Step 2

In recent years, Finland is a country that has grown tremendously in education. 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. So why is the Finnish way so successful, and how can the United States follow suit? Many studies have been conducted on Finland’s education and why it is so successful. In this paper, I will examine the differences and similarities in teachers, funding and government interaction within 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?” The teachers are one of the main points she points out 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 is not an easy career to pursue. Only about 5,000 of about 20,000 applicants will be accepted after given hard tests that test 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. Teaching degrees are also given by hundreds of Universities in the United States, whereas in Finland you only have the option of eight. This was reinforced by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which was put in place by the Bush administration.  

            The central government has only limited influence on how the teachers should teach. There are no standardized tests or set curriculums. 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. 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 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 is always trying to stick their nose into the way we educate our children. Within the last decade on 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 of 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 must be reasonable and establish guidelines for continuous and substantial progress. 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 to 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 next year.

            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 the 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. From teachers all the way down to the future students, everything matters when it come to the future of the world. Education is the window to the future.