Much media attention has been given to the fact that Anjali Vyas, a recent graduate from Stelly’s Secondary School in Central Saanich, was awarded a contract for $16,000 to travel to Finland to study their teacher-preparation program and compare it to British Columbia, using the University of Victoria and the University of Helsinki as the two case studies.
I was intrigued with what the report might contain, having had the opportunity to lead a Rotary group study exchange to Finland, visiting various elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions in northern Finland for four weeks.
The process for awarding the contract was unusual and suspect, from my perspective as a retired principal, former school trustee, former faculty associate at UVic’s rural education program and, on occasion, a consultant.
However, my experience in Finland was extremely informative and inspiring — the Finns have an impressive education system with a 96 per cent literacy rate in a small country with a population of six million people, so I read Vyas’s report with interest.
Vyas is passionate about educational reform, and that desire to see improvement in our educational system is laudable. Her report is not voluminous, totalling 15 pages.
Unfortunately, the manner in which the contract was awarded has cast a cloud over some astute observations she has made in her report, and it would be unfortunate if they were dismissed for that reason.
She compared various aspects of the teacher-education programs in both institutions, but for me, one of the most pertinent observations she made was about collaboration being a critical factor in the success of the Finnish teacher-education program.
Collaboration is the foundation for much of what happens in Finland, from what I observed during my time staying with Rotarian families and where I was given the opportunity to observe various aspects of Finnish society and government structures.
Vyas states in her report: “Finally, and definitely the most unexpected place I found collaboration was between the government and teachers’ union. Believe it or not, these two groups agree when it comes to their vision of education’s future. Most tension between the two groups is based on compensation, and even then a strike is a rare occurrence. In fact, it is law that teachers must be active in public debates and decisions affecting the development of schools and education. Teachers cannot be only implementers of decisions, but they must also be partners in their development.”
This is the antithesis of what is happening in B.C.
She goes on to comment on admission criteria to teacher-education programs (suitability of applicants to the profession, supply and demand in terms of jobs and the value placed on academic performance not being the only criteria).
In summation, she comments: “Culturally, Finns see the teaching profession just as we see the medical profession. It is apparent that educating their next generation is as vital and honourable as it is to keep their population healthy. Like we ensure that doctors are up to date with the latest research in their fields, Finland demands the same of their teachers. Just as we have learned to trust our doctors’ professional opinion, it is critical we find a way to trust in teachers and their professional opinions as Finland has done. But how?”
This is a key question in her report.
Collaboration is a founding principle of all aspects of Finnish society from my experience and from what Vyas has observed in her reference to the two case studies.
Having been employed in seven different school districts in B.C., studied at and worked for UVic, sat for four years as a school trustee and been hired to write research reports by government agencies, I know collaborative principles are not the norm in educational circles in B.C.
Vyas concludes her report by recommending: “Instead of increasing regulation and accountability, I feel, as Finland has done, we should work on fostering a new culture within the education world based on comprehensive teacher education, reworked professional development and trust.”
Young people have much wisdom to offer — as do elders. Let us listen, observe, create opportunities for dialogue and have the courage to change a dysfunctional system to one based on a new culture of competency, respect and trust.
Donna Miller has been a teacher, school trustee, University of Victoria faculty associate and district principal for adult/community education in the Sooke School District until her retirement in 2004. Since retirement, she has been involved in literacy issues as researcher and a volunteer.
