Finland Will Become the First Country in the World to Get Rid of All School Subjects

[nonsequitur]

I like it, because it gives students freedom to study what they want but otoh it might make things more complicated for the teachers; you can't be an expert in math, physics, history, geography all at once. I'm afraid this might make it less cohesive, though the intent is opposite. But it's an interesting idea.

This why the question of whether this will follow into tertiary ed is so crucial - at the level of high school what you learn is pretty general. I chucked out most of what I learned in high school, when I went to uni. For e.g, we learn at the uni level that what we were taught in high school chem actually isn't right but a throwback to simpler models that don't actually explain physical phenomena well. It's taught in high schools because it's development-appropriate and a good basis to build on for further understanding. So I don't know that the specialisation/expert question applies here.

It does seem it would be harder to mark and keep consistent standards.

Agreed, and from my understanding the reason why Finland can have a goal of full implementation by 2020 is because their system already de-emphasises grading. I'm not too familiar with how they do tertiary ed admissions, it would be good to hear from someone who knows.

I agree finding teachers to effectively teach in this manner could be the challenge, but otoh it could just be a bias I have here in the states, where teaching (pre college, that is) isn't the thing the smartest of people go into and the career that is really respected and valued (like it was historically). Whereas I am guessing it is a totally different story in Finland.

Yep Finnish teachers all have the equivalent of a masters, they're required to by law. From what I've read they're also given a lot of respect and autonomy in how to design their curriculum and run their classes and grades are specifically de-emphasized. Which is very strange to hear for someone raised in Asia.
Here, all teachers must have a Bachelor's but increasingly the shift is towards masters and up, particularly for grade 10-12. Right now, approx. 60% at that level have a masters. My friends in public teaching are leaving/have left for the private sector though - they say everything is about grades, they have to deal with too much administrative nonsense, and complain about having zero autonomy.

Technically this isn't new. Montessori schools have been doing this for quite a long time.

My cousin who does the international baccalaureate also tells me that this sounds similar-ish to that. They still have subjects for IB but it's more integrated and project-based. This is the first that I've heard of it becoming a school system though.

 

[nonsequitur]

Sorry for replying in separate quotes, I can't multi-quote across pages on my phone.

Specialization is the future.

I don't think they're talking about specialisation though? I think what they're going for is to use specific events/situations as a tool to learn different skills in what would be taught as a whole "subject", so the sacrifice is depth for breadth and integration.

It does sound interesting, but I'm a little uncertain about the value of "skills-based versus subject-based" learning and the potential for incredibly narrow specialization...which isn't necessarily a good thing, especially not in this era. Innovation often comes from combining or comparing disparate elements, from examining and incorporating ideas and elements from other subjects not necessarily part of your "specialty". Theoretically, you could go to someone who does specialize in that other element and talk to them, but is that really efficient and can it get similar results as colliding ideas and concepts in one's own mind? I think the increased specialization we see today is really rather sad, unfortunate if only for the individuals' sake. I'm rather partial to the polymathic, classical model of education, but I'm still willing to see how this method does.

Yes, I made reference to this above. As usual, the devil is in the details so it'll be interesting to see how this manifests as a curriculum. I think their aim here is to move away from specialisation towards problem-solving skills, e.g. Teach WWII history, face the problem of fighting off the enemy with existing resources at that time, learn math skills to try to work around it etc. That seems more real-world and general than existing approaches.

However, I do have some reservations and caveots about this propsal, mostly with the STEM disciplines. STEM fields are largely separated for a reason. At the basic levels, they each need to receive focused attention to learn the principles, fundementals and expand upon it. I feel like combining them into a larger group, or combining them into other areas (particularly the liberal arts) is a mistake. One exception to this is chemistry and biology. I have always felt that when it comes to high school, the order of which it should be taught is biology comes after chemistry. The reason for this is having a more intimate and detailed understanding of biology requires an understanding of chemistry. Without it, the knowledge of biology is more surface oriented and lacks depth and memory. I would be in support of chemistry and biology taught in tandem, but it would be difficult. I'm iffy on the mixing of math in with the liberal arts as it seems to be proposed in the article. The amount of math (particularly advanced math) is hard to envision being mixed in, and I feel like it would mask and dilute a true understanding of mathamatical principles. Ultimately, I think I would be ok if students could choose between different types of fused coursework, or choose focused subjects. Right now I also see an objection to this for those going to higher education. It follows a subject model (as it should) and I feel like this could short change student preparedness for that direction.

