Finland's Education System

"In a recent analysis of educational reform policies in Finland, Pasi Sahlberg (2009) describes how since the 1970s Finland has changed its traditional education system 'into a model of a modern, publicly financed education system with widespread equity, good quality, large participation – all of this at reasonable cost' (p. 2). In addition to the gains in measured achievement, there have been huge gains in educational attainment at the upper secondary and college levels."

Steady Work: How Finland Is Building a Strong Teaching and Learning System by Linda Darling Hammond



In the picture above, it depicts quite clearly the transformation that took place in Finland's education system after the 1970s compared to the United States which has not seen much change within almost 40 years.  One of the reasons Finland was able to change its system was because it moved away from the traditional sense of education and reformed it in such a way that it became a more modern take on educating the young students.  In other words, rather than simply teaching in front of a classroom, teachers were encouraged, and even taught, how to assign small group projects so that less time was spent teaching a curriculum to all the students, and more time was given for teachers to observe and walk about helping students individually.  Also, Finland has made its teacher selection process more complex as well as competetive.  This can be thought of as one way to weed out the so-called "bad" teachers while at the same time keeping teachers who are very knowledgeable, passionate, and capable of running a high-quality classroom.  Although these are only two changes that Finland has made in its education system that have contributed to the success of its schools, there were and still are many factors that have allowed for Finland's success.

Chinese Education

"Schooling in imperial China reflected social class background to a very great extent.  Although private schools existed for the children of merchants and artisans, as did private tutors, the focus of most schooling in China was on the preparation of the sons of the elite for the imperial civil service examinations." - Developing the Chun-tzu

The traditional Chinese education used to be a system where only the elite would be able to stay on time whereas the poorer people had to remain in the same socioeconomic status their past generations have been living in.  After the fall of the Mongol's, China recognized the importance of education and took radical steps to changing the system so that an equal opportunity would be given to all, no matter what their economic status may be like.  That was the beginning of the Chun-tzu.

The Chun-tzu was an interesting take on how to make the education system on level playing field because the outcome was not so that a person would get to attend college nor was it a certification to becoming a professional in a specific field.  This test was set to determine who would be able to work in the government and/or for the emperor.  Holding a position in these ranks would qualify you as one of the elites and certainly would bring much wealth, fame, and honor to your name as well as your family.  The rich along with the poor were allowed to take this test and the person that scored the highest would be given the highest position in the government and those that followed would be given positions according to their ranking.  These tests were very long, tedious, and difficult because of all the memorization that is done in preparation for this very important exam and only a small percent would be given government positions.

Globalization and Education

"Paying attention to the problems at the bottom is as important, if not more so, than focusing on the top.  The most innovative technology has limited use if the more than 70 million workers without college degrees do not have the skills to use it effectively.  The nation's low performers and schools should be a headline concern and the remedies are often to be found in schools only a neighbourhood or town away."

Making The Grade by Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell

Both the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) tests are great ideas and knowing the results is certainly attractive in the minds of many world leaders however, I have many doubts concerning the tests.  An obvious concern I have is that there are a number of cultural and societal differences from nation to nation that having an "even playing field" is almost impossible.  Children and youth are brought up differently and we know how much one studies is not the only reasoning behind how well a child or youth does on a test.  Their lifestyles and daily routines all have an impact on how well they do in school.

Furthermore, a concern that is not addressed or possibly is but is drowned by the sea of pride is that these tests results not only show how exceedingly well countries are doing, but it also shows the percentage of students who are not proficient in areas many acquire them to be at.  As Salzman and Lowell have stated we should be paying attention to those at the bottom of the list and finding ways to help improve their education because that is as important or even more so than only looking at the top performers.  The PISA and TIMSS tests was a great idea in order to compare the minds of students among other nations but the system is flawed by leaders whose only wish is to be on top and overlook students who have the potential but are nearly always forgotten or misunderstood because of their low ranking.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

"Developing countries with few resources to invest in education are likely to have lower levels of literacy among both students and teachers.  Governments of countries with such characteristics may therefore invest more heavily into educating well a small elite to lead the country's industries and government operations while allocating remaining resources for teachers with little training.  When teacher quality is so low, governments may also prescribe to teachers very precise job requirements, instructing teachers what to do and how to do it.  Such systems tend to rely on "Tayloristic" methods of administrative control and accountability in an effort to achieve desired results." - OECD: Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education (2011)

