5 ms·

> Finland is not a fan of standardization in education. However, teacher education in Finland is carefully standardized. All teachers must earn a master’s degr

by bko 12y ago

> Finland is not a fan of standardization in education. However, teacher education in Finland is carefully standardized. All teachers must earn a master’s degree at one of the country’s research universities. I don't think the author makes a convincing point as to why standardization is bad for students but somehow beneficial to teachers. > There is another “teacher quality” checkpoint at graduation from School of Education in Finland. Students are not allowed to earn degrees to teach unless they demonstrate that they possess knowledge, skills and morals necessary to be a successful teacher. So prospective teachers would be tested on teacher quality prior to graduation in an academic sense but not while they're actually teaching? Not sure if you can test on paper or by demonstration whether someone is an effective teacher. It is certainly more easily visible in the field. It's a shame many in America don't respect teachers. Perhaps the resentment is due to the fact that most in America don't have a choice as to the primary school they attend. Like most Americans, I've had terrible teachers in the past and did feel some resentment. It was less infuriating in college since at least I had some choice as to the classes and school I attended. Coincidentally, I notice professors get a lot more respect.

pavlov 12y ago
I don't think the author makes a convincing point as to why standardization is bad for students but somehow beneficial to teachers. I felt the author's case was clearly presented, so I'll try to summarize... Standardized tests for students are bad because they encourage bogus metrics like "teacher effectiveness". Requiring high qualifications for teachers is good because it improves public perception of the profession and reduces churn. (Initiatives like "fast track" teacher training increase churn, and this is bad because it can lead administrators to believe that churn is part of the solution: all they need to do is somehow weed out the bad teachers and replace them with good ones.)
- mattmcknight 12y ago
  You have to understand that the publisher of this piece (the blog curator, Valerie Strauss) is a paid supporter of the teacher unions. That is her primary agenda, and the agenda of many opposed to teacher evaluation via job effectiveness. If teacher effectiveness can't be measured, teachers can't be fired for performance. Union win.
  - rustynails77 12y ago
    If you don't standardise testing for students, you can't benchmark them. If you look at the relative performance of different countries, the US is WAY down the list of performers - and the relative scores of the US are significantly behind. Start with this link for reference, http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pisa-rankings-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pisa-rankings-2013-12 On reading and my own indepth observations, I've come across the same themes, - teachers must be respected as professionals - teachers must challenge themselves, constantly looking for better approaches to education - principals must actively support the development and training of teachers to help them grow - parents must support the teachers by re-enforcing the importance of education - parents and teachers MUST treat the students as young adults rather than treating them as children ... I can't emphasise this enough. Based on my own experiences, one school we were at had terrible teachers and an average principal ... and terrible results. The other school was progressive and built confidence into everything the students did (eg. a school fair fund-raiser was completely organised and run by ALL of the primary school students). I now live in an area with one of the highest academic performance relative to the wealth of the families, Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA). The attitude of parents, teachers and students is staggeringly different to the previous school we were at. It's no surprise that it's one of the best performing schools in Australia. You'll also notice that Australia is one of the better performing countries in the world. If you assume the problem is the teachers, or the parents, you're off the mark. You need ALL of them to work together.
fsloth 12y ago
"I don't think the author makes a convincing point as to why standardization is bad for students but somehow beneficial to teachers." I would claim the freedom given to teachers when practicing their profession is one of the reasons they do so well. Strict control usually cuts down the performance of the best people by oveconstraining requirements while protecting against the worst performers. More lean system keeps the best people motivated and gives them the leeway to do as they see best (practice art instead of just fulfilling regulations). Worst people can do poorly but the teachers education system is so good even the worst are not that bad (usually). This is why the strict standardization of teacher education is needed - to make sure people are good enough they can be expected to perform well. These are just anecdotal toughts based on experience (I'm a finn).
- bko 12y ago
  That's the basic concept of most licensing: ensure that the practitioner is good enough to meet some basic level of competence. Although that makes sense for things like a license to drive a car, I don't think it makes sense for teaching since teaching (in my opinion) is an art. It would be silly to provide licensing for people to practice art or a similarly creative endeavor. Admittedly anecdotal, but I've asked a few teacher friends if graduate school has made them better teachers and all have answered that it hasn't. Rather, they would insist that it's a more organic experience of learning through teaching over time and experimenting with the medium. Perhaps it's just that teacher education in America is fragmented and ineffective but I think it's just the nature of most art that the skill can't be acquired in an academic setting. To me the ultimate effectiveness measure is if parents choose to send their kids to that school or students sign up for that class voluntarily.
  - fsloth 12y ago
    " Rather, they would insist that it's a more organic experience of learning through teaching over time and experimenting with the medium" Yeah, my anecdotal understanding of the profession acquired through similar channels would corroborate this. The sad thing is that in strict licensing situation the great teachers who lack proper licensing are locked away (e.g. when licensing requirements change). I suppose university degrees work mostly as gateways to the careers that require them - i.e. it is thought the candidates who graduate are better qualified for the job than those that did not. I have no idea if the people filtered out would actually be the ones who would perform worst on the job. "To me the ultimate effectiveness measure is if parents choose to send their kids to that school or students sign up for that class voluntarily." I don't think parent perceptions kick in as a significant metric of quality until the differences in school quality have reached pathological levels. And in the first grades kids are not really supposed to sign in to classes by themselves.

