Legislative decisions in regard to literacy rates and how to improve the educational system appears to be a revolving door of the same arguments. Legislatures argue more or less structure, more or less tests, more or less school days, more or less homework, more or less tech-empowerment, so on and so forth. Which when looking at the highest performing areas globally almost makes sense; almost.
The top three global education models that have consistently, over the last three decades, resulted in near perfection during functional literacy and numeracy metrics (such as data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Program/ OECDP’s for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies/PIAAC and Program for International Student Assessment/PISA) are The Nordic Model, The East Asian Model, and The Digital-Equity Model.
The Nordic Model has a core philosophy in student well-being, equity, and cooperation — it boasts extremely low stress when it comes to testing with no standardized testing until the end of high school. The daily structure is short with frequent recess and minimal homework. It prioritizes human-tohuman play in early years while cautiously and deliberately incorporating technology gradually. These ideas stand on one side of the arguments.
Opposite is seemingly the East Asian Model. Structure, academic rigor, pervasive standardized exams, and long school hours are all staple points in this model. Although, this model also moves steadily toward digital skills with most of school instructional being traditional and teacher-centered.
Somewhere in the middle is the Digital-Equity Model which focuses on structural efficiency, egalitarian funding, and early digital literacy. In this model, regular tests track progress while a supportive environment is aimed at keeping students' stress in check. There are structured instructional days mixed with project-based learning. Of course, it is uniquely aggressive in its technology integrations with beginning coding being taught as early as kindergarten. As you may have figured out, these are all models that have been argued for and against throughout legislative cycles. Once again, I will reiterate taking the top performing models and attempting to integrate them to improve what hasn't been working makes sense. I don't fault legislatures for seeing the information and believing any one of these models may help in our own literacy issues. However, you may have also figured out each of these models is extremely different.
So, to me after asking ‘who’s the best?’ and seeing the difference in models maybe a follow up question should be ‘what do they have in common?’. Unfortunately, followup questions don't seem to be legislatures’ strong suit, but I digress.
So, what DO they have in common?
Despite their structural differences, these models share three non-negotiable baselines that not only result in higher literacy competency on assessments but also lower functional illiteracy in adults. Those three baselines are elevated teacher status, equity over choice, and universal foundations.
In all these regions, getting into a teachertraining program is as fiercely competitive as entering medical or law school and teachers are compensated just as fiercely and deeply respected. They focus funding on the schools and students that need it most, ensuring that a child’s zip code does not dictate their literacy level. They ensure healthcare, early childhood intervention, and free school resources are guaranteed to remove economic barriers to learning.
The debate legislatures continue to have focuses far too much on methods and not enough on the underlying conditions that create an environment of success for the methods. The underlying conditions rarely dominate education debates. And I understand.
I understand that it’s easier to argue over curriculum standards than teacher recruitment. It’s easier to debate testing scores than to address child poverty. It’s easier to promise a one-size fits all program than to commit to long-term, equitable investments that make programs succeed. It’s so much easier to argue than to establish stable foundations required for education systems to succeed. I understand it’s easier — not better.
Hiring and retaining qualified teachers, providing equitable resources, and ensuring students basic needs are met both in and out of the classroom are all very hard discussions that legislatures just don’t seem to have time for; not when hot button topics can be argued instead with a simple, for-me-oragainst- me format. Education discussion is often pushed to the wayside in favor of hot button arguments. Education improvement oftentimes is limited to policymakers importing a single feature from a successful model while completely ignoring the ecosystem surrounding it.
Any given state may increase testing and expect East Asia model results without adopting high teacher standards. Another may reduce testing and expect Nordic model outcomes without providing teachers with autonomy and social supports. The result of this type of policymaking is more often than not going to result in disappointment, followed by another round of narrow-minded arguments about the next reform.
If literacy is truly the concern then the question should not be whether schools need more structure or less structure, more technology or less technology, more testing or less testing — the question should be whether we are willing to invest in the conditions that every successful education system has already identified as essential. Until that question is answered, we may continue revolving through the same arguments while expecting different results — which according to Rita Mae Brown is the definition of insanity.