“…John Dewey
dreamed of the teacher as a guide helping students formulate questions and
devise solutions. Dewey saw the pupil’s own experience, not information
imparted by the teacher, as the critical path to understanding. Dewey also
contended that democracy must be the main value in each school just as it is in
any free society. The education system in Finland is…shaped by these ideas of
Dewey and flavored with the Finnish principles of practicality, creativity, and
common sense. What the world can learn from educational change in Finland is
that accomplishing the dream of a good and equitable education system for all
children is possible. But it takes the right mix of ingenuity, time, patience,
and determination”
Pasi Sahlberg, Finnish Lessons
Two
professional books in a row have raised my blood pressure…two books that showed
us what we should be doing in education, and aren’t. Two books highlight the fact our American educational research has been systematically ignored by
reformers in our country. Instead, this research has been instrumental in creating the Finnish Way, a school system that aims to educate each child, and has resulted in extremely high test scores. Funny thing about Finland's reform: those test scores were never the goal.
Lawrence
Baines’ The
Teachers We Need vs. The Teachers We Have ignited my frustration with
its focus on alternative certification in our country…the only nation that has
loosened the rigor of teacher preparation, as it imposes more and more controls
and mandates.
Pasi Sahlberg’s Finnish Lessons blew a
crack in the top of my head. Finland built their education system, not to get
high scores on international tests, but to create equity of access and
opportunity for all students. And high test scores followed. Their commitment
was, and continues to be the students in their charge. They built this system
with highly-trained, independent teachers leading the way.
Finland
started with solid educational research. They didn’t generate that research; instead,
they searched out the best thinkers and incorporated their ideas. Who were
these educational thinkers, you ask? Americans! John Dewey. David Berliner, Linda
Darling Hammond, and a new name for me, Andy Hargreaves. Our own thinkers and researchers.
The ones ignored, ridiculed, passed over for the job of Secretary of Education.
Ours. The research that should be informing the work in American schools.
Sahlberg is
very honest about several issues that make their success hard to emulate – yes,
Finland is not as ethnically diverse as other countries (read ‘the US), but
diversity is growing. Yes, poverty rates are extremely low, but they’re growing
too. Yes, Finland is a smallish country where consensus would be easier to
build around truly improving education. Those Finnish students who have such high
graduation rates? Because of the Finnish system of upper secondary school, they’re
only 16 years old. I wonder how that would compare (or
contrast) with US students. And the elephant in the room we’re all tip-toeing
around? Finland’s strong welfare state, where every child comes to school
healthy, well-fed and well-housed. A state where families are supported in
their child-rearing efforts.
So, what is
it that makes Finnish schools great? “…improving the teaching force, limiting
student testing to a necessary minimum, placing responsibility and trust before
accountability, and handing over school- and district-level leadership to education
professionals.”
“That’s all”…she
said in a voice dripping with sarcasm. “That’s all.”
I was lucky
enough hear Salhberg speak to a room full of educators. He’s approachable and confident
in his message; passionate about the fact there is another way to create great
schools…and not just schools that score well on tests. His energy lit up the
room. This book sets out to explain the Finnish education system, not to
convince us to follow slavishly, but to show…there is another way.
In this
book, he gives us a history lesson, grounding the book in the realities of
Finland after WWII, and the schools that needed reforming. In the 1970’s, they
launched the great experiment, to provide equal access to a quality education
for all youngsters, and to help develop every student’s potential. “This philosophy included the beliefs that all
pupils can learn if they are given proper opportunities and support, that
understanding and learning through human diversity is an important educational
goal, and that schools should function as small-scale democracies, just as John
Dewey (OUR John Dewey) had insisted…” Finland didn’t decide it wanted to ‘compete’
with the world, and raise scores on international tests. Finland wanted to
create a system where each child could learn and grow, and each secondary student
had options for post-secondary learning. They wanted to teach each child, and
teach the whole child. Their initial goals were lofty and sincere.
That meant
changing the curriculum and structure of the schools, revamping teacher preparation,
making it one of the most competitive (one of the only times I read that word
in relation to anything about education in Finland) systems in the world. It meant putting the power of decision-making
in schools into the hands of these highly-trained professional educators, and
doing all this with minimal standardized testing, and only one high-stakes
test.
He is honest
about the push back, from politicians and from the business community, to the
new reforms: rigorous teacher education, special education for whoever needs a
temporary boost, complete reworking of the secondary school landscape,
municipal (yes, schools are run by cities) schools, a climate of collaboration
and trust, and a philosophy that less is more…less homework, less time in
class, but more responsibility. There was push back…until the first PISA test
results showed Finland at the top of the world in test scores…test scores they
had not chased in their reforms.
I am
intrigued…and intimidated…by Finland’s teacher preparation programs. From The
Smartest Kids in the World, I learned that only about 1 in 10
applicants out of high school are accepted into teacher education programs.
But, applicants can work on identified weaknesses and reapply. One of the
teachers interviewed in that book worked as a substitute teacher for several
years, and was finally accepted into college. Sahlberg told us that his own
niece had not been accepted the first time she applied. He talked with her
about where in the process she derailed, and they decided it was in the interview
portion of the interview. She prepared
more specifically for the interview, and was successful the second time she
applied.
So, it’s not
‘one and done,’ as I feared. It’s extremely hard to get into school, but you
have more than one opportunity if that is your goal. To be accepted in teacher
preparation, a graduate must have high grades, high Matriculation Test scores, “…positive
personalities, interpersonal skills, and a commitment to work as a teacher.” Previous
experience in teaching working with young people is a requirement. After an applicant
fulfills those requirements, there is a tough interview. Only then is an
applicant accepted into a teacher preparation program.
