Finland's schools are really good for a number of reasons, I'm not sure that private vs public is the only reason worth attributing it to, although i understand the context of the article makes it especially relevant.
For example, 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. The state subsidizes parents, paying per month for every child until age 17. 97%* of 6-year-olds attend public preschool, where children begin some academics. Schools provide food, medical care, counseling and taxi service if needed. Student health care is free.
(* a decade ago, not sure if numbers and strategies are still accurate, I lifted it from a Smithsonian article from 2011 because I couldn't remember specifics. Please correct me Suomi friends)
When you don’t allow rich people with the most resources to create special areas for their precious babies to get ahead, they suddenly care about funding public education … from which the rest of that stuff you mentioned flows.
People need to realize that if the rich are boarding a different ship than you, they’re actively sinking yours for profit.
I totally agree with public education and not funding private schools with public money - I'm not a fan of segregation. I also don't think that's its necessary to ban private schools before implementing other helpful policies, like maternity leave or health care. My point is more that these things all combine to create good public education rather than pointing at just one part and suggesting it is the fix. I think ignoring the other components leads to disappointment when the single-solution proposals fail to deliver the expected results.
To be totally real, I also wanted to tell people what specific things they can ask their elected officials for in their own communities as a way of achieving more equitable outcomes globally. There's no reason not to copy Finland's homework. Except that Finland doesn't set homework.
If you want to copy Finland, learn from and copy their election system first.
Don’t bother asking your elected officials, because evidence shows that they don’t represent their voters, they represent their donors. This is due to American’s electoral system, specifically first past the post voting combined with electoral college. This prevents more than 2 parties, which prevents real competition in politics, which makes it easy for the richest people around to buy up all the representation.
Such is our reality now where they can say ‘Sure, democrats and republicans are clearly on the take, but what are you gonna do about? Vote 3rd party and waste your vote?’, and they’ll be right. Election laws protect the 2 parties, because they’ve slowly changed them over time to do so. Even party primaries are a new addition.
So anyone wanting change in the USA needs to attack their safe seats and open up the playing field so we can have real representation again. Then you can ask your reps for stuff.
Neither I nor the article am American. If you feel that pressuring your elected officials in the US is not worthwhile and that certain things need to happen first, I understand, and I wish you luck in your efforts. For those of us who aren't from the US, I hope the knowledge of Finland's social policies is useful in your context. Keeping an eye on how others are succeeding can be helpful.
Ah, sorry for assuming. Although it sounds like England uses FPTP as well in some elections if you’re from there. I assume thats why we got Boris and Trump: idiot twins.
Not English or a FPTP system citizen either, I'm afraid. If it is any consolation, we have elected unfit leaders using a ranked voting system too. It's part of the reason I advocate for multiple-front approaches to social betterment - all parts of all systems can be compromised by bad actors.
I'm also I'm not familiar enough with how Finland's election system works to make a direct comparison there, I only have experience in public education policy, not electoral systems.
Ironically, Finland uses an election system that was once proposed by Thomas Jefferson, ‘American Founding Father’ - the ‘Dhondt method’ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D'Hondt_method. (it was also independently re-invented by D’Hondt in Belgium)
(4) The right to establish private schools shall be guaranteed. Private schools that serve as alternatives to state schools shall require the approval of the state and shall be subject to the laws of the Länder. Such approval shall be given when private schools are not inferior to the state schools in terms of their educational aims, their facilities or the professional training of their teaching staff and when segregation of pupils according to the means of their parents will not be encouraged thereby. Approval shall be withheld if the economic and legal position of the teaching staff is not adequately assured.
(5) A private elementary school shall be approved only if the education authority finds that it serves a special educational interest or if, on the application of parents or guardians, it is to be established as a denominational or interdenominational school or as a school based on a particular philosophy and no state elementary school of that type exists in the municipality.
(Emphasis mine). Private schools over here are generally either confessional, follow different pedagogic approaches (e.g. Waldorf, Sudbury) or, last but not least, serve a national minority, e.g. there’s plenty of Danish schools in northern Schleswig-Holstein which are, legally, private schools but teach to the Danish curriculum (in Danish) while making sure that kids also get German graduation papers. And yes they generally all receive state funds. Can’t find proper numbers right now but ballpark 75 to 85% of what public schools get per student.
Weird fact: In 1875, Karl Marx ripped what became the SDAP (which eventually through mergers and name changes became the SDP) a new one when they argued for state-provided education, and argued that rather than people getting an education from the state, “the state has need, on the contrary, of a very stern education by the people” (Critique of the Gotha Programme)
In the same section he argued that the then-US model of private or locally run education to publicly set standards was far preferable.
Of course, this was at a time when the German/Prussian government was deeply authoritarian, something Marx and his family had experienced first-hand, so I’m sure that coloured his views of state-run education.
