Finland plans to replace classic school subjects with broader “topics” (2015)(theconversation.com)
theconversation.com
Finland plans to replace classic school subjects with broader “topics” (2015)
https://theconversation.com/finlands-school-reforms-wont-scrap-subjects-altogether-39328
11 comments
I myself went to a high school which functioned this way. We started the week in our groups for a 30 min meeting where we set the goals for the week. After that we studied what we wanted. There were workshops all day with english, math etc that you could go to if you had any questions. But mainly you sat with your friends in small groups and studied.
And yes, you were alone responsible for when you took breaks etc. This way of studying were in my opinion much more effective. Sure I perhaps didn't put in as much time studying as people who went to traditional schools did. But once i studied I were much more focused and to be honest. When you sit in a class and the teacher ramps on about something that is of no interest to you, how much are you able to recollect?
Also another positive side of it were that if I had it easy for some topics I could focus others which I had a hard time for. I remember that I didn't study either swedish or math at all in 6th and 7th grade.
And yes, you were alone responsible for when you took breaks etc. This way of studying were in my opinion much more effective. Sure I perhaps didn't put in as much time studying as people who went to traditional schools did. But once i studied I were much more focused and to be honest. When you sit in a class and the teacher ramps on about something that is of no interest to you, how much are you able to recollect?
Also another positive side of it were that if I had it easy for some topics I could focus others which I had a hard time for. I remember that I didn't study either swedish or math at all in 6th and 7th grade.
Out of curiosity, did any students from that school go to any of the top global universities? Like Oxbridge/Ivy League/Etc? I wonder how those students do in comparison.
Also, as a kid who learned much better through class interaction with a teacher, your school would have been a nightmare for me, instead of doing so well in school I likely would have failed. Undiagnosed ADHD is terrible for self-driven learning.
Also, as a kid who learned much better through class interaction with a teacher, your school would have been a nightmare for me, instead of doing so well in school I likely would have failed. Undiagnosed ADHD is terrible for self-driven learning.
I live in Sweden and it's less common for students to study in Ivy-league schools abroad.
And yes, it's a very special way of learning - puts a lot of responsibility on the student. But on the first day of the weeks in the group meetings your mentor checks up that you managed to hit your goals last week etc - and if they notice that you keep up failing your targets they will take this up with the parents and possibly make up a study plan for you and see to it that your in the workshops of those subjects between the agreed times.
And yes, it's a very special way of learning - puts a lot of responsibility on the student. But on the first day of the weeks in the group meetings your mentor checks up that you managed to hit your goals last week etc - and if they notice that you keep up failing your targets they will take this up with the parents and possibly make up a study plan for you and see to it that your in the workshops of those subjects between the agreed times.
How did they make sure you learnt things like history or French?
How were you tested?
For example in our country (UK) we have a curriculum that we teach to, so this week we had to teach our kids about hard drives, CDs, Blu-ray and USB sticks. Then we test them on the details and when you would use each.
How were you tested?
For example in our country (UK) we have a curriculum that we teach to, so this week we had to teach our kids about hard drives, CDs, Blu-ray and USB sticks. Then we test them on the details and when you would use each.
We had an online portal with projects to finish. If you finished to the 20th project in 9th grade you were awarded what in UK would be seen as a C, 30 B, 35 A.
After each project is completed it's assigned to you in the webportal.
Each 10th project were a more demanding one including a test with a teacher and each 5th test were to be declared verbally to a teacher.
After each project is completed it's assigned to you in the webportal.
Each 10th project were a more demanding one including a test with a teacher and each 5th test were to be declared verbally to a teacher.
That's the future of education, we need to get rid of this centuries-old model where students are passively learning. Schools are acting as the gateway to knowledge like in the old days when you had to travel to libraries and amphitheater to listen to lectures because that was the only way to access knowledge!
In the meantime, the Internet came up and anyone can access an infinite amount of information and knowledge. Workers need to be able to learn by themselves, be able to retrain and retool. Any good Software Engineer is already doing this, constantly learning new stuff to stay on top of their game, that will be true for any type of worker.
In the meantime, the Internet came up and anyone can access an infinite amount of information and knowledge. Workers need to be able to learn by themselves, be able to retrain and retool. Any good Software Engineer is already doing this, constantly learning new stuff to stay on top of their game, that will be true for any type of worker.
"we need to get rid of this centuries-old model where students are passively learning"
Some things work.
Of all the experiments that have been tried, none seem to really do better.
Hint: The Finns themselves take a very boring and classical approach. They start late, they have highly paid teachers etc. etc..
They were never 'progressive' they were more 'antiquated' than anything - just focusing on the basics and doing it well.
I'm really weary about this change, it should be tested before anything.
Some things require a structured approach in terms of thinking.
Some things work.
Of all the experiments that have been tried, none seem to really do better.
Hint: The Finns themselves take a very boring and classical approach. They start late, they have highly paid teachers etc. etc..
They were never 'progressive' they were more 'antiquated' than anything - just focusing on the basics and doing it well.
I'm really weary about this change, it should be tested before anything.
Some things require a structured approach in terms of thinking.
Alternative education is getting great results. I personally funded an alternative to college to train software engineers(Holberton School). We have no formal teachers, no lecture, students learn by practicing and collaborating with peers. We started 9 months ago but already got students at NASA, Dropbox, Docker and Apple.
Look at Andela as well, accelerated training, then teams of "students" are integrated into companies and they learn while working.
Finally, coding bootcamps have also their share of success stories.
There is honestly A LOT of broken, unless you are studying in an Ivy League, I really think the education far from what the current & next generation needs.
Look at Andela as well, accelerated training, then teams of "students" are integrated into companies and they learn while working.
Finally, coding bootcamps have also their share of success stories.
There is honestly A LOT of broken, unless you are studying in an Ivy League, I really think the education far from what the current & next generation needs.
Coding bootcamps and training people for specific skills is something quite different from general education for children.
