Finnish Teacher Education in Action

As part of the celebration of Helsinki - World Design Capital for 2012, the University's Department of Teacher Education has produced a series of videos about teacher education (each subtitle is the link to YouTube).  Which video clip highlights best the differences between Finland and U.S.A.'s teacher training?

Becoming aTeacher
This first video introduces the respect that the teaching profession has in Finland and why so many Finns are proud to pursue this calling.

Finnish Teacher Education
The teacher education approach emphasizes their training and preparation for the teaching to the whole child.  Teachers are required to earn a master’s degree which usually takes five years.

TeachingPractice - Reflection in Action
This video clip is of two student teachers who are working together with a supervising master teacher in a sixth grade class at the practice teaching school.  An instructor from the university (my advisor) also observes and facilitates reflection during the practice teaching. (We are in the back of the class observing this lesson.)  As I stated in an earlier post, this practice teaching series happens three times during their training.

Tribute toDiversity
This segment provides background on the teacher’s code of ethics and among the techniques the supervising teacher models for the student teachers is differentiated instruction.

Smartphone inTeaching and Learning

This is a six minute video clip about using Smartphones in class.  I am not sure how many teachers are using this technique, but it is great to see the productive use of this technology.

Shame on Me!

Yesterday, quite a bit of the U.S. education news was the ranking of the Nation's Top High Schools by U.S. News and World Report.  

AHH - Shame on Me!  This is one of the most common criticisms Finland has of the United States -- the constant ranking of schools, cities, and states.  Unfortunately, it is becoming more common to do the public ranking of teachers in some cities and states.  What is the value of the ranking?  How is it used?  What is the criteria for the ranking?  Often standardized, high-stakes tests, right?  And what narrow focus do these tests have?!  Hmm, looks like Step #1 used each state's high school proficiency tests...

Here is the methodology for U.S. News & World Report's ranking:

Step 1: The first step determined whether each school's students were performing better than statistically expected for the average student in the state. We started by looking at reading and math results for all students on each state's high school proficiency tests. We then factored in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students (who tend to score lower) enrolled at the school to identify the schools that were performing better than statistical expectations.
• Step 2: For those schools that made it past this first step, the second step determined whether the school's least-advantaged students (black, Hispanic, and low-income) were performing better than average for similar students in the state. We compared each school's math and reading proficiency rates for disadvantaged students with the statewide results for these student groups and then selected schools that were performing better than this state average.
• Step 3: Schools that made it through the first two steps became eligible to be judged nationally on the final step—college-readiness performance—using Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate test data as the benchmarks for success, depending on which program was largest at the school. AP is a College Board program that offers college-level courses at high schools across the country. The International Baccalaureate program also offers a college-level curriculum.

The important news -- the student/teacher ratio for a majority of these high performing high schools appears to be 16:1 or 17:1 (with some 7:1 or 14:1 or even 26:1 or 28:1).  Let's be more critical of this simple ratio -- it reports the total number of students with the total number of teachers.  In our schools, we have many teachers not in classrooms with students, but they are part of this statistic. Really a national average of 16:1?  I do not know who is/is not counted, but I know our actual class size is considerably larger than 16:1.   If we use this statistic at face value, seems the schools with this lower ratio typically rank higher.  Once again -- I advocate that the less kids at a time we teach, the more effective we can meet their needs (whether remediation or acceleration).  

Here is the link if you want to explore (shame on you too :D):  U.S. News: Nation's Top High Schools

Strategies to Support Struggling Learners

One common strategy in Finland with the early grades, but not a requirement, is to divide the class into two groups:  A and B.  For example, one day a week, typically the first period of the day, group A would come to school for a mathematics lesson and group B would come to school one hour later.  Then another day of the week, it flips with group B coming in early and group A one hour later.  Seems simple?  Can you imagine our schools in Chicago doing this?

Many people, especially my CPS teacher colleagues, would appreciate the effectiveness of this design.  Please excuse me for reminding you that the average class size I have seen is 22 or 24 students so think of providing a mathematics lesson to 11 or 12 students one day a week... That is one way to meet kids' needs in the early years -- but it is a funding decision and school level priority.

