Should we be making kids start school earlier? making them do more homework? testing them more?
less is more I think
>> "What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?"
A few things come to mind...
- they always finnish their homework on time
- many finnish up assignments before going home
- teachers finnish their Moodle sessions with a wink
and a grin 
A few things come to mind...
- they always finnish their homework on time
- many finnish up assignments before going home
- teachers finnish their Moodle sessions with a wink
and a grin
Thanks for the link!
Seems to me that Gamerman is looking for a root cause of these score differentials. As an ethnographer, I prefer looking at the big picture.
I like the fact that she mentioned the pressure, for students in the United States, of getting into the "right" school. In this respect, Canada is more like Finland and, as a Canadian, I'm still surprised at how the U.S. system works. On the other hand, high-scoring Japan seems to be very much like the U.S. in terms of pressure to enter the "right" school (Don will tell me if I'm wrong).
I also enjoy the autonomy angle because that's how I was raised.
Having just finished watching the Frontline show about (parents) Growing Up Online, I'm still thinking about what works well with responsible teenagers.
Taking a step back, it'd be important to get more data on the national discrepancies. How significant, statistically and "academically," are these differences in average test scores? Are there hypotheses which take into account all of the top-scoring countries? Are there regional differences in those scores? I'm not disputing the notion that Finland should rank at the top of some measures of academic proficiency but I wonder what the scores really mean.
[Update 1] And, actually, looking at the first sample questions... Not to open a can of worms but the fact is that biological evolution isn't taught the same way all over the United States. No idea how much impact inaccurate answers to those questions may have on the results but it's a striking example of something which may help account for some discrepancies.
[Update 2] The forum reactions to the piece are worth a look. Some insightful comments, lots of discussion of U.S. culture. Looks more like a NYT forum than like a WSJ one, IMHO.
Anyhoo... Nice write-up and video.
Seems to me that Gamerman is looking for a root cause of these score differentials. As an ethnographer, I prefer looking at the big picture.
I like the fact that she mentioned the pressure, for students in the United States, of getting into the "right" school. In this respect, Canada is more like Finland and, as a Canadian, I'm still surprised at how the U.S. system works. On the other hand, high-scoring Japan seems to be very much like the U.S. in terms of pressure to enter the "right" school (Don will tell me if I'm wrong).
I also enjoy the autonomy angle because that's how I was raised.
Having just finished watching the Frontline show about (parents) Growing Up Online, I'm still thinking about what works well with responsible teenagers.
Taking a step back, it'd be important to get more data on the national discrepancies. How significant, statistically and "academically," are these differences in average test scores? Are there hypotheses which take into account all of the top-scoring countries? Are there regional differences in those scores? I'm not disputing the notion that Finland should rank at the top of some measures of academic proficiency but I wonder what the scores really mean.
[Update 1] And, actually, looking at the first sample questions... Not to open a can of worms but the fact is that biological evolution isn't taught the same way all over the United States. No idea how much impact inaccurate answers to those questions may have on the results but it's a striking example of something which may help account for some discrepancies.
[Update 2] The forum reactions to the piece are worth a look. Some insightful comments, lots of discussion of U.S. culture. Looks more like a NYT forum than like a WSJ one, IMHO.
Anyhoo... Nice write-up and video.
...high-scoring Japan seems to be very much like the U.S. in terms of pressure to enter the "right" school (Don will tell me if I'm wrong).
Yes, very hierarchical. Most schooling is streamed from junior high school into levels of high schools, so children travel far by public transit to go to their type of school (agricultural, technical, academic, commercial, etc.). There is a huge after-school, tutoring school system that helps students develop study habits or reviews school work for kids who want to move up into a higher level school. I think it is very good to have students streamed to create environments of similar students. However, it is not good when the system is not flexible enough to allow late-bloomers or life-changers to switch tracks. Fortunately, that flexibility is growing in Japan.
