Administrators have a unique vantage point to observe policy changes, and how they impact students and teachers alike. Tara Walsh, the dean of students at North Kingstown High School, has seen first hand how an emphasis on high stakes testing has changed the high school landscape.
“For sure policy changes dictate directly how we talk to students about this plans for their futures especially, now with high stakes testing here in Rhode Island,” Walsh said in an interview with RI Future.
Walsh now spend her days disciplining North Kingstown’s 9th and 11th graders, but she was once a special education teacher.
“I worked with students that are cognitively delayed, there’s educational gaps. Now that they have to meet a certain standard on a test, they can fall behind for various reasons – social/emotional, academic. They’re behind the 8 ball when they get to high school. They don’t have the foundation information for these high stakes tests and they’re at a disadvantage to the point where they may not graduate high school with a diploma.”
Walsh went onto explain the repercussions for students that do not achieve proficiency the first time around. She said, “If you don’t achieve proficiency on your NECAP, you have to go into remediation after your junior year so it could ultimately affect classes they could take – like electives — because they have to take remediation to show growth in their testing.”
Testing isn’t the only thing limiting the options available to the students of North Kingstown – another being budget limitations. “When budgets are set, positions are redistributed,” she said, going on to describe the subsequent of the shift away from elective classes towards core academic classes.
She went onto express concern for students that aren’t on the “traditional” track.
“We’ve cut a lot of resources for children who don’t necessarily learn in a four wall academic building, we don’t have a strong vocational program and I feel there’s a detriment to students who aren’t college bound students,” she said. “We need to help provide them with an education that will help them down the road.”
See the previous posts in this series here:
]]>See where the percentage scoring at least “2” on the MCAS jumps about 20% between years three and four? That’s the graduation requirement kicked in for juniors. The same effect in theory should have kicked in in year six (last year) for the RI NECAP, but there was no corresponding jump.
The 2013 NECAP results, which have been partially released on RIDE’s website, continue the past trend. The number of 11th graders statewide scoring “1” or “substantially below proficient” decreased just 4% to 36%. This is simply not enough progress to show the policy is working. If you dig down to individual districts and charter schools — demographic and other in-district breakdowns are not available — it is even more disappointing (past years’ data from here):
I should hasten to note that my point here is not to do the typical blame and shame. What seven years of 11th grade NECAP math scores tell me is that nobody has figured out how to increase them, especially among disadvantaged students, to an degree comparable to the MCAS and by enough to make the test an appropriate graduation requirement.
This is not supposed to happen. Two of the fundamental premises of contemporary school reform are that students will rise to the level of expectations, and that incentives drive results. We’ve got the expectations, the incentives could not be clearer or higher stakes to students and all the adult stakeholders and… the results are just not there.
To replicate the MCAS success story, North Providence’s 18 point improvement would have to be the average gain statewide, not an outlier. When your highest flying low-income charter still has a third of its juniors not on track to graduate because of a single test, that’s not normal. If RIDE knows how to increase 11th grade math NECAP scores, why haven’t they told Central Falls? We’ve been paying outside consultants, too, like The Dana Center, who know as much about aligning math curriculum to standards as anyone. Apparently they don’t know the answer either.
Exactly why we — and New Hampshire and Vermont — don’t seem to be able to raise 11th grade NECAP math scores is beside the point. My theory is that 11th grade NECAP math scores reflect “fluid intelligence” more than the MCAS and other standardized tests, and teaching “fluid” skills like analyzing abstract problems and thinking logically in school is difficult and poorly understood.
Or perhaps the difference is simply that the MCAS was a problem designed with its own solution in mind. The test was developed in parallel with a curriculum framework. For schools to raise their MCAS scores, they needed to do a better job of delivering the state curriculum, which was not necessarily easy, but it was straightforward and achievable. There is no equivalent map for increasing NECAP scores.
