Teacher education is crucial for creating effective learning environments and improving education quality. The education systems in Finland and India, shaped by distinct historical, cultural, and systemic factors, offer contrasting approaches to teacher preparation. Understanding these differences can provide valuable insights for Indian education leaders seeking to enhance educational outcomes.
Finland's education system is renowned for its consistency and excellence. Since the 1970s, Finland has prioritised an inclusive and equitable education system, propelling Finnish students to the top of PISA assessments by the early 2000s. This success is underpinned by a robust teacher education system, where all teachers are required to hold a master's degree. This high standard ensures that Finnish teachers are well-prepared both academically and professionally.
India, in contrast, has a diverse and complex education system influenced by its colonial past and vast socio-cultural diversity. Catering to approximately 260 million students across 1.5 million schools, India has made various efforts to reform teacher education, including establishing the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). However, challenges remain, such as the fact that about 14% of Indian teachers lack adequate training, impacting the overall quality of education.
Structural Differences
Finland:
Selective Admission: Only 10-15% of applicants are admitted to Finnish teacher education programs, ensuring highly qualified entrants.
Comprehensive Training: Programs are rigorous and research-based, requiring five years and including a master’s degree and 800 hours of supervised teaching practice.
India:
Variety of Programs: Teacher education ranges from one-year diploma courses (D.Ed/D.El.Ed) to two-year Bachelor’s (B.Ed) and postgraduate programs (M.Ed), with varying quality.
Regulatory Oversight: The NCTE oversees over 17,000 institutions, but there are significant disparities in educational quality.
Pedagogical Approaches
Finland:
Pedagogical Content Knowledge: Finnish teacher education focuses on developing strong pedagogical content knowledge, enabling teachers to effectively teach specific subjects and adjust methods for diverse student needs.
Student-Centred Learning: The Finnish system values student-centred learning, encouraging active student engagement to foster critical thinking, creativity, and problem-solving skills.
India:
Traditional Methods: Many Indian teacher education programs rely on traditional, lecture-based approaches, potentially limiting the development of practical teaching skills and innovative pedagogical practices.
Modernisation Efforts: Efforts are underway to integrate modern pedagogical theories and practices into teacher education, though implementation varies across institutions.
Professional Development
Finland:
Continuous Professional Development (CPD): Finnish teachers engage in CPD regularly, dedicating 8-10 days annually to stay updated on pedagogical methods and research.
High Participation and Support: Over 90% of Finnish teachers participate in CPD yearly, supported by strong institutional policies and funding. This structured approach ensures high teaching standards and adaptation to new educational challenges.
India:
In-Service Training and NISHTHA Initiative: Professional development opportunities in India vary widely in access and quality. The NISHTHA initiative, launched in 2019, aims to train millions of teachers by 2022, addressing these gaps.
Systemic Challenges: Issues like funding, administrative support, and regional disparities pose challenges. As of 2020, only about 60% of teachers had access to regular in-service training, highlighting the need for a more consistent approach nationwide.
Policy and Governance
Finland:
Decentralised System: Finland's education system emphasises decentralisation, granting schools and teachers significant autonomy. This fosters a flexible and responsive educational environment.
Education Spending: Finland allocates approximately 6% of its GDP to education, one of the highest rates among OECD countries. This investment supports high standards in teacher education and professional development.
India:
Centralised System: India's education system is more centralised, with policies and regulations predominantly set by national and state governments. This structure can lead to bureaucratic challenges and slower implementation of reforms.
Education Budget: In 2022, India's education budget was approximately 2.9% of its GDP . For the fiscal year 2023, the allocation increased to ₹1,12,899.47 crore, which marked the highest ever allocation but still amounted to less than 3.5% of GDP . The 2024 budget's exact percentage of GDP is not specified yet, but the allocation is expected to follow a similar trend.The National Education Policy 2020 set a target for the education budget to reach 6% of GDP, which India has yet to achieve. The consistent allocation below 3.5% highlights the ongoing challenges in meeting educational funding goals.
Conclusion
Comparing teacher education in Finland and India highlights key differences shaped by historical, cultural, and systemic factors. Finland's rigorous academic standards and continuous professional development offer valuable insights. India's diverse system presents unique challenges and opportunities, emphasising the need for tailored reforms. Understanding these distinctions helps policymakers enhance teacher preparation and improve global educational outcomes.
Key Learnings for Indian Education Leaders and Policymakers:
Raise Admission Standards in Teacher Education: Implementing more selective admission criteria for teacher education programs to ensure highly qualified entrants.
Enhance Training Programs: Developing comprehensive, research-based training programs that integrate theory and practical experience.
Promote Continuous Professional Development: Establishing well-structured and regular CPD programs to keep teachers updated with modern pedagogical methods and research.
Decentralise Governance: Granting schools and teachers greater autonomy to foster a more flexible and responsive educational environment.
Increase Education Funding: Aligning budget allocations with the NEP 2020 target of 6% of GDP to support high standards in teacher education and professional development.
References
Kommentare