School in Finland is one of things that is just expected to be available and, the majority of it all the way up through university is free. The education system is generally good and teachers are highly qualified, even though they don't get paid enough. There are very few private schools in the country and those there are, tend to be centered around the language used, not the quality of the education. However, there are some issues with it and one of those arose recently.
The expectation on schools is that they deliver a decent level and relatively uniform education to children, in a safe environment. And it is the last point that has caused issues, where the parents of 20 primary level students pulled their kids from a school, because they deemed the environment unsafe. The challenge for the government here is, school is compulsory.
The reason however was not the environment created by the school that was causing problems, it was the actions of an individual child, who was not only disruptive, but also violent, and this has been happening for a year already. At times, it has been escalated to the point the police have been called to calm the situation.
The parents signed a petition saying that their children will not return to school until a safe environment can be guaranteed (within reason), and distributed it to the principle, the local council, children's ombudsman, and the minister of education. This got some attention in the media, because after a year, the child has been given a place in a school that has special support for these kinds of children.
The parents of the "problem child" are thankful for the actions of the other parents, because they have been trying for some years to get support and while the school has done what it could, they didn't have the resources to cope. And as far as I can tell from what I have read, try as they might, the parents were unable to significantly improve the behaviors of the child at home either.
And this is where I see some potential conflict, because the education direction is to provide an equal education, but provision has to also include environment, and when the disruption is pupil based, where does the responsibility lay?
My daughter has just started her first year of school, and it is already apparent that there is a very large disparity between child skillsets. Some can read, some write, and some like Smallsteps, are doing math problems. However, she goes into a class where they have spent a session learning how to write a particular letter number. Everyone is getting the same education, but is it valuable for everyone?
And this is the failure of centralized education, because even when it is providing value, it isn't going to be able to cater to the needs of every individual. Yet, we have created a world where we expect individual tailoring for individual needs, something that a school cannot offer, especially when underfunded and overworked.
From the information I could find, there are only around 250 homeschooling families in Finland, which is more testament to the trust and expectations in the school system here, than the unwillingness of the parents. The Finnish school model has been a point of pride for years and you will see it referenced globally, so it is natural that parents who have had a good experience with it, will be happy to have their children attend also.
But, diversity inclusion will also affect diversity of outcome, because the higher the variance of children skills and behaviors, the harder it is to get a uniform output. It is far easier to raise averages by catering to the lowest levels, than the highest levels, because there are more low and, they have further upward to move. This is why government schools will focus their efforts here, even though it is not going to support the ones who are most likely to be the highest performers post-school. And, post-school should be the point of schooling, not the increase in grades. Having high grades even is meaningless, if they do not translate into value-adding activities that generate the outputs required for a stronger community.
However, it is also inappropriate to leave those who are not fit for the normal school model behind, because it could be that they are just not suited to that set of actions, but might be brilliant in another. But again, whose responsibility is it? What is interesting to note though, is that if there is a child with behavioral challenges causing problems for others, there is support available. But, if there is a child who is excelling at a particular discipline and would benefit from having additional specialized support, it is pretty much up to the parent. If my daughter is excelling at math, there is no one qualified or responsible for helping her.
Is this fair?
Now, personally, I see it as my responsibility to support my daughter, and, I have the belief that the school system is largely a hinderance to excelling post-school, so it is up to me to offer supplementation where I can, or source it from somewhere if I can.
Tutors are expensive.
But, it also raises a question of what is considered a "safe environment" for children to learn in. Obviously, physical violence is a clear indication of an unsafe environment, however if we look at how the results of the education might impact on professional opportunity throughout life, is a class with a disruptive student that draws the majority of attention of teachers, considered a safe learning environment?
I don't think it does.
For instance, if we were to consider what a safe "sleeping environment" might be, we may imagine a nice bed, soft mattress and pillow, in a warm enough room with good ventilation. However, if there is constant death metal blaring during sleeping hours, is it safe? Physically yes, but the outcomes from the sleep are far from optimized.
Nothing against death metal.
The fact is, that while our genetics play a role, we are also products of our environment, influenced by our surroundings. If we are surrounded with disruptions, the lessons we learn are impacted, as are our own behaviors. And, at young ages, we are going to be even more influenced by our peer groups in ways that are going to affect our foundational behavior and mindset as adults.
If we want what is best for our kids in the future, we need to ensure that they are learning the lessons they need to learn in childhood. There are many subjects that might be useless, and there is value in learning to deal with disruptive and violent people, but that probably shouldn't be where the majority of energy goes in a young life. It should be about being able to explore the world and interest areas with relative safety, rather than having to constantly be forced to cater for the needs of someone, let alone someone who might not add that much value throughout their lifetime.
I think we all want what is best for our kids and most of us do recognize that we can't expect others to provide for our own, but then, where is the line, what can be expected to be provided through tax spending, and what am I as a parent expected to pick up? It is a harder question to answer than many believe, especially since most of us as parents, don't actually know that much about how to educate a child, even if we do know that there is a spectrum of failure in the educational systems.
The parental "strike" should raise conversations, but I suspect that like most centralized systems, it will be treated as an outlier problem, rather than something that indicates a deeper issue with the structure itself. For me though, it is a reminder that if I want to have additional support for Smallsteps, I am going to have to learn to provide it one way or another, because she is not going to get more than average from a school.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]