Heh I like talking to you on such matters because it seems that we have almost mirror experiences. I double-majored in chem and biochem before doing postgrad in biochem.. and my experience with life science students is that few can problem-solve when things go wrong because they lack basic chem skills. It's less of a problem in sub-fields like biophysics/structual biology (that have the problem of being overly theoretical) but omg immunology.. facepalms As you said, there's an over-emphasis on memorisation of stuff.. that is largely 10 years out of date. With the speed at which research moves, advances over 10 years in biology now is the equivalent of the last 150 years. That's not an exaggeration. On the other hand, the people I know in chem research need to learn how their research can be widely applied across fields - be it biology or engineering.
That's why the question of how to teach students to collaborate, problem-solve across disciplines and be adaptable is (imho) one of the biggest problems For the future.
I also disagree that STEM should be kept separate from the humanities. Part of the reason why I'm passionate about improving research in general and raising the bar in scientific communication/collaboration is because I did some subjects in history and philosophy of science that gave me a critical angle on what I was doing. The way that scientists teach science is very different from the way humanities people teach science - both are necessary to form a broader perspective.

Yes, that can be a flaw but there is just too much information these days. Therefore you can't rely on individual to do the job, what is why they will also teach them to cooperate. Since it is better that "not everyone knows everything but togather they know everything" than "everybody knows the same quarter of the stuff". These are the only options that are really on the table.

Yep. The information overload is really one reason why current teaching methods should be re-evaluated. We can't know everything and even experts are too over-specialised so a lot of potential is missed. It does take all types with different experiences and perspectives. There's also another aspect - technology, big data, AI and our ability to use/interact with it. Probably a bit hard for the high school level, but definitely another challenge in pedagogy.

 

[Yama]

Let's see how this translates into innovation, entrepreneurial risk taking, scientific advancement, etc. I do think it's necessary to teach a common history to create cultural cohesion but beyond that, I don't see much harm in trying a new method. The biggest difference between Finnish schools and American schools are the teachers. Here in the USA, we tolerate mediocre and bad teachers with the hope that they'll get better. In Finland, all teachers have advanced degrees (at least a masters) and the top achievers become teachers.

It's because we treat our teachers in America like shit and pay them almost nothing. You get what you pay for.

 

[á´…eparted]

Heh I like talking to you on such matters because it seems that we have almost mirror experiences. I double-majored in chem and biochem before doing postgrad in biochem.. and my experience with life science students is that few can problem-solve when things go wrong because they lack basic chem skills. It's less of a problem in sub-fields like biophysics/structual biology (that have the problem of being overly theoretical) but omg immunology.. facepalms As you said, there's an over-emphasis on memorisation of stuff.. that is largely 10 years out of date. With the speed at which research moves, advances over 10 years in biology now is the equivalent of the last 150 years. That's not an exaggeration. On the other hand, the people I know in chem research need to learn how their research can be widely applied across fields - be it biology or engineering.

That's why the question of how to teach students to collaborate, problem-solve across disciplines and be adaptable is (imho) one of the biggest problems For the future.

I also disagree that STEM should be kept separate from the humanities. Part of the reason why I'm passionate about improving research in general and raising the bar in scientific communication/collaboration is because I did some subjects in history and philosophy of science that gave me a critical angle on what I was doing. The way that scientists teach science is very different from the way humanities people teach science - both are necessary to form a broader perspective

Yeah it does sound like we have very similar backgrounds and outlooks on science . I just got a BS in chemistry, then went to grad school for a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry (ALMOST DONE). And yup, from teaching so many student struggle with problem solving. I teach ochem predominately, and so many students struggled with synthesis. Granted, I do understand that some student's won't get it. That's normal and it isn't for everyone. However a lot more than it should seem don't get it, and a lot of it comes down to them seemingly trying to force the information in their head. No it's about APPLYING, not trying to memorize. I warn my students day one "if you try to just memorize you will fail", and there is always a bunch that don't take me seriously and learn the hard way. I do think a lot of it comes from earlier education. There has become this mentality of cram, instead of learn. It's not one single issue but a diffuse one from excessive standarization, cookie cutter approach, lowering standards for those behind instead of lifting them up, and lack of motivation from teachers from terrible infrastructure.

