Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC)

Executive summary

This study presents a detailed examination of the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), focusing on the scope, quality and usefulness of its activities within the Finnish education system, and specifically highlights areas for improvement.

FINEEC was established on 1 May 2014 by merging the evaluation functions of the Finnish National Agency for Education (EDUFI), the Education Evaluation Council, and the Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC) pertaining to university assessments. It oversees the evaluation of the entire education system and is engaged in both domestic and international evaluation initiatives. FINEEC is highly regarded both nationally and internationally as a credible and relevant institution. This reputation is acknowledged by various actors in the education sector, as well as by prestigious international institutions, including the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).

FINEEC's mandate encompasses a wide range of educational levels and forms, primarily focusing on conducting external assessments using an enhancement-led evaluation approach. This method emphasises continuous improvement by collaborating with educational institutions and policy makers to develop the Finnish education system through rigorous evaluation, data analysis and evidence-based decision making.

This study revolves around three areas: the scope of FINEEC’s evaluation activities; the quality of these evaluations; and their utility from a policy perspective. However, it is important to note that this study does not directly assess FINEEC’s performance in all areas. The evaluation concentrates solely on FINEEC’s activities to the extent that they are related to or influence FINEEC’s capacity to contribute to policy making. Furthermore, the evaluation highlights only the identified areas for improvement. By concentrating exclusively on areas for improvement, many areas where FINEEC excels are not discussed in detail. Indeed, it should be noted that FINEEC enjoys a high reputation among users of its work domestically and among its international peers.

This study utilises the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Evaluation, from which relevance, coherence and effectiveness were selected as key criteria. The three criteria correspond directly to the dimension selected for evaluation: “relevance” evaluates the extent to which FINEEC’s activities address the necessary and desirable tasks within the educational sector (scope), “coherence” examines the robustness of FINEEC’s methods and their alignment with international standards (quality); and “effectiveness” assesses the practical impact of FINEEC’s outputs on education policy and development (usefulness).

This evaluation employs various methods: a self-assessment by FINEEC staff; in-person visits to Finland to collect data, including via interviews and focus groups; two workshops with international experts; and comprehensive desktop research. These methods aim to provide an in-depth understanding of FINEEC’s work, its strengths, and, particularly, its areas for improvement.

The report identifies nine key findings highlighting areas for improvement within FINEEC’s operations and methodologies. The report does not prescribe specific recommendations (which is outside the scope of this evaluation study); instead, it highlights the main issues and challenges currently faced by FINEEC and provides some illustrative examples of actions that could be taken to remedy them. The report does not highlight the many areas where FINEEC performs very well; it concentrates solely on areas for improvement. By presenting these alongside international evidence and examples, the report aims to inspire policy reform and strategic enhancement in FINEEC’s approach to evaluation.

Key findings

FINEEC’s strategy and scope of work

1. There is a lack of agreement on the role FINEEC should play in policy making. The exact role FINEEC should undertake in proposing or developing solutions based on its reports is unclear, leading to ambiguity among stakeholders.

2. There is disagreement about FINEEC’s autonomy in defining the Evaluation Plan. Views vary on the scope of FINEEC’s autonomy, impacting collaboration with other institutions in the development of the Evaluation Plan.

3. FINEEC’s Evaluation Plan could provide greater flexibility to adapt to evolving priorities. The Evaluation Plan is considered insufficiently flexible, restricting FINEEC’s ability to respond to emerging educational challenges and priorities.

FINEEC’s operations

4. FINEEC’s undertakings sometimes exceed its resources, which could negatively impact the quality of its output. Balancing an ambitious Evaluation Plan against available resources presents challenges, potentially affecting the quality of FINEEC’s work.

5. Seeking greater complementarity between FINEEC’s lines of work could help generate new insights. FINEEC has the opportunity to enhance integration among its various evaluations, leading to deeper, more comprehensive insights.

FINEEC’s contribution to policy making

6. Unequal access to results of learning outcomes assessments may undermine education equality. The access model to FINEEC’s assessments may create disparities, particularly disadvantaging smaller or less wealthy municipalities.

7. A greater focus on producing causal evidence would substantially contribute to policy making. The Finnish education evaluation system needs to develop more causal evidence to guide effective policy making. The role of FINEEC in this respect needs to be clarified.

8. Data could be better leveraged to improve understanding of the relationship between institutional-level policies and student outcomes. FINEEC could use data more effectively to reveal the connections between educational policies and student performance.

9. Strengthening learning assessments in VET could support more informed policy making. FINEEC faces challenges in accurately assessing VET learning outcomes due to the reliance on non-standardised teacher grades, highlighting a need for more reliable assessment methods.