In the first two PISA assessments, PISA 2000 and 2003, Finnish students surprised the whole world by performing highest in the reading literacy study (546 and 543 points on average, respectively; see Välijärvi et al., 2002, 2007). In 2006, too, Finland scored very well (547 points), even though Korea was now the best-performing country. Thanks to these results, Finland became the educational model for many countries.

After PISA 2006, however, Finland’s reading literacy scores started to decline. Thus, in PISA 2009 Finland scored 536 points and in PISA 2012 (the latest PISA study) 524 points (Kupari et al. 2013, OECD 2014). Finland’s reading literacy performance in PISA 2012 was statistically significantly lower than it had been in anyprevious PISA round. Also, among all countries participating in all PISA rounds (PISA 2000 to 2012) Finland’s decline was third greatest (after Sweden and Iceland). At the same time, the vast majority of the participating countries have managed to improve their reading literacy. As a result, while Finland still performed sixth among all countries and economies and third among the OECD countries in the PISA 2012 reading literacy study, the difference between Finland and the OECD countries had narrowed considerably. Consequently, many countries and economies that have earlier performed lower than Finland are now performing at the same level (e.g., Ireland, Taiwan, Canada and Poland) or even better (Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan).

Finland has typically been regarded as a country which cherishes educational equality, takes care of all the students (especially the weakest) and provides them all with equal opportunities to learn (e.g. Välijärvi et al., 2002; OECD, 2011). Thus, it came as no surprise when in the first PISA studies (PISA 2000 to PISA 2006) Finland’s standard deviation (SD; referring to variation in student performance) was clearly below the OECD average (ranging between 81 and 89 points; the OECD average varying between 99 and 100 points). After PISA 2006, however, variation in Finnish students’ reading literacy performance started to increase. In 2012, Finland’s SD was 95 points. At the same time, many countries have managed to decrease student variation. As a result, variation in reading literacy performance in Finland is today at the same level as it is in the OECD on average (94 points).

Why has Finland’s reading literacy performance deteriorated? The fact that the fall has been accompanied by an increase in student variation suggests that the decline may be associated with growing inequality among Finnish students. Also, it seems possible that this inequality has not affected all students in a similar way but that certain subgroups have suffered more than some others.

This study examines the development of Finland’s reading literacy performance from year 2000 to year 2012 in selected student groups corresponding to various background variables. The purpose is to find out in which student groups reading literacy has deteriorated most and whether there are subgroups in which it has remained at the same level or even improved. This may help to find factors that may explain why Finland’s overall reading literacy performance has deteriorated. This, in turn, may help to stop the declining trend and make it rise again. As such, the results mainly concern Finland. However, they also provide a broad overview of factors related to high and low reading literacy performance, which makes them potentially generalizable to several other (developed) countries too.

Kupari, P., Sulkunen, S. Vettenranta, J., & Nissinen, K. (2012.) Enemmän iloa oppimiseen. Neljännen luokan oppilaiden lukutaito sekä matematiikan ja luonnontieteiden osaaminen. Kansainväliset PIRLS- ja TIMSS-tutkimukset Suomessa [Getting more joy from learning. Fourth graders’ reading, mathematical and science performance. International PIRLS and TIMSS studies in Finland]. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylän yliopisto, Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos. (in Finnish) Kupari, P., Välijärvi, J., Andersson, L., Arffman, I., Nissinen, K., Puhakka, E., & Vettenranta, J. (2013.) PISA12-ensituloksia [PISA 2012 first results]. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön julkaisuja 2012:20. Helsinki: Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö. (in Finnish) OECD. (2009.) PISA data analysis manual. SAS Second Edition. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2011.) Strong performers and successful reformers in education. Lessons from PISA for the United States. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en. OECD. (2014.) PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do. Student performance I mathematics, reading and science, Vol. 1 (rev. ed.). OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201118-en. Opetushallitus. (2004.) Koulu – sukupuoli – oppimistulokset [School - gender - educational achievement]. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. (in Finnish) Välijärvi, J., Linnakylä, P., Kupari, P., Reinikainen, P., & Arffman, I. (2002). The Finnish success in PISA – and some reasons behind it. PISA 2000. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://ktl.jyu.fi/arkisto/verkkojulkaisuja/publication1.pdf. Välijärvi, J., Linnakylä, P., Kupari, P., Reinikainen, P., Sulkunen, S., Törnroos, J., & Arffman, I. (2007). The Finnish success in PISA – and some reasons behind it 2. PISA 2003. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, Institute for Educational Research. Retrieved from https://jyx.jyu.fi/dspace/bitstream/handle/123456789/37478/978-951-39-3038-7.pdf?sequence=1.