Finland is an interesting place. Besides giving the Russians a run for their money during the Winter War, they're consistently considered at the top of sundry lists of best schools in the world. There's always a lot to unpack whenever comparing countries in any way, not the least of which comes from the different cultures, histories, and values of the people within the counties. That disparity can make large, important schisms between comparisons and ought not to be ignored.
That being said, there are universal things among humans. Specific needs, like air, food, and water come to mind, but even on the broad-scale, not-quite-universal-but-so-ubiquitous-as-to-make-them-effectively-catholic level, we can see that certain thoughts, behaviors, or techniques can have a strong effect on most everyone. When we look at problem areas in America (health care, education, race relations, gun control), we can't simply point at another country, account for comparative development and wealth, then copy over the solutions others have arrived at. Neither, however, can we discount the wisdom our sisters and brothers of other continents have found simply because it's different. This is the case with Finland.
It seems as though Finland is starting up a new education program that got me thinking. Not only did I recently ruminate on this topic, but overall I think we don't think hard enough about education. That isn't to say that we aren't talking about education. But, as many things in our society, we view most issues as entrenched battlegrounds with an R or D attached to any of the concepts. And, if you know anything about trenches, you'll know that they were a horrible way to wage war. Yet, much like those generals of the past, no one seems to think that stalemate in war is another way to die, and we push on, entrenched.
Education is one of the casualties. The hard facts of the matter are that our education system is modeled after something from the nineteenth century and its purpose, reinvigorated in the '50s, has long been inadequate for educating our children. I'm not, by the way, talking about jobs. Financial contribution is only one aspect of an individual, and our culture's obsession with net worth as self-worth has poison in its roots and venom in its fruits. We can see that by the recent election, sky-rocketing debt, and the false assumption that school is for building builders. No, education is about teaching people to be people. It's not about "workers" or "entrepreneurs" or any other label that a person selects (or is given) throughout life. It's about the actual student, the child, the human.
When Finland says that they're interested in "phenomenon based learning", I'm inherently skeptical. I'm not a fan of education buzzwords, which, having been involved in the discipline for over a decade, it would not surprise you to learn I've heard a lot of buzzwords. Some are good pedagogy (backwards by design is a tortured but worthwhile process; liberal arts education is likewise vaguely worded but good principles) while others are mindless alphabet soup (DRSLs, ILOs) or well-meaning bureaucratese (Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind). But it always boils down to trying to figure out how to teach and teach better. That's admirable. But "phenomenon based learning" is, instinctively, leaning toward the negative-buzzword connotation.
Still, I don't know the details of their process. Maybe it's poorly named. Maybe there are additional components that would encourage me. I don't know that it would necessarily be bad, either, especially since they recognize that the artificial measure of testing would likely drop, a sure indication that they're less concerned with the outward measures and more concerned with the inward progress.
The question that, of course, is inherent in this sort of thing is whether or not we should adopt similar programs. To that, I don't know. The jury's still out on Finland, but what this provides is another opportunity to probe our own expectations and prejudices about what education does and how it ought to change.
I feel like there's room to put an end to at least one controversy: Should the Department of Education be a part of the federal government? Yes.
There are a few arguments against my opinion, so here are a couple of preemptive rebuttals: The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to create and regulate departments, agencies, and other arms of the government. The purpose of having a legislative body is to create, within the boundaries of the Constitution, laws which dictate how the country runs. Arguing that the federal government doesn't have a Constitutional right to make a department over education is, patently, false. They do. They did. It's there. It's a benefit to millions of citizens, and has been directly beneficial for the world in helping to educate Americans, who go on to contribute to the global society. Indeed, the federal government has an obligation to be involved in ensuring students are educated, protected, and supported as they transition from childhood to contributing member of society. America is built on ideals, but it's inhabited by people, and if America is sacrificing its people for ideals, then its ideals won't make it a place worth living in.
Part of the general welfare of the people has to be the education of the people, the democracy that fuels the republic. It is no exaggeration to say that the educational system of America is the best hope of continuing America's power in the world. More than tax-code reform, than increased spending on military, the education of America is how America can remain (or, if you're more pessimistic, reclaim) our standing in the world.
