As someone who has always been skeptical of Finnish trends, I enjoyed hearing Daly talk as he writes. After all, as I wrote a long time ago, my visit to Helsinki “got me mostly thinking about why I have such little faith in the whole stifling international comparison industry.” I took notes:
Using PISA or TIMSS results to judge school quality (in Finland or elsewhere) uses NCLB-style tests to determine whether a school in an idyllic, leafy suburb is “better” than a school in a chaotic city rife with disrepair. It raises the same issues that lead to the conclusion. families. There is a lot going on, and only the foolhardy would claim it. [they know exactly what that is based on a testing snapshot].
But I can't take too much credit for foresight. Over the years, I've learned that it's a safe bet that the education reform craze will initially show promise but ultimately disappoint. Daly makes it clear that no one really knows what caused Finland's famous rise and sharp decline, but the general pattern is fairly typical. Whenever we find an initial result, we capture it and conclude that we have finally solved the problem. And then we discover that this is not always the case.
From teacher evaluations to school improvement grants, the appetite for education crazes in Finland and elsewhere stem from a thirst for promising concepts, models and programs rather than confidence that we have found the answer. Several years ago I found the analogy of the “stone pot” to be instructive when it comes to school improvement. Pilot efforts tend to enjoy committed leadership, philanthropic funding, expert support, contractual waivers, and teacher buy-in. Early results are promising. Enthusiastic imitators try to scale the “innovation” without any of that. It ends with disappointing results, onlookers lament the 'implementation issues', and everyone moves on to something new. Daly's Finnish attempt was, in parts, very convincing. Because it's very rare for anyone in education to stop a spin cycle long enough to do an autopsy.
The bottom line is that if you bet on the long-term success of a particular school reform or educational innovation, you will generally be right at least 80% of the time. Hell, if you could bet on something like this at a Vegas sportsbook, education skeptics would laugh all the way to the bank.
So the question that I think is important but often ignored is this. Given the track record, why is it so easy to find enthusiasts eager to jump on each new reform train?
Well, it turns out that even if the train goes off the tracks, you can get a lot of rewards if you jump, and very little if you refuse. Embracing the promise of something new means standing shoulder to shoulder with committed funders, suppliers, experts, schools and system leaders. this When we have time, we'll try to do it right.
TED talks and conference keynotes are filled with these pioneers and visionaries. Organizations and publications give awards to ‘innovators’, ‘difference makers’ and ‘teachable leaders’ rather than naysayers and skeptics. Keynote speakers and awardees receive acclaim, funding, and professional opportunities. And it doesn't really matter whether something new ultimately disappoints. By then, the festival had either become an established educational celebrity or had moved on to something new.
Oh, and do you remember the Finnish miracle marketing I mentioned earlier? That kind of thing wasn't unique to Finland. Dogs and ponies visiting trendy schools or pilot programs is a familiar ritual for educators, advocates and policymakers. And don't forget to check all the “announced” and “sponsored” tags in your favorite education publications and profiles of the leaders and change agents driving these efforts.