Yes, very hierarchical. Most schooling is streamed from junior high school into levels of high schools, so children travel far by public transit to go to their type of school (agricultural, technical, academic, commercial, etc.). There is a huge after-school, tutoring school system that helps students develop study habits or reviews school work for kids who want to move up into a higher level school. I think it is very good to have students streamed to create environments of similar students. However, it is not good when the system is not flexible enough to allow late-bloomers or life-changers to switch tracks. Fortunately, that flexibility is growing in Japan.
Don, thanks a lot for this! Exactly what I wanted to know.
So, on the one hand, it implies that Finland's non-hierarchical system may not be solely responsible for its high scores. On the other hand, it supports the idea that a hierarchical streaming system isn't incompatible with high-scoring students.
Nice!
Interesting to note that Finland's Ministry of Education puts so much emphasis on the egalitarian nature of their educational system.
Because of the way I was raised, I tend to prefer egalitarian systems. In Canada (in my personal experience), as in Finland, there aren't huge discrepancies between schools or between students in the same schools. In fact, within a given province, disparities between faculty members in terms of salaries or opportunities aren't that great either. Canada's educational systems do have diverse problem (including high percentages of school dropouts, high debt rates for post-secondary students, etc.). But Canadian educational systems tend to work rather well with ideologies of egalitarianism. Which also means that some people complain that it's not "competitive" enough.
It's probably a matter of consensus among Moodlers that there isn't such a thing as a "perfect school system." It's still fun to compare models.
So, on the one hand, it implies that Finland's non-hierarchical system may not be solely responsible for its high scores. On the other hand, it supports the idea that a hierarchical streaming system isn't incompatible with high-scoring students.
Nice!
Interesting to note that Finland's Ministry of Education puts so much emphasis on the egalitarian nature of their educational system.
Because of the way I was raised, I tend to prefer egalitarian systems. In Canada (in my personal experience), as in Finland, there aren't huge discrepancies between schools or between students in the same schools. In fact, within a given province, disparities between faculty members in terms of salaries or opportunities aren't that great either. Canada's educational systems do have diverse problem (including high percentages of school dropouts, high debt rates for post-secondary students, etc.). But Canadian educational systems tend to work rather well with ideologies of egalitarianism. Which also means that some people complain that it's not "competitive" enough.
It's probably a matter of consensus among Moodlers that there isn't such a thing as a "perfect school system." It's still fun to compare models.
Kids construct their learning together. I guess the first step to a Perfect School™ is enrolling Perfect Kids™.
Flexible/online learning technology can be used to improve opportunities for kids from less-than-perfect schools and families. What would you bet that the Finns do this in a more consistent way than Americans, in coming years?
Flexible/online learning technology can be used to improve opportunities for kids from less-than-perfect schools and families. What would you bet that the Finns do this in a more consistent way than Americans, in coming years?
"Should we be making kids start school earlier?"
Don't you already start earlier than Finnish kids?
We have an ongoing rivalry with Sweden, and according to World Factbook Finland has a literacy rate of 100% whereas Sweden has a mere 99%. Ha! I laugh at their 99%
(I hope it's not the Finnish immigrants that make up that 1% )
From the article: "Finnish teenagers are among the smartest in the world".
Might be, but they are still teenagers
.
Also from the article: "...to keeping Finns among the world's most productive workers".
Ummm...
. I'm off.
Don't you already start earlier than Finnish kids?
We have an ongoing rivalry with Sweden, and according to World Factbook Finland has a literacy rate of 100% whereas Sweden has a mere 99%. Ha! I laugh at their 99%
(I hope it's not the Finnish immigrants that make up that 1% )From the article: "Finnish teenagers are among the smartest in the world".
Might be, but they are still teenagers
.Also from the article: "...to keeping Finns among the world's most productive workers".
Ummm...
. I'm off.I'm off.
Nooo! Don't go!
We want you to comment on Finland's educational system, on how well adapted it is to Finland's population, etc.
A number of Finns have participated in the WSJ forum discussion, including some educators, but you're one educating Finn from whom we've already read several insightful posts!
