The Joyful, Illiterate Kindergartners of Finland(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
The Joyful, Illiterate Kindergartners of Finland
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/the-joyful-illiterate-kindergartners-of-finland/408325?single_page=true
111 comments
> Giving our kids a rich social life and early education without the pressures of a traditional school model is probably the one thing Finnish society has figured out. (The rest is more or less a mess right now.)
Coming from Slovenia, that's what kindergarten is supposed to be. The word literally means "children's garden" and has nothing to do with school.
To quote wikipedia "literally children's garden, is a preschool educational approach traditionally based on playing, singing, practical activities such as drawing, and social interaction as part of the transition from home to school.".
I don't know what happened in the anglophone world that turned this joyful concept into school. My girlfriend grew up in the US and considers "kindergarten" to be the beginning of school school where they start by teaching you how to read&write. Wikipedia seems to confirm this notion.
Maybe it's just semantics and word-meaning drift.
Coming from Slovenia, that's what kindergarten is supposed to be. The word literally means "children's garden" and has nothing to do with school.
To quote wikipedia "literally children's garden, is a preschool educational approach traditionally based on playing, singing, practical activities such as drawing, and social interaction as part of the transition from home to school.".
I don't know what happened in the anglophone world that turned this joyful concept into school. My girlfriend grew up in the US and considers "kindergarten" to be the beginning of school school where they start by teaching you how to read&write. Wikipedia seems to confirm this notion.
Maybe it's just semantics and word-meaning drift.
I thought kindergarten would be equivalent to Croatian "vrtić" too, but it seems to be the year before 1st grade. Before that there is a spectrum of programs like daycare or preschool or playgroups which are more like what the grandparent described. I've no idea why kindergarten took on such a specific meaning in the US.
The cost of day care over there is stunning. The day care we send our children to in Australia is very similar to what you describe (i.e., compassionate and loving staff, focus on play in a mixed social environment, lots of outings and great food).
But the cost is $85 per day, per child. We have two children so it costs more than our mortgage to take our children to day care. It is also one of the more affordable day cares.
The government is supposed to cover 50% of the cost, but only up to maximum of $7,500. Meaning they end up covering far less than half.
But the cost is $85 per day, per child. We have two children so it costs more than our mortgage to take our children to day care. It is also one of the more affordable day cares.
The government is supposed to cover 50% of the cost, but only up to maximum of $7,500. Meaning they end up covering far less than half.
Where I live in the US you can send a child to a good daycare for about ~$350 per month.
What causes daycare to be so expensive in Australia? Wages, regulation, not enough supply, something else?
What causes daycare to be so expensive in Australia? Wages, regulation, not enough supply, something else?
Having spend the last 3 months in Australia I would guess it is regulations,security and liabilities.
It has to do with the area, too. I live outside Boston, and it's 350/week around here; and we're not even at once of the expensive ones.
Just to give a good indication of the range of options/prices in the US, a good day care in Seattle proper runs just under $2000/m and has a 1 year long waiting list. We applied for 3 and got into 1. (For an infant, prices go down about $150/m for every year of life).
I'm not sure why it's so expensive. They do seem constantly undersupplied and I expect they pay their staff well.
I found some average prices for Australia [1]. They list "Long day care (child care centre)" at $70 - $185 per day, which is what we found when looking at prices.
[1] https://www.careforkids.com.au/child-care-articles/article/7...
Edit: looking at some of the other replies, it seems just as expensive in some parts of the US.
I found some average prices for Australia [1]. They list "Long day care (child care centre)" at $70 - $185 per day, which is what we found when looking at prices.
[1] https://www.careforkids.com.au/child-care-articles/article/7...
Edit: looking at some of the other replies, it seems just as expensive in some parts of the US.
$350? Is that subsidized? That doesn't seem possible.
A good student:teacher ratio for 1-2 year olds is 1:3, for 3 year olds is 1:5 and for 4 year olds is 1:8. Assuming an even mix, that's an overall ratio of 1:4. 350 x 4 x 12 is $17K a year per teacher, and that's only if nothing goes towards rent, supplies and the other costs of running a day care.
A good student:teacher ratio for 1-2 year olds is 1:3, for 3 year olds is 1:5 and for 4 year olds is 1:8. Assuming an even mix, that's an overall ratio of 1:4. 350 x 4 x 12 is $17K a year per teacher, and that's only if nothing goes towards rent, supplies and the other costs of running a day care.
It isn't possible...this person is way off.
It's entirely possible if by daycare the person means a 1:5 or higher teacher:child ratio in a rural part of the country, or possibly just a babysitting service with a zoo of children and very few teachers.
I'm sure it's just Mom's taking kids into their home to make some money on the side. They're making less than minimum wage and aren't accounting for any rent or supplies, but it's better than the nothing they'd get staying home to look after their own kids.
My point doing the math was that a day-care as a "real" business has to charge at least double the OP's $350 a month.
My point doing the math was that a day-care as a "real" business has to charge at least double the OP's $350 a month.
$85 a day is about $1,700 per month, which is typical for a major American city for an infant.
Where the heck did you get $350/month? In the midwest I was paying nearly $1000/month per child for a good daycare, that is pretty darn common.
Data point: private daycare for 1-3 year olds (4:1 ratio) is about €1700/month in Germany, but in my town it gets subsidized by around €8-900/month. Some counties subsidize down to 0 cost if they want to attract families; publicly run daycares are around €450 for daycare and €220 for kindergarten, but they have stricter closing jours (our private one is open 8-6) and more days off per year (up to 6 weeks).
It should be noted that attending kindergarten is not mandatory in Finland and that there are different options for day care (e.g. at home or "family care" at the home of a licensed day care person).
The other options are much more popular in rural communities due to distances.
This was recently changed so that the "preschool" became obligatory for 6 year olds, so they have to take educational activities for 4 hours a day at a kindergarten but may still have their day care elsewhere.
Btw, the aphorism quoted in the article is better translated as "what you learn without joy, you'll forget without sorrow".
This was recently changed so that the "preschool" became obligatory for 6 year olds, so they have to take educational activities for 4 hours a day at a kindergarten but may still have their day care elsewhere.
Btw, the aphorism quoted in the article is better translated as "what you learn without joy, you'll forget without sorrow".
I live in Stockholm, Sweden and more or less day care system is same here. My son is 4 years old & he started day care when he was 1 and half. His life is so rich in terms of social activities, learning etc. We absolutely love this system. The money we pay is $130/month and thats the highest a family pay if both parents are working.
Is there free daycare available in Finland? How good is it?
