Education Minister Hekia Parata released a discussion paper with recommendations for reforming the New Zealand Teachers’ Council.  The paper firmly acknowledges the importance of teachers.

Above all else, teacher quality is what matters for student success, as I’ve learned from recent visits to two countries that, educationally, are often the envy of other nations.

Singapore and Finland value the teaching profession, and both countries are successful in education despite completely contrasting political philosophies.

While Singapore’s system is centrally controlled, Finland is similar to New Zealand, in that responsibility for education is devolved to the local level.   

But it’s the similarities between these systems that reveal clues about why students do so well. Both cultures build consensus on educational matters, value and invest in teachers, and celebrate their best teachers.

First, Singapore and Finland build consensus on what the education system should achieve, and broadly how to go about it. In Finland this is helped by an ethnically homogenous society. The Singaporean population however is more diverse, with 76% Chinese origin, 14% Malay and 8% Indian, three official languages and a mix of religions. They build consensus in a country that is diverse.

This notion of ‘consensus building’ sounds utopic, but (as experts in both countries explain in very matter-of-fact terms), there are of course disagreements, debate and discussion.

But once that’s done, a pragmatic compromise is pursued; and everyone plays their part building the system and getting on with educating children.

So how is this possible under such different political arrangements?

In Singapore, consensus on educational issues happens via a ‘tripartite’ arrangement between the Ministry of Education, the National Institute for Education (Singapore’s only teacher training institute), and the schools. According to the Ministry, policy is not as top-down as many believe; each group respects the views and expertise of the others. The system is becoming less top down but to be sure, it is still controlled from the centre.

This works well in a city state like Singapore. As one official explained, “If the Minister wants to meet all the principals today, it can be done”.

The fact that Singapore has been governed by only one political party in its entire existence as a country of course helps.   

Because of Singapore’s only nominally democratic nature that allows efficient central control, their educational success story is often dismissed in New Zealand. The argument is that New Zealand cannot dream of the kind of educational success Singapore has been able to build and sustain over time.  

But Finland also provides an example of where consensus can transcend election cycles. Reforms in the 1970s saw Finland come to broad consensus on the overarching goals and principles of education, that it would be publicly funded and governed at a local level. Since those reforms, there have been 30 ministers of education.

From there, aside from a few agreed rules, individual players in the Finnish education system are granted complete autonomy. This includes the eleven Finnish universities that offer teacher training, all schools, and most importantly, teachers. They are trusted to do their job. In theory, this should work well in both New Zealand and Finland which have similarly sized populations spread over similar geographical areas.   

But the reality is that New Zealand doesn’t perform as well as Finland, and a glance at its teaching profession reveals why. Finland devolves responsibility for education to a highly professional and skilled workforce. No education system is better than its teachers. 

The high status of teachers, and policies that further strengthen the teaching profession, are pursued in Singapore and Finland, and cut across ideology. After World War II, education was the main vehicle for social and economic transformation in both countries. Teachers, already highly respected in society, were elevated to an even greater level.   

Both countries continue to build and harness the power of the teaching workforce.  In the last 15 years, Singapore has developed a special career ‘track’ for ‘master’ teachers who stay in the classroom but lead other teachers. The system recognises that not all teachers have the interest or disposition to become a heads of department or a principal. Because staying in the classroom doesn’t signal the end point in their career, the best teachers stay in hands-on teaching. Climbing this career ladder is contingent on both experience and demonstrable performance.

In essence Finland’s teachers don’t need to climb career ladders because they have already reached the top. Staying in the classroom is the optimal career point. While Singapore’s teachers are up there with lawyers and doctors, Finnish teachers are even higher. Applications to teacher training bear this out.

Last year, 1,800 applicants to primary teacher training at the University of Helsinki competed for 120 places. This university selects the most highly motivated people to teacher training.  But Finland doesn’t rely on selecting the highest-quality applicants alone.  Like Singapore, they build the profession. Each teacher is required to have a master’s degree before they even begin teaching.

The final important similarity between Finland and Singapore is that politicians back the teachers. Singapore officials say that even they have their share of great, good and bad teachers, yet in public, the Minister of Education sings the praises of teachers.

So, what does this all mean for New Zealand?

Again, we make excuses for why we could never dream of realising the successes of the Singaporeans and Finns, when we don’t have a strong tradition of valuing the teacher.  But New Zealand already has an internationally recognised education system; it follows that we have a capable teaching workforce, and many excellent teachers. The status of teachers in New Zealand could be as high as in Singapore or Finland if, like these countries, we celebrated excellence, and put policies in place to lift the status of the profession.

There are two policies that could do this. The first is capping enrolment in teacher training to make the profession more attractive and make sure only the most motivated people become teachers. The second is providing teachers with more development, either by increasing the qualification for teaching to a masters level like Finland, or providing a ‘master’ teaching career track like Singapore.

Policies need to reflect that it’s not about fixing the teaching workforce, it’s about building it.