Tell us everything about Finnish schools.
Please?
You should know better than encourage a fool! (not at the office anymore, so I'm allowed to procrastinate here. So I'm back already 
)
"We want you to comment on Finland's educational system"
As someone who has been doing his master's thesis at the Helsinki University of Technology since 1992, I can say that we have this thing called "academic liberty" So I guess I'm not one of those mentioned in the subject line. But gonna graduate by summer! Really!
I think that the study tells more about the education in other countries, than about the excellence of the education in Finland.
But I do think that we have a great public library system. I always liked it, and read a lot at school.
"We want you to comment on Finland's educational system"
As someone who has been doing his master's thesis at the Helsinki University of Technology since 1992, I can say that we have this thing called "academic liberty"
I think that the study tells more about the education in other countries, than about the excellence of the education in Finland.
But I do think that we have a great public library system. I always liked it, and read a lot at school.
Just a quick thought (could be at WSJ forum too, there was tons of replies): we don't thrive for excellence. Instead we try to get everybody to learn. The school system is criticized or "letting the talented students down", but I think that the really smart ones will study anyway, and it's the "rest" that really need the school.
There is a saying that goes something like "any fool can be taught to sculpt, but Michelangelo would have had to be taught not to".
There is a saying that goes something like "any fool can be taught to sculpt, but Michelangelo would have had to be taught not to".
Focusing on those who need help? Interesting learning philosophy. Several WSJ forum comments mentioned this and it goes well with some parts of the article itself.
As it so happens, this is close to the model used at the high school I attended. This high school (École secondaire Mont-de-La Salle) was a "semi-alternative school" («école semi-alternative»). The school was consistently the highest-scoring public school in the province while I was there.
One thing about that school was that, contrary to many other schools, there wasn't much of a stigma attached to academic success. Those who got high grades weren't "called names." And though some students were probably a bit condescending, having difficulty grasping some of the material was viewed as a normal thing. Students would help each other out quite frequently.
One thing about our school was that we had increasing amounts of free time. From 20% the first year to 50% the third and final year, IIRC. For many of us, that time was devoted to a passion which often remained important throughout our lives. For instance, like most members of the concert band, I spent a good proportion of that time on private rehearsal. Chances are that I wouldn't have become an ethnomusicologist if it hadn't been for that time.
Another dimension of our schedule which was quite useful is that we had "resource center" time («centre de ressources»). During that time, a teacher would be available for questions and students would try and help each other out.
Partly through the whole dynamic (and partly through self-selection), we had incredibly dedicated teachers. The kind of teacher who actually answered questions when you bumped into her/him in the corridor. I distinctly remember a math teacher to scribbling down some explanations to a problem on a student's locker door. And things like these weren't uncommon.
Obviously, many people complained about the way the school worked. Some people said that it encouraged dropouts. In fact, before I attended it, the school had a reputation for soft drug use. When I attended that school, I know some students smoked pot (and I remember smelling it on occasion) but it actually wasn't ever an issue for me. I didn't want to smoke so I never smoked. And, contrary to many private schools, hard drugs weren't common.
Apart from the fact that I tremendously enjoyed my time at that high school and that it actually opened my horizons, I sincerely think that it was excellent preparation for college (Cegep), which was excellent preparation for university. For those of us in music, the training was especially valuable and a disproportionate number of us went on to play in different contexts. Friends of mine who pursued careers in hard sciences found some college courses easier than some of what we had in high school.
We were also very engaged in learning. When the school board threatened to close our school, some of us demonstrated peacefully while school was off. We organized a campaign to mobilize parents and to help school board commissioners see the value in our school. We eventually "won" in the sense that the school wasn't closed. But they merged it with another school which followed a more "mainstream" model and eventually changed the educational model used at our school. From what I heard, that school is now pretty much like any other school in that same school board.
Ah, well...
As it so happens, this is close to the model used at the high school I attended.