It's not segregated. They are using the same services, just paying according to their income. 300 euros max /mo even in the capital. Poor families pay next to nothing and their multiple allowances cover it if there's a nominal cost (child allowance 100 eur/mo covers it).
As a German - you know the country the word Kindergarten comes from - I'm always amazed that people consider Kindergarten to be a school of some kind.
Kindergärten aren't schools in Germany, they don't operate like schools, you don't learn to read or write, there is no math, in fact there aren't any classes nor classrooms. A lot of the time you spend in Kindergarten is purely socializing and playing with other children.
If there are groups, then only so that the educators (not teachers) don't get overwhelmed. Children are grouped randomly and stay in one group for as long as they go to Kindergarten, so you have children from 3 up to 7 in one group.
The activities that are organized or structured in any way are eating, sleeping, singing, getting told stories, making things out of paper like lanterns, a few physical activities and of course activities that happen outside of the Kindergarten.
Kindergärten exist and are important not to learn math but to learn to interact with other people, to make friends and to be a child until you are mature enough to handle a school environment. That means that while typically a child is enrolled in school with 6, some also enroll a year earlier or later depending on the child.
Kindergärten aren't schools in Germany, they don't operate like schools, you don't learn to read or write, there is no math, in fact there aren't any classes nor classrooms. A lot of the time you spend in Kindergarten is purely socializing and playing with other children.
If there are groups, then only so that the educators (not teachers) don't get overwhelmed. Children are grouped randomly and stay in one group for as long as they go to Kindergarten, so you have children from 3 up to 7 in one group.
The activities that are organized or structured in any way are eating, sleeping, singing, getting told stories, making things out of paper like lanterns, a few physical activities and of course activities that happen outside of the Kindergarten.
Kindergärten exist and are important not to learn math but to learn to interact with other people, to make friends and to be a child until you are mature enough to handle a school environment. That means that while typically a child is enrolled in school with 6, some also enroll a year earlier or later depending on the child.
Grew up in the USA. Spent 8 years in Finland.
Finnish kids are taught by the parents to read long before they get to school. Sure, it helps that the Finnish language is phonetic... But really, it's a home environment that teaches that reading is fun and enjoyable and can get you what you want.
Same goes for counting and basic arithmetic.
It's a cultural thing.
Teachers in Finland are not geniuses. The caliber of the teachers is, in fact, higher than the USA, but this stems more from seats in schools as opposed to "smart people wanting to become teachers".
The desirability ranking of what the average student would like to do goes like this: Medical Engineer Law French Pyschology ... Education ... Waiter ...
So somewhere along this spectrum, you get a bunch of qualified people who become teachers. There's only a limited number of seats for each profession (driven by free education... you can NOT become anything you want to become, you have to do better than the others on the entrance test). So you don't get a disproportionate group of people getting a degree in History or Biology or Pyschology. The number seats are arranged according to the needs of the society.
And kids would rather be teachers than waiters (yes, there's a school for that).
In Finland, teachers do NOT make more than engineers or doctors. They make about one third (pre tax) of what doctors or engineers make.
Also, Finland is incredibly homogenous. Take that for what you will...
Finnish kids are taught by the parents to read long before they get to school. Sure, it helps that the Finnish language is phonetic... But really, it's a home environment that teaches that reading is fun and enjoyable and can get you what you want.
Same goes for counting and basic arithmetic.
It's a cultural thing.
Teachers in Finland are not geniuses. The caliber of the teachers is, in fact, higher than the USA, but this stems more from seats in schools as opposed to "smart people wanting to become teachers".
The desirability ranking of what the average student would like to do goes like this: Medical Engineer Law French Pyschology ... Education ... Waiter ...
So somewhere along this spectrum, you get a bunch of qualified people who become teachers. There's only a limited number of seats for each profession (driven by free education... you can NOT become anything you want to become, you have to do better than the others on the entrance test). So you don't get a disproportionate group of people getting a degree in History or Biology or Pyschology. The number seats are arranged according to the needs of the society.
And kids would rather be teachers than waiters (yes, there's a school for that).
In Finland, teachers do NOT make more than engineers or doctors. They make about one third (pre tax) of what doctors or engineers make.
Also, Finland is incredibly homogenous. Take that for what you will...
Uh, I'm not sure this is correct...
Sure, some kids might learn to read, write and count before school, but it is definetly not a norm. The first two years of school here is mostly spent learning those skills.
Sure, some kids might learn to read, write and count before school, but it is definetly not a norm. The first two years of school here is mostly spent learning those skills.
From what I've read about the Finish school system educators are selected from the top quartile of academic performers of university students. In the US, educators are ranked in the bottom 1/3.
The limited number of seats per profession is a new one, but kinda makes sense. However, by doing this the nation "locks in" their capacity for growth in these areas. It would seem that this is somewhat misguided. An economy cannot be very efficient if it makes decisions a decade in advance.
The limited number of seats per profession is a new one, but kinda makes sense. However, by doing this the nation "locks in" their capacity for growth in these areas. It would seem that this is somewhat misguided. An economy cannot be very efficient if it makes decisions a decade in advance.
I'm from the US, but my mother read to me from the day I was born, and got me reading before I turned 3, and reading full books for kids by the time I was 4 or 5. Unsurprisingly, I tested as "on a college age reading level" from the 3rd grade onward.
She also did basic arithmetic with me as well, and I ended up pretty good at math and logical thinking.
I think a huge part of the education problem today is lack of engaged parents. They don't concentrate on teaching their kids before they send them to school, and once they're in school, they leave the teaching up to the teacher and do not assist really.
She also did basic arithmetic with me as well, and I ended up pretty good at math and logical thinking.
I think a huge part of the education problem today is lack of engaged parents. They don't concentrate on teaching their kids before they send them to school, and once they're in school, they leave the teaching up to the teacher and do not assist really.
I've read to my kid since forever, my wife as well. We have a library that rivals most school's and we read to him 2-3 books (at least) a day. He is 3.5 years old and can't read at all (heck, I think he recognises some words but I'm not even sure of that).
At 3 I was able to do math (addition, subtraction and basic multiplication) quite easily but basic reading only came to me at around 5 years old.
Kids are different, some learn to read earlier, others later, same with math, same with diapers, same with everything really. My 3.5 year old can climb trees like a 7 year old (better even if the kids around here are any indication). Do basic math (he has the concept of multiplication and can do most numbers times 2 or times 10). Recognises flowers and various different birds. He knows most traffic signs. He can almost cook his breakfast with just a bit of help with the oven. He does physics experiments (with our help). Are we worried that his peers at school know more letters? No. Kids develop at different speeds, but unfortunately, schools/kindergartens/parents expect their little treasures to be the smartest, brightest unique snowflakes and push them to it.
