A Comparison of The United States and
Finland Education Systems
In
recent years, Finland has achieved tremendous success in the assessment of its
education system. They are a small country but take education more seriously
than most other countries. In the 2009 Programme
for International Student Assessment (PISA), Finland bested all other countries
in reading and led the standings in science in 2006 (Huffingtonpost). The 2009
results came as the U.S. government sought to shock the American schooling
system out of average performance. In states such as Alabama, Mississippi,
Arizona and California, fewer than 25% of students are scoring below
proficiency. In reading, most states scored between 20% and 35% at the students’
respective levels. Washington had a staggering percentage of just 12% (Guggenheim). So why is the Finnish way so successful,
and how can the United States follow suit? Many studies have been conducted on
Finland’s approach to education and why it is so successful. In this paper, I
will examine the differences in teachers, government interaction and funding
for each of the two systems.
Pasi Sahlberg is an
education official in Finland and is also the author of the article “Lessons from
Finland”. She asks the same question “How did a country with an undistinguished
education system surge to the head in just a couple of decades?” (Sahlberg 1).
The teachers are one of the main factors she points to as being the reason for this sudden aggrandizement to the top. The Finnish system
does not employ external standardized student testing to drive the performance
of schools or a rigorous inspection system of schools and teachers. Instead,
the Finnish system relies on the expertise and professional accountability of
teachers who are knowledgeable and committed to their students and communities
(Sahlberg 1). How do the Finns keep this accountability though? Teaching is
consistently the most admired profession in opinion polls of high school
graduates, (Sahlberg 2) but teaching is not an easy career to pursue. Only
about 5,000 of about 20,000 applicants will be accepted after given rigorous
tests that assess not only knowledge, but also interpersonal skills. Once in
the program, the teachers are put on the requirement tract for a master’s
degree in one subject and one or two minor subjects; preschool and kindergarten
teachers must have a bachelor’s degree. This program can take five to seven and
a half years to complete (Sahlberg 3). The programs are nationally coordinated
to ensure coherence and success. The United States is not up to par with these
standards. In a study conducted by Kelli Randolph and Dylinda Wilson-Younger,
Ph. D., multiple states within the United States only require that teachers
have two years of college education with no minors what so ever. The No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was put in place by the Bush administration in
2001, reinforced this (Randolph, Wilson Younger 5). A study done in the United
States mentioned in the documentary called Waiting
for “Superman” directed by Davis
Guggenheim, states that bad
teachers only cover 50% of the curriculum set by the states, whereas a good
teacher can cover 150% (Davis Guggenheim). This means the students in these classrooms
progress three times as fast. Another
study from the National Center for Education Statistics found that high school
math and science students of teachers with subject-specific training have
greater achievement (Brady). Many
U.S. school systems defer to teachers with higher degrees when they hire
faculty, and teachers are required to have some kind of state certification
along with a bachelor’s degree. However, the precise certification requirements
vary, depending on how a teacher enters the profession and what they teach in; suggests Heather Brady in her article entitled The U.S.’s low standards for Teacher
Training. When a teacher gets more training, the students tend to be better
taught and have greater achievement in the subject they are learning. Even
though schools do this, there is a concept enforced by the teachers unions call
“tenure”. This means that once a teacher is hired, they cannot be fired based
on the way they teach. This gives bad teachers a way to stay and not change the
way they teach. This also ensures equality to the teachers by not being paid
based on merit but instead by strict contract. Michelle Rhee was appointed to
be chancellor of the Washington D.C. school system from 2007 until 2010. She
came up with a new way of payroll for teachers. She wanted for tenure to be
killed and instead for teachers to be paid based on merit. Good teachers would
be paid almost two times more than bad teachers and some teachers would be
making in the six-figure range. Once it was time to vote on the concept, the
teacher unions stepped in and a vote was not even considered (Guggenheim).