At this point, the burden of proof should pass to the proponents of the NECAP graduation requirement to lay out an evidence-based strategy for increasing the “pass” rate for NECAP math statewide by 20% that amounts to something other than “stay the course.” We can’t have a third or more of seniors not knowing if they’re going to graduate in February or scrambling for waivers. For this to work, we need Barrington at 99% pass, Westerly and Blackstone Academy at 95%, and Central Falls and Providence need to nearly double the number of students getting over the bar. Maybe it is possible. Tell me how. I don’t see it.
And of course, it is a moot point since RI is moving off the NECAP as soon as possible anyhow. So… seriously, why are we doing this to ourselves?
]]>Winners in political races have it easy. They thank everyone and move forward. The Silver Medalists analyze what went wrong and fade into the shadows. Is it possible to write a post-election column as the loser and not sound self-serving, shrill or sour? I’m going to do my best.
From the beginning, this race was about the way that the legislature hasn’t been working effectively for the citizens, voters and taxpayers.
My analysis of the way the system functions is this:
The system, as a voter in Mt. Hope said, isn’t broken. It works great for those in charge. But it doesn’t work so well for Rhode Island. We, the people, elected you to be our Representatives, not to give away your power.
The deals that representatives make are supposed to be in the best interest of the state as a whole, not the special interests and campaign donors. Payday lending rates of 260% annual interest are usurious and unjustifiable. Votes on social issues, like Marriage Equality, ought to be held early every session rather than suppressed.
Our State’s business climate is not just dependent on tax rates, tax breaks and loan guarantees. Your business should not depend on the whim of a Speaker and the uninformed consent of the Legislature.
Our children should not be educated in a system that is overhauled in the middle of the night on a budget vote with no public debate, discussion or even planning. Children need more than institutions and buildings, they need books and materials. Students need more than testing, they need teachers who have the time and permission to teach them on their own terms.
I hope that my challenge to Gordon Fox reminds him, and every other Speaker who follows, that the power that they wield derives from the people.
You are not in charge. We are.
]]>It lays the blame for underperforming schools on teachers and their unions. It does not speak of poverty. It does not include other factors as to why schools fail. And perhaps that’s why the movie had a terrible first weekend at the box office ratings and in its profits as well.
There have been numerous blogs from the Los Angeles Times reporting how the movie did not live up to expectations.
To this review: Won’t Back Down is reportedly the lowest grossing opening film in Box Office history, it sure has garnered a lot of attention both nationally and here in New York.
Education Week goes on to say that the majority of reviews for Won’t back Down are negative. Peter Debruge wrote this review from Variety: “Grossly oversimplifying the issue at hand, writer-director Daniel Barnz’s disingenuous pot-stirrer plays to audiences’ emotions rather than their intelligence.”
You can go on many blogs for Dr Ravitch’s response to the one posted on RI Future, to the Rotten Tomatoes site (The Rotten Tomatoes site indicates a reviewer score of only 35% , in spite of efforts by staffers at Students First –Michelle Rhee’s enterprise-to boost the score)to even the Projo’s summary and you will hear the same thing… the movie did not fare well….that the movie is propaganda backed by corporate reformers.
And yet Harriet Lloyd is somehow supporting this movie. Is she that out of touch, that they still are pushing this movie because the movie promotes pro parent trigger laws, and charter schools? Is RISC so desperate in pushing charters in RI that they had to go out of their way and search so diligently to find a link that said how great the movie is?
Are they so clueless that they did not see that the movie is a flop? Or is this just a ploy to ignore the truth (I thought their platform included honesty and truth? at least that’s what it says?) and proceed to bamboozle the reader into thinking parent trigger laws are awesome and need to be pushed in RI schools. Or maybe Ms Lloyd wants to support the makers and supporters of the film.
Perhaps she wants to put Michelle Rhee who is pushing her weight on this film on the pedestal (who by the way is still not out of the clear with the DC high stakes testing cheating scandal that went on under her rule as DC Chancellor) or perhaps she wants to support Walden Media, which is owned by entrepreneur and conservative Philip Anschutz, who made the movie. He has an agenda that is pretty much “anti everything.” The narrator says this, : He (Anschutz) has a financial incentive to get rid of unions and teach nonsense in our schools.” Watch this video of “disguised propaganda” as it is called. (If this is what Ms Harriet supports, boy are we in trouble!)
