Finnish Lessons

I recently ran into Gaea Leinhardt, a professor from the University of Pittsburgh. She just completed a book review (Finnish Patience) of the recently published book by Pasi Sahlburg - Finnish Lessons. I mentioned that I've been following the publication of the book and the lessons learned in Finland. She provided me with interesting contextual information as to why this reform occurred and how it relates to our efforts in the United States. I wasn't surprised that we both were immediately drawn to two key aspects of the Finnish model: open, equitable heterogenous schools and expert teachers.

Peruskoulu - A 50 year education reform effort 

Finland's tumultuous history began in 1918 when, as a result of the Russian Revolution and the end of World War I, they were given independence from the Russian Empire. A civil war ensued for control of the country.

The civil war remains the most traumatic, controversial and emotionally charged event in the history of modern Finland, and there have even been disputes about how to designate it. Three-quarters of the war victims were Reds who died mainly in political terror campaigns and in prison camps. The turmoil created severe food shortages, disrupted the Finnish economy and the political apparatus, and divided the Finnish nation for many years. Finnish society was reunited through the social compromises based on long-term culture of moderate politics and religion, the outcome of World War I and the post-war economic recovery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_War.)

Finland's growth as an independent country was interrupted again during World War II when it had to defend itself against both the Russians and the Germans. After WWII, Finland embarked on its development as an independent, democratic country. At that time, Finland had a traditional compulsory education program beginning at the age of 7 using a three year grammar school model followed by tracking at the early age of 10 into either an academic or vocational track in middle and high school.

Influenced by the technology revolution beginning in the 1960's and the growth of NOKIA, a Finnish multinational communications and information technology company, Finland moved to create a model of education that ensured that all of its children became academically and technologically proficient. The imperative was to move from a selection based tracking model of schooling to an egalitarian, empowering, high quality education delivery system.

In 1968 the country committed itself to a non-traditional educational model called Peruskoulu. This new model provides 9 years of comprehensive schooling (in contrast to three years in the pre-1968 model) that starts at age 7 for all students. At age 16, students attend either an upper vocational school or an upper academic school (equivalent to the last two years of an American High School).This is followed by vocational college, university, or work. Thus, Finland's new model provided all students with the same quality education for 9 years prior to making a vocational decision. The fact that Finland has sustained a 50 year school reform plan that includes all students, all preschools, all grade schools and all universities is exceptional. This is an extraordinary commitment of time and resources on a national level.

"Building on the ideas of upgrading teacher education to the master’s degree level in universities, abolishing streaming and ability grouping, and investing early on in special education and student counseling positively affected the quality of education in peruskoulu and beyond. As a consequence, by the end of the 1990s, Finnish peruskoulu became the world leader in reading, science, and math. This shift from an elitist and socially divided system of education into the most equitable public education system in the world happened in such a short time that it has been frequently cited as an example of dramatic organizational transformation." (Pasi Sahlberg, 2014)

The fact that it is based in egalitarianism and a faith in high performing teachers is almost impossible for an American to comprehend.

A Social Democratic, Egalitarian Approach to Education

When one learns that formal grade school starts at age 7 in Finland, it is hard to imagine how they can lead the world in education.  Most students in the United States (and around the world) enter kindergarten at the age of 5. This "late start" in school is deceiving.

Universal Preschool
Actually, Finnish education begins at the age of 3. The Finnish model offers universal child care and preschool. Every child in Finland under age 7 has the right to child care and preschool by law, regardless of family income. Over 97 percent of 3- to 6-year-olds attend a program of one type or another. Preschool teachers are extremely well prepared - all have bachelor degrees. The preschool program is aligned with the 9 year comprehensive school curriculum in order to prepare students for a successful school experience. Thus, almost all children enter school at the age of 7 with four years of socialization and education experiences.

No Tracking
When students enter grade school, they are not tracked. A key element of the Peruskoulu model was Finland's move away from tracking towards an egalitarian heterogenous model of learning. All students are in the same academic track and in the same classrooms. To assure that all students achieve at a very high level, extensive support mechanisms are in place.

One of the criticisms of a heterogenous model is that students at the extremes - gifted and low functioning - do not have their needs met. It might be assumed that Finland could do this since it has a homogenous population. That assumption about Finland's demographics would be naive.

Finland is seen by many outsiders as monocultural – its foreign-born citizens make up just 5% of its population, compared to about 11.5% in the UK. But, over the last 15 years, Finland has diversified at a faster rate than any other European country. By 2020, a fifth of Helsinki's pupils are expected to have been born elsewhere – the majority in Russia, Estonia, Somalia and the former Yugoslavia.

At Laakavuori primary, in the poorer, eastern part of Helsinki, 45% of pupils have a language other than Finnish as their mother tongue. And yet they achieve as much as others in more affluent areas of the country, where there are few, if any, immigrants. (The Guardian, 2011)

Student Support Systems
The education system in Finland goes to great lengths to provide wrap around support for all of its students. Schools provide students with a daily hot meal, health and dental services and psychological counseling. Academic support for students includes support personnel in classrooms, after school programs and tutoring. Schools have a robust Special Education program that identifies and supports students with special needs including physical, emotional and learning disabilities. Identification of special needs students is done in the home language of the student. Accommodations are made for students whose primary language is not Finnish. Religious education is specific to the individual students preference. Every effort is made to meet the needs of all students.

