Showing posts with label teacher unions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teacher unions. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
We should adopt Finland's educational system
This week's Dan Rather Reports on HDNet dealt with why America should adopt Finland's educational system.
Both the Republican and Democratic leaderships would reject this without even considering the reasons.
The Republicans have to reject it because so-called "American Exceptionalism"--a central pillar of the GOP Ministry of Propaganda's tenets--states that America is better than every single other country on Earth in every single aspect, and anyone who says otherwise isn't a loyal American and thus his arguments can and should be ignored.
The only exception to American Exceptionalism is Israel, whose policies are apparently the best on Earth--even better than ours--because another Republican MOP tenet is that America must support every single thing Israel does without question (and pay for it), and anyone who demurs hates Jews and should never be allowed to hold public office--and of course his reasons for demurring can and should be ignored.
The Democratic leadership, meanwhile, bristles at the very idea of holding up a foreign country's educational system as a standard because it might threaten the jobs of today's American teachers and administrators if you did so.
Not that they say that. Instead they advance a cloudy, dystopian version of the GOP MOP's "American Exceptionalism:" most other countries are too small to compare with America, they lack our diversity, or poverty, or....the reasons offered take more time to deal with than if you just looked at the other country's system.
Let's look at Finland anyway.
First, Finland because it tests in the top three of the world's nations consistently across the spectrum of standardized testing.
Second, Finland because it does this while spending vastly less on education than America does--about $8K per student vs. around $11K here.
Third, because the argument of scale is complete nonsense. Finland has a larger population than 32 of America's states, and in America education is done at the state level--so even without considering the larger states, Finland's lessons are applicable to nearly 2/3 of American states.
Fourth, because the diversity argument is also nonsense: many heartland states like Iowa, for example, have less diversity than Finland, yet Finland produces better-educated students for way less money than all of them, singly or in any combination. And Finland's students do better than those of all the other Nordic nations, all with comparable demographics. And it isn't monolithic. The country speaks three official languages and has 5% foreign-born people--and the schools with the largest immigrant populations do just as well as the homogeneous ones.
Amazingly, unlike the other countries at the top of the testing, Finnish students finish first without being grinds, and the teachers finish first without being paid much more than American teachers. But they're more highly trained than American teachers, and their jobs are vastly more enjoyable--less regimented, with smaller classes (average 20), shorter hours for both students and teachers, and far more scope of authority about what and how to teach. Students also get less homework BTW.
Nor are the "secrets" very exotic--they're actually much closer to what American educational reformers like John Dewey advocated than the principles American schooling goes by.
Secret number one: put the schools budget into the classrooms. Dan Rather cited a damning statistic: the entire Finnish educational bureaucracy numbers 600 administrators for 1,140,000 students nationwide, from primary school through university (which is, of course, free to students whose test scores qualify them for admission). That's a ratio of 1,900 students per administrator.
By contrast, Rather said that the Los Angeles Unified School district employs 3,685 administrations to oversee the education of 664,233 students. That's a ratio of 180 students per administrator.
Adopting Finland's approach would put 91% of America's educational administration bureaucracy into the classroom (or out on the street). In fact even school principals teach several classes a week.
But it would probably involve replacing many of America's teachers. In Finland you have to have a master's degree in education to be considered for classroom teaching. Despite the pay not being that high, being a teacher is prestigious. Teachers are considered cool when male and female Finns are polled about the most desirable profession for a spouse to have. So the idiot teachers you remember having--I sure do--wouldn't be there.
Another secret to Finland's educational system being so cost effective is that they spend next to nothing on special ed, nothing on standardized testing, and nothing on school sports. Special ed kids are mainstreamed, with extra teachers in classrooms giving help right there to kids who need more assistance. Teachers create their own tests. And kids' athletics are handled by the towns and cities, after school (and school days are shorter than ours), with just as much participation in athletics as you see here. It's just not considered a function of the schools.
Also, there are virtually no private schools in Finland, or home schooling. Public schools are esteemed by adults and considered both safe and fulfilling by students. Bullying is nipped in the bud. Arts are taught. A lot of class time is hands-on and individuated.
Teachers and students enjoy themselves and look forward to school.
Imagine that. You'd think conservatives would love an educational system that costs so much less and teaches the basics so much better. You'd think liberals would love an educational system that is just as good in the inner cities as it is in the affluent suburbs and takes individual needs into account.
Yet we just steam along, oblivious to the lessons we could learn if we didn't assume that the world consists of "America" and "here there be dragons."
You can read a lengthy description of how Finnish education works here or here. Or you can get the book on it from Finland's top educator on Amazon.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Charter schools?
Teachers' unions say they don't oppose charter schools--they just oppose letting charter schools cherrypick districts' best students. If students were assigned randomly they'd be fine with that.
Whether this claim is honest or just shining us on, it's wrong.
Charter schools do cherrypick. That sounds undemocratic, unfair on the face of it.
But I see it as triage.
