Join the conversation

In two recent Salon.com articles (here and here) political commentator David Sirota has pointed out key differences between Finland and the U.S. that he believes account for education discrepancies between these nations. It essentially boils down to differences in: 1) systemic equity, 2) incentives for and recruitment and support of teachers 3) focus on standardized testing, and 4) bipartisan support among all relevant stakeholders.

To open Sirota asks, “How has one industrialized country created one of the world's most successful education systems in a way that is completely hostile to testing”—and, I’ll add, that does not even attach consequence-based evaluation to teachers or schools? For answers, he refers readers to the documentary film "The Finland Phenomenon: Inside the World's Most Surprising School System” which paints the picture of an educational system that completely contrasts with what he calls “the test-obsessed, teacher-demonizing orthodoxy of education ‘reform’ that now dominates America's political debate.”

Some background to set the stage:

It’s clear by now that while the U.S. tests students more than any other nation, our students perform significantly worse in math and science than students in other industrialized countries. Nevertheless, Sirota points out that “the Obama administration, backed by corporate foundations, is . . . intensifying testing at all levels, as if doing the same thing and expecting different results is innovative ‘reform’ rather than what it's always been: insanity.” Sirota specifically cites a recent Department of Education announcement that it aims to extend high-stakes testing to four-year-olds [link].

In contrast, nations like Finland and South Korea—top scorers on PISA—have shifted away from an emphasis on standardized tests (and the requisite teaching-to-the-test phenomenon) that both ascribed to when both nations were much lower achievers academically and economically. Indeed, both nations have been able to greatly develop their economies over the past few decades—as Harvard researcher Tony Wagner points out in an interview with Sirota, “Finland is rated among the highest in the world in innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity”—and changes to their educational systems have been a key component.

Specifically, Wagner relays that in the early 1970s, Finland had both a fairly poor agrarian economy based on (rapidly diminishing) trees, and an underperforming education system. To make the shift to a knowledge-based economy, the nation revamped and heavily invested in its education system. They did this both directly and indirectly: indirectly by revising their social support systems to create better financial equality among their population; and directly by transforming teacher preparation (including ensuring that all teachers got masters degrees) and selection, creating a substantially higher level of teacher professionalism. Now only one out of every 10 who apply to become teachers is ultimately selected, and teaching has become a highly esteemed profession. (Side note: teachers are also fully unionized.)

Likewise, teachers are trusted with great autonomy to cater to their specific students in achieving educational objectives, and so teachers are not bogged down with standardized testing requirements that force instructional myopia. Wagner notes that even in some of America’s best schools in the wealthiest districts he has observed “stunningly mediocre teaching” with “teachers teaching to the test.” The tests in turn reward memorization along narrow lines, rather than fostering skills and creativity that drive innovation and allow for better competition in global economies. Our devolvement into rote techniques is especially unfortunate since America has historically been a world pioneer in creative thinking. Finland has prioritized these more important educational abilities, and has what Wagner calls “a thinking-based curriculum.” 

And despite the lack of domestic testing, when you look at international assessments like PISA, the difference between the highest and lowest performing schools in Finland is very small.   And test scores are never punitive: In an LFA interview, Finnish education expert Reijo Laukkanen explained that the country’s National School Board conducts random sample assessments of schools and faculty to provide feedback to these entities and inform policymakers, but these assessments are not attached to punishments.

Another hugely beneficial component of the educational system for teachers is Finland’s emphasis on fostering teacher collaboration. Schools provide time in the school day for teachers to work with each other to receive feedback and advice to improve their curriculum and lessons. Research indicates that supporting collaboration is hugely important for teachers, and is one of their top requests for support in  their jobs.  Unfortunately, teachers in the U.S. seldom receive adequate support for collaboration. As Sirota puts it, “[w]e have a 19^th century level of professionalism here . . . A teacher works alone all day, every day, and isolation is the enemy of improvement and innovation.”

Thus, Sirota summarizes that in contrast to Finland—which “rejects testing, nurtures teachers, and encourages its best and brightest to become educators”—in the U.S. “we fetishize testing, portray teachers as evil parasites [and simultaneously expect them to be superheroes defying systemic barriers], and financially encourage top students to become Wall Streeters.”

This leads us back to the indirect means by which Finland fosters educational success: by creating a more equitable society. Finland’s social welfare and tax systems have made it a largely economically equitable nation, which in turn means the quality of education is not encumbered by class division. This is clearly not the case in America.

To be fair, the U.S. no doubt faces more obstacles in creating a more equitable society than did Finland: our population is much less racially homogeneous, and our federalist system makes efficient centralized change more difficult (I’m not arguing against federalism, merely pointing out that it does create some challenges), and we have a vastly larger population (which likely compounds the first two issues). However, I am sure we can make great progress towards equity and learn from the lessons that countries like Finland provide. To this end, it is vitally important that educators are included in national and state discussions on improving education. Sirota points out that for the last quarter century, educational reforms in the U.S. have been driven by businesses who often exclude educators from the discussion. Finland has experienced bipartisan consensus on their education measures—as Sirota puts it, “a partnership between businesses, policy makers and educators, and that's what we need in this country but don't have.”