In part I of this story, we touched on Singapore and Korea as case studies for education. Now, we will focus on Western attitudes towards education in Finland and the United States.
To recap, we will be exploring how government and personal expenditure on education has changed in various countries over time.
ASIAN VS WESTERN education
Asian and Western countries have different perspectives towards education and hence different approaches towards teaching. Asian education system usually maintains a strict educational structure, in a top-down approach. The Asian learning and teaching process places more emphasis teaching, rather than learning from one another. There are more lecture-style classes compared to collaborative work, and most study materials are provided by the teachers. Questions are welcome, but students usually only ask when they need clarification on concepts rather than linking it to a bigger picture. Generally, the Asian education approach is based on memorization and exam-oriented learning. Students are mostly expected to memorize the textbook based to get best scores. The philosophy here is that talents cannot be developed unless the basic solid foundation is built first, from elementary and secondary school education. Creativity should be a part and parcel of education, and will be utilised only in higher education.
However, this trend is thankfully changing to favour more application-based questions in the exams, Even in this class in NUS USP, we are encouraged to do self-directed learning in which we do hands-on mini projects involving data visualizations, including Tableau, Python, R and Excel.
On the other hand, the Western education system is more student-centered. It encourages students to actively participate and get involved in group discussions. This approach keeps the students involved in the learning process and keeps their mind stimulated since they are the ones contributing to the content as well. In a more relaxed setting, students are encouraged to share their personal views, emphasizing more on creativity over conventionality and does not focus on memorization and drill learning.
I have commonly heard of the saying that education stifles creativity, in which I would have thought that it is stifled only in Asian education systems. Turns out, I was wrong, and creativity is stifled in both Asian and Western education systems, measured with Torrance tests for creativity! The Torrance test, also called the ATTA, is a widely used test for creativity, including tasks such as finding different ways to play with a toy, listing out possible consequences for improbable situations etc.
A sample question for Incomplete Drawings would look like:
While a sample question for a Consequence task would be: Imagine if all humans could fly. What are some possible consequences? (e.g. airports will shut down) Well, given lower scores on the Torrance tests, this suggests that IQs are increasing, but creativity is decreasing…
On a whole across the world, the majority of parents place great importance on their children’s academic achievement as a means to acquire personal advancement, higher social status, and wealth. The children’s developmental needs for leisure, pleasure, and sleeping are often overlooked, and their psychological and emotional well-being tends to be ignored. Focusing on the best interests of children is going too far for some in Asian societies. On the other hand, there is speculation that Western parents are more encouraging and appraise their children more. Hence the upbringing of children in the respective societies might also affect the student’s attitudes towards education in the long run, and whether they feel intrinsically motivated to pursue further education in the real pursuit for knowledge.
United States
Let’s now take a look at education in America.
About the American education system
American students attend elementary and secondary school (K-12) for a combined total of 12 years, known as first through twelfth grades. After 12th grade, also known as high school, they move on to university, also called higher education.
[US] Government Expenditure
The Federal government of the United States spent $13,600 per student on elementary and secondary (K-12) education in 2016. This is 39 percent higher than the average of OECD member countries ($9,800). In total, they spent $38.2 billion on K-12 education.
At the postsecondary level, the Federal government of the United States spent $31,600 per FTE student, which was 95 percent higher than the average of OECD countries ($16,200). In total, they spent $32.0 billion for post-secondary education.
Their education system funding system is also slightly different from Korea and Singapore. The graph below shows the breakdown of funding for K-12 education in total. (note the different colours by which party bears the costs)
Their funding system is split into three parts — local, state and federal. Here’s a little breakdown for those of you not familiar with the US system:
- Local: Counties, cities, municipalities, towns, townships and villages in each state
- State: 50 states of US, including New York, Iowa, West Virginia
- Federal: Governs the whole of US
And here’s the breakdown of spending for public schools by US states, in 2016:
This graph shows the 50 states of US, and how much money is spent on public schools at the state level.
State and local government provide the majority of funding for elementary and secondary education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 2014 roughly 45 percent of funding was provided by state government, 47 percent was provided by local sources and 8 percent came from the federal government.
Looking at the three graphs for local, state and federal funding of education, obtained here, we can see that local funding accounts for most of the K-12 education. State funding is the largest for tertiary education, and only 0.4 percent GDP was for K-12 education in 2015. Federal funding is the lowest, and rightly so, since they have to cover for other costs like healthcare as well.