Or is it the Koch billionaire who also supports Rhee and her crusade for more vouchers, charters, and other privatization gimmicks that RISC wants to see succeed in RI? Or could it be that Harriet Lloyd and her crew added this site to support Rupert Murdock whose money backed this propaganda movie. You know, the same Rupert Murdock now being investigated by the FBI for his News Corp conglomerate involvement….how they got caught making illegal wire tapping phone calls to 9/11 victims and others.
I just found it so bizarre that RISC would find this link to add to their site
Instead of promulgating the truth, which they say is their agenda….Why they would find a blog singing the praises of a movie that insults teachers and tells propaganda lies is something I cannot fathom.
RISC says on their site the following: RISC advocates for honest, effective, and fiscally sound government on behalf of Rhode Island taxpayers.
Well, I am a born and bred RI taxpayer and I don’t find what they advocate is the truth. I find they perpetuate corporate reform free enterprise ALEC concepts that not only hurt RI taxpayers but will destroy the middle class as well. What they call fiscally sound government, I call disaster capitalism which I do not support. RISC uses orchestrated raids in the public realm to further their cause of free market principles at the expense of the hard working citizens. They support people who wish to remain anonymous and hide behind their 503C tax status (engageri) and this makes them a site that people should question their real purpose.
]]>“one of her goals will be to seek out like minded Democrats such as Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter to swap ideas –how best to tackle pension overhaul for example.”
Let me explain to you who Michael Nutter is. He is the mayor of Philadelphia, a city whose state has an abundance of untested charters. Nutter recently said:
“He saw no difference between public, private and religious schools and thinks they should all be funded .”
This is the state where its Pennsylvania Governor Corbett and the Republican controlled legislature acted as fast as they could to slash $1 billion from public schools, install voucher-like tax credit programs, and privatize struggling districts, handing their schools over to corporations run by their largest campaign donors.
So why would Gina Raimondo want to associate herself with Pennsylvania’s ways unless she too, wants to follow the path of vouchers and privatization like PA does.
She may wish to join the municipal pension reform crowd as her outward agenda but then again she may be looking at possible future education changes since she does want to run for 2014 governor.
The facts show that Deborah Delisle, USDE Assistant Secretary noted that 30 states applied for NCLB waivers to gain some flexibility in dealing with its stringent requirements. However, Pennsylvania was not one of them.
Again I reiterate, I find it very curious that Raimondo wants to speak with Philly’s mayor on municipal pensions and who knows what other topics can crop up in discussion….
There was a White House Conference where many in the room expressed serious frustration with Governor Corbett’s apparent preference to have schools labeled failures and refusal to seek relief through the waiver program. The PA Department of Education declined to send anyone to this White House forum, but Students First PA was there.(Michelle Rhee, founded Students First in Florida-Rhee was DC school leader where rampant high stakes testing cheating took place under her so-called leadership ) This group funnels superPAC millions to the campaigns of lawmakers who promise to deliver vouchers and give away public funds to private and religious schools through tax credit schemes.
So again, I wonder why one of Gina Raimondo’s convention goals is to associate with Philly Mayor Nutter.
In this blog from Dr Diane Ravitch, historian and former Asst Sec of Education, she says this:
Philly Mayor: No Difference Among Public, Private, Religious Schools?
August 28, 2012
The mayor of Philadelphia says there is no difference among different kinds of schools, be they public, private, religious, charter, whatever.
He sees no special responsibility to support public education.
In a sense it is understandable since the people of Philadelphia lost control of their schools to the state years ago.
And the state imposed a massive privatization scheme, which failed.
And now the state control board for the public schools wants to try privatization again.