At 3 I was able to do math (addition, subtraction and basic multiplication) quite easily but basic reading only came to me at around 5 years old.
Kids are different, some learn to read earlier, others later, same with math, same with diapers, same with everything really. My 3.5 year old can climb trees like a 7 year old (better even if the kids around here are any indication). Do basic math (he has the concept of multiplication and can do most numbers times 2 or times 10). Recognises flowers and various different birds. He knows most traffic signs. He can almost cook his breakfast with just a bit of help with the oven. He does physics experiments (with our help). Are we worried that his peers at school know more letters? No. Kids develop at different speeds, but unfortunately, schools/kindergartens/parents expect their little treasures to be the smartest, brightest unique snowflakes and push them to it.
It's great that you think this way. I see too much of this pressure with my friends who have kids. They want to see them do math and read before they're x years old, with x being one or two less than what the cheaper schools are doing. My 3.5 says more elaborate sentences than the older kids, but never showed any special interest in math, and I never felt that he was ready to learn to read. It's completely normal for a 3.5 kid to not be ready to learn these things.
[deleted]
From my experience in Finland kids very rarely have been taught to read before school, and typically just a few kids on a first grade can read. Of course, having phonetic language helps, as once you know all the letters you can correctly write almost any word hear.
The views of the value of studies also differ quite a lot, but luckily it's way more common for uneducated parents to value a better education for their kids than the way around. It of course helps that all studies are free and students in universities are actually paid to attend (though less than they would get for being unemployed).
What average uni students want to study actually does not affect the quality of teachers as much as you suggest. In 2014* a total of 1649 applicants took the entrance exam for becoming a class teacher in Helsinki University, and 146 were selected among them. I don't believe many of the 146 best applications would rather study engineering or biology.
http://www.studentum.fi/Kasvatustieteellisen_paeaesykoe__d62...
The views of the value of studies also differ quite a lot, but luckily it's way more common for uneducated parents to value a better education for their kids than the way around. It of course helps that all studies are free and students in universities are actually paid to attend (though less than they would get for being unemployed).
What average uni students want to study actually does not affect the quality of teachers as much as you suggest. In 2014* a total of 1649 applicants took the entrance exam for becoming a class teacher in Helsinki University, and 146 were selected among them. I don't believe many of the 146 best applications would rather study engineering or biology.
http://www.studentum.fi/Kasvatustieteellisen_paeaesykoe__d62...
I just finished the article, and saw a reference there to a New Zealand study about Rudolf Steiner schools. I attended the same Steiner school as the author of the study, and I would consider several people from my class to be functionally illiterate. This mostly comes down to the quality of the school rather than the philosophy - when I joined it was very new and run by a bunch of well-meaning hippies who had basically no idea about education.
If you're going to have a child-led education system where you assume that if the child isn't reading it's because they're not ready yet, you better be damn sure you're not missing the signs of something more serious, because if you do, when you come to address it it will be much more difficult the later you intervene. It sounds like the teachers in Finland are probably good enough to catch this - ours were not.
If you're going to have a child-led education system where you assume that if the child isn't reading it's because they're not ready yet, you better be damn sure you're not missing the signs of something more serious, because if you do, when you come to address it it will be much more difficult the later you intervene. It sounds like the teachers in Finland are probably good enough to catch this - ours were not.
"It sounds like the teachers in Finland are probably good enough to catch this - ours were not."
Yes, the teachers (not tests or rigorous standardization) are the keystone of the finnish school system.
Yes, the teachers (not tests or rigorous standardization) are the keystone of the finnish school system.
Well, here the kindergarten with child-led play isn't that much part of the education system. Even the pre-school year is fundamentally just preparing kids for the school, which is still very much teacher-led.
The written Finnish being very easy to spell and read also probably contributes. There are only very few peculiarities that differentiate from the logical 1-1 mapping between letter symbols and vocal sounds. Practically all children all able to attain at least the basic functional literacy skills in a couple of years. (I really couldn't understand the concept of spelling bee competitions in US TV shows, like that one Peanuts animated film, until we started English.)
The written Finnish being very easy to spell and read also probably contributes. There are only very few peculiarities that differentiate from the logical 1-1 mapping between letter symbols and vocal sounds. Practically all children all able to attain at least the basic functional literacy skills in a couple of years. (I really couldn't understand the concept of spelling bee competitions in US TV shows, like that one Peanuts animated film, until we started English.)
Remember that this article was talking about preschool. Once you get to the first school grade in Finland, you will be taught to read.
[deleted]
Michael Booth talks about Finland's schools in his book, "The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia." He points out that in Finland the most revered and treasured profession is teaching. The smartest students, the most driven students, they all become teachers. Articles like this are wonderful at pointing out that relaxed and individualized teaching can succeed but they are glossing over an important cultural norm.
The other important note is that the environment for teachers is good. We get lots of great people into teaching right after college through Teach for America and other programs, but they don't want to stay teachers.
Who would, when you get sent to the kind of underfunded, marginalized districts that are desperate enough to conclude that a liberal arts student who has no training in education, nor any student-teaching experience, is a reasonable option?
I have several friends that are still in education, and several more who bailed after TFA. It doesn't help that teachers get paid such shit wages, and the only way to earn more in most districts is to hang on and take your yearly bump. Or get a University of Phoenix master's degree for a little bit more of a bump.
I don't think it's appropriate to complain about an article being incomplete when it was written to be a facet of a more complete series of articles.
That is, this article 'gloss[ed] over an important cultural norm' because it is mentioned in other Atlantic articles. Specifically, the text "Finnish schools have received substantial media attention for years now" links to another Atlantic article which says:
> For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master's degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal's responsibility to notice and deal with it.
and the text "because of the consistently strong performance of its 15-year-olds on international tests like the PISA" links to another Atlantic article which says:
> Teachers have a lot of autonomy. They are highly educated--they all have master’s degrees and becoming a teacher is highly competitive.
Instead, and in the same paragraph, the author says that this article will more specifically provide 'coverage on Finland’s youngest students', which the author thinks has been missing, and not cover the entire topic of Finnish schooling.
That is, this article 'gloss[ed] over an important cultural norm' because it is mentioned in other Atlantic articles. Specifically, the text "Finnish schools have received substantial media attention for years now" links to another Atlantic article which says:
> For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master's degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal's responsibility to notice and deal with it.
and the text "because of the consistently strong performance of its 15-year-olds on international tests like the PISA" links to another Atlantic article which says:
> Teachers have a lot of autonomy. They are highly educated--they all have master’s degrees and becoming a teacher is highly competitive.
