[NOTE: Bridging Differences -- Deborah Meier and Diane Ravitch
have found themselves at odds on policy over the years, but they
share a passion for improving schools. Bridging Differences offers
their insights on what matters most in education. Below is Diane
Ravitch's latest note to Deborah Meier in Education Week.]
By Diane Ravitch
Dear Deborah,
When the results of the latest international assessment-the Program
for International Student Assessment, or PISA-were released
our national leaders sounded an alarm about a national "crisis in
education." Our students scored in the middle of the pack! We are not
No. 1! Shanghai is No. 1! We are doomed unless we overtake Shanghai!
President Obama and Secretary Arne Duncan warned ominously that our
nation was having a "Sputnik moment." We have fallen behind the
global competition in education, they cried, evoking comparison with
the Soviet Union's launch of a space satellite in 1957. At that time,
the media and the politicians predicted that the Soviets would soon
rule the world, and we know how that turned out.
Now the politicians would like to use the latest test scores to
promote their "reform" agenda for the schools: more charter schools,
more reliance on competition and free-market strategies, more
testing, more use of test scores to evaluate teachers, more firing of
principals and teachers, more closing of low-scoring schools.
Our leaders in Washington would have us believe that they know how to
close the achievement gap and how to overtake the highest-performing
nations in the world. PISA proves that they don't.
Consider the two top contenders on PISA: Shanghai and Finland. These
two places-one a very large city of nearly 21 million, the other a
small nation of less than six million-represent two very different
approaches to education. The one thing they have in common is that
neither of the world leaders in education is doing what American
reformers propose.
According to the OECD, the international group that sponsors PISA,
the schools of Shanghai - like those in all of China - are dominated
by pressure to get higher scores on examinations. OECD writes:
"Teaching and learning, in secondary schools in particular [download
at the website], are predominantly determined by the examination
syllabi, and school activities at that level are very much oriented
towards exam preparation. Subjects such as music and art, and in some
cases even physical education, are removed from the timetable because
they are not covered in the public examinations. Schools work their
students for long hours every day, and the work weeks extend into the
weekends, mainly for additional exam preparation classes...private
tutorials, most of them profit-making, are widespread and have become
almost a household necessity."
OECD points out that more than 80 percent of students in Shanghai
attend after-school tutoring. It remarked on the academic intensity
of Chinese students. Non-attention is not tolerated. As I read about
the "intense concentration" of these students, I was reminded of the
astonishing opening event of the Beijing Olympics, when 15,000
participants performed tightly scripted routines. It is hard to
imagine a similar event performed by American youth, who are
accustomed not to intense discipline, but to a culture of free
expression and individualism.
Interestingly, the authorities in Shanghai boast not about their
testing routines, but about their consistent and effective support
for struggling teachers and schools. When a school is in trouble in
Shanghai, authorities say they pair it with a high-performing school.
The teachers and leaders of the strong school help those in the weak
school until it improves. The authorities send whatever support is
needed to help those who are struggling. In the OECD video about
Shanghai [https://webmail.alvincollege.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=7f06d177ee1c447a9d2aeb56b9f7e3f4&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pearsonfoundation.org%2foecd%2fchina.html], the
lowest-performing school in the city is described as one where "only"
89 percent of students passed the state exams! With the help sent by
the leaders of the school system, it eventually reached the target of
100 percent.
Finland is at the other end of the educational spectrum. Its
education system is modeled on American progressive ideas. It is
student-centered. It has a broad (and non-directive) national
curriculum. Its teachers are drawn from the top 10 percent of
university graduates. They are highly educated and well prepared.
Students never take a high-stakes test; their teachers make their own
tests. The only test they take that counts is the one required to
enter university.
Last week, I went to a luncheon with Pasi Sahlberg, the Finnish
education expert. I asked him the question that every politician asks
today: "If students don't take tests, how do you hold teachers and
schools accountable?" He said that there is no word in the Finnish
language for "accountability." He said, "We put well-prepared
teachers in the classroom, give them maximum autonomy, and we trust
them to be responsible."
I asked him if teachers are paid more for experience. He said, "Of
course." And what about graduate degrees? He said, "Every teacher in
Finland has a master's degree." He added: "We don't believe in
competition among students, teachers, or schools. We believe in
collaboration, trust, responsibility, and autonomy."
