This term has got two sides to it. On the one side, we want to pull up the pupils and children that are struggling at school, and that have trouble learning important skills like reading, writing and arithmatics. This is of course right. To help struggling children to learn is an obligation we have as an inclusive society, and we need to try as hard as we can to help children that for some reason or other have problems learning. We need to do everything we can to help them acquire the skills needed to be successful in their lives. This goes for social skills, "hard skills" like reading, writing, calculus, and for instilling in them an understanding of what it entails to be part of a society.But the term has also got an ugly back side, and it is this back side that I always react to whenever I come across this term. When you are levelling something out you are mending the dumps and holes, but you are also removing the bumps sticking up. Transferred onto the school system, this means that you pull up the struggling pupils, but you also pull some down, trying to make an average out of every pupil.
The idea behind this social levelling is to give every child the same opportunities to learn, indepentent of his or her parents' standing or financial resources. On the face of it, that is noble enough. But when this levelling is done by pulling some down, that is in my opinion inherently wrong. From my brief experience as a teacher, I know how many resources go to children with learning problems, and how much academically gifted children tend to be much more left on their own without much extra stimulus or extra challenges. As long as they master the curriculum, we are satisfied with that, and do not encourage them to reach further.
To be perfectly clear, I do not mean that we should stop making an effort to help children that struggle. But we also need to make an effort to help the children that display a gift for the traditional school curriculum to strive further. We should not try and level the children out and try to make them all equal by pulling some up and some down, but borrow the slogan of the American military and encourage every child to strive to be all that they can be.
10 comments:
For this very reason we have one child in a private school and one in a public school. It might sound strange but we felt that we had to do something as our eldest son was so completely uninspired and bored at school.
He is now thriving in a more academic environment but I sometimes wonder if there is enough time for play. I am a firm believer that children must be children and their imagination stimulated as well as factual knowledge.
Our younger son on the other hand is thriving in a public school system as it offers him the social interaction and understanding that he needs. Very enthusiastic little chap this one!
Children are different and thus need different stimuli - so yes, bright children should also be catered for.
I feel it is probably the lack of finances and resources which has made the system the way it is?
I wonder whether the thinking behind Norwegian schooling is to create a medium. Is it true that the good part is that they support those who are not doing well, but the bad part is that they will try to dumb down those who excell?
I'd think it would take work to dumb down the achievers. I take it kids who do better than average like to read books, go to special places that teach like zoos, parks, libraries, concerts, and so forth, and it would take work to deprive them of these learning experiences. Why do that?
What would be the point of making every one the same? To make sure that there are few dissidents? To somehow squelch social unrest? But, if everything is so good, why think there would be much dissent?
I take it from Caroline's post, kids benefit from a variety of offerings. So, to level the society, one would like to limit educational variety. From the fact there are public and private schools, it does not seem like there is, in fact, the intention to level.
An interesting observation about Norway's system...
Thank you very much for the comments, both of you.
It is not so much a question of "dumbing down", at least not actively. But the fact is that it is the kids that have special needs due to learning disabilities etc. and that have trouble with the school curriculum, that gets all the extra resources. And don't get me wrong - I do not mean to say that we should not help those children. What I am saying, though, is that the children that have special needs at the other end of the spectrum, so to say, are pretty much left to their own devices. Personally I think it is a shame that those children that needs extra stimulus and challenges are in practice not entitled to any specially adapted learning to the same extent (if any) as the children with learning disabilities.
What I react very much to with the term "social levelling" is also that we seem to want to remove both the disadvantages that come with family background as well as the advantages. What that means is that we force everyone to go to the same schools no matter what. As you may be aware of, the egalitarian attitudes are extremely strong in Norway, and the educational system is very much influenced by these. Everyone are forced into exactly the same type of primary education, no matter what their needs are. I do not advocate to introduce a system where it is only the rich that can afford good education for their children, and that the children of less affluent parents will get a substandard education. But at the same time, it is in my opinion not right to try to deprive people of the opportunity to make theirs lives better by taking advantage of the means that they have worked very hard for.
Without going too much into details, it would claim that it is possible to loosen up the laws prohibiting private schools without letting the schools go rampant raising the school fees. And to let parents choose more freely which schools they want to send their children to would not be bad either. This could also in fact be advantagous to less well off parents as well - rich parents will always have the opportunity to move to an area where a better school is situated anyway. This option is not as much open to parents with a tighter budget.
To it's defence, there are many very good aspects with the Norwegian school, and I do not mean to slag it off on a general level. But this forced equalising is something that I have a strong aversion against.