Did you notice that there is a peak in 2009 for all three graphs? Well, that can be attributed to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
The ARRA 2009 is an extraordinary, one-time contribution by the Federal government to assist states severely impacted by the mortgage lending crisis of 2008. Specifically in the education sector, To alleviate state budget shortfalls for schools, Congress passed ARRA, which resulted in an additional $98.2 billion allocated specifically for education. This is to prevent the 2008 economic crisis from causing layoffs for many thousands of teachers. This shows that the US government is willing to set aside money to keep the education system afloat amidst an economic crisis.
Breakdown of where the $ goes
Nearly all (90%) elementary and secondary education spending goes toward operational costs, such as salaries and benefits for public school employees engaged in instruction; administration; guidance counseling; textbooks; and other auxiliary services operated through the school system, such as transportation to schools and lunch programs. The remaining 10% is spent on capital outlays, such as school construction and renovation and some equipment purchases.
Relationship between expenditure and enrolment rates
Money and affordability is actually one of the main concerns for students to enrol in universities (called colleges in the US). Parents have become more cost-focused, even more so than getting into their #1 choice of university. For example, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) is a financial aid scheme for undergraduates and graduates in the US. When asked about their expected response to earlier FAFSA availability, more than a third of students said they will apply earlier and 20% said they would expedite enrollment decisions. If you factor in students who say they may act earlier (but are not sure), the number exceeds 50% for both application and enrollment. Affordability and government expenditure on financial aid thus impacts the proportion of students who can enter university.
[US] Private expenditure/Attitudes
A recent analysis by the personal-finance website Financial Samurai estimated that a New York City family with an income of $500,000 a year would spend $12,000 a year on children’s lessons for music, art and sports. Among the Capital One survey respondents, 3% said they spend more than $10,000 a year on school-related costs and after-school activity fees.
However, enrichment classes are much more prevalent in the US, compared to tuition classes for improving education. This suggests a greater focus on extracurricular activities and play, rather than solely focusing on studies.
Criticism of the American Education system
- Teacher quality. There are lax requirements into college of education, and similarly for graduation. There is a lack of a centralized system for teacher training or distributing quality instructional materials to schools.
- School curriculum. Schools also did not always effectively carry out the Common Core (national effort by governors, state education chiefs, philanthropists and school reformers to enrich the American curriculum and help students compete with children around the world) or other initiatives set in place.
- School absenteeism. 37% of U.S. test-takers on PISA had skipped at least one day of school in the two weeks prior to the exam, double the OECD average of 20%.
- School absenteeism due to race. Systemic and structural barriers to opportunity for Black, Latinx, Native American, and some Asian American and Pacific Islander children, as well as ongoing segregation and isolation of students from families with low incomes who are locked into under-resourced schools.
- Gaps in resources provided. The nation’s current system has led to enormous gaps in the resources provided to students based on geography, income, and race. The difference in spending across states is massive, even accounting for varying levels of poverty, regional wages, and other factors. For example, New York spends more than $12,400 more per student than Idaho. Only 11 states fund education progressively now, meaning that more resources are provided to school districts with the highest levels of poverty.
There are very large social-class-based gaps in academic performance and this have persisted across the two most recently studied cohorts of students starting kindergarten. These large, stubborn gaps across both traditional cognitive and noncognitive skills should guide the design of education policies at the federal, state, and local levels; the combined resources and support of government at all three levels are needed if we are to tackle these inequalities effectively.
Financial concern is also consistent across SAT performance, minority status, and wealth, with 40% of students with SAT scores > 1200 and 39% of students with scores < 1200 forwent their first-choice schools because of cost-related concerns. Given the above, it is no surprise why Americans are not faring as well as Asians in the PISA.
So, how can we make it a more fair system?
Georgia State University is one of the success stories. Amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, grade point averages are rising, and attendance even went up during the shift to remote learning. This is especially noteworthy since close to 60% of Georgia State’s students are poor enough to qualify for federal aid. The pandemic has also hit African Americans and other ethnic minorities particularly hard — and 70% of Georgia State’s students are people of color.
