We Should be Learning from Finland’s Education System

One of the distressing things about Erica ‘I read a book and now I’m an educational expert’ Stanford’s education agenda is the very narrow evidence base underpinning it. So limiting, as the old proverb goes, ‘don’t put all your eggs in one basket.’

Revamping the New Zealand schooling system on the basis of one book and the very restricted education beliefs of a few New Zealand Initiative members, is so risky, exacerbated by the speed in which this being done. Even if there was some educational validity to her programme, the sheer speed of its implementation is inevitably going to bring with it a myriad of unexpected problems. 

Never mind, when it all goes belly up she can always claim she ‘mispoke’ – seems to be a endemic problem with this government from the top down, from the  guy who can’t articulate a coherent reason for his/the government’s position over the USA and Israeli war against Iran, to Paul Goldsmith’s verbal gymnastics over conversations with the TVNZ board over a television news item, and so on.

There is a wealth of educational research out there to inform any revision of the New Zealand schooling system, as well as many countries whose education systems are well proven and from whom we could learn.

At the top of the list of countries that we should be learning from is Finland. This has been the case for a couple of decades at least, if not longer. 

Paradoxically four or five decades ago Finnish education was lacking so they looked around the world for inspiration and found it here in New Zealand. They revamped their schooling to make use of the learning gained here (and elsewhere) and created what is generally considered to be the best schooling system in the world. While Finland did this, we were seduced by neoliberal ideology in 1990 and discarded the very system that Finland and other countries admired.

An aside – back in 2011 I became very active on a couple of USA based Facebook pages set up to battle similar neoliberal test based schooling systems. As part of this I was in contact with a number of the top education academics in the USA, many of whom had been to New Zealand on a number of occasions, to learn from what we were once doing. They were aghast when they learnt what the the National led government was doing to education through their national standards programmes. They just couldn’t believe what was happening. 

Now we are reduced to importing unfounded ideas from a very restricted source, even though there is minimal research evidence to support it.  We thought national standards was a disastrous policy, however it was insignificant compared to what this government is imposing on schools.

Recently Doctor Sarah Aiono wrote an article about Finland’s education.

While Finland Looks to 2045, Where Is New Zealand Looking?

‘This week, Finland quietly did something that should make education leaders around the world pause.

As Pasi Sahlberg shared on LinkedIn, Finland has released its new “Vision for Finnish Comprehensive Schools 2045.” He described it this way:

“The vision takes a strong stand on the fact that, in the midst of the changed operating environment, there is an increasing demand to reinforce not only basic skills but also our ability to work together. These changes are guided by bildung, hope, agency and our common good.”’

The very fact that I had to research the word bildung shows the need for all of us to to be  lifelong learners – regardless of the ‘Knowledge Curriculum’ there will also be a near infinite need to keep learning.

‘Bildung is a German concept that refers to education, self-cultivation, and the development of one’s character and moral sensibilities through lifelong learning and cultural maturation. It emphasizes the harmonization of the mind and heart, leading to personal transformation and a deeper understanding of oneself within society’.

Another definition:

‘Bildung is the combination of the education and knowledge necessary to thrive in your society, and the moral and emotional maturity to both be a team player and have personal autonomy.

Bildung is also knowing your roots and being able to imagine the future.’

That’s a nice vision, compare that to the very limited focus on the basics that underpins current policy. You will have noted, I’m sure, that Finland acknowledges the need to reinforce basic skills, but then adds the richness of bildung.

‘Bildung. Hope. Agency. Common good.

Finland is not responding to global disruption with tighter monitoring or narrower targets. It is responding with a generational vision of human development.

The document frames education not merely as preparation for change, but as a force for shaping the future – a system that equips young people to build a meaningful life, sustain democracy, and live within planetary boundaries.’

This is very much in line with my articles and with many similar articles written by very knowledgeable educators, leaving dear Erica way out on a limb.

‘Finland is asking:

What kind of human beings do we need to cultivate for 2045?

That question matters, because it reveals what a country believes education is for.

And it prompts a harder question for us in Aotearoa:

What is New Zealand asking of its education system right now?’

Exactly.

‘Education strategies can be framed at different layers. Some focus primarily on technical performance — attendance, targets, monitoring systems and measurable attainment. Others move outward into pedagogical redesign — competencies, professional agency and curriculum transformation. And some extend further still, articulating education as a civilisational project concerned with democracy, sustainability, identity and the common good.

When we examine the dominant framing of each jurisdiction’s current strategy document, a pattern begins to emerge.

The diagram below illustrates where the strategic centre of gravity appears to sit in each case.’

‘In the model above, Finland’s Vision 2045 sits clearly within the outer layer — a civilisational vision that frames education around democracy, sustainability, agency and the common good. Wales’ Curriculum for Wales also reaches into this outer horizon, signalling national renewal through curriculum reform. British Columbia’s curriculum transformation is positioned primarily within the pedagogical reform layer, emphasising competencies, professional agency and systemic redesign.

New Zealand’s Strategic Intentions 2025–2029, by contrast, are located predominantly within the inner layer of technical performance measures — attendance targets, literacy benchmarks, standardised monitoring and system stewardship.

This is not an argument that foundational skills or accountability are unimportant. They are essential.’

