Guiding Question and Reflection

GUIDING QUESTION

Fulbright TGC encourages participants to develop a guiding question to explore during our travel field experience. Once I found out that my destination was Finland, I discovered that many administrators at both my school and system level had strong opinions about what contributed to the Finnish students' success at the international level.  I had to question how much of their knowledge was complete, much less firsthand. Too, I wondered what gifted education--my professional focus--looked like in Finland.  I ended up with two guiding questions:

(1)  To what degree does Finland's comprehensive social safety net contribute to Finnish students' educational success? With similar interventions and support, could American schools replicate Finnish outcomes?

(2) With an understanding that gifted education takes many forms across the United States, does Finland offer a comprehensive program of gifted identification and education?  If so, how does it compare to U.S. programs?

First, there's no magic bullet, no one "quick fix."

Does the focus on supporting every member of society make a difference?  Of course it does.  My smallish Southern town has a growing homeless population, including teens, yet I only saw one homeless person in Helsinki and none in Joensuu over two weeks. One Finn told me she didn't necessarily think Finns were happier in the sense we interpret the word, but they didn't worry about crushing medical bills or college loans the way Americans do. That freedom from worry is a hard concept for a middle-class American to really accept since we are so focused on our individual freedoms. My thinking certainly shifted; it's hard to know how life could be different until you see it in action.

But Finnish culture plays a huge role in successful schools, too!

I quickly grew to respect Finnish culture and how it supports the country's accomplishments in many areas.  The Finns I met didn't flaunt their personal wealth or professional status, or draw attention to their titles or achievements. A true sense of community responsibility is pervasive, even among the youngest citizens.  Respect for communal resources, cooperation, and willingness to be part of solutions permeates institutions.  While visiting the Oodi Library, we Americans were astounded at the range of musical instruments, tools, and technology like 3D printers available for public use.  One of us whispered, "This wouldn't last a week in my city."

That reminds me, too, of the differences in our schools.  Finland invests in its schools and teachers. The wide variety of music, art and craft options available to students provide hands-on opportunities that my school system could never offer. Students are trusted, even given 15-minute breaks between classes, but they're also expected to contribute to the cleanliness of the school by working as custodial helpers twice a year.  When older students make bad choices, the teachers aren't immediately blamed or schools threatened with lawsuits.  Personal responsibility is key.

Schools typically don't compete with each other for students. Your neighborhood school should be just as good as the one across town.  Regular high stakes testing across grade levels is unheard of, though the governmental education departments conduct sporadic tests.  The results are never shared publicly.  Schools don't compete in sports either since the "school spirit" and vying for championships would divide people as opposed to uniting them. Contrast this attitude with the enormous amount of time, travel, and funds American schools put into team sports.

Could we do it here?

There are many wonderful aspects that I think we could adopt or are in the process of adopting in the U.S.  The idea of reducing dead-ends in education and offering more career-technical options earlier for students definitely echo a system Finland has used for a while.  

Could we make Americans value our public schools and teachers they way they used to?  Could we better fund public education?  Can we reduce high-stakes testing?  After talking with teachers from across the nation, I've seen that WHERE one lives and teaches makes a huge difference in how one answers that question. Finland has half the population of my state alone, but in the U.S., state control dictates much of what can be changed and how it will be paid for.

QUESTION TWO:  Gifted education in Finland:  How is it implemented?

The tendency when visiting schools in a country with the success that Finland has had in education is to focus on what they do BETTER.  However, a couple of the Finnish professors of teacher training that I met reminded me that Finland can learn from us as well.

It probably won't surprise you to discover that a culture that values community and doesn't flaunt individual successes might have some issues with identifying and differentiating for gifted students. Even in the U.S., gifted programs are controversial among both parents and teachers.  I learned that Finland used to include opportunities for gifted students but then phased them out.  Too, one professor shared that on the PISA test, Finnish students generally scored well, but they "stayed in the middle."  There weren't either "low lows" or "high highs."  That comment suggests that Finland is doing well supporting struggling students, but what are they doing for the kids who should be achieving those really high scores?

When asked how they differentiate for high-ability students, the teachers I talked with often did the same thing too many American teachers do:  let the kids read for pleasure or work on the computer.  I understand the difficulties:  it takes time to prepare differentiated plans, bright kids sometimes complain about "extra work," and ability tracking brings its own headaches and inequities.  Too, gifted kids aren't any better-behaved or more motivated than other students.

I know a recent Fulbright teacher returned to Finland to research equity in gifted education there.  I'll look forward to seeing how her research reveals whether or not the Finnish system is considering a return to structured gifted education, especially before the students make the choice to follow the more academic University track or the Career track at age sixteen.