The secret? The university has learnt to pinpoint problems and direct students down the right path. The universities’ academic advisors take action whenever they notice a bad grade, or realise that a student is absent. The university also disburses care grants in accordance to how much each student needs it, rather than making students apply for them. On the other hand, other universities had cumbersome grant application processes, whilst others gave everyone equal amounts regardless of need, which we feel is even worse as the students who need the grants more are not able to get as much as they need.
Finland
About the Finland education system
Students begin Pre-Primary education at the age of 6, and then move on to basic education for children aged 7–16 (Grades 1–9). There are no standardized tests during this period, and students take their first major exam at 16 before they enter upper secondary from the ages 16–19. Alternatively, students can choose to spend 3 years in vocational school as well, much like polytechnics in Singapore. From there, they then move on to take their Bachelor’s degrees and higher education. Interestingly, likened to Singapore’s SkillsFuture programme for retraining of workers, adult education is available at all ages in Finland too, in the spirit of lifelong learning!
Before the age of 6, there is also the early childhood education and care (ECEC), which combines education, teaching and care in a systematic and goal-oriented manner. Pre-Primary education and Basic education is compulsory for all students, in which about 2500 schools provide basic education in Finland. These comprehensive schools are maintained by the local authorities (municipalities) and other education providers. Less than two per cent of comprehensive school pupils go to a private or state school. All schools follow a Finnish core curriculum, and all students but the most severely disabled will go through the same curriculum as part of Finnish policies. Students will stay predominantly in a single group throughout most of their schooling years, managed by a single teacher. That means a lot of dedication from a single teacher, who will definitely understand each student inside out as well as each child’s unique character, while allowing for the teacher to holistically assess the student in multi-disciplinary areas given the lack of graded tests. Students form very close relationships with their homeroom teachers, and call them by their first names.
Values: Values upheld by Finnish schools include Active involvement of pupils, meaningfulness, joy of learning and interaction in focus. Their curriculum involves developing students’ creativity, management and innovation skills.
School Hours: An average schoool day for a Finnish secondary student is about 5 hours, slightly less than that in Singapore. School days are typically from 9am to 2pm (younger) or 3pm (older). There are no school uniforms and teachers also dress very informally, creating a more relaxed atmosphere. Lessons are 45 minutes with 15 minutes downtime (free play!), similar to the principle that Google introduced some years ago to their knowledge workers — the 20 per cent principle. Teachers also benefit from these frequent breaks. But, it must be noted the qualitative data of average school days does not tell us the entire story of education quality, but rather, it is how the time in school is spent!
Grading system: How are students graded upon, without any major tests? Well, teachers are encouraged to assess their students regularly, and guidelines for assessment are provided in the national core curriculum. Currently, there is also a shift towards student self-assessment, so that students may understand their progress and help to design their own learning activities.
Students below 5th grade (i.e. age 11) will not be graded for any of their school assignments. In upper secondary, schools use the grading scale 10–4, of which 10–5 are pass and 4 fail. That being said, the common narrative about Finland is that there is no homework, and that is FALSE. They have homework, just that it isn’t graded. And they are still tested at a young age, just that the grades are meant for the teacher’s assessment, and not meant to place pressure to do well.
All Schools are Equal Schools
All schools follow the same Finnish core curriculum, and given the absence of standardized grading, schools are not directly compared to each other in terms of the calibre of its graduates. Furthermore, Finland provides extra support for Low-Performing Schools, and there is little disparity in performance among Finnish schools. Only 8 percent of the variance in PISA science scores in 2015 was between schools, compared to an OECD average of 30 percent. Finland has also been successful in uncoupling socioeconomic status from academic success or failure: Students in Finland’s disadvantaged schools outperformed students in disadvantaged schools from every country in 2015.
[FN] Government Expenditure
Finland’s spending across the years has increased by almost $1.5 million euros. According to Statista, general government expenditure on education in Finland has risen from $11.3M euros in 2008 to $12.9M euros in 2018. Educational spending in Finland is similar to Singapore, in which a central government provides the funding.
Finland spends less per student compared to the US, but still higher than the OECD average. In 2014, Finland spent $13,865 per student in lower secondary school, as compared to the OECD average of $10,235. Total spending on education represented 5.7 percent of Finland’s GDP in 2014, compared to the average across OECD countries of 5.1 percent in 2014.
Outcomes of Education
Comparing the absolute amount of educational spending in the US and Finland, we would expect educational outcomes in the US to be better compared to Finland. However, this is not the case, as the PISA graph below shows. While students Singapore, South Korea and Finland scored above average in the PISA, the students from the US were almost 30 points behind the average OECD student as seen below.
