Reading about Finland, round 2

After the last class we had I was left thinking about how would could apply Finland’s success to the U.S. after a couple of hours digesting this, I thought about Finland teachers and what we could learn from them and the schools that educate them. The way the teachers are treated and thought of could benefit the U.S.

"All Finnish teachers must hold a master's degree" (pg. 78)

I also thought about teacher’s needing their masters but I think it definitely helps. If the masters program includes a teacher gaining their classroom I think it would definitely help. The way teachers are treated in Finland reminds me of professors and the requirements for professors in the U.S. What would we should take away from Finland might be the education aspect that the teacher in Finland receive. There are master programs in the U.S. that are amazing and those need to be spread throughout more.

Something I was just wondering about was how teachers say you need to be in a classroom before you are able to really expand. Every teacher says his or her first year is the hardest year, is this not the case in Finland? Or do we still need to gain that experience, so why completely take out programs that push you into a classroom. With support this can turn out successful teachers with years of experience. If we go into masters programs we will still come out needing your own classroom to manage and learn from. 

There are a lot of things about Finnish schools that admire like their high-quality teachers, non-prescribed curriculum, and personalization of education; but I am not sure if I'm ready to accept the notion that everyone who wants to be a teacher must get a master's degree.  If we look at the case of private schools in the U.S., the teachers that they hire do not even need to be state certified to teach in order to apply to be a teacher yet these private schools generally outperform U.S. public schools.

I agree with the notion that teachers are researchers and should be pushed to constantly reflect upon their work and learn from their past mistakes.  But I don't think you need a master's degree to do this. When I asked a friend who got her master's before she went into teaching whether she felt her teacher education program had prepared her for teaching she said that there is no teacher education program that could ever solidly prepare you for teaching.  Teaching is a hands-on, learn as you go job and actually starting to teach yourself is probably the best research a prospective teacher could do. 

What Finland has is the best of their best going into teaching because it is seen as a desirable job. Sahlberg writes, "Due to the popularity of teaching and becoming a teacher, only Finland's best and most committed are able to realize those professional dreams" (73).  In the U.S. we have teacher certification examinations that match the level of high school graduates going into a job that has recently been ranked as one of the unhappiest jobs in America by Forbes.  

TFA typically chooses academically talented college graduates and they are known to be highly selective with their candidates. So if TFA selects some of the best and brightest talents from America's top universities, then why is TFA not more of a success then it has been? I would argue that the biggest impediment is that most TFA candidates are only in education for the short-haul. It is simply a stepping stone to another future goal or a resume filler. Therefore, the dedication, commitment, and desire to teach and teach effectively is not there which I would argue is just as important as being academically talented. Teach for America, may or may not churn out good and effective educators, but if these educators are going to be gone every two years then they only contribute to the problem of teacher-retention that plague our high-needs schools. Another thing is that TFA lowers the standard of the teaching profession into a volunteer position.  Is this what teaching in America has devolved to? Volunteerism? Baby-sitting? Who's ever heard of a TFA type programs for doctors or lawyers? 

Last week we ended the class saying that teachers should be at the same professional level of doctors and lawyers. I think so too. But when we say this we also have to consider what makes being a doctor and lawyer such a respected position in society. Both these professions have high turnover rates, high competition, and these professionals are held very accountable for their performance in their work. But today teaching (specifically in the public schools) is not a respected positioin thanks to rampant cheating scandals, 2-year tenure agreement, a disproportionate emphasis on job protection, and unproductive if not parisitic inventions like the rubber room.

I found Sahlberg's discussion on professional autonomy, especially in the opinion of Finnish teachers to be extremely interesting as well.  When many stated that they would leave the field if they lost their autonomy, and were not able to "plan, teach, diagnose, execute, and evaluate" as they were educated to do (76), I felt that this demonstrated a significant division between the Finnish education system and the US education system. While I feel that autonomy is important to US teachers, I feel that our system has gone down a path so far from professional autonomy that most, especially public school teachers, wouldn't know what to do if given the opportunity.  (Now obviously this is a generalization, and exaggeration, but the American public school system at this point is too focused on structured curriculum, and standardized testing that most teachers are not exposed to professional autonomy.)

I think that if the US ed. system gave teachers more of a voice in everything from policy, to curriculum, to the structure of their classrooms that the profession would be more appealing to highly qualified students, making the teacher profession more competitive, like that of Finland's.  With this in mind, Sahlberg is correct in that some reform movements (GERM) decrease the possibility of this even further causing teaching to the test, and strict curriculum policies.  Currently, strict assessment focused curriculum is destroying what autonomy that teachers had left.  I wonder if there is a way to better balance student assessment and professional autonomy for teachers.  

This is especially interesting to me because of my job placement next year.  Following graduation I will be working at a charter school in DC.  While this charter school is known for it's high standardized test scores (in low income and minority neighborhoods) in my experience the school environment still has an appreciation for teacher autonomy. While there are still timelines to follow (so that classes do not get behind), and subjects/topics to cover, there is a lot of freedom within the school to decide how to meet these requirements/needs.  For example, the culture and goals of the school are determined by the Principal in accordance with the teaching staff.  Even though the school that I will be working in (in its founding year) is part of a national charter school organization, those who are working directly in the local school get to decide things such as, what extra curriculars and electives are offered, what type of community events will be held, and most importantly how they wish to teach certain topics.  

With this in mind, I wonder if maybe some reform movements are using Finland's autonomy based school system as a guide to creating not only academically (based on standardized testing) successful schools, but also creative, innovative, and supportive environments for teachers.  Like Laura stated, it makes sense that qualified people would prefer to work in a positive work environment.  For schools that have the power to create their own autonomy, like my future school,we must focus on taking advantage of this autonomy, and using it to create an engaging learning environment for students.  On a larger, policy level, we must determine the consequences of such controlled teaching environments that leave teachers with no freedom to perform what they have been trained to do.

America's current system makes me wonder if maybe we just don't trust teachers enough to be successful, and effective on their own.  Sahlberg repeatedly states that Finland's system is based on a profound trust of teachers. I think this is something that we lack in our American education system that is influencing so many areas of our education policy.  What needs to be done to create more trust for our teachers?  Do high performing teachers come first and then a culture of trust is developed? Or does trust have to develop, that will lead to autonomy,..., and eventual high performing teachers?  It's somewhat of a chicken or the egg problem, but I think it's worth discussing on a bigger scale. 

Although I haven't finished the reading yet, I really appreciated your post and think that keeping in mind the key themes of trust, freedom, and time will be helpful as I wrap up.  I really liked what you said about "education is human work, it is natural that we should first build strong relationships with our colleagues, students, etc."  I think it's so important to remember how important the social aspect of school is (which makes me think of Dewey).  At the same time, however, although I think we can learn from Finland, I believe in general Americans are less trusting of one another.  In my post last week I mentioned the culture of suing someone is much less present in Scandinavian countries than it is in America.  Also, America is much less homogeneous and I think this, sadly, adds to distrust.  Many people tend to, at least at first, be hesitant to trust someone who doesn't look/act/talk like them.  One way I think that would help to build this trust to create a community within your classroom- have all the students interact, and know your students/their families outside of the classroom.  However, this takes up teachers’ time, and I don't know if Sahlberg mentions any of this.  I don't know if this means it's not necessary or part of Finnish schools.  It is yet another thing that would take time (especially something like home visits), and Sahlberg may argue this use of time is less meaningful than allowing teachers to have more free time to develop their teaching.  Another way to build trust would to be lessen the constant testing, but given the national and state regulations on testing, I’m not sure how likely that is.

I both appreciate and struggle with this issue of change taking time.  While I agree that change generally does take time, I also worry about the students who can't wait.  However, I think a long term perspective of change in education is helpful because it creates a broader picture.  For example if you are looking at the span of time from 2007-2010, a downturn of events in 2008 may be really misleading because of the recession.  However, if you’re looking from 2000-2010, the reason for the downturn of events in may be more clear and seem less extreme.  Again, I feel conflicted because although failure is a part of change, some students don't need any more failure.