from the world's big
Standardized tests: Finland’s education system vs. the U.S.
Finland and the U.S. have chosen opposing answers to the question of how much standardized testing is too much.
- Imperial China developed the first standardized tests for bureaucratic hopefuls.
- Finland has all but done away with standardized tests, and its education system remains one of the best in the world.
- The United States relies heavily on these tests and scores lower than Finland in academic rigor, yet provides a more balanced educational system for boys and girls, as well as immigrants
Imperial China developed the world's first standardized tests. During the country's Tang dynasty, bureaucratic hopefuls took the jinshi exams to test their knowledge. This revolutionary education system became one of the first in the world to create a gentry class based on scholarly achievement, not heredity, leveling the social structure and creating unprecedent social mobility for the time.
Today, standardized tests continue to level the social playing field. Standardized testing provides a consistent measure for academic success, offer high-achieving students a way to prove themselves that is unbound by their social circumstances, and create an objective appraisal by which all schools can be compared.
Despite these potential benefits, many experts argue that education systems over rely on standardized testing for assessment. Such reliance can lead teachers to "teach to the test" and provide unfair advantages to communities that can afford better test prep. Standardized tests may also force students into superficial thinking — that is, simply copying answers compared with active, critical engagement of knowledge. And nonstop testing can overwhelm students with undue stress.
In short, how much is too much? That's a question every country's education system must answer, and Finland and the United States have chosen opposing answers. Finland's education system relies sparingly on standardizes tests, while the United States leans heavily on them.
Which system has benefited its students more? Let's find out.
Standardized tests and Finland's education system
In lieu of standardized testing, Finland uses teacher assessment to evaluate student progress, allowing more time for experimentation and play. Image source: Photo: U.S. Department of State via Flikr
Popular belief states that Finland doesn't use standardized tests. That's not strictly true, so this section will be a tad longer than anticipated.
Finland's education system has one major standardized test, the national matriculation examination. This test is taken by students at the end of their general upper secondary education and consists of four exams. Students must take a mother tongue language exam. They then select from the following subjects for their next three exams: mathematics, a foreign language, the second national language, and a general studies subject such as humanities or science.
General education students are required to complete the matriculation exam to secure their certificate, along with competition of their upper-secondary coursework. Finnish universities and universities of applied science then use the exam scores as part of their selection criteria. The universities may require other tests as part of their assessment, but this is on a school-by-school basis.
And that's about it. Finland's education system does not asses student learning in basic education with standardized testing. Instead, teachers receive general assessment guidelines and assess the students themselves. The Finnish system also encourages students to develop self-assessment skills and develop their own benchmarks for progress.
In lieu of the test, Finland's goal is "to support pupils' growth toward humanity and ethically responsible membership of society and to provide them with the knowledge and skills needed in life."
With that said, Finland does utilize a yearly test to assess school learning outcomes. These tests focus on either mathematics or the mother tongue and literature. Additional subjects like art and multiculturalism are also added depending on the ministry's objectives.
This may sound like standardized testing by another name, but there are some key differences. First, the tests are sample-based, not comprehensive. Second, the scores aren't used to assess the student's but the school, lessening the pressure on the participants. Finally, a school's score is not tied to funding or a country-wide ranking system. They are provided to the school administrators for evaluation and development.
Standardized tests in the U.S.
A student fills out a standardized test in the classic multiple-choice format. Image source:
Photo: Alberto G via Flickr
Summarizing any facet of the United States' education system is a trying task. That's because each state administrates its own education system through state-run departments but must follow federal mandates yet have broad autonomy as to how meet those policies and how to correct course if not up to standards.
It's like trying to fashion a national league for a sport with 50 official rule books. And the District of Columbia. And U.S. territories.
Even discussing something like the Common Core State Standards, an academic standards initiative designed to set standards for all U.S. students in math and language comprehension, results in long-winded conversations filled with foot notes and run-on sentences. Some states have adopted the standards, some have chosen not to, while others have implemented its policies piecemeal.
And Common Core is just one example of why summarizing any aspect of the U.S. education system will, at best, result in caricature. Still, we'll do our best.
