PART 1
If you object to long posts (21kB), or consider this topic to be
irrelevant, please hit the DELETE button now! And if you reply to
this post, please don't hit the reply button unless you prune the
original message normally contained in your reply down to a few
lines, otherwise you may inflict this entire post yet again on
suffering list subscribers.
In a stimulating opinion piece for the Los Angeles Times, W. Norton
Grubb (2005), the David Gardner Chair in Higher Education at UC
Berkeley, explained why it was that everything he really needed to
know about K-12 education he had learned in Helsinki.
It would appear from Grubb's piece that Americans might learn a thing
or two about K-12 education from the Finns. Grubb writes [bracketed
by lines "GGGGGG. . . ."; insertions at [. . .] by Hake; my CAPS]]
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
I have just returned from studying Finland's education system.
According to PISA scores. . .[PISA (2004), Sen et al. (2005)]. . .
this country of 5 million people ranks second (to South Korea) in
math, third (to Japan and South Korea) in science and first in
literacy by a substantial margin. Variations among Finnish students
on these tests were the lowest or near the lowest.
To accomplish this, Finland has developed interlocking practices that
foster both high and equitable performance.
[1] If a student starts falling behind his peers or grade norms, the
teacher works with him one on one, or in small groups.
[2] Another approach involves a school assistant who may sit beside
the student in class to provide help and encouragement, or work one
on one or in small groups with him.
[3] The third approach involves a special-needs teacher - not a
special-education teacher, but a credentialed teacher with additional
preparation in learning difficulties.
[4] The fourth line of attack is to send in a multidisciplinary team,
including school personnel, social workers, representatives of the
health and mental health systems as necessary and perhaps individuals
from public housing. If non-school problems are solved by other
professionals, teachers are free to concentrate on instruction.
THIS FOUR-PRONGED APPROACH DEPENDS ON OTHER FEATURES OF THE FINNISH SYSTEM:
[a] SMALL CLASS SIZES AND SMALL SCHOOLS. . .[see e.g., Clinchy
(2000), Levine (2002), Swidler (2004), Toch (2003), Witcher & Kennedy
(1996)]. . . make it easier to diagnose learning problems.
[b] Teachers keep the same students for several years and get to know
them [Meier (2002)].
[c] Thorough training develops teachers with expertise in their
subject matter and pedagogical alternatives [Cuban (2003), Hake
(2005e)].
[d] A STRONG WELFARE SYSTEM - NUTRITION, HOUSING, HEALTHCARE AND
FAMILY SERVICES - COMPLEMENTS SCHOOLING . . .[see e.g., Duguid-Siegel
(2005), Kozol (1992), Tyack (2003)].
The Finns do not rely on excessive low-level testing, as the U.S.
does. . . They have explicitly rejected the "naming and shaming" that
goes on in American schools through the publishing of test scores.
Test scores are never made public. . .[as mandated by the NCLB [USDE
(2005)], see, e.g., Carnoy, et al. (2003), Hake (2005c), Nichols &
Berliner (2005), Sternberg (2004)]. . . They are used for diagnosis
and improvement only. . . [i.e., for *formative* assessment, see e.g.
Black & Wiliam (1998, 2005), Black et al. (2004), Hake (2002)]. . .
not for invidious comparisons or to excoriate teachers, demean
students, or identify the worst performing groups.
Obviously, California. . .[or America generally]. . . cannot simply
copy Finnish values and practices, or its small size, or. . .[sadly].
. . its strong welfare state. But it can use some of its educational
practices as guides. Until we start moving in this direction,
California and the nation will lag behind our competitors in subjects
crucial to the global economy. . .[and to much more important matters
- see last paragraph below]. . ., and our children will be left
behind.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Raymond Simon (2005), deputy secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Education
responded to Grubb (2005) in a letter to the LA Times editor of 18
June:
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
. . . . Grubb's piece comparing Finland's education system with
America's does a disservice to both The U.S. does not "rely on
excessive low-level testing," as he charges, unless measuring
students once a year in English and math from grades 3 to 8 is
excessive. Moreover, Finland is hardly testing-free. In fact,
graduating students take a national exam before becoming eligible for
higher education.