Haha yes, I know very well that biologists can struggle because things are often a chemistry problem . A lot of it is the separation of research fields, which is starting to improve. The problem is a lot of scientists don't want to fuse, and they often don't understand what that means. My research groups is a wonderful example of how it's done. We do total synthesis, that's all we do. It's what we're good at. In the past several years though, we have started working more closely with pharmaceutical chemists, and computational chemists. But, it's more of the approach that we inform each other science, and align our goals. We all do our own thing but we're trying to solve a larger problem, and we learn things from each other, and each others fields along the way. THAT's what it needs to be, it's not like you'll lose sight of your science.

Hmm ok I see what you're saying. Part of the reason I am unsure is I see fusion as being too much of a distraction from learning the basics of chemistry in high school. I don't see how it would fit in easily without slowing down the tools. I'm trying to take the mindset of "the experts know how to do this", as it's the first I have ever really thought about this. I also live in an ivory tower from this stuff as I have never had much experience. That and I hate philosophy .

It's because we treat our teachers in America like shit and pay them almost nothing. You get what you pay for.

If it actually paid well, and has job stability, I would go into teaching with little hesitation.

 

[peter pettishrooms]

One of the few cases in which I think you should be required to study some humanities while being a STEM student is if you're going into research. You're going to be working alongside people of significantly different backgrounds. In order to work as a team, at least some basic knowledge about another culture is helpful to work out any cultural conflicts.

 

[nonsequitur]

Yeah it does sound like we have very similar backgrounds and outlooks on science . I just got a BS in chemistry, then went to grad school for a PhD in synthetic organic chemistry (ALMOST DONE). And yup, from teaching so many student struggle with problem solving. I teach ochem predominately, and so many students struggled with synthesis. Granted, I do understand that some student's won't get it. That's normal and it isn't for everyone. However a lot more than it should seem don't get it, and a lot of it comes down to them seemingly trying to force the information in their head. No it's about APPLYING, not trying to memorize. I warn my students day one "if you try to just memorize you will fail", and there is always a bunch that don't take me seriously and learn the hard way. I do think a lot of it comes from earlier education. There has become this mentality of cram, instead of learn. It's not one single issue but a diffuse one from excessive standarization, cookie cutter approach, lowering standards for those behind instead of lifting them up, and lack of motivation from teachers from terrible infrastructure.

Bolded: HANG IN THERE.

Absolutely, it's about application - that's what I loved the most about ochem . It's highly creative and requires a combination of understanding principles, trying different combinations/sequences and then coming up with strategy. What I also love about ochem: there's usually more than one way to solve a problem, and your imagination's the limit. That's part of what I like about this kind of approach to teaching - you learn to be flexible.

I envision for e.g. structuring a syllabus around chem, math, physics for a scenario involving wanting to set up solar panels for a house - Learn about electrochemistry/batteries, bit of org chem for alkenes, free-radicals and polymer chemistry to make panels, learn about solar cells/circuits and forces involved erecting them on the roof, do some calculus to figure out how fast batteries drain/how many panels need to be constructed to sustain daily usage of electricity and how long it'll take to be cost-effective. Then finish off with a discussion about existing solar policy and whether they think it's economically viable or what other improvements are needed to make it viable. I think students would find something like that pretty engaging.

Evaluation on how well material is applied/learned though - that would be quite hard. Unless the teacher keeps track of how students were learning day-on-day if they fell behind it would be difficult to catch up.

Haha yes, I know very well that biologists can struggle because things are often a chemistry problem . A lot of it is the separation of research fields, which is starting to improve. The problem is a lot of scientists don't want to fuse, and they often don't understand what that means. My research groups is a wonderful example of how it's done. We do total synthesis, that's all we do. It's what we're good at. In the past several years though, we have started working more closely with pharmaceutical chemists, and computational chemists. But, it's more of the approach that we inform each other science, and align our goals. We all do our own thing but we're trying to solve a larger problem, and we learn things from each other, and each others fields along the way. THAT's what it needs to be, it's not like you'll lose sight of your science.

