Formal Vs. Non-Formal Education

Miriam Douglas

        Education is an essential part in everyone’s lives. Everyone is constantly learning whether it be by formal, non-formal, or in an informal way. There are many ways people can gain an education that complies with their learning style. Different models are effective for different people. However, neither is more superior to the other. 

        The United States of America is very famous for utilizing the formal educational model in public schools. It is easier to implement into every school and have consistency across the country. Teachers do not have to struggle with coming up with outlandish lesson plans for their students. It is also easier to measure what the students are learning because it is quite standardized. Standardized tests have become the norm for deciding whether a student has retained a sufficient amount of information they need in order to move on to the next grade level. For those who have only known this model their whole life believe this is the most effective way to teach students.

        There are many non-formal educational models that are being used around the world. Non-formal education as described by Combs, Prosser and Ahmed (1973) is “any organized educational activity outside the established formal system – whether operating separately or as an important feature of some broader activity – that is intended to serve identifiable learning clienteles and learning objectives.” Finland is currently receiving a lot of attention for their educational system they have in place. They have eliminated standardized testing almost completely other than the one test students take during upper secondary school titled PISA. Students are tested; however, the tests are more personal and focus on the student’s rate of learning rather than the whole class. The teachers are able to become more personal with their students. It allows them to get to know the individual student which can in turn allow the student to get to know their teacher better and become more comfortable with their leadership.

        The case for and against standardized testing is that it only focus’ on the whole rather than the individual. Most people looking from the outside of the window, other countries see this as schools showcasing high scores from their students so they can receive more funding. For the most part, it is a direct correlation between funding and high scores on statewide standardized tests. Those with direct experience of the formal education, mostly teachers in this system, do not see this type of testing as ineffective because if the student is able to score a decent score on the test then that means they did retain the information they were supposed to. Also, America is a large country and most classrooms have an average of 25-30 students per teacher. The teacher does not have as much time as they would like to get to personally cater to every student’s needs. Therefore, they have to use an effective way to get the material to every student and make sure that they understand it.

        The educational systems that have chosen to eliminate standardized testing have chosen to focus more on the individual rather than the whole class as one. Finland, for example, utilizes individual tests that are created by the teachers for the students. Atlantic author Anu Partanen in December 2011 wrote that, Olmstead (2014) “All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher” (para. 4.) This breaks the barrier between students and teachers and allows them to become more comfortable with one another and it also eliminates competition and comparison between the students.

        Individuals coming from either system would have a difficult time understand the differences between these two models and how they utilize testing. The formal side would most likely argue that standardized testing is needed to show whether or not a teacher is effective in teaching the necessary information to students. While the non-formal educational side would state that it only tests the students ability to remember the necessary material long enough to pass the test.

        I believe that both sides are neither right nor wrong. Standardized testing can be an effective way to not so much measure the student’s ability to learn but rather the teacher’s effectiveness. If the majority of the class has failed the test then that does not necessarily mean the students are not able to learn but that possibly the teacher has failed with helping the student understand the information. However, the competition and comparison aspect of these tests can deter students and make them feel less able than their peers to learn. It can make them feel as if they are slow and most people perceive a child with constant low test scores just as that.