Finland - How to form a reform

I had the chance to talk with a few of the people who created the modern education system in Finland, and they were gracious enough to share their experience and insights. I thought of looking deeper into the history of that educational reform, and write a book. I may do that yet. In the mean time, here are some thoughts. Some of the thoughts are taken from my conversations with Dr. Jaakko Itälä, Prof. Erkki Niskanen and Anneli Rusanen. Some other thoughts came from what I see around me. No warranty is implied.

A few steps:

Organize

There must be a wide acceptance of the fact that there needs to be a reform, and then the widest possible acceptance of the specifics. On the grassroots level, there is no need to convince people is most countries that there is an urgent need for a reform. The problem is that often education is not the place where power is acquired or displayed, so politicians are not sure of the need for reform. One way to bring the message from the masses to the leaders is to create a citizens organization - a voluntary association - dedicated to education. This association should not be closely affiliated with a particular political party, to avoid becoming a target for attacks. It should be a society of active reformers, affiliated with universities and relevant institutions. It can't hurt much if the association has in it insiders in many political parties.

Get the support of state-level politicians

The association should approach the parliament - one parliament member at a time, and get their support. Again, it is important to avoid partisanship, and to gain the support of parliamentarians from all parties, otherwise, the issue of education becomes a point of contention.

Get the support of local governments

Local governments - municipalities and such - are a key player in education. They are closer to the grassroots and feel the needs more directly. I.e., they know many of the voters personally and are more directly accountable than the state-level politicians. The issue of education being dear to many voters, elected officials such as mayors stand to benefit: The voters are happy with the improvement in education, and they are happy with the rise in real-estate value that comes with it. A local investment or other action by the local governments can create an immediate impact visible to their public, whereas a national action takes more time to show. Also, the local officials usually live locally, so any improvement in the education system will directly affect their own children and grandchildren, which is a very positive motivation. Most directly important, though, is the fact that to get anything done in the field of education, one needs either the active or passive support of the municipality. Building a school, splitting a school, redistributing students among schools, etc - all such efforts can fizzle out if the local government officials have a reason to object. The same efforts can be pushed to success thanks to the participation - and sometimes leadership - of these officials.

Build from the bottom up

The reformers and experts in the association can plan the types of schools and school activities the reform envisions. This can be combined with a public discussion, which itself will further the dynamic towards reform.

Create and run experimental schools according to those plans. Starting with a few schools in a few localities and building up the numbers. Creating a reality with which the national government will have to catch up.

Build from the top down

Plan and create the administrative and legal infrastructure for the reformed system, with a holistic approach - building each part as an aspect of the whole, and not as an independent issue: Curriculum setting; Financing; Testing and measurement; Teacher Education; Types of schools; Connection between K12 and higher education; Adult education and training; Research; Policy making. Nobody can expect to create such a complex system right the first time, but with iterative effort - there is a chance of creating a viable system. Since the system is by now formally defined, data about its current status is available through the Finnish education ministry.

Keep all stakeholders interested

Build a healthy balance of responsibility and authority.

The state is responsible for the long term educational health of the population, for a certain level of equality, for the future national economic strength etc. The state should have a say about what and how to teach. Maybe by creating a core curriculum, and guiding the education system as a whole.

Municipalities and local governments are responsible to their constituents for similar tasks, but on a smaller scale, and usually a shorter scope of time. While the state can plan for s short eternity, a municipality is often interested just in one or two decades. Local government need to have some control over the type of professional training available within their area. State financing of the municipality can be a tool for providing some independence to the municipality, as well as a tool for equalizing opportunities within the nation, by providing more financing to weaker localities.

Schools have a responsibility to the students and parents. Schools should have some choice in what and how to teach.

Individual teachers have a responsibility to the students. The teachers should be able to decide how to teach, and what to emphasize.

And wouldn't it be nice if the students considered themselves as responsible stakeholders rather than passive denizens (or victims) of the system? This can be promoted by giving the students some choice about what and when to study.

This is layered approach, distributing authority among all parties. This way, instead of concentrating on survival and not being noticed, everybody's personal sense of responsibility and creativity can become dominant. Sounds like a good thing.

Maintain

Society is a living creature, and so is every single aspect of society, such as education. If we create a perfect system and let it stay the same, soon enough society will change, and the system will be less and less perfect for the changing society. Even worse, a social system left alone doesn't really stay the same; it goes its own way according to market forces and political forces, which have very little to do with the goals of the system. So, as far as the goals are concerned, left to its own devices, the system will deteriorate.
The goal is to create a self-correcting system, able to cope with all possible ways it may tend to deteriorate. A formal system that predictably deals with all unpredictable scenarios is a contradiction in terms. But an adapting system with some flexibility may do the trick.
A few mechanisms can work together:

• Revision of the curriculum once in a while - maybe once a decade - can help keep up with a fast changing world and prevent the education system concentrating on the obsolete
• Paths for knowledge transfer from the ground up can ensure the policymakers aren't becoming too theoretical and disconnected from reality


• Paths for knowledge transfer from the top to the field can ensure the teachers are up to date with the right curriculum and best practices


• An active lookout for new ideas inside the system, in academia, and in other countries can decrease the chance of stagnation


• Ongoing research into subject matters, teaching methods and social trends can be used to update teachers education and the system in general. This can be used to check some of the new ideas found by the lookout mentioned above, and avoid a Brownian motion of random changes based on whims rather than understanding


• The governing laws and the professional culture should ensure that authority won't drift towards the center, which is a danger if the source of finance remains at the national level

The above is a good first step. Now all you need to do is work very hard for a generation or two, and you get a working national education system.