Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Children in Finland only start main school at age seven. The idea is that before then they learn best when they're playing and by the time they finally get to school they are keen to start learning.

Interesting. That sounds... AWFULLY FAMILIAR.

I do think highly of the Finnish system, though. I'd like a better feel for their spread before I committed myself to saying it's the best system across the board. But it is a wonderful system, and takes a great many of the "unschooling" principles and really makes them work in conjunction with the best parts of institutional learning.

[Reelya]

Well here we have kindergarten which is basically semi-structured free play time. Not much different at all to unschooling, except it's in a classroom.

Mostly i remember playing with blocks and plastic train sets from kindergarten. Probably the Fin's decided you could play with blocks at home, so kindergarten is unnecessary.

The real big differences between typical Anglo education and Finland happen later.

[GlyphGryph]

Where's "here", by the way?

And even later, they believe spending less time in school and more time out in the world is important, don't they?

[Reelya]

Here = Australia. But, kindergarten is really just playtime, so it's not like you can't play at home. I doubt that the specific learning at kindergarten is as important to the next year as brain development in general is.

"It’s almost unheard of for a child to show up hungry or homeless. Finland provides three years of maternity leave and subsidized day care to parents, and preschool for all 5-year-olds, where the emphasis is on play and socializing."

^ AHAH - their "pre-school" is the same as our "kindergarten". So in this respect, school begins at the same age.

I should've known there was something fishy about the "school only starts at 7" thing. It's a difference of terminology, not practice.

And, here school is 6 hours for primary and 6.5 hours for secondary. Maybe Finland is less than USA but not less than Australia. I find it hard to believe that school would only last 5 hours there. What's the typical school hours in America?

EDIT: I checked and the school day in Finland is 6 hours, about the same as Australia. Not much less than America either. So that's not a reason, and no evidence that the Fin's believe extra home-time helps.

====

But, even with (very marginally) shorter hours, that's not what the Fin's are saying is the "winning" point. So i don't think Finland's system can be used as a justification for "unschooling". In fact, all the "good" points of unschooling could be seen to be used within the Finnish education system. Which actually shows that there's no actual reason to home-school to get those benefits.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/Why-Are-Finlands-Schools-Successful.html?c=y&page=1

"Many schools are small enough so that teachers know every student. If one method fails, teachers consult with colleagues to try something else. They seem to relish the challenges."

"Nearly 30 percent of Finland’s children receive some kind of special help during their first nine years of school. The school where Louhivuori teaches served 240 first through ninth graders last year; and in contrast with Finland’s reputation for ethnic homogeneity, more than half of its 150 elementary-level students are immigrants—from Somalia, Iraq, Russia, Bangladesh, Estonia and Ethiopia, among other nations."

(NOTE: this actually contradicts the BBC article which claimed ethnic homogeneity was the reason they do so well).

"here are no mandated standardized tests in Finland, apart from one exam at the end of students’ senior year in high school. There are no rankings, no comparisons or competition between students, schools or regions. Finland’s schools are publicly funded. The people in the government agencies running them, from national officials to local authorities, are educators, not business people, military leaders or career politicians. Every school has the same national goals and draws from the same pool of university-trained educators. The result is that a Finnish child has a good shot at getting the same quality education no matter whether he or she lives in a rural village or a university town. The differences between weakest and strongest students are the smallest in the world, according to the most recent survey by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Equality is the most important word in Finnish education. All political parties on the right and left agree on this,” said Olli Luukkainen, president of Finland’s powerful teachers union."

" “We prepare children to learn how to learn, not how to take a test,” said Pasi Sahlberg, a former math and physics teacher who is now in Finland’s Ministry of Education and Culture. “We are not much interested in PISA. It’s not what we are about.” "

" “Play is important at this age,” Rintola would later say. “We value play.” "

[scriver]

Of course "unschooling" can be done in schools, that's one of the main reasons I think the term is stupid and pretentious. The question is, can your kid get that sort of schooling in America's schools today?

[Reelya]

Study finds median wealth for single black women at $5

Among the most startling revelations in the wealth data is that while single white women in the prime of their working years (ages 36 to 49) have a median wealth of $42,600 (still only 61 percent of their single white male counterparts), the median wealth for single black women is only $5.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I doubt how that's even possible.

[Reelya]

Large debts, and living week to week. Also, they are predominantly renters, not property owners. So the only asset they own is usually an old car.

This is net worth, how they define wealth. Assets minus liabilities.

Of course they might have non-liquid assets like a TV, clothes, etc. but those aren't counted in this sort of thing normally.

[Capntastic]

I doubt how that's even possible.

Then you should read the article?

I remember discussing this with some folk back when this and a similar study came out back in 2010, and it basically shows how a lot of disenfranchised people in the US have basically no ability to get anywhere on life.  It's absolutely horrible, and people typically have reactions of apathy towards it, solely because of a just world mindset.

[Reelya]

Actually this was the older report, but the data was from 2007, BEFORE the crisis, so they speculate it's actually worse now.

One site trying to debunk the study, said "in the original it said 'women of color' not 'black' women" and acted like that means the whole things a fraud. When, in fact, that means even more women are affected by this issue than otherwise.

Perhaps 'women of color' was a euphemism.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I doubt how that's even possible.

Then you should read the article?

I did read the article, and I doubt how it's possible.

[Reelya]

No savings, no assets, low income and debt. American minimum wage of only $7.25.

What don't you understand about net worth? Assets minus liabilities.

You might have $300 in cash but $1000 in debts. Which gives you a net worth less than zero. These people with  negative net worth balance out a few with positive net worth, and the average is $5.

[Virex]

A negative net worth is well-possible and pretty common. As long as you can make the required payments on time, you can rack up a large debt without getting into trouble. Buying a house, a car and a new kitchen on loans could well put your net worth in the negative, but if you've got a stable job that's not going to be a problem. Again, this was before the crisis, when getting loans was easier and people didn't have a high chance of getting fired.

[Frumple]

Median is $5, according to that article, Reel. Careful about that, the average is probably quite different. Average is also a pretty pisspoor measure of wealth in a large population, but that's neither here nor there.

As for the article itself... I'unno. To be honest, it doesn't exactly surprise me. The thing in particular is that $5 is for a particular age bracket (36 to 49) -- but a wider picture (18-64) isn't much better (at $100, which is still pretty g'damn bad ). The tentative explanation given in the article doesn't trigger any bullshit detection either, which means -- unless the study's methodology is screwed pretty badly -- I wouldn't have much trouble accepting those numbers as fact. It's certainly possible.

MSH, out of curiosity, why do you doubt the how of it? What are we missing?

[Nadaka]

I have a negative net worth, if you count student loans without considering the intangibe asset of education.