That is true :)
I was just illustrating an example of alternative education that works. As you said none are working.
One for children: altschool is doing very well. Khan academy is also a hit.
I was just illustrating an example of alternative education that works. As you said none are working.
One for children: altschool is doing very well. Khan academy is also a hit.
Among other things, getting into a coding bootcamp tends to be both a selective and a self-selecting process. Many of the people who go into coding bootcamps would do acceptably in conventional educational settings too. School education is a bit different.
A ce sujet, pensez-vous qu'il faille encore, en France, unanimement préférer faire une école type Epitech pour devenir purement développeur, ou passer par une structure alternative telle que l'école 42 que vous connaissez bien et qui semble être le modèle du futur? Comment 42 est-elle vue par les recruteurs, de par sa nouveauté? Merci
> Of all the experiments that have been tried, none seem to really do better.
Plenty of things do better... if you have much more resources to spend.
The best is 1:1 or 1:few where the 1 is a world-class expert in the field of interest who also happens to be a world-class teacher. Something like a personal tutor/coach. Think Aristotle and Alexander.
This is basically how we train elite athletes, musicians, etc., and how some of the very wealthy provide training for their children. It’s very time-expensive though for the teacher, and doesn’t scale well because there aren’t that many world-class practitioner-teachers out there in any given subject.
Plenty of things do better... if you have much more resources to spend.
The best is 1:1 or 1:few where the 1 is a world-class expert in the field of interest who also happens to be a world-class teacher. Something like a personal tutor/coach. Think Aristotle and Alexander.
This is basically how we train elite athletes, musicians, etc., and how some of the very wealthy provide training for their children. It’s very time-expensive though for the teacher, and doesn’t scale well because there aren’t that many world-class practitioner-teachers out there in any given subject.
>a world-class expert in the field of interest
A world class expert in elementary mathematics seems kind of paradox? A pedagogy expert, sure, but how much expertise do you really need?
>This is basically how we train elite athletes, musicians
... but only after they've proven talent. Children raised to become top athletes aren't necessarily going to be successful, are they?
Simply, the attention afforded to a particular student in a 1:1 setting is an improvement, I agree with that at least.
A world class expert in elementary mathematics seems kind of paradox? A pedagogy expert, sure, but how much expertise do you really need?
>This is basically how we train elite athletes, musicians
... but only after they've proven talent. Children raised to become top athletes aren't necessarily going to be successful, are they?
Simply, the attention afforded to a particular student in a 1:1 setting is an improvement, I agree with that at least.
Elementary mathematics took thousands of years to develop, and understanding basic arithmetic in a deep and fluent way is a highly advanced skill (really, a constellation of dozens of inter-related but distinct skills), which most students and even most teachers never fully develop, but which is incredibly helpful for becoming a fluent mathematician, scientist, or engineer.
Beyond basic understanding, teaching elementary mathematics effectively is a difficult job which can take decades to fully master. There are a large number of potential conceptual and procedural errors which various students can make, some of which are subtle and hard to correct. Someone who can perform elementary mathematics is not necessarily able to properly teach it.
As for world-class expertise, that really depends on what our goals are. There are undoubtedly world-class experts in elementary mathematics, who have spent decades doing extensive research in the history and practice, and have thought very deeply about the nature and meaning of numbers and mathematical relations. My comment was about the “ideal” case, if you want the student to learn as fast and effectively as possible.
But you can also get by okay with just a typical trained professional teacher (ideally a specialist in mathematics education).
I recommend Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics for some basic analysis.
Beyond basic understanding, teaching elementary mathematics effectively is a difficult job which can take decades to fully master. There are a large number of potential conceptual and procedural errors which various students can make, some of which are subtle and hard to correct. Someone who can perform elementary mathematics is not necessarily able to properly teach it.
As for world-class expertise, that really depends on what our goals are. There are undoubtedly world-class experts in elementary mathematics, who have spent decades doing extensive research in the history and practice, and have thought very deeply about the nature and meaning of numbers and mathematical relations. My comment was about the “ideal” case, if you want the student to learn as fast and effectively as possible.
But you can also get by okay with just a typical trained professional teacher (ideally a specialist in mathematics education).
I recommend Liping Ma’s book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics for some basic analysis.
You are ignoring that I noted the difference to pedagogy beforehand
Also a similar model is used for Ph.D. programs. 1:1 advisor-advisee. Each advisor has only a couple of Ph.D. students at any given time.
> I'm really weary about this change, it should be tested before anything.
It's "wary" not "weary" [1]. Normally, I'm not a grammar Nazi, but I've been seeing this mistake more and more on HN. The word "weary" means tired, whereas "wary" means cautious or on guard.
By the way, I'm also wary about these changes. I think multidisciplinary classes are great, but that you need a strong base before you can implement 100% cross-/multi-disciplinary classrooms.
1. http://grammarist.com/usage/wary-weary/
It's "wary" not "weary" [1]. Normally, I'm not a grammar Nazi, but I've been seeing this mistake more and more on HN. The word "weary" means tired, whereas "wary" means cautious or on guard.
By the way, I'm also wary about these changes. I think multidisciplinary classes are great, but that you need a strong base before you can implement 100% cross-/multi-disciplinary classrooms.
1. http://grammarist.com/usage/wary-weary/
Thanks for pointing this out, because ESL readers as me, when shown an error repeatedly, start confounding the good version and the bad one. The worst part is that it is subtle: you understand what it's meant, noone mentions it, and something in your brain accepts it as a fact.
My fiancee is French and whenever she speaks (an almost perfect) Spanish, I always make the effort to repeat back errors she makes, in the correct form, without interrupting the dialog. On the medium term, that single act works wonders. I suggest that as a subtle alternative to pointing out errors, that can also be handy!
My fiancee is French and whenever she speaks (an almost perfect) Spanish, I always make the effort to repeat back errors she makes, in the correct form, without interrupting the dialog. On the medium term, that single act works wonders. I suggest that as a subtle alternative to pointing out errors, that can also be handy!
