Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Are the Best Educational Policies Transferable Anywhere?

What is an Educational Policy?

"The real role of policy, I believe, is to create a climate in which innovation is possible and self-determination is encouraged"- Sir Ken Robinson

 Educational policy is seldom defined with a singular definition. According to the Education Policy Wikipedia page, education policy is "the principles and government policy-making in educational sphere, as well as the collection of laws and rules that govern the operation of education systems."  The laws and practices that go into a given education system are what make up its educational policies.  These policies can range from broad to specific and have a direct impact on the lives of those effected.  Our group chose to look at policies and systems of education form the US, Sweden and Finland.  We looked into these countries and their policies regarding education and used our own judgement to determine whether or not we thought these policies would be transferrable anywhere. As we came to discover most policies cannot simply be transferred to another country but rather require a great deal of modification in order to be most effective.  Policies can work if they are transferred but not without some modifications.  Every country is different as is every system of education.

Early Childhood Education in the US.
In the United States, several states have government funded preschool education programs.  These programs are designed to help better develop children’s minds before they reach elementary school level. Studies have shown that preschool helps children in the long term.  Having a solid foundation in education is proven to extend the time that children stay in school which leads to lower dropout rates overall.  Preschool can often be an extra expense for many families which is why New York City chose to fund its early childhood education through government grants.  In an interview with NPR, Mayor Bill de Blasio has promised to make sure that these preschools are high quality saying, “We have certified teachers who are specialists in early childhood.” De Blasio continues on to discuss the importance of breaking socioeconomic boundaries and says that preschool could be one of the ways to do that.  He sees this program as a way to provide all students across NYC with equal access to quality education from a young age.  Providing these student with a strong foundational education will only help them in the long run.  Mayor de Blasio also acknowledges that there has been some pushback from the program but says that it stems from parents who “hadn't thought about having their children in a classroom setting so early in their life.”


Overall we find the program in New York City  to be expensive but worthwhile in the long run for these children.  An early, positive experience in education helps keep students invested in their education for longer. Students who have better experience in schools from a younger age are more likely to have a positive outlook on education as a whole.  “Some research suggests that positive impacts on cognitive development may be larger or more long lasting for low-income or at-risk children,” according to this Brookings Institute research brief.


Early Childhood Education in Sweden.
Sweden has a population close to ten million people, 550,00 of which are children. Early childhood education in Sweden is considered schooling for those that fall between the ages of one and five years, and ninety seven percent of those children in Sweden are enrolled in some form of an early childhood education program. This, in large part, has to do with the fact that Sweden offers three free hours per day of free early childhood education services. This allows parents to have that time of 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. for their children to begin their educational endeavors free of charge. This not only saves them money but ensures that their children are being taken care of and getting ahead in their educations. Preschool, in Sweden, is financed by a combination of governmental and municipality subsidy and some family payment. The municipality is responsible for providing a place for each child at the latest four months after parents have asked for it. More information can be found here. Also, children in Sweden have the right to preschool even if their parents do not work. This means children are not discriminated against because it’s free of charge and the amount of money your parents make does not determine the quality of early childhood education that they receive. Additionally, Sweden offers various night preschool for those children that have parents that work nights.






Sweden’s policies for early childhood education, in our opinion, are extremely beneficial not only for the children being educated, but also for their parents. Nobody is discriminated against for how much money they make as a determinant for if their child can attend preschool. Also, the very best teachers are hired to care for and educate Sweden’s youngest generation ensuring the beginning of their education is a success. The successes in Sweden show that almost ninety nine percent of those that participate in their early childhood education programs go onto university and other forms of higher education.


In our discussion of the policy we felt that while this policy is ideal and extremely beneficial in countries like Sweden and the U.S. there are some places where this policy might not be as effective.  For example in places that don’t have developed school systems, developing a government funded preschool program wouldn’t be beneficial to them. These children tend to grow up to work for the benefit of the family and community as a whole through farm work, domestic work, etc. Their children would benefit more from a general education system than one that works to develop a preschooling program. Additionally, these children are more beneficial to their families and participating in their family structure than their time in education. It is probably not necessary to spend money on early childhood education development in areas where children are just going to grow up to help the country exist and run smoothly, which tend to be underdeveloped countries.

