Three wrong-headed ideas driving reform of U.S. teaching force
President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan in 2012. (REUTERS/Yuri Gripas)
“When the going gets tough in our wealthy societies, the powers-that-be often choose quick fixes. In search of a silver bullet instead of sustained systemic improvement, politicians turn their eyes on teachers, believing that asking them to do more with less can compensate for inconvenient reductions in school resources.”
So writes Pasi Sahlberg, a visiting professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and one of the world’s leading experts on school reform and international educational practices. Author of “Finnish Lessons 2.0: What Can the World Learn from Educational Change in Finland?” and former director general of Finland’s Center for International Mobility and Cooperation, Sahlberg has written a number of important posts for The Answer Sheet, including “What the U.S. can’t learn from Finland about ed reform,” and “How GERM is infecting schools around the world.” In this post, which appeared in the ATA Magazine of the Alberta Teachers Association, Sahlberg writes about three fallacies underpinning efforts to change the teaching force in the United States and beyond. I am publishing it with permission.
By Pasi Sahlberg
Governments in Alberta and Finland are under economic pressure to reduce public spending as a result of failed national politics and unpredictable global economics. When government budgets get off track, bad news for education systems follow. The recently defeated Finnish government carried out huge cuts in education infrastructure. As a result, small schools were closed, teaching staff lost their jobs and morale among educators declined. Albertans are now facing similar threats.
When the going gets tough in our wealthy societies, the powers-that-be often choose quick fixes. In search of a silver bullet instead of sustained systemic Three wrong-headed ideas driving reform of U.S. teaching force - The Washington Post:
