In the past twenty years, the United States and Finland’s public education systems developed along completely different trajectories; while the formidable superpower repeatedly tests in the middle of the pack on international assessments, the relatively small Scandinavian country has become a powerhouse and a model for the world. American attempts at increasing accountability for individual educators stagnate growth and stunt progress whereas Finland’s model of shared responsibility promotes teacher autonomy and creativity as well as measurable success for students. What can the United States learn from an international model of excellence like Finland? How can American educators regain a status in the professional class on par with other white collar professionals like lawyers and doctors?
American teachers increasingly found themselves drawn into the political sphere this year during an already trying experience of teaching during the pandemic. From the initial lockdown through the one year point in the pandemic, public opinion on teachers has gone through a kaleidoscope of changes. Despite the variable view of teachers in society’s eye, educators as a workforce have largely adapted to teaching in this new environment of virtual, hybrid and socially distanced classrooms. For many teachers, being publicly vilified and used as political pawns seem de rigeur at this point. Regardless, the included stressor of a worldwide crisis has only added to the amount of pressure on America’s teachers to perform herculean tasks that are far beyond their pay grade. Thus, more teachers are reporting burnout and contemplating leaving the profession entirely than ever before.
While conditions within American public schools have been exacerbated by the
coronavirus lockdowns and restrictions, there is an underlying ideological malady that predates
interruptions by any literal disease. The ideological shift from responsibility toward “accountability” in public education has been one of the hallmark symptoms of the disease
plaguing public education, (ESEA, Statement of Purpose, Sec. 1001). While the two terms are
related and often used interchangeably, accountability puts the onus on individuals and their
actions, oftentimes measured by output. Since the introduction of No Child Left Behind legislation in 2002, or its successor, Every Student Succeeds, educators have been
evaluated based on their students’ performances on high-stakes state exams, such as the PARCC,
district-wide initiatives like benchmark exams, or even individual coursework through SGOs
(student grown objectives). Much like other public policy initiatives, the way of
approaching public education has been dominated by neoliberal, “third way” socioeconomic
theory, “The social theory of the Third Way argued for integrative thinking—linking the best of government leadership with innovative markets in educational change. In practice,
though, many Third Way policies have drifted from the Way's original ideals—alienating
students, corrupting classrooms, manipulating educators, and deceiving the public,”
(Hargreaves & Hurley, 21).
As educational theorists Andy Hargreaves and Dennis Hurley note, while the third way can offer
objective numbers that can be compared across school districts, there has been an overemphasis
on those raw scores rather than considering the human aspect of the teaching profession.
The obsession with accountability has roots much deeper than the influence of corporate paradigms within education. A misapplication of the Protestant work ethic is at the root of this pathology. Elements of the Calvinist strain of Protestantism at the foundation of Anglo-American colonization remain a cornerstone for defining “core American values.” The thrifty and hardworking Puritans are but one group in a long line of stoic endurers of difficult times in the American mythos - from homesteading pioneers to the Depression era savers to pandemic bread makers and DIY-ers; there have always been survivors and thrivers. This persistence through obstacles, while originally attributed to God’s saving grace, has been secularized into part of the American character.
This perseverance has been co-opted by corporate America into another selling point for potential employees. Marketability of one’s self now must include some sort of grit, “x” factor, or charisma that remains difficult to define or quantify. What is it that makes one employee thrive but another wilt? Those who cannot keep up may be provided with constructive criticism or a corrective action plan, but the onus of success remains on the individual and not the institution. The lie perpetuated here is that those “graced” with grit will perform well, despite any hardships.
The concept of accountability under the guise of “grit” even swept through schools as a way to market personal accountability to individual students. Valorizing this nebulous but clearly individual trait turns education into a competitive exhibition of academic success earned through grit - and measured through gains on quantitative assessments - which in turn allows access to highly-rated colleges and highly-paid careers. Life within and beyond the classroom is reduced to the pursuit of the “score.” Such practices prime students for their future as obedient players in systems that continue to “grade” them throughout their lives - from their school to employment careers. Accountability provides employers with a mode to quantitatively measure job performance without explicitly saying so.
Accountability (and measures of it) is a tool. The emphasis on accountability as the bellwether of health of an institution like public education is problematic, however. Schools do not exist in a vacuum and while an individual teacher or district can be measured through evaluative standards on how well they perform, there are multiple variables that remain outside their control, despite their potential impact on the outcome, (for example, socioeconomic status of students in a class or district). Accountability as a measure stems from the corporatization of the public sector in the US. Both major American political parties embraced neoliberalism in their own ways in the wake of the Cold War, but always with an end goal toward protecting profit margins. As noted by education researcher Marianne Larsen, “...the imperatives of global capital have imposed neo-liberal economic discipline on all levels of government...characterized by managerialism, these policies entail the introduction of business values and practices in the public sector,” (Larsen, 293).
While teacher quality can and should be assessed, what would be the most effective and
productive way to do so, and would that make a difference in professional satisfaction and for
student achievement as well? On an international level, the evaluative model for teacher
professionalism and expertise varies from nation-state to nation-state; international comparisons
have shown that the more high-stakes and punitive teacher evaluations are, the more likely they
are to provoke counterproductive distress within the evaluee, “Like other fields of study, education has been influenced by market-driven global forces, and stakeholders with administrative powers started questioning whether their investment, financial or otherwise, was getting its worth…accountability-based teacher evaluation models, despite their popularity nowadays, are more likely to ‘increase stress, anxiety, fear, and mistrust amongst teachers and limit growth, flexibility and creativity’ (Larsen, 292) and that teachers are oftentimes struggling with trying to meet the requirements defined by various stakeholders.” (Tarhan, 37).
Yet, the problem may not be with accountability itself, but the cultural climate surrounding accountability; what foundational ideologies surround accountability in the US versus Finland? While their research focuses on accountability for students, the differing sociopolitical context in the US and Finland frames the usage and interpretation of accountability as a tool. Furthermore, the researchers illuminate the stark contrast between the Finnish teacher training programs and associated professional evaluative systems, which are standardized across a handful of universities, all with the same objectives to meet the national requirements for professionalism, with the American accreditation programs, which not only vary from state to state, but may vary from district to district within a state.
