Finland vs Sudbury (Part 1)

For the past two weeks, I had been writing about the Finnish educational system. I would now like to compare it with the democratic school system like Sudbury Valley School, of which I had also previously written.

(If you’re just getting on board my column now, you can read up on my past articles to learn more about these two systems — just click on the following articles to get a more extensive background:

This list is slightly altered from the newspaper version to link directly to the articles)

As a short recap, the Finland model is not that far from the traditional schooling that we know, except that it has a lot of breaks in between subjects (15 minutes after every 45-minute lecture), minimal homework, and offers students more autonomy and collaborative opportunities for both teachers and students.

The Sudbury model or the democratic school model, however, is probably something 99% of you haven’t heard of. The shortest possible way to describe it a school where students are free to do whatever they want, provided that it is legal and within the school rules; and the school rules are decided by votation by both teachers (called staff) and students.

I will not describe the Sudbury model in detail here as I have done that before, and it will take a lot of space. But I believe there is a question on the minds of those reading about it for the first time here: “How can kids learn anything if you just let them do what they want? They’ll just play video games all day!”

The short answer to that is that Sudbury has been turning out productive citizens for the past 50 years (it started in 1968), and according to their studies, around 80% of their graduates go on to the college of their choice. Many schools in other countries have also studied and adopted the Sudbury model. So yes, even if Sudbury had students who played, or fished, or chatted with their friends all day, that doesn’t mean they didn’t learn anything and they grew up to be businessmen, artists, and professionals in various fields just like most everybody else who went through a traditional education.

So given these two systems, which one do I think is better?

I am biased towards the Sudbury model. I happen to think that it is the most liberating concept in education. Sudbury founder, Daniel Greenberg, likes to compare traditional school with prison (and many kids, and even you, may  feel the same way). And the reason it’s prison is because the student has very little freedom — someone else tells him what to study, and for how long, and how he’s supposed to behave, and what he’s supposed to wear, and so on. He is subject to the authority of the teachers and the principal, like prisoners have to listen to their guards or the warden, or risk getting punished.

Now, that is traditional schooling in a nutshell, and if you look at Finland, it still follows the basic framework of traditional education. Everyone has to study their reading, writing and arithmetic, and history, science, geography, algebra, trigonometry, and all these other subjects that other people have deemed “essential” to basic education.

What Finland has done, however,  is to make prison more palatable.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles atwww.freethinking.me.

Learning from Finland (Part 2)

Click here for Part 1

Autonomy seems to be one of the key factors of happiness, according to Raj Raghunathan in “If You’re So Smart, Why Aren’t You Happy?” The idea that you are free to make certain choices and decisions is emotionally satisfying, rather than having others make decisions for you and force you to follow what they want, instead of what you want.

One way that Finland grants autonomy to their students is by having an Independent Learning Week. Instead of having set lectures and lessons for that week, teachers simply assign certain tasks that must be done by the end of the week, and they give students large blocks of time to accomplish those tasks however and whenever they want, in no particular order.

Taking this idea a step further, students can co-plan a one-unit lesson with their teacher on a subject of their choice — for example: the use of solar energy — and design activities like quiz shows, having guest speakers, and so on, for this purpose. The main idea of this approach is that students are more likely to take interest and participate in the lesson as they were part of the decision-making process. There is ownership of the idea not just for the teacher but for the students as well.

The next factor is mastery, the feeling of competence in a specific area of study or discipline. Finnish schools focus on mastery by identifying the essentials of each subject matter and making sure the students become competent in those. A lot of traditional educators like loading up the curriculum with more and more material, thinking this will lead to more learning, which is often not the case.

Teachers focused on mastery should not be in a hurry to finish the entire book. Education is about how much the students learn, not about how much the teacher has taught. Finnish teachers take time to really ensure that their students have achieved competence, even going as far as letting students prove that they have learned the material — asking students open-ended questions and listening to their explanations.

Some teachers even have one-on-one sessions with students, telling them what grade they’re going to get and giving them a chance to respond, such that grades are not just a number teachers throw out, but it becomes a tool that both parties agree to use as a measure for the students’ competence at that point in time.

The final factor is having the correct mindset, and this applies more for the teachers than the students. Although of course, by principle of leadership, the students will naturally mirror what their teacher do and how they behave. The correct mindset is one of collaboration as compared to the current mindset of competition. Teachers in Finland are not so much into proving that they are “good” or “master” teachers, nor do they chase after degrees in order to flaunt these. In fact, this is what Walker writes about teachers in his school: “[They] were not just collaborating in the traditional sense…they were truly laboring together, sharing the burdens of teaching…helping each other track down resources they’d need for an upcoming lesson…discussing better ways to support needy students…analyzing the curriculum together…grading tests together…offering tech support to each other.”