Free Education
Finnish schools are free and open to the public. Since school's are financed centrally, the quality of education is not determined by a family's income level or the wealth of a local community. University and vocational colleges are free to all students. As a social democracy, Finland believes it is the government's duty to educate all students in an equitable fashion. Education is an imperative and is therefore paid for by taxes collected centrally and distributed equitably across the country.

Exceptional Teachers
Exceptional teachers are at the core of Finland's education success. When the country implemented Peruskoulu in 1968, they overhauled teacher preparation programs at the university level. From an American perspective this aligning of preschool, grade school and university teacher training programs is a radical concept. From a Finnish perspective it is common sense.

The Finnish Approach to Teaching

1. Only the top 10% of all university teacher applicants are accepted. 
2. You must obtain a Masters degree in order to be certified to teach.
3. An integral part of the Master's level teacher training program pertains to prospective teachers conducting educational research as part of their degree. This forces teachers to become reflective, to learn about best practices from the professional literature and to ingrain a sense of constantly improving their practice.  
4. Due to the selectivity of teaching degree programs and the national emphasis on quality education, teachers are well respected and well paid.
5. Not surprisingly, there is very little turnover or dropout among teachers.
6. The work day, work week and work year is shorter than in the US or United Kingdom.  
7. Teachers only teach in areas they are certified in.
8. Many upper grade teachers are certified in two subject areas. 
9. Teachers are trusted by principals and parents.
10. Teachers teach from both a pragmatic and moral imperative. That moral imperative focuses on equal access and success for all students.  

By creating an educational system that is predicated on top notch, expert teachers, many standard "safety systems" can be done away with. In this sense, safety systems are those constructs put into place to manage poor teaching. Thus there is no testing, either internally or by the state to address issues of teacher or school accountability. Curriculum is not prescriptive allowing the teacher latitude to create and implement their own materials. The belief is that quality teachers make quality education. The only testing that occurs is at the end of grade school at the age of 16. These tests are for placement in university or vocational programs. Finland participates in international tests (such as PISA - Program for International Student Assessment) in order to calibrate their success with respect to the rest of the world.  

The 21st Century Education Challenge

2012 PISA Scores - Aggregate

Before we discuss Finland's program in comparison to others around the world, there are two essentials issue that all countries in the world are grappling with. First, for the first time in the history of the world, nations are attempting to teach all of their citizens. Not just the royalty, or the wealthy, or the gifted, or the males or the privileged... Everybody.

Second, prior to the 20th century, literacy for the masses was seen as being able to read and write at a basic level. The concept of "basic literacy" has changed over time due to changes in technology, the economy and the skills needed by a modern workforce. It is no surprise that countries attempt school reform, not solely out of altruistic goals, but to address the need for a quality workforce.

The current global school reform efforts began over 50 years ago. Some would suggest it was World War II that brought on a new economy, a new internationalism, a new desire to build a middle class. Others focus on the 1957 Soviet flight of Sputnik which highlighted the Cold War need to remain competitive with our enemies.

Certainly the need for universal education beyond basic literacy gained momentum in the 1980's with the use of calculators and personal computers. As we transitioned from the industrial age to the information age, there was an increased need for workers to become literate in a modern sense of the word. This meant gaining literacy with technology, Algebra, Statistics, science, problem solving and higher order reasoning. This is the demand created by an information based economy. Read the 1983 Nation At Risk report to gain insight into America's need as a country to address these concerns.

As nations entered the new economy, they were confronted with educating the 21st century worker. For the first time, nations had to consider how to teach all children higher level skills. All children means those from poverty, all races, all genders, all intelligences... all children. This has been the challenge of the last 50 years.  And this is where the lessons learned in Finland have something to offer.

Comparing Finland to the World

Pasi Sahlberg, the author of Finnish Lessons has coined the name GERM (Global Education Reform Movement) to describe post-Sputnik school reform efforts in many countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, most of mainland Europe and many others.  And needless to say, he is critical.  He describes the GERM model's evolution as follows.

Initially the goals were:

• Education For All
• Focus on Learning
• Raising the Bar and Closing the Gap 

However, the reform efforts morphed into these simple minded strategies:

• Focus on Basics
• Focus on Core Subjects - Reading and Math (to the exclusion of other content areas)
• Prescribed Curriculum
• Standardized Testing
• Test-Based Accountability
• Corporate Style Management by Numbers
• School Choice
• Privatization

There is something empowering about the initial goals; and something terribly cynical about the strategies. As someone who worked in education during this time, I can attest to the fact that these strategies were indeed drivers in our nation's school reform. Underlying these strategies is a lack of trust in educators. Compare the Finnish approach to preparing teachers (above) with that of the United States.

