Another view of Finland

I recently had a conversation with a teacher from Holland and a teacher from Kansas City.

We were talking together about education and the big issues that seem to be at the forefront of the conversations about it in the US vs. Holland. The teacher from Holland indicated that his country discusses the same issues we do--assessment, standards, funding.

I made some crack like, "well, we can't all be Finland, can we?"

He smiled. He acknowledged the view that from the outside that people have of Finland, how people hold it up as THE model for how to do education. F. Scott and I have spent a lot of time actually talking about Finland--the standards are dare I say beautiful and child-centered and exactly what I want for my own kid. The structures in place to train, mentor, and support new teachers are dreamy compared to the anti-teacher rhetoric currently taking over our country.

And then this teacher from Holland told me a few things that started to burst that little halo of perfection I had maintained in my mind around the topic of Education in Finland. The teachers, he explained, are VERY traditional. Though the standards may appear child-centered, the classrooms often are not. The teachers do not innovate or try anything new or out of the ordinary. School is what school has been for years. Also, school there tends to appeal more to the ways that female students learn and think--school in Finland is not working actually for scores of young Finnish males and they drop out, thus complicating this view of how successful their schools are (not as successful as I thought they were if they're not meeting the needs of a huge portion of their students and unwilling to innovate in order to do so).

So what do we do? Of course there are things that Finland is getting right that we aren't, and there are things that we're getting right that Finland isn't. But is there anywhere that's getting it all right? Anywhere we can hold up as THE example?

No. There's not.

We just have to figure out what works for our students in our communities, and we need to cultivate space to learn from each other, from each other's successes and failures across schools, districts, and wider communities (yes, even across the globe).

There is no ONE way to do this. There is no certainty in good education. Test scores are not the ultimate measure of success either. It's all murky and complicated and complex and confusing (because learning is too) (and so is our world)--and if teaching is anything else, we're not doing it right.

M. Shelley

What would trust look like?

There is a great article in the NY Times from June 5 about the Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland (thanks to Schools Matter). They have developed a teacher evaluation model based on peer review. I guess the thing that struck me about the article (other than the fact that the superintendant is turning down RTT money because it would obligate them to give up an evaluation method that actually works) is the level of trust that must exist in that district (which was emphasized in the article).

What would it be like to work in a district where a panel of teachers and principals could work together to make recommendations and evaluations? Sadly, I don't know what that would be like. I am pretty sure we could do it in my building, maybe. But in my district? Don't know.

The superintendent, Jerry Weast, pointed out that it took five years to develop this system. Five years is a very long term commitment in the world of education policy. Ultimately the article left me with mixed feelings. It has been clear for a while that peer review systems are a really effective way to maintain teacher quality (and accountability) while keeping a clear sense of the complexity of teaching and learning. And, if accountability is your main concern, generally peer review does a more effective job (anecdotally borne out by the article) of removing problematic teachers.

The truth is that as well intentioned as most administrators are (an in my experience they are), they are neither trained nor given the resources to do proper teacher evaluations. So the evaluation process, such as it is, becomes shallow and more concerned with making sure people aren't committing the most grievous offenses. But there isn't much support or in-depth analysis in the process. A good evaluation system should be as helpful to the good teachers as it is unflinching about teachers who are struggling. That would go a long way to making any system seem less punitive.

But the level of trust and long term commitment it would take to get there seems overwhelming. How does one build that? How do we develop leaders in all parts of the system that can take us there? What can I do to move us in that direction? And, WHY is federal education policy so completely opposed to doing this? (Duncan is reported in this article to have said to Weast "Jerry, you're going where the country needs to go." The article leaved unasked the question of why Duncan's policies are pushing the country in the opposite direction).

As always, many more questions than answers. Even in the summer.

-F. Scott