State provided education is ancient in Germany, though, but implementation was spotty. Luther (yes that one) called for universal education in 1524, calling for six hours a day school for boys and one for girls, all learning to read and write and the boys maths and physics and stuff (the girls would be taught home economics at home). Pfalz-Zweibrücken were the first to introduce universal and mandatory public education for both girls and boys in 1592, not just in Germany but the world. There had been separate curricula for boys and girls until 1970, alas they largely threw out much very useful stuff in the unification process. Like home economics. But I digress.
As said though implementation was spotty (and way worse in Catholic areas than Lutheran ones), there initially also was resistance from the population, but it took up speed after enlightenment. In 1816 Prussian statistics said 60% of kids attended school, raising to 82% in 1846. This is approximately the context that SDAP demand is to be understood in: They wanted proper universal education, seeing the difference it made. It doesn’t really matter where you learn to read and write, it’s still learning where to read and write. Universal secondary and higher education were still way off by then.
All in all this is rather rich coming from Marx, himself very much part of the educated elite: He studied law at university, whereas a significant portion of workers didn’t even visit primary. Engels, you know, the bourgeois fat cat, actually had a way better grasp on the Lumpen than Marx: His family was pietist and as such he spent his childhood years visiting a public (not private) school and playing with worker kids, despite his elevated socio-economic status.
Which actually brings me to another particularity of the German system: Visiting a school is mandatory. There’s been cases of US-influenced fundamental Christians wanting to homeschool because “public schools teach witchcraft” (you know the type), every court they appealed to didn’t give a rat’s arse about the parents opinion but ruled that the kid has a right to attend school and be exposed to the majority population, even if that’s to learn to valiantly stand firm in the subculture their parents want them to be part of. They ultimately seeked asylum in the US, where they’re a playball of the culture war there – they could’ve just moved to, say, Austria, and wouldn’t now face deportation.
To be honest, I mostly like dragging that quote out because it confounds people’s expectations.
Marx certainly wasn’t arguing against universal provisioning of education - that had been a demand in the Communist Manifesto for example - but against state control of the curriculum, which really must be understood in large part I suspect as a direct outcome of his own personal experience with the Prussian government repression before he left, and fear it’d end up used for government propaganda, rather than any kind of objective assessment of quality.
But that was very much a product of a very specific time, and quite possibly personal resentments mixed in. I suspect had he seen the relative state of the US and German education systems today, he’d certainly have preferred the German model.
Government sure is trying to fix what ain’t broke with their funding cuts, tho. For now, schools seem to still be doing their thing, but I’m not all too certain on how long that will continue.
No country is safe from the “we shouldn’t educate children unless it’s profitable” and “women only exist to have said children” situation, unfortunately. You would hope that examples like this would push forward a universal agenda of better public schooling anywhere, but instead the agenda coming off it from the rich is generally “oh no, we don’t want everyone to be well educated, just my children, who will specifically act like me as they age and increase the gap”
Never-mind that that a lot of the upsides of living in Finland, even as a member of the upper class, are thanks to the extremely high average level of education.
Where exactly do these people think all these highly competent workers able to fuel highly profitable and innovative companies are coming from?
But because the return on investment of education is paid back over a life-time, not quarterly, I guess it doesn’t count. I pray these dinosaurs die off and allow new generations into government before it’s too late. Luckily, that IS slowly beginning to happen.
Except there have been a ton of studies that show it IS profitable…in the long term. But it’s profitable in that it saves a ton of money in things like prison systems. So it’s not profitable to the right people. If we spend money on education, private prisons get less money and oligarchs have to actually pay people a living wage to make their clothing and street signs.
Didn’t the UK pioneer these laws in other counties? I mean if a country passes a law to protect its people, then the country has to pay the (usually foreign) company losses for the next 20 years due to the law change?
He is a despicable right-conservative populist who obviously says this for all the wrong reasons but that does not change the fact that the statement by itself is a correct one. Humans can change their gender, that is possible because gender is a more or less internalised, socio-cultural and therefore psychological construct. The sex of a human on the other hand is an inherent, biological and physiological quality, written into each cells DNA. Therefore the sex of a person could only be changed by replacing chromosomes in every single cell of the individuals body. I very much hope for all trans people that it will become medically possible to change their sex in the future but at this point it is simply not medically possible and to deny this truth will not make the lifes of trans people better.
It’s really not necessary to bend over backwards to defend him. If he was talking about chromosomes he’d have had no reason to say anything because it would just been a pointless non sequitur with no political relevance. He obviously meant it as an attack against trans people’s existence.
I never defended him and I don´t get why you project such nonsense on me after I clearly wrote:
He is a despicable right-conservative populist who obviously says this for all the wrong reasons but that does not change the fact that the statement by itself is a correct one.