Instead, and in the same paragraph, the author says that this article will more specifically provide 'coverage on Finland’s youngest students', which the author thinks has been missing, and not cover the entire topic of Finnish schooling.
> If a teacher is bad, it is the principal's responsibility to notice and deal with it.
Isn't this the case pretty much everywhere? In reality, if a teacher is bad, there is precious little the principal can do about it in Finland. Almost all teachers are fortunately good, but I have met a couple who were completely hopeless. The schools absolutely couldn't get rid of them once they had been hired to permanent positions.
Personal experience (Finland): my grade 3-6 teacher was himself the principal in a two-teacher school, an electrician by profession, and had been quick-trained to take a teacher's job after being discharged from the army at the end of the War - no master's degree, no degree from any university. He actually did close-order drill for PE. And if I was unruly, he hit me in the head.
Yes, teachers are better trained nowadays (what I describe was 1970's and the man retired in 1980's).
Isn't this the case pretty much everywhere? In reality, if a teacher is bad, there is precious little the principal can do about it in Finland. Almost all teachers are fortunately good, but I have met a couple who were completely hopeless. The schools absolutely couldn't get rid of them once they had been hired to permanent positions.
Personal experience (Finland): my grade 3-6 teacher was himself the principal in a two-teacher school, an electrician by profession, and had been quick-trained to take a teacher's job after being discharged from the army at the end of the War - no master's degree, no degree from any university. He actually did close-order drill for PE. And if I was unruly, he hit me in the head.
Yes, teachers are better trained nowadays (what I describe was 1970's and the man retired in 1980's).
Nice observation! Yes, you're right. To double check, http://teaching.about.com/od/Information-For-Teachers/a/Bad-... says (in the US context) "A major part of a principal’s job is to identify which teachers are effective, which teachers need to improve, and which ones are ineffective and need to be dismissed."
Though it's not the complete truth. In the US, some school districts have policies that a teacher can be fired for having a bad score based on a 'value added model', where the scores of the students are compared to a model of what the scores "should" have been, and used to assign an effectiveness score to teachers (including, say, the score for an biology teacher when the tests have nothing to do with biology - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04...) and even the custodial staff (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04... ).
The principals have little say in the results of these decisions.
Though it's not the complete truth. In the US, some school districts have policies that a teacher can be fired for having a bad score based on a 'value added model', where the scores of the students are compared to a model of what the scores "should" have been, and used to assign an effectiveness score to teachers (including, say, the score for an biology teacher when the tests have nothing to do with biology - https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04...) and even the custodial staff (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/04... ).
The principals have little say in the results of these decisions.
Interesting - that you can actually dismiss a teacher for simply bad performance. In Finland, that does not happen. Teachers are removed only for gross misconduct. One way to do that is violence against pupils, but that is rare. Somewhat more common is repeatedly missing work or coming to work while clearly intoxicated. The first time, employer must direct the employee to get help and treatment, but being repeatedly drunk at work will get a teacher dismissed.
It's worse than that - "simply bad performance" using methods that are highly unreliable and have not been validated.
The philosophy seems to be that teachers are independent, heroic, commodities. That is:
"independent" - any problems can be attributed solely to the teachers (after some normalization based on the socioeconomic class of the students), and not to the school system or other large scale system;
"heroic" - the teachers are the biggest factor in education, and it's up to the teachers to individually supply everything;
"commodities" - a teacher can easily be replaced with another teacher, with no effect on learning, the teaching work culture, or long-term community stability.
The reason for this philosophy seems to be that it's well-aligned with certain view of a free market. By casting education in this framework it encourages the idea of replacing a socialized public school system, whose goal are the long-term needs of the students and the culture, with a state subsidized for-profit system with less local democratic control that is able to transfer more money to private owners.
The philosophy seems to be that teachers are independent, heroic, commodities. That is:
"independent" - any problems can be attributed solely to the teachers (after some normalization based on the socioeconomic class of the students), and not to the school system or other large scale system;
"heroic" - the teachers are the biggest factor in education, and it's up to the teachers to individually supply everything;
"commodities" - a teacher can easily be replaced with another teacher, with no effect on learning, the teaching work culture, or long-term community stability.
The reason for this philosophy seems to be that it's well-aligned with certain view of a free market. By casting education in this framework it encourages the idea of replacing a socialized public school system, whose goal are the long-term needs of the students and the culture, with a state subsidized for-profit system with less local democratic control that is able to transfer more money to private owners.
How is teacher compensation over there? I always thought we'd see better outcomes in schools if we paid enough for the best and brightest to become teachers.
Fact is, they cannot live in many "reasonably priced" housing markets (let alone the Bay/SF) on a typical teacher salary in the US.
Fact is, they cannot live in many "reasonably priced" housing markets (let alone the Bay/SF) on a typical teacher salary in the US.
Thecher compensation is a bit above the national average and they have long vacations.
What is also very meaningful to notice is that due to high income taxes, income redistribution, and generally flatter pay scale overall compared to most other countries, a corporate lawyer isn't that much better off than a teacher.
What is also very meaningful to notice is that due to high income taxes, income redistribution, and generally flatter pay scale overall compared to most other countries, a corporate lawyer isn't that much better off than a teacher.
> generally flatter pay scale overall compared to most other countries, a corporate lawyer isn't that much better off than a teacher.
The most important aspect of this is that when your nation's best and brightest choose a career path, massive disparities in quality of life is not a mitigating factor detracting from careers in education.
The most important aspect of this is that when your nation's best and brightest choose a career path, massive disparities in quality of life is not a mitigating factor detracting from careers in education.
Good teachers are important, but they can only affect, what, 20 kids a year? The best and brightest should stick to engineering and finance where they can have a bigger impact.
> The best and brightest should stick to engineering and finance where they can have a bigger impact.
Many of the best and brightest stay in academia, but at the university level. Many others go into engineering and finance, but make no real lasting impact mostly working on the day to day tasks of making the cogs turn. Currently many of the smartest engineers in silicon valley have dedicated their careers to selling targeted ads.
In the scheme of things, I'd be hard pressed placing selling X more power drills a year or "yet another CRUD app" over building the foundation of a quality education system.
Many of the best and brightest stay in academia, but at the university level. Many others go into engineering and finance, but make no real lasting impact mostly working on the day to day tasks of making the cogs turn. Currently many of the smartest engineers in silicon valley have dedicated their careers to selling targeted ads.
In the scheme of things, I'd be hard pressed placing selling X more power drills a year or "yet another CRUD app" over building the foundation of a quality education system.
Yes, but a quality education system requires thousands of people who can each only affect ~20-100 people a year. It's not an efficient use of the 'best and brightest'.