One of the reasons why we don't strive to stimulate the more academically gifted children is no doubt resources and funding. But I doubt that it is the entire explanation. I think that many teachers are satisfied as long as the children reach a certain academic level, and do not take the time or do simply not have the time to facilitate further encouragement and challenges. This might to a certain extent have been recitified if there had been more teachers per class. Being one teacher for all too many pupils he cannot help everyone, and his time will almost inevitably be spent on the children that do not understand.
Part of the explanation is also to be found in attitudes, and I attribute this to exessive egalitarianism. In fact, teachers are not allowed to separate pupils into group based on their academic level. The idea is that children need to learn to work in groups with other children of different intellectual capabilities. This is a good theory, but when the classes are always on the premises of the "least smart" that will inevitably lead to that the "smartest" are not reaching as far as they could academically as if they were being more challenged and stimulated.
I have a question about the curriculum. My experience is that, in class, there are many times where the material is repetative and unexpained, or possibly just plain wrong-headed, to the child. I take it we can allow that the curriculum might be all these things to the child quite apart from whether the material is confusing. That is, we would find the material wrong if as adults we were in the child's place.
In these situations the usual response from the teacher will be to assume that the child doesn't get it and is asking for additional time for instruction. The teacher might offer to take the child aside.
Of course, the child is not saying, or wanting to admit, that they don't get it. What they want to do is say there is something wrong, there is some claim that they want to challenge. They don't want to be given special instruction. To go for that would be to give in on their claim to know better about the point they are making.
When you talk about the social leveling I get the impression that the system is not giving their kids any credit for being able to see right answers from wrong answers. They are only interested in whether all the kids can give the same answers. They are just interested in the kids being able to give the accepted answers. That's what it means to be "level" in Norway's egalitarian system.
At least, that's what it would seem to mean for kids in these parts.
I think I wonder whether the egalitarianism tends to squelch the critical young minds. The critical mind, I imagine, is something that could pop up anywhere, in a kid with a poor home as well as one where there are all the advantages.
I guess I want to say a 'critical' mind is a terrible thing to waste.
An opportunity to run a long commentary - cool!
I have never been a teacher so I can not comment from a teacher's perspective. Inside knowledge of a subject always ads a different flavour. (I like to use 'layman's terms' - I feel it ads a little more spark to a debate).
However, as a parent, I've had a little taste of various education systems.
In the UK for example (as I'm sure you already know) - the public system does the same. Meaning there is a lot of focus on helping the students who struggle. There might be other choices of education in the private sector but they are expensive - ditto. If I may use one example (ok, it's the only one I could think of) The Norwegian government subsidizes the Steiner schools significantly - the UK government does not. I feel this is a positive move on the Norwegian side. And lets ask the question: Does an alternate school mean that it is not academic?
Lets flip the coin and look at a country like South Africa. I didn't go to school in SA so I don't have first hand knowledge. But I remember being quite alarmed by the focus on the more academic and sports orientated children. The term - the strongest survive - springs to mind. Of course this is changing now. I'm sure Sevika could ad more here to make the debate even more interesting.
Then of course we have the post school education i.e Uni. I feel that the Norwegian system has a lot to offer for any future academic be it the struggling one or the naturally gifted one. Lets take a wild guess - bet ya Norway has a large percentage of people with higher education? And to think that they could be even brighter if they had more inspiration in their youth - phew (that's a joke....)
So.....if I may conclude, I would say that the Norwegian egalitarian education system works well in the long run. Although boringly restrictive at times and far from perfect.
And let me say - thank Goodness for people like you who challenge the 'status quo' - it lets the fat cats know that they can't boss us around without being challenged.
Finally a subject I think about on a daily basis.
You all have done a great job of covering all facets as they appear in Norway.
Having gone through both a South African and Norwegian education, each to an individual degree and now having children that have also been through both of these all I can say is that no education system that I have encountered is the perfect one.
As an example I would like to just relate these experiences: My daughter (12) started her education in South Africa at the age of 3. At this age they learnt to read and write and came home with homework on a daily basis. There was little time devoted to play. She was a child. IT was unfair. Besides, when one thinks of spatial development and understanding (which is integral to conceptualising in mathematics) one understands what a crucial factor play is in one's development.
Then she came to Norway at the age of 4. She attended a daycare centre here and was thrilled that all she needed to do was play. Within a month however she was miserable as there was no challenge to a mind that had already started on the academic path. We took this as a challenge for home where we would be creative in finding things for her to occupy herself.