> I always make the effort to repeat back errors she makes, in the correct form, without interrupting the dialog.
This is a good approach. I even use the same technique with my very young child, who still makes mistakes with English irregular verbs.
This is a good approach. I even use the same technique with my very young child, who still makes mistakes with English irregular verbs.
> I think multidisciplinary classes are great, but that you need a strong base before you can implement 100% cross-/multi-disciplinary classrooms.
I think the perceived separation between subjects is largely artificial. English and math seem pretty separate, until you get into discrete math and algebra and you realise formal systems are just languages with grammars, syntax, etc.
Nearly everything we learn is multidisciplinary. Sometimes it might be an advantage to focus on specific topics in isolation, but it should always be placed in a wider context to properly understand it.
I think the perceived separation between subjects is largely artificial. English and math seem pretty separate, until you get into discrete math and algebra and you realise formal systems are just languages with grammars, syntax, etc.
Nearly everything we learn is multidisciplinary. Sometimes it might be an advantage to focus on specific topics in isolation, but it should always be placed in a wider context to properly understand it.
A little bit of etymology helps me remember the difference.
"Wary" stems from the same root as "beware" and "aware". Going back further in time, it can also be connected to "ward", "warden", and "guard".
On the other hand, "weary" stems from "wear", as in "wear and tear", "to wear down", and "this weather has been wearing on me".
"Wary" stems from the same root as "beware" and "aware". Going back further in time, it can also be connected to "ward", "warden", and "guard".
On the other hand, "weary" stems from "wear", as in "wear and tear", "to wear down", and "this weather has been wearing on me".
because ESL readers like myself...
you understand what is meant by the mistake in speech, and it goes unmentioned, so something...
*In the medium term...
:)
By the way, your English is far better than my Spanish... ;)
you understand what is meant by the mistake in speech, and it goes unmentioned, so something...
*In the medium term...
:)
By the way, your English is far better than my Spanish... ;)
The problem with education is, its self referential, as in you might not know at the start why you learn and you might be able to evaluate the goal of the whole endeavor only after you are halfway through it.
From the Napoleon hill of history, looking at it and assuming those down there in the trenches below the powder smoke can see the same whole picture of a worthwhile sacrifice of time - might be a big assumption based upon only your own accumulated post-experience knowledge.
A kid might not have a Feynman as father that encourages it to explore the world. Forcing this kid through mathematics, giving it the chance to later discover- hey you can program games with this or control drones- and live a different live then your dad who sits drinking in front of the TV all day - that is what the old teaching method provides. It sucks for those who educate there kids to have a expedition and curiosity mindset, but its hugely beneficial to those parts of society who do not understand the real benefits of education.
From the Napoleon hill of history, looking at it and assuming those down there in the trenches below the powder smoke can see the same whole picture of a worthwhile sacrifice of time - might be a big assumption based upon only your own accumulated post-experience knowledge.
A kid might not have a Feynman as father that encourages it to explore the world. Forcing this kid through mathematics, giving it the chance to later discover- hey you can program games with this or control drones- and live a different live then your dad who sits drinking in front of the TV all day - that is what the old teaching method provides. It sucks for those who educate there kids to have a expedition and curiosity mindset, but its hugely beneficial to those parts of society who do not understand the real benefits of education.
But only a few students will actually be motivated enough by classroom math to learn enough to later program games or drones. Most students develop an allergic reaction to anything that even reminds them of the horrors of school math.
You are right- which is why maybe a dual approach would be optimal- if you don't show intrinsic interest, you are self-condemned to the passive classic approach.
If you allow yourself to get involved (there must be of course those offerings, in some fun alternative).. i guess, it should be allowed for those involved in project schooling to train and recruit those stuck in passive schooling. This project system has a vulnerability though, it breeds specialists. So a teacher should encourage projects tackling different subjects and demand that everyone contribute to a project with calculus for example.
Probably better if kids learned math by directly controlling drones or programming games.
Thought that too, but not everybody instantly finds the thing that is rewarding to them. And probably, before everyone sets out in university to find his own interests, even with this a number of students will remain bored for the time they have to learn this. Its sad but not avoidable.
People have for at least 100+ years had access to "an infinite amount of information and knowledge"
No one has finished reading a whole library.
This sort of attitude is the problem. Trinkets like giving students things don't help.
Students need to do work to get ahead.
The best way 'so far' is boring repetition.
No one has finished reading a whole library.
This sort of attitude is the problem. Trinkets like giving students things don't help.
Students need to do work to get ahead.
The best way 'so far' is boring repetition.
There is an element of tech company led social engineering going on here: everyone and their dog want to be able to sell their kit as educational if they can. So we get told about the wonders of the internet constantly and schools end up buying iPads instead of books. Your point about libraries stands admirably in light of this. Using different ways to find out information is a skill in itself.
That said, nobody is disputing the need to work, only the manner in which that work is carried out.
That said, nobody is disputing the need to work, only the manner in which that work is carried out.
Repetition work for some problems but not others, and you need to repeat the correct activity. For example, repeating facts rarely help problem solving, while training at unique problem solving do help to be better at problem solving.
We also need to be careful, as one of the best way to burn people out is to do repeated activity on something they already mastered and feel impowered and hopeless by being forced to repeat them over and over again.
We also need to be careful, as one of the best way to burn people out is to do repeated activity on something they already mastered and feel impowered and hopeless by being forced to repeat them over and over again.
no. repetition should be a result of the child wanting to be better.
if commanded to repeat the child will approach the subject to learn with minimalism.
if child is influenced to like the subject and repeatition is a result of a drive to get better; it will not minimise the effort but maximise instead.
if child is influenced to like the subject and repeatition is a result of a drive to get better; it will not minimise the effort but maximise instead.