#Notallbiologists

Your group sounds like a good mix of sticking to what you're good at and having a variety of collaborations. Personally I think my group's spread too thin - too many people doing completely different things - and is too insular. Not much outside input because my boss is paranoid about getting scooped.

Hmm ok I see what you're saying. Part of the reason I am unsure is I see fusion as being too much of a distraction from learning the basics of chemistry in high school. I don't see how it would fit in easily without slowing down the tools. I'm trying to take the mindset of "the experts know how to do this", as it's the first I have ever really thought about this. I also live in an ivory tower from this stuff as I have never had much experience. That and I hate philosophy .

Heh, probably not high school then. I see your point. But I do think that like medical students being forced to take ethics classes, STEM students should also take classes in writing/communication, history of science and how to identify common cognitive biases.

 

[Lord Lavender]

Personally I think that many school systems are more about standardized testing than actually teaching a diverse skill set. Life isn't all about going through rote memorization lessons then sitting standardized exams.. While I can see why exams are popular (Easier to have an objective assessment of students) they do not prepare students for adult and working life. After all 99% of students will not be using knowledge about Shakespeare once they set foot into the adult world.

 

[entropie]

Scandinavia is one of the leading innovative regions on a lot of things. Especially in the schooling sector, they tried a lot of genius and working concepts. They are discussing to forbid new combustion cars from 2030 on and the unconditional basic income. A wet dream country for every inventor

 

[Tellenbach]

It's because we treat our teachers in America like shit and pay them almost nothing. You get what you pay for.

This is more a problem of teachers' unions protecting bad teachers. This is a also a problem of lack of competition. If you privatize schools, you'll introduce competition and the bad teachers will stick out like a sore thumb and get fired.

 

[Yama]

This is more a problem of teachers' unions protecting bad teachers. This is a also a problem of lack of competition. If you privatize schools, you'll introduce competition and the bad teachers will stick out like a sore thumb and get fired.

My mom was an elementary school music teacher who worked 80 hours a week and when the school told her they wanted her to start teaching at every school in the district every week and she said no because that's way too much, she was fired.

 

[Tellenbach]

My mom was an elementary school music teacher who worked 80 hours a week and when the school told her they wanted her to start teaching at every school in the district every week and she said no because that's way too much, she was fired.

Music programs are being cut nation-wide; this too is a problem with public schools. Teachers get fired for violating school regulations, not for being terrible teachers. If a teacher leads a school prayer at a football game, he's fired, but if half his students fail to graduate, nothing happens.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

Love this thread [MENTION=5076]nonsequitur[/MENTION]!

I wholeheartedly endorse the 'experimentation' Finland is doing and it is similar to the approach I eventually want to garner support for here.


As other's mentioned, the International School System, Montessori & Waldorf systems, the Bill and Melinda Gates Schooling...have emulated this. So have other Scandinavian countries.


It's fascinating to learn about the approach that Iceland took when their economic sky fell in. Part of the response was to re-vamp education. Based on children's interests and skills.

In North America we have the false popular belief in Intellect. That everyone starts off on a level playing-field and can accomplish the same things and everyone is equally creative. Not true.

Because of this, we hold back children who do well, so they will get along socially with the other children.


It's bizarre because in the field of sports: children are allowed to progress as fast as their skills allow. And, they are encouraged to do so. Made into stars.

But, nurturing and encouraging specific intellectual or creative strengths isn't viewed in the same way.


When Iceland desperately needed to bring in money, they went back to the drawing board and started to emphasize culture, science, arts and technology in learning. They adapted courses to student's specific strengths and intellect. It's been hugely successful as a model.

 

[nonsequitur]

Personally I think that many school systems are more about standardized testing than actually teaching a diverse skill set. Life isn't all about going through rote memorization lessons then sitting standardized exams.. While I can see why exams are popular (Easier to have an objective assessment of students) they do not prepare students for adult and working life. After all 99% of students will not be using knowledge about Shakespeare once they set foot into the adult world.

While I do agree that memorisation and standardised testing is overdone, I also believe that Shakespeare, literature and the arts have value and a role in the modern world. That's a topic for a completely different thread though.

