaamaan-lukutaidon-ja-lukuinnon-haasteeseen?languageId=en_US). 151 Cross-national achievement surveys and educational monitoring in Finland | Ministry of Education and Culture (2020) ‘Extension of compulsory education’ (https://minedu.fi/ en/extension-of-compulsory-education). Ministry of Education and Culture (2021), ‘The Finnish model’ (https://minedu.fi/en/the-finnish-model). Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P. and Hooper, M. (2017), PIRLS 2016 International Results in Reading, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College, Boston, MA (http:// timssandpirls.bc.edu/pirls2016/international-results/). Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2013), Toimivatko päättöarvioinnin kriteerit? Oppilaiden saamat arvosanat ja Opetushallituksen oppimistulosten seuranta-arviointi koulujen välisten osaamiserojen mittareina (Do the national criteria for students’ final grades work? Teachers’ grading and national assessments as indicators for between-school differences), Finnish National Agency for Education, Helsinki. Ouakrim-Soivio, N. and Kuusela, J. (2012), Historian ja yhteiskuntaopin oppimistulokset perusopetuksen paattovaiheessa 2011 (Learning outcomes of history and social studies in the final stage of basic education in 2011), Finnish National Agency for Education, Helsinki. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2010), PISA 2009 Results (Volume IV): What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results (Volume II): Excellence through equity: Giving every student the chance to succeed, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and equity in education, OECD Publishing, Paris, doi:10.1787/9789264266490-en. OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, doi:10.1787/ eag-2018-en. OECD (2019a), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What students know and can do, OECD Publishing, Paris (https://www.oecd.org/education/pisa-2018-results-volume-i-5f07c754-en.htm). OECD (2019b), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed, OECD Publishing, Paris (https://www.oecd.org/publications/pisa-2018-results-volume-ii-b5fd1b8f-en.htm). Saarinen, J., Siekkinen, K., Laimi, T., Ahonen, A., Bernelius, V., Brunila, K. et al. (2021), Tasa-arvo teoiksi ja todeksi – Sukupuolten sisäisten ja välisten oppimistuloserojen syitä ja taustoja perusopetuksessa, No 19:2021, Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, Helsinki. (https://karvi.fi/ wp-content/uploads/2021/08/KARVI_1921.pdf). Seppänen, P., Rinne, R., Kauko, J. and Kosunen, S. (2019), ‘The use of PISA results in education policymaking in Finland’, in Waldow, F. and Steiner-Khamsi, G. (eds), Understanding PISA’s Attractiveness: Critical analyses in comparative policy studies, Bloomsbury, London, pp. 137–159. Sulkunen, S. and Kauppinen, M. (2018), ‘“Ainakin muutaman pojan luokallani tiedän lukevan”: poikien (osin piiloiset) lukuja kirjoitustaidot’ (‘Boys’ partly hidden literacies’), in Kivijärvi, A., Huuki, T. and Lunabba, H. (eds), Poikatutkimus, Vastapaino, Tampere, Finland, pp. 146−173. Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A. and Aasen, P. (2006), ‘The Nordic model in education: education as part of the political system in the last 50 years’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 50, No 3, pp. 245–283. | Cross-national Achievement Surveys for Monitoring Educational Outcomes 152 Thuneberg, H., Vainikainen, M.-P., Ahtiainen, R., Lintuvuori, M., Salo, K. and Hautamäki, J. (2013), ‘Education is special for all – the Finnish support model’, Gemeinsam leben, Vol. 21, No 2, pp. 67–78. Vainikainen, M.-P. and Harju-Luukkainen, H. (2020), ‘Educational assessment in Finland’, in HarjuLuukkainen, H., McElvany, N. and Strang, J. (eds), Monitoring of Student Achievement in the 21st Century – European policy perspectives and assessment strategies, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 131–142. Vainikainen, M.-P., Thuneberg, H., Marjanen, J., Hautamäki, J., Kupiainen, S. and Hotulainen, R. (2017), ‘How do Finns know? Educational monitoring without inspection and standard-setting’, in Blömeke, S. and Gustafsson, J.-E. (eds), Standard Setting: International state of research and practices in the Nordic countries, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 243–259. Välijärvi, J. and Sulkunen, S. (2016), ‘Finnish school in international comparison’, in Niemi, H., Toom, A. and Kallioniemi, A. (eds), Miracle of Education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 3–21. Vettenranta, J., Välijärvi, J., Ahonen, A., Hautamäki, J., Hiltunen, J., Leino, K. et al. (2016), PISA 2015 ensituloksia – Huipulla pudotuksesta huolimatta (PISA 2015 Frst Results – At the top despite the drop), No 2016:41, Finnish National Agency for Education, Helsinki (https://julkaisut. valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/79052/okm41.pdf). Vettenranta, J., Hiltunen, J., Kotila, J., Lehtola, P., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E. et al. (2020a), Perustaidoista vauhtia koulutielle – Neljännen luokan oppilaiden matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden osaaminen – Kansainvälinen TIMSS-tutkimus Suomessa (Fourth-grade Students’ TIMSS Results in 2019), Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Vettenranta, J., Hiltunen, J., Kotila, J., Lehtola, P., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E. et al. (2020b), Tulevaisuuden avaintaidot puntarissa – Kahdeksannen luokan oppilaiden matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden osaaminen – Kansainvälinen TIMSS-tutkimus Suomessa (Eighth-grade Students’ TIMSS Results in 2019), Finnish Institute for Educational Research, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. Vitikka, E., Krokfors, L. and Hurmerinta, E. (2012), ‘The Finnish national core curriculum: structure and development’, in Niemi, H., Toom, A. and Kallioniemi, A. (eds), Miracle of Education: The principles and practices of teaching and learning in Finnish schools, Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp. 83–96. Volante, L., DeLuca, C., Baker, E., Heritage, M., Schneider, C., Stobart, G. et al. (2020), ‘Synergy and tension between large-scale and classroom assessment: international trends’, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, Vol. 39, No 4, pp. 21–29. White, B. (2007), ‘Are girls better readers than boys? Which boys? Which girls?’, Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 30, No 2, pp. 554–581. Willms, J. D. (2010), ‘School composition and contextual effects on student outcomes’, Teachers College Record, Vol. 112, No 4, pp. 1007–1037.