Parent activist Helen Gym explains to Mayor Michael Nutter why public education matters to the people of Philadelphia.
Investigative reporter Daniel Denvir followed the money trail and uncovered a reason for Mayor Nutter’s indifference to the powerless people of Philadelphia: the big money in the city and suburbs is betting on privatization. The campaign to privatize the schools of Philadelphia has raised $50 million, while the public schools are neglected.
PS You might want to read this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444301704577629342468215790.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
You see, I believe that who a person associates with, adds immeasurably to who they really are…Their persona, temperament, belief system, views, character, personality and behavior create their image. It is this image we need to explore to determine if we really want these people making important decisions for us if and when they decide to run for political office.
I will not vote for anyone who says one thing and does another. And I am sure the readers of this blog feel the same way. This is why we must be vigilant to the words and actions of potential candidates. If they turn out to be hypocrites, then you know they never had your personal interests in mind but their own agendas.
]]>Maryellen Butke’s campaign for state Senate will raise an interesting debate about the relationship, or lack thereof, between the so-called education reform movement and the progressive movement. While in name they may sound like close cousins, in practice they are often not.
Education reformers (or deformers, if you don’t like what they do) often push for charter schools at the expense of existing public schools, and charter schools often don’t allow its teachers to bargain collectively, putting the movement at odds with organized labor and often attracting big money from union-busting corporations.
By running for state Senate – especially for legendary progressive legislator Rhoda Perry’s seat – Butke’s campaign will become ground zero for this debate in Rhode Island for the next few months.
Yesterday, in a post about Senator Rhoda Perry retiring, I mentioned that Butke is a liberal who supports charter schools. Two of RI Future’s regular contributors, who follow education issues closely, quickly took umbrage with my description.
“I think a more accurate description of Ms. Butkes positions would be pretty politically liberal on some issues and extremely conservative on others, particularly labor and education (her primary focus), where she and her Wal-Mart and Wall Street-funded organization have championed right-wing policies that have and will do major damage to public education in RI,” wrote Aaron Regunberg.
Pat Crowley, who works for the state’s largest teachers’ union, followed suit: “Got to agree with Aaron here. Labor issues cant simply be shoved to the side. Especially when so many teachers are women, and so many retirees are women, the attack on their voice on the job is part of the national war on women. How liberal is that?”
Then, interestingly enough, Butke got a chance to respond with a guest post on Ted Nesi’s blog. She wrote:
I have never considered my views on education liberal or conservative. Though a lifelong progressive, it never occurred to me that teaching and learning in public schools was a partisan issue. At its core, education reform is about improving educational outcomes for kids. How could anyone Democrat or Republican disagree with that?
As it turns out, education is one of the most politicized debates we are having in this country today. But it doesnt have to be this way. Those of us who believe in the tenets of change arent interested in partisan politics. We believe in accountability for the adults responsible for our childrens futures, in high-quality public school choices for parents regardless of demographics or geography, and in flexibility to let principals and teachers do whatever it takes to improve student achievement. This doesnt mean we are anti-union and it doesnt mean we have negative feelings towards teachers.
My feeling is that Regunberg, Crowley and Bukte somehow need to reconcile their somewhat disparate points if Rhode Island is to holistically improve the education it offers. We need to offer a better education to all students without making life any tougher for our hard-working teachers, who hold one of the most important jobs in our community. That’s the progressive solution to reforming public education.
I believe Butke when she says she isn’t anti-union per say, but some of the people that pay her salary and fund the organization she works for certainly are. That can be a tough dichotomy to reconcile.
Butke and I have long talked about getting together for a big picture discussion on how the charter school movement fits – or doesn’t – with the progressive movement. Here’s hoping that this post and her candidacy helps to make that happen … and that they can help Rhode Island to figure out how it wants to reform public education.
]]>
It was interesting to me to learn about the article by Paul Farhi in the American Journalism Review called “Flunking the Test“, which blows apart typical reporting on education as essentially taking so-called “reformers” views at face value.
