Quality and Standards in Human Services in Ireland - the NESC ...

CONCLUSION 103On the surface, this might seem to be a plausible response. But if we recall theconcerns about Ireland’s comparative educational performance (Finn, 2012) andexamine the reasons behind Finland’s success, another perspective emerges. It hasbeen convincingly argued that Finland has consistently scored well in the PISAscores not because it is an especially homogenous country, nor because of its socialdemocratic political heritage and commitment to equity. Other Nordic countriesshare these general characteristics but have not been able to emulate Finland’seducational successes. Rather the quality of Finnish education has been attributedto a number of features of its system of teaching training, early assessment, andclassroom practice. Thanks to these aspects, teaching in Finland is distinguished byits constant reliance on low-stakes testing for cognitive difficulties from age two anda half. These tests are not concerned primarily with registering failures in learningbut with indicating ‘where, at what step in problem solving, a breakdown occurredand thus help to suggest what might be done to overcome it’ (Sabel, C. et al., 2011:12). By the time Finnish children reach the equivalent of primary school at the ageof six, teachers are able to ‘anticipate learning difficulties on the basis of a richbattery of further tests’ (ibid.). Finnish teachers can carry out this kind of testingbecause of reforms to teacher education programmes that have versed teachers inthe conduct of research. As a result, teachers in Finland view themselves as a widercommunity of ‘professional educators and researchers’ (emphasis added) andspecial needs teachers are seen as a particularly important link between ‘pedagogyin the schools and research activities outside them’ (ibid.: 29). Although the contrastwith Ireland is stark, this should not be taken as a lack of interest in practicalresearch on the part of Irish teachers. Irish principals believe that they have neitherthe capacity nor resources, especially of time, to become ‘genuine data-generating,self-evaluating professionals’ (McNamara & O'Hara, 2012: 14). It is an importantissue for the Department of Education and Skills and the Teaching Council toconsider how such a cadre of professionals can be built up through alterations toteacher-training programmes and to the process of inspection.Conceivably, one could assent to the proposition about the importance of instillinga culture of reflective practice within schools while dissenting from the view that itshould be supported by a national data and standards framework, the second ofthis chapter’s two main recommendations. Commentators will sometimes point tothe lack of standardised, high-stakes testing within Finnish schools as proof thatschools ‘know’ best and should be allowed to teach without undue, centralinterference. While it is important to acknowledge the limitations of standardised,summative testing, this does not entail that every school should be autonomous interms of assessing its own performance. The Finnish system has been described as a‘trade of autonomy in return for rich and continuing reporting on results’ (Sabel, C.et al., 2011: 32), a portrayal that could equally apply to educational reforms inVictoria, Australia (see Box 6.1). Finnish schools are governed by a process of‘steering by information’, which includes data, not just on important outcomes, butalso underlying problems, and the provision of tools to better address learningdifficulties. This is not to say that Finland has totally resolved the two main issues ofinstilling continuous monitoring and providing a national standards infrastructure.Evidence has emerged of significant variations in the provision of special needseducation in different municipalities within Finland. As different decision-makingcriteria for providing special education throughout the country are being used, this