Findland Article

[jenbrdsly]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/

 

 

Btw, I really wish that we were a real, in person PTA where one of us could shell out the $100 to watch Two Million Minutes or the Finland Phenomenon, and everyone could see it. If I did that at my son's school, I'm not sure many people would come.

[akalori]

I want to see them too. I also want to see

.

 

Lori

[mcconnellboys]

What a novel idea, success for all - but that would mean those ensconced in the status quo here would have to give up things like tracking and other forms of properly or improperly labeling students from K onward and pushing them into areas, studies, etc. that might not be ideal for them, ensuring that they cannot be successful.... Then some folks won't get to feel that their progeny is superior to others, they'd have no bragging rights - geesh, I just can't see that working here....

[jenbrdsly]

The other interesting thing is that all of the kids in Finland get free lunch. That would probably cause problems he in America too. But it is sort of a Utopian question, isn't it? What freedoms would you be willing to give up in order for all students to receive a superior education? Is there any way to take parts of the Finland system and apply them here, without having to give too much up?

Btw I'd love to see "Race to Nowhere" too.

[jenbrdsly]

We don't need to give up freedoms to ensure appropriate excellent education for all. We do need to commit to mastery in the elementary ages, instead of push 'em through. That would require going back to the era of grouping by instructional need - which is not tracking. It would also require that all students receive good instruction, not just the honors (ie politician and teacher offspring) students in those roughly 1/4 of schools that use 'winner takes all' (see Jay Matthews if you aren't familiar with this) philosophy.

 

 

You make some good points. :)

[Ester Maria]

What a novel idea, success for all - but that would mean those ensconced in the status quo here would have to give up things like tracking and other forms of properly or improperly labeling students from K onward and pushing them into areas, studies, etc. that might not be ideal for them, ensuring that they cannot be successful.... Then some folks won't get to feel that their progeny is superior to others, they'd have no bragging rights - geesh, I just can't see that working here....

It is not a question of superiority, Regena. :lol: I mean, it is if you want to frame it the crude way - some people are intellectually superior to others, just like some are physically superior, etc. - but at the core, it is the issue that different children have different academic needs. And that, when those wildly different children are put into the same classroom and you do not allow for needed differentiation, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. So you not only get a "no child gets ahead" situation, you also start treating the bright ones as unpaid teacher assistants to help the less bright ones, they start to resent it because, ultimately, they have a right to their education just like the bottom third of the kids to whom they are helping, etc. It aids nobody except, ironically, the category which you write about - parental egos. That no child is excluded, that no child is allowed to outshine anyone's little sweetheart, that no child is "pressured" by "competition".

 

The Finnish school system effectively eliminates choice. That is a very serious consideration, even in the context of supposed equality. All equality, however, is fictitious, because there are always more and less "academic" homes, more and less culturally or materially rich homes, there are always very real oscillations in students' capacities. Closing our eyes to those differences does not make them go away; the most successful education is the one in the context of drastically limited differences (putting together children of similar home culture and similar achievement and capacities). The quality of education in my "mainstream" grade school - a good grade school, but one attended by "everyone" - and in my very "intellectual" lycee cannot even be compared. Two completely different educational experiences.

 

When you put "everyone" together, somebody's needs have to come before somebody else's needs. And it is as unjust towards the upper third just as some other school systems which neglect the bottom third are unjust in the opposite direction. It is not all idyllic as it seems. And PISA is problematic too - Finland is only good at PISA because they happen to teach those few subjects that PISA tests in a way that PISA tests. It does not necessarily mean as much as the media make it seem. Personally, no child of mine would be in such a school longer than third or fourth grade, for cultural reasons first and foremost - they would either be in a French international school if we lived in Finland, or they would be in some kind of a schooling arrangement abroad. What Finland offers is in many people's minds - "serious", "academic" minds - not a be-all end-all of "good education". It is one possible system, with some very serious downsides in addition to the benefits.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Ester Maria

[mcconnellboys]

I bet they get good, wholesome lunches, too, and not fast food garbage....