Since I have not visited schools in either Shanghai or Finland, I am
certainly no expert. It was interesting to watch the short videos
about their schools, found here. It is also interesting to consider
what these two very different systems have in common: They place
their bets on expert, experienced teachers and on careful training of
their new teachers. They rely on well-planned, consistent support of
teachers to improve their schools continuously.
These two systems are diametrically opposed in one sense: Shanghai
relies heavily on testing to meet its goals; Finland emphasizes
child-centered methods. Yet they have these important things in
common: Neither of them does what the United States is now promoting:
They do not hand students over to privately managed schools; they do
not accept teachers who do not intend to make teaching their
profession; they do not have principals who are non-educators; they
do not have superintendents who are non-educators; they do not "turn
around" schools by closing them or privatizing them; they do not
"improve" schools by firing the principal or the teachers. They
respect their teachers. They focus relentlessly on improving teaching
and learning, as it is defined in their culture and society.
The lesson of PISA is this: Neither of the world's highest-performing
nations do what our "reformers" want to do. How long will it take
before our political leaders begin to listen to educators? How long
will it take before they realize that their strategies have not
worked anywhere? How long will it be before they stop inflicting
their bad ideas on our schools, our students, our teachers, and
American education?
The teachers and leaders of the strong school help those in the weak
school until it improves. The authorities send whatever support is
needed to help those who are struggling. In the OECD video about
Shanghai [https://webmail.alvincollege.edu/owa/redir.aspx?C=7f06d177ee1c447a9d2aeb56b9f7e3f4&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.pearsonfoundation.org%2foecd%2fchina.html], the
lowest-performing school in the city is described as one where "only"
89 percent of students passed the state exams! With the help sent by
the leaders of the school system, it eventually reached the target of
100 percent.
Finland is at the other end of the educational spectrum. Its
education system is modeled on American progressive ideas. It is
student-centered. It has a broad (and non-directive) national
curriculum. Its teachers are drawn from the top 10 percent of
university graduates. They are highly educated and well prepared.
Students never take a high-stakes test; their teachers make their own
tests. The only test they take that counts is the one required to
enter university.
Last week, I went to a luncheon with Pasi Sahlberg, the Finnish
education expert. I asked him the question that every politician asks
today: "If students don't take tests, how do you hold teachers and
schools accountable?" He said that there is no word in the Finnish
language for "accountability." He said, "We put well-prepared
teachers in the classroom, give them maximum autonomy, and we trust
them to be responsible."
I asked him if teachers are paid more for experience. He said, "Of
course." And what about graduate degrees? He said, "Every teacher in
Finland has a master's degree." He added: "We don't believe in
competition among students, teachers, or schools. We believe in
collaboration, trust, responsibility, and autonomy."
Since I have not visited schools in either Shanghai or Finland, I am
certainly no expert. It was interesting to watch the short videos
about their schools, found here. It is also interesting to consider
what these two very different systems have in common: They place
their bets on expert, experienced teachers and on careful training of
their new teachers. They rely on well-planned, consistent support of
teachers to improve their schools continuously.
These two systems are diametrically opposed in one sense: Shanghai
relies heavily on testing to meet its goals; Finland emphasizes
child-centered methods. Yet they have these important things in
common: Neither of them does what the United States is now promoting:
They do not hand students over to privately managed schools; they do
not accept teachers who do not intend to make teaching their
profession; they do not have principals who are non-educators; they
do not have superintendents who are non-educators; they do not "turn
around" schools by closing them or privatizing them; they do not
"improve" schools by firing the principal or the teachers. They
respect their teachers. They focus relentlessly on improving teaching
and learning, as it is defined in their culture and society.
The lesson of PISA is this: Neither of the world's highest-performing
nations do what our "reformers" want to do. How long will it take
before our political leaders begin to listen to educators? How long
will it take before they realize that their strategies have not
worked anywhere? How long will it be before they stop inflicting
their bad ideas on our schools, our students, our teachers, and
American education?
Diane
******_____________________________________________________________
Lessons from Finland
Pull-out quote: "In Finland, unions aren't an obstacle. Ninety-eight percent of teachers are unionized. And this is very important to the success of our system. I wouldn't buy the argument that unions are a problem."
This seems to me to be a pretty devastating attack on the idea that we need to have a punitive or private approach to solving the problems our educational system. It also tells me that its wrong to attack labor unions, and isn't their an ulterior motive behind these attack?
ReplyDelete