Australian Journal of Teacher Education - Vol 44 - Issue 4 - Article 3 - Understanding Teacher Evaluation in Finland: A Professional Development Framework

Oct 15, 2026

This study explores the characteristics of the teacher evaluation model in Finland. By highlighting distinctive features of the Finnish case, it compares local teacher evaluation practices with the increasingly used value-added model (VAM) worldwide. Findings show the Finnish model emphasizes teacher empowerment and bottom-up professional development, unlike accountability approaches relying on rigid data collection and standardized test scores. The work also identifies ongoing needs analyses as central elements for professional development and teacher assessment in Finland.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages19

Reading Time48 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Teacher Evaluation

Australian Journal of Teacher Education | Volume 44 | Issue 4 | Article 3 | | --- | --- | | 2019
Understanding Teacher Evaluation in Finland: A Professional Development Framework
Hakan TARHAN
Middle East Technical University, [htarhan@etu.edu.tr](htarhan@etu.edu.tr)
A. Cendel KARAMAN
Middle East Technical University, [cendel@metu.edu.tr](cendel@metu.edu.tr)
Lauri KEMPPINEN
University of Turku, [laukem@utu.fi](laukem@utu.fi)
Juli-Anna AERILA
University of Turku, [julaer@utu.fi](julaer@utu.fi) | | Recommended Citation TARHAN, H., KARAMAN, A., KEMPPINEN, L., & AERILA, J. (2019). Understanding Teacher Evaluation in Finland: A Professional Development Framework. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (4). Retrieved from [https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss4/3](https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss4/3) This Journal Article is posted at Research Online. [https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss4/3](https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol44/iss4/3) Australian Journal of Teacher Education Understanding Teacher Evaluation in Finland: A Professional Development Framework Hakan Tarhan Cendel Karaman Middle East Technical University, Turkey Lauri Kemppinen Juli-Anna Aerila University Of Turku, Finland Abstract: This study explores the characteristics of the teacher evaluation model in Finland. Highlighting the unique qualities of the Finnish case, we also compare these teacher evaluation practices with the increasingly applied value-added model (VAM) for teacher evaluation across the globe. Our analysis revealed that the Finnish Model prioritises teacher empowerment and professional development by carrying out bottom-up evaluation practices. With a clear focus on teacher empowerment and professional development, this framework substantially differs from accountability measures such as VAM, which emphasize rigid data collection procedures and the use of standardized test scores to hold teachers accountable based on their students’ academic performance. This study also revealed that professional development endeavours of teachers are highlighted as the key elements in Finnish teacher evaluation. Ongoing needs analyses for professional development also form the basis for assessing teachers in Finland. Keywords: Teacher evaluation, Finland, value-added modelling, teacher accountability Introduction Maintaining its status as one of the high achievers on Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Finland has become a country of focus for researchers. Several scholars argued that Finland’s success was based on the unique characteristics that the national education system had (e.g. Kaiser, 2005; Malaty, 2007; Niemi, 2012; Sahlberg, 2010, 2011a, 2011c) . In Finland, education is the basic right for all citizens, and the main aim of the educational policy is to ensure equal educational opportunities free of charge. Furthermore, Finnish society has a very positive attitude towards education and considers high-quality education as one of the main assets in international competition (Jakku-Sihvonen & Niemi, 2006) . This policy has proved to be successful since Finland has been considered as one of the best in the world (Darling-Hammond, 2010b; Kupiainen, Hautamäki, & Karjalainen, 2009; Rinne, 2000; Sahlberg, 2007; Simola, 2005; Soininen, Merisuo-Storm, & Korhonen, 2014; Takayama, 2013) . The PISA 2015 report showed that Finland maintained its status as a high achieving country in education despite a drop compared to the results in 2006 and 2003 (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2018) . Vol 44, 4, April 2019 33 Australian Journal of Teacher Education There are many reasons with which the success levels of Finnish students can be associated, but Malaty (2007), Niemi (2012), Sahlberg (2010), and Välijärvi et al. (2007) stated that one principal reason for the success of Finland’s educational system is the quality of pre-service and in

FAQs

What does the study examine about Finland’s teacher evaluation model?

It investigates the characteristics of the teacher evaluation model in Finland and identifies how professional development is embedded in the evaluation process.

How does the Finnish approach differ from the value-added model (VAM)?

The Finnish model prioritizes teacher empowerment and bottom-up professional development, while VAM emphasizes rigid data collection and standardized test scores to measure accountability.

What role do professional development needs analyses play in teacher evaluation in Finland?

Ongoing needs analyses for professional development form a key basis for assessing teachers in Finland.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by 4398046744996