Rethinking Finnish Education From the Chinese Perspective: The Underlying Similarities and Commonalities Between Finnish and Chinese Teacher Education Systems

Introduction

Since the turn of the millennium, Finland has been in the global spotlight for its “Finland's Famous Education System” (Thrupp et al., 2023), attracting thousands of foreign visitors and delegations to discover the reasons for this Finnish success (Sahlberg, 2021). Taking advantage of this global fame, Finland's national brand has been education, not only because it represents its global image but also because it provides business opportunities for education export (Schatz et al., 2017). Although it has been well acknowledged that we cannot just “pick off a flower” from different educational systems “and then expect that if we stick what we have gathered into the soil at home, we shall have a living plant” (Bereday, 1964), many Chinese educational researchers and practitioners still have the illusion that the Finnish practices should be the model to solve the global and local learning crisis. For instance, the proliferation of publications studying the Finnish education system in Chinese academia is an effort to initiate educational change and reform (Cai & Zuo, 2019). Quite often, many publication authors compare Finnish education system with their own or other counterparts in an effort “to find out about the reasons behind the success and to borrow, often uncritically and un-reflexively, Finnish practices that can help them to become ‘good performers’ too” (Liu & Dervin, 2017), even concluding that the Finnish education system is a “Miracle” (Niemi et al., 2016) or “What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?” (Sahlberg, 2021). As a result, what has currently been done in the existing literature often reflects the “differentialist bias” (Dervin, 2016) when researchers exclusively and uncritically look at differences in the Finnish education system, resulting in the exoticization and aggrandizement of the Finnish education system in comparison with China or other countries (Dervin & Simpson, 2019). They also exceptionalize Finnish education system as being untouched by the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM)—no competition, standardized learning, or accountability in Finnish schools and teaching professions (Chung, 2019, p. 108; Sahlberg, 2021). As such, I would like to refer to this uncritical differentialism as Finland exceptionalism in education in relation to other non-Finnish peers. “Of course differences matter and people are different (across and within ‘cultures’) but they can also be quite similar in their values, ideas, behaviors, opinions, and so on” (Dervin, 2016, p. 35)—the continuum of similarities and differences is frequently overlooked since identifying similarities entails more efforts to think beyond the box of national differences. Simply put, “a hint at similarities between ‘Asians’ and Finns represents an interesting move from typical differentialist discourses” (Dervin & Simpson, 2019, p. 33).

The purpose of this paper is to invite and stimulate critical thinking among readers interested in Finnish education, as there is a lack of ample discussion about shared traits or characteristics between the Finnish and foreign education systems, for example, when it comes to teacher education. My objective is to exemplify the underlying similarities and commonalities between Finnish and Chinese teacher education systems. To underscore the dynamicity and complexity of both systems, I take into account their recent developments as well as my personal insights in order to put an end to such unhealthy discourses of differentialism, static stereotyping, mutual othering, and the uncrossable dividing line between China and Finland, two countries representing respectively the East/South and West/North—two hemispheres essentialized as being incompatible, different, and mutually exclusive between each other.

Are Finnish teachers more competent than Chinese teachers?

In many Chinese media and academic publications, Finnish teachers are often misinterpreted as the top 10% of students selected from entrance exams because they are highly respected and all will hold Master's degrees, and, therefore, China should learn from Finland ¹ (e.g., Xi, 2018). It is “not exactly right” because it varies between institutions and between subjects (Sahlberg, 2021, p. 135). For instance, kindergarten teachers and some vocational education teachers are not required to hold a Master's degree. Still, it has become a typical stereotype of Finnish teachers when it comes to rough comparisons with their Chinese counterparts. Such stereotypes have not only become a selling argument for those commercializing the Finnish school system and pedagogical approaches, overemphasizing the featured differences and strengths of the Finnish education system compared to the Chinese system and culture (Dervin & Simpson, 2019; Seppänen et al., 2023; Xing, 2019). Nevertheless, it also created misinterpretations of the Finnish education system, including Finnish teachers and teacher education, in China. For example, although Finnish teachers need to follow the transversal competencies specified in the Finnish National Core Curriculum, most teaching in Finland is still subject-based rather than phenomenon-based learning (Lonka, 2022). However, phenomenon-based learning has often been aggrandized and glorified in many Chinese media articles as a more advanced or better teaching approaches employed by Finnish teachers.

