...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Education and Practice >Comparative Critical Analysis of Educational Policies of Finland and Estonia
【24h】

Comparative Critical Analysis of Educational Policies of Finland and Estonia

机译：芬兰与爱沙尼亚教育政策的比较批判性分析

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The present paper aimed at conducting a critical and comparative policy analysis of Finland and Estonia. The analysis based on the Education Policy Outlook profiles published by the OECD (2021). The latter is specialized in evaluating nations with the aim of inspiring national policies for better lives. Specifically, the analyzed profiles are of the year 2020 and OECD’s six policy levers (equity and quality, preparation to the future, school improvement, governance, funding, and evaluation and assessment) provided a framework for analysis. Finland has been selected for comparison and contrast as it is considered to be a high performing European Union member as well as a developed economy whereas Estonia, has been selected due its uniqueness as a small country (45,227 km 2 ) with a small number of the population (1.325 million), and multi-languages usage as mediums of instruction (Estonian and Russian). The types of secondary data and evidences in this critical analysis were mainly fetched from OECD reports as well as journal articles. Specific policies which have been very useful for such analysis are education policies of Estonia and those of Finland. Compared to OECD countries, the equity and quality of educational policies in Estonia are stronger at 79% but compared to Finland, the latter is ranked among the highest in the OECD as far as students’ learning outcomes in Science (81%), Mathematics (86%), and Reading (91%) are concerned. Conversely, in Finland, however, drop-out rates from secondary education are relatively high among boys (0.7%). Additionally, a highly-selective tertiary admission system has contributed to both delay to universities entry (generally at 24 years compared to the average of OECD which is 22 years) and the delay in labor market entry as the average duration of tertiary education is 6.5 years compared to 5 years among OECD countries. Some of the key strengths in Finland, as far as evaluation and assessment are concerned, include institutional and student’s self-evaluation and an improved-focused on evaluation and assessment at a percentage of 76%. However, some challenges also exist: Teachers need more support in designing students’ assessment practices and a central guidance is deemed useful for teachers and school-leaders appraisal. As members of European Union and OECD, Estonia and Finland have in common some education features and policies at different levels which seem to be not too different. The investment made in education especially regarding the expenditure per student per annuum are proportionally related to the total number of population (which is generally not too much); the geographical size as well as the national GDP .
机译：本文旨在对芬兰和爱沙尼亚进行关键和比较政策分析。基于经合组织（2021年）发布的教育政策展览会的分析。后者专业从事评估国家，以鼓励国家政策以获得更好的生活。具体而言，分析的简介是2020年和经合组织的六个政策杠杆（股权和质量，编写到未来，学校改善，治理，资金和评估和评估和评估）提供了一个分析框架。芬兰被选中进行比较和对比，因为它被认为是高度表现欧盟成员以及发达的经济体，而爱沙尼亚则被选为唯一性作为一个小国（45227公里2），其中少数人口（13.25万），以及多语言用途作为教学媒介（爱沙尼亚和俄语）。这项关键分析中的次要数据和证据类型主要来自经合组织报告以及期刊文章。对这种分析非常有用的具体政策是爱沙尼亚和芬兰的教育政策。与经合组织国家相比，爱沙尼亚的教育政策的股权和质量较高，但与芬兰相比，后者在经合组织的最高名中，就学生的学习成果（81％），数学（ 86％），并读取（91％）。然而，在芬兰，中等教育的辍学率相对较高（0.7％）。此外，高度选择性的高等教育录取系统有助于延迟到大学进入（与22岁的经合组织的平均水平相比，普遍存在24岁），并且随着高等教育平均持续时间的劳动力市场进入延迟为6.5岁与经合组织国家的5年相比。芬兰的一些关键优势在于评估和评估，包括机构和学生的自我评估，并改善 - 以76％的百分比评估和评估为重点。然而，一些挑战也存在：教师在设计学生的评估实践方面需要更多的支持，并认为核心指导是对教师和学校 - 领导者评估的有用。作为欧洲联盟和经合组织的成员，爱沙尼亚和芬兰在不同层面的一些教育特征和政策中似乎没有太差。教育的投资特别是每个anguum的每人支出的投资与人口总数（这通常不是太多）比例相关;地理规模以及国家GDP。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号