Finland’s Education System.

The transformation of the Finland’s education system began about 40 years ago as the key propellent of the country’s economic recovery plan. Educators didn’t realize their successful until they first get the results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), a standardized test given to 15-year-olds in more than 40 global venues, revealed Finnish youth to be the best young readers in the world. Three years later, they led in math. By 2006, Finland was first out of 57 countries (and a few cities) in science. However, a lot of the educators in Finland were still feel surprised about the results, they didn’t know that it would become this good.


Finland has vastly improved in reading, math and science literacy over the past decade in large part because its teachers are trusted to do whatever it takes to turn young lives around. Educators there always say, “This is what we do everyday, prepare kids for life” (Stuart Conway). Nowadays, in Finland, there are no mandated standardized tests except the one at the end of senior year in high school. Therefore, there’s no ranking, comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. So that, learning pressure is not available in Finland. Since Finland’s schools are publicly funded, every Finnish child has the same chance to get same quality education no matter whether the child lives in a rural village or an urban city. According to the most recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the differences between weakest and strongest students in Finland are the smallest in the world. As Olli Luukkainen, president of Finland’s powerful teachers union said, “Equality is the most important word in Finnish education. All political parties on the right and left agree on this.”  Equality is one of the most essential aspects that makes Finland’s education system so successful. This article from Smithsonian Magazine discusses the potential for the American Education system to utilize Finnish techniques. Teachers in Finland spend fewer hours at school each day and spend less time in classrooms than American teachers. Teachers use the extra time to build curriculums and assess their students. Children spend far more time playing outside, even in the depths of winter. Homework is minimal. Compulsory schooling does not begin until age 7. “Children learn better when they are ready. Why stress them out?”


Health Education in Finland.

Finland is also making great strides in other areas of education, such as health and physical education.  About seven years ago, almost 1 in 5 five-year-olds in the Finnish city of Seinäjoki was overweight or obese. Not all schools and daycare centers were providing nutritious food and sufficient physical activity, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).  The country decided it was time to act.  Since then, the country has implemented a nationwide health education curriculum that begins in the early stages of the children’s education.  Incorporating some aspect of health in each daily lesson, starting in the Finnish equivalent of our American kindergarten, has children learning about relationships, healthy eating habits, and the importance of regular physical activity from an early age.  These subjects are taught in the classroom, not just during P.E. class, which opens up a wider range of subject matter to be taught.  These different topics have been carefully created to ensure each grade level is receiving wellness education that is age appropriate.  Younger students are learning about friendships and the love of family.  Middle-primary-aged students learn about dietary needs that are easy to understand, and are implemented in the schools’ cafeterias to help drive the concepts in a way the students can actually practice.  Older students are learning about intimate relationships, decision-making skills, and the effects of drugs and alcohol.  These Finnish schools are not shying away from uncomfortable topics, but rather are presenting them in a way that gives students the knowledge they need to make informed decisions in the real world.
Incongruently, the U.S., though steadily keeping national physical education standards, is continuing to cut these programs in order to focus on the “common core” as the importance of standardized testing soars in the eyes of our educational policy makers.  Why should it matter?  Even worse is the United States’ health education standardization.  There still remains no constant health education standards within the state or nation, which is easily seen by simply talking to the students.  After interviewing several peers from within New York State and from states such as California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Vermont, I found not a single continuous curriculum.  Each school district seemed to have taken it upon themselves to create their idea of a health education system—though still following the minimal standards that mirror each state’s viewpoint of the subject.  Some students had gone through one year of health class in both middle and high school.  Others had to endure an outdated, ludicrous video in gym class once a year. Still others only had one class for half a semester in high school.  In all these situations, the curriculum is still insufficient.  If anyone disagrees with this statement, let’s look at our nation’s statistics.  Currently, 34% of men and 48% of women in adulthood in the United States don’t meet recommended amounts of activity, according to The Guardian.  This could include simple activities such as walking briskly for 30 minutes or more five times a week, or exercising more vigorously for 20 minutes three times a week.  Those percentages average out to close to half of our country’s population.  It seems logical to assume that if the adults aren’t being active or eating what they should, they also aren’t teaching their children good physical habits, even if only by example (or lack thereof).
Why should we care about this lack of wellness?  Inactivity accounted for over 2 million deaths in 2002 as stated by WHO.  It is among the 10 leading causes of death and disability in the world.  “Sedentary lifestyles and [poor diet] increase all causes of mortality; double the risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity; and increase the risks of colon cancer, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, lipid disorders, depression and anxiety.” (WHO 2002) A baffling 60-85% of people globally lead sedentary lifestyles.  If health and physical education programs were given more support and resources, it would help to increase the overall health and well-being of our country.
Going back to Finland’s attack on this global issue, after the country implemented their new health education reform, the proportion of five-year-olds who are overweight or obese has been halved.  Though results did not appear overnight, the municipality’s health department has worked with the childcare, education, nutrition, recreation and urban planning departments to ensure all day care centers and schools provide the same quality of services—again showing the Finnish desire to create equality among its nation’s children.  However, it took time for all the different departments to understand how each influences health and the role each must play to promote it.  That’s how the U.S. will be able to have the same success rate.  Though we believe that because each country is vastly different and therefore must use its own policies, by using a similar equation to that of Finland’s relatively new health education programs, we too can make our country a healthier one.  But as Finland has shown us, it will take the work of many organizations, municipalities, and policy makers on the same page to bring about the desired result.  And that will be the main struggle of bringing this particular policy to the U.S., for with our great size and distribution of power comes great debate and varying sentiments.


Sources:
http://schools.nyc.gov/Academics/EarlyChildhood/support/PKAPQS.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/18-states-awarded-new-preschool-development-grants-increase-access-high-quality-preschool-programs

 http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Pre-kindergarten/Pre-Kindergarten

 http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/09/08/438584249/new-york-city-mayor-goes-all-in-on-free-preschool

 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2008/9/early-programs-isaacs/09_early_programs_brief1.PDF

 http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756810/obo-9780199756810-0081.xml

 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/why-are-finlands-schools-successful-49859555/?no-ist=&no-cache=_page%3D1_page%3D5_page%3D4&page=1
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 7, 2016

Politics of the Peace Corps, Fulbright and Teach For America


By Rachel Holcomb, Kellie Miller, Victor Yang, Yoanna “Ani” Lazarova, Meri Karastoyanova and Yana Markova


Benefits of the Peace Corps on the Community
In order to gain a better understanding of the Peace Corps Program and have enough knowledge and information to truly evaluate the work of this organization, we interviewed two former participants in this teaching system. Both of their reviews of their personal experience were positive. One of them even claimed:


“One of the best experiences of my life. I had more challenges and more rewards than almost anything else I’ve done in my life.”


They shared that the program allowed them to integrate into a new community and to build valuable relationships and, therefore, have a positive impact on the society in which they worked.


“One of the biggest positive aspects of the Peace Corps program is that it targets marginalized and poorer communities, rather than major programs and government edicts”- shares a volunteer who has worked in Mongolia.


The program in Mongolia has been successful because of the good cultural training and the strategic use of “clustering” – the Peace Corps volunteers are placed in the same village/town for support. Moreover, the volunteers with whom we spoke stated that the program manages to help develop education systems in countries without imposing United States values or using a colonialist approach. The Peace Corps volunteers work with teachers, so the change done is at the grass roots level. They do not work with school administrators and are not in charge of creating and administering educational system. The use of colonialist approach is avoided and the program seeks to avoid any neo-imperialistic aims as well. Conducting extensive cultural training and constantly stressing the importance of working with host country nationals are only one of the methods used to avoid the use of colonialist approach. In addition, the volunteers go only to countries that have explicitly requested them. The volunteers have not experienced any distrust and the program seems to have an astoundingly positive reputation in most countries. When asked if systems of inequality are addressed or perpetuated through the program in their opinion, a volunteer who worked in Bulgaria said:
“I would say they are addressed. Bringing highly educated people into areas that would otherwise be unable to afford the kind of input otherwise. Peace Corps volunteers have access to resources and information that many areas traditionally don’t.”


The Peace Corps program is beneficial both for the host community and the volunteers as it provides new experience, involvement and input creating a better educational system.
Peace Corps Ethiopia:



Consequences Brought on by the Peace Corps
        In light of the Peace Corps beneficial impact upon different communities, its own movement has created more job opportunities for residents in the United States as opposed to providing more opportunities for residents of the country being assisted. The Harvard Crimson took it upon themselves to point out this unequal discretion in which they comment in their article The Peace Corps: An Indictment, “They see us working side by side with other officials of the US government to accomplish programs, which are in the view of many Latins, part of the US' world wide struggle against Communism, not a genuine desire to help poor nations” (Harvard Crimson p. 1). The ill effect of the United States’ dominance can perpetuate a movement of inequality in which the United States’ agenda is being pushed as the primary focus and investment. In order to deviate from improving solely the United States sense of power and economy, a greater share of involvement must also be directed to the country that is being assisted. Such an alternative approach has been addressed by Peace Corps volunteers such as Karen Rothmyer, writer for NPR.org, who recommends a solution, “If Americans really want to give Kenya a hand, why not scrap the Peace Corps and instead underwrite jobs for young people who already live here so they can help their neighbors and live better lives?” (National Public radio, p. 1). Such a change to the program would not only grant job opportunities that would benefit citizens and the assisted country’s economy, but a greater representation of equality would be reflected in the Peace Corps mission and objectives thus better assisting particular countries.
The overwhelming dominance of American decisions have not only been commented upon by the media but has also been recorded through personal reflections by Peace Corps volunteers. The New York Times has recorded these personal experiences in their self-reflective article, Peace Corps Volunteers in their Own Words, to which a variety of positive but also negative responses have been reported. Peace Corps volunteer, Jonathan Halpern, speaks about his short lived service in the country of Kazakhastan, to which the Peace Corps shut the program down abruptly during the course of English lessons. As Halpern comments, “Peace Corps did a terrible job of communicating the true situation to us, both during and at the conclusion of the program (New York Times, p. 1). Such poor communication not only delayed the service of fifty Peace Corps volunteers, but it also hindered the learning of numerous young Kazakhastan students who were making progress in their English lessons. The organization's negative interactions with their volunteers has also been extended to the level of care that Peace Corps volunteers have received. Peace Corps volunteer, Chance Dorland who served in Colombia was forced to cut their service early due to the Peace Corps’ poor level of medical care. Dorland stated that, “I’ve been told by American doctors that my condition was caused by a lack of medical care and a communication problem between Peace Corps medical staff that resulted in me being given the wrong medication” (New York Times, p. 1). Such adverse medical attention and poor level of communication was further addressed by Dorland as being “swept under the rug,” thus implicating the Peace Corps’ poor level of care towards their volunteers thus hindering the effectiveness of services offered by their volunteers.


