1 / 28

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

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

candy
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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. 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. RegionaldifferenceswithinSvenskfinland (raw data, 28p)

  5. Variation withineach 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 (readingcompr., SCES controlled)

  11. Åland Islands – whathappened? • 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, p<.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. Over/under achieving - students and schools

  16. 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

  17. Conclusions1. Different explanations on variouslevels of analysis:a. Finnish-Swedishspeakingschools (27p) Home and schoollanguage differentLearningstrategies Not educationallevel of homesb. Regions withinswedish parts of Finland (28p)Educationallevel of homesc. School level (145 p)Structure and resources(choice, schoolsize)Leadership matters – superintendent, principalTeachership

  18. 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!

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. TY : )

  22. Over/under achieving - students and schools

  23. 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

More Related