Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t). • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#31

Post by william42 » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 7:13 AM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #20

forkandwait wrote: post #3

Here is my worthless .02c: One sure way to know you have failed at managing a process is when you measure employee performance by their adherence to rules rather than their record on delivering results . NCLB is all about rules... ... as are most US institutions, public and private.... It isn't that rules and standardized processes don't have their place, but (1) if rules have to be enforced regularly, you have total…

There are a lot of people bouncing around ideas about how we can magically improve the U.S. school system, but I think fundamentally the problem is that we expect unreasonable results. We want to be able to pay $5000/pupil/year for a quality of education that properly costs at least $10,000 if not $15,000.

The problem is that the $5000 isn't being distributed evenly. The schools that rich kids go to, public or private, get orders-of-magnitude more funding than the ones poor kids go to.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#32

Post by cabalamat » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 7:28 AM UTC

william42 wrote: post #31

lukeschlather wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a lot of people bouncing around ideas about how we can magically improve the U.S. school system, but I think fundamentally the problem is that we expect unreasonable results. We want to be able to pay $5000/pupil/year for a quality of education that properly costs at least $10,000 if not $15,000.

The problem is that the $5000 isn't being distributed evenly. The schools that rich kids go to, public or private, get orders-of-magnitude more funding than the ones poor kids go to.

Do you have figures? I very much doubt if that is the case.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#33

Post by eldina » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 7:30 AM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #16

kalleboo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article does consider that though: They insist that Finland cannot serve as a model because it lacks racial diversity; but they fall silent when one points out that Finland has the same demographics as Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, and Norway, yet gets superior results. I am troubled by this “lacks diversity” argument, because it implies that African-American and Hispanic children cannot benefit by having highly…

Wow. I looked it up. You're right, Finland does much better internationally than most of the other Scandinavian nations. I would not have expected that result. One of the reasons I like HN is because sometimes, reading through comments, I see things that just blow my perceptions out of the water. I enjoy going back and reformulating my arguments.

There is a huge difference between Denmark and Finland both in the quality of the education a coming elementary school teacher goes through and perhaps more important in the level of applicants that are accepted for the education. In 2010 for many of the schools in Denmark where you can become a teacher there were no requirements on your grades from "gymnasiet" (equivalent of high school), you only had to have passed gymnasiet. In Denmark, coming teachers choose 2 or 3 subjects that will be there main subjects. For these subjects there are some requirements, unfortunately these are ridiculously low. In gymnasiet all subjects have a level A, B or C which indicates how deeply the subject is covered. Some subjects eg. Danish and history are mandatory and exists only in the highest level A form while others eg. languages, biology, physics, math, exist in usually at least two of the levels and depending on your choice of line you can choose different levels with the requirement that when finishing you must have had 2 non-mandatory A level subjects. To choose eg. nature & technique, a subject supposed to encompass physics, chemistry, biology and geography, as one of your main subjects when becoming an elementary school teacher, it is sufficient to have the medium grade in just a single of a list of subjects that are related to natural sciences and this only had to be on the middle B level.

Another problem is that until 2007 the "seminars", the schools for educating teachers, were mainly relics from the late sixties, this having all the obvious implications given the hippie state of DK in those years.

Also in DK through all levels of the educational system from elementary school through university, the main focus is on the students who are at the bottom of the skill spectrum.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#34

Post by forkandwait » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 7:36 AM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #20

forkandwait wrote: post #3

Here is my worthless .02c: One sure way to know you have failed at managing a process is when you measure employee performance by their adherence to rules rather than their record on delivering results . NCLB is all about rules... ... as are most US institutions, public and private.... It isn't that rules and standardized processes don't have their place, but (1) if rules have to be enforced regularly, you have total…

There are a lot of people bouncing around ideas about how we can magically improve the U.S. school system, but I think fundamentally the problem is that we expect unreasonable results. We want to be able to pay $5000/pupil/year for a quality of education that properly costs at least $10,000 if not $15,000.

Everything I have heard says that the US spends a lot more per pupil than most of the developed world, and yet... has shitty schools.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#35

Post by Abundnce10 » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 7:37 AM UTC

I taught English in the public school system in South Korea last year. There were a few stark differences that I couldn't help but notice and I feel they shed light on our failing education system here in America. They have a curriculum that is set forth on a national level. This accomplishes two important things: One, teachers can now collaborate and share resources on topics that all teachers around the country are preparing for (I did this with my fellow Native English Teachers and ended up saving a lot of time not having to reinvent the wheel for every lesson). Secondly, it helps eliminate the unnecessary spending that accompanies the insanely large amount of school districts that we have scattered around our country. Washington State alone has almost 300 school districts! The board members of these schools districts are in charge of determining the curriculum for their specific locality, mean while others are doing the same exact thing in the next town over. Furthermore, the majority of those board members have a Masters or PhD and require a hefty salary - which could be going towards funding intelligent, passionate teachers. I'd love to be a teacher but you won't see me entering a public school classroom anytime soon.

