See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321337738

Comparing the Philippine and Finnish Educational Landscapes: Possibilities and

Challenges

Working Paper · October 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18815.92327

CITATIONS READS
0 2,459

All content following this page was uploaded by Arvin Kim Ascano Arnilla on 28 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Comparing the Philippine and Finnish Educational Landscapes: Possibilities and Challenges

Arvin Kim A. Arnilla, PhD

Aklan State University
Philippines

Introduction
To compare the education landscapes in the Philippines and Finland is tedious undertaking considering that in
many aspects, the two countries are polar opposites. The attempt at comparing the two countries’ education takes
place under these contexts. In terms of achieving the learning outcomes, Finland clearly emerges as a model for
benchmarking for Philippine education. Table 1 details how these two countries differ in terms topography and
demographics.

Table 1. Topographic and Demographic Differences between the Philippines and Finland
Categories Philippines Finland
Geography Archipelagic Peninsular
Land Area 300,000 sq. km 338,145 sq. km
Climate Wet and Dry Summer, Autumn, Winter and Spring
Economy Developing Developed
Population 104 million 5.5 million
Tagalog (37.52%) Finnish (88.3%)
Bisaya (14.69%) Swede (5.6%)
Cebuano (8.16%) Russian (1.4%)
Languages
Ilocano (8.12%) Others (5%)
Hiligayon/Ilonggo (6.64%)
Others (more than 178) (24.86%)
Government Presidential Parliamentary

Overall, this paper intends to look at the educational landscapes of the Philippines and Finland focusing on
assessment and support. It is organized following this outline: 1) “Overview of the Philippine and Finnish Education
Landscapes” presents the educational systems and teacher qualification; 2) “Attempt at Comparison” discusses the
two landscapes based on Lauren Resnick’s (2010) categories namely, human capital, social capital and tools and
routines; and 3) “Final Word” summarizes the divergent points and converging trends observed in the two landscapes.

Overview of Philippine and Finnish Education Landscapes

Philippines. The Philippine Education
System is shaped by its colonial past courtesy of
Spain and the United States. The former
introduced sectarian education found in the
Catholic schools while the latter established the
public education system focused on reading,
writing and mathematics (Department of
Education, n.d.).
For several decades, a ten-year basic
education curriculum in the public schools was in
force with few exceptions of the private schools.
The overall performance of Filipino was
not encouraging. One observer commented,

Basic science and science education remain weak. This is reflected in the Trends in Mathematics and Science
Study 1999 Assessment Results (TIMMS 1999). The Philippines is ranked 36th out of the 38 participating
countries in the survey. The TIMMS measures trends in high school students’ science and math achievements.
This hardly improved in the TIMMS 2003 where the country ranked 41st in Mathematics and 42nd in Science
out of the 45 countries surveyed (Tapang, 2007).

1
 A major reform in education was
implemented in 2011 adapting a 12-year basic
education framework: one year kindergarten
becoming compulsory, six years for elementary, 4
years for junior high school and 2 years for senior
high school (Philippine Congress, 2013).
The reforms in the basic education sector has
an integrative impact on the entire education system
including higher education. Until the time of this
writing, higher education institutions and the
Commission on Higher Education take on the
enormous work of revising curricula because by First
Semester, AY 2018-2019, the first batch of K to 12
graduates will enter higher education.
To caution the impact of transition, the Source: http://hfu.eu.com/finland-info/
education department has instituted its “Curriculum
Support System” focusing on the following: 1) teachers, 2) learning resources, 3) learning environment, 4) assessments
and exits, 5) school leadership and management, and 6) community-industry relevance and partnerships. Deped
presented statistics on newly hired teachers, newly published instructional materials, newly built classroom,
institutionalization of assessment activities, retooling to school administrators, forging of new alliances with other
stakeholders (Andaya, 2016).
However, these strategies have not erased the present problems haunting Philippine education. The public
schools are perennially understaffed with classroom teachers and other helping professionals. Thus, teachers’
appointment may come in various categories: permanent (paid by the national government), contractual (paid by the
local/provincial school boards) or volunteer (no compensation). The same scenario is also shown on the number of
classrooms.
All these convoluting issues are highlighted in urban areas during opening of classes each year. Creative
solutions but may not be necessarily effective, were proposed and implemented in the hope of solving the dearth of
infrastructural resources. (Department of Education, 2004). Double-shift (6AM- 12PM and 12PM-6PM) classes are
not uncommon situations especially in the National Capital Region (Metro Manila) (Alcober, 2014).

