Finland's education system: something for Ireland to aspire to?

coffee_cake

Dionysus wrote: »

p=65331606&postcount=115]post #117[/url], Bluewolf. Or watch the second video in the OP for the Finnish Minister for Education addressing your question directly.

Uhm, post #117 is the one I was quoting

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, again you seem utterly ignorant of any of the facts.


Helmet was saying that money should be pumped into the lesser students education. I simply stated that this was unfair and by his same reasoning the best should get extra attention.

Seems obvious now why you are so offended by my idea, you were one of the slow ones, werent you?

The slow ones are the ones that hide behind petty insults and ignore the argement posted which was this:

what are you going to do with the lesser kids in order to keep them illusioned and away from crime? And how are you going to introduce this idea to their parents?

It's a bit like saying any extra food or money should be taken away from the poor and hungry and given to the rich.

pathway33

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

It's a bit like saying any extra food or money should be taken away from the poor and hungry and given to the rich.

isn't that what we are doing at the moment?

Dionysus

Amhran Nua wrote: »

I think we could definetely learn a lot from the Finnish system however - I particularly like the idea of a second teacher in the classroom (tutor or trainee teacher maybe?)

This is definitely doable in the Irish system. There is a large number of unemployed qualified teachers at present. Despite this there is, incomprehensibly, also a large number of unqualified teachers within the Irish education system. The latter could be used as a cheaper form of labour to go around the classroom helping students out, while fully qualified unemployed teachers could take over classes which are currently being taught by unqualified teachers.


Whatever way it is worked, it is definitely possible to have a second teacher in each class helping the weaker students. The difference that would make to the child, his future and his future family would be admirable beyond words.

WindSock

We never had any gun crazed murderers in our schools though.

yet

Dionysus

bluewolf wrote: »

So where's the support and extra teacher for the quicker students? Are they supposed to just sit there rotting their brains and disrupting from boredom? Teach themselves maybe?

"no child left behind but none of them are allowed ahead either"?


translation: "they don't have anything to do so they uh, socialise"
WHAT encouragement? WHAT motivation? Motivation for what, being stuck in the same average class and never allowed out? That's way #1 to kill off any motivation in any bright child
Honestly, what a load of rubbish.

In fairness, do you have any evidence to support your "translation" of the Finnish system? Or evidence that the brighter kids are not allowed get ahead in that system? Or evidence that they need an extra teacher, which seems a really odd suggestion to come after postulating that the brighter kids are not challenged enough in the Finnish education system.

That the Finnish system is by most if not all objective criteria the best education system in the world would suggest that you are not on the right track with your ideas.

Fuhrer

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The slow ones are the ones that hide behind petty insults and ignore the argement posted which was this:

what are you going to do with the lesser kids in order to keep them illusioned and away from crime? And how are you going to introduce this idea to their parents?

It's a bit like saying any extra food or money should be taken away from the poor and hungry and given to the rich.

Yes, the slow ones are the ones that hide behind insults, which is why you were the first one to use them, just check your posts.


The reason why everyone ignored your argument is because its so ubsurdly stupid no one thought it was a serious point.

Kids who arent intelligent need to be tricked into staying away from their inevitable life of crime?

Im sure the thousands of people who decieded that their future lay outside of continued education must be just sittting around all day thinking about wonderful new crimes to carry out because they werent smart enough.


And on your final point, no, its nothing like that. I cant even begin to address the utter absurdity of it.

Prof.Badass

Dionysus wrote: »

Just came across a BBC article, accompanied by two videos, which examines why Finland has the most successful education system in the world today.

The Finnish system would easily be classed as "alternative" or "radical" by Irish standards: no school uniforms; students on first name terms with teachers (the gaelscoileanna being the Irish exception in this regard); very few hours spent in school; students start school at 7 years of age; all teachers must do a 300 credit teacher training degree, which includes a masters and takes about five years; there is no distinction between primary and secondary schools; no streaming/students of all abilities are kept in the same classroom; fundamental belief that no child can be left behind; and, the bit I am most amazed by, an extra teacher in each class going around helping the weaker students (i.e. they put the financial resources behind their "no child left behind" philosophy. It's not just a nice-sounding ideal in a Department of Education speech).

The emphasis in the Finnish system is on languages, maths and science subjects and large Finnish companies such as Nokia play an active role in supporting this emphasis. Finland has a population of 5.3 million people so in size it's not a million kilometres away from our own.

Without actually reading it much, it seems that this one factor alone could be responsible for the change.

Blindly copying another country or taking bits from the model of another country might not work because people tend not to think about which factors are at play.

So for example our government could decide not to start school till 7, saying "it works for the finns". I'd be surprised if it does, more likely is that the other factors make up for it. Those factors may even lie outside the field of education, such as social inclusion (maybe less of a class structure) or even just the general attitude of the populace (which can't really be changed by the government).

