Reading about Finland

On page 4 Sahlberg lists questions he commonly gets , which include, “How much does the lack of ethnic diversity have to do with good educational performance there?” and “How do you know that all teachers are doing what they should when you don’t test students or inspect teachers?”.  These two questions stuck out to me for a couple reasons.  In my own study abroad experience in Denmark, one of my greatest struggles in trying to compare Danish education with American was that the Danish schools were very homogenous, and in the case that they weren’t, they weren’t very welcoming of outsiders or anything that they deemed as “un-Danish”.  This shows the interplay between education and a countries overall attitude or way of being.  In Denmark, Danes were sometimes described as tribal; they were very protective and supportive of what it meant to be Danish, but not supportive of diversity.  At best they would tolerate it, but I felt very few people were accepting of it.  Danes were also very trusting of one another; they often commented about how weird it was that in American people were suing each other all the time.  These two attitudes were present in the schools: the hesitance to diversity was present in the schools policy to not teach mother tongues that were from countries outside of the EU, and the level of trust was present in the schools lack of permission slips when taking the students on field trips.  In the US we have this attitude of individualism and competition.  This is demonstrated in our schools through hanging the highest test scores on the wall. I appreciate the way Sahlberg presents information about Finnish schools so comprehensively; he discusses Finnish history in general, Finnish beliefs, and then aspects that are specific to Finnish schools, such as the teachers.  In some ways, I feel like I haven’t comprehensively learned or explicitly discussed all these different aspects in the US.  Usually, when I think about education, I think of it as a separate entity (especially before I went abroad), but it is important to connect to history, politics, and current affairs.

When reading Finish Lessons I kept thinking, if it’s working there why not do it here. What I had to remind myself was to ask why is it working so well there.  In correlation with Sociology of Education I thought about capitalism in the United States and how that affected the schooling in the U.S.. With this in mind I kept reading on and saw the approach that Finland was taking- it was closer to a socialistic approach. What I mean by this is that although the U.S. promotes the American Dream there are barriers, which allow only some social mobility, like education. Social mobility is then determined by where you live and therefore where you go to school. Meanwhile, in Finland they take a different approach where there is a lack of “if you have money and a great location you have a better chance of moving up because of the school you went to”.

Another thing that stood out was how they used special education. Their special education is different from the special education here. Here special education is viewed as extra education students who are lacking in something need. In Finland they look at it as a different way of learning.  Although from my special education course it seems like we are trying to move away from deficiency to a different way of teaching but I wonder how far along are we.

“The Finnish system has not been infected by market-based competition and high-stakes testing policies” (Sahlberg 39).

Throughout my reading of this text, I couldn’t help but compare my own experiences in the US system of education.Talking about testing is most straightforward, so I’ll start here. I strongly agree with Sahlberg’s statements regarding testing: “the ultimate success of a high-stakes testing policy is whether it positively affects student learning, not whether it increases student scores on a particular test... If student learning remains unaffected, or if testing leads to biased teaching, the validity of such high-stakes tests must be questioned” (39). I think I am more conscious of the role of testing at the moment, because the students I’m working with at my praxis placement are currently preparing for the PSSAs - their thoughts on this test? They are tired of going over the same things over and over again in school. They don’t have any homework right now, which, to me, suggests that their teachers are not working on any projects other than PSSA preparation. Which seems very limiting and very boring - adjectives that don’t describe a community focused on learning.

Closely aligned with this focus on high-stakes tests is the general issue of accountability. In The Atlantic [8], a Finnish writer comments on US responses to the Finnish system: Partenen writes about Sahlberg’s statements from a roundtable discussion with students. On the subject of accountability of teachers and administrators, “Sahlberg shrugs. ‘There's no word for accountability in Finnish,’ he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. ‘Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.’“ I read these statements with the US in mind - here, we are not asking or expecting teachers to be responsible for their teaching. Rather, I think that forcing various standards of accountability suggests that we don’t think our own educators would maintain good teaching practices without them. Our system has many boundaries/rules, because we don’t think that teacher would actually do their jobs without them.

In contrast, the Finnish system emphasizes “instruction” as key, more so than “standards,” “assessment;” because of this, the system gives due attention and responsibility to teachers. They’ve created a cycle - developing high expectations of teachers, leading to high respect for this profession (and around again). Because of this sense of respect and responsibility, teachers and principals are invited to participate - they are directly involved in change initiatives. Inherent in this system is a sense of trust - that teachers will take their roles seriously, and that schools will ensure curriculum development that maximizes learning. In other words, administrators are getting out of the way, and letting educational professionals do what they do best.

As I was reading, I was particularly struck by this phrase: "The Finnish experience shows that consistent focus on equity and cooperation - not choice and competition - can lead to an education system where all children learn well" (9). Sahlberg emphasizes Finland's cultural values and societal expectations as supports for the changes in education infrastructure; the system shifts were possible because they were based in preexisting cultural norms: basically, socialism. I know that he said he advised against copying Finland: "it is better to have a dream of your own than to rent one from others" (6). But I wonder whether it is possible for the US to really learn from the Finnish example?  This is a very pessimistic view, but I think it seems more likely that we will remain trapped in our perceived need for "accountability" and competition.