On Becoming a Teacher in the Philippines. Teaching in the Philippines is one among the many regulated
professions. Entry-level qualification requires the completion of at least a bachelor’s degree in education or its
equivalent or any bachelor’s degree with 18 units in teaching (Department of Budget and Management). Passing a
Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET) is also required (Philippine Congress, 1994).
However, this requirement was waived during the the initial offering of the senior high school in the public
schools. The education department has lowered the qualification standards in order to fill in the demands for teachers.
Under Deped Order 27 s. 2016, applicants for entrly-level positions should have at least a bachelor’s degree in the
relevant field or any bachelor’s degree with 15 units of courses relevant to the field/strand; no teaching experience
and training required. As regards the status of appointment, candidates for permanent position must passed the
licensure examination for teacher while none for the contractual and part-time (Department of Education, 2016).
Pursuing graduate studies among Filipino teachers hinges on upgrading of qualifications and increase of self-
esteem (DS Cruz & Ramirez, 2016). Following the compensation plan of the government, public school teachers must
earn credits in the graduate studies in order to qualify to higher ranks with higher equivalent pay.

Finland. The Finnish ranking in the 2015 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) has dropped
(Heim, 2016). But the country is still among the top performers. For years, the Finnish education system is an envy
despite the lower public spending on education compared to countries like the U.S, UK among others (OECD, 2017).
Finnish children attend some non-compulsory pre-primary education before proceeding to the compulsory
nine-year basic education. Upper secondary education is divided into the two clearly separate systems- upper
secondary schools (academically oriented) and vocational institutions (prepare students for direct employment or
further education in the polytechnics). Students coming from these different strands may still proceed to tertiary
education via study-program specific entrance examinations. Entrance to upper secondary is based on application and
basic school certificate, with special requirements for some program (Kupiainen, Hautamäki, & Karjalainen, 2009).

2
 On Becoming a Teacher in Finland. Government Decree 986/1998 as amended in Government
Decree 865/2005 provides the teacher qualifications for Finnish teachers at different levels of the education system.
Due to its popularity in the country, the universities implement a stringent admission and retention measures to select
and keep the best for the profession (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2016).
With the exception of the kindergarten teachers whose qualification include bachelor’s degree, teachers are
required to have a master’s degree. The classroom teacher must specialize in education while the subject teacher must
concentrate on her subject taught. Both of these teachers may continue academic studies to doctorate level (Kupiainen,
Hautamäki, & Karjalainen, 2009).
The University of Helsinki describes the process involved in the obtaining teacher qualifications in Finland:

[It] requires the completion of a second-cycle university degree, pedagogical studies for teachers (60 credits)
and studies in the school subject in question. In order to qualify as a teacher at a general upper secondary
school, you must complete at least 120 credits in one of the school subjects in question (basic, intermediate and
advanced studies). In order to qualify as a teacher in basic education, you must complete at least 60 credits in
one of the school subjects in question (basic and intermediate studies). On the general upper secondary level,
60 credits of studies in a second school subject in which you wish to qualify (basic and intermediate studies)
are sufficient, with the exception of teacher qualifications in Finnish or Swedish language and literature.

Graduates who have completed the studies required for subject teacher qualifications are qualified to work as
subject teachers in basic education and general upper secondary school as well as general studies teachers in
vocational schools, universities of applied sciences, folk high schools, adult education centers and workers’
institutes.

Typically, students complete pedagogical studies oriented toward basic and upper secondary education, but
pedagogical studies oriented toward adult education are equally valid. Pedagogical studies oriented toward
adult education do not require students to major in the discipline they wish to teach. The pedagogical studies
for teachers and qualifications in further subjects can also be completed after graduation (University of Helsinki
- Faculty of Arts).