If we can eliminate the redundancy of our school district issue and provide the framework for a nationalized curriculum, we could pay teachers more (thereby attracting a higher talent pool), lower class sizes, increase spending on classroom necessities (pens, pencils, paper, books, COMPUTERS!), and allow teachers the opportunity to share resources on predetermined, upcoming lessons. Tackling these issues will put us on the right track towards getting our school system out of this steady decline we've been on for the last couple of decades.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#36

Post by shangaslammi » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 7:47 AM UTC

wisty wrote: post #27

temphn wrote: post #8

Finland's schools are great because they are full of Finns, in the same way that schools with many Finns in the US do very well. Hong Kong and Singapore's schools are great because they are full of Chinese, in the same way that schools with many Chinese in the US do very well, even in poor neighborhoods: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/16/local/me-lincoln16 To begin with, the eight students agreed on a few gener…

Also, Finns speak a Finnish, a Finno-Ugric language, which is said to be really easy to learn. It's phonetic, and technical words tend to be built out of simple Finnish words, not a weird mash of Latin, Greek, and other words. This makes it easy to do sciences, as you don't have to teach as much wacky vocabulary. (Note, I don't speak Finish, this is just what I've read). I've also heard that Lithuanians (who also spe…

I don't know anyone who's said that Finnish is an easy language to learn. In fact, I think it's generally considered one of the hardest languages in the world (along with Hungarian, which has similar grammar). You are right, though, that the phonetics are easy and highly consistent.

Also, in practice, most technical terms are borrowed from English, instead of inventing native, Finnish words for them.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#37

Post by JoshTriplett » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 8:00 AM UTC

lukeschlather wrote: post #20

forkandwait wrote: post #3

Here is my worthless .02c: One sure way to know you have failed at managing a process is when you measure employee performance by their adherence to rules rather than their record on delivering results . NCLB is all about rules... ... as are most US institutions, public and private.... It isn't that rules and standardized processes don't have their place, but (1) if rules have to be enforced regularly, you have total…

There are a lot of people bouncing around ideas about how we can magically improve the U.S. school system, but I think fundamentally the problem is that we expect unreasonable results. We want to be able to pay $5000/pupil/year for a quality of education that properly costs at least $10,000 if not $15,000.

Personally, I think our fundamental problem comes down to having a monopoly that gets paid whether they have to educate any particular student or not, which makes competition extremely difficult. Regardless of what education you choose, the unused public education slot still gets paid.

What kind of quality do you think we'll get when we still pay regardless of quality or need?

Increasing tuition won't help without solving that problem.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#38

Post by aboyeji » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 8:21 AM UTC

I think the biggest undisputable difference between the Finnish and American systems from the article is their high quality teachers and small engaged classes but I wonder if that is simply a direct result of their having a small population (less than 6mm). I can't see some of these methods (having a master's teach in schools, paying very competitive salaries) scaling well in the American system (more than 60-70mm+). There just aren't those kind of funds available anywhere.

Another thought that comes to mind is if we already know finish teachers are the best, then why don't we use the internet to scale their teaching. It might not be as good as in class teaching but I reckon it would be better than what we have now.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#39

Post by Orva » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 8:27 AM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #6

chrismealy wrote: post #4

From TNR: Today, teaching is such a desirable profession that only one in ten applicants to the country’s eight master’s programs in education is accepted. In the United States, on the other hand, college graduates may become teachers without earning a master’s. What’s more, Finnish teachers earn very competitive salaries: High school teachers with 15 years of experience make 102 percent of what their fellow universi…

Gaining a master's degree doesn't automatically make you a better teacher. I'd much rather be assured that a teacher has other basic abilities (e.g. good communication skills, patience, fairness, organization skills, and even some creativity).

To get masters from "teaching track" in Finland (which is _very_ appreciated during job interviews) you need quite hefty load of padagogy and sosiology studies on top of your usual master's.

Re: Why Finland’s schools are great (by doing what we don’t).

#40

Post by eplanit » Sun, Oct 16, 2011, 8:28 AM UTC

temphn wrote: post #8

Finland's schools are great because they are full of Finns, in the same way that schools with many Finns in the US do very well. Hong Kong and Singapore's schools are great because they are full of Chinese, in the same way that schools with many Chinese in the US do very well, even in poor neighborhoods: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/16/local/me-lincoln16 To begin with, the eight students agreed on a few gener…

> It is more likely to be culture or (more controversially) genetics.

Perhaps not genetics, but (also controversially) perhaps 'diversity' is over-rated. Many of the least diverse countries enjoy such positive results. The U.S. slips further and further as it gets more diverse.