next »

[scienceprof]

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


This article from The Atlantic discusses how a goal of equal education in Finland has resulted in high outcomes for students.

The idea that stood out to me was the lack of reliance on standardized testing; as tevarticle puts it, responsibility vs. accountability.

Does constant standardized assessment undermine the responsibility of teachers?

[polly_mer]

I don't know that constant standardized assessment undermines the responsibility of teachers.  However, I do know that focusing on the grade at the expense of the learning means that we are emphasizing the wrong thing if the outcome we want is people who are good at the typical goals of a liberal arts education.

Most of us are extremely frustrated with the student who asks, "Is this going to be on the test?", with the implication that anything not on the test is unworthy of study.  However, having a constant stream of tests that are looking for the one right answer indicates that what is important is doing the one right answer on the test, not having a broad education that helps with life outside the classroom.

In that respect, I don't know that what we Americans should shoot for is equality in classrooms.  Instead, we could have been listening to reformers like Dewey at any point in the past 100 years and made education relevant to the students instead of continuing with the factory-model of students as products instead of citizens.

[sciencegrad]

I also think the Dewey model should be the standard, especially in STEM education.  If only project-based assessments were logistically easy to administer and grade...

[msparticularity]

I also think the Dewey model should be the standard, especially in STEM education.  If only project-based assessments were logistically easy to administer and grade...

Yeah, but to some degree at least, it's about where we put our money and our time. I haven't actually run the numbers, but I have a very strong sense that if we redirected all of the vast amounts of money being poured into standardization in our public schools (both K-12 and, increasingly, higher ed)--testing, creation of new standards-based "teacher-proof" curricula to prepare for the tests, and administration of those tests--we could many more teachers in classrooms to mentor students. The logistics involved in all of those things are every bit as consuming as doing more project-based work, and far more demoralizing. Part of the problem, too, is that current trends are trying to force teachers/professors to align any project-based work with the same standardized assessments contained in the textbooks--which is not only insanely frustrating and time-consuming, but, IMO, a thinly-disguised attempt to make teachers give up trying.

Also, it's important to remember that Dewey's point was never that each and every student needed to be able to define his/her own direction all the time (which truly would be onerous to manage). Rather, the skilled teacher is supposed to be able to weave together a mix of organized and shared curriculum with opportunity for individual insight and exploration. (See The Child and the Curriculum.) Sure, significant mentoring is involved, but it is quite possible to do in a classroom with 20-24 students at either the secondary or the postsecondary level--and again, I speak from experience on this one.

[eulerian_ta]

Could it be that the problem with NCLB and the US federal education policy isn't the emphasis on testing and competition, but rather that a system that pretends that every kid is a potential orthopedic surgeon or physicist just isn't as good of a system as one that develops the talents of kids and helps them find their niche in the world?  Programs for kids that excel in certain subjects are becoming almost extinct in the name of "equality" (because we all know that if everyone doesn't learn at the same pace, teachers aren't doing their jobs correctly).  Trying to keep all students going at the same pace is just not going to work.  

There's another distinction between US schools and Finnish schools that this article neglects, as Fareed Zakaria points out in this editorial.

But Finland has great teachers, who are paid well and treated with the same professional respect that is accorded to doctors and lawyers. They are found and developed through an extremely competitive and rigorous process. All teachers are required to have master’s degrees, and only 1 in 10 applicants is accepted to the country’s teacher-training programs. The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Half of America’s teachers graduated in the bottom third of their college class.

Meanwhile, we in America emphasize pedagogical theory in teacher training and not rigorous and thorough training in content knowledge.  And we also insist that the gym teacher and the AP Calculus teacher with the same level of experience and education should make the same salary.

[msparticularity]

Meanwhile, we in America emphasize pedagogical theory in teacher training and not rigorous and thorough training in content knowledge.  And we also insist that the gym teacher and the AP Calculus teacher with the same level of experience and education should make the same salary.

Actually, I would argue that lack of substantive pedagogical theory is a large part of the problem--coupled with, as you point out, lack of substantive content area expertise. Our teachers--especially those at the elementary level--get an education that's the typical "mile wide and an inch deep," and that's true in the area of pedagogical theory as well.

