By JAMES K. FITZPATRICK
My guess is that many readers of this column find their hackles going up whenever someone in the education establishment advocates a reform. I know mine do. We have lived through too many fads that have come and gone — from the open classroom to team teaching to schools without walls to open book tests — to not be on guard. It may surprise some readers to learn that there are many teachers who react the same. There was a wisecrack that made the rounds in the public high school where I taught for about 30 years whenever an “innovative teaching technique” was proposed: “Nothing works, so they keep trying something new.”
But, while it is wise to be on the lookout for change for the sake of change, not every new idea is a bad idea. See what you think of the idea coming out of Finland, as described on the website Education News on March 28, in a column by Polymnia Hadjipanayiotou, a widely published writer on educational issues. Hadjipanayiotou writes that “Finland is leaving behind traditional subject teaching in schools in favor of topic teaching.”
What is “topic teaching”? School subjects such as math, history, and science won’t be taught distinctly and as separate courses of study. Instead, the line between subjects will become fluid as students are exposed to several subjects at once, in what Finnish educators call “phenomenon teaching.” Before examining in some detail what is being proposed in Finland, it should be noted that Finland consistently ranks among the top performers in academic achievement, with results similar to those in China and Singapore. The country is not frivolous when it comes to educational policy.
What is the rationale in Finland for this change? Writes Hadjipanayiotou, “Pasi Silander, Helsinki’s development manager, highlights that in a tech-driven society, the educational system must make the changes in education that are necessary for industry and modern society.” Finland’s Education Minister Pasi Sahlberg agrees, explaining, “The shakeup is not meant to make students expert exam-takers” but to teach them “how to learn.”
What does all this mean in practice? Hadjipanayiotou gives an example. Rather than taking a course in “French history,” Finnish students will study the “topic” of France, with the country’s “geology, climate, culture, and language” being covered along with the record of the country’s past.
Another example: “In terms of vocational training, students will have the chance to learn ‘cafeteria services’ as an interdisciplinary class that teaches math, communication, and writing skills.” To ease students and teachers into this new approach, a “co-teaching approach is implemented in which lesson planning is not done by a single teacher but together with other subject specialists.”
Is the new approach working? Hadjipanayiotou says yes, that “preliminary evidence suggests the new teaching model is paying off with Finnish students enjoying improved learning outcomes thanks to the multi-topic approach. Implementing an interdisciplinary approach to learning helps students understand the reason they’re learning something.” Finland hopes to have the new approach in place in all its schools by the year 2020.
So? Is it a good idea? I will reserve judgment, but welcome responses from our readers. At first glance, this Finnish proposal would not seem to involve any moral issues of concern to us as Catholics. It does not make any Rousseauvian assumptions about the “natural goodness of man.” It does not appear to challenge the traditional values of the Christian West in the manner of John Dewey’s progressivism. But perhaps readers of First Teachers will see implications that escape me. We welcome their responses.
No question, however, that the Finnish reform will place new demands upon classroom teachers. In the example offered by Hadjipanayiotou, French history, geology, climate, culture, and language will be taught to the same class of students. Should we see this as merely a more expansive approach to the concept of “team teaching” that was in vogue back in the 1970s? Or as something beyond that? Will it mean little more than that the geography, science, history, and language teachers will move from one class to another, rather than the students moving to them, as is now the case?
And how will Finnish educational authorities bring about the desired end of having students “understand the reason they’re learning something” any better by “teaching topics” rather than “subjects”? Would not wise and experienced individual teachers in their own disciplines be able to do the same, without the formal arrangement of an “interdisciplinary approach”? And why should we assume that the “co-teachers” the Finns are proposing, if they lack wisdom and knowledge of their subject matter, will do any better than teachers teaching their “subjects” as they currently do?
Perhaps we should permit the Finns to experiment for a decade or two with their “phenomenon teaching” before rushing to emulate them. We may be looking at change for the sake of change. We cannot assume that their phenomenon teaching will not go the same way as Charles Silberman’s “open classroom,” which we were assured was the answer to our education problems back in the 1970s.
I will never forget going to a teachers’ conference at a school that was built during the time when the experts told us that “classrooms without walls” was the wave of the future. The teachers at that school had broken up the massive open space that was meant to be the classroom without walls, with bookcases, room dividers, couches and anything else they could get their hands on to somehow re-create the feel of distinct classrooms in the cavernous space where the experts at the time told us eager young learners would be scurrying about searching for knowledge at their preferred “work stations” and with their choice of teachers.
The teachers I encountered at the school complained about how they could not teach in the racket caused by the six or seven classes separated by nothing but room dividers. The dividers prevented the students from seeing and fooling around with friends in the other classes, but they did not reach to the ceilings and could not keep the sounds — the lectures, the movie tracks, the dramatic readings, the musical scores being played in the other classes — from pouring throughout the room. The teachers told me that the open classroom concept lasted only a few years; that what sounded innovative and liberating in the schools of education was a nightmare in the real world.
But perhaps the Finnish experiment will prove to be a success. I repeat: Not every new idea is a bad idea. We will see.
+ + +
Readers are invited to submit comments and questions about this and other educational issues. The e-mail address for First Teachers is fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net, and the mailing address is P.O. Box 15, Wallingford CT 06492.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress