International Comparisons in Education: the Finnish Model

International comparisons in education can be used as a baseline to see how a country is doing in comparison with education systems across countries. Performance analyses are essential when looking to inform or modify existing policies. In this research, I compare the educational system of the United States with that of Finland. My research consists of an in -depth literature review, as well as a mixed method study utilizing a survey and interview of four participants in different areas of the education field.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS IN EDUCATION: THE FINNISH MODEL by Samantha E. Laubacher A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Science In Elementary Education Approved: ______________________________ Mary D. Burbank Thesis Faculty Supervisor _____________________________ Mary D. Burbank, Assistant Dean, Director Urban Institute for Teacher Education College of Education _______________________________ Mary D. Burbank Honors Faculty Advisor _____________________________ Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Dean, Honors College August 2016 Copyright © 2016 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT International comparisons in education can be used as a baseline to see how a country is doing in comparison with education systems across countries. Performance analyses are essential when looking to inform or modify existing policies. In this research, I compare the educational system of the United States with that of Finland. My research consists of an in-depth literature review, as well as a mixed method study utilizing a survey and interview of four participants in different areas of the education field. Keywords: international comparison, Finland, United States ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 16 DISCUSSION 28 REFERENCES 36 APPENDIX 40 iii INTRODUCTION What is the Purpose of Education? The purpose of public education in the United States has been long-debated and is ever changing and adapting in order to fit societal needs. Central to the purpose of education is perhaps as Dewey wrote (1934) that education “has always been to everyone, in essence, the same - to give the young the things they need in order to develop in an orderly, sequential way into members of society (Dewey, 1934).” Though it is incredibly difficult to pinpoint an exact purpose for education, there are definitely common themes in the research where the purpose of school is to provide preparation for work, life, and citizenship. How these goals are manifested varies in depth and focus. Many believe that education should prepare students for the workforce, to teach them to contribute to the economy and to prepare them for competition in a global economy (Jones, 2012; Strauss, 2015). Others profess education as the mechanism for teaching students how to behave socially and to be good citizens—to prepare them for life (Jones, 2012; Strauss, 2015). Finally, a third opinion is to develop intellect and to teach students how to learn, to develop critical thinking skills, and to teach by hands-on practice (Jones, 2012). To further an understanding of the purposes of school, Jones (2012) adds that education is ever changing. Jones (2012) notes, “Individuals are valued for their unique contributions and their ability to think creatively, take initiative and incorporate a global perspective into their decisions.” Additionally, contemporary media adds another lens stating that the majority of parents, students, educators, and legislators would agree that the aim of education in the 21 century is to prepare students for work, life, and st citizenship (Strauss, 2015). Why Should We Compare Internationally? In order to improve the American educational system, it is helpful to examine other countries as a means for comparison. In an article on international comparison, Olson (2006) argues that the U.S. is ‘losing global ground’ as international test scores slip and other countries catch up and even exceed the United States. He goes on to report that United States elementary students perform reasonably well on international achievement tests, but by the time they reach high school they are performing in the middle of the pack or even at the lowest achievement levels (Olson, 2006). Since other countries, including: Finland, South Korea, Netherlands, and Japan are topping the charts on measures designed to rank performance, analyses of these others’ performance will prove insightful. Olson (2006) suggests the United States should look to others when deciding what to do in order to improve education on the home front. International comparisons of educational performance provide data trends on how students perform on designated measures. Several agencies examine international education performance data. These agencies include but are not limited to the National Center for Education and Statistics, an arm of the U.S. Department of Education, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Each of these agencies uses the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) test results as their primary data source. Administered by the OECD, the assessment process provides a range of stakeholders with performance outcome data. 2 Comparison through International Agency The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an international agency constructed of 34 different countries around the globe. Membership includes most of the world’s most advanced countries, but also includes several developing countries. The OECD website (2015) reports their primary goal as their mission statement: The mission of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is to promote policies that will improve the economic and social wellbeing of people around the world…We compare how different countries’ school systems are readying their young people for modern life (OECD, 2015). The OECD’s priority is to gather and use data to inform the policies that work for economic development. The OECD meets this goal by first gathering data in a wide range of areas, analyzing said data, discussing results, making decisions, implementing ideas, and then the countries complete peer reviews of other countries. The OECD is funded by each of its 34 contributing countries in increments that are based on each nation’s economy. Therefore, the U.S. finances the largest portion, followed by Japan (OECD, 2015). For the purposes of this paper, I have chosen to use the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development as my primary source for international comparison largely because of the statistical data provided to us by their international exam (PISA). The OECD is a trusted source, since data published comes from the combination of all 34 countries and because the countries work together to peer review 3 each other. Data gathered from the OECD’s exam shows that the United States is not keeping up with other countries The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) exam assesses 15-yearold students all over the world. The goal of PISA is to determine what students know, and what they are able to do with what they know. I have also chosen this source and exam because it assesses students from over 60 different countries in a wide range of content areas: math, reading, science, and problem solving. The exam predominantly focuses on both students’ knowledge and how well they can apply that knowledge. The results of this exam provide very valuable information about the educational systems of different countries and show “what students in the highest-performing and most rapidly improving education systems can do (“PISA 2012 Results in Focus,” 2012).” Finally, the test itself is designed to be used by policy makers around the globe to “gauge the knowledge and skills of students in their own countries in comparison with those in other countries, set policy targets against measurable goals achieved by other education systems, and learn from policies and practices applied elsewhere (“PISA 2012 Results in Focus,” 2012).” Is the United States Falling Behind? Data from the 2003 PISA exam are part of what fueled Olson’s stance that the United States is ‘losing global ground’ (Olson, 2006). However, the United States was still not making improvements nine years later. In 2012 students from 65 countries completed the PISA exam. These students represent over 80% of the world’s economies (“PISA 2012 Results in Focus,” 2012). These worldwide test scores demonstrated that the United States ranked 27th overall, scoring 17th in reading, 20th in science, and 26th in 4 math (“Results from PISA 2012: United States,” 2012). The U.S. performed below average in mathematics, but was near the OECD average in reading and in science. An important signal provided by the PISA scores is that over the last few decades, other countries’ students’ performance has been on the rise. These other countries have seen continuing success while the United States has remained mainly stagnant. In mathematics in particular, slightly over 25% of students do not even reach the PISA baseline of level 2 (out of 6 levels), which means that one-fourth of US students are below proficiency in math. This percentage of students falling short of the baseline is higher than the OECD average, and this pattern has not changed since 2003. In addition, the U.S. has a below-average share of top performers (“Results from PISA 2012: United States,” 2012). Overall, PISA reports that, “The trend data show no significant changes in the average performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in the mathematics, reading and science over time (“Results from PISA 2012: United States,” 2012).” Another notable finding in these U.S. scores is the gap between students with the highest socio-economic background and the lowest socio-economic background, which is 98 points. This is just over the OECD average of 96 points, which shows that the United States may not be providing all of its students with equal access to a high-quality education (OECD, 2015). Using the evidence provided by the PISA exam it is clear that the United States is not topping the charts in education within the context of a competitive world economy. As such it is incredibly important that we prepare our students by giving them the best education possible. While a singular measure of performance, the PISA data are still 5 important. United States’ educators and policy makers are encouraged to use international comparison data to inform educational policies in the United States. In addition to the PISA data, OECD provides a resource called the Better Life Index, which looks at some of the factors that make a difference in a person’s well-being. This tool compares each of OECD’s 34 countries in several areas, including: education, environment, housing, health, etc. In education overall, the United States is ranked 19 th out of 34—these rankings are based on three indicators: student skills (determined by the PISA), years spent in education, and educational attainment (OECD, 2015). The Finland Phenomenon The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Better Life index ranks Finland as the top country for education due to their overall third place in PISA scores, an above average graduation rate, and an average 19.68 years per person spent in school (OECD, 2015). Perhaps even more remarkable is that there is little difference in Finnish students’ scores. The between-school variance on the PISA reading scale for Finland is only 6%, compared to 23% in the United States (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 63). This very small difference between Finnish schools shows that Finland has been able to handle inequalities extremely successfully—and provide a high-quality education to every student. It has not always been this way though; Finland underwent a huge educational transformation as a part of their post-World War II economic recovery plan. In 1950, before these changes took place, Finns access to education was very limited. Only 27% of Finnish 11-year-olds continued on to grammar schools or any sort of further education (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 20). Finnish education really took off in the late 1960s and 6 70s with the birth of peruskoulu the ‘new school’. Central to the new school philosophy is a culture of trust where everyone is capable of learning (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 27). Within the Finnish system, every student has access to a free, high-quality education regardless of ability level or socioeconomic status, and they all go to the same schools. This new school was a 9-year (as opposed to the previous 4-year) compulsory basic school, followed by either general upper secondary school or vocational school (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 25). In addition to making high-quality education more accessible, as well as changing the theme and feeling of school, reform during the 1970s also brought about a new national curriculum, supplied career and life counseling that influenced young Finns’ attitudes of further education, and increased the quality of teachers. Currently, approximately 50% of students completing basic education continue on to general upper secondary school, and 45% continue to vocational school or apprenticeship training. Both of these educational routes are equally valued. Students can switch between these schools and approximately 60% of students move on to either universities or polytechnics once they are around 20 years old. The rest often begin work experience or training on further vocational qualifications (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 25). Another major change in the Finnish reform was the quality of their teachers. The changes in “quality,” meaning more strenuous teacher education programs affecting the overall performance of educators, also transformed the Finnish people’s opinions on education and changed the system in a way that maintained the challenging aspects of school while simultaneously making it a more enjoyable environment. 7 Since Finland is ranked first in the OECD’s Better Life Index for education and has made such a drastic improvement in a relatively short time, it may be helpful for the United States to look at Finland’s educational system when forming policies to improve their own. Information gleaned may provide insights into comparable practices in the U.S. In order to compare the education systems of these two countries, I will look specifically at three main aspects of school: teacher quality, student experiences, and assessment. These areas are designed to provide a more holistic understanding of the factors that contribute to U.S. public education. Teacher Quality A 2015 Phi Delta Kappan Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes toward the Public Schools is a survey taken annually; findings reported over 3,000 Americans aged 18 and older participated. In addition to topics of testing, the common core, and charter schools, the survey also captures respondents’ perceptions of their local schools. Regarding areas in need of improvements, those completing the survey ranked several ideas in order of importance including: expectations, teacher quality, effectiveness of principal, amount of money schools have to spend, and using tests as a measure of what students have learned. Teacher quality was ranked as the number one factor in improving the quality of public schools (PDK, 2015). With teacher quality being so essential to education, it is worthwhile to examine the factors that go into making a good teacher. Conditions of Teachers’ Work One major difference between teachers in the United States and Finland is the amount of time spent in the classroom with students. As compared to 26.8 hours in the United States, Finnish educators spend only about 20.6 hours per week teaching. In a 8 study completed by Central Washington University (2015), researchers found that Washington teachers spent approximately 72.9% of the school day on direct instruction. Study data also showed that even though teachers’ contracted time was 7.5 hours per day, teachers were spending upwards of 9 hours per day at school working to plan instructional activities, meet in professional learning communities, and complete various other duties (DePaepe, Matthews, Mathias, 2015). In contrast, Finland works these activities into the teacher’s ordinary work day. In Finland it is very rare to find a teacher lecturing the entire school day. Instruction and learning experiences are much more student-centered. Within classrooms, students are engaged in an activity and working with their peers. Much of a teacher’s workday in Finland is spent on professional development, curriculum development, or school improvement projects (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 89-91). In a CNN opinion article written by Pasi Sahlberg (2014), Sahlberg gives more information about how Finnish educators spend their day: According to the most recent data provided by the OECD the average teaching load of junior high school teachers in Finland is about half what it is in the United States. That enables teachers to build professional networks, share ideas and best practices. This is an important condition to enhancing teaching quality (Sahlberg, 2014). A 2007 study by McKinsey & Co. of the world’s best school systems addressed the issue that teachers generally work alone, in contrast with different professions. Working alone denies teachers “natural opportunities to learn from each other.” Schools who encourage and require professional learning communities as well as other chances 9 for collaboration produces “an environment which stimulates the sharing of knowledge on what works and what does not, encourages teachers to give each other feedback, and helps shape a common aspiration and motivation for improving the quality of instruction (McKinsey & Co., 2007).” Teacher Preparation Programs Every teacher in Finland is required to have a research-based master’s degree. With Finland’s high value on literacy and education, becoming a teacher in Finland is a very popular profession; because of this, teacher education programs can be very selective. Though there are almost 9000 applicants to primary school teacher education programs, slightly less than 1000 are accepted. Because the process for selection into teacher preparation programs is competitive, the profession is viewed with high esteem. In Finland, the teaching profession is viewed with the same level of recognition as doctors and lawyers (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 101). These teachers are chosen based on their performance on a written exam and grades, but even more than that they are chosen for having positive personalities, interpersonal skills, and a dedication and strong desire to teach (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 103). Student Experiences Children in Finland do not start school until they are seven years old. Before this time, children spend their time involved in play—either at home or in early childhood education programs and preschool. At age 6, students may attend an optional pre-primary school, and 96% of students do ("Finnish Education in a Nutshell", 2012). In the United States children start compulsory schooling at age 5 with kindergarten, but many begin school even earlier than that. In 2013, 42% of 3-yr-olds and 68% of 4-yr-olds 10 were enrolled in preprimary programs (NCES, 2016). In contrast with the academic early childhood curriculum of the U.S., early childhood curriculum in Finland centers around three main concepts: enhancing child well-being, increasing autonomy, and teaching students respectful interpersonal behaviors. These practices continue all throughout basic education (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 52) A typical elementary school day in Finland is between 4-5 hours compared with a typical day of 7 hours in the United States. Finnish students have an average of 75 minutes of recess per day, while in the U.S. students have about 27 minutes of recess (Taylor, 2011). Physical activity is incredibly valuable for children. It gets the wiggles out and allows them to focus in the classroom. “School-age youth should participate daily in 60 minutes or more of moderate to vigorous physical activity that is developmentally appropriate, enjoyable, and involves a variety of activities (Strong et al., 2005).” Special Education Finland focuses on identifying and providing intervention as early as possible, made easy by their universal close monitoring of both mental and physical development for every child (regardless of wealth). Early intervention has been proven to help children with developmental delays, special needs, or other concerns by enhancing their development and laying a foundation that lasts for the rest of their life, opening up more opportunities to them. In addition to being beneficial for the child, early intervention also provides parents and families with the supports that they may need (TEIS Inc., 2016). Since Finnish classrooms feature a wide range of backgrounds and abilities, primary teachers and special education teachers work to notice students who may need extra help and begin that help early on in their education. As soon as problems are identified, 11 students are immediately supplied with interventions and assistance, while remaining in their regular classroom (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 66) ("Finnish Education in a Nutshell", 2012).” United States law states that schools have sixty days from when they receive parental consent to test the child and meet with an IEP team (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004). However, the timeline can vary greatly from the moment that a teacher begins to suspect that there is an issue to the time that the student is placed on an IEP or is considered 504 eligible. Before even asking parents for consent to test, teachers must try different approaches and collect data as part of Tier 2 of the Response to Intervention (RTI) method. Response to intervention (RTI) is a process used by educators in order to support students who may have behavior or learning problems. Tier 2 describes targeted interventions put in motion by general education teachers that are tailored to fit the student either individually or in a small group. If the student is still not making progress with Tier 2 interventions, then teachers may ask for consent to test for a learning disability or other issue which may require the student to move to Tier 3 Intensive Interventions and Comprehensive Evaluation (RTI Action Network, 2016). If Finnish students are not placed on and labeled by an IEP or 504 eligible, they just receive the help that they need. This extra help in Finnish classrooms is so common that by the time students leave compulsory schooling at about age 16, almost half of Finns have received some sort of special education or personalized help (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 14). Because of this, there is virtually no stigma associated with special education and the nation is able to more easily prioritize giving students the assistance that they need to reach their educational goals. 12 Student Assessment The Finns’ grading process is much more relaxed than that of the United States. Even once children start compulsory schooling, students still do not receive formal grades until they are in the fourth grade. This is because the country has worked to remove any structural elements that cause student failure. Students are evaluated every six to seven weeks at the end of each period, totaling around five or six assessments per year. Finnish assessment uses primarily formative methods (“Finnish Education in a Nutshell,” 2012). Formative assessment measures were initially defined by Benjamin Bloom as “the use of systematic evaluation in the process of curriculum construction, teaching, and learning for the purpose of improving any of these three processes (Bloom et al. 1971).” Much of this assessment process is continuous and is designed to guide further instruction. American teachers use a variety of assessment methods on an everyday basis in the classroom. These methods include both formative and summative (final, cumulative) measures. However, Americans place a much higher value on standardized tests (a summative measure) than the Finnish, who do not take these tests. Sharing information with families includes contacts with families. Once a year, Finland’s teachers send reports home based on a child’s performance on the objectives written into their curriculum (“Finnish Education in a Nutshell”, 2012). “On the basis of this assessment pupils will be selected for further studies. Therefore, the national core curriculum contains assessment guidelines in all common subjects (“Finnish Education in a Nutshell,” 2012).” Finland also emphasizes students’ ability to self-assess. The reasoning behind both metacognition courses and self-assessment is to teach self-knowledge and study 13 skills. These developments help students to be more aware of their learning processes (“Finnish Education in a Nutshell,” 2012). In these early/formative years of compulsory schooling (approximately first to third grade), the grading of students is focused on metacognition and learning how to learn. In these primary grades, there are also ethics courses. These students do not take tests or do homework until they are well into their teens (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 31) (Taylor, 2011). Curriculum Finland’s National Curriculum for the Comprehensive School, developed during their education reform, provided guidelines and organized what all schools should be teaching. However, this system left much of the instructional decisions up to individual schools and teachers. Teachers are trusted to use tools provided by the National Curriculum to design and differentiate their instruction based on their own students’ abilities and personalities (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 22). This is especially important since all students go to the same schools. This homogeneity means teachers have a diverse group of students—coming from different backgrounds, having different ability levels, etc. Being in a diverse classroom only enhances the National Curriculum, as students are in classrooms with dissimilar peers and are in turn opened to new ways of thinking. The United States core curriculum provides guidelines for concepts that students need to learn in language arts and mathematics. These standards tell what students need to learn, but don’t tell teachers how to teach. In contrast to Finland, these standards are more specific and are further specified by individual states. There is less freedom for teachers to choose what to teach within the curriculum, and textbooks are chosen on a 14 district wide basis instead of by teachers (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2016). In addition to regular content areas, Finnish students as young as 13 years old can spend up to 2 hours a week with a career guidance counselor, which prepares them to make decisions about their future. Guidance counselors talk to these lower-secondary schoolers about upper secondary schools and vocational schools. These discussions often motivate students to stay on track and reach their desired goals (Sahlberg, 2015, pg. 30). Education in Finland is strongly centered on the whole child and on creating wellrounded citizens. Especially in the early education years (but continued throughout basic schooling), Finns work towards creating happy and responsible children. Finnish education prioritizes music, arts, crafts, social studies, and life skills at the same level as they do math, reading, and science; and Finnish students spend time outside everyday (Sahlberg, 2014, pg. 47). In the U.S. a study completed by the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) showed that during a typical 32 hour school week, students in public schools grades 1-4 were spending a total of 10.8 hours on reading and language arts and 5.2 hours spent on mathematics (NCES, 1997). This leaves little time for other subject areas which may work to create a more well-rounded child, for example science, art, social studies, or physical education. Assessment Perhaps one of the largest differences between education in America and Finland is the value placed on standardized tests. In Finland, students do not take a single standardized test until their end of upper-secondary education matriculation exam used for placement in universities ("Finnish Education in a Nutshell", 2012).” Because they do 15 not take these exams, Finland’s teachers are not evaluated using their students’ test scores; underscoring the culture of trust in the Finnish school system. In most countries surveyed by the OECD, using student test scores as a form of teacher evaluation is a common practice. However, none of these nations use them as heavily as the United States (Walker, 2013). Though teacher quality is incredibly important, there are other ways to combat the problem. In order to improve educational systems Finland took the route of increasing teacher preparedness, providing every student with access to highquality education (regardless of wealth or cultural factors), and trusting teachers as welleducated professionals to interpret the National Curriculum and personalize it for their students. Finnish teachers also spend much of their time during the day meeting with colleagues, and are very familiar with the ways that their peers teach. This awareness creates a sense of shared accountability for student outcomes. In contrast, the United States has taken to a route of increasing standardized testing, holding teachers accountable for student scores, and placing pressure on schools and students (Sahlberg, 2015, pg 126). Methods Introduction of Study Method and Participants This mixed methods study consists of both quantitative and qualitative data, gathered in the form of a survey and interviews. The survey was sent to four participants: a University Administrator, a High School Administrator, a University Policy Administrator, and a State Mathematics Specialist. Responses were analyzed using simple descriptive statistics. Interviews were held with the same people, and questions varied slightly between participants. Qualitative data consists of both interview responses 16 and several open-ended survey questions. Because there were very few participants in this study, the generalizability of this study is limited. However, findings do provide profiles of educators’ perspective on issues on international education. All questions (both survey and interview) fall into three categories: profession, assessment, and students. Qualitative and quantitative data will be presented together based on these categories. The quantitative data consisted of a survey asking 7 questions using a combination of multiple choice with a single answer, multiple choice with multiple answers accepted, and questions using a Likert rating scale. There were several openended response questions, which are included in the qualitative data. Participants were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with several statements on a scale of 5 points: strongly agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree. In addition, one question asked participants to use a 5 point scale to rank the accuracy of common student assessment methods: extremely accurately, very accurately, moderately accurately, slightly accurately, not accurately at all. The questions asked about the purpose of schools; factors that determine the quality of a K-12 teacher; teacher evaluation practices; problems facing teachers; factors that affect student performance in school; accuracy of student assessment methods; and speculations on international comparisons. The question on international comparisons utilized Table 1. The full survey is located in the Appendix. Profession Interview questions asked participants to rate the importance of comparing education systems and how educators should interpret findings. The most common 17 response (occurring from all four participants) was that we need to be able to learn from other countries and think globally. It was further stressed that we should use these means of comparison as a baseline to see how we are doing as a country, educationally, and where we may be able to improve. Respondents also reported that communities need to consider that the contexts are different and that we cannot simply copy and paste policies that work abroad and expect them to work in the United States. Participants noted that these policies must be modified and adapted to work for the U.S. In a survey question asking participants about the primary purpose of school, the most common (i.e., 75%) possible answer was to teach problem solving and critical thinking skills. Other open-ended survey responses included teaching citizenship, preparing for career, fostering creativity, and levelling the playing field for all by reducing opportunity gaps. I asked one participant the same question in her interview. She emphasized that the purpose of school is for students to grow, discover what they want to do, and to allow them to thrive intellectually, physically, and emotionally (Inperson interview, May 19, 2016). Another survey question asked participants to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with the following factors that influence K-12 teacher quality: years of experience, number of endorsement specializations, level of education attained (e.g., Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, etc.), number of leadership roles held, personality/desire to be a teacher, other- please specify. Results were split as two participants either agreed or strongly agreed that teacher quality is affected by the number of years of experience, and two participants neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Respondents had different ideas on how endorsement specializations affect 18 quality, two agreed with the statement while one disagreed and one neither agreed nor disagreed. Findings showed that two either agreed or strongly agreed that the level of education attained (e.g., Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, etc.) played a role, while two neither agreed nor disagreed. Three participants agreed while one neither agreed nor disagreed that the number of leadership roles held by a teacher impacted their quality. Following along closely with current research (PDK, 2015; Paine & Schleicher, 2011), all four participants either agreed or strongly agreed that a teacher's personality or desire to teach played a role in the quality of that teacher. In open ended responses, participants suggested that other factors affecting teacher quality included the teacher's ability to learn, reflect, and collaborate, as well as their understanding of learning and motivation, content mastery, and pedagogy. The school's leadership and climate are also thought to play a role in the quality of that school’s teachers. When speculating on how K-12 teachers should be evaluated, all four participants agreed that teachers' self-assessments should be considered. Three participants agreed that student surveys and both planned and drop-in classroom observations should be counted. Two believed that lesson plan reviews and parent surveys should play a role, while only one participant thought that students' scores on standardized tests should be included. In an open-ended survey question, participants were asked to share their views on the most significant problem facing American teachers. A state mathematics specialist reported that teachers have a lot going on both in the classroom and among administration and are unable to focus on teaching. In her interview (phone interview, 19 May 16, 2016), she expanded on this by pointing out that teachers have so many different people or groups of people telling them what to do. For example, researchers and administrators are constantly developing new ways to teach subjects or coming up with new classroom management techniques and teachers can become overwhelmed by trying to balance all of these ideas in the classroom. She adds that even using the common RTI multi-tiered system of support is a lot for teachers to manage and plan. Another problem that American teachers face is public perception towards teaching. A university administrator explained (In-person interview, May 19, 2016) that many people have the viewpoint that anyone can teach and the overall status held by teachers is not good. Teaching is also historically tied to women and the pay is considered a second but not primary income. Study findings from Mcgraw-Hill Research Foundation (2011) report that: International comparisons show that in the countries with the highest performance, teachers are typically paid better relative to others, education credentials are valued more, and a higher share of educational spending is devoted to instructional services than is the case in the United States. Teaching in the U.S. is unfortunately no longer a high-status occupation. Additional reports from the National Education Association (2005) discovered that nearly 50 percent of new teachers in urban districts leave the profession within their first five years due to poor working conditions and low pay (NEA, 2005). The status of teaching as a profession does play a role in improving education, but raising payment is not the only way to solve the problem. Mcgraw-Hill also mentions actions that other countries have taken to make education a more desirable field: beginning with offering 20 successful career likelihood and treating teachers as professionals by giving them responsibility and understanding that they are educating the future of the world (Paine & Scheicher, 2011). Since my thesis is primarily concerned with comparing educational policies of Finland with the United States, I interviewed a high school administrator who has also studied Finland’s policies as part of his doctoral dissertation. He was able to provide more insight about some of these policies abroad. In regards to the biggest problem facing American teachers, he agreed with themes similar to other interviewees, arguing that the excessive accountability of teachers and heavy evaluations is altogether not cost effective. He went on to add that Finland doesn’t have this problem. During Finland’s educational reformation, the country has focused specifically on improving teacher preparation programs. There are no shortcuts in Finland; graduate level coursework is the only way to obtain a teaching degree. Because of how competitive these programs are, teachers in Finland are not evaluated. No one checks in on them unless there is a problem, this is due to the Finnish culture of trust. He explained another problem that American teachers face is privatization creating competing agendas. Historically there's been tension between the good of the one and the good of the many. This problem especially occurs with special groups who serve one demographic really well but completely miss another. The process of serving a target demographic doesn't work with education, seeing as how a primary goal of education is to reach every student (In-person interview, May 17, 2016). 21 Assessment A survey question asked respondents to rate the following methods of assessing students on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from extremely accurately to not accurately at all. These assessment methods consisted of: course letter grades, standardized test scores, informal observations of K-12 students in the classroom, end-of-unit tests, portfolio assessments, other- please specify. Course letter grades were chosen by 75% of participants to be a moderately accurate reflection of student knowledge in content areas. Twenty-five percent of respondents believe that course letter grades were only slightly accurate. Standardized tests scores were split between participants, with two believing them to be moderately accurate displays and two believing them only slightly accurate. Three participants found informal observations of K-12 students in the classroom were moderately accurate reflections, while one person believes them to be extremely accurate. All respondents agreed that end-of-unit tests are only moderately accurate methods. Overall, portfolio assessments were found accurate as two said they were very accurate, and two said moderately accurate. When asked in an interview about the most effective ways of assessing student knowledge in various content areas, participants agreed that you need multiple methods to get a clear picture. These multiple methods should consist of formal and informal, qualitative and quantitative methods. The second most common response was in regards to standards. Assessments need to be tied to the standards-based essential learning outcomes for any given subject area. A state mathematics specialist further stressed keeping assessments aligned to the standards. She suggested using tasks to set up a productive struggle and discussion. She added that by listening to students work and 22 justifying their understanding of the math concept, a teacher knows exactly where his/her students are—far more than any test or assignment could tell. Several participants mentioned that standardized testing does have a role in education. A high school administrator mentioned however, one major problem with standardized testing. He believes it to be excessive and not cost effective, especially since teachers are already conducting their own daily assessments of students and know where their students are at. He further explained by addressing how much time students spend testing: At the beginning of my career [in the classroom], my students would spend maybe 5 instructional days out of the year on their standardized tests every year. When I left the classroom, my students were up to 25 between all the different types: SAGE (Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence), DWA (Direct Writing Assessment), things like the WIDA (World-class Instructional Design and Assessment). Those students in that 180-190 school day are losing 25 days just to testing, and that doesn’t include any of the tests that I’m doing as a teacher, just the standardized tests. That is excessive (In-person interview, May 17, 2016). I also asked participants how they felt about comparing schools to one another using letter grades. It has become a common practice for third party groups such as GreatSchools (or sometimes even school districts), to publish 1-10 ratings of elementary, middle, and high schools. GreatSchools is an agency that rates schools in all 50 states, though they may not have a rating for every single school in a given state. The GreatSchools website states that, “Based on extensive research on what contributes to long-term success for students, we are currently focused on three measures of academic quality: student achievement, student growth, and college readiness (GreatSchools, 23 2016).” Student achievement simply looks at “the percentage of students [at a given school] meeting state standards based on state standardized tests (GreatSchools, 2016).” Student growth is measured using test scores year-to-year, where similar students are compared to one another. The goal of this measurement is to show how much students actually learn in a year. College readiness measures reflect high school graduation rates and students’ scores on college entrance exams such as the SAT and ACT. The aim of the college readiness measurement is to determine how well students are prepared for college and career after high school (GreatSchools, 2016). In interviews, it was noted that before these ratings were happening there were more equity gaps, and that the rating system is a way to see areas of strength and where improvement is needed. A university administrator pointed out that the ratings or school letter grades are a tool that parents like to have, and that it happens globally. Overall, the problem with ratings such as GreatSchools is that they fail to include all variables, such as demographics or the resources available (since these vary between schools and school districts). In order for these comparisons to be accurate they must take both test scores and resources into account. Insert table about here. An open-ended survey question asked participants to speculate on what might cause the differences in test scores between Finland and the United States (See Appendix). Focusing primarily on mathematics scores, one participant reported that the vast curriculum in the United States can be found overwhelming by teachers, causing them to teach concepts procedurally and test on that one procedure instead of teaching based on making connections and using critical thinking and problem solving skills. This 24 emphasis, can, and often does, emphasize short term learning, but over time it becomes more difficult to remember specific procedures needed in solving particular problems. The Finnish system integrates academic learning into life skills and focuses more heavily on problem solving and critical thinking skills and therefore this may be a factor in their success. Not only does Finland use different teaching approaches, but they have a different value on education. A participant expressed this when discussing the status of teaching as a profession and the balance between school work and home life (shown by Finland’s lack of homework). The Finnish system is dedicated to being equitable for all, providing a high quality education to every student and in turn reducing the gap between high and low performers on a given test. Related to this, and an additional factor in Finland’s success, is their approach to special education. The population of Finland has far less diversity than that of the United States, and is much smaller. This may also be a factor causing the difference between test scores. Students Risk factors such as poverty and racial diversity cause some differences across groups of students. In an interview, I asked participants how these factors affect education. The most common response was that education differs greatly, based on the resources available. Participants stressed that the resources available can change dramatically between different states, regions, and even neighborhoods. Another difference is the expectations held by teachers and the school community. While we can’t hold the same exact expectations for every student, every student is capable of achieving high levels. A university administrator reported that, “We do not have a public school 25 system that gives equal access to all students... but we’re better than the vast majority of countries around the world (In-person interview, May 19, 2016).” Participants were asked their beliefs on how the following factors influence students’ success in school: their parents' opinions of school, parent involvement in school, the quality of their teacher, socio-economic background, other- please specify. Results were varied as 75% of participants strongly agreed or agreed that their parent’s opinions of school played a role in student success, while one person strongly disagreed. Three people either agreed or strongly agreed that their parent’s involvement in school is a factor, while one strongly disagreed. 100% of participants strongly agreed that a student's performance in school is affected by the quality of their teacher. This finding, which also aligns with research in this area (Darling-Hammond, 2000) demonstrates the critical importance on teacher quality, since it has been rated as the most significant factor impacting student success in school. Three participants strongly or somewhat agreed that the student's socioeconomic background was a factor while one person somewhat disagreed. Other open-ended answers to the question revealed that other factors included: access to books early on in the child’s life, access to proper healthcare and nutrition, enrichment activities, holding high expectations, a rigorous curriculum, access to high-quality and equitable schooling, and school quality/resources. Since a major part of Finland’s early education is focused on metacognition and learning how to self-assess, I asked two participants how important they thought this selfassessment was for students. Both said that when self-assessment is done right it is incredibly helpful. It was stressed that teachers need to teach students how to be 26 metacognitive through setting goals, teaching the difference between a growth mindset and a stuck mindset, and encouraging them to take risks and try out new solutions. Special Education Two participants had interesting backgrounds: the university administrator previously worked in special education and is a specialist in global policy, and the high school administrator wrote his doctoral dissertation on education in Finland. With this background knowledge, I asked them their opinions on special education in the United States and in Finland. The university administrator addressed initially that: Our system (the US) historically is focused much more on access than outcomes…Every student in the US, every student, regardless of disability, regardless of the nature or the severity of the disability is entitled to a free and appropriate public education. That is not true in every country…We [schools and states] are not allowed to exclude students on the basis of disability. How good that education is is a different question, but from an access standpoint we are by far one of the leaders worldwide in creating access. (In-person interview, May 19, 2016). Finland has a very inclusive special education model, and the United States is working towards that. However, not everyone agrees that a fully inclusive model is the best. The university administrator mentioned that some people believe special education students may get lost in mainstream classes and won’t be able to get the same individualized support provided in separate special education classes. A main problem pointed out by the high school administrator of our system is that our procedures, as thorough as they may be, take too long to get a student an Individualized Education 27 Program (IEP) or 504 plan before help is offered. A 504 plan is offered to students who have a physical or mental disability and need accommodations in the classroom such as extra time to complete assignments or taking exams orally rather than written (Durheim, 2015). In Finland, they give students the help that they need immediately, and there is no label of an IEP or 504 plan on them. The system is very fluid and almost every student gets some type of help, so there is no stigma associated with special education. A final point made by the university administrator in regards to an inclusive model is this: The more we think about the kinds of services and support that students need, the more we’re going to be able to provide not only an inclusive education but an inclusive community. It’s almost a pay now or pay later situation, if you keep those students segregated while they’re children, they’re going to be segregated as adults. They have less opportunity for employment, the community doesn’t know them, employers don’t know them, they don’t see them [people with disabilities] as potential employees (In-person interview, May 19, 2016). Discussion International Comparisons The goal of this research was to examine the educational system of Finland in order to see what factors influence the country’s educational success. I wanted to utilize international data in comparison with United States data to determine where differences in educational policies lie, and see where modifications could be made to improve education for all. I chose to limit my study by looking primarily at three main aspects of education: profession, students, and assessment. The data gathered were designed to 28 address current problems facing educators and students in hopes of revealing new ideas for success. Study data show that international comparisons serve as a benchmark for student performance comparisons across nations. In general, international data comparisons illustrated how all students are performing academically, with the caveat that multiple factors impact performance data (e.g., education systems, poverty, professional views of education). A primary theme that surfaced from study interviews was that the U.S. can use global data and education system examples to influence policies, but that these ideas need to be tailored specifically for the country. Profession Teacher Quality The value of a good teacher and the role that teachers play in students’ success is a recurring theme coming from research and collected data. Teacher quality is one area that is heavily addressed in Finland and in the United States. However, both countries handle it very differently. While Finland has reformed teacher quality on the front end of education, teacher preparation programs and training, the United States has focused more heavily on the back end, with teacher accountability and assessments. Survey data showed that all four participants strongly agreed that a person’s personality or desire to teach played a role in their capability of being an effective teacher. These findings are supported as an entrance criterion to teacher education programs in Finland, but are not used as commonly in the United States. Specifically, Finnish students applying to teacher education programs are admitted not only on 29 expected grades and test scores, but on their interpersonal skills, positive personalities, and having a dedication and strong desire to teach. In addition, survey participants thought that providing teachers with leadership roles and opportunities for collaboration would play a role in teacher quality. This is a practice that Finland does quite well, through providing their teachers opportunities for collaboration during the regular work day. The United States is working towards this as well with the development and use of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Teacher Evaluation Participants agreed that teacher self-assessments should be utilized during evaluations, as well as both drop-in and planned classroom observations. While students’ standardized test scores are a common method of assessing teachers in the United States, only one survey participant believed that this should be the case. Conversely, Finnish teachers are not evaluated in the same way that American teachers are. Finnish teacher quality is maintained in training programs, with little need for assessments once in the classroom. Again, this is a perfect example of how the Finnish culture trusts their teachers, as professionals, to complete their job expertly. Teacher Status The public’s perception towards the teaching profession was named as the number one problem facing American teachers by one survey participant, but this is a theme that was mentioned by other respondents as well. The American culture of questioning and excessively evaluating teachers perpetuates the stereotype that “those who can, do and those who can’t, teach.” Finnish culture of trusting teachers stems from their dedication to literacy and education and the competitiveness of teacher education 30 programs. The public’s view of teaching affects in part those who enter the education field, and in some cases may be a factor in the reasoning behind those who leave the field (Paine and Schleicher, 2011). Assessment Multiple Methods Data collected display a major theme of student assessment—that multiple measures are necessary in order to develop a clear picture of where the student is performing academically. These multiple measures consist of formal and informal assessments as well as formative and summative methods. Finland uses primarily formative means of assessment and uses them to guide instruction, which the United States does as well. However, the U.S. emphasizes standardized tests regularly, which, often, represent a snapshot in time of an area of review. Though these tests play a role, they need to be looked at in addition to other information about the student, seeing as how the scores can be drastically affected by the child’s mood that day or other external factors. Utilizing many measures of assessment is key to evaluating students and learning how best to help them succeed. Self Assessment In addition to the multiple means of assessment such as the formal standardized tests and other informal measures mentioned above, both countries practice student selfassessment. The weight placed on metacognition and self- assessment is much heavier in Finland, but the U.S. has begun focusing on this as well, as evident through efforts to teach a ‘growth mindset’ vs. a ‘stuck mindset’ which encourages students to keep trying instead of giving up. Goal setting is another part of metacognition that is used in both 31 countries. Finnish schools even provide their students with counseling each week in order to excite students to strive toward their goals. Students Special Education The Finnish approach to special education is very inclusive, more so than that of the United States. The country has seen success from virtually eliminating any sort of stereotype surrounding special education by offering services in the general education classroom, and to any student who may need it (without having an IEP or being 504 eligible). In addition to the inclusive program, Finland offers the help that is needed immediately, instead of waiting for lengthy and formal procedures (such as in the United States). Finland’s successful special education program is seen to be a factor in the low variance of the country’s test scores. Students in Finland are also offered more academic opportunities than their American peers. With such a high focus on every subject area (including areas such as new languages, art, and music in addition to the standard math, reading, and science), Finnish schools are building the next generation of well-rounded citizens. Because of the high-stakes standardized testing in the United States, teachers often feel the need to ‘teach to the test’ and that there is little time for other creative content areas (Sahlberg, 2014). Implications Though the study size was very small, definite themes were discovered through data collected from professionals in the education field. The perspectives of these four 32 individuals linked to K-12 education highlight a few areas in which improvements could be made to better prepare students for life. Survey and interview data align with similar themes discovered in research of the Finnish education system. Of note, both research and the data collected for this study underscore five areas: 1) a qualified teacher is essential to education; 2) that the low societal status held by teachers in America is a problem; 3) that student self-assessment is a valuable tool for learning; 4) that special education should be more inclusive; 5) and that current standardized testing procedures, though important to some degree, are excessive. In the Phi Delta Kappan Gallup Poll (2014) Americans named teacher quality as the most important factor in student success. Survey and interview participants agreed with this finding and research on the Finnish education system shows that this is a common theme in their culture. Finnish education has dramatically increased the quality of their teachers since their economic reform in the 1970s, and they have accomplished this through designing rigorous and competitive teacher education programs and providing teachers with better working conditions. Improving teacher quality and conditions did not happen overnight in Finland, but efforts made by their government years ago have completely transformed their educational system into one of the top performing in the world. My study suggests that if Americans value teacher quality as much as research says that they do as evidenced in Phi Delta Kappan (2014), the country should address this problem by making education a more desirable field. These changes could impact the degree to which people are attracted to teaching. Accomplishing these ideals could create a ripple effect all throughout the country, raising the societal status 33 held by teachers, which is another factor in Finland’s success. If all teachers are wellqualified, have desirable working conditions, and are dedicated to their career, communities should hold them in high regards. This cycle could be a beginning in creating an overall culture of trust within America, similar to that of Finland. The trusting Finnish culture is something that is also reflected onto students, evidenced through curriculum. Finland starts their basic education with teaching students metacognition skills and how to self-assess. Being more self-aware enables children to be more in control of their learning, and developing these skills early on in education has proven to be advantageous throughout the rest of their educational career. Interview themes revealed the significance of teaching students these skills, with the professionals suggesting several ways to achieve this goal. Participants named a few areas in which the United States has already begun to show progress in student self-assessment, such as teaching the difference between a ‘growth mindset’ and a ‘stuck mindset,’ and working with students to plan out reasonable goals that they will be able to achieve. However, my study would suggest that the more that educators teach students to be self-aware and take a role in their own learning, the better. Special education was named by two interview participants to be just one area where Finland is really succeeding. Participants discussed the inclusive nature of the program, and the timeliness with which all manners are handled. Though the United States has made efforts to move towards a more inclusive special education system (as proved through widespread use of the RTI tiered method), the country’s procedures for evaluating and admitting students are still lengthy. In Finland, the extra help that a 34 student may need to succeed is given to them immediately, which is the area in which I believe the United States should follow suit. If students are given the assistance that they need when they need it, and are not held down or labeled by their 504 or their IEP plan, it could make a big difference in the student’s academic progress. A common theme occurring from interview and survey data is that while standardized exams do play a role and are important, current procedures are excessive. Finnish students do not take standardized tests until their college entrance Matriculation exam, with the idea that their classroom teachers are well-aware of student performance and so secondary measures such as wide scale exams are redundant. Interview participants were careful to mention that the United States does need standardized tests and cannot remove them completely; however one suggested that instead of testing every subject every year, the country could begin a rotation. This would mean that one year students are tested in math, and then in reading the following year, and so on. A rotation schedule such as this could reduce the amount of instructional days lost to testing, and in addition may relieve some of the pressure placed on teachers that comes from evaluation based on student exam scores. While the United States does have plenty to learn from other countries, it is again necessary to add that the information gathered still needs to be modified in order for it to work for the country’s specific population. Though this study was very limited and covered only a few select topics, further areas for study could include surveying a larger and wider range of stakeholders—parents, educators, and students—about the methods and policies that both challenge and support education in the United States. 