Agreed! I'd like to see a wide variety of ever-improving open source curricula, and students given minimal structure in their day -- maybe two hours max of formal lecture in core subjects, three hours for socializing / lunch / exercise / play, and most importantly three plus hours of self-directed learning time. Teachers would act more as supervisors and check in frequently to give feedback and gauge their student's progress.
Unfortunately American schools are moving in the opposite direction, with massive emphasis on teacher evaluations, discipline, standardized testing, and about 20 minutes daily of highly supervised and sanitized recess (source: twelve years attending public schools and one year more recently working in one).
Unfortunately American schools are moving in the opposite direction, with massive emphasis on teacher evaluations, discipline, standardized testing, and about 20 minutes daily of highly supervised and sanitized recess (source: twelve years attending public schools and one year more recently working in one).
> and most importantly three plus hours of self-directed
> learning time
I said already that I've worked for a year in a school! I worked full-time as a reading tutor in an elementary school, and taught summer school. I've also taught abroad, classrooms with 30+ students. I taught tennis to groups of teenagers for like 6 summers!
Agreed.
Kids are not very good at 'self direction'.
It takes a lot to get them enthused.
Kids are not very good at 'self direction'.
It takes a lot to get them enthused.
I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger, yet even if I knew then what I do now, I still think it wouldn't've been something I spent 'my time' doing - not a lot of it, anyway. (Conversely, there are things I was interested in then that I have the resources to learn far mor effectively now, that I absolutely would've loved to have been tinkering with sooner.)
It's absolutely highly interest-driven, and while the information can sometimes be neatly standardized and labelled, that interest can't be.
It can be cultivated, but figuring out how best to do that takes tweaking and experimentation. As such I'll keep an eye out for Finland's progress on this and look forward to seeing what their findings are.
It's absolutely highly interest-driven, and while the information can sometimes be neatly standardized and labelled, that interest can't be.
It can be cultivated, but figuring out how best to do that takes tweaking and experimentation. As such I'll keep an eye out for Finland's progress on this and look forward to seeing what their findings are.
"I'm only now realizing my interest in some things I could have spent more time learning when younger"
Same here.
When you're young, nothing has consequence - so I don't think you can put together A + B = some outcome that matters!
Also - I think that every time you learn something, you get a new 'lego block' that you can use. When you're young, you don't have many blocks, so you can't do much.
But as you get older, you have so many blocks (+ money to spend) and you can do so many more things ... it's kind of incentive to learn.
The ability to see a larger project through I think would be a great thing to learn.
I wish that in school - some projects were worked on that took months to complete, and that the kids had to be involved in the planning. I think that would start teaching kids about 'time horizons' and how complex things get done over time.
Same here.
When you're young, nothing has consequence - so I don't think you can put together A + B = some outcome that matters!
Also - I think that every time you learn something, you get a new 'lego block' that you can use. When you're young, you don't have many blocks, so you can't do much.
But as you get older, you have so many blocks (+ money to spend) and you can do so many more things ... it's kind of incentive to learn.
The ability to see a larger project through I think would be a great thing to learn.
I wish that in school - some projects were worked on that took months to complete, and that the kids had to be involved in the planning. I think that would start teaching kids about 'time horizons' and how complex things get done over time.
> When you're young, nothing has consequence - so I don't think you can put together A + B = some outcome that matters.
But that's where these multidisciplinary approaches would shine, because the theory is intimately tied up in a broader application kids can see in their own lives. Education starts to take on real, personal meaning.
But that's where these multidisciplinary approaches would shine, because the theory is intimately tied up in a broader application kids can see in their own lives. Education starts to take on real, personal meaning.
Have you worked in education?
By self-directed, I don't mean let the kids roam the streets. For example the teacher and student would decide on a project individually or in a small group, then pick any resources the student might need ahead of time and limit them to those resources in a quiet room. This should include access to a Linux laptop with educational websites and online apps whitelisted. Being self-directed is an important skill to have in life, and I'm surprised that so many people here are mystified as to why kids and adults alike don't have it -- because most school systems don't teach it!
By self-directed, I don't mean let the kids roam the streets. For example the teacher and student would decide on a project individually or in a small group, then pick any resources the student might need ahead of time and limit them to those resources in a quiet room. This should include access to a Linux laptop with educational websites and online apps whitelisted. Being self-directed is an important skill to have in life, and I'm surprised that so many people here are mystified as to why kids and adults alike don't have it -- because most school systems don't teach it!
I support this kind of thing too. Independent learning is hugely important. I think kids are deterred from independent learning by stultifying practices in the classroom that make them feel that learning has to be bounded and dull. It doesn't have to be that way.
Edit: also,schools are vital places for socialising but most teachers insist on silence and attention. I think a better approach would be to allow socialising in a supervised environment, such that a teacher or some other role can suggest not being unkind etc, and in doing so foster constructive social skills. We often forget that social skills can be good or bad: furtive or open. Schools should encourage the right skills.
Edit: also,schools are vital places for socialising but most teachers insist on silence and attention. I think a better approach would be to allow socialising in a supervised environment, such that a teacher or some other role can suggest not being unkind etc, and in doing so foster constructive social skills. We often forget that social skills can be good or bad: furtive or open. Schools should encourage the right skills.
three plus hours of self-directed learning time
Totally agree, a key here is that student should learn how to learn. There is all the knowledge that you need online, but the truth is that today there is too much information, something wrong, something not accurate. Students need to be able to find, analyze, sort, learn and apply the information they find. By reading the Internet or speaking with their peers or mentors (teachers).
As you said, teachers should be here to guide students, not to bring them a piece of knowledge they need to memorize and then spit out a few days later during the exam.
Totally agree, a key here is that student should learn how to learn. There is all the knowledge that you need online, but the truth is that today there is too much information, something wrong, something not accurate. Students need to be able to find, analyze, sort, learn and apply the information they find. By reading the Internet or speaking with their peers or mentors (teachers).
