I see the Finland model as a halfway house between traditional education and the Sudbury model. If traditional education is slavery, then Finland would be voluntary servitude, and Sudbury would be willful independence.
The prospect of giving kids almost unbridled freedom to do whatever they want (within limits to rules they agree to, and which they have the power to challenge) is scary. Let’s face it, freedom is scary. That is why the Sudbury model seems so radical and difficult to wrap our heads around.
If you look at why the Finland model works, it’s because it takes what is in traditional education and liberates it a bit — more breaks, looser rules, more flexible schedules, reduced homework, and so on. Yet though students in that system may feel more free and relaxed, they are still bound by curriculum. They are still subject to the whims of the “experts” telling them what and how much to study. They are still subject to the whims and biases of their teacher, and are still bound to do things just to please the teacher and get a good grade.
The teacher in this system (as in a traditional system) is under immense pressure to entertain, to make the lessons interesting so that they can engage the students. But such engagement can be misguided and short-lived. Sudbury founder Daniel Greenberg told a story about when he was still teaching physics in a traditional college: One of his former students came back to him and said, “You ruined me.”
A perplexed Greenberg asked, “Why? What do you mean?”
The student replied, “Well, when I was in your physics class, you made it so interesting that I thought it was what I wanted to major in and I did. But now that I’m done, I realize it’s not really what I want to do with my life.”
That story really struck me because it showed how being a good “teacher” can actually be a bad thing.
Greenberg tends to view these attempts to make education friendlier and less harsh (also in progressive systems like Montessori/Waldorf/etc.) as more dangerous. At least, in traditional education, the kids hate it and know who the enemy is. The progressive schools, however, seduce the kids into liking the system and they think it’s the real thing.
Though I understand his point, I tend to take a less extreme view and I see reforms such as the progressives and the Finland model as better than nothing, and it would also be more doable for the thousands of traditional schools we have today.
However, think about this: If the Finland model became so successful because it introduced small liberties and took baby-steps towards more freedom and less restraints, how much more could that effect be multiplied if you went all out with freedom, if you took giant leaps instead of baby steps?
Yes, it is scary and unpredictable and open-ended, but so is life. And if education is to prepare our kids for the “real thing,” then that is what they should be immersed in.
Originally published in Sunstar Davao.
Email me at andy@freethinking.me. View previous articles at www.freethinking.me.