Meanwhile 55 engineers at WhatsApp can write software used daily by 700m people. Or a handful of financiers can find a new way to securitize debt, lowering interest rates for 100m borrowers.
Meanwhile 55 engineers at WhatsApp can write software used daily by 700m people. Or a handful of financiers can find a new way to securitize debt, lowering interest rates for 100m borrowers.
Or a handful of financiers can find a new way to securitize debt, lowering interest rates for 100m borrowers.
Or they could find a new way to ignore investment risk in the interest of naked greed, causing suffering for millions all over the globe.
Or they could find a new way to ignore investment risk in the interest of naked greed, causing suffering for millions all over the globe.
Yep, the flip side to having a massive impact is that you also have a massive impact when you're wrong. You'd still want the 'best and brightest' in those positions than not.
> Meanwhile 55 engineers at WhatsApp can write software used daily by 700m people.
First, arguably, the engineers at what's app quite possibly might not be the best or brightest. Not saying they're aren't very good, but that's not necessarily what drives an app like WhatsApp into popularity.
Second, even if it's assumed that the WhatsApp engineers are literally the best 55 engineers in their field bar none they only represent a minuscule fraction of a pool of many, many talented individuals.
In other words, there's room for WhatsApp (and all the other comparable unicorns) and the teaching profession.
The overwhelming majority of very talented engineers are not impacting 700 million users. And as I mentioned, many are impacting them only insofar as what they see in their google sidebar. . . which I'm not sure is very socially impactful.
First, arguably, the engineers at what's app quite possibly might not be the best or brightest. Not saying they're aren't very good, but that's not necessarily what drives an app like WhatsApp into popularity.
Second, even if it's assumed that the WhatsApp engineers are literally the best 55 engineers in their field bar none they only represent a minuscule fraction of a pool of many, many talented individuals.
In other words, there's room for WhatsApp (and all the other comparable unicorns) and the teaching profession.
The overwhelming majority of very talented engineers are not impacting 700 million users. And as I mentioned, many are impacting them only insofar as what they see in their google sidebar. . . which I'm not sure is very socially impactful.
What are you talking about? So what if WhatsApp is used by half a billion people? Good for the engineers, I guess? How is my third world country so much better off with WhatsApp than with the crappier alternative, vs. my third world country if it could attract its best and brightest into becoming teachers? I could see no better future for my country than some way to get and keep great teachers.
> with WhatsApp than with the crappier alternative
The crappier alternative(s) would have to be written by an engineer too.
Anyways, I think you're missing my point: there aren't enough exceptional 'best and brightest' to do everything. You want the 'best and brightest' to have maximum leverage as individuals over the world and that means politics, finance, and engineering, not teaching.
The crappier alternative(s) would have to be written by an engineer too.
Anyways, I think you're missing my point: there aren't enough exceptional 'best and brightest' to do everything. You want the 'best and brightest' to have maximum leverage as individuals over the world and that means politics, finance, and engineering, not teaching.
Those engineers won the lottery. The prize was many people switching to a marginally nicer chat app. If you're looking to make the world a better place, choosing engineering based on this result isn't really an obvious choice.
No, but it's also not obvious that having a profound impact on 1000 people is better than having a small impact on a billion people.
You mean, having an one-in-10-million chance of having a small impact on a billion people.
You could get a job at Facebook tomorrow and have a small impact on a billion people. I'm not referring to the founders exclusively...
You're moving the goalposts now!
To examine the equation in the "work for an existing SV tech giant" case: a hugely smaller impact on people than what the WhatsApp engineers had. And getting a job at Facebook or another similarly impactful place is still at ~ 1:100000 odds for the world's 20 million software engineers.
Only this time you'll have even less confidence that you're actually making things better and not worse. At least in the WhatsApp case they made Facebook have $19 billion less money in the end. And if they're really out to make the world a better place they can spend that in some Bill Gates-esque way. I guess we'll see about that.
To examine the equation in the "work for an existing SV tech giant" case: a hugely smaller impact on people than what the WhatsApp engineers had. And getting a job at Facebook or another similarly impactful place is still at ~ 1:100000 odds for the world's 20 million software engineers.
Only this time you'll have even less confidence that you're actually making things better and not worse. At least in the WhatsApp case they made Facebook have $19 billion less money in the end. And if they're really out to make the world a better place they can spend that in some Bill Gates-esque way. I guess we'll see about that.
I'm not sure that the world needs yet more traders and hedge fund managers, to be honest. A bunch of competent, not-too-dishonest politicians, on the other hand...
The world doesn't need more traders and hedge fund managers. But it does need the best people to be in positions with high leverage such as hedge fund manager.
Maybe our best and brightest would be just better off raising and schooling their own kids vs relying on iffy and/or expensive options.
> The smartest students, the most driven students, they all become teachers.
Part of that is the cultural status of teachers. But another large contributor is the policy status of teachers w.r.t rate of pay, autonomy, and educational requirements.
All teachers must obtain a Masters. They are paid in line with expected median or greater for those of their educational level. They are also, by policy, the main driving force and final say on curriculums and educational program design. Further, they are expected to remain current within their field and often publish throughout their career.
In other words, the pay and job preference is the type that attracts the academically minded. And does so without requiring them to assume standards of living far below their educational investment.
Society at large lends respect to fields based, by and large, on superficial reasons. In the U.S. we offer teachers pay and respect (within the job) more in line with short order cooks with a G.E.D. than professionals. Society's treatment of the profession reflects that.
Part of that is the cultural status of teachers. But another large contributor is the policy status of teachers w.r.t rate of pay, autonomy, and educational requirements.
All teachers must obtain a Masters. They are paid in line with expected median or greater for those of their educational level. They are also, by policy, the main driving force and final say on curriculums and educational program design. Further, they are expected to remain current within their field and often publish throughout their career.
In other words, the pay and job preference is the type that attracts the academically minded. And does so without requiring them to assume standards of living far below their educational investment.
Society at large lends respect to fields based, by and large, on superficial reasons. In the U.S. we offer teachers pay and respect (within the job) more in line with short order cooks with a G.E.D. than professionals. Society's treatment of the profession reflects that.
Do note that lower university degrees are relatively new thing in Finland. It is still common to consider your studies "done" only after you have graduated with a master's degree. Teaching teachers in university is also relatively new, started in 1974.
By my observations, pedagogy is considered one of the most applied sciencies taught in university and I would say that it attracts the least academically mind of those applying in university.
By my observations, pedagogy is considered one of the most applied sciencies taught in university and I would say that it attracts the least academically mind of those applying in university.