If you read the OECD: Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education report, you can clearly see that the nations (with a few being large cities as the exceptions) are from countries that are developing or have already been developed for many years now.  The likelihood that countries with low socioeconomic standing to be taking this PISA test is very minimal to none.  As the quote from above suggests, the countries that are still developing will begin to model a very "Tayloristic" method, which is a system that instructs teachers about what it is that they are going to teach and how they are going to teach about it.  In other words, a person, with no teaching background required just as long as they are literate, can grab the manual given by the government and teach a classroom full of students.  This is quite alarming because countries are no longer looking at education as a means of exploring or solving problems.  Our children and youth will no longer be taught how to critically assess a concept or situation because politicians and researchers think it is best to just teach them job skills in order to be prepared for the workforce.  As time saving as this method is for corporations so they do not have to spend weeks on job training, it is taking away one of the most important things we can have as human beings: having the ability to critically think for ourselves.

No Child Left Behind

"Under AYP, the only thing that counts is the number of students who score above the passing level on the state test. So on a test like New Jersey's High School Proficiency Assessment, where a passing score is 200, helping a bilingual, special education student from a low-income household raise his/her test score from, say, 50 to 199 counts for nothing. In fact, such a score counts as a failure in four different subgroups. Moving a student from 199 to 200 is success. This is just one example of the ridiculous ways NCLB uses state test scores as the sole measure of school and student progress" - Some Gaps Count More Than Others by Stan Karp

This quote by Stan Karp is quite alarming to me because I did not know how incredibly unspecific No Child Left Behind (NCLB) really is.  The fact that students who could have significantly improved, say from 50 to 199 as Karp stated, are still considered as "failing" whereas a student who improved from 199 to 200 is said to have succeeded.  It does not take a considerable amount of knowledge to know that the student who has jumped from 50 to 199 should not be considered anywhere near failing; if anything, he or she is surpassing more than a great majority of children/youth.  Karp goes on to explain in his article that NCLB is imposing an impractical mandate that no other institution has to abide by.  The idea that students must receive 100 percent on test scores by 2012-14 is extremely unrealistic and if they do not reach that goal, teachers, schools, and the state must deal with the consequences.  Although NCLB was a good attempt to resolving the education-crisis, assuming there was/is one, it certainly has not proved itself to be feasible.

Equality of Opportunity

In the article "Education and Equality of Opportunity", written by Joel Spring, he states that, “Most parents choose housing based on the quality of education offered by the local school district. There is a direct relationship between the cost of housing in a school district and the amount of money that school districts spend per student. School districts are primarily funded by local property taxes. The more expensive the property, the more money local schools can raise in taxes to support their schools.”

The other day I was watching a show called "Property Virgins" and the couple who was looking to by a home had a specific wish list; on the top of that list was that the home had to be in an area where the schooling was good.  I noticed that the neighborhood where they wanted to buy their house had large lawns, a big driveway, the homes were very large, the streets were clean, the neighborhood was located in the suburban areas, and the average price of a home in that neighborhood nearly $700,000.  It made me think, "No wonder the schooling is good because the homes are so expensive thus the school district must make a fortune from the local property taxes."  I then knew neighborhoods in the inner city, where housing costs much cheaper and schools can barely fund for basic supplies, are unable to compete with the suburban areas.  Since school districts are primarily funded by local property taxes, those from wealthier neighborhoods will always have the ability to invest more money for each student in their community compared to a poor neighborhood.

Common School Movement

Horace Mann, referred to as "the father of the public school," was the one of the first to suggest there be common schools--now known as the public elementary schools.  The purpose Mann found for creating these public schools was because he believed that "public education could serve both practical and idealistic goals," as stated in the 6th edition of Teachers, Schools, and Society, written by Myra Pollack Sadker and David Miller Sadker.  At the time businesses and industries were booming therefore he recognized the importance of not only teaching religion but the basic concepts in the work field.

I believe the greatest accomplishment that Mann was able to do was fight to allow people of all classes, although only white, to attend these public schools.  Before, only the rich white children were able to attend school, not just because they were more literate, but also because they had the money to go to school.  Being able to establish common schools was allowing for the integration of the rich and the poor.  Not only would the rich and the poor be attending the same school but the poor would have the chance to be literate.  Slowly but surely, the poor were able to develop a better standard of life.