Dionysus

Noreen1 wrote: »

I'm amazed that no-one has yet mentioned the fact that all Finnish teachers regularly go on courses to "Update" their teaching methods. Maybe that's the key? Noreen

That's a huge failing of the Irish system alright. The amount of post-qualification training which teachers undergo is still minimal, and far less than in most advanced countries.

The refusal of many teachers to embrace new technology in their teaching is utterly unacceptable.

Dionysus

vinylmesh wrote: »

Without actually reading it much, it seems that this one factor alone could be responsible for the change.

Blindly copying another country or taking bits from the model of another country might not work because people tend not to think about which factors are at play.

So for example our government could decide not to start school till 7, saying "it works for the finns". I'd be surprised if it does, more likely is that the other factors make up for it. Those factors may even lie outside the field of education, such as social inclusion (maybe less of a class structure) or even just the general attitude of the populace (which can't really be changed by the government).

You are correct there. For instance, the OP pointed out that Finland is virtually an ethnically and linguistically homogeneous society and as a consequence it is easier for their system to progress a mixed-ability, non-streamed school system. (although that was pretty much Ireland 15 years ago and we weren't doing it)
Cultural factors are, in other words, a central part of the success of any education system.

However, the stuff we are talking about here - extra teachers and mixed ability classes for most Irish schools, proper teacher training, etc. - can be applied to this society's education system and not avoided on the grounds of some "cultural incompatibility" argument. That argument is usually just a cop-out from decision-makers who want to avoid overhauling the existing system.

E.T.

The amount of postgrad training is up to the teacher at the moment, and usually depends on your own interests or the needs of pupils in your class eg I've done a good few IT courses and a lot of different special needs courses.

I'm completely open to new technology but the standard of internet connection/speed is useless in our schools. I can't attach a word doc to an email because the connection in school is so bad.

It does drive me mad when I bring up new technology and others come out with complaints about it being too complicated and they can't understand it - go learn about it! It's not just older teachers who have this attitude either unfortunately.

Re the pupils in Finland not starting til 7 - I think I read that they have government provided pre-school options until then. I don't think the article made it clear what methods or pre-school types were involved - this could be a major factor in childrens' learning.

coffee_cake

Dionysus wrote: »

In fairness, do you have any evidence to support your "translation" of the Finnish system?

Um, your quote from the finnish education minister saying yes it's a problem and they just socialise to make up for it?

Or evidence that the brighter kids are not allowed get ahead in that system?

See above? As well as the "keeping all abilities together" mentioned in OP?

Or evidence that they need an extra teacher, which seems a really odd suggestion to come after postulating that the brighter kids are not challenged enough in the Finnish education system.

/facepalm
Just because children are bright doesn't mean they should be stuck in a corner doing extra work on their own. Or taught to run around being "interpersonal". As I asked earlier: "Are they supposed to just sit there rotting their brains and disrupting classes from boredom? Teach themselves maybe? "

That the Finnish system is by most if not all objective criteria the best education system in the world would suggest that you are not on the right track with your ideas.

Maybe it does work(or things are just that bad worldwide), but suggesting we need to change ours by only catering to weaker students is daft. Brighter children deserve a challenging interesting education too, with guidance from their teachers, and if they're mashing all abilities into one class I cannot see how that's happening.
As someone said earlier, it seems a case of "basically everyone learns at the rate of slowest child."

Please don't get me wrong here, I am all for support for the weaker children but if this involves any curbing or neglect of the brighter children I must object.

Terodil

Dionysus wrote: »

In fairness, do you have any evidence to support your "translation" of the Finnish system? Or evidence that the brighter kids are not allowed get ahead in that system? Or evidence that they need an extra teacher, which seems a really odd suggestion to come after postulating that the brighter kids are not challenged enough in the Finnish education system.

It's called 'deduction'. The entire description of the system focused on the fact that the bads are not left behind. Given the fact that some pupils are faster and some are slower and that these speed differences cannot be wholly assimilated (which is pretty safe to assume following the socialisation-vs-predisposition debate), it means that the overall speed approaches an average that's lower than what the good pupils could achieve. Couple that with an exclusive focus of the extra teachers on the bads (at least there was NO mention of better pupils in the OP), and also the acknowledgment by the secretary that academic success for the better pupils was not a primary focus, it leads me to believe that better pupils are disadvantaged more in this system than in one that caters more to their specific needs (i.e. tiered).

Trying to argue that an intellectual 'underchallenge' is compensated by social skills is nonsense because the two are not related in any way. Teamwork can flourish among good pupils as much as between good and bad pupils.