It really feels like we are gutting our education system with this kind of nonsense. It's so weird. We do so poorly in our education system, yet rather than simply doing what the effective and successful education systems and societies do, we decide that we need to change everything and now deprive children of playing as if they are some kind of little adults.
I think there's a real resistance against solutions that don't feel like "getting tough".
"increasing standards" and "raising expectations" are easy to sell. The idea that children need to do childish things is dismissed as too wishy-washy.
Services provided by the democratic state are vulnerable to feel-good emotion-based mismanagement.
[deleted]
IIRC, the Latin word "ludus" means both "game" and "school". I do not think that is a coincidence.
The observation that one learns more easily in playful manner is probably well-known in (but hardly exclusive to) hacker circles. In a way, it is baffling that people would forget this, especially as it is not excactly a brand-new discovery.
The observation that one learns more easily in playful manner is probably well-known in (but hardly exclusive to) hacker circles. In a way, it is baffling that people would forget this, especially as it is not excactly a brand-new discovery.
What most people don't seem to know is that fun and play simply is learning.
Kids play act scenarios all day that they're learning about. It's a way of internalizing what they've learned. Take away time for unstructured play, and you'll find a lot of kids have less ability to learn, simply because their brains need the play time to absorb the relevant facts.
We're using a curriculum-free homeschooling approach, and while my kids aren't on the exact same learning timetable, they're close enough to the normal education track -- and well beyond it in the areas that most interest them -- that I'm not worried. And they play all the time.
Kids play act scenarios all day that they're learning about. It's a way of internalizing what they've learned. Take away time for unstructured play, and you'll find a lot of kids have less ability to learn, simply because their brains need the play time to absorb the relevant facts.
We're using a curriculum-free homeschooling approach, and while my kids aren't on the exact same learning timetable, they're close enough to the normal education track -- and well beyond it in the areas that most interest them -- that I'm not worried. And they play all the time.
I think you're interpreting that backwards. "Ludus" originally referred to educational training sessions to build skills for later performing activities of direct practical benefit, mainly combat and political oratory. This is how "ludus" means both "play" and "school." It's originally "play" in the sense of "play-fighting," not in the sense of "having fun without a particular goal." Unlike Greek academies, Roman schools were entirely focused on building practical skills.
The idea of "play" as "having fun without any particular goal orientation" is a thoroughly modern idea. The idea that school should be a form of "play" in the modern sense is an even more recent one. It has no basis in ancient Rome.
The idea of "play" as "having fun without any particular goal orientation" is a thoroughly modern idea. The idea that school should be a form of "play" in the modern sense is an even more recent one. It has no basis in ancient Rome.
So our Latin teacher lied to us! I should have known...
Thank you very much for the explation!
EDIT: In Latin class, our textbook was called "Ludus Latinus", and our teacher made a big point of explaining how that meant learning was supposed to be a kind of game. It made me groan at the time, but in later years, I always thought it made perfect sense.
Thank you very much for the explation!
EDIT: In Latin class, our textbook was called "Ludus Latinus", and our teacher made a big point of explaining how that meant learning was supposed to be a kind of game. It made me groan at the time, but in later years, I always thought it made perfect sense.
I'd translate "Ludus Latinus" as something like "Latin Practice," in the same sense you'd say "soccer practice" or "piano practice" or something like that.
It is a game, in the sense that it's not the real thing, it's practice for later doing the real thing -- it's a structured, goal-directed game with a particular practical outcome in mind (building Latin skills), not a "let's go have fun in the park without any particular motive other than having fun" kind of a thing.
It is a game, in the sense that it's not the real thing, it's practice for later doing the real thing -- it's a structured, goal-directed game with a particular practical outcome in mind (building Latin skills), not a "let's go have fun in the park without any particular motive other than having fun" kind of a thing.
If you ever read The Glass Bead Game(Das Glasperlenspiel) by Hermann Hesse, you'll see that Hesse was able to get a lot out of this overlap of terms.
My kids hate it when the schools have unstructured time. They love their free time, but want to do it at home or with their friends and not with all the kids they are forced to interact with at school. At school they want kids to behave predictably. That being said, I'm wondering if they wouldn't benefit from it because it will force them to deal with social situations they aren't comfortable with.
Is 'unstructured' a euphemism? If the children are expected to 'behave predictably' and 'forced to interact with other children', doesn't that imply some structure? (I assume 'predictably' means something more specific than, say 'not try to set the school on fire.')
This article uses the terms 'spontaneous and free form' and 'guided and pedagogical'. It doesn't sound like the former requires children to interact with others, though I can't tell from the article. Certainly the latter isn't unstructured.
This article uses the terms 'spontaneous and free form' and 'guided and pedagogical'. It doesn't sound like the former requires children to interact with others, though I can't tell from the article. Certainly the latter isn't unstructured.
They're not forced by the structure, they're forced by the other kids. If she wants to sit and read and keeps getting hit in the head with paper airplanes, she gets annoyed. When do they have some of organized chaos, like all the kids in the playground playing the same game, she's pretty happy with that.
Thank you for clearing that up. I totally misunderstood.
Here in Sweden we pay 110 euros total per month for very good daycare with cocked food (no prefab) for our 3 year old twins. Interesting how it is elsewhere. Our wages are relativley low and massive amounts of tax of course
Swedish average wages are close to the top (if not at the top)in EU. The wage gap is a lot lower than most countries though. Just mentioning since I stated Swedish wages were low not long ago, but when I looked it up that wasn't the case overall, it's just that normally high paying jobs pay less there.
The Finish education myth -
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32302374
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32302374
That article is misleading. Standardized curriculum was in fact one of the things people looking at Finland said was part of its success model in 2000. So this was never a "misconception".
The article isn't perfect but relate it to the current article.
To me the author sounds like they have this exact misconception.
To me the author sounds like they have this exact misconception.
[deleted]
Perhaps the lesson of Finland is that mono-culturalism achieves better educational outcomes than multi-culturalism.
Maybe it is easier if stakeholders have high levels of trust, and similar performance expectations, work ethic, language skills, etc.
Maybe it is easier if stakeholders have high levels of trust, and similar performance expectations, work ethic, language skills, etc.
Perhaps. But let's not jump to conclusions.
Strictly speaking, Finland is not a mono-culture. Finland has people from Finnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking cultures.
Your objection has been raised before. As http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-sc... points out:
> Some of the more vocal conservative reformers in America have grown weary of the “We-Love-Finland crowd” or so-called Finnish Envy. They argue that the United States has little to learn from a country of only 5.4 million people—4 percent of them foreign born. Yet the Finns seem to be onto something. Neighboring Norway, a country of similar size, embraces education policies similar to those in the United States. It employs standardized exams and teachers without master’s degrees. And like America, Norway’s PISA scores have been stalled in the middle ranges for the better part of a decade.