In Finland, the central government has only
limited influence on how the teachers should teach. There are no standardized
tests or set curriculums in Finland. Teachers are given more autonomy and
responsibility for students’ assessment and curriculum (Sahlberg 7). The first
reason for this is Finland’s high priority for personalized learning and
creativity. The progress of each student is judged more against his or her
individual development and abilities rather than against statistical
indicators. Second, education authorities insist that curriculum, teaching and
learning (rather than testing) should drive teachers’ practice to improve both
teachers ‘and students’ work throughout the academic year. Last but not least
the reason for less governmental control is the act of determining students’
academic performance should be seen as a responsibility of the school and
teacher, not external assessors. It is felt that teachers are the best judges
of how their own students are progressing in school (Sahlberg 8). These methods
are supported in the study conducted by Asiye Toker Gokce and Cevat Celep,
comparing the educational systems of Europe. They saw that the education goals
of Finland were to teach children to carry a sense of responsibility,
creativity and peaceful relations with the people and be compatible with the
Finnish society (Gokce, Celep 6). This is different than any of the other
schools that were used in their research because of the major focus on
creativity and self-fulfillment.
In the United States,
the central government maintains a high level of involvement in the way we
educate our children. Within the last decade one of the biggest changes made
has been the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In the study mentioned earlier by Kelli Randolph and Dylinda Wilson-Younger Ph.D.,
they did research on the NCLB Act to find the pros and cons from the beginning
until today. The reason for the Act was to close the achievement gap between
students by making schools more accountable. To do this, the NCLB Act requires
any schools receiving any types of federal funding to administer some type of
standardized test to their students every year (Randolph 1). The reason for
this testing is to measure student achievement, and to make sure students are
meeting the core requirements established by their states. When you look back
at Finland, this is the complete opposite of what they are doing.
Another factor the NCLB
Act was trying to reform was the budget the schools were using. To receive
Title 1 funds, the schools must be showing AYP or “adequate yearly progress”.
AYP is defined, as there must be reasonable and establish guidelines for
continuous and substantial progress each year. In an effort to improve test
scores to meet the AYP, many states have had to cut out their arts programs and
in many cases have cut “nonessential” subjects such as social studies, foreign
language, health, and science. The courses listed as being “nonessential” are
the ones Finland is trying to incorporate the most at the younger ages. Today,
a new initiative released by the Obama administration called “Race to the Top”
is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The Act plans to give four
billion dollars to 19 states that have robust plans that address the four key
areas of K-12 education (White House). These areas include development of
rigorous standards and better assessments, adoption of better data systems to
provide schools, teachers, and parents with information about student progress, support
for teachers and school leaders to become more effective, and to increase
emphasis and resources for the turn around of lower performing schools. In all
of those areas, none of them support bringing funding back to the arts or the
so-called “nonessential” courses. The act has had positive actions too though. In
2012 the program invested nearly $400 million in schools to create new models
to personalize learning for students (White House). This is on track to be more
similar to the Finnish way of educating and could raise our nation back to the
top with more money invested. The article submitted by the White House does not
tell where exactly the money goes however. It says it will go to education but
that could be to the teacher unions, the construction of new schools, or a wide
variety of other forms within education. It is unlike Finland because it does
not go directly to the classroom.
The Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) made multiple books called Reviews of National Policies for Education.
They made one for Finland that thoroughly evaluates each part of the education
process. In the book they describe how most of the funding allotted to the
schools goes directly to the classrooms (OECD 155). Even though the funding
percentage for education is relatively high, the Finnish Ministry of Education
plans to double the public funding for teacher professional development by
2016.
The Finnish education
system is definitely not perfect. No system in the world can be labeled as
perfect. Everyone has their own opinions and will continue to voice those opinions from war to education policy. Finland has
developed a unique and successful system with what they have. America is
continuing to try new things to keep a high standard we hold ourselves to.
America’s system is also not perfect. We need to watch these rising nations and
try to incorporate what has been successful for them and learn from them. America
is 25th in the world in math, and 23rd in the world in
science, but when our students were asked where they think they are ranked, we
are number 1 (Guggenheim). Americans fill 50 of every 125 highly
skilled jobs in America (Guggenheim). People from around the world occupy the
rest because there are not enough people coming out of our education system,
smart enough to fill them. We need to open our eyes and realize the competition
we are up against. We need to start making the changes necessary to be the best.
From the teachers all the way down to the future students, everything matters
when it comes to the future of the world. Education is the window to the
future.
No comments:
Post a Comment