When she got to the Norwegian primary school situation things got progressively worse. She was not allowed to answer to loudly or enthusiastically in her English lessons as the teacher felt thwarted and incompetent, her English not being on par with Jivanta's. We were constantly told at parent's meetings that she was overachieving and on the level of a 5th grader when in grade 2. We approached the school on several occassions but nothing tangible was done to encourage her potential. We had to do this at home. I could tell that the attitude from the teachers was 'take it or leave it'.
She returned to SA at the age of 9 and could barely keep up with the Mathematics, English or any other subject the 9 year olds were coping with there. She managed within 6 months to catch up but was terrified of how competitive it all was. As Caroline puts it 'the strongest survive'. In addition to the competitiveness, they did subjects such as Economics and Management Science! A typical module would incorporate the subject of Entrepreneurship and everything from market research to profit and loss statements is covered.
Last year they had to put together a small business and the one with the biggest profit won! By then she was 11! Needless to say, there was no physical activity (well 30 minutes per week) and socialisation was not of core importance in terms of the school curriculum.
The child was exhausted! What do you think is a better schooling system? I lean far more towards the Norwegian one. That being said however, something between the SA system where potential is not only encouraged but fostered and the Norwegian one where all have the same rights to an education and the social and physical educational perspectives play a big role would be ideal in my way of thinking.
Kids that need an alternative do have them in the form of Montessori and Steiner which are subsidised by the state as Caroline rightly puts it.
If we can all agree that no two children are alike then we can all agree that not every child will respond in the same way to the same schooling system.
Whilst some may benefit from the 'levelling' Kenneth refers to others do not. Here too I agree. I felt incredibly frustrated when this affected my child's academic development.
Another factor that then comes into play when the bright ones are not given the challenge or support for development they require is the social aspect again. Bright, under stimulated children often resort to the playground as their area of outlet. The lack of challenge then manifests itself in bad behaviour and bullying, among other things.
It is quite a complicated situation which has no single answer. Various teaching ideologies have been tried and tested in the British education system and the South African one seems to take its examples from here making Britain somewhat of a trendsetter in terms of educational approaches.
When all is said and done, no matter what the schooling sytem it is apparent that parents have the greatest role to play.
Identifying your child's needs and taking them seriously is imperative to a successful education, be it primary, secondary or tertiary.
Three years ago the OECD attended a working conference for a report to the Storting on education in the Nordics. Comparisons were drawn between the Nordics with Finland coming up tops in terms of a well-functioning and successful schooling system. This based on the performance of the schoolgoers ofcourse.
What can be drawn from this. Yes, we fall short in Norway. What are the reasons for this?
Now I am going off on a tangent. I have some opinions relating to Jante. I will take those some time later. For now and in short...Norway is far from perfect but there is incredible value to be gained from a schooling here.
Sevika
I am pleased to see this subject generating so much debate.
First of all, there is a great deal of good to be said about the Norwegian school. It truly does make an effort to make sure that no child is left behind. It tries to make every child a well functioning individual by focusing on social skills. And it lets children be children longer than what is the case in some other countries. The good aspects of the Norwegian school are many, and should be appreciated. And a system that prioritizes to take care of the "weakest" is to be preferred over one where one the "strongest survives".
Still, I think it is a grave shame that we do not cherish the "cleverest" kids more than we do. To waste this talent is a shame, and a loss to our society.
I firmly believe that it is possible to find a compromise between letting children be children and at the same time providing them with the appropriate challenges and stimulus that they need. It is possible to cherish and celebrate the acadmemic skills of the "cleverest" without perceiving them as somehow making the other kids less worth.
From the teacher's perspective, it can be challenge to have very clever kids in class. But rather than taking this as a questioning of your own competency, this should be seen as an asset both in the form of a challenge to improve yourself as a teacher and to the class in the form of what extra edge they can bring to the class.
Clever kids are assets to our society, not tall poppies to be cut down or deprived of the necessary nutrition in the name of our egalitarian tendencies. It is possible to promote egalitarian attitudes without us all being identical.
Nicely put. I would like to ask you a couple of questions about a book I am writing on Norwegian culture. What email can I reach you on?
Let me know if you would like to take part in this, thanks.
PM
PM,
I am very flattered about your request, and I would gladly help you in any way that I can.
My email address is kennethnygaard@hotmail.com
I am reading this article second time today, you have to be more careful with content leakers. If I will fount it again I will send you a link
Post a Comment