Teach for America has a strong reputation arguably in every field other than the field of education.  Syracuse University is a good example of this, as undergraduates in the Maxwell School among others are encouraged to enter such a prestigious program, while the School of Education warns its undergraduates of the harms that coincide with the program and readily encourage their students to move into a master’s program for education before entering the classroom.  As a Selected Studies in Education student, I had the opportunity to take public policy courses and listen to TFA corps members share their challenging but rewarding experiences with the program. At the same time I enrolled in several education courses focused intensely on the pedagogy of education and the importance of teaching training.  When researching my options for post graduation I had the opportunity to meet with one of the recruiters for the School of Education master’s program.  During our discussion about routes outside of a master’s degree the recruiter was quick to shame alternative programs, most notably Teach for America stating that it is a disservice to the children to put teachers in classrooms that lack both an education and training in the field.
From a Maxwell Perspective, much evidence and test scores have been gathered to support the notion that systems of inequality are addressed through Teach for America. Aside from the conflicting academic assessments that have been compared across TFA members and traditionally trained teachers, many find the poor teacher retention rates of TFA to be one of its biggest criticisms.  However; many of these TFA members that leave the classroom after their two-year commitment will then enter policy work in education among other fields with first-hand experience in the field of education, often in areas where the inequality rates are of the highest in the country, that will influence their future work and commitment to education that they otherwise would not have the opportunity to gain.
From a traditional teacher education perspective, however, it is argued that these low retention rates that Teach for America produces is just a quick-fix by continually turning over teachers in districts where the students require the most support and consistency in order to receive long term benefits. It is also argued that alternative routes to teaching discredits and undermines the career path of education, by arguing that their members are prepared to lead classrooms after just five weeks of training.  These alternative systems have not only caused a disruption to the United States system of education, but as these policies and programs are implemented in other nations with characteristically very different values and systems we can see a neocolonial approach that arguably is only aimed at improving the socioeconomics of the United States through globalization rather that they countries receiving the program’s services, such as Teach for India through the Teach for All program that has begun to take hold across the world.





To be fair, anything can be criticized if this is the desired point of view, so we have chosen to also take a look at the matter from a more positive perspective. We have chosen another sub-Teach for All, Teach for Bulgaria, to explore in its specifics since only through focusing on the details can we truly evaluate the whole extensively. Teach for Bulgaria is a fairly new organization that is quickly gaining fame in the mentioned country, as more and more institutions of education and politics begin to appreciate its effectiveness there. We contacted the president of the TFB club at the American College of Sofia, the senior Alexandra Radeva, and we asked her what she thought about the inequality and possible prejudice that this organization might have. We have already stated that fairness is important to us, so before we present her point of view, we would like to justify why a member of the organization should be counted as the carrier of an objective point of view. Alexandra was introduced to TFB last year when the club was firstly created at ACS as a branch of the original TFB. Just as anybody else, she was presented with the objective of the club and the organization as well as with the choice of whether she wanted to support this mission or not. She researched it thoroughly alongside with its origins in Teach for America. Here she paused, but it was clear what was lingering between the lines: had she found anything unjust or inappropriate with the methods of TFB, she wouldn’t have joined. After she introduced me to how she had been introduced to TFB, we moved on to a discussion on the question about the promotion on inequality. Her view on inequality was focused more on the inequality within the borders of Bulgaria, but her statement can nonetheless help us answer our question:
“I don't think we can talk about prejudice when it comes to Teach for Bulgaria. The organization itself has launched numerous programs which aim at improving the educational environment in Bulgaria as a whole. Although the focus is mainly on Sofian schools, TFB tries to extend its activity. The fact that both the organization and the ACS activity work with students and teachers from  schools in smaller towns such as Zlatitza speaks for itself that TFB is not prejudiced. The goal is to give equal benefits for students from the entire country and with each year TFB's partnership with countryside schools increases.”
The fact that she emphasizes the effort that TFB is putting into developing as an organization for the greater good is important as it is. It is just as important, however, that this wouldn’t be possible without the Teach for All program. And while we could speak about neocolonial approaches and extension of control, when we look into the details, we see that the positive consequences are not simply for the United States’ socioeconomics, but for the improvement of the living standards in other units such as Bulgaria.
While Teach for America is unique as an idea, it is just as susceptive to both negative and positive commentaries as any other idea. The important thing is that it is always worth it to dig into ideas and analyze them from all sides because then you know that you have seen and understood them for what they truly are: an attempt for having one better tomorrow.  
The Fulbright program is one of the most selective and prestigious programs funded by the US Department of State. First conceived by US Senator J. William Fulbright in 1946, his vision was to create an international education exchange for students, scholars, teachers, professionals, scientists and artists. Starting with 10 countries and now encompassing 130 and counting, the Fulbright program is one of the most successful international exchange programs. Among its alumni are 29 former heads of state or government, 53 Nobel Prize winners, and 80 Pulitzer Prize winners from all regions of the world (Sonenshine, 2014)