by bko 12y ago

pavlov 12y ago

I don't think the author makes a convincing point as to why standardization is bad for students but somehow beneficial to teachers. I felt the author's case was clearly presented, so I'll try to summarize... Standardized tests for students are bad because they encourage bogus metrics like "teacher effectiveness". Requiring high qualifications for teachers is good because it improves public perception of the profession and reduces churn. (Initiatives like "fast track" teacher training increase churn, and this is bad because it can lead administrators to believe that churn is part of the solution: all they need to do is somehow weed out the bad teachers and replace them with good ones.)

mattmcknight 12y ago
You have to understand that the publisher of this piece (the blog curator, Valerie Strauss) is a paid supporter of the teacher unions. That is her primary agenda, and the agenda of many opposed to teacher evaluation via job effectiveness. If teacher effectiveness can't be measured, teachers can't be fired for performance. Union win.
- rustynails77 12y ago
  If you don't standardise testing for students, you can't benchmark them. If you look at the relative performance of different countries, the US is WAY down the list of performers - and the relative scores of the US are significantly behind. Start with this link for reference, http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pisa-rankings-2013-12 http://www.businessinsider.com.au/pisa-rankings-2013-12 On reading and my own indepth observations, I've come across the same themes, - teachers must be respected as professionals - teachers must challenge themselves, constantly looking for better approaches to education - principals must actively support the development and training of teachers to help them grow - parents must support the teachers by re-enforcing the importance of education - parents and teachers MUST treat the students as young adults rather than treating them as children ... I can't emphasise this enough. Based on my own experiences, one school we were at had terrible teachers and an average principal ... and terrible results. The other school was progressive and built confidence into everything the students did (eg. a school fair fund-raiser was completely organised and run by ALL of the primary school students). I now live in an area with one of the highest academic performance relative to the wealth of the families, Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA). The attitude of parents, teachers and students is staggeringly different to the previous school we were at. It's no surprise that it's one of the best performing schools in Australia. You'll also notice that Australia is one of the better performing countries in the world. If you assume the problem is the teachers, or the parents, you're off the mark. You need ALL of them to work together.

fsloth 12y ago

"I don't think the author makes a convincing point as to why standardization is bad for students but somehow beneficial to teachers." I would claim the freedom given to teachers when practicing their profession is one of the reasons they do so well. Strict control usually cuts down the performance of the best people by oveconstraining requirements while protecting against the worst performers. More lean system keeps the best people motivated and gives them the leeway to do as they see best (practice art instead of just fulfilling regulations). Worst people can do poorly but the teachers education system is so good even the worst are not that bad (usually). This is why the strict standardization of teacher education is needed - to make sure people are good enough they can be expected to perform well. These are just anecdotal toughts based on experience (I'm a finn).

bko 12y ago
That's the basic concept of most licensing: ensure that the practitioner is good enough to meet some basic level of competence. Although that makes sense for things like a license to drive a car, I don't think it makes sense for teaching since teaching (in my opinion) is an art. It would be silly to provide licensing for people to practice art or a similarly creative endeavor. Admittedly anecdotal, but I've asked a few teacher friends if graduate school has made them better teachers and all have answered that it hasn't. Rather, they would insist that it's a more organic experience of learning through teaching over time and experimenting with the medium. Perhaps it's just that teacher education in America is fragmented and ineffective but I think it's just the nature of most art that the skill can't be acquired in an academic setting. To me the ultimate effectiveness measure is if parents choose to send their kids to that school or students sign up for that class voluntarily.
- fsloth 12y ago
  " Rather, they would insist that it's a more organic experience of learning through teaching over time and experimenting with the medium" Yeah, my anecdotal understanding of the profession acquired through similar channels would corroborate this. The sad thing is that in strict licensing situation the great teachers who lack proper licensing are locked away (e.g. when licensing requirements change). I suppose university degrees work mostly as gateways to the careers that require them - i.e. it is thought the candidates who graduate are better qualified for the job than those that did not. I have no idea if the people filtered out would actually be the ones who would perform worst on the job. "To me the ultimate effectiveness measure is if parents choose to send their kids to that school or students sign up for that class voluntarily." I don't think parent perceptions kick in as a significant metric of quality until the differences in school quality have reached pathological levels. And in the first grades kids are not really supposed to sign in to classes by themselves.