Flexible curriculum, top quality teachers, high-level investment – are these the keys to building the best education system in the world?
Christopher D. Sessums has written an interesting post on factors that contribute to educational success, part of which is how schools attract and retain excellent teaching staff. He explores What do all great school systems have in common? and examines a number of comparisons between the US, UK and Finnish educational systems.
He writes that:
According to Sir Michael Barber, an advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair:
“They all select their teachers from the top third of their college graduates, whereas the U.S. selects its teachers from the bottom third of graduates. This is one of the big challenges for the U.S. education system: What are you going to do over the next 15 to 20 years to recruit ever better people into teaching?”
Sessums also looks at “a recent New York Times article, [in which] Sir Michael elaborates on the theme of improving schools and teacher quality. He notes that South Korea pays its teachers more than England and America and, as a trade-off, accepts larger class sizes. On the other hand, Finland draws top-tier college graduates to the profession by “fostering exceptionally high public respect for teachers.”
While attracting and keeping teaching staff is an important factor in creating an educational system that fosters excellence, I couldn’t but wonder what it was about Finland’s educational system that places it at the top of OECD surveys. Australia also fares very well in these surveys but some shallow research pointed to to some unique aspects of the Finnish system and its excellence may have a lot to do with the combination of stability in early childhood and flexibility in later teens that is offered to students.
Some of these aspects can be found in this BBC article on Finnish education and, in particular, the Makelanrinne upper secondary school in Helsinki.
- Children stay at the same school between the ages of seven and 16, rather than having primary and secondary schools.
- Pupils begin at upper secondary schools after their comprehensive schools, at the age of 16.
- Opportunities for students to learn at their own pace, rather than within a year group.
- Very flexible and individualised curriculum – with each student creating their own timetable.
- Core subjects are also very broad, including elements of languages, sciences, maths, humanities, psychology, religion and philosophy with dozens of extra subject units
- The upper secondary school system is intended for more academically-able students – and runs parallel to a network of vocational schools, which focus on workplace skills.
- Almost all pupils stay in education and training beyond 16 and 17, almost two thirds continue into higher education.
In another BBC article, which places the system of education in an economic context, Education Minister, Tuula Haatainen, attributes the Finn’s educational success to the “unified” school system, in which children staying at the same school between the ages of seven and 16, rather than having primary and secondary schools.
The education system is geared towards maintaining a “high-wage, high-skill” economy and an annual report from the World Economic Forum, has identified Finland as the world’s most competitive economy, citing its “culture of innovation” as a key determinant.
Image: http://static.parkingpanel.com/themes/books2/main.jpg
I’m interested in all of this, although a set of policies may work in one culture and not in another, since there are so many factors in the culture and circumstances of the different countries that might impact on success. Economies of scale, differences in world view and individual identity, different populations (one may be more diverse than another), etc. I don’t think that we can graft other cultural solutions onto our tree so easily. I think we’d have to pick and choose and model some of the programs that work for other societies. I’m not sure that a “culture of innovation” is a focused enough philosophy for a society like ours. We have a complex set of issues that a country like Finland simply doesn’t have to address.
That being said, I would really love to see a revitalization of vocational education in our country, including a combined program for students to choose both an academic and vocational course. Why the either/or about it, you know? In order to do that, vocational training should be available in the schools, not as part of a separate BOCES program that removes students from one set of opportunities in order to take advantage of others. But, I don’t think I’d like to see children going to school in the same building from 7 to 16, though. I think that would be a disaster for our kids.
Hi Audrey,
Thanks for your comment. It is true that cultural specifics can determine how well any policy “fits”, whether it’s education or something else. I agree that vocational education opportunities are very interesting and we are implementing something similar at our school next year, albeit on a small scale. This is a significant because, like Finland, Australia is facing a significant skilled labour shortage. I’m not sure what country you are from and why “you have a complex set of issues that a country like Finland simply doesn’t have to address.” I have found that there seem to be many commonalities between problems facing educators in Western, industrialised nations. I also wasn’t sure what you meant when you say a “culture of innovation” is a focused enough philosophy for a society like ours.” As we move from an industrial to service and knowlege-based economy I think that “innovation” is vital to economic growth/stability. This was one of the reasons I am keen to find out more about the Finnish system.
The ways in which schools are governed is one are that Australia differs from Finland’s centralised model. Here education is the responsibility of state governments and so there are key differences between state curricula and despite the push for a national curriulum, I can’t see it happening for some time yet, if at all.
In terms of “children going to school in the same building from 7 to 16”, I work in a Kindergarten to Year 12 school (5-18 years) and there are many benefits associated with getting to know families over many years. Why do you think it would be a “disaster”? Look forward to hearing your ideas about this. Cindy
I really like commenting on your blog Cindy. You always come back with great responses that get me thinking about potential holes in my own thinking (starting with the fact that I didn’t even think about the possibility that you might not be from the USA…). I wasn’t thinking about Finland in comparison to Australia, but about Finland and the USA. For the USA, Finland really isn’t a reasonable comparison.
The United States has roughly 42 million children between 10-19. Finland has 340,000. 93.4% of their population is Finnish, which is another enormous difference. I live in Queens and at my local ATM you can choose to bank in at least English, Korean, Russian and Spanish. In Finland, they speak two languages: Finnish and Swedish. They are a homogeneous culture with a very small population. We are a heterogeneous culture with numerous languages, ethnic groups and a very large population. That suggests that Finland would have a very different set of needs from ours.
Curiously, as I researched Finland compared it to the USA… they aren’t nearly as successful as I expected them to be. I assumed, based on your entry, that they had the virtues of smallness and homgeneity to account for their success. What I discovered is that they aren’t as successful as I thought. They have a very high unemployment rate comparative to ours. For 2005 their youth unemployment rate 20% for youth compared to our 11% and 6% compared to our 3% for adults.
What I meant about culture of innovation being too vague is that I don’t think that whether or not the USA is “innovative” enough is really the central issue in our educational system…. it’s an issue that we put to the front, but our failures in this regard are symptomatic of another underlying malaise…and this is only my opinion, but I think that our children in the USA have some handicaps that are not related directly to pedagogy. I could spend a lot of time on this particular issue, but… for another time.
On the point about 7-16 in one building… perhaps I misspoke. It wouldn’t be a disaster everywhere. I’ve taught in small private schools where 10-16 were in one building and prek – 9 were in another right across the street. It was okay there. But, in my current situation it would not be feasible. Scale is an issue again. In my district, we 6 or 8 elementary schools feeding into two middle schools that graduate a combined 6,000 middle school students into our one high school each year. Our high school is enormous and we have a lot of specialized classes for them that require a lot of space and support. All of that would collapse if we had to find a way to house 7-16 in one building. We are a fairly well off public Urban/suburban district, but we can’t afford to duplicate resources in all our buildings so that we can house multiple grades in each building…