Sarah goes on to discuss features of each of the four education systems mentioned here, however I will focus on Finland and New Zealand.

‘What Finland Is Signalling

Finland’s 2045 vision is structured around three pillars:

• A meaningful life

• Life together

• Life on the planet

It emphasises:

• Human growth beyond technical skill

• Agency as a central educational goal

• Democracy and social cohesion

• Ecological sustainability

• Ethical engagement with technology

The Finnish system is not retreating to fundamentals in the face of AI, climate change, or social fragmentation.

It is expanding its conception of education to meet them.

That is what leadership looks like in uncertain times.’

 

 

Compare this to New Zealand:

‘And What New Zealand Is Signalling

New Zealand’s current strategy foregrounds:

• Attendance percentages

• Literacy and numeracy benchmarks

• Structured instructional approaches

• Standardised assessment tools

• Monitoring and reporting frameworks

These are important elements of any functioning system.

But they are managerial instruments.

They are not a generational narrative.

They focus on small measurable moments — whether students are present, whether they are “at level,” whether data is being tracked consistently.

What is less visible is the larger horizon.

Where is the language of democracy?
Where is the language of agency?
Where is the framing of education as a response to planetary crisis?
Where is the invitation to imagine 2045?

At a time when Finland is articulating hope as a capability and Bildung as a guiding force, New Zealand’s strategy feels cautious.

Incremental.
Operational.
Short-sighted.

It does not feel especially brave.

And in a period of profound global uncertainty, the courage to articulate a larger educational horizon may be precisely what leadership requires.’

 

 

Need I say more?

In November last year, this article was published on Newsroom:

Are students suffering the side-effects of the bug infecting education policy?

‘There’s been a GERM infecting global education for the past 20 years.

Defined by things like promoting competition between schools, narrow (or knowledge-rich) curriculums, test-based accountability and the undervaluing of the teaching profession, this so-called GERM has not led to the improved educational outcomes expected. In fact, during this period outcomes have declined.

Speaking at the inaugural UpliftED Conference (run by the recently established education think tank Aotearoa Educators Collective) in Wellington last week, Melbourne-based Finnish education expert, researcher and former World Bank specialist Pasi Sahlberg put the past 20-plus years of New Zealand education policy and the coalition’s education reform programme into context.’

 

Pasi Sahlberg has an extensive CV – read it for yourself.

You’ll find he knows what he is talking about.

‘The Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) has gripped the western world, spreading from country to country, he told hundreds of teachers, principals, education researchers and education-adjacent experts.

According to OECD Pisa scores, paired with UNESCO and World Bank data during the past 25 years, the cost of educating students, the amount of data and research gathered, and the amount of tech per student are all the highest they’ve ever been.

Meanwhile, quality of outcomes, equity of outcomes, the status of teaching, student wellbeing and sense of belonging are all at their lowest points.’

 

We are in a race to the bottom.

‘Countries like the UK, Australia and Singapore – the ones the ministry and Government are looking to when creating education policy and writing new curriculums – are facing the same issues as New Zealand. Educational outcomes and achievement in most western countries have stagnated, with virtually no improvements during the past 15 years.

 

When was the National Standards agenda introduced by the National led government?

2011. What happened? Stagnation at best.

‘Students in countries that spend more time on explicit instruction (with variations on the National-led Government’s one hour a day policy) are not doing as well as those in countries spending less time on direct instruction and more time on relationship building and fostering curiosity through other ways of learning.’

 

Read that carefully. Direct instruction = knowledge based curriculum and associated didactic teaching methodology (teacher standing at the front dispensing knowledge eg., university lecturer). But as has been shown, students in this situation do not learn as well as more liberal learning programmes.

‘Sahlberg directly addressed some of the latest education reforms introduced by Education Minister Erica Stanford, saying that things like phonics tests and explicit instruction on certain subjects will work for some students, but not all – these are the side effects no one is talking about when implementing education policies.

Meanwhile, a return to what he calls a “narrowing of the curriculum” to focus on knowledge – as this Government is in the midst of doing – is not always what kids need.’

 

How much will it take to hammer home the point that Stanford’s agenda is potentially very damaging to our children?

‘To change the outcomes, countries like New Zealand need to take a different approach, both in understanding the purpose of education and the factors that drive positive outcomes, he said.

That means busting the myth of “evidence-based change”. There is no magic unicorn; no one approach that works for every student, no matter how much policy-makers hold onto their “unshakeable faith in unicorns”.

It also means warning of the side effects of education reforms, and educating to oppose populism.’

 

To be fair Stanford understands this which is why she is moving to take over control of the New Zealand Teachers Council so she can police and limit teacher protest, the usual attitude of the right towards people who challenge their ideology. The only ‘free speech’ that is permitted is that which supports government policy – look at the furore over Paul Goldsmith’s discussions with the TVNZ board.

‘Sahlberg finished by asking: “What if the answers to education’s global challenges lie not in scaling up ‘best practices’, but in truly engaging students as agents of shaping our futures?”’

 

Absolutely. We won’t find this in current government policies and I’m not confident that a change of government will go far enough – there doesn’t seem to be an educational visionary like Steve Maharey in their ranks.