At the federal level, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) governs education policy. This act repealed 2001's No Child Left Behind and amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). In turn, No Child Left Behind amended a whole gaggle of laws, including the ESEA. This is important because although the ESSA repealed No Child Left Behind, it left many of its mandates intact or modified them.
How the U.S. handles standardized tests was one of those mandates. No Child Left Behind emphasized annual standard tests for students from the third to eighth grade and again in their junior year. Since standardized tests are, well, standard, the goal was to judge the educational achievement of public schools on a level playing field. Each state had to administer the test to receive federal funding, though funding was not tied to a set standard.
The ESSA keep the emphasis on standardized testing, but gave each state "the sole discretion to develop and adopt its own challenging State academic standards, provided they meet the relevant statutory and regulatory requirements." The U.S. Department of Education, in turn, can provide feedback to states on their assessment system. Since the states have discretion, these tests will vary though most of them focus on mathematics and English language.
In addition to state tests, the U.S. also uses standardized tests for college admissions. These include the SAT and ACT, but some states implement their own. Texas has the Texas Higher Education Assessment test (THEA), and Florida has the Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (PERT).
Is the Finnish education system superior?
A graph showing the variation of student learning among OECD countries in the first PISA survey.
(Photo: OECD PISA database, 2003)
It's difficult to say; however, it seems clear that Finland's system works better for Finland than the U.S.'s works for the U.S.
The results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), a worldwide survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), seem to bear this out. In 2000, the first PISA ranked Finland number one in education among participating OECD countries.
Since then, Finland has remained a top-performer in the triennial survey. Though it has slipped behind Singapore and Hong Kong, in the 2015 PISA survey, it continued to achieve better than OECD average in science, reading, and mathematics.
"When the sole purpose of education has become the exam, when the test is the be all end all of schooling, then something important has ended in our education system," said Tristram Hunt, former U.K. Shadow Education Minister, said at a debate on standardized tests. "Rigor matters, but the tyranny of the testing hall is not providing the knowledge, skills, social mobility, or fulfillment, dare I say even the happiness, our education system deserves. And as a result, we are failing to educate, to lead, to mold, and to bring out the best in our young people."
As for the United States, it remains a midweight contender. In the 2015 PISA survey, out of 35 OECD members, the U.S. ranked around average in science and reading and below average in math. While many facets of any country's education system affect its success, these results show that constant standardized tests are not improving the U.S.'s academic prowess.
With that said, standardized tests may be living up to one of their promises: creating a more level playing field.
"Alternative methods of assessment are bias [i.e., compared to tests]," Daisy Christodoulou, head of assessment at Ark, countered at the same debate. "They are systematically bias against some of the most disadvantaged peoples in our society, and they also systematically reinforce common stereotypes."
She notes that teacher assessments are rife with implicit biases, pointing to studies that show teacher assessments reinforce common stereotypes that can be weeded out through standardized tests.
PISA's findings suggest Finland's reliance on teacher assessments could be harming particular groups within its student body. While the country performs well academically, its equity rating lags. In 2015, the country scored below the OECD average for equity among boys and girls, as well as for immigrant students. The United States, on the other hand, performed around the average for equity among boys and girls, and better than the average for immigrant students.
In the end, Finland and the United States are distinct countries socially, culturally, and demographically. Finland has a population of 5.5 million, while New York City alone is home to 8.6 million souls. And the entire country is roughly 30,000 square miles smaller than California. It many ways, comparing the two education systems is comparing apples to lingonberries. Add to this the fact that a fair, accurate, and unbiased assessment of something as complex as learning is no easy task.
However, Finland's successes lead one to the conclusion that the U.S. should adopt some of that country's pedagogical methods — namely, not leaning so hard on the standardized test. Then again, Finland may want to consider a few additional tests if it truly wants to create an equal playing field for all its citizens.
- 10 reasons Finland's education system is the best - Big Think ›
- The insane problem of US standardized testing - Big Think ›
Emotional intelligence is a skill sought by many employers. Here's how to raise yours.