Once, a long time ago, I worked in ghetto schools for a while. I observed that education did not generally happen there. Classes were controlled riots.
The reason wasn't bad teachers. It was (a) students raised to have total disdain for anything educational; (b) the inability of teachers to kick misbehaving students out of their classes.
Most ghetto classes comprise a plurality of kids who'll go along with learning something but don't feel a passion for it, a minority of kids who really do want to learn, and a handful of kids who are so damaged--often in utero--that they're incapable not just of learning but of letting anyone else learn. I don't blame these kids. It's just the way it is.
But liberal brainlock decrees that we sacrifice everyone in a futile attempt to save the unsaveable.
Charter schools won't admit such kids, or quickly chuck them out. That seems unkind, but it's even more unkind to destroy the future of most ghetto kids by ensuring that nobody learns anything.
I once had an 8th grade science class. Most of the class read at a 4th grade level. OK. I could deal with that. But the class also contained several large boys who'd been held back and were functionally illiterate. I told the authorities about this. They told me that it was my job to create a separate lesson plan for them and, well, keep them entertained. The vibe was that I was a racist white boy if I couldn't help all these black kids. The mandate could only be achieved by sacrificing everyone else in the class. Eventually I quit.
"Successful" teachers in ghetto classes succeed by giving everyone meaningless busy work, keeping them relatively quiet and occupied until the bell rings.
The worst enemies of black, Latino and other underachieving groups in school are the people who say they're most fervently on their side. They have doomed generation after generation of such kids to failure by failing to make the hard decisions--to kick out all kids who can't or won't let other kids learn. Forget the stoned dozers. It's the ones who won't stop talking, ignoring the teacher, using the class to partay--they're the ones who must go.
We need a separate school system for such kids--one that's more like reform school, whose main goal is to keep them off the streets and teach them some sort of useful skills if possible.
The other kids would then be able to learn, using ordinary teachers. And most teachers are ordinary. There's no reason to expect more, all things considered.
Since this will never happen, the next best solution is charter schools that will save at least some of the students. Oh, and charter schools also have a chance of escaping mandated curricula with the most mind-numbingly boring textbooks designed to not offend any right or left winger. Reading them is like eating hospital food.
I'd rather have mandated public school education with a nationally determined curriculum and textbooks, like all other rich nations have, and very stringent requirements for homeschoools so they don't turn out indoctrinees instead of learners.
Meanwhile, charter schools will at least save some.
Beats nothing.
Whether this claim is honest or just shining us on, it's wrong.
Charter schools do cherrypick. That sounds undemocratic, unfair on the face of it.
But I see it as triage.
Once, a long time ago, I worked in ghetto schools for a while. I observed that education did not generally happen there. Classes were controlled riots.
The reason wasn't bad teachers. It was (a) students raised to have total disdain for anything educational; (b) the inability of teachers to kick misbehaving students out of their classes.
Most ghetto classes comprise a plurality of kids who'll go along with learning something but don't feel a passion for it, a minority of kids who really do want to learn, and a handful of kids who are so damaged--often in utero--that they're incapable not just of learning but of letting anyone else learn. I don't blame these kids. It's just the way it is.
But liberal brainlock decrees that we sacrifice everyone in a futile attempt to save the unsaveable.
Charter schools won't admit such kids, or quickly chuck them out. That seems unkind, but it's even more unkind to destroy the future of most ghetto kids by ensuring that nobody learns anything.
I once had an 8th grade science class. Most of the class read at a 4th grade level. OK. I could deal with that. But the class also contained several large boys who'd been held back and were functionally illiterate. I told the authorities about this. They told me that it was my job to create a separate lesson plan for them and, well, keep them entertained. The vibe was that I was a racist white boy if I couldn't help all these black kids. The mandate could only be achieved by sacrificing everyone else in the class. Eventually I quit.
"Successful" teachers in ghetto classes succeed by giving everyone meaningless busy work, keeping them relatively quiet and occupied until the bell rings.
The worst enemies of black, Latino and other underachieving groups in school are the people who say they're most fervently on their side. They have doomed generation after generation of such kids to failure by failing to make the hard decisions--to kick out all kids who can't or won't let other kids learn. Forget the stoned dozers. It's the ones who won't stop talking, ignoring the teacher, using the class to partay--they're the ones who must go.
We need a separate school system for such kids--one that's more like reform school, whose main goal is to keep them off the streets and teach them some sort of useful skills if possible.
The other kids would then be able to learn, using ordinary teachers. And most teachers are ordinary. There's no reason to expect more, all things considered.
Since this will never happen, the next best solution is charter schools that will save at least some of the students. Oh, and charter schools also have a chance of escaping mandated curricula with the most mind-numbingly boring textbooks designed to not offend any right or left winger. Reading them is like eating hospital food.
I'd rather have mandated public school education with a nationally determined curriculum and textbooks, like all other rich nations have, and very stringent requirements for homeschoools so they don't turn out indoctrinees instead of learners.
Meanwhile, charter schools will at least save some.
Beats nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