As you said, teachers should be here to guide students, not to bring them a piece of knowledge they need to memorize and then spit out a few days later during the exam.
"a key here is that student should learn how to learn."
Education is 50% daycare.
80% of students are not really motivated at all, they are doing it because they have to.
'Self direction' is exceedingly rare in youngsters.
99% of educational problems would be resolved if students showed up, paid attention and 'wanted to learn'. Motivation, attention and discipline are problematic.
Most teachers and courses are pretty good today.
Education is 50% daycare.
80% of students are not really motivated at all, they are doing it because they have to.
'Self direction' is exceedingly rare in youngsters.
99% of educational problems would be resolved if students showed up, paid attention and 'wanted to learn'. Motivation, attention and discipline are problematic.
Most teachers and courses are pretty good today.
Education is not even close to 50% daycare. That's how most people, including teachers see it though and that's why they fail.
My wife is a public pre-K teacher and it's zero daycare in her class. She runs them like soldiers and they love it. They learn a lot and are way ahead, especially considering they're low income which for some reason seems to often correlate with uncaring families that she has to hound to get to work with their kids at home. Every class she's put out misses her class. She's taught kindergarten and 2nd grade the same way.
The "education is 50% daycare" idea is, and I hate to say this but it's true, a white person's viewpoint of education.
My wife is a public pre-K teacher and it's zero daycare in her class. She runs them like soldiers and they love it. They learn a lot and are way ahead, especially considering they're low income which for some reason seems to often correlate with uncaring families that she has to hound to get to work with their kids at home. Every class she's put out misses her class. She's taught kindergarten and 2nd grade the same way.
The "education is 50% daycare" idea is, and I hate to say this but it's true, a white person's viewpoint of education.
"a white person's viewpoint of education."
A) This is a little racist :)
B) "Education = Daycare" is easily proven, right from the article -> Finnish kids don't start school until they are 7 years old (!) and they are #1 in the world for 'outcomes'!
So it would seem that 'doing nothing put let kids play, in a semi-structured way' is equivalent to sending them to school.
Ergo, one could argue that 90% of 'early childhood education' is, in fact 'daycare'.
That your friend 'runs here kids like soldiers' - simply means she has a lot of control - it does not mean they are necessarily learning. Possibly they are learning more self-discipline? And other behaviours, but I wouldn't take that it means more 'learning'.
As long as they are socializing, maybe learning some words, some basic reading - the rest is playtime.
As for your 'racist' (I mean, it's kind of racist, certainly near 'dog whistle territory') comment - this is the reason people voted for Trump - when someone makes a comment somewhere about something innocuous - and then someone says 'racist'. It would be funny if it weren't true. Look where we are now.
A) This is a little racist :)
B) "Education = Daycare" is easily proven, right from the article -> Finnish kids don't start school until they are 7 years old (!) and they are #1 in the world for 'outcomes'!
So it would seem that 'doing nothing put let kids play, in a semi-structured way' is equivalent to sending them to school.
Ergo, one could argue that 90% of 'early childhood education' is, in fact 'daycare'.
That your friend 'runs here kids like soldiers' - simply means she has a lot of control - it does not mean they are necessarily learning. Possibly they are learning more self-discipline? And other behaviours, but I wouldn't take that it means more 'learning'.
As long as they are socializing, maybe learning some words, some basic reading - the rest is playtime.
As for your 'racist' (I mean, it's kind of racist, certainly near 'dog whistle territory') comment - this is the reason people voted for Trump - when someone makes a comment somewhere about something innocuous - and then someone says 'racist'. It would be funny if it weren't true. Look where we are now.
50%, 80%, 99%. Any other random statistics you can't back up, at all? You honestly don't know jack s-about education. My wife does know, she absolutely excels and so do her students. She trains other teachers at the state level. The majority of people in the US are white, that's who drives this bs culture of "education is daycare" stupidity. You even bring TRUMP into this, who is about on your level. What a clown.
Not only are your comments racist, but you shouldn't be commenting on HN.
"You honestly don't know jack s-about education"
Two friends teachers in the US system, sister in-law, three cousins and two childhood friends - teachers in the Canadian system.
And I pointed out a very simple fact: Finns are #1 in education and don't even send their kids to school until they are 7 - which is ample 'proof' that early education = daycare.
"You honestly don't know jack s-about education"
Two friends teachers in the US system, sister in-law, three cousins and two childhood friends - teachers in the Canadian system.
And I pointed out a very simple fact: Finns are #1 in education and don't even send their kids to school until they are 7 - which is ample 'proof' that early education = daycare.
7 people you know are teachers, makes you a teacher? That's brilliant, Ed. And that's ample proof of nothing. What a useless conjecture. I'm going to be hoping for more of those statistics you can't back up. You have a great ability to detect cause and effect and I wonder how many other fields you're an expert in.
I didn't say I was a teacher - ergo, I'm not making any 'conjecture'.
You offered ZERO facts.
I offered the fact that Finns don't go to school until age 7, and paradoxically, do better than Americans in terms of standardized testing.
Instead of addressing this actual fact - you're calling people names and slinging bigotry.
You offered ZERO facts.
I offered the fact that Finns don't go to school until age 7, and paradoxically, do better than Americans in terms of standardized testing.
Instead of addressing this actual fact - you're calling people names and slinging bigotry.
The only fact that matters is that you have no clue what you're talking about. I hear about teaching as a profession daily from my wife, and as if it matters- I have more teachers and professors in my family than you do. My dad can also beat up your dad.
You also make stats out of thin air. Nice control in your scientific comparison Einstein. Finns start at 7, but as a nation test better than Americans. That is what I said was a useless conjecture.
Learn about cause and effect, how studies are done with controls, and how correlation does not equal causation. You're the worst Monday morning quarterback I've ever seen. Like I said, you really got it figured out.
I'd love to know how many other fields and topics you're an expert in to offer such poor analysis on this one. Dimly informed and zero critical thinking skills to say the least.