One thing about that school was that, contrary to many other schools, there wasn't much of a stigma attached to academic success. Those who got high grades weren't "called names." And though some students were probably a bit condescending, having difficulty grasping some of the material was viewed as a normal thing. Students would help each other out quite frequently.
One thing about our school was that we had increasing amounts of free time. From 20% the first year to 50% the third and final year, IIRC. For many of us, that time was devoted to a passion which often remained important throughout our lives. For instance, like most members of the concert band, I spent a good proportion of that time on private rehearsal. Chances are that I wouldn't have become an ethnomusicologist if it hadn't been for that time.
Another dimension of our schedule which was quite useful is that we had "resource center" time («centre de ressources»). During that time, a teacher would be available for questions and students would try and help each other out.
Partly through the whole dynamic (and partly through self-selection), we had incredibly dedicated teachers. The kind of teacher who actually answered questions when you bumped into her/him in the corridor. I distinctly remember a math teacher to scribbling down some explanations to a problem on a student's locker door. And things like these weren't uncommon.
Obviously, many people complained about the way the school worked. Some people said that it encouraged dropouts. In fact, before I attended it, the school had a reputation for soft drug use. When I attended that school, I know some students smoked pot (and I remember smelling it on occasion) but it actually wasn't ever an issue for me. I didn't want to smoke so I never smoked. And, contrary to many private schools, hard drugs weren't common.
Apart from the fact that I tremendously enjoyed my time at that high school and that it actually opened my horizons, I sincerely think that it was excellent preparation for college (Cegep), which was excellent preparation for university. For those of us in music, the training was especially valuable and a disproportionate number of us went on to play in different contexts. Friends of mine who pursued careers in hard sciences found some college courses easier than some of what we had in high school.
We were also very engaged in learning. When the school board threatened to close our school, some of us demonstrated peacefully while school was off. We organized a campaign to mobilize parents and to help school board commissioners see the value in our school. We eventually "won" in the sense that the school wasn't closed. But they merged it with another school which followed a more "mainstream" model and eventually changed the educational model used at our school. From what I heard, that school is now pretty much like any other school in that same school board.
Ah, well...
My friend Simon Vaillancourt, who recently became a high school teacher, has commented on a blog copy of this post of mine, above. I'm very happy to see that Simon noticed some of the same trends that I've been describing here.
A word about the context. Quebec's educational system is undergoing a major and very controversial reform. This reform is "waged" under the general label of socio-constructivism. Some markers of socio-constructivist models (like qualitative reports) are being used. As Simon told me during a phone conversation we had recently, the major problem with Quebec's reform is the way it has been forced on teachers without much preparation (without a "charm campaign"). Teachers had to adapt very quickly and the new rules were applied indiscriminately to any program. There is now a major backlash against socio-constructivism in Quebec as a result of the reform. Many parents are angry, politicians have been taken to task, students seem to adapt relatively well...
From Simon's characterization of our former high school, most people would probably agree that that school's operation was quite close to socio-constructivist models.
His point (and my point) is that this system worked. Regardless of the baggage being carried by "socio-constructivism" at this point.
A word about the context. Quebec's educational system is undergoing a major and very controversial reform. This reform is "waged" under the general label of socio-constructivism. Some markers of socio-constructivist models (like qualitative reports) are being used. As Simon told me during a phone conversation we had recently, the major problem with Quebec's reform is the way it has been forced on teachers without much preparation (without a "charm campaign"). Teachers had to adapt very quickly and the new rules were applied indiscriminately to any program. There is now a major backlash against socio-constructivism in Quebec as a result of the reform. Many parents are angry, politicians have been taken to task, students seem to adapt relatively well...
From Simon's characterization of our former high school, most people would probably agree that that school's operation was quite close to socio-constructivist models.
His point (and my point) is that this system worked. Regardless of the baggage being carried by "socio-constructivism" at this point.
Excellence. Let us not give up striving to build an excellent education system (i.e. better than other countries; this is not the same thing as rewarding individual students who achieve relatively high test scores. The school system has the much more complex task of socialising and empowering students for their different roles in society.