[mcconnellboys]

We don't need to give up freedoms to ensure appropriate excellent education for all. We do need to commit to mastery in the elementary ages, instead of push 'em through. That would require going back to the era of grouping by instructional need - which is not tracking. It would also require that all students receive good instruction, not just the honors (ie politician and teacher offspring) students in those roughly 1/4 of schools that use 'winner takes all' (see Jay Matthews if you aren't familiar with this) philosophy.

 

Oh, I would so, SO love to see this in operation in our schools!

[mcconnellboys]

I understand, Ester Maria, and agree that it is certainly not the ideal the article portrays. For those who cannot afford private education or who feel they simply cannot homeschool, however, I think it is a model that beats the current one we have in place here - but then, nearly anything would. I'm sorry that I was being sarcastic in my remarks. I know full well that does not come across in writing, but I sometimes just can't resist....

 

Much of my problem with public education here is that those whose learning styles fit the method of teaching excel within the system. The truly gifted, as you mention, get turned into little worker ants to help those lagging behind. If they can stand this, perhaps they survive, if not thrive. If not, they perhaps learn to hate the thought of education and who knows if they will come out well in the end?

 

Those insiders with friends at the school grab all the good stuff, educationally speaking, for their offspring; others have to take what they can get. If their progeny doesn't impress the teaching staff, if their learning style isn't such that they earn meritorious bragging rights for the school, then they will either be batched with the middlings or the lower castes of failures and/or special needs kids.

 

The problem, for me, is that I see way too many kids - and especially boys - get shifted into lower status groups and pawned off into inferior classes, both in terms of content and teachers, simply because their learning style doesn't match up with the way education if proferred in our schools.

 

It seems to me that a system that works toward equality must at least be proferring an education that is accessible to more of the kids - that is, making an effort to address the needs of the individual when it comes to learning styles and special needs (on either end of the spectrum), etc.

 

I'm not advocating that we ever attempt to move our country toward the political leanings of a country like Finland, LOL, just expressing my frustrations that we need to try something, anything other than what we keep doing decade after decade (not that I'm optimistic we will)....

[jenbrdsly]

Those insiders with friends at the school grab all the good stuff, educationally speaking, for their offspring; others have to take what they can get. If their progeny doesn't impress the teaching staff, if their learning style isn't such that they earn meritorious bragging rights for the school, then they will either be batched with the middlings or the lower castes of failures and/or special needs kids.

 

The problem, for me, is that I see way too many kids - and especially boys - get shifted into lower status groups and pawned off into inferior classes, both in terms of content and teachers, simply because their learning style doesn't match up with the way education if proferred in our schools.

 

 

 

As a former teacher, I am a really big supporter of public schools, but am the first to say there are a lot of challenges that need to be addressed. How? Beats me! :001_huh:

 

I think what you are hitting on in the above comments as circling the main issue as I see it, which is poverty, family situation, and parental education. Parents who are "in the know" are going to pick a good school, within a good school district to begin with. (I have thoughts on this on my blog here.) It's like the book "Color of Water", where the mom who lived in the projects made sure that every single one of her children was bussed out of the inner city.

 

Kids who are still learning English, kids who are being bounced around from between two households, kids whose parents are well meaning but who have no idea how to help...these are also the kids who will struggle.

 

We have a situation where the educated get more educated, and the uneducated waste time on video games ---on a multi-generational level!

 

If there was a national movement towards Afterschooling, if there was great information out there on how parents could be doing more with their kids academically, if lower-income parents were taught how to choose better schools (or had good school options to begin with), then maybe that would help.

Edited January 12, 2012 by jenbrdsly

[Roadrunner]

We can't please everybody and everybody's learning style, but can we at least ensure some standards? For example, there is no literature taught in the elementary school my kids attend and I live in a so called "wonderful" school district. While I don't expect 9 year olds to read Shakespeare, can we at least make sure they get exposed to quality children literature?