You also make stats out of thin air. Nice control in your scientific comparison Einstein. Finns start at 7, but as a nation test better than Americans. That is what I said was a useless conjecture.
Learn about cause and effect, how studies are done with controls, and how correlation does not equal causation. You're the worst Monday morning quarterback I've ever seen. Like I said, you really got it figured out.
I'd love to know how many other fields and topics you're an expert in to offer such poor analysis on this one. Dimly informed and zero critical thinking skills to say the least.
Yes, they're learning. They walk out the door with tangible skills, like writing their names, counting to 100, the alphabet, how to add and subtract. How would you know if it's just control. You don't but I do.
It's not racist, I'm white. It's never racist, if it's reality. Your "education is daycare" perspective is absolute nonsense. A failed education system run by people with low standards, is daycare.
It's not racist, I'm white. It's never racist, if it's reality. Your "education is daycare" perspective is absolute nonsense. A failed education system run by people with low standards, is daycare.
"It's not racist, I'm white."
It does not matter that you're white.
You scream about 'facts' and then make a totally racist comment about 'what white people' think, which is not backed by anything but bigotry - and then claim 'to be an expert'.
Again - Finnish students, #1 in the world, don't seem to be focusing on tangible skills such as 'writing their name' and still walk all over American students in standardized testing.
It does not matter that you're white.
You scream about 'facts' and then make a totally racist comment about 'what white people' think, which is not backed by anything but bigotry - and then claim 'to be an expert'.
Again - Finnish students, #1 in the world, don't seem to be focusing on tangible skills such as 'writing their name' and still walk all over American students in standardized testing.
Finnish students don't walk over anyone from my wife's school district. But the overall system is broken because of attitudes like yours. She fights teachers who don't want to teach all the time.
I want to do it too. "99%"(!) chance that Ed Blarney is white, and you happen to believe education is daycare. Thanks for confirming.
I want to do it too. "99%"(!) chance that Ed Blarney is white, and you happen to believe education is daycare. Thanks for confirming.
"Finnish students don't walk over anyone from my wife's school district."
That's completely irrelevant.
You failed to address the fact: Finns don't go to school until age 7 and they do better than Americans. Ergo - early childhood education is almost irrelevant, as long as they are active, socializing and learning a bit here and there, that's it.
It also does not matter what my skin colour is.
You're not only completely wrong, you're ignoring the argument, and you're still a bigot.
And finally - K-6 is almost identical across the system. It's the same everywhere, and it hasn't evolved a bit over many years. Test scores have gone nowhere.
That's completely irrelevant.
You failed to address the fact: Finns don't go to school until age 7 and they do better than Americans. Ergo - early childhood education is almost irrelevant, as long as they are active, socializing and learning a bit here and there, that's it.
It also does not matter what my skin colour is.
You're not only completely wrong, you're ignoring the argument, and you're still a bigot.
And finally - K-6 is almost identical across the system. It's the same everywhere, and it hasn't evolved a bit over many years. Test scores have gone nowhere.
That's because you have no argument, Ed. You just aren't wise enough to see it. I did bother to explain it in another response to you. But you're really not worth my time.
Also, bigot is primarily meant for religious intolerance. I don't hate my own race though. Nice try wise guy. You should run for office, wherever you live. You seem to have all the answers.
Also, bigot is primarily meant for religious intolerance. I don't hate my own race though. Nice try wise guy. You should run for office, wherever you live. You seem to have all the answers.
If self direction is rare in youngsters that is because it is not fostered by their experiences. That's to say, the system needs to cultivate it.
I don't know about America, but in the UK teaching as a career path depends on who is in charge politically. The conservatives like to act as if anyone can teach, and value "life experience" over subject knowledge or the development of teaching as a craft in its own right. Labour tend to lean more towards the latter conception, albeit in a bounded and traditionalist way.
As the father of a new baby, I am not looking forward to picking schools in the years to come. The root cause of that is that the criteria for success are so poor: encyclopaedic knowledge of grammar is valued over ability to understand and effect change in the world. Facts mean more than projects, procedures are more valuable than their application. It is nuts.
I don't know about America, but in the UK teaching as a career path depends on who is in charge politically. The conservatives like to act as if anyone can teach, and value "life experience" over subject knowledge or the development of teaching as a craft in its own right. Labour tend to lean more towards the latter conception, albeit in a bounded and traditionalist way.
As the father of a new baby, I am not looking forward to picking schools in the years to come. The root cause of that is that the criteria for success are so poor: encyclopaedic knowledge of grammar is valued over ability to understand and effect change in the world. Facts mean more than projects, procedures are more valuable than their application. It is nuts.
Are you ready to pay for the teachers to be the interdisciplinary supervisors that you talk about?
Sure, and I'd love to pay teachers better too! But why does what I'm envisioning even necessitate an increased number of teachers? The teachers should tend toward being generalists, and part of the school's hiring process would be to attain a mixture of teachers whose skills cover the greatest breadth of subjects possible, but otherwise I don't see any major obstacles to implementing this sort of system. It would be simpler than the convoluted mess that exists now.
I don't think the parent was meaning you need more teachers. I think they were saying you need really strong teachers across the board to make this model work well. You need teachers who know their subject areas really well, and also how their subject areas fit in with other subject areas. You need teachers who understand people and communication really well. You need teachers who can make sure their subject area is not being lost or minimized in a context.
There are good models for this kind of education, and they require more of the adults involved in the process.
There are good models for this kind of education, and they require more of the adults involved in the process.
I agree completely. I did reread GP's post later and notice he probably didn't imply what I thought he did.
There are few things more vital than education, and that will pay back to society at a higher rate, so by all means spend a ton on teachers and schools (there's a pretty obvious candidate for reallocation of funds in US discretionary spending).