An Attempt at Comparison
Human Capital. Both countries have different pathways in producing “teachers”. Stringent admission to
teacher training institutions is observed in Finland, giving the universities the choice to select from among the
aspirants. In terms of qualification, Finnish teachers must have a master’s degree (with the exception of kindergarten
teachers) and take teaching as a research-oriented field.
In the Philippines, teachers must have at least a bachelor’s degree and passed a pencil and paper licensure test
given by the national government. Pursuing graduate or post-graduate degree is optional for those who do not aspire
for rank promotion. It is not primarily pursued for the purpose to improving teaching competence. Statistics from the
Philippines’ Commission on Higher Education consistently listed teacher education as a popular course next to
business and management courses (Commission on Higher Education). However, the most recent result of the
licensure examination for teachers showed a dismal performance- 10.39% elementary and 25.46% secondary (PRC
Board, n.d.).
Class size may also be pointed out as a striking difference between the two educational landscapes. Per policy
of the Philippines education department, class size is pegged at 45 students per class (Andaya, 2016). This number
should be treated with caution as there are schools in the urban areas that adapted double shift class schedule to squeeze
in burgeoning student population. Length of time to present and discuss lessons is shorter and fast-paced compared to
students having one full-day in schools. This is one question not covered in Hattie’s work. A study to look into the
difference of learning outcomes between students in the double shift and single shift classes is in order. It noteworthy
checking if changing “teaching behaviors” based on shortened class hours will also affect learning outcomes. Issues
on the qualifications and competence may come into play.
In Finland, learners depending on day and group had one full day at school whether it is academic or having
fun at the playground (Korpela, 2011). But as argued by one researcher, “[r]educing class sizes may be but one means
to these ends, although it does not appear to be among the most effective of all policies that could be introduced”
(Hattie, 2005).

3
 Social Capital. Both countries believe on the relevance of formal education that can be seen in the reputation
enjoyed by both Filipino and Finnish teachers in their respective communities. In Finland for example, observers note
that,

[t]he academic status of classroom teacher education has undoubtedly contributed to the continuous popularity
of teaching profession in Finland, as well as to the trust parents feel towards their children’s teachers and the
school in (Kupiainen, Hautamäki, & Karjalainen, 2009).

In the Philippines, as previously noted, the teacher education course has the second highest enrolment in the
colleges and universities. Similarly, there is one program by Philippine education department known as “Brigada
Eskwela” which showcases the strong linkage between the school and the community. The program launched in 2003
brings together volunteers (parents, teachers, students, employees and other community members) in preparing the
public schools before the start of classes. Repairs in the classrooms and upkeep of other school facilities are done
during this weeklong activity (Carreon Jr., 2015).
However, there is one caveat on this issue. Finnish parents trust the competence of Finnish teachers inside the
classrooms (Kupiainen, Hautamäki, & Karjalainen, 2009). In the Philippines, Filipino parents are suspicious of
teachers specially when it comes to ranking of their children. This condition prompted the education department to set
guidelines in the selection of honor pupils/students in the public schools to avoid troubles between parents and teachers
(Department of Education, 2012; Department of Education, 2016). (Department of Education, 2012) (Department of
Education, 2016)
Tool and Routines. Both countries administer conduct assessment on various levels. The difference lies on the
frequency of testing and the objectives behind administering them. In Finland, testing conducted in the classroom
assessment or in a nationwide scale serves a primary purpose – to improve the quality of instruction.
In the Philippines, policy on assessment is set at the national level and done to rank learners and ultimately, the
schools. The current policy dictates several types of assessment across the grade levels. For the formative and
summative assessment in the classroom setting, DO 8 s. 2015 covers kindergarten to Grade 12 (Department of
Education, 2015). Student learning assessment include Early Language, Literacy and Numeracy Assessment for Grade
3, exit assessment (National Achievement Test NAT) for Grades 6, 10 and 12, and career assessment
(National Career
Assessment Examination) for Grade 9 (Department of Education, 2016).
Finland is a top performer in PISA while the Philippines has refused to participate for years. Aside from
TIMMS 1999 and 2003 when the performance was disappointing, there is simply no way to measure Filipino students’
learning outcomes against its peers outside the country.
In terms of support services, special education services at varying levels are afforded each pupil/student in the
Finnish System. It could be a simple accommodation addressing a different learning style/need of the client or
modification of the curriculum suited to an individual student’s need. There are trained professionals (SPED teacher,
psychologist, nurse, social worker) who are present in the school organization to address the needs. In the Philippine
context, helping professionals like the psychologists and social workers are not visible in school setting because there
is none in the organization. As regards the guidance counselor, there are very few public school which has licensed
guidance counselors.
This situation in public schools and in small private schools resulted to lack of assessment and early
interventions for children suspected to developmental delays or disorders. Families belonging to the lower socio-
economic status bear the impact of this constrain (Arnilla, 2017).

