Finland and their education

"Finland is a post-industrial success story; rising to the global education challenge without the benefit of the booming industries of Asia. Finland has created a unique education system that gives individuals bright career options while raising the standard of living throughout their economy (Wagner, 2011)." I found this quote because I truly believe that Finland is someone that other countries should look up too, even if it is a lot smaller than most. I feel like the United States has said a lot in the past years to try and make education better here, but Finland not only talked the talk, but also walked the walk. They made education better for everyone in their society, and every student had access to whichever type of education they wanted. From that, their scores on tests were much higher compared to other countries. In another article I found called, "Reform school," an Obama education advisor even agreed that the United States could learn a few things from Finland. She liked the fact that Finland spends their money equally on schools, sometimes with additional money to the schools serving high-need students. The United States, "takes kids who have the least access to educational opportunities at home and typically gives them the least access to educational opportunities at school as well (Garland, 2008)." In America we have more students that are in high need of educational opportunities, but we still expect them to get higher scores on exams, like the PISA exam. That doesn't make any sense. Until money is spread more equally in schools, and benefits everyone, I don't believe there is going to be much of a change in scores anytime soon. The educational advisor also liked how Finland, and other high ranking countries, choose their teachers. "Other countries put a lot of energy into recruiting the best and the brightest into teaching, training them very intensely, making sure they have professional training (Garland, 2008)." Shouldn't that be the case for all countries? Overall, if the United States doesn't at least try to take some strategies from other countries, we might be at the state we are now in for longer then we thought.

Sources: Wagner, T.W. (2011, March 07). What can american education learn from finland?. http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110307005089/en/American-Education-Learn-Finland

Garland, S. (2008, December 18). Reform school. http://www.newsweek.com/2008/12/17/reform-school.html

Progressive education model

We are reading about a world education culture in my class. While I don't think that there should be the same education around the world, or the same teaching styles, I do believe in one of the teaching models presented in my class readings that is competing against a world education culture, the progressive education world model. I believe that a classroom that is more focused on the students instead of content is on that is going to be the most beneficial to students. In an article I found called, "Doors wide open," it talks a little bit about how students would learn through a progressive classroom. It states,"Most progressive educational programs have common qualities, like an emphasis on learning by doing with hands-on activities, problem solving, critical thinking and questioning. Differentiated instruction is an important aspect of progressive education, which paces instruction to the different abilities of students in the classroom (Ghimire, 2001)." Students need hands on experiences in order to actually learn how to do something. For example, if a student in a non-progressive classroom was just taught the facts about how to change a tire, there is no guarantee that they will know how to actually change a tire if they needed to physically change one. I know I couldn't if I just read about it. That is why I also don't agree with test taking making the big decisions involving students. Progressive education also benefits the whole child and not just to prepare them for a economic career. The "Doors wide open" article also states that, "Progressive education focuses on the whole child so that each child’s social, emotional, physical and intellectual needs are addressed (Ghimire, 2001)." All those needs need to be met in order for a student to be successful in the future. America and other countries need to stop trying to compete with everyone else to be the best. We need to start focusing more on the well being of the children and less on trying to be number one. There is more to life then just preparing for the future. Education should be a time for a person to grow in their interests and enjoy the time that they are in school. It should not be surrounded by tests and textbooks.

Source:Ghimire, H.L. (2001). Doors wide open. Retrieved from www.ekantipur.com

Progressive education model

We are reading about a world education culture in my class. While I don't think that there should be the same education around the world, or the same teaching styles, I do believe in one of the teaching models presented in my class readings that is competing against a world education culture, the progressive education world model. I believe that a classroom that is more focused on the students instead of content is on that is going to be the most beneficial to students. In an article I found called, "Doors wide open," it talks a little bit about how students would learn through a progressive classroom. It states,"Most progressive educational programs have common qualities, like an emphasis on learning by doing with hands-on activities, problem solving, critical thinking and questioning. Differentiated instruction is an important aspect of progressive education, which paces instruction to the different abilities of students in the classroom (Ghimire, 2001)." Students need hands on experiences in order to actually learn how to do something. For example, if a student in a non-progressive classroom was just taught the facts about how to change a tire, there is no guarantee that they will know how to actually change a tire if they needed to physically change one. I know I couldn't if I just read about it. That is why I also don't agree with test taking making the big decisions involving students. Progressive education also benefits the whole child and not just to prepare them for a economic career. The "Doors wide open" article also states that, "Progressive education focuses on the whole child so that each child’s social, emotional, physical and intellectual needs are addressed (Ghimire, 2001)." All those needs need to be met in order for a student to be successful in the future. America and other countries need to stop trying to compete with everyone else to be the best. We need to start focusing more on the well being of the children and less on trying to be number one. There is more to life then just preparing for the future. Education should be a time for a person to grow in their interests and enjoy the time that they are in school. It should not be surrounded by tests and textbooks.