Mr. Farhi points out that not only is the idea of an “crisis in education” false, (recalling arguments advanced at the implementation of the current public school system and the end of the common school system that had previously existed), but that in fact, American schools are doing better than ever on most relevant statistics. Mr. Farhi puts it best:
Some schools are having a difficult time educating children – particularly children who are impoverished, speak a language other than English, move frequently or arrive at the school door neglected, abused or chronically ill. But many pieces of this complex mosaic are quite positive. First data point: American elementary and middle school students have improved their performance on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study every four years since the tests began in 1995; they are above the international average in all categories and within a few percentage points of the global leaders (something that few news reports mention). Second data point: The number of Americans with at least some college education has soared over the past 70 years, from 10 percent in 1940 to 56 percent today, even as the population has tripled and the nation has grown vastly more diverse. All told, America’s long-term achievements in education are nothing short of stunning.
Are there troubles? Of course. But the reality is that in large part, our schools are not failing. The virtual destruction of the existing American education system (required if 100% proficiency in reading comprehension and mathematics are not met by a school by 2014, a fact which remains as long as No Child Left Behind stays in place), would essentially throw out the very policies that have made American education so successful.
Critics will point out that there are schools that are doing poorly. This is true, but as Mr. Farhi points out, these are mostly in areas where there are high rates of poverty and low rates of English. School vouchers, eliminating bad teachers by replacing them with Teach For America’s untrained novices (it takes roughly two years for a teacher to get into the swing of things, but TFA’s program lasts exactly two years), charter schools; all of these reforms fail to take aim at the structural problem here: poverty limits how well our children learn.
Now, Mr. Farhi makes clear that schools are often their own worst enemies here: many school systems prevent reporters from talking to teachers or students or viewing how classes work. As a result, reporters rely on sources like advocates, administrators, labor leaders, etc., for their sources. We’re not learning directly how things work from the sources in the trenches, something which empowers the message of education reformers while weakening the message of educators.
In Rhode Island, we can see the trouble here. The pattern of well-off triumphing over poor-off holds true, even according to charter school advocacy group RI-CAN’s report cards. Virtually all of the “best” schools are from well-off schools districts; Barrington, East Greenwich, Little Compton, etc. All of the “worst” are from Providence and Central Falls, metropolitan areas with high levels of poverty and large numbers of Spanish-speaking residents. The sole exception is Classical High School (my alma mater), which attracts students from well-off areas in Providence and the best students from impoverished areas of the capital city (or at least those who can pass the test).
Mr. Farhi points out that nearly 37% of Americans say their own children’s schools are deserving of an “A”. Looking to other schools, the numbers drop precipitously, only 1% of Americans would rate the nation’s school system that way. So, essentially, we’re happy with own schools (though they might need slight improvement), but disappointed with everyone else’s schools. Either Americans are collectively deluded as to the state of their own schools (a possibility not borne out by data showing improvement), or else media coverage has failed to properly scrutinize the overblown “crisis” in American schools that’s been advanced by well-off elites in America (many of whom never attended public schools).
In this age of austerity, it is unlikely we will provide the actual solution necessary to educational success in all our schools: fighting poverty. Instead, as poverty increases the gap between rich and poor schools will grow worse. Few schools are equipped to handle this problem. Some charter schools are, but only rarely. The wholesale charterization of the American school system is not only poorly thought out, it’s against the thinking that created the idea of the charter school: that they would act as education laboratories where public schools could not. Pathfinders for new ways of teaching.
A noble goal which has been perverted. Our choice is stark. Either we face the trouble that this country is well aware of, economic inequality that is spiraling out of control; or alternatively we can lose everything that has made this country the beacon of world achievement.
]]>Everyone agree that “teaching to the test” is a bad idea, but it makes no sense to get rid of standardized tests that could determine whether a student is eligible to graduate Why not continue to test, but also offer the right interventions that will help struggling students turn things around?
