Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Recommended Resources Article: Why do Finland's schools......

As a Finn (born and raised) I can attest to the great school system I was educated in.

School begins at 7 (first grade) and there isn't a push for early reading. "My baby can read" would not make much money there:) There are neighborhood schools that most kids can walk to, but you are free to enroll in any school and take public transportation there. I went to a private school early on and instruction was in German and then transitioned to a nearby school. A person's zip code does not determine the quality of their education. I have a younger brother who spent all of 10 weeks in 1st grade and was skipped on to 2nd. While there are no official gifted programs, there is great flexibility in curriculum.

As far as "sisu", we are proud of our independence as a nation and as individuals. I took public transportation to school and to my hobbies early on. We spent most of our summers going swimming without adults as it is quite safe to do so. Sisu is also about overcoming obstacles and not giving up when anything is difficult.

Overall the quality of education is high, as Finns place great emphasis on the quality, not quantity of education. After high school, I came to United States and found college here extremely easy for the first 4 years. But I found the projects time consuming and sometimes too much considering the class I was taking. Maybe that's the difference.

Jen

P.S. I hope no one takes my post as bashing US. It is only intended to highlight my experiences and I am quite happy here:)

I would also like to emphasize that in elementary school most students will have the same teacher from 1st-6th grade. Electives are taught by specialized teachers, but your main teacher for math, language, social studies, science remains the same. As a parent it is hard to adjust to new teachers for my kids every year, and it must be even harder for the students. There was some comfort in having the same teacher for many years even though I didn't always like her. I wonder if this makes a difference?


Jen

I love the fact the kids have the same teachers. It takes my sensitive DD a month or more to get adjusted every year.

I also like the fact that most of the classrooms have 2-3 teachers....Just Imagine

I don't want to make this into something it's not, but I don't think there was a need to put white in there at all. I do agree in the content by which I think you meant it, that there is basically one culture, making it easier to teach to the masses. But the same can be said for schools in Japan (non-white), where obviously there's a higher degree of education than in the US. When there are many different cultures in the classroom, it can be difficult to do so (and/or the way children are raised amongs those cultures varies as well); however, I feel that alone is still an excuse to accept less than the best for US Education...

As a mother of biracial children and wife of an extremely bright black man (he does not like the label African American - he is American), I took offense a little...

Carry on.

Good article.

Look at the energy and ownership of the teachers--trust. I like that no one is telling them what to do and how to do it. I would think that would be demeaning to a professional. But there must be instances where there's a poor teacher and the children are "stuck" with them for years.

Race has little to do with it. Nor does homogeneity.

It is the quality of the values of that culture and how those values are reinforced by parents, friends, and the adults the kids interact with - and then how those values are depicted in society and within the the peer group of the kid - that have a bearing on the outcome.

There are a number of excellent schools that exist in the worst demographics in the US with a great number of ethnic groups. These schools do very, very well. They have high expectations for the students, parents, and teachers, and everyone is held accountable. The same goes for many private schools that reach out to minority and poor students. They achieve the same excellent results.

The difference is accountability for teachers, administrators, parents, and students. If we removed the worst teachers and shut down the worst schools every three years, then that would be a start.

As a former teacher in the deep south, it was much easier to teach in a classroom where the students come from similar cultures (in this sense, I meant values), so I see where Bostonian was going with his/her statement. That said, I don't disagree with you, Austin, in fact, quite the opposite. It's the reason I stopped teaching where I was - lack of parent/community support, no accountability for teachers (both for that which was bad and good) and horrible administration.

I respectfully disagree
I believe a troubled community creates a troubled school and I tip my hat to the teachers who care enough to teach there.

Smaller classes, larger teacher support staff, community outreach, one-on-one student/mentor weekly, and free after school programs would be a much better start.

Firing the teachers and moving the troubled kids to a higher performing school will not magically make them better students.

A lot of studies now show that bad teachers dwarf all other inputs from an educational perspective. I think the Finnish experience bears this out.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_gladwell?printable=true#ixzz0g9OQf42E



We have a limited amount of money and a limited amount of time. How is the money spent to get the most out of it for the kids and our communities? What are the trade-offs the the various approaches?

For schools - the easiest and most cost-neutral approach is:

1. Find, hire, and train the best teachers.
2. Remove the bottom 5% of the teachers.
3. Hold principals and school superintendents accountable for performance and costs. Bonus them or fire them just like we do business leaders in the private sector.


I think there are other ways, too. But very, very few districts take the time to research all options and do a full cost analysis of their options and then look at the impacts. They decide how much they want to spend then spend it letting their budget cycle drive their spending rather than looking at lifecycle costs.