Efficiency. Uniformity is not a socially efficient goal for a national education system. I think that my sister and I both achieve more than we would if we swapped jobs, because we have been able to specialise appropriately, despite similarities of nurture, opportunity and genetics.
Equity. Talented kids in Australian and American schools are at higher risk of depression, anxiety and social maladjustment, appearing early and persisting lifelong. A little reading will indicate how much teachers can contribute to that. It is unjust, unethical and wasteful to disregard the capability and mental health of an exceptional child on the grounds that she can learn rapidly in a particular field.
Empathy. Teachers should be more empathetic and socially responsible than to neglect exceptional students.
Admittedly, it is difficult to teach kids of very different ability together. <Insert plug for Moodle here.>
Cheers
Efficiency. Uniformity is not a socially efficient goal for a national education system. I think that my sister and I both achieve more than we would if we swapped jobs, because we have been able to specialise appropriately, despite similarities of nurture, opportunity and genetics.
Equity. Talented kids in Australian and American schools are at higher risk of depression, anxiety and social maladjustment, appearing early and persisting lifelong. A little reading will indicate how much teachers can contribute to that. It is unjust, unethical and wasteful to disregard the capability and mental health of an exceptional child on the grounds that she can learn rapidly in a particular field.
Empathy. Teachers should be more empathetic and socially responsible than to neglect exceptional students.
Admittedly, it is difficult to teach kids of very different ability together. <Insert plug for Moodle here.>
Cheers
True that the total uniformity is not the perfect goal. Society needs different talents etc. But at the age of six? Or ten? I don't think so. I think that the kids should be allowed to be kids. To go out and play football even if they have an I.Q. of 200. Maybe even encouraged to be a little more "normal". Not pushed in either direction. The time to specialize will come.
The reason that the talented kids are at the risk of depression etc. might just be that they are treated as too exceptional? At least my understanding is that the U.S. school system is a lot more competitive than the Finnish one, starting from the very early age.
Neglect is no good. Special treatment is not equal either. Treating them the same is too much uniformity... Arf.. damned if you do, damned if you don't. As you said: not easy. Special schools for talented kids sounds a bit scary too, though.
The reason that the talented kids are at the risk of depression etc. might just be that they are treated as too exceptional? At least my understanding is that the U.S. school system is a lot more competitive than the Finnish one, starting from the very early age.
Neglect is no good. Special treatment is not equal either. Treating them the same is too much uniformity... Arf.. damned if you do, damned if you don't. As you said: not easy. Special schools for talented kids sounds a bit scary too, though.
Interesting point about depression in high achievers. My experience with the "smart kids" in my own classes, though, and this is more anecdotal than supported by hard evidence, is that if they suffer depression, it is not because they are bored so much as because they have caught on to the hypocrisies in our system that escape the notice of most of their classmates.
This kind of anecdotal evidence is very valuable, IMHO. And, though it may seem overly immodest for us to say, it probably is the case that we (academics in general, teachers specifically) are disproportionately suffering from such forms of (clinical) depression. For one thing, the so-called "impostor syndrome" seems quite prominent in our milieus and it's often associated with people who feel like fakes because things were relatively easy for them. Not really lack of challenge. More about getting the impression that you're doing it wrong since you're not struggling.
Another way to put it, actually, is the frequently mentioned notion that schools are "made for" (and evaluated through criteria set by) people who are "good in schools." IOW, some of the problems we run into are connected to the fact that teachers and academics see "smartness" as a matter of performing like a budding academic or teacher. It then gets hard to live with the "child prodigy" affliction.
Sorry if this gets too pop-psy. I do think there are pedagogical, social, and cultural dimensions to "smart kid depression."
Another way to put it, actually, is the frequently mentioned notion that schools are "made for" (and evaluated through criteria set by) people who are "good in schools." IOW, some of the problems we run into are connected to the fact that teachers and academics see "smartness" as a matter of performing like a budding academic or teacher. It then gets hard to live with the "child prodigy" affliction.