I am a pedagogical specialist, and I teach master's students in a core course. I am, as my students often tell me, the first person to ever discuss assessment on any kind of a nuanced level: the first to ask them how the different subgroups within their classroom have done on various assignments (as opposed to overall mean scores) and what they think the differing levels of performance mean; the first to suggest that they use the results of those assessments to make adjustments to their materials and their pedagogy.

I completely agree, too, that we are fixated upon the idea that all students can and will learn at the same level and the same speed across all areas. I'm older, of course, but I remember a day when it was perfectly normal and expected that students would excel in some areas, and not in others--and when that was okay. Now, we see enormous pressure on our kids to be good in all areas. Overall, IMO, what NCLB has done for us to make all students more average. Certainly, I have seen some improvements among students in the third quartile; the slightly-below-average students truly have benefited from NCLB, mostly because they have become the focus of the vast, vast majority of our educational resources.

Unfortunately, I'm seeing even more lack of improvement among students in the top quartile; we're boring them out of their minds and out of our schools. Further, we're holding back the ones who could be outstanding in some area, but who are simply not interested in others; we keep forcing them into taking the full range of courses across all content areas, rather than allowing them to focus upon their areas of interest. This is the really big lesson I think we need to learn from other countries, especially Europe: allow people to develop interests and to pursue them.

[polly_mer]

Oh, preach it, MsP.

Yes, students should be guided in smallish groups instead of catering to every individual.  However, yes, those smallish groups should acknowledge that some people are going to be artists, some people will be solid physicists, and some people will be very social folks who can read, write, and calculate, but whose lives revolve around community and family while making enough money on which to live, not a profession or passion.

I do often wonder what my elementary education majors are being taught since they don't know any subjects, how to do assessment, and are not good at discussing how/why a lesson is structured as it is.  They aren't even good at classroom management (at least when I see them).  Yet, they have A's in classes with names that I would have thought would be teaching subjects and pedagogy.  The exception there is math, where I know what they are being taught since they are being taught by a math person (as I teach those science for teachers classes) and a C is a good grade.

[pigou]

Let's not forget about this part from the article:

For starters, Finland has no standardized tests. The only exception is what's called the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school, roughly the equivalent of American high school.

Many European countries separate students into two tracks, with one bound for university and one leading to an apprenticeship. Now I do think that's a good idea, because it allows schools to push the good students while not leaving behind the bad ones. But that inevitably means not everyone gets the same education - so I don't see why we would refer to this as "equality" in education. You may not have to pay for the better school, but I'm willing to bet serious money that parental income remains a significant predictor of who ends up in the upper-secondary school.

[msparticularity]

I do often wonder what my elementary education majors are being taught since they don't know any subjects, how to do assessment, and are not good at discussing how/why a lesson is structured as it is.  They aren't even good at classroom management (at least when I see them).  Yet, they have A's in classes with names that I would have thought would be teaching subjects and pedagogy.  The exception there is math, where I know what they are being taught since they are being taught by a math person (as I teach those science for teachers classes) and a C is a good grade.

The vast majority of elementary educators are taking more lower-division courses than would seem possible for a bachelor's degree--and only lower-division courses in the content areas. Their upper-division courses are in things like child development, which, taught badly, is a touchy-feely combination of out-of-date developmental psych (the cognitive revolution hasn't arrived yet) and inaccurate educational philosophy (portraying Dewey as advocating for nothing but completely child-directed activity in the classroom).

The upper-division pedagogical courses are often taught by "clinical" faculty: full-time nonTT former classroom teachers who have received doctorates but focused upon teaching rather than research. Unfortunately, at both institutions where I have taught and at many others, the vast majority of the clinical faculty have been out of the classroom for 20-25 years, so have had no firsthand contact with standards or the effects of NCLB. Thus, the lesson plans that get written for those courses are pie-in-the-sky exercises that could not be taught in any real classroom today. Worse yet, lesson plans get written endlessly, but no critiques--and especially no written analyses--are typically required.

There are some truly excellent elementary educators out there, of course, but most of them are there despite the preparation process, not because of it. The vast majority of the others are well-meaning people who genuinely care about children, but who are hampered by a very serious lack of preparation to deal with children who are not from their own white, middle-class background. (Over 85% of U.S. elementary educators are white, middle-class women. Too many of them believe that all "good" parents are well-educated and able to provide substantial educational support at home.)

Okay, /rant. But I really do despair sometimes.

