Learning in (and from) Finland

The educational policy community widely regards Finland as the current leader in student academic achievement these days. While next door Sweden has boasted high literacy rates over the years, it currently has nothing on its Scandinavian neighbor, from whom it is learning a lesson or two.

[Aside: I wouldn't be me if I didn't allude to one of my favorite short and oft-forgotten West Wing exchanges here --

President Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Well, maybe they don't, and they also can't count.

And, end aside.]

The Economist's recent article on the topic gives what seems to be a very brief overview of Finland's pluses and minuses right now, as well as a peak at what Sweden is doing (which it seems is what it has been doing for the past 30 years). (Actually, the writer spent more time in Sweden than in Finland, which somewhat mystifies me, but I digress...) Like I said, it's short, but it at least makes mention of some specific policies. If you're at all interested in state-wide educational policies, check it out. If you're at all interested in my opinions, read below. If you're not interested in anything of the sort, click that little red square in the top right corner of your tab/window.

First off, I think I should mention that I would kill to travel to different countries (Finland included), study their educational policies, and draw conclusions on policies that would benefit the U.S., so if anyone is aware of a governmental organization and/or educational institution that would like to fund my research, send them my way. Okay, shameless aspirations covered.

Goods

• Teacher competition and preparation -- this implies a total mentality shift, that those responsible for the education of our children should be the best and the brightest, not just the ones who end up in that field. According to the article, only 10% of those applying to teacher preparation programs are accepted. That's half the acceptance rate of many top Universities when I was applying. This also hits on a longstanding debate that the article does not even mention -- the difference between preparing teachers in content areas vs. pedagogy, or the skills of teaching.
  
• Emphasis on special education skills -- a mantra, reiterated to the point of exhaustion in the special education community, is "Special education is good teaching practices." While over-used, it also has the benefit of being true. Best practices in special education aren't necessary for all students to learn, but all students can benefit from said practices. The more specific example of reading illustrates the concept well. Roughly 80% of students will learn to read with whole language or other non-research-based methods. 20% of students will not learn to read using these methods. Nearly 100% of students can learn to read with research-based methods, and all students will learn to read effectively and at a reasonable pace. Furthermore, because not all students with learning differences are quickly identified, it makes good sense to have teachers well-trained in how to effectively instruct various types of students.
• Less Testing -- I actually strongly disagree with Finland's policy, but not totally with the sentiment. They say, don't waist time and money on testing students all the time. I say, redesign assessments so they become part of the education process, and so they truly assess what we want our students to learn and take away from school. It's important that we decide what we want our students to learn, devise a way to test that, teach them, and then test to be sure it worked. But don't force an 8th grader reading at a kindergarten level to sit for tests he can't understand for 4 days. Where's the sense in that?
  

Bads

• "Segregation" of special education students -- Finland seemed so on the right track with the emphasis on special education training. And then they had to go and pull all special education students into completely separate classes. While I will give them a very small gap between "lowest" sections and "highest" sections, it often benefits all students to experience more integrated classes. If you're going to train your teachers in differentiation, direct instruction, alternative assessments (etc.), why not utilize that?
• Start education "late and gently" -- I think I can get behind the gently part, but late would simply not work in America. The unfortunate situation in our country is that many students grow up in unhealthy environments. By the time our children reach the age of 3, the a child of low SES will probably have experienced 30 million fewer words than one of high SES. Furthermore, once they start school, they will acquire vocabulary at a slower rate, making it incredibly difficult to catch up. And early vocabulary correlates strongly to test scores as a child grows. Because of the legacy left by poor education policies in the past, because of the inequalities we have suffered our people to endure, we find that the poor children that walk through our doors on Day 1 of school are far behind their richer peers. We don't have time to waist pushing back the starting age of education.
• Few inspections -- Making it difficult to remove bad teachers takes away a certain professionalism about teaching, something I think we should work to maintain. There can be ways to integrate supervisory practices into education that benefit teachers and help them grow, while also looking out for the best interest of kids.

But I'll save that soap box for another time. I've written enough, and I have statistics homework for tomorrow. While trying to make myself a better teacher, I have to remind myself to be a good student!