The United States Approach to Teaching

1. Almost all applicants to teacher education programs are accepted. 
2. You must obtain a bachelors degree in order to teach. 
3. Any advanced college credits can be random with no relationship to what or how one teaches.  
4. Teacher training is rote, with no research component and little classroom experience.
5. Teachers are not well respected nor paid as well as other professions.
6. There is a large turnover (40-50% quit within five years.)
7. Teachers receive very little support during their early years.
8. Teachers are overwhelmed with pressure to have their students perform on high accountability tests. 
9. Curriculum and pedagogy is prescriptive, with little latitude for the teacher to adapt materials as they see fit.

Whether one blames our inferior quality of teachers (as compared to Finland) on university education programs, or on a less discriminating talent pool, or on protections built in by teachers unions, or by a lack of knowledge on how to teach all students, or on the lack of a supportive school environment, we simply are not preparing, supporting or respecting teachers in a mindful manner. Hence our education outcomes suffer.  

Recent studies by the Rand Corporation suggest that "Teachers matter more to student achievement than any other aspect of schooling." An expert teacher moves students forward 1.5 years academically in 1 years time. Finnish education puts the majority of its resources behind the effort to create great teachers. They work closely with universities to create quality programs of teacher development.

Comparing Finland to Norway

Although Norway did not have a civil war, they had a similar experience to Finland during World War II.  Both countries came away from the war with a desire to build an independent democratic state. Both have the same relative heterogeneity and in fact, Norway is a more prosperous country due to wealth drawn from the North Sea.

After World War II, both began to consider their educational systems. As stated, Finland gravitated to a teacher centered, egalitarian system. Norway chose the GERM model (Global Education Reform Movement) as articulated by Pasi Sahlberg - http://pasisahlberg.com/global-educational-reform-movement-is-here/. Thus we have a clear comparison between two similar countries, with similar social democratic philosophies, and similar economic systems, but contrasting school systems.

A look at the PISA table above shows the results.  Norway is getting the same results as other GERM countries. And Finland is far ahead.  A comparison of Norway and Finland suggest that the experimental intervention - Peruskoulu - works.

A Caveat About Implementation

As Sahlberg shows his contempt for the GERM model and promotes Finland's Peruskoulu, I am bothered by a simple yet most important oversight. At a fundamental level, Finland is neither the United States nor the United Kingdom. Finland is a social democracy built on the concept of central control, egalitarian programs and high taxes that provide a wealth of services. Finland is also quite small, about the same size and population as the state of Arizona. In Finland, the concept of creating a teacher development system that coordinates teacher education with universities and grade schools is manageable. The concept of providing student support services at all schools for all students is embedded in social democracy.

In the US or the UK, education is much different. Close to 1/3 of all students don't even attend public schools. And education in the US is not managed by the federal government, it is a state responsibility. Arizona, is one of 50 states, and has hundreds of local school districts. Each district has different funding, different populations and different leadership. Education is a local activity. And school choice, whether through where you choose to live, or what you are willing to pay, is the reality.

In America, you as a parent or as a student, are on your own to get the best education possible. That is the nature of a meritocracy. Charter Schools are a product of an inflexible American public school education system that refuses to adapt to the new economy and education best practices. Opponents of Charter Schools suggest that they are an attempt to privatize education. Proponents of Charter Schools suggest that they are an attempt to provide education opportunities to those students who are not receiving a quality education and can't purchase an alternative. I would suggest that both sides would agree that the real problem is a lack of social democratic ideals in our country. Education is not a national priority.

It would be disingenuous to assume that large free-market libertarian GERM countries could do what Finland did without a major change in political systems or an upheaval by the population. Thus I am saying it is highly unlikely that we could possibly put in place a system like Finland's in the United States.

But we would be foolish not to learn from Finland's education model.

The Takeaway

As a social democracy, Finland has put in place, over a 50 year period, an educational program that provides: Universal Preschool, Free quality education at the grade school and university level, wrap-around support services for students and expert teachers. They trust their teachers to develop curriculum, make wise choices, use strategies that succeed with all students and create literate, proficient learners. Sahlberg actually uses the word TRUST. Given the right setting, the right culture, the right support, the right reward system and exceedingly high standards, it is easy to trust teachers.

If America had the will, concepts such as Universal Preschool, wrap-around support services for students, an elimination of tracking and demanding a higher level of teacher training are possibilities. But to take an egalitarian approach would mean that we would have to drop our system based meritocracy and truly act in a manner that suggests all people can and should succeed. It would mean that as a society we would choose to be inclusive over our current educational "survival of the fittest" approach.  And it would mean that we have to elevate teaching of our children to the highest status among professions.

Next weeks blog post will describe an American high school where this happens.   

---

References for this post include:

Finnish Patience. By Gaea Leinhardt
http://pasisahlberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Finnish-Lessons-review-ER-2012.pdf

Why Finland's schools are top-notch. By Pasi Sahlberg http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/opinion/sahlberg-finland-education/

Finnish lessons. By Pasi Sahlberg
(2011). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.