Researchers Andy Hargreave and Dennis Shirley observe: “Teachers in Finland cooperate as a matter of habit, not just to complete assigned tasks…not just as an add-on when the workday is over…Cooperation is about how they create curriculum and how the work itself gets done.”

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles atwww.freethinking.me.

Learning from Finland (Part 1)

I met with a former student a few weeks ago who is now a school principal. After an exchange of ideas, we exchanged books about education. He had my copy of “The Sudbury Valley Experience” while I had his “Teach Like Finland.”

So what’s up with Finland and their educational system?

Well, Finland is notorious for having a “soft” or non-strict approach to education — short school days, lots of breaks, little to no homework and minimal standardized testing. Yet, it consistently performs well on a set of international tests called the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) which measure critical thinking skills in reading, math and science. In fact, in the very first PISA results in 2001, Finland ranked number one.

Teach Like Finland was written by Timothy Walker, a former teacher in the American public school system who relocated to Finland and noticed the sharp differences in the teaching philosophies and methods. The key, as he observed, was that Finnish educators “seem to value happiness more than achievement. They make small simple decisions to promote joyful teaching and learning.”

Walker then breaks down the five ingredients of happiness: 1) well-being; 2) belonging; 3) autonomy; 4) mastery; and 5) mindset, then proceeds to discuss 33 strategies revolving around these in order to produce a “joyful classroom.”

I will not be discussing all 33 strategies. You can read the book yourself if you’re that interested. I will, however, be discussing a few that have struck me, and then I will try to relate what I have learned from the Finnish approach into my own studies on the Democratic school system in general and Sudbury Valley School in particular.

One way that Finnish schools promote well-being is to have a 15-minute break after every class. Imagine having recess every period. Oh that would be heaven for a lot of students here. Classes go for only 45 minutes, then there’s a fifteen minute break where students can do whatever they want before the next class begins.

This simple solution gives the brain a break and even has a scientific basis. Anthony Pellegreni, an educational psychologist and emeritus professor at the University of Minnesota, conducted numerous studies showing that students were “more attentive after a break than before a break” and also that “children were less focused when the timing of the break was delayed — or in other words, when the lesson dragged on.”

To promote belonging, a lot of schools have a “Buddy Up” tradition where 6th grade students pair up with 1st grade student. The young kids now have some older buddies to look up to and talk to about this new environment called elementary school, and the older kids feel a sense of responsibility towards their juniors.

Paula Havu, a first grade teacher has this to say about the practice: “Those older students, when they are given responsibility, when they are trusted, when they get a little buddy to walk with them…they change. They don’t need to be tough. They don’t need to be cool. They need to take care of that little guy over there and be the role model.”

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles atwww.freethinking.me.

Insensitive

There is a recent story going around entitled “God Whispers” about a pilot who flew the last plane out of Palu, Indonesia before it was hit by an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude on the Richter scale, causing a devastating Tsunami that currently has a death toll of over a thousand people.

The pilot talks about feeling uneasy when he landed in Palu, about hearing “a voice in his heart” telling him to hurry. So he instructed his crew to take a short break, then requested permission from the control tower to leave 3 minutes earlier.

During takeoff, he sped up the plane and felt the plane swaying left and right before leaving the ground. He would learn later, upon arriving at his destination in Ujung Pandang, that an earthquake and tsunami had hit Palu and that he had taken off in the nick of time just when the ground began to shake. Many on the ground, including the official at the control tower who made sure they had taken off safely, had died. The death toll is still rising as of this writing as rescue teams scramble to look for survivors.

The article concludes with a reminder to take a lesson from the captain about how important it is to “hear the voice of God.”

While I am happy about the pilot being alive and able to fly the 140 passengers in his aircraft to safety right in the nick of time,  using this story to impart the religious message of learning to listen God’s voice seems rather insensitive to the relatives and loved ones of the many who perished or were injured in the disaster.

Were they unable to hear God’s whispers? Or did God even nudge them at all like he did to the pilot? Or were they somehow more deserving of death or suffering? These questions haunt those left in the wake of the destruction.

It’s like an incident a few years ago when a typhoon that was supposedly going to hit us suddenly veered north. You could see people cheering about how their prayers were answered, how mighty God’s hand was, and how loving…until the news came out that this other country had been badly hit and so many were injured or killed.

Imagine having a loved one on vacation in that country as a casualty, then hearing someone else praising God’s hand for swatting the hurricane out of the way.

Disasters are a time to come together and help each other, to realize our shared humanity, to comfort others in their grief. Yes, we can always express gratitude for being spared but let’s not use it as an object lesson for pontificating or exhorting others to be more “godly”.

To do so would be just plain insensitive.

Originally published in Sunstar Davao.

Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles atwww.freethinking.me.