So, to take these questions a step farther, I ask, Is it possible for the US is to draw from a Finnish example without doing some major cultural changes in the process?  I think we need a cultural shift - unless we make some changes in our values, then when we work to establish a vision for our system of education system, that vision will be based in capitalist values (competition and choice), which, Sahlberg states, “infects” the system.

Note - got some inspiration for this post by looking at other blogs:

'Capitalist' US vs. 'Socialist' Finland - http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/capitalist-us-vs-socialist-finland/ [9]

"Finland vs America is simply socialism vs capitalism. The Finnish are running their public education system according to the model of democratic socialism… In Finland, their social democracy doesn’t encourage or prioritize capitalist competition but instead encourages and prioritizes democracy in its best sense. In America, on the other hand, capitalism has had a long history of undermining democracy and hence public good"

And related articles:

Partenan, Anu. What Americans Keep Ignoring about Finland's School Success - http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/ [8]

"Real winners do not compete. It's hard to think of a more un-American idea, but when it comes to education, Finland's success shows that the Finnish attitude might have merits. There are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland. The main driver of education policy is not competition between teachers and between schools, but cooperation."

"Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity."

"The social policy climate had consolidated the the values of equality and social justice across the social classes of Finnish society" (21).  

I found this statement to be interesting in relationship to the education courses that I'm taking.  What is the role of social justice in education? We've touched upon in very briefly in Ed311, while in my Schools in American cities course we discussed it more thoroughly.  Using a the barometer method in SAC we discussed our views on whether or not social justice is related to education.  While there were many view points, people were generally in the middle to agree.  I argued that social justice is always a part of education (whether this is a conscious decision or not).  You can actively teach social justice to students, or the mere act of teaching a student and providing them with the opportunity to expand their learning could be considered social justice. I believe that social justice education is social justice and social justice can be education. I found it interesting that Sahlberg discusses the prevalence of social justice in creating the present day Finnish education system.  This system believes that all students are capable of meeting the same learning expectations, and should not be held to higher/lower expectations than other students.  This ideology is reflective of the culture often associated with welfare states in that they stress equality in all aspects of their society. I believe that this is especially important iin education in ensuring that students are not held back in meeting their full potential because of assumptions made about them, or special needs that they may have.  Allowing social justice to become a part of our broader education system (as in Finland's) is just as important as teaching it in our classrooms, and subconsciously practicing it as educators.  The importance of social justice has led to an advanced education system in Finland (and other scandinavian countries) that could be used as a model for broad reform within the United States education system.  

Also, in considering this, I see similarities between Finland's high expectations for all, and "no excuses" reform movements within the United States.  Both disregard factors outside of their education that could be holding students back, and leave it to the schools to overcome these issues.  

“A fundamental belief related to the old structure was that everyone cannot learn everything; in other words, that talent in society is not evenly distributed in terms of one’s ability to be educated. In Finland, there were echoes of the Coleman Report, favoring the view that a young person’s basic disposition and characteristics were determined in the home, and could not be substantially influenced by schooling (Coleman et al., 1966),” (21).

In thinking about this quote in conversation with the class Sociology of Education, it is clear that these fundamental beliefs of the ‘old school’ in Finland are still alive in our school systems in the US. Our education systems, where the rich can pay their way to a good education (either in private schools or in districts that serve richer communities) and the poor have to learn in schools that aren’t doing the job, perpetuate class and status standards. The American dream says that if you work hard enough, social mobility is possible yet, with our education the model the way it is, mobility is predicated on which school system you can get into. I would argue that this ‘old school’ belief that everyone cannot learn everything may be threaded throughout our education systems and the American dream: in Sociology of Education we learned it is theorized that students in lower class schools learn more career motivated skills- blue collar skills. Schools that serve this population teach less abstract or critical thinking, but focus on more factory-style learning, where listening and following directions is valued. While this sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory, I can see how arguments in this direction may be true. Even within schools, classes are tracked so that two different outcomes can happen- one where students learn the thinking required for higher education and one where it is not- and it is not hard to see race and class differences embedded within the tracks.

The difference maker in regards to this idea in Finnish schools seems to be the career counselors. Sahlberg writes “career guidance was intended to minimize the possibilities that student would make inappropriate choice regarding their future. In principle, students had three options: continue education in upper secondary general school, go on to vocational school, or find employment” (23).  With a structure in place to ensure either a stable job once a student leaves school, or is on the right track to a job or higher education, it seems that Finnish students have a lesser chance of falling through the cracks. I know that at my high school, counselors were only interested in helping you navigate the college process (and even in this they were not very helpful). A stronger counseling program that ensures every student is cared for, plus a school system that gives equal opportunity to everyone despite their background is what sticks out to me as exceptional in Finnish Lessons.