.png)
The Tripartite Logic of Building a Leading Country in Education: A Comparative Study of European Models
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study explores the foundations of building a leading country in education through a comparative analysis of nine European cases, including Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Using a qualitative multiple-case framework, the research identifies three core dimensions: equity, quality, and strategic alignment. European systems advance equity through inclusive legislation, targeted resource allocation, and after-school services; ensure quality via diversified structures, high standards in teacher education, and rigorous evaluation; and achieve strategic alignment by fostering innovative and STEM talents to support national development. Despite institutional diversity, these countries display policy coherence and resilience, offering valuable lessons for global education reform. The findings suggest that combining universal principles with localized practices is essential for countries seeking to construct equitable, high-quality, and innovation-driven education systems.
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
[1]Boldt, S., Devine, B., Mac Devitt, D. and Morgan, M. (1998). Educational Disadvantage and Early School-leaving Discussion Papers. Dublin: Combat Poverty Agency.
[2]Cao, D. M. (2008). Bologna-Prozess:Wichtiges Rahmenprogramm für die Hochschulreform der europlischen Staaten. Deutschland-Studien, (03): 66-71+80.
[3]Costello, E., Girme, P., McKnight, M., Brown, M., McLoughlin, E., & Kaya, S. (2020). Government Responses to the Challenge of STEM Education: Case Studies from Europe. ATS STEM Report.
[4]Deissinger, T. & Gonon, P. (2016). Stakeholders in the German and Swiss vocational educational and training system: Their role in innovating apprenticeships against the background of academisation, Education and Training, 58(6): 568-577.
[5]European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2023). Country System Mapping Country Report: Finland. Odense, Denmark.
[6]European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2023). Country System Mapping Country Report: France. Odense, Denmark.
[7]Finland Ministry of Education and Culture. (2023). Policies for the digitalisation of education and training until 2027. https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/165248.
[8]Finish National Agency for Education. (2014). Core Curriculum for Primary and Lower Secondary (Basic) Education. https://www.oph.fi/en/education-and-qualifications/national-core-curriculum-primary-and-lower-secondary-basic-education
[9]Jin, Y. L. & Li, H. M. (2017). On the Cultivation of Tiptop Innovative Talents and Its Experience and Enlightenment in the British Research-intensive Universities. Journal of Higher Education, 38(6): 98-104.
[10]Jesús M., María M., Javier M. V. (2019). Supranational and Comparative Study of the Preservice Training Teachers in the European Union. Revista de curriculum y formación del profesorado, 23(03).
[11]Kamil ÖZERK (2013). The Norwegian Educational System, the Linguistic Diversity in the Country and the Education of Different Minority Groups, International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 6(1), 43-60.
[12]Li, M. Z. & Sun Y. Y. (2024). The Selection and Cultivation of Top-Notch Innovative Talents in Powerful Countries in the World: Multiple Models and China’s Choice. Educational Research, 45(4): 40-51.
[13]Niemi, H. (2015). Teacher Professional Development in Finland: Towards a More Holistic Approach. Psychology, Society and Education, 7(3), 278-294.
[14]OECD. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
[15]OECD. (2019). Balancing School Choice and Equity: An International Perspective Based on PISA, Paris, France: PISA, OECD Publishing PISA.
[16]Ofsted. (2019). The Education Inspection Framework. https://www.gov. uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework.pdf.
[17]Pasi Sahlberg. (2021). Finnish lessons 3.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland, Teachers College Press, 25-40.
[18]Tegtmejer, T. (2022). The Price for Inclusion: Financial/Educational Dilemmas in the Inclusive School System in Denmark. Educ. Sci, 12, 832.
[19]The Office for Standards in Education. (2015). Children’s Services and Skills. The common inspection framework: education, skills and early years. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/common-inspection-framework-education-skill-s-and-early-years-from-september-2015.
[20]Tirri Kirsi. (2014). The Last 40 Years in Finnish Teacher Education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 600-609.
[21]Tormey, R. (2010). The Silent Politics of Educational Disadvantage and the National Anti-Poverty Strategy. Irish Educational Studies, 29(2), 190-198.
[22]U.K. Department for Education. (2014). Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Statutory Framework. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2.
[23]U.K. Department for Education. (2018). Free School Meals: Guidance for Schools and Local Authorities. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/free-school-meals-guidance-for-schools-and-local-authorities.
[24]U.K. Government. (2016). National Teaching Service: for Teachers and Middle Leaders. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-teaching-service-for-teachers-and-middle-leaders-schools-and-local-authorities.
[25]Zhang, W. & Zhou, H. Y. (2022). Building a Powerful Country in Education in China: Index and Orientation. Educational Research, 43 (01): 146-159.