Re: Teacher's Role in Reform

[Cbgord@aol.com]

I've copied below what I think is the most telling section--stunning,  
actually---from Richard Hake's post about Finnish education. It shows that the  kind 
of ongoing small-group or one-on-one attention that could assure much  higher 
degrees of success for many of our students is recognized and actually  
practiced in a public schools system.
 
I think this passage places the truism restated in the abstract---that the  
most important ingredient in good schools is "effective teachers"--into a  
broader, more realistic context: the conditions under which teachers  can be 
effective. Yes, an effective teacher is indispensable to  good education, and there 
are people who won't ever teach well even under  the best conditions who 
should move on to other things. Unfortunately, many  people who enter teaching who 
have it in them to be very good teachers in any  reasonable system, are the 
ones who move on to other things. By the way, I  don't mean to imply that the 
abstract suggests that an individualistic view of  "effective teachers"; in 
fact, the rest of the post repeatedly puts that  concept into context. But the 
concept of effective teachers has been  so thoroughly distorted in our society 
that I think that even veteran  educators like myself have a hard time thinking 
of it without conjuring  up Hollywood's visions of Jaime Escalante or Erin 
Gruwell.
 
Anyway, those who may have missed this amazing description of schools in  
Finland, should check this out below.
 
Craig Gordon
 
 
 
... in his piece "Everything I Really Need To Know I Learned In  
Helsinki,"  W. Norton Grubb (2005)  
<http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/faculty/WNGrubb/WNGrubb.html>, the David  
Gardner Chair in Higher Education at UC Berkeley, wrote:
 
I have just returned from studying Finland's education system.  
According to PISA scores. . .[PISA (2004), Sen et al. (2005)]. . . 
this  country of 5 million people ranks second (to South Korea) in 
math, third (to  Japan and South Korea) in science and first in 
literacy by a substantial  margin. Variations among Finnish students 
on these tests were the lowest or  near the lowest.

To accomplish this, Finland has developed interlocking  practices that 
foster both high and equitable performance.

[1] If a  student starts falling behind his peers or grade norms, the 
teacher works  with him one on one, or in small groups.

[2] Another approach involves a  school assistant who may sit beside 
the student in class to provide help and  encouragement, or work one 
on one or in small groups with him.

[3]  The third approach involves a special-needs teacher - not a  
special-education teacher, but a credentialed teacher with additional  
preparation in learning difficulties.

[4] The fourth line of attack  is to send in a multidisciplinary team, 
including school personnel, social  workers, representatives of the 
health and mental health systems as  necessary and perhaps individuals 
from public housing. If non-school  problems are solved by other 
professionals, teachers are free to concentrate  on instruction.

THIS FOUR-PRONGED APPROACH DEPENDS ON OTHER FEATURES OF  THE FINNISH SYSTEM:

[a] SMALL CLASS SIZES AND SMALL SCHOOLS. . .[see  e.g., Clinchy 
(2000), Levine (2002), Swidler (2004), Toch (2003), Witcher  & Kennedy 
(1996)]. . . make it easier to diagnose learning  problems.

[b] Teachers keep the same students for several years and get  to know 
them [Meier (2002)].

[c] Thorough training develops teachers  with expertise in their 
subject matter and pedagogical alternatives [Cuban  (2003), Hake 
(2005d)].

[d] A STRONG WELFARE SYSTEM - NUTRITION,  HOUSING, HEALTHCARE AND
FAMILY SERVICES - COMPLEMENTS SCHOOLING . . .[see  e.g., Duguid-Siegel
(2005), Kozol (1992), Tyack (2003)].

The Finns do  not rely on excessive low-level testing, as the U.S. 
does. . . They have  explicitly rejected the "naming and shaming" that 
goes on in American  schools through the publishing of test scores. 
Test scores are never made  public. . .[as mandated by the NCLB [USDE 
(2005)], see, e.g., Carnoy, et al.  (2003), Hake (2005c), Nichols & 
Berliner (2005), Sternberg (2004)]. . .  They are used for diagnosis 
and improvement only. . . [i.e., for *formative*  assessment, see e.g. 
Black & Wiliam (1998, 2005), Black et al. (2004),  Hake (2002)]. . . 
not for invidious comparisons or to excoriate teachers,  demean 
students, or identify the worst performing  groups.