This program offers grants for graduate studying, research, lecturing and teaching. These scholarships are subsidized mainly by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. Additional sponsorships come from partner governments, corporations, foundations not only from the U.S., but also from the associated countries. Annually, the program awards around 8,000 grants, from which approximately 1,600 are U.S. students, 4,000 are foreign students, 1,200 are U.S. scholars, and 900 - visiting scholars. Additionally, several hundred teachers and professionals also receive awards. (Fulbright Scholar Program)
Although, there will be few that disagree on the success of the Fulbright program, there are some who would argue that it is a program that promotes systems of inequality. One such reasoning for this is the fact that the Fulbright program is not available in each and every country in the world. By not being able to reach every country in the world, the United States is not giving countries that may have promising scholars a chance to succeed in a rich academic culture. Another way that the Fulbright program may be perpetuating inequality is based on the differences in funding that countries receive. Since the program uses cost-sharing and partnership agreements with other countries, such as friendly allies in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific. Their Fulbright budgets are funded from many sources other than the US Government, such as private charitable contributions and their own government funding. As a result, this automatically gives countries that are more developed a chance to obtain more Fulbright scholars and develop their human capital. An example of this is the country of Kenya, a developing country when compared to some of its Fulbright peers in Europe. Since it does not have as strong of an economy, it does not have access to as many private donors, and it’s government may not have as much money to contribute towards the program. This essentially means that because Kenya may not have as much resources, they are not receiving the full benefit of the Fulbright program (Marsa, 1991).
Another concern that stems from the basis of the program is the funding as it is largely dependent on the economic stability of the partnering countries. Since the grants are not sponsored only by the U.S. government, their amount vary upon the prosperity of the foreign institutions. This creates inequality in the sense that the more booming economy a country has, the larger sponsorship it will get for its Fulbright scholars, while those students who are already facing difficulties because of their country’s situation will receive a  smaller grant. For instance, a Philippine Fulbright scholar got accepted into Columbia Law School, but declined the offer since he couldn't cover the expenses, The cost of studying in a top-tier law school in the U.S. is roughly US$60,000.00 covering tuition and living expenses. However, the grant that Philippine Fulbright scholars receive is US$32,500.00, which is almost half of the needed amount. Even though the university granted him a US$20,000.00 tuition waiver, he still had to pay US$14,500.00, since the expenses in Columbia were estimated around US$67,000.00 and that wasn’t possible for him. As a result, the student declined the offer and withdrew from Fulbright. This example shows how inequality is still an issue for the Fulbright Program and a solution to this problem could be making the funding need-based (Invictus, 2008).
When it was first conceived, the Fulbright program was created to promote cultural exchange between countries. However, as time has evolved, this vision has seemingly shifted and changed meaning. Now, the Fulbright program is not only a cultural exchange between countries but it also focuses on more academic knowledge and skill based exchange. Yet, the nature of what the program intended to be has arguably caused a system of inequality. An example of this comes from the topic of the sciences, where the program has its lowest amount of scholars studying the field. According to the Institute of International which administers the Fulbright Program “less than 10 percent of the student Fulbright applicants are studying science” (Marsa, 1991), a low number for an important field. The reasons for this vary, but one of the biggest is due to this original emphasis on cultural exchange. According to Walter A. Rosenblith, Professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a former chairman of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board “scientists don't have the time to be goodwill ambassadors and do science, too, which demands more than a 40-hour work week. And as tenure becomes more difficult to achieve, scientists are more hesitant to take time off and go abroad” (Marsa 1991). This illustrates how inequality may be occurring through different academic disciplines within the Fulbright program, an unintended consequence that delves from the original vision of the program.

References


Peace Corps:
Teach for America:
Fullbright:

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)