Im not sure Ive ever been more at odds with one of Dans posts. Whats got Dan upset is a proposal being offered by not so hot State Senators Representative Eileen Naughton and State Senator Harold Metts.
The legislation, introduced by Rep. Eileen Naughton and Sen. Harold Metts, would prevent the use of statewide standardized test assessments as a barrier to graduation. Civil rights and advocacy groups have long been critical of the use of high stakes testing, releasing statistics last year and which have not improved since that documented that approximately 90% or more of students classified as special education, limited English proficient, economically disadvantaged, Latino or African-American would receive either no diploma or one designating them only as partially proficient if high stakes testing had been in effect for the Class of 2011. [my emphasis]
So why not continue to test as McGowan proposes? Won’t that help those kids? There are actually plenty of reasons, many perhaps more evident to someone like me, a parent of dyslexic children. What I ask is, why should my childs entire academic performance be judged by a single standardized test? At best its unfair and inaccurate, and at worst for kids like mine these high-stakes tests can be a form of discrimination. Dyslexics are often granted accommodations like additional time or quiet rooms, but even with these its hard to see how a dyslexic childs academic potential could be accurately gauged.
One of my favorite writers on the subject of education reform is Alfie Kohn, who specifically warns against proposals to link standardized testing to graduation:
Virtually all relevant experts and organizations condemn the practice of basing important decisions, such as graduation or promotion, on the results of a single test. The National Research Council takes this position, as do most other professional groups (such as the American Educational Research Association and the American Psychological Association), the generally pro-testing American Federation of Teachers, and even the companies that manufacture and sell the exams. Yet just such high-stakes testing is currently taking place, or scheduled to be introduced soon, in more than half the states.
Its small wonder the idea lacks support among professionals: it’s wrong on motivation and wrong on process improvement as noted by process improvement guru W. Edwards Deming, who should be required reading for those still captivated by the “hotness” of the current testing fad.
These forces [of destruction] cause humiliation, fear, self-defense, competition for gold star, high grade, high rating on the job. They lead anyone to play to win, not for fun. They crush out joy in learning, joy on the job, innovation. Extrinsic motivation (complete resignation to external pressures) gradually replaces intrinsic motivation, self-esteem, dignity.
Its certainly not what I want for my own children, and more over, using these tests as graduation requirements very likely harms the students were supposedly trying to help the most, kids like those in my neighborhood which is represented by Senator Metts (District 6, Providence). Heres Kohn again:
Minority and low-income students are disproportionately affected by the incessant pressure on teachers to raise scores. But when high stakes are applied to the students themselves, there is little doubt about who is most likely to be denied diplomas as a consequence of failing an exit examor who will simply give up and drop out in anticipation of such an outcome. If states persist in making a student’s fate rest on a single test, the likely result over the next few years will be nothing short of catastrophic. Unless we act to stop this, we will be facing a scenario that might be described without exaggeration as an educational ethnic cleansing.
Let’s be charitable and assume that the ethnic aspect of this perfectly predictable consequence is unintentional. Still, it is hard to deny that high-stakes testing, even when the tests aren’t norm-referenced, is ultimately about sorting. Someone unfamiliar with the relevant psychological research (and with reality) might insist that raising the bar will “motivate” more students to succeed. But perform the following thought experiment: Imagine that almost all the students in a given state met the standards and passed the tests. What would be the reaction from most politicians, businesspeople, and pundits? Would they now concede that our public schools are terrificor would they take this result as prima facie evidence that the standards were too low and the tests were too easy? As Deborah Meier and others have observed, the phrase “high standards” by definition means standards that everyone won’t be able to meet.
The tests are just the means by which this game is played. It is a game that a lot of kidspredominantly kids of colorsimply cannot win. Invoking these very kids to justify a top-down, heavy-handed, corporate-style, test-driven version of school reform requires a stunning degree of audacity. To take the cause of equity seriously is to work for the elimination of tracking, for more equitable funding, and for the universal implementation of more sophisticated approaches to pedagogy (as opposed to heavily scripted direct-instruction programs). But standardized testing, while bad news across the board, is especially hurtful to students who need our help the most.
