What the United States could learn from Finland about education reform.

By Samuel E. Abrams

While observing recess outside the Kallahti Comprehensive School on the eastern edge of Helsinki on a chilly day in April ‘09, I asked Principal Timo Heikkinen if students go out when it’s very cold. Heikkinen said they do.

I then asked Heikkinen if they go out when it’s very, very cold. Heikkinen smiled and said, “If minus 15 [Celsius] and windy, maybe not, but otherwise, yes. The children can’t learn if they don’t play. The children must play.”

In comparison to the United States and many other industrialized nations, the Finns have implemented a radically different model of educational reform—based on a balanced curriculum and professionalization, not testing.

Editor: That is precisely how kids in the public schools were taught. I know; I am public school educated . I can still remember forming a circle in the school basement of P.S. 1...you read it right...P.S. 1! I think it was built just after fire was invented,

Not only do Finnish educational authorities provide students with far more recess than their U.S. counterparts—75 minutes a day in Finnish elementary schools versus an average of 27 minutes in the U.S.—but they also mandate lots of arts and crafts, more learning by doing, rigorous standards for teacher certification, higher teacher pay, and attractive working conditions.

This is a far cry from the U.S. concentration (camps...only kidding) on testing in reading and math since the enactment of No Child Left Behind in 2002 (another fine mess the moron left us), which has led school districts across the country, according to a survey by the Center on Education Policy, to significantly narrow their curricula.

And the Finns’ efforts are paying off: In December, the results from the 2009 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an exam in reading, math, and science given every three years since 2000 to approximately 5,000 15-year-olds per nation around the world, revealed that, for the fourth consecutive time, Finnish students posted stellar scores. The United States, meanwhile, lagged in the middle of the pack.

(At least we weren’t dead last.)

In his State of the Union address, President Obama outlined his plans for reforming U.S. public education, including distributing competitive grants, raising test scores, and holding teachers accountable for student achievement.

But there is much Finland can teach America’s reformers, and the rest of the world, about what outside of testing and rigid modes of management and assessment can make a nation’s schools truly excellent.

Finland’s schools weren’t always so successful. In the 1960s, they were middling at best. In 1971, a government commission concluded that, poor as the nation was in natural resources, it had to modernize its economy and could only do so by first improving its schools.

To that end, the government agreed to reduce class size, boost teacher pay, and require that, by 1979, all teachers complete a rigorous master’s program.
Today, teaching is such a desirable profession that only one in ten applicants to the country’s eight master’s programs in education is accepted.

In the United States, on the other hand, college graduates may become teachers without earning a master’s. What’s more, Finnish teachers earn very competitive salaries: High school teachers with 15 years of experience make 102 percent of what their fellow university graduates do. In the United States, by contrast, they earn just 65 percent.

Though, unlike U.S. education reformers, Finnish authorities haven’t outsourced school management to for-profit or non-profit organizations, implemented merit pay, or ranked teachers and schools according to test results, they’ve made excellent use of business strategies.

They’ve won the war for talent by making teaching so appealing. In choosing principals, superintendents, and policymakers from inside the education world rather than looking outside it, Finnish authorities have likewise taken a page from the corporate playbook: Great organizations, as the business historian Alfred Chandler documented, cultivate talent from within.

Of the many officials I interviewed at the Finnish Ministry of Education, the National Board of Education, the Education Evaluation Council, and the Helsinki Department of Education, all had been teachers for at least four years.

The Finnish approach to pedagogy is also distinct. In grades seven through nine, for instance, classes in science—the subject in which Finnish students have done especially well on PISA—are capped at 16 so students may do labs each lesson.

And students in grades one through nine spend from four to eleven periods each week taking classes in art, music, cooking, carpentry, metalwork, and textiles.

These classes provide natural venues for learning math and science, nurture critical cooperative skills, and implicitly cultivate respect for people who make their living working with their hands.

Koch Brothers Offer Food For Votes

By itobin53

May 29, 2012-- Madison, WI--Seems the Koch Brothers group is offering free food for votes in Scott Walker recall election.

The recall election of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker is said to be a referendum on Tea Party politics and their union-busting policy. The election, where Walker will face Democrat Tom Barrett, is set for June 5th, 2012.

Efforts to influence the outcome of the election in favor of Tea Party Republican Scott Walker, includes free food and other perks, compliments of the Koch Brothers’ Super Pac.

“Americans for Prosperity, a group founded by the Koch brothers, is advertising bus trips with free food for Illinois residents who commit to traveling to Wisconsin to help Walker,” according to the Republic Report.

However, some believe that the enormous amounts of private money flooding campaigns in a post-Citizens United world, is allowing Super Pac’s too much power to influence voters.

If Walker wins the recall against Democratic Mayor Tom Barrett, many believe the Republicans will see it as a sign to take the anti-union strategy nation-wide.

The Koch Brothers would benefit from weakening or eliminating unions in America, by lowering their costs to do business. Without union contracts that include benefits like health insurance and pensions, Koch Industries profits could rise dramatically.

*****************************************
    We live in a society where pizza gets
      to your house before the police!
*****************************************

When Outsourcing Turns Outrageous

Contractors may have saved the Army money. 

But fraud changes the equation.

July 31, 2006--The U.S. Military has lost billions to fraud and mismanagement by private contractors in Iraq who do everything from cooking soldiers' meals to building hospitals to providing security. That raises a question: Does Pentagon outsourcing make sense?

"The presumption is that it is cheaper," says Jerrold T. Lundquist, director of the defense and aerospace practice at the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. Competitive bidding can keep the price of services down. Contractors are, in theory, more nimble at mobilizing and paring back their forces than a huge military bureaucracy.

A recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that in 2004 the U.S. reduced its costs by one-third for feeding and housing troops by paying one contractor to do the work--a savings of nearly $3 billion. Such findings point to the conclusion that even with a lot of fraud and waste, outsourcing may still pay off.

But some experts on the topic aren't convinced. Because no one has an authoritative overall estimate of how much has been lost in Iraq to contractor deceit and incompetence, and many investigations are just getting under way, the financial harm could in the end outstrip any savings.

There's also the intangible cost of taxpayers seeing their money wasted or stolen rather than spent to support troops risking their lives and dying. "What has happened in Iraq is just disgraceful," says Jeffrey H. Smith, a former Central Intelligence Agency general counsel during the Clinton Administration who now represents military contractors in private law practice.

Instances of military outsourcing gone bad in Iraq are now legion. For example, Parsons Global Services Inc. of Pasadena, Calif., lost its contract to build 150 health centers after it completed just six centers and collected $190 million--$30 million over the project's budget. The U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is now reviewing all of Parsons' Iraq work. Officials at Parsons, which eventually completed an additional 13 centers, stand by their work, saying employees performed well under "extremely volatile conditions."

It's difficult to put an accurate price tag on contractor fraud in Iraq. The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, reported earlier this month that the Defense Dept. has recovered about $2 billion since 2001 from all outside contractors and government procurement officials accused of dishonesty or mismanagement, but the GAO didn't isolate those working in Iraq.

Billions Under Scrutiny

The losses to fraud and waste in Iraq are almost certainly in the billions, current and former government officials agree. The Special IG for Iraq Reconstruction says it has more than 80 open investigations and has referred 20 more cases to the Justice Dept. for prosecution. A spokesman for the criminal investigative arm of the Defense Dept. says that office expects a "rise in referrals of potential fraud or corruption cases" because of the recent deployment to Iraq of additional Pentagon investigators and FBI agents.

Democrats on the House Government Reform Committee have identified more than 50 "problem" contracts worth an estimated $21.3 billion that they say are under scrutiny by federal investigators. And that's just what has been publicly disclosed: Federal officials won't discuss other pending investigations because of secrecy insulating some of the contracts and most of the inquiries.

 All told, the Defense Dept. has spent more than $365 billion on the Iraq war and the global fight against terror since late 2002. Roughly $60 billion, or 16%, of the total has been paid to contractors for services, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The use of private companies and individuals to support the military began in earnest in the 1950s during the Korean War, when the Pentagon hired outside firms to help maintain helicopters. Outsourcing spread in the 1980s as the Reagan Administration sought to privatize government functions generally.

The end of the Cold War inspired a broad push by the Clinton Administration to shrink the military and start closing unneeded bases. Those moves resulted in additional outsourcing of food, transportation, and other services.

Bipartisan legislation Congress passed in the 1990s reduced oversight of contractors in the name of increasing efficiency. But as the number of Pentagon contracting officials was trimmed by about 38% during this period, some contractors "exploited the new freedom," says Frank Camm, a senior economist for defense contracting at Rand Corp.

Other safeguards were lifted in the run-up to the Iraq war. By law the Pentagon can circumvent competitive bidding rules in "emergency" situations such as war. The volume of sole-source and other noncompetitive contracts awarded by the military has soared 54% since 2000, from $65 billion to $100 billion.

Bush critics say the absence of competition invites waste and corruption. "The flawed contract approach has greatly contributed to the problems," says California Representative Henry A. Waxman, ranking Democrat on the Government Reform panel. "Instead of competition, the Administration has awarded monopoly cost-plus contracts to favored contractors like Halliburton (HAL )."

But the situation isn't clear-cut. Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, skeptics have questioned Halliburton's role in the war, emphasizing that before becoming Vice-President, Dick Cheney headed the Houston company.

 The Army confirmed earlier this month that it was ending a multibillion-dollar, 10-year contract held by Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root to provide food, water, shelter, and other basic services to troops.

The Pentagon, which has paid KBR $15 billion since 2001, plans to divide the work among four contractors, with KBR permitted to bid for a portion of it. Earlier, Defense Dept. auditors had labeled $1.2 billion in KBR charges as "excessive," "duplicative," or otherwise questionable. KBR officials say its costs were reasonable considering that the work was done under "extraordinarily hostile conditions." KBR also says it has resolved most of the audit disputes with the Army.

KBR's contentions received implicit support from a CBO study issued in October, 2005. The Capitol Hill budget agency examined KBR's work in Iraq during a 12-month period ending in mid-2004.

To perform the tasks KBR completed, the U.S. Army would have had to recruit 41,000 additional troops and spend $8.2 billion, or $2.8 billion more than KBR's costs, the CBO found. Over time, the Pentagon would save billions more by employing KBR, the study projected.

Whether the government is able to take full advantage of such cost savings depends largely on whether it can rein in contract abuse. Authorities on military contracting say there are obvious steps the Pentagon can take:

It could bolster the ranks of procurement staff and institute tougher procedures for awarding and reviewing contracts. But apart from the scrutiny of the large KBR contract, the Pentagon has no plans to make those moves. In fact, the military expects to further reduce its procurement oversight corps.

Smith, the former CIA general counsel who now represents contractors at Washington law firm Arnold & Porter, predicts that without more oversight, military outsourcing will saddle the government with the wrong kind of business partners. "Iraq has attracted patriots and crooks--and there were probably some crooked patriots," he says. "We're going to be cleaning that up for years to come, I fear."