Pigou, parent income is far less of a predictor of educational outcome in the European countries than in the U.S. Educational disparities among children from differing income levels are practically non-existent in Finland, thanks to the truly excellent system of public child care/preschool. Also, it's important to remember that there is far less economic disparity in the European countries with strong social support systems than in the U.S., thanks to their very different tax structures. 

[helpful]

Could it be that the problem with NCLB and the US federal education policy isn't the emphasis on testing and competition, but rather that a system that pretends that every kid is a potential orthopedic surgeon or physicist just isn't as good of a system as one that develops the talents of kids and helps them find their niche in the world?  Programs for kids that excel in certain subjects are becoming almost extinct in the name of "equality" (because we all know that if everyone doesn't learn at the same pace, teachers aren't doing their jobs correctly).  Trying to keep all students going at the same pace is just not going to work.  

There's another distinction between US schools and Finnish schools that this article neglects, as Fareed Zakaria points out in this editorial.

But Finland has great teachers, who are paid well and treated with the same professional respect that is accorded to doctors and lawyers. They are found and developed through an extremely competitive and rigorous process. All teachers are required to have master’s degrees, and only 1 in 10 applicants is accepted to the country’s teacher-training programs. The contrast with the U.S. is stark. Half of America’s teachers graduated in the bottom third of their college class.

Meanwhile, we in America emphasize pedagogical theory in teacher training and not rigorous and thorough training in content knowledge.  And we also insist that the gym teacher and the AP Calculus teacher with the same level of experience and education should make the same salary.

I would bet that Finnish teachers are paid better compared to American teachers.

[polly_mer]

Their [elementary education majors] upper-division courses are in things like child development, which, taught badly, is a touchy-feely combination of out-of-date developmental psych (the cognitive revolution hasn't arrived yet) and inaccurate educational philosophy (portraying Dewey as advocating for nothing but completely child-directed activity in the classroom).

That sounds about right.  Many of my students talk about loving psychology, but what they appear to have gotten out of it are things like people's minds consist of three parts: the id, ego, and superego.  The fact that Freud, Jung, and others haven't been considered correct in decades somehow doesn't get through, even though I'm sure that the psych department teaches more than historical figures.  I shudder every time someone mentions Gardner's multiple intelligences or Froebel's gifts.

Thus, the lesson plans that get written for those courses are pie-in-the-sky exercises that could not be taught in any real classroom today. Worse yet, lesson plans get written endlessly, but no critiques--and especially no written analyses--are typically required.

That also sounds about right.  My students view rubrics as boxes to check and get pretty angry when I point out that open-ended problems cannot be assessed with X points for having J of the N expected answers.  Interestingly, though, many of my students will submit lesson plans they found on the internet that have assessments as X points for complete answers, X/2 points for somewhat complete answers, and X/10 points for submitting a non-blank answer, often with no explanation of what a complete answer is.

There are some truly excellent elementary educators out there, of course, but most of them are there despite the preparation process, not because of it. The vast majority of the others are well-meaning people who genuinely care about children, but who are hampered by a very serious lack of preparation to deal with children who are not from their own white, middle-class background. (Over 85% of U.S. elementary educators are white, middle-class women. Too many of them believe that all "good" parents are well-educated and able to provide substantial educational support at home.)

That's not as much of a problem here.  One of the saddest things with which I deal are students who definitely aren't from white, middle-class backgrounds, but also aren't adequately prepared for college.  Many of them are bright enough, but they tend to wash out and go back to their neighborhoods with huge chips on their shoulders about how The System was against them by refusing to let them become teachers.  Well, yes, and I'm sorry, but it does no one any good to put people in the classroom who aren't educated enough to teach what we want taught.  That's exactly why you, poor student, are now in the position of being functionally illiterate and innumerate, despite being reasonably bright and graduating from high school with acceptable grades.  Because you had inadequate teachers, you have to do a lot of catch-up work to be ready for your own classroom.

[oldfullprof]

The fact that Freud, Jung, and others haven't been considered correct in decades somehow doesn't get through, even though I'm sure that the psych department teaches more than historical figures.

Well, I'm not sure this part is even true.  A de-emphasis on grand theories has made "bitsy" theories seem more "scientific."  "Empirical theory" is celebrated recently, indeed, it's true.  We even see this in Postmodernism, where Foucault extolled "specific intellectuals," at the expense of grand theorists (probably to be provocative as much as be "right.")