- Daniel Goleman's 1995 book Emotional Intelligence catapulted the term into widespread use in the business world.
- One study found that EQ (emotional intelligence) is the top predictor of performance and accounts for 58% of success across all job types.
- EQ has been found to increase annual pay by around $29,000 and be present in 90% of top performers.
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
What's dead may never die, it seems<p>The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called Brain<em>Ex</em>. Brain<em>Ex </em>is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.</p><p>Brain<em>Ex</em> pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.</p><p>The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if Brain<em>Ex</em> can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.</p><p>As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.</p><p>The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.</p><p>"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told <em><a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/04/pig-brains-partially-revived-what-it-means-for-medicine-death-ethics/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>.</em></p>
An ethical gray matter<p>Before anyone gets an <em>Island of Dr. Moreau</em> vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.</p><p>The Brain<em>Ex</em> solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness. </p><p>Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death. </p><p>Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?</p><p>"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/science/brain-dead-pigs.html" target="_blank">the <em>New York Times</em></a>. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."</p><p>One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.</p><p>The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01216-4#ref-CR2" target="_blank">told <em>Nature</em></a> that if Brain<em>Ex</em> were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.</p><p>"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.</p><p>It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.</p><p>Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? <a href="https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/after-death-youre-aware-that-youve-died-scientists-claim" target="_blank">The distress of a partially alive brain</a>? </p><p>The dilemma is unprecedented.</p>
Setting new boundaries<p>Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, <em>Frankenstein</em>. As Farahany told <em>National Geographic</em>: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have <em>Frankenstein</em>, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."</p><p>She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.</p>
Starting and running a business takes more than a good idea and the desire to not have a boss.
- Anyone can start a business and be an entrepreneur, but the reality is that most businesses will fail. Building something successful from the ground up takes hard work, passion, intelligence, and a network of people who are equally as smart and passionate as you are. It also requires the ability to accept and learn from your failures.
- In this video, entrepreneurs in various industries including 3D printing, fashion, hygiene, capital investments, aerospace, and biotechnology share what they've learned over the years about relationships, setting and attaining goals, growth, and what happens when things don't go according to plan.
- "People who start businesses for the exit, most of them will fail because there's just no true passion behind it," says Miki Agrawal, co-founder of THINX and TUSHY. A key point of Agrawal's advice is that if you can't see yourself in something for 10 years, you shouldn't do it.
After a decade of failed attempts, scientists successfully bounced photons off of a reflector aboard the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, some 240,000 miles from Earth.
- Laser experiments can reveal precisely how far away an object is from Earth.
- For years scientists have been bouncing light off of reflectors on the lunar surface that were installed during the Apollo era, but these reflectors have become less efficient over time.
- The recent success could reveal the cause of the degradation, and also lead to new discoveries about the Moon's evolution.
A close-up photograph of the laser reflecting panel deployed by Apollo 14 astronauts on the Moon in 1971.
NASA<p>The technology isn't quite new. During the Apollo era, astronauts installed on the lunar surface five reflecting panels, each containing at least 100 mirrors that reflect back to whichever direction it's coming from. By bouncing light off these panels, scientists have been able to learn, for example, that the Moon is drifting away from Earth at a rate of about 1.5 inches per year.<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Now that we've been collecting data for 50 years, we can see trends that we wouldn't have been able to see otherwise," Erwan Mazarico, a planetary scientist from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/laser-beams-reflected-between-earth-and-moon-boost-science" target="_blank" rel="dofollow">said</a>. "Laser-ranging science is a long game."</p>
NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)
NASA<p>But the long game poses a problem: Over time, the panels on the Moon have become less efficient at bouncing light back to Earth. Some scientists suspect it's because dust, kicked up by micrometeorites, has settled on the surface of the panels, causing them to overheat. And if that's the case, scientists need to know for sure.</p><p>That's where the recent LRO laser experiment comes in. If scientists find discrepancies between the data sent back by the LRO reflector and those on the lunar surface, it could reveal what's causing the lunar reflectors to become less efficient. They could then account for these discrepancies in their models.</p>