So, what is it that makes the difference? While U.S. public schools are locally funded, usually from property taxes, and rewarded based on high performance through programs such as the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the Top grants, Finnish schools are nationally funded based on the number of students. Schools are provided additional funding if they have a higher proportion of immigrants or students whose parents are uneducated or unemployed. The US needs to have more highly educated teachers and also, to pay them more. Social standing of teachers is also paramount — in Finland, teachers are on par with lawyers or doctors or architects, which requires high levels of education.
Attitudes towards education
Parents’ attitudes: They don’t find a need to dabble so much in their children’s education, because they place great trust in the educators to plan a good and fluid curricula to prepare their children for future challenges, and for the development of the ‘whole child’
Teachers’ attitudes: “Whatever it takes” is the attitude of most of Finland’s educators, in which they go to whatever lengths it takes to catch the weak students. While less time is spent doing the actual teaching, they spend a lot of time consulting their colleagues on how to tackle challenges, as well as work with other teachers to plan suitable curricula, maximising students’ time spent in school.
Finnish teachers and parents don’t want children to go to school for grades, or to compete for the best grades. Instead, most Finns understand that especially in early years, learning and personal growth must be based on whole child development and that individual children learn at very different speeds at that age.
A Success Story — what can we learn from Finland?
Finland in the 1970s was traditionally thought of as the lowest achieving country in Scandinavia for a very long time. Education was inequitable, and the achievement gap ran across socioeconomic lines. So, what made the difference in the last 40 years, and how did they revolutionize their education system? By establishing a comprehensive school for grades 1–9 with rigorous standards, improving teacher quality and making school funding based solely on student numbers, Finland has been able to almost completely eliminate what was once a huge disparity.
Key factors in the success of the Finnish education system:
- Ensuring high quality of professors, by holding the teaching profession in high regard. Teachers with advanced and specialized degrees are in particular demand, and is very competitive to enter there is a close to a 7% acceptance rate reported in one of their local universities.
- Constant and rigorous re-training of teachers
- Standardized funding for students on a needs-basis, with equitable access to educational resources.
- Wide choices of schools, yet are not compared on a ranking system. This enables them to choose between high-quality, well-resourced, safe, transparent and locally governed area public schools.
- Few standardized tests. In Finland, there is only one standardized test at the end of senior year (9th grade), much unlike the U.S. and many Asian countries with yearly standardized tests
- Limits on classroom technology — a recent OECD suggests that there is too much classroom technology now, that does not have any more net academic benefit. Qualified teachers still beats the screen, and it’s that human touch that gives education its appeal
- Other criteria: reasonable class sizes, individualized attention from highly qualified teachers, a rich curriculum, regular breaks and physical activity, proper sleep and nutrition, reasonable workloads and downtime, warmth and encouragement, a screen-free “digital oasis” when appropriate, and social support services when necessary.
Parallels to Singapore
The Finnish education system has a model that is quite unlike Singapore and other Asian countries, in which play and interaction between students is greatly encouraged.
However, Singapore has emulated some of the good points in Finland’s educational system. Singapore recruits our teachers from the top third of high school graduates, and opens up only the number of training slots in NIE as they need. On average, only one out of eight applicants for admission to their teacher education programs is accepted, and teachers continue retraining throughout their career in teaching.
Private Expenditure
There isn’t much data published on private enrichment classes outside the school curriculum in Finland. And rightly so, given the high quality of education and trust in the teachers, it almost eliminates a need to pursue other tuition classes for improving grades. However, I would be interested to read more into how Finnish students spend their extra time after school, in which some spend time with nature, exercise and possibly, other activities too!
Perhaps, Finland’s model is something that Asian countries can aspire towards. To quote this Finland student blogger, (timestamp 10:46) ‘There tends to be no better or worse schools, unlike segregation in the US where some schools are seen as the right school. In Finland, the base level of education is so good, and it didn’t feel like any school had reputations for being better.’ If the baseline level of education is raised in Singapore and Korea, is it possible to reduce the pressure to do well then? Just some food for thought!
Closing notes
I really enjoyed building this exploratory #data-story from scratch! As a student in Singapore, it has been fun exploring how peers my age go through education in other parts of the world. I’ll end off here, with my favourite quote on education:
