Ironically, by what means do we claim that Finnish students are best or second best i the world? PISA, standardized tests. Ironic. I think that a lot hangs on one word that you used and it is the word "use." Standardized tests are part of a tool kit in how we assess students. The people at the high ends of standardized testing think a lot about and do a lot of work on discrimination, and while it's easy to just toss that word out there, I think one really has to look into the issue rather than just toss the word out. In any event the test itself can't discriminate in the least. The test can be biased, which is a technical word, but it's the use of the test that can discriminate. If you use the test to decide who can and cannot be promoted out of the tenth grade, graduate from high school, attend the higher-tier state university, or get a scholarship, and the test is biased, that could be discrimination. Bias occurs when the test mismeasures a person's true ability and that error is related to some characteristic of that person. Just knowing that girls score lower than boys on some test doesn't show the test is biased against girls, you have to also know that the girls are equally good at whatever it is the test measures. Well constructed standardized tests can have a lot of advantages. The tests don't know the kids, therefore they aren't subject to the biases that the teachers who know the students may have. The teacher may tend to overlook the accomplishments of a restless kid who disrupts her class and give the benefit of the doubt to another kid who works very hard but often misses the key point. Teacher-made tests are notoriously awful. I have edited test banks and I know how much trouble people have writing good items. Teachers may not even be aware of their own biases. In lower grades girls already do better than boys in language art-type subjects on standardized tests, but when teachers evaluate them the advantage is bigger still. The standardized test has no idea whether it is evaluating a girl or a boy. For those who think that standardized test developers are insensitive to the idea that tests are culturally biased, they should look into the massive amount of work done on differential item functioning (DIF). This explores whether test items functioning differently for people in different groups. It's a major preoccupation in educational measurement. So, I absolutely do not think we should give it up. On the other hand, there is more to the educational process and to a person than any test can reveal, so I think that educational decisions should be based on multiple sources of information and each should strive to be of the highest possible quality. Please have a look at these two articles on my profile: "The Relative Equitability of High- Stakes Testing versus Teacher- Assigned Grades: An Analysis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)" and "Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the fairest test of all? An examination of the equitability of portfolio assessment relative to standardized tests."

I agree with you Robert, but I did not mean that tests discriminate kids. I meant decisions are made based on test results. Having being educated in the United States and having worked there in Pre-K, primary, elementary and high schools, I was able to observe that African American, Latino, and disabled kids, among others were left aside because of standardized tests.

Whether we like or not, one can't deny that Finnish primary and secondary schools are yielding better academic fruit in international testing environment than schools in many countries. There is a harmonious relationship between primary, elementary, high schools and colleges in Finland.

Please read the PISA document, put together by the Finnish Education Board of Directors in regards on they are bringing their education to be number two in the world.

Thank you for enclosing the two documents you sent. I will read them and will send you my critique from a minority viewpoint.

I don't disagree about Finland, but it is interesting, that places like Korea and Singapore get good results with approaches that are very different from Finland (and understand I would MUCH rather be a student in Finland than Korea). Also, Finland is a very small country. I don't know the exact PISA scores, but I recently learned that Massachusetts, where I live, population around 6 million, would rank very high on PISA if it were a country, and we are larger than Finland, Singapore and quite a few countries. Also, there are papers that show that educational success is in part predicted by the relationship of wealth to poverty in a country. This gap is large and growing in the US and comparatively much smaller in Finland. I think that part of the story is that there will be solutions unique to the culture of each country, In the US, in particular, it's going to mean looking at the weakest links in the system, whether it be chronically underperforming states, such as Mississippi, or struggling inner city schools, where perhaps the problems of their larger environments are not sealed out by the school walls and the problem of poverty that we refuse to conquer in this country means that students are not ready to learn when they arrive at school. These are problems that Finnish educators don't have to confront.

Those kids you mention should not be left aside because of their scores. As I said, tests should be just one part of how we evaluate where students are. Even if they are in a different place, whoever they may be, the point of the evaluation should be that they get the resources they need to make progress. So-called "social promotion" has never been a good policy, moving kids farther beyond the point where they can do the work, but retention, having them just repeat the same education taught in the same way, which didn't work in the first place is rarely the right remediation strategy, certainly not beyond the early primary grades, and even then only with proper supports.

I agree with you 100 %. I need to bear n mind everything you say. Now that you mention poverty, there is an interesting case in Colombia. As we fare to low in PISA, there is one school that selects very poor kids in the poorest neighborhoods in Barranquilla Colombia. Students however are chosen based on an admissions test. The school is neither government run nor is it private. They depend on donations provided by private companies in the city and donations provided by former students.

The interesting thing is that students are not taught to the test, but they score higher than the rest of the schools in the national standardized tests that the Colombian government uses to test all high school students every year.

One remarkable thing is that this school is always on the brink of closing down. They provide no lunch to their students and students are in charge of keeping their classes clean and organized.

Students learn 8 languages. Additionally, they study classical music, math, social sciences, etc. They read the classics in the original languages, i.e., in Latin and Greek.

I wonder why these kids who are poor fare better than the kids who go to private schools in Barranquilla Colombia? They have so little as opposed to the others who are so wealthy.

I would love to look into this interesting experience. What do you think about this odd one out institution? Thank you indeed for your sensible answers.

Well interestingly, I don't think it is poverty on its own, but the relationship between poverty and wealth, but without looking it up, I don't think Colombia fares very well on that--closer to the US than Finland anyway. I think that it's possible to run an extraordinary school under lots of circumstances, just like Geoffrey Canada does within the Harlem Children's Zone in New York. They don't handpick those kids--they get in by lottery (although the parents might self select somewhat). The results so far, I think, are pretty good (but I haven't really studied it). A lot can be done when you have energized people involved. One thing in Finland is that teachers are treated as professionals similar to lawyers and physicians; that's very different from the US. There are a lot of things that may lower the motivation of teachers and administrators in our schools. Lack of resect (sometimes deserved) is one of those things. You definitely don't have to "teach to a test" for kids to do well. Kids who know more and have better skills will naturally do better on tests (as in Finland).

I tend to lean towards Norman Fairclaugh's view. For my dissertation I looked at predictors of academic success among African American males. I came across many studies that support said views, regarding the unintentional/intentional outcomes of standardized testing. Many studies,including my own, show that psychosocial (noncognitive) variables are far better predictors of academic success. The standardized test does a fairly good job of assessing/predicting short term success but for long term, psychosocial variables are more reliable. William Sedlerseck and his colleagues at U Maryland, USA have done much work in this area...

Robert Brennan, Hughlett Powell! I thank you two for answering my question. I am so worried about the issue of standardized testing because institutions are making long term decisions based on one test or two tests and what have you. I had an eye opener this semester with one student. She obtained a good international test result. Actually it was very good. Yet, when this student began looking for a job one American manager said to her: "Your English for our company purposes is not there yet". I undersand that tests are predictors, but the best measuring tool is real life. I hope you won't get offended, but I think that tests the way European nations and the ETS have planned are predictors that produce a lot of money.

Another eye opener: a teacher in the United States had a very good conversational Spanish. We worked together and did everything in Spanish in front of our foreign language students. What one could not expect was that my colleague failed her foreign language test. The person who substituted her passed the test, but she barely spoke Spanish. We got along very well but we never did anything cooperatevely in Spanish in front of our students because her speaking skill was very weak.

Again, I think that making decisions based on a test is not enough. Thank you all again.