Sorry if this gets too pop-psy. I do think there are pedagogical, social, and cultural dimensions to "smart kid depression."
Alexandre - I think you're right on here. I posted on this phenomenon at my blog. The piece is called "Educational Frankenstein: Collateral Damage on the Way to AYP."
I also agree with Lesli that so-called "gifted" kids "have caught on to the hypocrisies in our system that escape the notice of most of their classmates."
I also agree with Lesli that so-called "gifted" kids "have caught on to the hypocrisies in our system that escape the notice of most of their classmates."
Very interesting blog, Peter. I'm going into parent/teacher conferences tomorrow, and I'm definitely going to bookmark your blog so that when I myself am depressed in the middle of the intense, "I'm paying for an education for my son that will get him into Princeton" type conversation or six that I will likely have, I can remember that there are people out there who know better and can speak from experience on the value of learning to APPLY knowledge in different contexts, not just memorize facts. Thanks!
Will read this carefully. But, as a quick note, I was agreeing with Lesli on the gifted catching hypocrisies. When I was 14, it was a huge part of how I felt. I was disillusioned then.
Always reminds me of the philosophizing elevators (Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Happy People Vertical Transporters) in DNA's H2G2.
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/reviews/martyt.htm
Always reminds me of the philosophizing elevators (Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Happy People Vertical Transporters) in DNA's H2G2.
http://www.gslis.utexas.edu/~palmquis/courses/reviews/martyt.htm
But your site missed the best link http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/
Thanks to both of you. Nothing like Douglas Adams to cure the, "But how can your students tell how to fix their writing errors without the red pen markings on a physical paper?" blues.
Just finished reading your post.
Very interesting.
My experience was almost the opposite but I can see a lot of things together.
Speaking of blogposts, a shameless plug for one of my older posts.
Confessions of a Naïve Professor.
Very interesting.
My experience was almost the opposite but I can see a lot of things together.
Speaking of blogposts, a shameless plug for one of my older posts.
Confessions of a Naïve Professor.
Peter-Great blog post. I couldn't agree more. I always tell people the only two subjects I studied in high school that I still retain and use on a regular basis are French and typing. Everything else was really useless. I stopped learning useful basic information in junior high school.
In the US the educational system seems geared toward filling people with useless information, and in some ways the university system is even worse than the schools. People spend 4 years, often going into great debt, and only one or two of those years is spent taking coursework in one's major field. The rest of the time is spent becoming "well-rounded" in the "liberal arts." They may or may not get a job in their major field and then spend the next 30 years paying off their debt for that education. In other countries, students spend 4 years studying only their major subject. It has to make you wonder why we have so many foreign graduate students in the US.
In the US the educational system seems geared toward filling people with useless information, and in some ways the university system is even worse than the schools. People spend 4 years, often going into great debt, and only one or two of those years is spent taking coursework in one's major field. The rest of the time is spent becoming "well-rounded" in the "liberal arts." They may or may not get a job in their major field and then spend the next 30 years paying off their debt for that education. In other countries, students spend 4 years studying only their major subject. It has to make you wonder why we have so many foreign graduate students in the US.
Peter, the focusing on trivia tidbits seems to be a rather universal problem of the primary education, tests and grading is often too much based on that.
But from your blog post I felt that the other problem was this focusing on excellence, which might be necessary for most professionals as adults, but I feel is potentially dangerous at a very young age. That is usually built-in in some individuals and then reinforced by the "system".
It's sad that you had to do too many book reports as too young, and that it left you cold with novels. I don't remember how it was here in Finland, but I think we had to write book reports only at a later age (in high school maybe?).
I might be a special case, but even though I think that as a professional I'm more ambitious than the average, as a child I don't think that I felt the need to excel at school. We had the similar trivia focused tests. I felt annoyed by them, but like you, had no problem passing with good grades. I didn't get all As but I was true slacker. I felt that I could exploit the system to be able to do what I want (read novels and hack with computers). It could be an individual difference, but also I sense that it's a cultural one.
In Finland, we need to chance the "trivia bits" also (maybe it's being changed, I'm out of touch with the elementary schools). But while kids certainly feel some pressure to succeed, I don't think it's half as bad as in U.S. or U.K even. Also, I had problems with the advanced engineering math at the Universty, as I had learned the "slacker way". Maybe high school was too easy, which would be a side effect of the "get everybody to be at the same level" mentality in Finland. Some adjustment required.
But from your blog post I felt that the other problem was this focusing on excellence, which might be necessary for most professionals as adults, but I feel is potentially dangerous at a very young age. That is usually built-in in some individuals and then reinforced by the "system".
It's sad that you had to do too many book reports as too young, and that it left you cold with novels. I don't remember how it was here in Finland, but I think we had to write book reports only at a later age (in high school maybe?).
I might be a special case, but even though I think that as a professional I'm more ambitious than the average, as a child I don't think that I felt the need to excel at school. We had the similar trivia focused tests. I felt annoyed by them, but like you, had no problem passing with good grades. I didn't get all As but I was true slacker. I felt that I could exploit the system to be able to do what I want (read novels and hack with computers). It could be an individual difference, but also I sense that it's a cultural one.
In Finland, we need to chance the "trivia bits" also (maybe it's being changed, I'm out of touch with the elementary schools). But while kids certainly feel some pressure to succeed, I don't think it's half as bad as in U.S. or U.K even. Also, I had problems with the advanced engineering math at the Universty, as I had learned the "slacker way". Maybe high school was too easy, which would be a side effect of the "get everybody to be at the same level" mentality in Finland. Some adjustment required.
But from your blog post I felt that the other problem was this focusing on excellence, which might be necessary for most professionals as adults, but I feel is potentially dangerous at a very young age. That is usually built-in in some individuals and then reinforced by the "system".
Samuli - good point. Here in the US, the new focus is on "rigor." My daughter is starting Kindergarten in the fall, and there's a great deal of rigor in her current pre-Kindergarten class and will be even more in the fall. There's a thin line between rigor and rigor mortis. I blogged about this here and discussed the roots of this madness here.
Samuli - good point. Here in the US, the new focus is on "rigor." My daughter is starting Kindergarten in the fall, and there's a great deal of rigor in her current pre-Kindergarten class and will be even more in the fall. There's a thin line between rigor and rigor mortis. I blogged about this here and discussed the roots of this madness here.
Finland has certainly come a long way since this was written.
You're so sadly neglected
And often ignored,
A poor second to Belgium,
When going abroad.
And often ignored,
A poor second to Belgium,
When going abroad.
Really enjoying this discussion. Maybe a bit too much...
At this point, the key point to me is to talk not about the best educational systems but about the most appropriate learning and teaching practices in specific contexts. We can't and we won't apply the Finnish model to our own educational environments. But, through thinking about implications of simple or complex dimensions (like age and culture), we can get inspired to tweak our own approaches to education.
It all makes me very hopeful. In no small part because Moodle Loungers are talking about these issues in a thoughtful and respectful manner.
At this point, the key point to me is to talk not about the best educational systems but about the most appropriate learning and teaching practices in specific contexts. We can't and we won't apply the Finnish model to our own educational environments. But, through thinking about implications of simple or complex dimensions (like age and culture), we can get inspired to tweak our own approaches to education.
It all makes me very hopeful. In no small part because Moodle Loungers are talking about these issues in a thoughtful and respectful manner.
Something in the Finland education system definitely works. Some Finnish guy wrote an o/s that seemed to work pretty good... what was his name again... Torvalds is it? He was born in Finland and graduated from Helsinki University.
Finland was also rated as the best country to live in last year.
Maybe it is so cold that the only thing to do is study?
Finland was also rated as the best country to live in last year.
Maybe it is so cold that the only thing to do is study?