Changing times, changing demands: a comparative analysis of classroom practice in primary schools in England and Finland

This article reports the findings on classroom practice of the York‐Finnish Project, which was a comparative research study of the policy and practice of curriculum change in primary schools in England and in Finland. The English—Finnish comparison has a special interest because in many respects the educational policies of the two countries are moving in opposite directions. Thus, whilst England introduced a detailed and prescriptive National Curriculum with the Education Reform Act of 1988 and the Government increasingly advocates whole‐class teaching and separate subject instruction, Finnish legislation in 1994 dismantled its longstanding subject‐based national curriculum and encouraged schools to develop school‐based curricula incorporating thematic work and accompanied by more active‐learning pedagogies. A qualitative research strategy was adopted with in‐depth case studies of six schools in each country in order to document the implementation of the reforms at classroom level and teachers' attitudes towards them. Teachers in both countries were trying out unfamiliar approaches to curriculum organization, pupil grouping, teaching methods and assessment. They frequently confronted the same issues, such as progression and differentiation, albeit in England from a position of increased prescription and in Finland from a situation of unaccustomed teacher autonomy. The implementation of progressive education in Finland and the development of whole‐class teaching in England highlighted the role of culture and values in the interpretation of teaching approaches. Despite the very different educational contexts, there were common responses to change at the individual teacher level. Teachers' values, beliefs and school experiences were found to be powerful mediators in their responses to the changes. However, as revealed in the English context, external coercion can pressurize teachers into adopting changes in practice which they do not support, but at a cost to their self‐identity and motivation.