Are you unable to separate between the person and the statement?
Your definitions of sex and gender are not in universal use, and they are not the definitions used by Sunak. So his statement was not “correct”, because what it meant was not correct.
Your definitions of sex and gender are not in universal use
Interesting! What definitions are in universal use?
I think my definitions of sex and gender and the definitions of the Council of Europe seem pretty congruent though:
Sex refers to “the different biological and physiological characteristics of males and females, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes, hormones, etc.”
Gender refers to "the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms, roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men. It varies from society to society and can be changed
Good point, I assume that he (as the conservative-populist he is) probably meant to say gender when he said sex and that he wanted to imply that people can not change gender (which is obviously false because gender is a social construct and not an inherent biological quality).
All that does not change the fact that the statement “people can not change their sex” itself is a correct one though. As far as I understand logic, if somebody says something correct while meaning something incorrect, that does not change the true statement into a false one.
He meant to say exactly what he said, and it was incorrect. He was not using your definition of sex. He was using it in the same sense as “I had a sex change operation”.
Or “Now I want to change the sex on my birth certificate”. Do you also chime in to inform people it’s wrong to do that?
This is true insomuch as you define sex as the 46th chromosome, but an argument can be made that that is overly simplistic. Nearly every cell in our body experiences some amount of sexual differentiation, and this is often mediated by Testosterone and Estrogen exposure. The complicating part is that trans people undergoing hormone replacement therapy do dramatically change their hormonal profile, and while some tissues are only meaningfully sensitive to sex hormones early in development (no amount of HRT is going to change your skeleton, for instance, or cause someone to grow a uterus), other tissues do remain sensitive to sex hormones and can meaningfully differentiate in adulthood causing significant medical effects. Estrogen, for instance, promotes blood clot formation, which is why (cis) women have a higher rate of them. Trans women who take estrogen, as would be expected, also have a higher rate of blood clots compared to cis men. If trans people are only changing gender, and gender is a strictly social phenomenon, we can't really explain this. Likewise, Testosterone can promote higher cholesterol levels that lead to heart attacks, which is why men have higher rates of them. Trans men taking Testosterone also experience this.
So, the fact of the matter is that trans people taking hormones go through biological changes that exactly parallel natural sexual differentiation, albeit in limited form. This has direct clinical relevance, as a trans man seeking cardiovascular medical support should not be treated the same way as a cis woman. Given this, there is a sound argument to be made that "biological sex" as defined in this way simply isn't sufficient to describe these kinds of people. At a biological level, they really do represent a kind of intermediate state in sexual differentiation, and this bears medical significance.
What it doesn't really bear, however, is social significance outside of very close intimate personal relationships. Regardless of whether you think having a strongly gendered society is a good thing or not, the fact is that we don't determine social gender through magical Chromosome-Scopes, but rather a complex mix of perceived traits, both of the body and things like voice, hair, clothing, personality, etc.
If trans people are only changing gender, and gender is a strictly social phenomenon we can’t really explain this
Yes we can… It’s the exact same as consuming a drug which changes how your body works. Arguing otherwise is akin to saying people who drink coffee have a different sex than those who don’t.
My point is that binary sex is an incomplete metric that doesn't accurately describe the biology of trans people. My wording was a bit clunky there, but if the meaningful traits that sex describes are mediated through hormonal profiles, and hormonal profiles do not necessarily match the 46th chromosome, there's a strong argument to be made that what we're really describing when we're talking about sex in humans is not the value of a chromosome, but rather the pattern of sexual differentiation throughout the body, and the fact of the matter is that that is not a strict binary. Binary sex based on chromosomes is not capable of meaningfully distinguishing between a cis woman and a trans man despite there being many significant biological differences between them that are produce in the exact same way as they are between cis women and men.
I’ll take garden variety disagreements about economic policies over power seizure any day of the week. Compromise and not getting all the things you want is a hallmark of a healthy democracy.
This is how low the bar is and I lay 100% blame on authoritarians more interested in grabbing power than compromising themselves.
Democracy is when everything sucks and gets worse every year while centrists keep eyeing Nazis as possible better allies than the left.
If you force the government to improve society in any what you’re an “authoritarian” (oooh, how scary. btw, I’m pretty sure “authoritarian” as a cudgel against the left that equates them to the right is against board rules).
Imagine knowing the last 13 years of Tory rule have been such a disaster that you have to spend all your time whipping up a fury against .01% of the population in the gutter press to the point where transphobic hate crimes have risen in Britain by like 60%
Kinda surprised they’re giving payouts at all and not just suppressing them, considering that they’ve been skimping out on the payouts for KIA soldiers.
inews.co.uk
Top