Your objection has been raised before. As http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-sc... points out:
> Some of the more vocal conservative reformers in America have grown weary of the “We-Love-Finland crowd” or so-called Finnish Envy. They argue that the United States has little to learn from a country of only 5.4 million people—4 percent of them foreign born. Yet the Finns seem to be onto something. Neighboring Norway, a country of similar size, embraces education policies similar to those in the United States. It employs standardized exams and teachers without master’s degrees. And like America, Norway’s PISA scores have been stalled in the middle ranges for the better part of a decade.
> Strictly speaking, Finland is not a mono-culture.
No country is an absolute monoculture or absolutely multicultural, but Finland is a remarkably monocultural country compared to most industrialized nations, with a strong social cohesion and rather minor ethnic divides. Swedish-speakers are very similar in culture and values to Finnish-speaking Finns, they just speak a different language.
Right now there is a huge migration going on - about 50 000 asylum seekers will come to the country within the year and it looks the pace will just increase. That means 1% of population, which is a rather significant demographic change in just one year. It will definitely have an impact.
I do not really believe Norwegian results are that much different. PISA is just one metric. In the most recent PISA (2012) Finland is #12; in the previous one it was #6 and the one before that it was #2. Did the quality of teaching drop that much in just a few years? Hardly.
No country is an absolute monoculture or absolutely multicultural, but Finland is a remarkably monocultural country compared to most industrialized nations, with a strong social cohesion and rather minor ethnic divides. Swedish-speakers are very similar in culture and values to Finnish-speaking Finns, they just speak a different language.
Right now there is a huge migration going on - about 50 000 asylum seekers will come to the country within the year and it looks the pace will just increase. That means 1% of population, which is a rather significant demographic change in just one year. It will definitely have an impact.
I do not really believe Norwegian results are that much different. PISA is just one metric. In the most recent PISA (2012) Finland is #12; in the previous one it was #6 and the one before that it was #2. Did the quality of teaching drop that much in just a few years? Hardly.
While I agree with you, and with the educational system of Finland, that high PISA score is irrelevant, to say "PISA is just one metric" seems to ignore the context that PISA is the basis for nearly all of the international comparisons, and the follow-on discussions and policy decisions.
That is, andyl said Finland 'achieves better educational outcomes'. This is (in my experience) based on PISA. Indeed, much of what I've read coming out of the US is that students must get more 'academic' education, backed by large-scale testing, in order to compete against the countries with high PISA scores.
You use the term 'do not really believe Norwegian results are that much different'. Could you explain the basis for that statement? The thesis is that a (near) monoculture is a reasonable explanation for high PISA scores. The example of Norway was to show there isn't a simple, direct correlation.
I don't think you don't believe the scores aren't difference. Instead, your objection seems instead to be that PISA isn't a stable/useful metric in the first place, so that comparisons aren't relevant. I think your suggestion is that there simply isn't data one way or the other on how homogeneity affects education.
Which means, I think, that you also disagree with andyl's hypothesis, but for different reasons.
That is, andyl said Finland 'achieves better educational outcomes'. This is (in my experience) based on PISA. Indeed, much of what I've read coming out of the US is that students must get more 'academic' education, backed by large-scale testing, in order to compete against the countries with high PISA scores.
You use the term 'do not really believe Norwegian results are that much different'. Could you explain the basis for that statement? The thesis is that a (near) monoculture is a reasonable explanation for high PISA scores. The example of Norway was to show there isn't a simple, direct correlation.
I don't think you don't believe the scores aren't difference. Instead, your objection seems instead to be that PISA isn't a stable/useful metric in the first place, so that comparisons aren't relevant. I think your suggestion is that there simply isn't data one way or the other on how homogeneity affects education.
Which means, I think, that you also disagree with andyl's hypothesis, but for different reasons.
> Could you explain the basis for that statement?
I merely meant that in my experience, the school education that Norwegians get is not noticeably worse than the one Finnish kids get. They speak foreign languages, they can solve an equation, they know where Arkansas is.
Of course this is just my view, nothing you could call a scientific view substantiated by formal research. I just see that Norwegians are generally better (knowledge-wise) educated than Americans, on level with Finns, even if the PISA ratings of Norway and USA are very close to each other and significantly behind Finland.
I did not quite understand when you say you've read that students must get more 'academic' education, backed by large-scale testing, in order to compete against the countries with high PISA scores when the supposed strength of Finnish education system is lack of large-scale testing. Particularly early on - pupils generally don't even get any formal scores or ratings until 6th grade (as 13-year-old).
I merely meant that in my experience, the school education that Norwegians get is not noticeably worse than the one Finnish kids get. They speak foreign languages, they can solve an equation, they know where Arkansas is.
Of course this is just my view, nothing you could call a scientific view substantiated by formal research. I just see that Norwegians are generally better (knowledge-wise) educated than Americans, on level with Finns, even if the PISA ratings of Norway and USA are very close to each other and significantly behind Finland.
I did not quite understand when you say you've read that students must get more 'academic' education, backed by large-scale testing, in order to compete against the countries with high PISA scores when the supposed strength of Finnish education system is lack of large-scale testing. Particularly early on - pupils generally don't even get any formal scores or ratings until 6th grade (as 13-year-old).
I don't have the experience to judge. While I grew up in the US and live in Sweden, I've found that my personal experience isn't a good guide. Eg, my school in the US offered differential equations, Latin, and European history, which I'm told is uncommon. I also don't have an understanding of the research, so I think we'll have to leave things where they are.
"I did not quite understand when you say .."
Sorry, I see the confusion. I meant that in the US, in discussion about changes to the US school system, one of the arguments is how US schools need more 'rigorous' testing with a more 'academic' goal, in order to improve PISA scores. Those making this argument often point to a country like South Korea with a very academic/test-centric education system and high PISA as a model for what the US should be. Those opposed point to Finland as a counter-example.
To edit what I wrote slightly, "much of what I've read coming out of the US is that US students must get [a] more 'academic' education ..."
"I did not quite understand when you say .."
Sorry, I see the confusion. I meant that in the US, in discussion about changes to the US school system, one of the arguments is how US schools need more 'rigorous' testing with a more 'academic' goal, in order to improve PISA scores. Those making this argument often point to a country like South Korea with a very academic/test-centric education system and high PISA as a model for what the US should be. Those opposed point to Finland as a counter-example.
To edit what I wrote slightly, "much of what I've read coming out of the US is that US students must get [a] more 'academic' education ..."