Education reform, then, has to be based upon the assumption that American citizens do deserve the positive right of education. Currently, those rights are guaranteed by states, if they so choose. Utah, for example, guarantees the right of all children in the state to a non-sectarian education. It may be time to amend the federal Constitution for the same acknowledgment.
I'm hammering on this because the current Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, comes from a different paradigm about the purpose of school which is at odds with the idea of educating (and protecting) every student in the country. I suspect a palpable lack of understanding about the education system from the president, so I must assume that DeVos is the primary force behind the current administration's approach to education. If there's a belief that the erosion, rather than improvement, of our education system is in some way desirable, then I think that's a warning sign.
Now, I will admit that I may have overlooked or jumped to some conclusions here. The point of a rant is to vent about something, and though I tried to remain lucid, this is something I feel really passionate about. Yes, obviously, it's my career. It's in the financial best interest of my family that there be a strong education system. But as I pointed out above, it isn't the financial aspect of the equation that matters. I teach, yes, but I also have three kids. I want them taught the truth (not, as DeVos' husband said, according to my "worldview"), I want them taught of the beauty and the sadness of the world. I want them to gain insights into other people through exposure to those of different ideas and ideals. I want them to grow and become better. Some modes of education are better than others, and I think we can figure those out while at the same time balancing the enormous task of providing safe harbors for children, nondiscriminatory behaviors in place, and doing the best our resources and intelligence allow for as many students as possible.
So why am I dwelling so much on the federal level? When you step back to look at the scope of what education requires in America--as well as the enormous dividends that it can generate (and I mean that in the broadest sense possible)--then it becomes clear that united we are many. The task is so monumental, so immense, that we need the contribution of America to do it all. If my taxes go to help some kid finish high school in Hialeah, Florida, that isn't a "waste" of my tax money. It isn't going "somewhere else". It's helping a kid in my country to do better. That's the whole point. Logistically, it makes sense to give states a lot of control over how to run their education systems. What doesn't make sense is to insist that the federal government should be voiceless on this front.
Maybe we can learn something from the Finns, besides how to draw out a war with the Soviet Union for much longer than anyone expected. Maybe we should be willing to keep our education system around, but change what doesn't work.
Fin.
That being said, there are universal things among humans. Specific needs, like air, food, and water come to mind, but even on the broad-scale, not-quite-universal-but-so-ubiquitous-as-to-make-them-effectively-catholic level, we can see that certain thoughts, behaviors, or techniques can have a strong effect on most everyone. When we look at problem areas in America (health care, education, race relations, gun control), we can't simply point at another country, account for comparative development and wealth, then copy over the solutions others have arrived at. Neither, however, can we discount the wisdom our sisters and brothers of other continents have found simply because it's different. This is the case with Finland.
It seems as though Finland is starting up a new education program that got me thinking. Not only did I recently ruminate on this topic, but overall I think we don't think hard enough about education. That isn't to say that we aren't talking about education. But, as many things in our society, we view most issues as entrenched battlegrounds with an R or D attached to any of the concepts. And, if you know anything about trenches, you'll know that they were a horrible way to wage war. Yet, much like those generals of the past, no one seems to think that stalemate in war is another way to die, and we push on, entrenched.
Education is one of the casualties. The hard facts of the matter are that our education system is modeled after something from the nineteenth century and its purpose, reinvigorated in the '50s, has long been inadequate for educating our children. I'm not, by the way, talking about jobs. Financial contribution is only one aspect of an individual, and our culture's obsession with net worth as self-worth has poison in its roots and venom in its fruits. We can see that by the recent election, sky-rocketing debt, and the false assumption that school is for building builders. No, education is about teaching people to be people. It's not about "workers" or "entrepreneurs" or any other label that a person selects (or is given) throughout life. It's about the actual student, the child, the human.
When Finland says that they're interested in "phenomenon based learning", I'm inherently skeptical. I'm not a fan of education buzzwords, which, having been involved in the discipline for over a decade, it would not surprise you to learn I've heard a lot of buzzwords. Some are good pedagogy (backwards by design is a tortured but worthwhile process; liberal arts education is likewise vaguely worded but good principles) while others are mindless alphabet soup (DRSLs, ILOs) or well-meaning bureaucratese (Race to the Top, No Child Left Behind). But it always boils down to trying to figure out how to teach and teach better. That's admirable. But "phenomenon based learning" is, instinctively, leaning toward the negative-buzzword connotation.