Here are some common strategies (but not requirements) at the middle school grades:  Typically there are 3 or 4 "lesson hours" a week for mathematics in grades 6, 7, 8, and 9.  Depending on the struggling students' needs, the student attends class with a special education teacher for 1 or 2 of those lesson hours.  It seems most often that they attend one hour a week with the special education teacher instead of the mathematics teacher.  Both the mathematics and special education teachers routinely collaborate to ensure there is continuity of the content.

In addition, the national curriculum specifically explains that when remedial teaching needs are identified, that the school should develop a plan in cooperation with the parents or guardians to meet that student's need.  As I understand it, it is not for special education but for a student currently struggling with a mathematics unit.  The teacher and the school can meet this student's need during the mathematics lesson, during the school day, or after school.  If it is after school, the small group may meet once a week for a few weeks or until the unit is done.  "Depending" on the school or situation, another group could be organized or not.  This is a school level decision and the principal sets aside funds to pay teachers for this type of flexible need.  If I am not mistaken, in Chicago, after school academic help is typically done for most of the school year for the same students.  While the intent makes sense for us in Chicago, it lacks the flexibility and versatility for the school and the teachers to meet their students' needs.  The limited CPS funding for after school academic help "tied" to and audited for the attendance of the identified students for the whole school year.  What do you think?  Anything unclear?

Autonomy at all Levels

As my project winds down, I have the opportunity to reflect on what I have seen and heard.  The biggest challenge for me is to articulate what I have learned concisely with accuracy. 

So how to bring home the huge impact of autonomy?!  As I listen to my recorded interviews of teachers and principals, the most common response is "It depends."  Why is that phrase a common response you might ask.  Often when I inquire about a particular strategy or framework, given the school and the teachers have autonomy, the teachers have the principals' support to design and implement what they determine to be the most effective approach to meet the identified need.  While this may seem obvious, my experiences in Chicago have shown me that both schools within the district and teachers within the schools are extremely limited by all the education requirements and funding formulas.

Finland is open and deliberate about their national approach to present the National Board of Education curriculum (links to the right) and then make each city, each school, and each teacher self-sufficient with the power and the independence to self-govern.  Isn't that what autonomy should truly be?  My next post will be about how some schools use this autonomy to support struggling learners with mathematics.

Coherence - Big Pic & Day to Day

We often talk about coherence in teaching for several reasons.  One is to ensure that kids are taught the same content within the same grade level and school to school.  I think one could argue, one of the reasons for state standards would be for coherence district to district.  Now with Common Core State Standards (CCSS) coming (link to the right), one of these goals would be coherence state to state.

I do not think that I posted previously -- that during one of my weeks in March visiting three different schools in three different cities (Kirkkonummi, Helsinki, & Vantaa), three different mathematics teachers were all teaching proportional reasoning.  Coincidental?  I doubt it.  There are less instructional hours for mathematics weekly and overall in Finland than in Chicago; thus, I think the teachers need to strategically prioritize their lessons.  The National Curriculum for Mathematics in Finland (link to the right) is more general than our national standards, but I also think it has less "requirements" at each grade level.  (I need to do more analysis and comparison of both USA and Finland's national standards, but I doubt that will get done before I leave Finland.)

There are very consistent, coherent approaches to unit assessments which I suggest have several educational benefits.   Typically mathematics teachers administer unit tests with 5-7 problems.  Here is the interesting dynamic, it is very common (almost standard) that each problem is worth 6 points.  Teachers consistently develop the rubric that the answer of each problem is worth 1 point and the process to get to the answer is worth 5 points.  (Many Finnish teachers, when I asked, would say that maybe it is too traditional because it has been done for so long, but it seems to be working.)  Now, I am not suggesting we should just do this in Chicago, but at least think about the implications.   Would you agree?  What could be some other benefits to both teaching and learning from this consistent practice?