The conclusion that Finnish teachers are more educated than Chinese teachers remains incomplete and overgeneralized. In recent years, the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China announced a proposed amendment to Teachers’ Law to uplift qualified teachers’ minimum academic requirements—primary and secondary school teachers will require a Bachelor's degree as the minimum requirement (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 2021). In practice, however, there is fierce competition for teacher recruitment in economically affluent areas on the Eastern coast and capital cities, requiring much higher academic qualifications than the national minimum requirement. Among others, the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Marco Greater Bay Area are the most attractive for university graduates, representing approximately 30% of the country's 1.4 billion population. For example, in Shunde District of Foshan City, Guangdong Province, 67.7% of all newly recruited school teachers in 2023 have Master's degrees, compared to 28% in 2021 ² ; in 2023, 80% of the newly recruited 8,000 teachers in Shenzhen (including kindergarten teachers) have Master's degrees (Chen, 2023). Like Finland, China also faces a systemic challenge caused by the severe shortage of qualified teachers in public kindergartens and nurseries (An et al., 2024). In addition, the way to deal with such shortages has become a shared challenge due to the increasingly more aging population in both Finland and China—Will it be quicker to recruit and retain these teachers than to close down kindergartens/daycare centers? Finally, the implementation of “key competencies” (核心素养) in the Chinese national curriculum also requires teachers to teach more than their subjects, which is similar to phenomenon-based learning. Therefore, Finland and China can both be interested in the way teachers promote and foster the whole-person development of pupils.

Are Finnish teachers more respected than Chinese teachers?

Despite the decline in the popularity of education and the teaching profession among young people in recent years, as well as the challenge of the increasing shortage of qualified teachers (especially early-childhood teachers) (OAJ, 2021), Finnish teachers are still considered respected professionals compared to other European countries (Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture [European Commission], 2023), even if teaching professionals only receive a moderate salary. Finland has a long history of valuing education and knowledge because, historically, education has been viewed as a means of societal advancement and personal development. Especially, the Lutheran Church has played a significant role in Finland's history, contributing to the high regard for education in the Finnish society (Chung, 2019). For example, Literacy was deemed necessary by the Church for marriage (Niemi & Sinnemäki, 2019). This cultural and religious emphasis on learning helped to elevate educators’ status. During Finland's struggle for independence in the early 19th century, education was critical in developing national identity and unity, as well as the literacy of the Finnish language (Niemi, 2012). Teachers were viewed as key figures in shaping the nation's future, which elevated their social standing. Finland's teacher education system is rigorous, selecting the most suitable candidates and providing them with high-quality pre-service training. This emphasis on thorough preparation ensures that teachers are well equipped to carry out their responsibilities and professional autonomy effectively, earning them respect from the community. Although teachers in Finland enjoy such a high level of professional autonomy and a sense of self-realization, their pedagogical choices are not entirely free but framed by the national, local, and school curricula, societal expectations, and responsibilities for students’ learning (Juvonen & Toom, 2023).

Similarly, teaching and education are also highly valued in the Chinese society. Historically, Confucianism has left a significant impact on Chinese society for thousands of years, and it prioritizes education and respect for educators (Chien et al., 2024). Respect for teachers is based on the Confucian ideal of the teacher–student relationship, in which teachers are seen as mentors and role models, similar to the responsibility of Finnish teachers for students’ learning. Throughout the Chinese history, education has been viewed as a method for personal growth, achievement, and societal improvement, and the emphasis on education has resulted in a society that places great value and respect on the role of teachers in passing along knowledge, moral values, ethics, and wisdom to future generations (Guo et al., 2019). In addition to the prestige of teaching professions, the stability of the teaching career as well as annual holidays, which most other careers do not have, have resulted in the popularity of becoming teachers for young Chinese. Although Chinese teachers are also moderately paid (OECD, 2016), the number of applicants for teaching qualifications in 2021 has increased by 66 times compared to 2012 (Chen, 2022); the proportion of graduates who scored in the top 30% of the national university entrance exams who enrolled in teacher education programs was 18.3% in 2018, increasing to 33.4% in 2019; this trend has continued in recent years (Huang, 2022). Therefore, the shared prestige and popularity of teaching professions in both Finnish and Chinese societies can provide a solid common ground for Sino-Finnish joint efforts to cope with global challenges in teacher education, such as teacher shortage and dropouts.

Concluding remarks

In this paper, I shed light on the intriguing parallels and similarities between Finnish and Chinese teacher education, offering a novel perspective on the global discourse surrounding Finland's educational excellence in teacher education. By juxtaposing these seemingly disparate systems, I identified shared principles and practices based on some recent developments and trends in teacher education, their cultural values, and historical legacies in Finland's and China's teacher education.

As Finland continues to be lauded globally for its advanced education system and China grapples with educational reforms, an examination of the underlying similarities and commonalities between the two countries and systems enables us to transcend fixed national boundaries and cultural essentialism, and to consider the impact of globalization so that we may foster a greater critical awareness of the diverse educational perspectives and practices that exist underneath the surface of differences. Furthermore, it facilitates joint efforts between both countries that aim to capitalize on the unique advantages of each system, leveraging their respective strengths to address contemporary educational challenges. In the spirit of mutual learning and Sino-Finnish dialogue, I call for continued research and engagement to better understand the complexities of Finnish and Chinese teacher education, mapping out more common grounds to cope with shared challenges. By doing so, we can facilitate the emergence of joint innovative educational approaches that advance excellence, equity, and inclusivity beyond the two countries. In conclusion, these insights into rethinking Finnish teacher education from the Chinese perspective present a compelling narrative of shared objectives and collective advancement toward a more dynamic and harmonious global education landscape.