An audacious plan? Yes. But hot? Not so much, Dan.
]]>It really does have it all: social democracy, smoked fish, and a public school system that American reformers are beginning to notice. Too bad they are noticing the wrong thing.
As many of you know, Finland is all the rage in education reform circles these days, particularly among those who don’t think that teacher unions and school governance are the primary problems facing American public schools. Finnish school children have done very well on international tests in recent years (far better than the middling U.S.), prompting a wave of visits to Scandinavia by American politicians and educators, and speaking tours by Finns here.
Most of the discussion has revolved around their model for the professionalization of teachers — kind of like Denver’s experiment on steroids — and on their lack of emphasis on standardized high-stakes testing and rote learning. All teachers in Finland must earn masters’ degrees from competitive graduate programs, are paid like professionals, and given responsibilities for curriculum and assessment that vastly exceed those of American teachers in the post-NCLB era.
The curriculum, meanwhile, de-emphasizes competition and tracking, and tends to be much more focused on creative play and vocational preparation than one generally finds in American schools (particularly urban ones). According to a recent article by Samuel Abrams in The New Republic, Finnish schools provide students with far more recess than their American counterparts — 75 minutes a day at the elementary level, compared to an average of 27 minutes in the U.S. They also mandate lots of arts and crafts, and more learning by doing.
American school reformers seem to see what they want to see in the Finnish success story. Liberals (if I can use that word in this context) point to their investment in early childhood education and parental leave policies, as well as the teacher autonomy discussed above. Conservatives point to the ability of Finnish schools to get high achievement out of students despite large class sizes, and regardless of background. If they can do it, they argue, why can’t our teachers? Of course, the ‘blame-the-teachers’ mantra is somewhat undermined by the fact that Finnish teachers are unionized at even higher levels than American teachers are, and also have tenure.
It is also undermined by the fact that levels of inequality and child poverty in the U.S. vastly exceed Finland’s — a critical point.
Anu Partanan, a Finnish journalist, published a thoughtful short piece in the Atlantic Monthly in late December 2011 on K-12 education in her country. The takeaway: most American observers have really missed (ignored) what’s at the core of Finnish school reform — equity.
Dissatisfied with the quality of Finnish public education at the end of the 1960s, in 1971 a government commission concluded that economic modernization could only take place if schools were improved. According to Abrams, Finland committed to reducing class size, boosting teacher pay, and requiring much more rigorous training for teachers.
While the US has focused primarily on ‘excellence’ since 1980 (based in part on the mistaken assumption that we had veered too far in the direction of equity since the mid-50s), Finland launched a concentrated effort to use public education to counteract inequality. It did this, based on the belief that equity would lead to excellence, and enable resource-poor Finland to compete in an increasingly globalized and post-industrial economy. This effort was supported by relevant social policies too.
Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility and author of the new book Finnish Lessons: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?, told Partanan that the “main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.” At its core, Sahlberg says, this means that “schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.”
While Partanan may not be an experienced observer of American politics and society, she is almost certainly correct that the way that American ‘reformers’ are viewing Finland’s success — ignoring the equity goals that are at the heart of it — demonstrates a kind of willful blindness to what is fundamentally wrong with the opportunity structure in the US, and how it undermines both the quality and distribution of public education.
The money quote:
“It is possible to create equality. And perhaps even more important — as a challenge to the American way of thinking about education reform — Finland’s experience shows that it is possible to achieve excellence by focusing not on competition, but on cooperation, and not on choice, but on equity.
The problem facing education in America isn’t the ethnic diversity of the population but the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addressed. More equity at home might just be what America needs to be more competitive abroad.”
It is unfortunate that so many of the moderates and liberals who formerly served as voices for equality of opportunity in public schools in the U.S. have fairly tripped over themselves — and others — to leap onto the bandwagon of ‘reform’ as its presently understood.