Actually, why can't we teach everything to the highest standard? Meeting it would mean an A. Those "not smart" kids would get a C, but would still learn to the best of their abilities.

[Ester Maria]

I'm sorry that I was being sarcastic in my remarks. I know full well that does not come across in writing, but I sometimes just can't resist....

I have the same problem ;), so no problem with me. I did not take it that way, I thought it was just frustration, which I can understand. :grouphug:

We can't please everybody and everybody's learning style, but can we at least ensure some standards? For example, there is no literature taught in the elementary school my kids attend and I live in a so called "wonderful" school district. While I don't expect 9 year olds to read Shakespeare, can we at least make sure they get exposed to quality children literature?

Actually, why can't we teach everything to the highest standard? Meeting it would mean an A. Those "not smart" kids would get a C, but would still learn to the best of their abilities.

This is my preferred way of dealing with it, too.

[jenbrdsly]

C students struggle because they really do need the content and skills that they didn't learn.Would you be happy if your child only learned 75% of the alphabet (C level) or do you want him to learn it all (A level)? All students need mastery of core basic and those who have mastered can go on to other things- enrichment, or the next level of core basic if we have the political will. A core basic that is developed for a 70 IQ however, isn't really suitable for most learners, but that is the direction public school is going since the inclusionists have enough political power to force groups of children to sit idle while others receive beaucoup individual and small group instruction.

 

 

Students shouldn't have to be sitting idle in big groups. That's where good teachers, in supportive communities, draw in parent volunteers, so that all students can be receiving small group instruction when the teacher is also working with small groups. That's how I did it in my classroom. Could I do that when I taught at a Title 1 school? No. In a nice upper middle class neighborhood? You bet!

[Roadrunner]

C students struggle because they really do need the content and skills that they didn't learn.Would you be happy if your child only learned 75% of the alphabet (C level) or do you want him to learn it all (A level)? All students need mastery of core basic and those who have mastered can go on to other things- enrichment, or the next level of core basic if we have the political will. A core basic that is developed for a 70 IQ however, isn't really suitable for most learners, but that is the direction public school is going since the inclusionists have enough political power to force groups of children to sit idle while others receive beaucoup individual and small group instruction.

 

If a child is expected to learn 100% of the alphabet in K and fails to do so, a child should repeat K instead of moving on to the first grade.

I have something different in mind. I will use SM for example (it's the only one I have experience with :001_smile:). A teacher could easily teach and design a test where 50% of questions would be somewhat easy (think workbook problems), 40% somewhat difficult (IP) and for those wishing to get an A (challenge problems). You grade accordingly. I am making those percentages up, but you could say 80% of passing on easy problems gives you a D, etc....

I remember my science teacher in the beginning of the semester would always say what knowledge they expected (all based on standard textbook) for what grade.

I think a child who doesn't get even the basics should repeat the class or a year.

This doesn't apply to kids who have learning disabilities or other challenges. Schools (at least in my area) have special services for them and they should.

[Ester Maria]

C students struggle because they really do need the content and skills that they didn't learn.Would you be happy if your child only learned 75% of the alphabet (C level) or do you want him to learn it all (A level)? All students need mastery of core basic and those who have mastered can go on to other things- enrichment, or the next level of core basic if we have the political will. A core basic that is developed for a 70 IQ however, isn't really suitable for most learners, but that is the direction public school is going since the inclusionists have enough political power to force groups of children to sit idle while others receive beaucoup individual and small group instruction.