There are many Chicago mathematics teachers who also expect and allocate more credit to the process than the answer, but I am sorry to say as an instructional coach I believe there are even more CPS teachers that do not.  There is still too much emphasis on the answer and not on the process.  We have been emphasizing the process to solve the mathematics for years (decades?) if you think about it.  NCTM standards (link to the right) and now CCSS mathematics standards both expect it, but why don't many teachers build it into their year long instructional program?   It is unfortunate that it is often taught to students that showing your work is "needed to get credit for the ISAT extended response" mathematics problems instead of just modeling and expecting it as best practices of problem solving all year long.

Something else to ponder with you -- teachers here give so, so many less mathematics quizzes and tests (not talking about standardized assessments here) during the course of the school year than I or most of my CPS colleagues do.  Any thoughts?  I need to talk about this idea further in a subsequent post.

Assessment Data - Where does it go?

So... there are some assessments that schools can "choose" to take to see how their students are doing in comparison to other schools in their city and the national average.  These exams are optional at 6th and 9th grades.  Many of the schools I have been visiting chose to give the 9th gr mathematics exam (along with some other exams) last week.

The ninth grade mathematics exam is written and distributed by MAOL (Matemaattisten Aineiden Opettajien Liitto MAOL).  MAOL is the national mathematics, physics, and chemistry teachers organization (kind of like NCTM and NSTA combined).  MAOL also writes a detailed rubric to ensure the tests are graded consistently.

Ready for this?  The mathematics teachers (who choose to give the exam) grade their own students' exams and then enter the scores anonymously into a central database.  Thus, there is a national database without student names so each student, teacher, school, and city knows how they are doing in comparison to the national average.

The benefit of anonymity?  There is no ranking of students or schools or cities' performance - it is just a formative baseline.

Another educational benefit - think of the educational coherence and consistency that is established when all the teachers score and report their own assessments.  In addition, everyone takes the mathematics test the same day; thus, afterwards the test becomes a public document.

At the end of secondary school, students who choose to pursue college take the required national matriculation exam.  I will explain how that whole process works in a subsequent post.

Teachers Weekly Instructional Responsibility

How can we organize our schools so that teachers have time to:
1. Plan and prepare inquiry-based, engaging lessons?
2. Collaborate with colleagues about students or subject matter?
3. Provide substantive feedback to students to accelerate their learning?

Teachers in Finland (my work has focused on grades 7-9) are paid a base salary of 21 weekly lesson hours.  Allow me to elaborate... if you teach Finnish or Swedish or science, you are actually paid for 18 lesson hours of instruction and 3 hours to grade essays or prepare experiments.  Isn't that pragmatic?   If you teach more than the 21 lesson hours, you are paid a little extra.  Most of the mathematics and science teachers I have met teach 24 lesson hours a week.

So if you teach 24 lesson hours, that is about 5 hours a day, but actually you might teach 6 hours one day and three hours another.  Thus, there is flexibility in the schedule and work week for each teacher to manage the work -- at school and not in front of kids.  Does that make sense?  Does something need to be clarified?

In Chicago (and probably the U.S.) -- often, planning/preparing lessons is on the teacher's personal time.  Collaboration with colleagues is during common preps (if you have them), but often teachers are given work to do during some of their collaboration time so they often choose their other free weekly prep periods to do their lesson preparation.  With the nonstop instructional day, I believe, most CPS teachers either do quick grading at school OR because they are tired from nonstop day supervising kids, take their grading home.  The disadvantages of this lack of time means either students do not receive substantive feedback to correct their misconceptions, or if they do, it probably is not returned timely and (as research shows) loses the instructional impact.

I have developed and advocated a variety of schedules over the years for schools and my grade level teams because the schedules provide the philosophical framework to enable (or prevent) instructional flexibility and professional collaboration.  How about all of the schools in the district?
 
If the adminstration creates a schedule or if teachers do not advocate for themselves -- this minimal opportunity to prepare lessons and collaborate with colleagues is lost.  How can our teachers have more time (not teaching) built into their school day?