Edit:

bluewolf wrote: »

Please don't get me wrong here, I am all for support for the weaker children but if this involves any curbing or neglect of the brighter children I must object.

... that's just my take on it as well. A good system needs to challenge everybody to the max of their faculties, not just the bads.

Dionysus

Fuhrer wrote: »

But doesnt this just mean that worse students get more?

Cant it be argued that its better to take that additonal support teacher and use them to teach the best of the class to an even higher standard.

Superficially, it could be argued thus. However, what marks the best students out from the rest is one single factor: autonomous learning. That is what separates two students of pretty much the same intelligence and makes one a successful student.

The kid who is motivated to do his own learning does not need as much support from the teacher. In fact, he would find it an interference on his own established method of learning. For this sort of student the teacher is there to guide him and explain problems he cannot understand. What that student needs is a stable, secure and nurturing environment within which to learn. For the weaker students they need this and a different type of help in the form of greater teacher-led explanations, encouragement and direction. This is the beauty of mixed-ability classes: the weaker and the stronger students do not require the same type of teaching and to give them the same type of teaching because of some misguided notion of "fairness" is not doing justice to the different types of learner that exist within mixed-ability classrooms.

Terodil

Dionysus wrote: »

Superficially, it could be argued thus. However, what marks the best students out from the rest is one single factor: autonomous learning. That is what separates two students of pretty much the same intelligence and makes one a successful student.

Yes, but that's only half the truth and the core of where your reasoning turns faulty.

Autonomy is not everything, especially at a younger age. Every kid needs encouragement and stimulation as well. If this stimulation is lacking because the better kids are constantly left unchallenged (or simply burdened with more of the same, but nothing new), they will lose interest and either simply turn mediocre, or, worse yet, develop psychological problems (class clown etc).

coffee_cake

Dionysus wrote: »

The kid who is motivated to do his own learning does not need as much support from the teacher. In fact, he would find it an interference on his own established method of learning.

You must be joking? You think a bright 8 year old who's been in school 1 year has an "established method of learning"? how are they supposed to have any method of learning when the teacher's attention is mostly on the weaker students? How are they even supposed to have any motivation if all they learn is that school = boring and not challenging? How are they supposed to learn the joys of learning and new subjects? Can you honestly be advocating that brighter kids go off and teach themselves from books and ask questions the odd time? that's ridiculous?!
:eek:
We are talking about children here, not leaving cert students or college students who know what they want to study and how.

This is the beauty of mixed-ability classes: the weaker and the stronger students do not require the same type of teaching

They don't need the same type of teaching, but they still need *a* type of teaching, not being left to fend for themselves.

Dionysus

Terodil wrote: »

A good system needs to challenge everybody to the max of their faculties, not just the bads.

It does, but as noted above there are different types of learners and the brighter kids do not need the same type of teaching as the weaker students. They require and expect different things and giving them an extra teacher simply because weaker students have one is applying a solution to a different problem to them.

Dionysus

Terodil wrote: »

Yes, but that's only half the truth and the core of where your reasoning turns faulty.

Autonomy is not everything, especially at a younger age. Every kid needs encouragement and stimulation as well. If this stimulation is lacking because the better kids are constantly left unchallenged (or simply burdened with more of the same, but nothing new), they will lose interest and either simply turn mediocre, or, worse yet, develop psychological problems (class clown etc).

It doesn't, actually: I already said that encouragement ('nurturing') was vital for the more academic student: 'What that student needs is a stable, secure and nurturing environment within which to learn. For the weaker students they need this and a different type of help in the form of greater teacher-led explanations, encouragement and direction.'


There is no aspect of the education system which is "everything" in terms of a child's success. However, autonomous learning, the ability of a kid to go away work out stuff and come back, is vital in his or her success. It directly affects his confidence and self-belief and this ripples through so many other areas of his life. If he is an autonomous learner he keeps himself interested by learning more and he doesn't fall behind. There are plenty of students within the system like that.

jayteecork

English lessons could be a bit better though;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKYv10idtYk

grainne01

No..
While I wouldn't say our school system is good, its not terrible.. The whole students being on a first name basis with teachers is a good one though .. I'm in 4th year.. Their are about 3 teachers in my school who people pretty much call them by their first name (the teacher never told us to do it, IDK how it started but most people just do it) and people's relationships with those teachers always seem to be better.. Its a good idea if that was like a thing, 'cause it'd mean there's nothing like ''I'm so superior to you, you have to call me Sir'' yaknow..

Noreen1

Irrespective of whether anyone approves of a tiered system - the point is that their system works.

Does anyone know anything about the Canadian education system? (I can't remember the name of the third country mentioned!)

I think it's well worth researching any similarities in the sytems - if only from a purely academic viewpoint, unfortunately.