Teacher
preparation culminates in a master’s degree, with a rigorous course load, original
research, and concentrations in at least two multidisciplinary fields. There
are field experiences where students are given more and more responsibility for
student work. Where did they find the research and development to create their
teacher preparation system? American universities. While the US is trying to
churn out as many alternatively-certified teachers as possible, Finland went in
the opposite direction, using American research to craft their programs. “There
are no alternative ways to earn a teacher’s diploma in Finland; only the
university degree constitutes a license to teach.”
Oh, and did
I mention, higher education is free? Teachers graduate, ready for the
classroom, well-prepared and well-challenged, and debt-free.
And what
kind of world do these new teachers join once they’re employed? One where
teachers have the respect and trust of parents, the community, and the nation.
One where teachers have autonomy in their schools and classrooms. One where
they are expected to collaborate. One for which they are paid a professional
salary. “The true Finnish difference is that teachers in Finland may exercise
their professional knowledge and judgment both widely and freely in their
schools. They control curriculum, student assessment, school improvement, and
community involvement….Finnish teachers…have…latitude and power…”
Teachers are
chosen carefully, trained rigorously, because they will be entering a
prestigious profession that has the trust of the nation. Sahlberg asked Finnish
teachers ‘what would prompt you to leave teaching?’ That question is especially
pertinent right now in Oklahoma and the US. Why would Finnish teachers choose
to turn their backs on their profession? “If they were to lose autonomy... [if]
an outside inspector were to judge the quality of their work, or a merit-based
compensation policy influenced by external measures were imposed…Many Finnish
teachers have told me that if they encountered similar external pressure regarding
standardized testing and high-stakes accountability as do their peers in…the
US, they would seek other jobs.” Once again, the US is on the wrong side of a
policy to truly improve schools.
But our
wrong-headed reforms hardly end with teacher preparation and the perception of
the profession.
Sahlberg has
coined the term GERM to describe education systems that contrast with the
Finnish Way: Global Educational Reform Movement. He describes GERM’s symptoms:
standardization, setting goals, increased focus on core subjects (reading and
math), prescribed curriculum, transfer to the corporate model of education, and
adoption of high stakes. Ugh…we’ve been infected. The US gave up constructivism, conceptual
understanding, multiple intelligence, emotional intelligence, interpersonal
skills in schools, according to Sahlberg, when we were infected. Again…the US
in on the wrong side of this issue. We have been forced by corporate reformers
to turn our backs on our own research and chase test scores. Can you see the
steam rising from my ears? We generated the research and our reformers
systematically ignore it in their quest to wring public education dry.
For those of
us keeping score at home, we in the US, desperately chasing Finland’s
international test scores are ignoring our own research, ignoring our own
teachers, ignoring our own students. How wrong-headed can we be?
Well, the answer is EVEN more wrong-headed. Finland has accomplished this education reform with no charter schools, nonexistent private schools, no vouchers, no ESAs, and nearly all public funding. No phony competition (remember, the only time Sahlberg speaks of competition it's in relation to getting into teacher college), no phony choice. PUBLIC SCHOOLS. Funded with PUBLIC MONEY. As #oklaed gears up to fight ESAs and vouchers again, it would be good to note the country we're chasing sees equitable education of all children as its mission.
Instead of "trust the parent" when the parent wants to leave the public school and take the public tax funds raised to educate the child in the public schools and use it in a private school, Finland takes another view of what's important in their schools: "networking...decentralization...self-regulation...capacity...autonomy...school identity...shared responsibility...personalization...collaborative efforts...sharing ideas...solving problems together. Equal education opportunities." How ironic that Finland is living out the dream of equal opportunity that our country gives lip service to.
Can we, even
if we could convince reformers to emulate the Finnish Way? It would take
completely changing teacher preparation…making the profession highly respected,
so there would be competition for spots in teacher prep programs. How do we
stop the toxic spiral we’re in, with the demonizing of educators, with veterans
leaving the classroom, with youngsters choosing other professions? This is not
a rhetorical question for me. It’s the core of this book, and Baines’ book.
Raising the standards without attending to the profession will accomplish
nothing but more alternatively certified teachers, with quality being a huge
issue.
What’s the
Finnish Way? Research-based teacher prep, comprehensive schools for all,
special education for all who need an extra boost, small schools, teacher
leaders, assessment in the hands of those teacher leaders…it’s also the Finnish
“…welfare system [which] guarantees all children the safety, health, nutrition,
and moral support they need to learn well in school.”
Salhberg is clear:
“We should reconsider those education policies
that advocate choice, competition, and privatization as the key drivers of
sustained educational improvement. None of the best-performing education
systems currently rely primarily on them…Finnish experience shows that a
consistent focus of equity and shared responsibility – not choice and
competition – can lead to an education system in which all children learn
better than they did before.”
He also sees challenges ahead for Finland, challenges that
resemble our own – more second-language students, more students in poverty.
More immigrant. One of the hallmarks of Finnish education is there is the fact
there’s only a little achievement gap between their highest and lowest
students. That is changing. “The challenge for Finland is not to try to
maintain high student performance but to strive to keep the country an equal
society and maintain its leading position as having the most equitable education
system in the world.” His big dream? “…create a community of learners that provides
the conditions that allow all young people to discover their talents.” Test
scores be damned. Attend to the student, teach the student. Create a system of
personalized learning for each child. Build a teaching force that is trusted to
make decisions about students’ learning.
Two calls to action. Two dire warnings about everything
education in the US seems to revere and value. Two courses that could make a
difference.
My profession has been hijacked by non-educators who want to
make a quick buck. By non-educators who have no patience for the kind of
sustained change it will take to right our course. By non-educators who will
abandon us all, and then blame us for their failures.
How can we wrestle control back to educators and students and
parents? And is it too late for us?
