Glow of Finland’s success has dimmed
The glow from the spectacular success of Finland’s students on the 2001 Program for International Assessment has dimmed in recent years.
Finnish scores in all domains slipped slightly in PISA 2009 and then more strongly in PISA 2012. Between 2006 and 2012, Finland’s performance declined by 18 points in scientific literacy, 23 points in reading literacy and 29 points in mathematical literacy.
This surprising reversal has reenergized the discussion about the comparative values of traditional and the less restrictive classroom practices that many believed defined Finland’s success. It has also brought back into focus the whole debate about the school being a reflection of evolving societal beliefs, values and practices.
Prof. Pasi Sahlberg, educator, scholar, writer and oft-quoted guru about Finnish education’s success on earlier international assessments, continues, in his latest book FinnishEd
Leadership, to write about the success of Finland’s unconventional school reforms.
Sahlberg, while still an advocate for Finland’s progressive education methodology, cautions educators and policy makers to avoid giving unquestioning credence to urban legends about Finland’s schools. At the same time other, equally influential voices demand explanations about the reversal in Finland’s rankings on PISA scores among 15-year-old students.
Now an extensively referenced monograph by Gabriel Heller Sahlgren of the Centre for the Study of Market Reform in Education echoes Sahlberg’s caveat about the tendency we all have to rush forward to embrace what at first glance seems to be the next big idea when it comes to education reform.
Sahlgren challenges the widely accepted standard explanations for Finnish students’ “out of nowhere” success in the first international PISA league tables in 2001.
Those widely accepted explanations include Finland’s focus on classroom equity in teacher-student interactions, the absence of standardized tests, accountability, little homework and the country’s famously demanding teacher-education system.
Sahlberg, rather than jumping on the “Finland bandwagon,” chooses instead to look at Finland’s complicated and unique history, which, in his view, appears to be an important contextual factor in Finland’s educational success, along with the value the culture had always placed on learning.
Sahlberg also warns Finnish educators about emerging evidence that suggests that pupil-led methods and less structured schooling environments might not, by themselves and in the absence of some more traditional classroom practices, lead to a more effective learning environment.
The problem, as Sahlberg sees it, is that “while society is moving in a direction toward less authority and more independence, this does not mean that education must follow suit.”
Finnish teachers were, for many decades, traditional in their approach, reinforcing a hierarchical teacherstudent relationship.
It is only recently that policydriven reforms have reflected a less restrictive approach to classroom practice.
The move toward less structured methods and less authoritative school practices in Finland is reflective of the evolution of its society and culture. This movement is marked by a wariness of authority and obedience.
Therefore, the argument goes, policy makers must adopt the less authority and more independence in classrooms.
Some reformers suggest that post industrialization renders teacher dominated pedagogy and other authoritative aspects of schooling irrelevant, because teaching methods and school organization in general must follow the trajectory of society.
Not so, suggests Sahlberg, writing that this is a fallacy: “Schools are not supposed to be microcosms of the outside world.”
Instead, he writes: “They are meant to be institutions that prepare pupils for that world.”
So while society is moving toward less authority and more independence, this does not, in Sahlberg’s view and in the view of more conservative educational thinkers (and some parents) mean that education must follow suit.
They long for the more traditional philosophy that governed universally available public education since its inception.
And therein lies the problem, not just for Finland but also for educational policy makers here in Canada and everywhere who are trying to envisage the future.
In the introduction to his paper, Sahlberg quotes Hannah Arendt, still widely considered one of the most important thinkers about political philosophy of the 20th century, from her 1954 book The Crisis in Education:
“The problem of education in the modern world lies in the fact that by its very nature it cannot forgo either authority or tradition, and yet must proceed in a world that is neither structured by authority nor held together by tradition.”