Grubb misses the mark in other respects. American primary schools
have about the same number of students per teacher (15.5) as Finland
(15.8). The U.S. has more than twice the number of teachers' aides
per 1,000 students.
And separating test scores, such as under No Child Left Behind, has
led to a new focus on students who were once hidden behind the
averages and left behind. In fact, minority and urban-based students
have made some of the strongest academic gains thanks to this
practice.
Grubb's pessimism is unwarranted. It will not take us decades to
improve our schools. It's happening right now. And a big part of the
success story is testing and the accountability that comes with it.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
In my opinion, Simon's rebuttal misses the mark in several respects:
a. He evidently misinterprets Grubb's adjective "low level" to mean
"low grade level" rather than the almost undoubtedly intended "low
cognitive level."
b. The facts that "American primary schools have about the same
number of students per teacher (15.5) as Finland (15.8) [and] the
U.S. has more than twice the number of teachers' aides per 1,000
students," does NOT mean that teaching in the U.S. is as *effective*
as in Finland.
c. I know of no solid evidence that, overall, "minority and
urban-based students have made some of the strongest academic gains
thanks to [the NCLB]."
d. Simon ignores the apparent Finnish superiority in small classes
and schools, welfare assistance, and formative assessment.
To obtain a view from Finland, I asked exemplary Finnish high-school
physics teacher Antti Savinainen <http://kotisivu.mtv3.fi/physics/>
if he had any comments on W. Norton Grubb's (2005) opinion piece.
Antti responded (quoted with permission):
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
I think that it is a very thoughtful briefing of our educational
system. Perhaps it is slightly too positive but the facts as far as I
know are right. The teaching in literacy is indeed excellent. My
daughter just started school and she learned to read quite well
within few months as did almost all of the pupils in her class. The
primary teacher training seems to be very well taken care of (primary
teachers are required a M.Ed. degree). In addition, the primary
teacher training attracts top students: it might be right to say that
it is easier to get into a med school than to the teacher training!
The reason cannot be in salary since it is relatively low in general
and very much lower than doctors' salaries. (Fortunately, the subject
teachers do get quite good salaries :-)).
However, subject teacher training in sciences and mathematics is not
very attractive. It is also largely the case in physicist and
mathematician training. On the other hand, the best technology
universities have plenty of applicants. I can see this trend also
from the choices made by my best physics/math students.
Grubb writes: "Thorough training develops teachers with expertise in
their subject matter and pedagogical alternatives."
I wouldn't be that optimistic in this matter, at least in the case of
physics teachers. Usually they receive traditional university
teaching on physics (basically the same as physicists). This means,
as we know with some certainty, that they don't really master the
CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS after graduation. There is personal experience (I
have done some IN-SERVICE teacher training and attended physics
teaching seminars in Finland) as well as some unpublished data to
back up this claim. Fortunately, there are a few university physics
departments who have adopted some PER [Physics Education Research] in
their teacher training.
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Can America Put Finnishing Touches on K-12? As Grubb points out
America "cannot simply copy Finnish values and practices, or its
small size, or its strong welfare state. . .[why not??]. . ." But
Finland's K-12 system can serve as a guide to improve K-12 education
and (among other benefits) increase the science/math literacy of the
general population. Why bother?
Because life-threatening science/math-related societal problems
[e.g., terrorism; overpopulation (doubles about every 35 years);
threat of weapons of mass destruction; human welfare (starvation,
homelessness, unemployment, drugs, epidemics, AIDS, etc.); pollution
of air, water, land, food; global warming; ozone depletion;
deforestation; loss of biodiversity; etc., etc., etc.] cannot be
resolved when a science/math illiterate society elects science/math
illiterate leaders.
Consistent with Grubb & Lazerson (2004), the need for more effective
K-12 education is not merely to bolster industrial competitiveness
[CEW 2005, TFFOAI (2004)].