35 References About GreatSchools.org and Our Mission. (n.d.). Retrieved November, 2015, from http://www.greatschools.org/about/aboutUs.page About the OECD. (n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/about/ Angeli, E., Wagner, J., Lawrick, E., Moore, K., Anderson, M., Soderlund, L., & Brizee, A. (2010, May 5). General format. Retrieved from http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ Benefits of Early Intervention - TEIS, Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.teisinc.com/the-benefits-of-early-intervention/ Bloom, B. S., Madaus, G. F., & Hastings, J. T. (1971). Evaluation to improve learning. New York: McGraw-Hill. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence [Scholarly project]. In Education Policy Analysis Archives. Retrieved June, 2016 Chapter 4 Analyzing Qualitative Data. (n.d.). Retrieved August 02, 2016, from http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/nsf97153/chap_4.htm DePaepe, J., Dr., Matthews, D., & Mathias, K., Dr. (2015). CWU Teacher Time Study: How Washington Public School Teachers Spend Their Work Days [Scholarly project]. In Central Washington University. Retrieved April 22, 2016, from https://www.cwu.edu/sites/default/files/images/teachertimestudy.pdf Dewey, J. (1934). Individual Psychology and Education. The Philosopher Journal, 12. Retrieved September, 2015. 36 Durheim, M. (2015, October). A parent's guide to Section 504 in public schools. Retrieved July, 2016, from http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/section-504-2/ Finnish National Board of Education. (2012). Finnish Education in a Nutshell [Brochure]. Kopijyvä, Espoo: Author. Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/frequently-asked-questions/ Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, 104 USC § 1142 Jones, K. (2012, August 15). What Is The Purpose Of Education? Forbes. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2012/08/15/what-is-the-purposeof-education/#17642cef3566 McKinsey and Company. (2007). How the World's best-performing school systems come out on top [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved May, 2016, from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Education/Worlds_School_Syst ems_Final.p National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Fast Facts. (n.d.). Retrieved June 26, 2016, from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=516 NEA: Research Spotlight on Recruiting & Retaining Highly Qualified Teachers. (n.d.). Retrieved May 27, 2016, from http://www.nea.org/tools/17054.htm OECD. (2012). Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) Results from PISA 2012: United States [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved October, 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/PISA-2012-results-US.pdf 37 OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know [Brochure]. Author. Retrieved October, 2015, from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf Olson, L. (2006, December 29). Losing Global Ground. Education Week. Retrieved October, 2015, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/01/04/17intl.h26.html?qs=losing global ground Paine, S. L., & Schleicher, A. (2011). WHAT THE U.S. CAN LEARN FROM THE WORLD’S MOST SUCCESSFUL EDUCATION REFORM EFFORTS (Policy Paper) Testing doesn't measure up for Americans: The 47th Annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. (2015). Phi Delta Kappan, 97(1). Sahlberg, P. (2014, October 6). Why Finland's schools are top-notch. Retrieved November 26, 2015, from http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/06/opinion/sahlbergfinland-education/index.html Sahlberg, P. (n.d.). News Archive - Pasi Sahlberg. Retrieved July, 2015, from http://pasisahlberg.com/news/ Sahlberg, P. (2014). Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Columbia University: Teachers' College Press. Strauss, V. (2015, February 12). What’s the purpose of education in the 21st century? Washington Post. Retrieved October, 2015, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/12/whats-thepurpose-of-education-in-the-21st-century/ 38 Strong, W. B. et al. (2005). Evidence Based Physical Activity for School-age Youth. In The Journal of Pediatrics. Volume 146 , Issue 6 , 732 - 737. Retrieved from http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(05)00100-9/pdf Taylor, A. (2011, December 14). 26 Amazing Facts About Finland's Unorthodox Education System. Retrieved October 27, 2015, from http://www.businessinsider.com/ Walker, T. (2013, March 25). How Do High-Performing Nations Evaluate Teachers? NEA Today. Retrieved July 19, 2016, from http://neatoday.org/2013/03/25/howdo-high-performing-nations-evaluate-teachers/ What is RTI? (n.d.). Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti 39 Appendix Table 1 PISA 2012 Results, Percentage of Both Low and Top Performers in Each Subject Area International comparisons across content areas Low performers in mathematics Finland 12.3 OECD Avg. 25.8 23.0 Top performers in mathematics 15.3 12.6 8.8 Low performers in reading 11.3 18.0 16.6 Top performers in reading 13.5 8.4 7.9 Low performers in science 7.7 17.8 18.1 Top performers in science 17.1 8.4 7.5 Low performers in problem solving 14.3 21.4 18.2 Top performers in problem solving 15.0 11.4 11.6 United States *low performers indicates students scoring below level 2 proficiency in any given subject area **top performers indicates students who scored at level 5 or 6 proficiency in any given subject area Survey Factors that Influence Educational Success The following survey will be used to gather data for my Honors Thesis Project. My project is a study on comparing education internationally, specifically between the United States and Finland. Please answer the questions as they pertain to K-12 education. Q1 What is your name? 40 Q2 What do you believe is the primary purpose of public schools?  Teach citizenship (1)  Prepare for career (2)  Teach problem solving and critical thinking skills (3)  Other- please specify (4) ____________________ Q3 Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statement: The quality of a K-12 teacher is determined by... Strongly agree (1) Agree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Years of experience (1)      Number of endorsement specializations (2)      Level of education attained? (e.g., Bachelor's degree, Master's degree, etc.) (3)      Number of leadership roles held (4)      Personality/desire to be a teacher (5)      Other- please specify (6)      Q4 How should K-12 teachers be evaluated? Choose as many as apply.  Their students' scores on standardized tests (1)  Planned classroom observations (2)  Drop in classroom observations (3)  Student surveys (4)  Parent surveys (5)  Lesson plan reviews (6)  Teachers' self-assessments (7) 41 Q5 What do you believe to be the biggest problem facing American teachers? Q6 Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the following statement:A student's performance in school is affected by... Strongly agree (1) Somewhat agree (2) Neither agree nor disagree (3) Somewhat disagree (4) Strongly disagree (5) Their parents' opinions of school (1)      Parent involvement in school (2)      The quality of their teacher (3)      Socioeconomic background (4)      Other- please specify (5)      42 Q7 To what degree do the following accurately reflect student knowledge in particular content areas? Extremely accurately (1) Very accurately (2) Moderately accurately (3) Slightly accurately (4) Not accurately at all (5) Course letter grades (1)      Standardized test scores (2)      Informal observations of K-12 students in the classroom (3)      End-of-unit tests (4)      Portfolio assessments (5)      Other- please specify (6)      43 Q8 When making international comparisons, US children typically perform at lower levels than their Finnish counterparts. This chart displays the percentage of top and low performers in each subject on the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Using the following table, please describe why you believe these differences exist in the text box below. (See Table 1). Q9 How many years of experience do you have working in the education field? 44