Finland has been lauded for years as this planet鈥檚 grand K-12 education success story, deserving of study and emulation by other nations. The buzz began with its impressive in 2000, which stayed strong through 2006. Educators hastened to Helsinki from far and wide to sample the secret sauce, hoping they might recreate it back home. And most of them loved the taste, as Finland鈥檚 recipe contained many ingredients that educators generally like and shunned those they typically find repugnant. It was all about teachers, professionalism, and equity, rather than jarring notions like standards, choice, assessments, and accountability.
Gradually, however, the sauna cooled a bit. Finland鈥檚 PISA scores and rankings slipped in 2009, and again in 2012, followed by a scathing report from the University of Helsinki that led the program鈥檚 uber-advocate that the time had come for Finns 鈥渢o concede that the signals of change have been discernible already for a while and to open up a national discussion regarding the state and future of the Finnish comprehensive school that rose to international acclaim due to our students鈥� success in the PISA studies.鈥�
He was right. There had, indeed, been earlier signals: evidence of weak achievement by the country鈥檚 small but growing immigrant and minority populations, as well as boys lagging way behind girls.
Finland鈥檚 brightest kids weren鈥檛 exactly thriving, either. In 2009 and 2012, Finland saw drops in all three subjects鈥攔eading, math, and science鈥攁mong its high-scoring test-takers鈥攖hose who reached level 5 or 6 on PISA鈥檚 six-point scale. In math and reading specifically, these percentages dropped below 2003 levels, marking the country鈥檚 worst high-level performance in a more than a decade.
Had the secret sauce lost its kick? Was the world misled from the get-go, at least regarding how well that sauce works for smart kids? Finland makes a point of doing nothing special for them. Rather, its recipe deals with them, as with other kids, via inclusive, child-centered instruction delivered in similar schools by exceptionally well-prepared teachers whose skills are supposed to include differentiating their instruction according to the needs, capacities, and prior achievement of all their pupils.
Differentiated instruction certainly aligns with the Finnish culture and self-concept, and it鈥檚 plenty popular among other educators, too, thanks to its obvious allure on grounds of both fairness and individualization. It鈥檚 a very big deal among U.S. educators, and we found some of it in all 11 countries that we profile in our recently published book, Failing Our Brightest Kids: The Global Challenge of Educating High-Ability 69传媒. Everywhere we went, we encountered some version of this assertion: 鈥淲e don鈥檛 need to provide special programs or schools for gifted children, because we expect every school and teacher to adapt their instruction to meet the unique educational needs of all children, including the very able.鈥�
But such solemn, wishful affirmations don鈥檛 necessarily accord with reality on the ground. Besides Finland鈥檚 50-plus 鈥渟pecial鈥� high schools (which a local expert says 鈥渃an just as well be called schools for the gifted and talented鈥�), we found鈥攅specially in metropolitan Helsinki鈥攁n underground network of families jockeying to get their little ones into primary and middle schools that have impressive track records of high school and university admission.
Back in the United States, we find a dizzying assortment of gifted and talented programs in many districts, a handful of states that require 鈥済ifted鈥� students to be 鈥渋dentified鈥� (though not necessarily 鈥渟erved鈥�), and a small but distinguished array of super high schools such as New York鈥檚 Stuyvesant High School and Virginia鈥檚 Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. We also found selective-admission high schools and schools-within-schools in every other land that we examined; plus, in some, we found highly structured gifted-education offerings in the middle grades.
The United States and Finland would both be wise to adopt systematic policies designed to improve the education of high-ability learners beginning well before high school.
Whether it鈥檚 explicit and policy-based, as in Singapore, or officially shunned but parent-driven, as in Finland, some souped-up educational opportunities for high-ability children can be spotted in most advanced countries. The problem is that they鈥檙e typically more accessible to middle- and upper-middle-class kids than to equally bright children from disadvantaged circumstances.
69传媒 with prosperous, education-savvy parents generally have help in navigating the education system鈥攁nd the means to extract the best it has to offer. They are willing to move when necessary and supplement regular schools with tutors, summer opportunities, and more. Disadvantaged youngsters, however, depend far more on what the system provides them. The schools that serve students in poverty are also likely to be serving many disadvantaged students with many needs and challenges. These schools are also under policy pressure to get more of their students up to the 鈥減roficient鈥� bar, with few resources to spare for fast learners who have already reached it.
In the 11 countries that we studied, we compared the numbers of top- and bottom-quartile students (using a measure of social and economic status formulated by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) who made it into the high-scoring ranks on PISA in 2012.
No country has achieved anything like equity on this front, but several nations, often dubbed the 鈥淎sian tigers,鈥� get more than 10 percent of their disadvantaged students into the top-scoring levels in math, alongside more than 30 percent of their affluent youngsters. Switzerland does almost as well. By contrast, the data for the United States show fewer than 3 percent of disadvantaged youngsters attaining levels 5 or 6, and just 20 percent of more advantaged kids, the worst ratio in our study. Finland鈥檚 ratio is better鈥攍ess than 4-to-1鈥攂ut only 15 percent of its 15-year-olds reach the top ranks.
Why do some countries do better at this? Culture obviously matters, as do attitudes toward education, parent aspirations, and much more. No school system can make the most of every child鈥檚 potential without support from elsewhere. But it鈥檚 a mistake to place the entire obligation of formal education on teachers鈥� shoulders and assume that they鈥檒l meet every child鈥檚 needs via classroom differentiation. Most teachers find that next to impossible. What鈥檚 more, other strategies work better: Acceleration, for instance, is good for smart kids, and a well-designed tracking system is good for high-ability minority youngsters and harms nobody.
The United States and Finland would both be wise to adopt systematic policies designed to improve the education of high-ability learners beginning well before high school. One approach鈥攁s we saw in Singapore and Western Australia鈥攊s to screen all 3rd or 4th graders for signs of outstanding ability or achievement, then provide enrichment options, even separate classrooms and schools, for the ablest among them. American schools already have achievement data for every child starting in 3rd grade鈥攁nd universal screening yields a more diverse population of 鈥済ifted鈥� students than waiting for teacher recommendations and pushy parents.
Having spotted them, we should do those things that help them, and others, by edging toward mastery-based progress through school. (Why assume that every 11-year-old belongs in 5th grade and that all 5th graders should learn the same things at the same speed?) Above all, we need a new policy regime that gives teachers and schools ample incentive to press for academic growth in all their students, just as we need a culture that embraces excellence as well as equity and demands that its education system raise the ceiling on achievement even as it also lifts the floor.
Finland might be smart to do something similar.