But, I think the approach to education that I glossed over earlier affords its own distinct cost-cutting opportunities, for instance the textbook mafias being rendered obsolete by digitized, open-source equivalents. And teachers will have some of their time freed up too by letting problem kids like me find my own educational pursuits, because I did that naturally as a kid. I also intensely hated sitting in desk 7 hours a day, frequently reprimanded for caving to my compulsion to talk to all the other kids around me. And then there are the many American kids with serious problems at home, who would've benefited moreso from just talking more casually with a teacher and watching Youtube videos all day, rather than pushing them into a classroom. Watch behavioral problems in general improve if you have kids exercising and socializing more, freeing up more time for teachers to work in small groups or individually. And you really don't need experts for anything below 10-12 year old kids.
There are few things more vital than education, and that will pay back to society at a higher rate, so by all means spend a ton on teachers and schools (there's a pretty obvious candidate for reallocation of funds in US discretionary spending).
But, I think the approach to education that I glossed over earlier affords its own distinct cost-cutting opportunities, for instance the textbook mafias being rendered obsolete by digitized, open-source equivalents. And teachers will have some of their time freed up too by letting problem kids like me find my own educational pursuits, because I did that naturally as a kid. I also intensely hated sitting in desk 7 hours a day, frequently reprimanded for caving to my compulsion to talk to all the other kids around me. And then there are the many American kids with serious problems at home, who would've benefited moreso from just talking more casually with a teacher and watching Youtube videos all day, rather than pushing them into a classroom. Watch behavioral problems in general improve if you have kids exercising and socializing more, freeing up more time for teachers to work in small groups or individually. And you really don't need experts for anything below 10-12 year old kids.
Am i the only one that sees the massive problems with this ?
>But with the new basic school reform all children will also learn via periods looking at broader topics, such as the European Union, community and climate change, or 100 years of Finland’s independence ...
>The concept of “phenomenon-based” teaching – a move away from “subjects” and towards inter-disciplinary topics – will have a central place in the new NCF.
>The answer is that educators in Finland think, quite correctly, that schools should teach what young people need in their lives rather than try to bring national test scores back to where they were.
I'm all for teaching with current-time examples, but making them the central point ? Teaching children "what they need in their lives" (the what) instead of the how ?
Well they have money so i guess a general education is not that important for them.
>But with the new basic school reform all children will also learn via periods looking at broader topics, such as the European Union, community and climate change, or 100 years of Finland’s independence ...
>The concept of “phenomenon-based” teaching – a move away from “subjects” and towards inter-disciplinary topics – will have a central place in the new NCF.
>The answer is that educators in Finland think, quite correctly, that schools should teach what young people need in their lives rather than try to bring national test scores back to where they were.
I'm all for teaching with current-time examples, but making them the central point ? Teaching children "what they need in their lives" (the what) instead of the how ?
Well they have money so i guess a general education is not that important for them.
Real life consists of interdisciplinary subjects and requires interdisciplinary learning. What's the value of picking things apart and studying "science" and "math" and "literature" in isolation?
In the world around us, these subjects are intricately tangled together. Awareness of the relationships between these subjects makes the world interesting and is one mark of a well-educated person. Isn't it impressive and fascinating when someone can speak on the co-evolution of math and science, or the impact of literature on history?
In my experience, interdisciplinary study offers an abundance of opportunities to get at "the how," whereas single-subject study prioritizes "the what."
In the world around us, these subjects are intricately tangled together. Awareness of the relationships between these subjects makes the world interesting and is one mark of a well-educated person. Isn't it impressive and fascinating when someone can speak on the co-evolution of math and science, or the impact of literature on history?
In my experience, interdisciplinary study offers an abundance of opportunities to get at "the how," whereas single-subject study prioritizes "the what."
Literature has not much to do with science, but a bit with history (depends though on if you count social sciences as science, but even then art is art). Math is a pure.. topic, although it is very much used in all other education.
Note that in my country there is no "science" topic, but physics, biology, geology, etc.
> Isn't it impressive and fascinating when someone can speak on the co-evolution of math and science, or the impact of literature on history?
Most certainly, but that is not what the linked article suggests will happen. The article is a bit more on the pragmatic side (the current world state). I, myself, would very much love for a physics teacher to talk about how completely new mathematics was invented when Newton or Maxwell were faced with the problem of expressing physics in mathematics (we did for Newton in my school, as i'm sure many other schools do the same for many other similar examples). Physics and math are very much related, but do you abolish pure mathematics in favor of only biased topics (towards spacial and forces in the context of physics, statistics in the context of some social topic, and such)?
When you look at it, how many things are actually interdisciplinary ? Sure many things are (arguably everything), but how many do you think need their own.. class ?
Climate change is covered by geology. Community (whatever that means) i didn't cover much in school because i went to a technical school, but i'm sure my sister did (although i remember that there was, but i don't remember what topic it was under).
Things were never pure to begin with, but why go into the other extreme ?
I'm sorry. But even though i think that some things in education should be changed, this change is, to me, just moronic. (if it is as the article says, that is)
Note that in my country there is no "science" topic, but physics, biology, geology, etc.
> Isn't it impressive and fascinating when someone can speak on the co-evolution of math and science, or the impact of literature on history?
Most certainly, but that is not what the linked article suggests will happen. The article is a bit more on the pragmatic side (the current world state). I, myself, would very much love for a physics teacher to talk about how completely new mathematics was invented when Newton or Maxwell were faced with the problem of expressing physics in mathematics (we did for Newton in my school, as i'm sure many other schools do the same for many other similar examples). Physics and math are very much related, but do you abolish pure mathematics in favor of only biased topics (towards spacial and forces in the context of physics, statistics in the context of some social topic, and such)?
When you look at it, how many things are actually interdisciplinary ? Sure many things are (arguably everything), but how many do you think need their own.. class ?
Climate change is covered by geology. Community (whatever that means) i didn't cover much in school because i went to a technical school, but i'm sure my sister did (although i remember that there was, but i don't remember what topic it was under).
Things were never pure to begin with, but why go into the other extreme ?