But all of the alphabet is a D-level. :D In order to get the lowest passing grade - i.e. a D - one needs a functional knowledge of every segment taught. Additionally, a student cannot be promoted if they have gaps in knowledge which would handicap them from progressing onto the next stage and which would make them hold the class behind, which means that some things will always have to be mastered. As and Bs are about nuances and sophisticated application, about assignments marked with asterisks because they are supposedly "hard"... Ds ARE the level of "knowing it all" - but knowing it on a basic level (60%+ of each segment taught in content + ALL of the foundational skills to the point at which they do not handicap further learning). So, however you look at it, when one does not practice grade inflation, the 3 Rs are mastered by all children cognitively capable of doing so because they are simply not promoted further until they know it cold.

 

Your last sentence, however, opens a can of worms which is IMO the real cause of much of these problems, as un-PC as it is to state it.

[Ester Maria]

I like the NYC way, hold 'em up in 3rd and again in 8th and fill in all the gaps.

 

A repeat year is useless..just a headbanger since it is the same techniques that didn't work the first time.

I think that, in the early years, many kids just need a year to mature; and in the upper years, many kids do profit from a shocking realization that the world will not coddle them and that there are, indeed, standards and expectations to be promoted to the next grade.

If they are promoted instead of being held back when they do not meet those, they end up keeping the whole class behind (assuming you do not have so much staff and such awesome logistics to approach every child exactly where they are and that you do, thus, "teach to the group"). And that is where the resentment kicks in - of the students who should be learning on a certain level, but cannot because normal work has become remedial, of their parents who are unhappy about their children not receiving the level of education they should, etc.

[jenbrdsly]

With all due respect, you are in a much richer area than I am. I am in what NY considers an average district, which means too wealthy for Title 1 and too poor for parent volunteers, which the union doesn't want anyway b/c it takes away needed jobs from paraprofessionals. What happens in any classroom is a political issue. The majority here want no child gets ahead and they vote that way.

 

We have schools in the US that do flexibly group by acheivement. The Washington Post runs articles occasionally on diverse schools that do that. I like to forward them to the school board here, especially at budget time when they look to see who objects to AP being cut.:)

 

The preNCLB way for flexible grouping, which my district used, was to group by acheivement and instructional need. Children would be doing seatwork (including enrichment) or reading while a small group was with the teacher. Other adults were not needed in the classroom.

 

 

You bring up another issue, which is unions. Sigh. That's a whole 'nother can of worms! :)

[stripe]

We don't need to give up freedoms to ensure appropriate excellent education for all.

I so agree. But I think for some people, it is important that they are have nots in society, so that could be a problem. And Sarah Palin thought we have a freedom to eat cookies, so talk of healthy food is dangerous.

 

I saw the food they feed preschoolers in a film and it was very nutritious (rye and whole wheat bread, fresh fruit, etc). They're fed breakfast too. And the kids help prepare and serve.

[kitchen table academy]

I think that it would be impossible for the US to ever implement a system like Finland's system. Mostly because the US doesn't really want an educated citizenry that can think for themselves and express themselves in a clear and intelligent fashion. They want a bunch of mediocre ignoramuses who are content with a passive life spent in front of the television set.

 

The closest the US will ever get to having an education system that resembles Finland's will be if more parents start seeking alternatives to the local public schools. In many areas, there are no alternatives nor are there people interested in seeking them. Some parents seem to think that it's the school's "job" to educate their child, feed them two meals a day, teach them how to act, instill discipline, help potty train, provide basic psychiatric care...the list goes on and on.

 

Suffice to say, only the parents that actively seek change will actually make change happen and it is only the children of these sort of parents that will benefit from the changes at first.

 

If public schools are to be improved, then the someone, somewhere, needs to put their foot down and quit letting the parents treat the public education system like free day care. I also think that the one thing that would really and truly have an immediate positive impact on the public education system would be changing the mandatory start age from 5 to 6-7. That alone would give immature children time to catch up with their peers and would probably cause a decrease in the amount of young boys that are diagnosed with ADD, ADHD, and other such disorders simply because they can't sit still, follow directions and hold their pencils properly by age 6.