Ireland does have a reasonably decent Education system, but it is not ideal.
Having said that, I'm not at all convinced that I would trust those who are currently deciding the syllabus, much less those who are providing the resources, to revise the current system.

If we were to employ a group of Educational consultants from Finland or Canada, though, and had a Government that understood the necessity of an adequately resourced Education System, then perhaps Ireland would have a truly brilliant future.
Something to aspire to, indeed!

Noreen

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yes, the slow ones are the ones that hide behind insults, which is why you were the first one to use them, just check your posts.
.

I was? Where? I attacked your opinon as being Nazish, not you personally. You were the one who called me slow and a troll.

The reason why everyone ignored your argument is because its so ubsurdly stupid no one thought it was a serious point.

Kids who arent intelligent need to be tricked into staying away from their inevitable life of crime?

Did I say tricked?

Im sure the thousands of people who decieded that their future lay outside of continued education must be just sittting around all day thinking about wonderful new crimes to carry out because they werent smart enough.


And on your final point, no, its nothing like that. I cant even begin to address the utter absurdity of it.

And yet you STILL avoid the issue of waht to do with to the underachieving kids?

Bob Z

well i hope our schools dont become finnish i dont want our kids going around speaking scandinavian



:cool:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bob Z wrote: »

well i hope our schools dont become finnish i dont want our kids going around speaking scandinavian



:cool:

No such language! :cool::cool:

ya-ba-da-ba-doo

They are pretty savage at languages. Whenever i went onto omegle half the people on it were from finland and could speak fluent English. I was talking to a few that spoke English, French and German as extra languages. I'd love to be able to but i'm too much of a lazy bastard the Irish educational system wouldn't give me the chance.....

Bob Z

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No such language! :cool::cool:

ah well there you go then it would be pretty useless.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bob Z wrote: »

ah well there you go then it would be pretty useless.

Yep. Last thing we need is a system that teaches useless languages!

Sulmac

Major bump. From today's Sunday Tribune; it seems Fine Gael read After Hours...

Fine Gael plans radical rethink of Leaving Cert
Party plans to launch new schools system with wide reform of the Department of Education
Conor McMorrow, Political Correspondent

FINE GAEL is planning a radical reform of the entire schools system that will see the "demolition" of the Department of Education and the possible abolition of the Leaving Certificate as we know it.

The Sunday Tribune can reveal the party plans to launch a whole new education system, based on the globally respected Finnish education model.

Key figures in the party are privately making plans to launch the policy document on schools reform in the coming months.

It is understood that the party is considering an overhaul of the Leaving Certificate examination in a bid to move away from the current system that is overly dependent on rote learning.

One system being seriously considered is the abolition of the exam in its current format to be replaced by a new system that involves more continuous assessment and collaborative work between students over a two-year period.

There is a belief that this new system will better prepare students for the workplace rather than writing out everything they have learned off within the confines of an exam hall over a period of a few hours.

As well as ambitiously outlining a plan to restructure the education system, the document will propose that a new National Convention on Education should be put in place.

The innovative document will form a key part of Fine Gael's general election manifesto. The party has already launched its FairCare healthcare document (based on the Dutch model of universal free healthcare), its New Politics document (that promises radical political reforms such as scrapping the Seanad) and its ambitious NewERA plan which involves far-reaching reform of the semi-state sector.

The party's education spokesman Brian Hayes, who was reluctant to be drawn on details of the plan, said, "I can confirm that I am working on a new policy document for schools and I have been very impressed by the Finnish model with the freedom that gives to schools.

"It is very much a model of giving financial and policy autonomy to local schools. It is a model that is based on a radical demolition of the Department of Education, away from the centralist, Stalinist department to a department that is more involved in the evaluation of schools and teachers rather than the day-to-day management of schools."

Under the new plan, the current top-down system of the Department of Education producing circulars and a standard curriculum for all schools will be transformed. Instead, individual schools will be given more freedom to deviate from the curriculum and take their own direction.

"I think teachers want a new vision for Irish education. They are up for the challenge to restructure Irish education and that is why it is important we have this public debate on where our education system is going as it is crucial for our economic recovery," he said.

May 9, 2010

Fear Uladh

Wish they had that back in my school days.

slade_x

thecornflake wrote: »

school is grand and dandy , but the main place where people learn the important stuff is third level , secondary and primary schools are just a lead up to that imo. Sure most courses in 3rd level do a recap of what you learn in 2nd level anyway.Thats where the major money should be put. That no child left behind thing is a loada crap, if they want to be left behind ( which most do ) , then leave them there.

secondary and primary school isnt a lead up to much if your child has already lost interest in education.

And that is one of our biggest problems. bright students can easily fall through the cracks.