Portions of what Linda Darling-Hammond writes in The Flat World and Education are simply frustrating, since the results she shows for state investment (or lack thereof) in education have such a direct impact on educational equity and overall educational success. I cannot, by the practices I carry out in my classroom, give myself and other teachers a pay increase like the ones championed in Connecticut. Nor can I teach a lesson so astounding that it causes Marin and San Francisco to equalize the amount of money they spend per pupil. And I certainly can't, like Finland, provide free healthcare and lunch to all my students, or give myself and my colleagues half our workday back to collaborate, plan, and work with parents.
Can change my practice (now)
Quoting EdSource, Darling-Hammond writes that "Finnish teachers are conscious, critical consumers of professional development...(in the place of compulsory in-service) are school-or municipality-based longer term programs..." (p. 172) This resonates with me: when I have chosen to pursue the PD that gets me excited about what I'm doing, and that can directly affect the way students learn in my classroom, I count it more than worth the time and financial cost. Google Summit and the Bay Area Writing Project (BAWP) are two excellent training courses that come to mind; the BAWP is one that is local, long-term, and collaborative. Neither were mandatory, both are regional, and both are impacting my teaching practice significantly. In fact, I'm currently attending a year-long BAWP workshop series and so far it has shown incredible promise for my practice.
Also, as I wrestle with the right way to create a culture of inquiry in my middle school classroom, it's reassuring to read that a Finnish classroom looks a great deal like the ideal inquiry-based classroom: "It is rare to see a teacher standing in front of a classroom lecturing students for 50 minutes." (p. 170) Giving students the voice and choice to collaborate and take initiative in their learning is a classroom culture norm I'm striving towards. But, given discipline challenges, learning differences, and the efficacy of directly teaching certain standards, for me it's a work in progress.
Lastly, I notice a common message among experts who are asking us to rethink modern education. The idea of schools-as-assembly lines no longer works. In his TED Talk, Sir Ken Robinson compared a truly rich educational experience to a holistically created Zagat menu. In other words, students should be flourishing based upon what they have to offer, not a fast food-like list of things they must learn. He elaborated, "Human communities depend upon a diversity of talents, not a singular conception of ability." This, to me, sounds like inquiry in the classroom, instead of prescribed learning. Similarly, Darling-Hammond writes that if governments invest in the capacity of teachers, they can "unleash the benefits of local creativity in the cause of common, equitable outcomes." (p. 167) Again, there is an emphasis put here creating learning that is unique to the students and teachers who live in the community. But isn't also true that there are certain standards that students must learn along the way? Where is the balance between celebrating students' talents and backgrounds, and also ensuring that certain standards are met? How can I strike that balance in my classroom?
One more juicy quote from Sir Ken Robinson
"College does not begin in kindergarten. Kindergarten begins in kindergarten." Just because we want our students to be college-ready, doesn't mean that they (or we) have failed if they do not attend college. Teach for the sake of learning, not so that everyone reaches the same end-goal.