Scandinavia is one of the leading innovative regions on a lot of things. Especially in the schooling sector, they tried a lot of genius and working concepts. They are discussing to forbid new combustion cars from 2030 on and the unconditional basic income. A wet dream country for every inventor

Here are the rankings for the 2016 Global Innovation Index: Indicator Rankings & Analysis | Global Innovation Index
1) Switzerland
2) Sweden
3) UK
4) USA
5) Finland
6) Singapore
7) Ireland
8) Denmark
9) Netherlands
10) Germany
(Iceland 13th, Norway 22nd out of 128 countries)
Scandinavia certainly seems to do exceptionally well.

If you pull out the rankings for factors considered like education and R&D, Finland, Denmark and Sweden are all in the top 10. It really is impressive.

This is more a problem of teachers' unions protecting bad teachers. This is a also a problem of lack of competition. If you privatize schools, you'll introduce competition and the bad teachers will stick out like a sore thumb and get fired.

Actually, if you look at high-performing OECD nations/cities e.g. Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Finland, >95% of schools in these nations are public schools. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf Teacher's unions don't do much here because teachers are paid well - in Singapore teachers (postgrad ed diploma) start at $38-42k/annum. They also get a tonne of medical/dental/leave benefits.

There's huge variation between states even within the US - in the 2012 PISA rankings, Massachusetts would've ranked 16th for Math, 9th for Science and 6th for Reading at the international level. Florida would've been 41st, 38th and 26th - so I don't think it would be appropriate to draw conclusions on a national level.

My mom was an elementary school music teacher who worked 80 hours a week and when the school told her they wanted her to start teaching at every school in the district every week and she said no because that's way too much, she was fired.

Frustration. Burnout. Attrition. It's Time To Address The National Teacher Shortage : NPR Ed : NPR I remember reading this a while back.. Funding definitely seems to be a problem.

It's fascinating to learn about the approach that Iceland took when their economic sky fell in. Part of the response was to re-vamp education. Based on children's interests and skills.

When Iceland desperately needed to bring in money, they went back to the drawing board and started to emphasize culture, science, arts and technology in learning. They adapted courses to student's specific strengths and intellect. It's been hugely successful as a model.

Could you describe what the Iceland model is like please? I haven't heard much about it, but am always curious to learn about different systems.

 

[Cloudpatrol]

While I do agree that memorisation and standardised testing is overdone, I also believe that Shakespeare, literature and the arts have value and a role in the modern world. That's a topic for a completely different thread though.

Here are the rankings for the 2016 Global Innovation Index: Indicator Rankings & Analysis | Global Innovation Index
1) Switzerland
2) Sweden
3) UK
4) USA
5) Finland
6) Singapore
7) Ireland
8) Denmark
9) Netherlands
10) Germany
(Iceland 13th, Norway 22nd out of 128 countries)
Scandinavia certainly seems to do exceptionally well.

If you pull out the rankings for factors considered like education and R&D, Finland, Denmark and Sweden are all in the top 10. It really is impressive.


Actually, if you look at high-performing OECD nations/cities e.g. Shanghai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Finland, >95% of schools in these nations are public schools. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf Teacher's unions don't do much here because teachers are paid well - in Singapore teachers (postgrad ed diploma) start at $38-42k/annum. They also get a tonne of medical/dental/leave benefits.

There's huge variation between states even within the US - in the 2012 PISA rankings, Massachusetts would've ranked 16th for Math, 9th for Science and 6th for Reading at the international level. Florida would've been 41st, 38th and 26th - so I don't think it would be appropriate to draw conclusions on a national level.


Frustration. Burnout. Attrition. It's Time To Address The National Teacher Shortage : NPR Ed : NPR I remember reading this a while back.. Funding definitely seems to be a problem.


Could you describe what the Iceland model is like please? I haven't heard much about it, but am always curious to learn about different systems.

I will return with more Icelandic specifics.



Gonna drop a few pics here of what I observed on a kindergarten field trip when in Asia.

If we did things like this, I think so many more kids would have a passion for work. This was in a dental clinic but they do them for an entire variety of occupations/pursuits and the kids LOVE it.

 

[chubber]

discuss in groups... that means I'm dependent on the loud mouth that will always dominate the group and want to take charge and order people around. do I ever get a choice to be leader and organise, or is it who ever calls shot gun first?