According to Pearson's "The Learning Curve" report, released in September 2012, Finland is THE place to be a teacher.
Finland. Finland, Finland, Finland.
We get it - you're the best - "number one." Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I have heard so much praise and excitement over the great things happening in Finland's education system to give it that number-one-with-a-bullet rank. The United States, however, barely squeaks by into the top 20 list, settling in at an unimpressive 17. What's the disparity here?
Finland's model openly challenges the effectiveness of our nation's teacher preparation and evaluation programs. As a Teach for America alum, I grapple with the idea of teacher training: Finland would never allow a teacher with five weeks of
crash-course summer training to teach. In Finland, the pathway to become an educator is challenging and
competitive, with a low acceptance rate into masters programs (which is absolutely required to become a teacher). Interestingly enough, as opposed to the estimated 50% turnover rate for the first five years of teaching in the United States, education appears to be a lifelong profession in Finland. "Teach for Finland" is not an option.
Additionally, unlike some of its competitors, Finland does not track its students; all students learn in the same classroom. Standardized testing does not exist, except the exit exam at the end of secondary school. Class sizes are smaller, but not significantly so (an average of about 21 students per class). Time in the classroom is less than in the United States. Even still, the differences in the lowest-performing students and highest-performing students is minimal.
They continue to outshine us in so many regards. So, how can we learn from them?
It's hard to say for sure if we could mirror a system like this in our own country because our populations are so diverse, and our history and culture are so different. I'm not sure we could just take their system and implement it flawlessly. However, I believe that we can learn, reflect, and adjust if we analyze how Finland is able to consistently keep good teachers in the classroom and students performing at their best.
It seems that the baseline here is choosing the right people to teach
children. In this respect, I feel that programs like TFA or The New
Teacher Project (TNTP) are on the right track as Finland - focusing on
the "best and brightest" - but the program itself falls short. Instead
of this temporary quick-fix, maybe we should start making the teacher
preparation process more selective.
Finland does evaluate teachers, but does not use it for reprimanding or
micromanaging. Rather, it is used for development. Teachers in Finland also can decide on their own teaching methods and materials. Because all teachers are so well-prepared and impeccably trained, there is an implicit trust in their abilities. Therefore, they are given complete autonomy over their work and they test their own students. Teaching is a well-respected and highly-regarded profession, peppered with a lot of freedom and trust.
Some places, like Baltimore City, feel the need to use salary-based
incentives to keep teachers motivated to perform well. While I believe
that this is certainly on the right track, I think that teacher
training, evaluation, and satisfaction are really the key for a more
effective educational
system. Of course salary must be considered, but this is not the main reason that Finland attracts the best and brightest
students to teaching. The pay is not bad, nor is it exceptional - it is
average. Despite this, their teachers are dedicated and their results
are undeniable.
I feel it is our charge as urban educators to consider the type of reform it would take to create a system that praises, not blames, teachers - that successfully supports the whole child - that fairly evaluates both teachers and students. In the last fifty years, we have seen Finland gradually renovate their entire educational system and subsequently thrive. Enough of this "number one" business - what about us? This is our time to act.
The question is - where do we start?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I have read about the success of Finland before as there was an article that circulated a lot last Spring, and I do think that we can learn from the fact that they select the best and brightest and place a lot of time and effort into training and developing teachers. I think we have to take into consideration that our population is much more diverse than Finland's population, however, even though our population is more diverse, we can still work on raising the respect for the profession.
I agree that programs like Teach for America have helped to recruit strong individuals into the teaching profession, however, I have been reflecting lately, that, as long as Teach for America continues the 5-week training Institute, they are doing a disservice to the profession, because they are saying if we attract the best and brightest, they need little training. Personally, however, I still think the majority would have benefited from more training and development than we received to make us more effective in our first year of teaching.
I read one article recently that had said Teach for America has become a successful recruitment pipeline, however, this alumnus felt that TFA needs to rethink their training. I think they definitely do if they want to raise the status of the profession, the effectiveness of the teachers they recruit, and decrease the burn out of teachers.
Personally, I have been interested by research going on at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, with regards to establishing a training program, more like the training program for medical school, so that teachers would have to undergo a lot more supervised training and observation, during their early teaching years, much like interns and residents. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/2013/03/raising-the-bar-for-teaching/
I have read about the success of Finland before as there was an article that circulated a lot last Spring, and I do think that we can learn from the fact that they select the best and brightest and place a lot of time and effort into training and developing teachers. I think we have to take into consideration that our population is much more diverse than Finland's population, however, even though our population is more diverse, we can still work on raising the respect for the profession.
I agree that programs like Teach for America have helped to recruit strong individuals into the teaching profession, however, I have been reflecting lately, that, as long as Teach for America continues the 5-week training Institute, they are doing a disservice to the profession, because they are saying if we attract the best and brightest, they need little training. Personally, however, I still think the majority would have benefited from more training and development than we received to make us more effective in our first year of teaching.
I read one article recently that had said Teach for America has become a successful recruitment pipeline, however, this alumnus felt that TFA needs to rethink their training. I think they definitely do if they want to raise the status of the profession, the effectiveness of the teachers they recruit, and decrease the burn out of teachers.
Personally, I have been interested by research going on at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, with regards to establishing a training program, more like the training program for medical school, so that teachers would have to undergo a lot more supervised training and observation, during their early teaching years, much like interns and residents. http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news-impact/2013/03/raising-the-bar-for-teaching/
Post a Comment