The role of education in shaping Finnish society
According to the Ministry of Education in Finland (2017), the Finnish strengths of the Finnish educational system is the ability to successfully combine high-quality teaching with efficiency and equality. Finland is such a small country that we have long recognized how important it is to recognize and utilize the talents of all of the citizens. Maybe be due to this fact Finnish people appreciate and value education and science. We think that know-how is the core of Finnish society. According to the Ministry of Education Finland is a that stresses the importance of creativity in teaching and learning. To sum up, the key to success has been creativity, equality, and efficiency.
The idea of equal opportunities is at the core of Finnish society. Even the most radical right politicians think that education should free for all in Finland. This is something everyone seems to agree. That said, there are big disagreements on the content of the education and how it should be organized. People are particularly concerned about what is happening to equal opportunities in primary education. Today's school is guided by teaching that learning has to adapt to the same content is taught to everybody. According to Linturi & Rubin (2014b), what is really at the heart of the debate is the question of whether equality is similarity in received educations or equality of opportunities. "Similarity is typically seen as the opposite of the individual." The current solution used in schools when facing different learners is to increase resources. However, the solution is no longer possible in a world of dwindling resources. If students are given the opportunity to make more individual choices, some are concerned that it will lead to unequal cumulative development. "It seems to be a paradox: individual educational rights and equality of opportunity (at least seemingly) contradict each other." The key question is whether differences should be "normalized" or, in the case of talent, a positive attribute to be used in learning. Difference in learning connotates to deficits or inadequacies, which require more teaching resources to meet the norm”. At present, therefore, difference is seen as a problem that should be transformed into similarity. The contradiction between equality of opportunity and simultaneous support for talent is not easily resolved. One possible solution to this is to equalize the output of teaching instead of the outcome. If all would be learning the same amount at school, the starting level of the talented could be quite different from that of the less talented. If they both learned the same amount it would still be equal, but it would also support the talented. The need for personalization in teaching clearly poses many challenges to education when it comes to addressing the issue of equality, the changing needs of working life, the demands of general education and the opportunities for different learners to learn.
It seems likely that teaching will be more personalized in the future (Linturi (2014 ). However, there is some criticism, for example, there has been a lot of discussion about personalization in education in Futura magazine. Future researchers Linturi and Rubin (2014a, 2014b ) are concerned about how to maintain social equity while learning pathways become more diverse and personalized. They see one of the biggest challenges for future learning is how to personalize and liberate learning without losing the resources we have acquired through consistent, high-quality and equal education in Finland (Linturi et al. 2013 ). Personalizing brings about challenges with working life. It is a fair balance between being able to choose and meeting the requirements of the working life. If people can study what they want and choose with their passion it might not exactly match the needs of society.
Public funding plays an important role in guiding the educational system. If the government decides to fund research, measure for example the number of published articles, it is what the schools and universities will do. What you measure is what you will get. This is a very important topic as it is a strong driver of action. It is very important, therefore, to properly gauge the indicators so that they guide activity in the right way.
Linturi, Hannu & Rubin, Anita & Kekkonen, T. (2013): ”Kaksikymmentä vuotta tulevaisuutta takana: meemimutaatiota verkossa. Teoksessa Ammattikasvatuksen aikakauskirja 3/2013: Verkko-oppiminen ja uudet oppimisympäristöt.
The idea of equal opportunities is at the core of Finnish society. Even the most radical right politicians think that education should free for all in Finland. This is something everyone seems to agree. That said, there are big disagreements on the content of the education and how it should be organized. People are particularly concerned about what is happening to equal opportunities in primary education. Today's school is guided by teaching that learning has to adapt to the same content is taught to everybody. According to Linturi & Rubin (2014b), what is really at the heart of the debate is the question of whether equality is similarity in received educations or equality of opportunities. "Similarity is typically seen as the opposite of the individual." The current solution used in schools when facing different learners is to increase resources. However, the solution is no longer possible in a world of dwindling resources. If students are given the opportunity to make more individual choices, some are concerned that it will lead to unequal cumulative development. "It seems to be a paradox: individual educational rights and equality of opportunity (at least seemingly) contradict each other." The key question is whether differences should be "normalized" or, in the case of talent, a positive attribute to be used in learning. Difference in learning connotates to deficits or inadequacies, which require more teaching resources to meet the norm”. At present, therefore, difference is seen as a problem that should be transformed into similarity. The contradiction between equality of opportunity and simultaneous support for talent is not easily resolved. One possible solution to this is to equalize the output of teaching instead of the outcome. If all would be learning the same amount at school, the starting level of the talented could be quite different from that of the less talented. If they both learned the same amount it would still be equal, but it would also support the talented. The need for personalization in teaching clearly poses many challenges to education when it comes to addressing the issue of equality, the changing needs of working life, the demands of general education and the opportunities for different learners to learn.
It seems likely that teaching will be more personalized in the future (Linturi (2014 ). However, there is some criticism, for example, there has been a lot of discussion about personalization in education in Futura magazine. Future researchers Linturi and Rubin (2014a, 2014b ) are concerned about how to maintain social equity while learning pathways become more diverse and personalized. They see one of the biggest challenges for future learning is how to personalize and liberate learning without losing the resources we have acquired through consistent, high-quality and equal education in Finland (Linturi et al. 2013 ). Personalizing brings about challenges with working life. It is a fair balance between being able to choose and meeting the requirements of the working life. If people can study what they want and choose with their passion it might not exactly match the needs of society.
Public funding plays an important role in guiding the educational system. If the government decides to fund research, measure for example the number of published articles, it is what the schools and universities will do. What you measure is what you will get. This is a very important topic as it is a strong driver of action. It is very important, therefore, to properly gauge the indicators so that they guide activity in the right way.
References:
Opetus ja kulttuuriministeriö (2017): “Korkeakoulutus ja tutkimus 2030-luvulle: Taustamuistio korkeakoulutuksen ja tutkimuksen 2030-visiotyölle”
Linturi, Hannu & Rubin, Anita (2014): ”Oppiminen poluttuu ja personoituu”, Futura 3/2014, s. 19-28
Linturi, Hannu (2014): ”Uusintavasta uudistavaan oppimiseen”, Futura 3/2014, s. 3-6
Linturi, Hannu & Rubin, Anita (2014): ”Metodi, metafora ja tulevaisuuskartta”, Futura 3/2014, s. 7-18
Linturi, Hannu & Rubin, Anita (2014): ”Oppiminen poluttuu ja personoituu”, Futura 3/2014, s. 19-28
Kommentit
Lähetä kommentti