Amanda Ripley at the PSBA conference

Tuesday’s keynote speaker at last month’s PSBA conference was the highly respected education researcher and writer, Amanda Ripley.  She recently spent a year looking at education policy and practice around the world, particularly through the eyes of students. With the large caveat that education policy is extremely complex and difficult to compare across national and cultural boundaries, her research suggests:

• ·        The need for coherent national standards. (See “Common Core”)
• ·        We should wait as long as possible before ‘tracking’ students.
• ·        A need to improve teacher and principal training
• ·        Parental involvement in their child’s education should be primarily in the home.

National standards  It would be deeply unfortunate if the bungled implementation of the Common Core (in particular, the misguided tie to hi-stakes testing) ended up sabotaging the effort to implement something most educators actually agree on.

Tracking  It appears that the strategy of heterogeneous grouping of students, especially in the earlier grades, has benefits for all students.

Teacher and principal training   In Finland, for example, prospective teachers are required to spend a full year in the classroom, under the supervision of an experienced teacher. (A terrific example of which is the Penn State/SCASD Professional Development School.) In my mind there is no question that this should become a standard element of teacher training.

Parental involvement  The practice of “helicopter parents” is a particularly American phenomena, and not especially helpful. Better to create a supportive learning environment at home, encourage reading by opportunity and example, and engage your children in meaningful conversations. (when possible!)

Other observations:

In Finland, there is far less emphasis on standardized testing. They use it primarily as a way to examine school-wide performance (the original premise of NCLB, by the way) for the express purpose of determining which schools need additional resources. I highlight this point, because in the United States, we do exactly the opposite: we use the results of these tests to punish schools, by removing resources! Seems counter-productive, if you ask me. Also: because the goal is to measure school-wide performance, not individual students (there are better ways to do that) they use statistical sampling, because it’s really not necessary to test every student!

Possibly the most important difference between the United States and Finland is the level of respect accorded the teaching profession. It is not easy to get into a teaching school in Finland, and everyone knows it. (Note: this is not strictly about having a high GPA.)  As a result of the higher stature, teachers are better-paid (the community supports it), and they are given greater autonomy. (Unlike in the United States, where teachers, increasingly, have less autonomy.) The combination of better teacher training, higher expectations, and greater autonomy produces a virtuous cycle of teaching capacity.

It’s worth noting that Finland has both coherent national standards and greater teacher autonomy. The two are not mutually exclusive.

One last item: Ms. Ripley also spoke about the unique role of competitive sports in American education.  I think I’ll save that topic for another day.