I'm sorry. But even though i think that some things in education should be changed, this change is, to me, just moronic. (if it is as the article says, that is)
There's a theory Finland got to the top with the simple three Rs (Which is was doing more recently than many western systems) and is currently just screwing it up.
Guess we'll see.
Guess we'll see.
We changed the URL from https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/finland-will-become... to what appears to be a more substantive (and properly dated) article on the subject.
The problem here is in the first two words.
The idea sounds interesting and maybe it will work. But why should it be tried at national level? Real progress would mean letting individual schools innovate.
Imagine if the headline read "Finland plans to replace PCs with modern tablets". That would be crazy, right? Computer purchasing decisions should not be enforced at national level. Why is education different?
The idea sounds interesting and maybe it will work. But why should it be tried at national level? Real progress would mean letting individual schools innovate.
Imagine if the headline read "Finland plans to replace PCs with modern tablets". That would be crazy, right? Computer purchasing decisions should not be enforced at national level. Why is education different?
> But why should it be tried at national level? Real progress would mean letting individual schools innovate.
Because then the new schools can be discriminated against, thus skewing the data on the effectiveness of this approach. No such problem if everyone has the same background.
Because then the new schools can be discriminated against, thus skewing the data on the effectiveness of this approach. No such problem if everyone has the same background.
They are letting schools innovate. That was one of the main points of the article, that in Finland, local districts enjoy plenty of autonomy in curriculum decisions.
Not sure. Subjects give you an ability to concentrate and achieve more (better grades) in subjects you like and spend less time on another set of subjects you're not interested (for the expense of grades).
Changing curriculums is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, I'm afraid. Future generations will wonder how we could be so heartless as to coop children up in classrooms and require them to study random subjects.
The correct approach to maximising learning is as follows. Help children to do more of what they like and try to find things they'll like even better. This includes all video games, btw.
The correct approach to maximising learning is as follows. Help children to do more of what they like and try to find things they'll like even better. This includes all video games, btw.
This article gets all its information on from this article from the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-schoo...
I suggest changing the link to point to the Independent article (and also changing the exaggerated title to the more informative Independent headline).
I suggest changing the link to point to the Independent article (and also changing the exaggerated title to the more informative Independent headline).
This article is simply not true.
This article is partly true. The headline is not. The changes came into effect few months ago (planned since 2012). Major changes include:
1) Some topics are introduced earlier (like Swedish, our second language)
2) More topic based learning. Learn multiple subjects for example during a project. (So subjects still remain)
3) Change of roles. Teacher should be seen more of a guide and the student should be more active in how the learning should take place.
4) More IT. For example programming is introduced in first grade.
5) "Extensive learning". Learn about learning, thinking, communications, taking care of yourself, working, entrepreneurship, sustainable future etc.
Source: I'm Finnish and checked from the official "Board of Education" site (in Finnish) http://www.oph.fi/saadokset_ja_ohjeet/opetussuunnitelmien_ja...
Edit: Subjects are not completely gone but there will be more topic based projects that combine multiple subjects
1) Some topics are introduced earlier (like Swedish, our second language)
2) More topic based learning. Learn multiple subjects for example during a project. (So subjects still remain)
3) Change of roles. Teacher should be seen more of a guide and the student should be more active in how the learning should take place.
4) More IT. For example programming is introduced in first grade.
5) "Extensive learning". Learn about learning, thinking, communications, taking care of yourself, working, entrepreneurship, sustainable future etc.
Source: I'm Finnish and checked from the official "Board of Education" site (in Finnish) http://www.oph.fi/saadokset_ja_ohjeet/opetussuunnitelmien_ja...
Edit: Subjects are not completely gone but there will be more topic based projects that combine multiple subjects
For example programming is introduced in first grade.
That, I think, is the best part.
That, I think, is the best part.
Ah thanks for the link and analysis. Also found these:
http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/statistics_of...
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_kindergarten
http://www.oph.fi/english/current_issues/101/0/statistics_of...
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_kindergarten
Can you explain? I have many educators in my life and I'd love to share it, but not if it's BS.
The Finnish news sources I follow paint this as a pilot initiative trialed primarily in Helsinki, and even then limited to a few courses. A country-wide scrapping of subjects seems still a long way off. The following passage from The Independent article seems the closest to the truth:
"Finnish schools are obliged to introduce a period of “phenomenon-based teaching” at least once a year. These projects can last several weeks. In Helsinki, they are pushing the reforms at a faster pace with schools encouraged to set aside two periods during the year for adopting the new approach. Ms Kyllonen’s blueprint, to be published later this month, envisages the reforms will be in place across all Finnish schools by 2020."
"Finnish schools are obliged to introduce a period of “phenomenon-based teaching” at least once a year. These projects can last several weeks. In Helsinki, they are pushing the reforms at a faster pace with schools encouraged to set aside two periods during the year for adopting the new approach. Ms Kyllonen’s blueprint, to be published later this month, envisages the reforms will be in place across all Finnish schools by 2020."
Did some more research and it seems that the subjects are not gone but there will be more project based learning that combines multiple subjects. The changes are already implemented.
Which source is this? There was a big change starting from this semester. It might not be as dramatic as the article says but it's still considered to be a huge change.
Like kettu228 explained, those major changes took place a few months ago when the schools started again this fall.
Along with these changes, some teachers have started to try new techniques in teaching such as removing all the tables from the class and replacing them with couches and beanbags [0]. Instead of the traditional (and frankly boring) ways of teaching, they try to cheer up pupils and make learning more fun. Some of the pupils are even able to participate in class planning.
I wish these changes had been there when I was in elementary school. Personally, it really seems to be the right way to go, though only time shows how it will affect. I'd wanted to learn, discuss and debate more about current hot topics, learn (more) IT and be part of influencing what we are taught.
[0] http://nyt.fi/a1305870531097 (Pardon me, the article is in Finnish but it proves the point)