Final Words
Diverging Points. Kupiainen, Hautamäki & Karjalainen (2009) compared the General Western Model and the
Finnish System of Education. From their description, the former perfectly fits the attributes of the Philippine Education
System which could be attributed to Philippine education modelled after the American system. The focus on
standardization is clearly reflected on Philippine education department’s policies in hiring, placement and promotion
of teachers. It even extends to setting the content of course syllabi, assessment procedures and rigid school inspection.

4
Table 2. Comparing the General Western Model and Finnish System
(Kupiainen, Hautamäki, & Karjalainen, 2009)
GENERAL WESTERN MODEL THE FINNISH SYSTEM
Standardisation Flexibility and diversity
Strict standards for schools, teachers and students to School-based curriculum development, steering by
guarantee the quality of outcomes. information and support.

Emphasis on literacy and numeracy Emphasis on broad knowledge

Basic skills in reading, writing, mathematics and
science as prime targets of education reform.
Consequential accountability
Evaluation by inspection.
Equal value to all aspects of individual growth and
learning: personality, morality, creativity, knowledge and
skills.
Trust through professionalism
A culture of trust on teachers’ and headmasters’
professionalism in judging what is best for students
and in reporting of progress.

Converging Trends. In spite of the glaring divergences between the two educational landscapes, there are also
issues where the two met. These are the following:
First, both societies have high regard for formal education, teachers as professionals and the teaching profession
as a whole.
Second, legislations on education in both countries are in place.
Third, both education systems share similar attributes i.e. 12 years of basic education (with different labels in
Finland) and stages (with variation in the number of years).

Finland Philippines
Higher Education Higher Education
Senior High School (2 yrs.)
Upper Secondary (3 yrs.) Vocational Educ. (3 yrs.) Tech- Arts &
GAS Sports
Voc Design
Junior High School (4 yrs.)
Basic Education (9 yrs.)
Elementary (6 yrs.)
Pre-primary (voluntary) Kindergarten (compulsory)

Fourth, despite the disparity in human and material resources, there is genuine intention to support all children
to succeed regardless of condition and status in life.

References

Alcober, N. (2014, June 2). Too many students, too few classrooms. The Manila Times.
Andaya, J. (2016, November 4). The K to 12 Support System. Pasig, Philippines: Department of Education. Retrieved
October 18, 2017, from Department of Education:
http://www.deped.gov.ph/sites/default/files/page/2016/J.Andaya%20Education%20Summit.pdf.
Arnilla, A. (2017, August). Involvement of Grandmothers in Caring for Children with Autism in the Philippines: An
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5(3), 151-162.
Carreon Jr., L. (2015, May 30). What we can learn from Brigada Eskwela? Rappler.
Commission on Higher Education. (n.d.). Higher Education Enrollment by Discipline Group: AY 2006-07 to 2016-
17. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from http://api.ched.ph/api/v1/download/4319
Cruz, N. (2015). The implementation of the mother tongue-based multilingual education in grade I in the public
elementary schools in Pangasinan. DLSU Research Congress 2015 (March 2-4, 2015). 3. Manila: De La Salle
University.
Department of Budget and Management. (n.d.). Chapter 6: Position Classification and Compensation Scheme for
Teaching Positions in Elementary and Secondary Schools. Retrieved October 17, 2017, from
http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Manual-on-PCC-Chapter-6.pdf.
Department of Education. (2004, December 13). DO 62 s. 2004. Adoption of Double Shift Policy in Public School to
Address Classroom Shortage. Pasig, Philippines.

5
 Department of Education. (2012, February 17). DO 16 s. 2012. Guidelines on the Implementation of the Mother
Tongue-Based- Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE). Philippines.