Still, I don't know the details of their process. Maybe it's poorly named. Maybe there are additional components that would encourage me. I don't know that it would necessarily be bad, either, especially since they recognize that the artificial measure of testing would likely drop, a sure indication that they're less concerned with the outward measures and more concerned with the inward progress.
The question that, of course, is inherent in this sort of thing is whether or not we should adopt similar programs. To that, I don't know. The jury's still out on Finland, but what this provides is another opportunity to probe our own expectations and prejudices about what education does and how it ought to change.
I feel like there's room to put an end to at least one controversy: Should the Department of Education be a part of the federal government? Yes.
There are a few arguments against my opinion, so here are a couple of preemptive rebuttals: The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to create and regulate departments, agencies, and other arms of the government. The purpose of having a legislative body is to create, within the boundaries of the Constitution, laws which dictate how the country runs. Arguing that the federal government doesn't have a Constitutional right to make a department over education is, patently, false. They do. They did. It's there. It's a benefit to millions of citizens, and has been directly beneficial for the world in helping to educate Americans, who go on to contribute to the global society. Indeed, the federal government has an obligation to be involved in ensuring students are educated, protected, and supported as they transition from childhood to contributing member of society. America is built on ideals, but it's inhabited by people, and if America is sacrificing its people for ideals, then its ideals won't make it a place worth living in.
Part of the general welfare of the people has to be the education of the people, the democracy that fuels the republic. It is no exaggeration to say that the educational system of America is the best hope of continuing America's power in the world. More than tax-code reform, than increased spending on military, the education of America is how America can remain (or, if you're more pessimistic, reclaim) our standing in the world.
Education reform, then, has to be based upon the assumption that American citizens do deserve the positive right of education. Currently, those rights are guaranteed by states, if they so choose. Utah, for example, guarantees the right of all children in the state to a non-sectarian education. It may be time to amend the federal Constitution for the same acknowledgment.
I'm hammering on this because the current Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, comes from a different paradigm about the purpose of school which is at odds with the idea of educating (and protecting) every student in the country. I suspect a palpable lack of understanding about the education system from the president, so I must assume that DeVos is the primary force behind the current administration's approach to education. If there's a belief that the erosion, rather than improvement, of our education system is in some way desirable, then I think that's a warning sign.
Now, I will admit that I may have overlooked or jumped to some conclusions here. The point of a rant is to vent about something, and though I tried to remain lucid, this is something I feel really passionate about. Yes, obviously, it's my career. It's in the financial best interest of my family that there be a strong education system. But as I pointed out above, it isn't the financial aspect of the equation that matters. I teach, yes, but I also have three kids. I want them taught the truth (not, as DeVos' husband said, according to my "worldview"), I want them taught of the beauty and the sadness of the world. I want them to gain insights into other people through exposure to those of different ideas and ideals. I want them to grow and become better. Some modes of education are better than others, and I think we can figure those out while at the same time balancing the enormous task of providing safe harbors for children, nondiscriminatory behaviors in place, and doing the best our resources and intelligence allow for as many students as possible.
So why am I dwelling so much on the federal level? When you step back to look at the scope of what education requires in America--as well as the enormous dividends that it can generate (and I mean that in the broadest sense possible)--then it becomes clear that united we are many. The task is so monumental, so immense, that we need the contribution of America to do it all. If my taxes go to help some kid finish high school in Hialeah, Florida, that isn't a "waste" of my tax money. It isn't going "somewhere else". It's helping a kid in my country to do better. That's the whole point. Logistically, it makes sense to give states a lot of control over how to run their education systems. What doesn't make sense is to insist that the federal government should be voiceless on this front.
Maybe we can learn something from the Finns, besides how to draw out a war with the Soviet Union for much longer than anyone expected. Maybe we should be willing to keep our education system around, but change what doesn't work.
Fin.