I find both F and J useful, and have seen little that would persuade otherwise.  The problem with bitsy theory is that you can't actually assemble it into anything bigger.  (This is even true of Darwinism, where there are some horrible anomalies in the faux-grand theory.)  The main point is that you can't disconfirm grand theories, tout court.        

[oldfullprof]

I've always had the instinct to eschew certain things in university teaching (probably because I believe that they're disfunctional.)

- Much stress on goals and objectives in classes (this discourse came in with the 70s, and it's pernicious, I think.  I hate rubrics-- which represent Fordism or Taylorism applied to teaching.)  What I do is provide an atmosphere of enthusiasm, I think, and expect that students may come away with somewhat different experiences.  I was told, though, by someone else in my discipline, that students remember things from my classes.  I'm not surprised: a non-compulsive approach encourages really retaining things.  A cram and disgorge approach doesn't.

- Much use of the stick.  Again, this doesn't engender a good learning atmosphere.

- Much use of "assessment" in the sense others may mean it here.  But I really like them to write well and even write uniquely.  (I do admit to using multiple choice tests in big classes.  I've tailored these to hit the high spots, and my courses do feature some redundancy between my lectures, the book, and the test.  But I don't regard ability to perform on tests, or not, as that serious.)

I do use stories, anecdotes, and humor in classes.  I think that these are key.  The danger in teaching even brilliant pedagogical theory, I believe, is that the usual suspects will strip it down, turn it into bullet points, and cram it down the throats of the substandard education students we do have.

I think bureaucracy is strangely addictive, and we're trying to import the high school crap into the college level ("accountability," "assessment," etc.)

Also agree with Pigou.       

[olddrone]

"Meanwhile, we in America emphasize pedagogical theory in teacher training and not rigorous and thorough training in content knowledge."

I agree.--just as we worship only the methodologies of assessment as the goal of American education.

Educational theories come and go. 

So does the lip-service: "outcome-based assessment," "student learning objectives," "experiential learning," "learner-centered education," "transformative leadership/education," "benchmark," AQUIP, BEAMS, and you name them. . . . 

In the meantime, check the ever declining retention and graduation rates.

If any of these methods/mottoes/concepts/philosophies of educational assessment/philosophies has ever worked, they would not come up with another new bull-crap in every two to three years.

My definition of the word "Business" is giving the appearance of working HARD.

[msparticularity]

There are some truly excellent elementary educators out there, of course, but most of them are there despite the preparation process, not because of it. The vast majority of the others are well-meaning people who genuinely care about children, but who are hampered by a very serious lack of preparation to deal with children who are not from their own white, middle-class background. (Over 85% of U.S. elementary educators are white, middle-class women. Too many of them believe that all "good" parents are well-educated and able to provide substantial educational support at home.)

That's not as much of a problem here.  One of the saddest things with which I deal are students who definitely aren't from white, middle-class backgrounds, but also aren't adequately prepared for college.  Many of them are bright enough, but they tend to wash out and go back to their neighborhoods with huge chips on their shoulders about how The System was against them by refusing to let them become teachers.  Well, yes, and I'm sorry, but it does no one any good to put people in the classroom who aren't educated enough to teach what we want taught.  That's exactly why you, poor student, are now in the position of being functionally illiterate and innumerate, despite being reasonably bright and graduating from high school with acceptable grades.  Because you had inadequate teachers, you have to do a lot of catch-up work to be ready for your own classroom.

Okay, but here's where I think you and I differ: I believe we need to be working a whole lot harder to keep a much wider variety of students in the teaching pool. We are looking at a system that is owned and operated by white, middle-class female educators, and that keeps replicating itself. This is a system that has quite consistently dismissed and excluded students from different backgrounds on the grounds that "They just don't care about education as much as we do," and "They just lack work ethic." Go hang out in a teachers' lounge sometime; it's pretty interesting. In particular, it's truly amazing how difficult a teacher with this kind of a mindset can make it for students who do not enjoy a white, middle-class, reasonably well-educated background (ie: whose families are not already highly literate and/or working a single job so are home and available for lots of academic support).

My argument is not that we should be pushing people who aren't qualified into the field, based upon a commitment to "diversity." It is, rather, that we need to be looking at the folks like your students who come in with a dream and a commitment and a very good understanding of the kinds of challenges that students who come from groups that are under-represented in our teaching force face, and doing a far better job of preparing them for the work needed before they ever hit your classroom.