Department of Education. (2012, September 6). DO 74, s. 2012. Guidelines on the Selection of Honor Pupils and
Students of Grades 1 to 10 of the K to 12 Basic Education Curriculum. Pasig, Philippines.
Department of Education. (2013, July 3). DO 28 s. 2013. Additional Guidelines to DepEd Order No. 16, s. 2012
(Guidelines on the Implementation of the Mother Tongue Based-Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE).
Philippines.
Department of Education. (2015, April 1). DO 8, s. 2015. Policy Guidelines on Classroom Assessment for the K to
12 Basic Education Program. Pasig, Philippines.
Department of Education. (2016, June 30). DO 55, s. 2016. Policy Guidelines on the National Assessment of Student
Learning for the K to 12 Basic Education Program. Pasig, Philippines.
Department of Education. (2016, June 7). DO 36, s. 2016. Policy Guidelines on Awards and Recognition for the K
to12 Basic Education Program. Pasig, Philippines.
Department of Education. (2016, May 2). DO 27 s. 2016. Qualifications Standards (QS) for Senior High School (SHS)
Position in the Department of Education. Philippines.
Department of Education. (n.d.). Historical perspective of the Philippine educational system. Retrieved October 30,
2017, from Department of Education: http://www.deped.gov.ph/history
DS Cruz, T. & Ramirez, E. J. (2016, June). Motivation, satisfaction and difficulty encountered by higher education
institution in manila graduate students in pursuing graduate studies. International Journal of Scientific and
Research Publications, 6(6).
Geronimo, J. (2016, January 26). 2015: Protest against K to 12 at its loudest, reaches the Supreme Court. Rappler.
GMA. (2016, May 10). Luistro hoping Duterte regime will continue K-12 program. Retrieved October 18, 2017, from
GMA News Online: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/565836/luistro-hoping-duterte-regime-
will-continue-k-12-program/story/
Hattie, J. (2005). The paradox of reducing class size and improving learning outcomes. International Journal of
Educational Research, 43, 387–425.
Heim, J. (2016, December 8). Finland’s schools were once the envy of the world. Now, they’re slipping. The
Washington Post.
Korpela, S. (2011, March). This is Finland. Retrieved October 15, 2017, from https://finland.fi/life-society/a-day-in-
the-life-of-stromberg-school/
Kupiainen, S., Hautamäki, J. & Karjalainen, T. (2009). The Finnish Education System and PISA. Helsinki, Finland:
University Print.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2016, November). Teacher education in Finland. Retrieved October 29, 2017,
from http://minedu.fi/documents/1410845/4150027/Teacher+education+in+Finland/57c88304-216b-41a7-
ab36-7ddd4597b925
Monforte, C. (2015, June 29). Duterte: K to 12 implementation ill-advised. Business Mirror.
Navarro, T. M., Abao, E., Bacus, R., Alda, R., & Espera, C. (2016). Mother Tongue-Based Instruction: Policy to
Practice. International Journal of Education and Research, 4(3).
OECD. (2017). Public spending on education. Retrieved November 2, 2017, from
https://data.oecd.org/eduresource/public-spending-on-education.htm
Philippine Congress. (1994). Republic Act No. 7836. Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994.
Philippine Congress. (2013). Republic Act No. 10533. Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013.
PRC Board. (n.d.). List of passers: March 2017 LET results teachers board exam (elementary, secondary)
prcboard.com. Retrieved November 2, 2017, from http://www.prcboard.com/2017/03/Results-March-2017-
LET-Teachers-Board-Exam-Elementary-Secondary.html
Resnick, L. (2010, April 1). Nested Learning Systems for the Thinking Curriculum. Educational Researcher, 39(3),
183-197.
Tapang, G. (2007). Science and technology education for whom? In B. Lumbera, G. Ramon & R. Alamon (Eds.),
Mula tore patungong palengke: neoliberal education in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines: IBON Foundation
Philippines.
University of Helsinki - Faculty of Arts. (n.d.). Teacher qualifications. Retrieved October 29, 2017, from
https://www.helsinki.fi/en/faculty-of-arts/studying/study-rights/teacher-qualifications

View publication stats