Mono-culturalism probably doesn't hurt, but their exceptional social safety net is probably more important. A lot of the problems that American students face very clearly start at their improverished homes.
Also, AFAIK, the sort of extreme rich-poor divides between schools that is so characteristic of the USA is far less common in Scandanavian countries.
But there is a lot to be said for smart, well-trained teachers. It all starts and ends there.
Also, AFAIK, the sort of extreme rich-poor divides between schools that is so characteristic of the USA is far less common in Scandanavian countries.
But there is a lot to be said for smart, well-trained teachers. It all starts and ends there.
> the sort of extreme rich-poor divides between schools that is so characteristic of the USA is far less common in Scandanavian countries.
This is due to the "leveling down" social philosophy prominent in Scandinavian societies.
Nobody is poor, nobody is rich, and this is not optional, enforced through mandatory wealth transfers (punitive taxation for those of above average income, to fund generous social welfare benefits for the below-average.)
Likewise, overachievement in schools is actively hindered just as much as underachievement is given extra assistance. Smarter students' learning is slowed so that they learn no more than about the normal level. This is usually overlooked by the we-love-Finnish-education crowd.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
This is due to the "leveling down" social philosophy prominent in Scandinavian societies.
Nobody is poor, nobody is rich, and this is not optional, enforced through mandatory wealth transfers (punitive taxation for those of above average income, to fund generous social welfare benefits for the below-average.)
Likewise, overachievement in schools is actively hindered just as much as underachievement is given extra assistance. Smarter students' learning is slowed so that they learn no more than about the normal level. This is usually overlooked by the we-love-Finnish-education crowd.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
Likewise, overachievement in schools is actively hindered just as much as underachievement is given extra assistance. Smarter students' learning is slowed so that they learn no more than about the normal level. This is usually overlooked by the we-love-Finnish-education crowd.
You're going to need a citation of some kind for this.
You're going to need a citation of some kind for this.
A finn here. I can offer you only anecdotes, but the statement is not completely off, although it's not entirely true.
It depends. My son (8) seems to have a class where they support the strong learners and slow learners at each of their own pace. Some people who I knew talked of eager teachers who gave the all the material they could consume.
Personally - 30:ish years ago I finished the second grade math book in a few weeks and the teacher berated me for consuming all the material she had ("What on earth are you going to work on now?") and I ended up bored and idle for the rest of the math class. Never again did I try to pace up...
So, it depends on the teachers - nowadays the situation seems to be much more supportive of strong learners. A couple of decades ago though this was a political thing - areas where social democrats were strong _prohibited_ people being taught at their own pace because it did not fit with social democrat ideology of complete equality.
So, historically, yes, this was a thing but I think it's better nowadays.
It depends. My son (8) seems to have a class where they support the strong learners and slow learners at each of their own pace. Some people who I knew talked of eager teachers who gave the all the material they could consume.
Personally - 30:ish years ago I finished the second grade math book in a few weeks and the teacher berated me for consuming all the material she had ("What on earth are you going to work on now?") and I ended up bored and idle for the rest of the math class. Never again did I try to pace up...
So, it depends on the teachers - nowadays the situation seems to be much more supportive of strong learners. A couple of decades ago though this was a political thing - areas where social democrats were strong _prohibited_ people being taught at their own pace because it did not fit with social democrat ideology of complete equality.
So, historically, yes, this was a thing but I think it's better nowadays.
Right, but that doesn't sound like it's been a political issue for a long time now. What you experienced sounds similar to my own experience in NZ, which basically came down to teachers or schools being unable to adequately stimulate smart kids. Standardised education in most places is generally pretty bad at dealing with non-standard kids at both ends of the spectrum actually, but they tend to apply more resources to kids who are struggling than the clever ones.
Interpreting this behavior from couple of decades ago through "principle of charity", could the thinking have been that efforts spend on keeping up with the fast learners would have lower payoff (by whatever measure) than helping the slow learners?
[deleted]
This has been debunked. The stats do no support this idea (that because the US has to deal with ESL, etc, it can't perform better). If you factor out ESL students in the US, the US still ranks poorly compared to other nations in the OECD, many of whom are far more multicultural than Finland.
There's more to culture than just language, and instructors having to perform in a multicultural environment has more side effects than just the effects on students who are directly challenged by aspects of mainstream school curricula.
Canada, Netherlands, UK all have very multicultural societies. All three consistently outrank the US.
All three are consistently outranked by the Finns, though.
You are comparing Canada which is like 95% of European decent to the U.S......come on be real? While it isn't just race it is also poverty, the U.S. has a lot of ghettos.
You comparison is disingenuous.
You comparison is disingenuous.
You can't factor out ESL,etc students. Resources can't be spent on them without diverting them from others, and there is no way to know what we could have done if we didn't need to divert those resources.
You can factor out their test scores in places where they aren't present, for example, and see that we still fall below our multicultural peers in the OECD.
Mono-cultural areas are areas where nobody wants to move to. These are almost exclusively third-world countries.
The borders of nations are a bad separation or aggregation for cultures, we'd have to look at cultures by themselves and compare results there. But for now the immigrant percentage of the population has to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...
China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Madagascar, Cuba, Lesotho, Philippines, Burma, Morocco, North Korea, Somalia, Eritrea, Colombia, Afghanistan, ... That's where you can find regions with pristine mono-cultures.
Comparing these to truly multi-cultural countries like Switzerland, Hong-Kong and Australia I strongly doubt your hypothesis.
The borders of nations are a bad separation or aggregation for cultures, we'd have to look at cultures by themselves and compare results there. But for now the immigrant percentage of the population has to do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant...
China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Madagascar, Cuba, Lesotho, Philippines, Burma, Morocco, North Korea, Somalia, Eritrea, Colombia, Afghanistan, ... That's where you can find regions with pristine mono-cultures.
Comparing these to truly multi-cultural countries like Switzerland, Hong-Kong and Australia I strongly doubt your hypothesis.
The teachers and staff at the center are so competent and compassionate. Playing is always at the forefront, but they have educational themes for a full year that are cleverly integrated into the daily rhythm. The children are always doing short trips that reveal new things of their daily surroundings in the city. The social environment mixes children of various ages: there are kids of age 2 and 5 in the same groups.
I know my child's life would be a lot poorer without daycare. And it only costs about 200 euros / month. (We're paying the maximum price since we're two working parents; with less family income the price would go down to nearly zero. Also, children are eligible for daycare even if their parents are not working.)
Giving our kids a rich social life and early education without the pressures of a traditional school model is probably the one thing Finnish society has figured out. (The rest is more or less a mess right now.)