A+ for Finland

Over the past thirty years the United States has increased the amount of money spent per student from $4,000 to $9,000. Yet test scores have leveled off in the mid-range compared with the rest of the world as more and more kids are dropping out of school. As America throws money at our drowning system other countries, such as Finland, leave the bureaucracy behind and revamp their systems to suit the human rather than the test. I her article, Lynnell Hancock uses an example of a troubled student becoming successful through Finland’s comprehensive system. In the example Hancock describes a student who is struggling. The school’s psychologist, and its private social worker assured the teacher it was not laziness. Rather than continuing down the beaten path with the student, the teacher takes special interest and tutors the boy himself. Hancock describes the student’s treatment as something “akin to royal tutoring” (Hancock). By the end of the year the student has overcome the language barrier that was to blame and had begun to thrive. The student, Bosart, was from Albania, and was not used to the similar yet different vowel rich language of the Finns. In this example, the reader sees the lens being brought upon the school and teacher rather than the shortcomings of the student. Given the freedom to act as he or she feels, the teacher can connect with students and take the necessary steps, whatever they may be, to ensure the students success. This article promotes the idea of teaching students how to learn rather than filling them up with information and backs up this claim with evidence from Finland’s system, and in doing so points out the flaws of our own American system of education.

            Hancock stresses the importance of a comprehensive schooling system over a structured, test-based performance system. Another key point raised is the effect of this comprehensive education system on the economy. Forty years ago when the Finnish went bankrupt and were redesigning their country, the emphasis was put on education as the most vital propellant for a prosperous future. Hancock never clearly states a thesis but in the same vein as the comprehensive education of the Finns she gives you a well-rounded idea of what she is talking about and why it is vital information. Hancock describes the Finn’s education through general facts and specific examples. She is promoting an education system that teaches students how to learn rather than what to learn by giving examples of its variety of successes in Finland.  Her first main point outlines the idea of the teacher playing the most important role the education system. The paragraph that begins with the phrase “Whatever it takes is an attitude that drives not just Kirkkojarvi's 30 teachers, but most of Finland's 62,000 educators” (Hancock). Hancock goes on to describe the freedom the teachers have to go the extra mile with students and do whatever is necessary to help the child learn. She then describes how their system came to be put in place, as a result of their economic recovery plan. The details Hancock includes support her reasoning that teachers are the frameworks for a good education. She points out that all teachers are required to have a master’s degree. This is an expensive endeavor, but in the Finn’s revamped system, the state covers teachers Master’s degree fees.

Hancock’s points are followed by both cited statistical evidence and personal observation from the Finnish schools she visited when writing her article. Hancock uses her experience spending time in Maija Rintola’s elementary school class to prove her point of teachers and other staff being the source of Finland’s excellent education system. She describes the attention Maija gives to each student individually and the acceptance and guidance she offers to those who are on different levels of reading or mathematics. Hancock also provides the reader with insight into how the Finns perceive our system. While they provide students with the same teacher for all five years of elementary school and require no standardize tests; we do the opposite, shuffling kids around giving them test after test. They look at our system and see a country obsessed with bar charts and ratings. Meanwhile, they can boast, as Maija puts, “We know much more about the children than these tests can tell us” (Hancock). Given the freedom to teach students on a personal level teachers can get them interested in reading with books like “Kapteeni Kalsarin (Captain Underpants)” (Hancock).  Hancock also provides the numbers to back up her claim that the Finn’s system provides the best education in the world. She makes the reader aware of the extra “82,000 euros a year in positive discrimination funds to pay for things like special resource teachers, counselors and six special needs classes” (Hancock). This money helps kids who fall behind or don’t know the language. She also provides the reader with the numbers that prove the Finn’s success compared to the rest of the world. She cites their 93% graduation rate from high school compared to our 75% rate. She also includes their world rankings in math, science, and reading: rank 6, 3 and 2 respectively. Hancock’s narration of personal experience as well as her use of statistics provides a compelling argument for the Finnish style of education.

The author, Lynnell Hancock, is a professor of journalism at Columbia University. She specializes in education as well as child and family policy. She is obviously well versed on the subject matter, so the influence her background offers is the voice of authority. Hancock’s target audience is the educated public as well as the policymakers of our country. She is trying to raise public awareness on our crippled system of education by shedding light on the Finn’s thriving one. At the same time she is pressuring policy makers by pointing out the fact that we spend more money with less results. She wrote this article in 2011, so the time period was not necessarily a factor. She also uses the most recent statistics as evidence so her article is still relevant now.  Relevancy in journalistic articles such as this are uniquely tied to what magazine or paper publishes it.Hancock’s article “A+ for Finland” was published in the Smithsonian Magazine, a reliable source for scholarly articles. Smithsonian Magazine is very credible and is geared toward the intellectual with the focus on modern issues in arts, sciences and politics.

Hancock’s style and tone compliment her analysis of The Finnish and American education systems. She writes idiomatically, expressing her ideas clearly and naturally; yet her writing style takes a more academic turn when describing the shortcomings of America and what the statistics she chooses to utilize mean. Her tone also expresses her clear perception on her subject matter. She uses an informative tone, and this, paired with her extensive background gives her article a great deal of validity. Her style and tone help her article to seem approachable to a broad audience as well as serving to accentuate her credibility.

Hancock’s article is structured as many scholarly articles are, with an assertion followed by her support. Her support however, differs from the norm. Rather than just using statistics, she leans upon her personal experience in Finnish schools to back up her assertions. She uses the first hand account of teachers, by including bits and pieces of her interviews with the Finns. Maija Rintola, a grade school teacher, is quoted as saying, "Play is important at this age, we value play” (Hancock). Hancock makes her assertion about the value of a comprehensive education, and then backs up her point with stats and experience. To conclude however, she gives a brief history of how Finland’s revolutionary system was put into place. She goes from general to specific, and then back and forth again. By giving a broad assertion and then zooming in on microcosms of its applications, she makes her thesis seem real and compelling on a personal level.

Hancock concludes un-dramatically with a brief history of how the Finns got to be where they are. She also gives the raw numbers at the end, including graduation rate, test scores and money spent per student. All the Finn’s numbers are placed next to America’s for emphasis. This article advocates for teaching students how to learn rather than what to learn as well as putting pressure on America to change our current system. This article was written at a very opportune time considering the cuts being made to liberal arts universities in America. The sole institutions that utilize the most successful form of education are being torn down.

Works Cited

Hancock, Lynell. "A+ for Finland." Smithsonian Magazine Sept. 2011: n. pag. UNCA Library. Web. Mar. 2013. <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html>.