Source:Ghimire, H.L. (2001). Doors wide open. Retrieved from www.ekantipur.com

PISA exams

Before reading about the PISA exam, I had no idea that was how we determined what place we are with other countries. Now after reading about them, I think that it is good to know how we rank compared to other countries, but I don't think that these test scores done by 15 year old students should determine major decisions regarding education in America. I believe that it shows that are education system needs to be better, but did we really need to look to other countries test scores for America's education system to realize that? We don't need test scores to raise for a better education, but a better way of doing things in schools around the United States. In an article I found from the New York Times, it talked about how students from Shanghai surprised America by how well they did on the PISA exams. The thing about this article that surprised me was how much America liked the fact that Shanghai spent more time on school, but less on socially beneficial things like sports or clubs. It stated that, "The results also appeared to reflect the culture of education there, including greater emphasis on teacher training and more time spent on studying rather than extracurricular activities like sports (Dillon,2010)." That sounds like the most boring school in the planet. There is nothing that could benefit less then doing something like that in the schools. You only have one life to live and the lives of those students are always going to be focused on getting more and more successful in the world. Preparing for jobs is only half of what schooling should be about. Teenagers especially need to interact with other students in more ways then just having school in common. The article also stated that the students where basically threatened saying if they don't do well on these tests it will give China a bad reputation, meaning that they will be a disappointment not only to themselves but to China. When PISA exams are putting this much pressure on its students I believe that it is wrong and should be stopped.

Source:
Dillon, Sam. (2010). Top test scores from shanghai stun
educators. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Neo-Liberalism

After reading about what Neo-Liberalism means, I now understand a little bit about what Wisconsin is going through. Walker with his Neo-liberal type of plan for or state, I believe, is not going to help and is just going to keep people resisting this plan. An article dealing with Walker and his Neoliberalism, states some more reasons why this bill is not going to help: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23664. This article states that the budget repair bill will do just the opposite of that. For example, the bill would include selloffs of state power generation facilities,so in no-bid contracts notoriously prone to insider dealing. How is that going to benefit our state? From Walkers proposed bill, it makes me not want to become a teacher in Wisconsin for the moment. All people that fit into the status of middle class are basically getting the wrath of this bill. People that are also struggling to find a job and make money before this bill will probably be in the same boat, or even worse from this bill. This neo-liberal way of thinking means it takes away the governments help dealing with things like welfare and food stamps. Sure, some people that are involved with these programs don't deserve it, but I believe that the majority of people need it at times until they get back on their feet. It doesn't mean that these people are lazy or irresponsible, but maybe the job they do have isn't enough for their family to live on, or there is only one income that is coming into the family. In my opinion teaching is one of the most important jobs there are in the world today and to take away our voice as a result of this bill is not right. Teachers have a right to speak up in their unions, and hopefully it was always for the students best interests.

Standardized testing

I had to read a chapter for class about curriculum, and one aspect I took from the article was the part about standardized testing. I searched on the Internet for an article regarding the negative effects on standardized testing and found this article called, "What Are Some Criticisms of Standardized Tests?(http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-some-criticisms-of-standardized-tests)" This article goes over how standardized testing does not show the full potential of a student. For example, from a multiple choice test, a teacher can not see where a student went wrong in say a math problem. So, a student could of just made a silly mistake and got the answer wrong but essentially knows how to do that kind of math problem. If we could see why the students are making the mistakes, teachers can find ways to help the students with the areas they are struggling with. How can a multiple-choice test show you reading comprehension if it is between four different answers, and if you are not sure you could just guess and hope to get it right? Maybe you got lucky and got it right, or maybe you got it wrong because you didn't have enough time during the timed tests to go back and see which answer would fit best. Speaking of the pressure of finishing a test in time, there is also a ton of stress a student goes through before doing these tests. Students know how important these tests are and they essentially don't want to disappoint anyone if they were to do bad on a test. A school should not be a place where they have to worry about test scores, but a place where they can expand their knowledge without worrying about if the information they just heard will be on the big test.

Unequal opportunity

Hey all!

While looking into readings about inequality in America's school system, I found an article dealing with unequal opportunity: Race and Education (http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1998/spring_education_darling-hammond.aspx).  This article talked about how minorities are not getting the same opportunities as other students in school.  There is a gap in standardized testing between white and non-Asian minority students.  I found this article interesting because it related this gap in testing to the ridiculous book, The Bell Curve, where it states that if a students are continually getting low test scores that it is not the schools fault.  It means that the students achievement is part of their genes, culture, or lack of effort and will.  That makes no sense to me, and no one should believe that a person's genes or culture means that they are not as smart as the other students around them.  Everybody is unique so everybody has different strengths and weaknesses.  Schools with more opportunities and better teachers will probably have better test scores than other schools that don't have the same opportunities and teachers.  The curriculum is also different between the good and poor schools meaning that students are not all at the same level on the learning scale.  So to say that a person has low test scores because of their background is absurd.  The article goes on to say from a study done they took some 7th grade at-risk students and put them in a honors class to see how they would do.  The students performed significantly better then the other students showing that it is not genes or a person's culture that makes a successful student.  Those students weren't put in the class because of a standardized test either.  I think that also goes to show that a students intelligence shouldn't be determined by a test.  Testing also doesn't help show a student what they are worth either.  Just because a student doesn't do good in a subject doesn't mean they are not smart.  I believe all students deserve a chance and should be in classes no matter what testing level they are at.