Finland remains one of the Nordic region’s strongest education systems, particularly in science, but the latest OECD figures confirm a long-term decline in reading and mathematics. The results are prompting a reassessment of digital learning, classroom concentration and the policies that once made Finnish schools an international model.
Finland is still performing well — but the direction is clear
Reports of the death of Finland’s celebrated education model are exaggerated, but the latest evidence leaves little room for complacency. In the OECD’s PISA 2025 assessment, Finnish 15-year-olds achieved 504 points in science, comfortably above the OECD average of 482 and the highest result among the Nordic countries. Finland also remained above the international average in reading, with 474 points against 461, and mathematics, with 469 against 463. Yet these respectable headline figures conceal an unmistakable trend: Finnish performance has been declining for more than a decade, the proportion of low-performing pupils is growing, the number of top performers is falling and differences between individual students are widening.
Reading and mathematics suffered another setback
Reading produced the most immediate cause for concern. Finland’s average fell by 16 points between PISA 2022 and PISA 2025, although this matched the average decline recorded across OECD countries. Mathematics dropped from 484 points in 2022 to 469 in 2025, leaving Finland statistically level with Denmark, which scored 470, and Sweden, on 464. Norway and Iceland performed less strongly, with respective mathematics scores of 452 and 450. The Nordic comparison therefore offers no simple story of one national model succeeding while another fails: educational performance has weakened across much of the region, although Finland’s long-term fall is particularly striking because its results at the beginning of the century were so exceptional.
The original Finnish model was more complex than its reputation
International enthusiasm often reduced Finnish education to an attractive formula of short school days, limited homework, few standardised tests, highly qualified teachers and relatively low pressure on children. Those elements were real, but they never fully explained the country’s early PISA success. Finland also benefited from a highly literate society, strong public libraries, comparatively small differences between schools, extensive learning support and a teaching profession that enjoyed unusual professional status and autonomy. Many of the pupils who produced Finland’s first outstanding PISA results had also begun their education before the most recent waves of classroom digitalisation. The current decline cannot therefore be treated as proof that pupil wellbeing, teacher autonomy, family-friendly Finnish society or later school entry were mistakes.
A Nordic problem rather than an isolated Finnish failure
Science, the principal domain examined in PISA 2025, illustrates Finland’s remaining strength. Its score of 504 was well ahead of Sweden’s 485, Denmark’s 478, Norway’s 470 and Iceland’s 441. In reading, Sweden also remained above the OECD average with 466 points, while Denmark scored 460, Norway 453 and Iceland 422. These figures have strengthened calls for closer Nordic cooperation on fundamental skills, educational equality and the consequences of digitalisation. They also challenge the idea that importing longer school days or more frequent testing would automatically restore earlier results. The Nordic countries have different educational structures, yet none has escaped the broader decline in reading and mathematics.
Screens have become part of the Finnish debate
Digital distraction has moved to the centre of Finland’s educational discussion. From August 2025, Finnish legislation restricted the use of mobile phones and other personal devices during lessons. Pupils may use them only with a teacher’s permission for learning or health-related purposes, while schools must establish rules governing devices during lessons, breaks and meals. Denmark, Norway and Sweden have also moved towards tighter restrictions or stronger national guidance. Phones cannot by themselves explain a decline that began well before the pandemic, and restrictions are not a substitute for good teaching. Nevertheless, the Nordic policy shift marks a significant change in attitude: access to technology is no longer automatically equated with educational progress.
Finland retains an important digital advantage
The PISA results also complicate the argument that technology has simply damaged Finnish education. In the new “Learning in the Digital World” assessment, Finland scored 507 points in computational problem-solving, significantly above the OECD average of 500. Denmark achieved 506 and Sweden 503, while Norway and Iceland remained below the OECD average. Finnish pupils therefore continue to demonstrate an ability to work with digital tools and solve computational problems, even as traditional reading and mathematical performance deteriorates. The challenge is to preserve this competence while ensuring that screens support concentration instead of fragmenting it.
Inequality is growing within classrooms
Differences between Finnish schools remain comparatively small, one of the most valuable achievements of the national system. The more troubling divide is now found between pupils attending the same schools. PISA 2025 recorded increasingly wide differences within Finnish classrooms, while socioeconomic background continued to exert a substantial influence. In science, pupils from the highest socioeconomic quarter outperformed those in the lowest by 78 points. There were also large differences between non-immigrant pupils, who averaged 517 points, and first-generation immigrant pupils, who scored 417. These figures indicate that Finland’s most urgent problem may be its declining ability to bring every pupil to a secure level of competence rather than the disappearance of excellence altogether.
Discovering Finland’s learning culture beyond the classroom
Visitors exploring Finland can still see why education became so closely associated with the country’s identity. Libraries, museums, universities and civic spaces are treated as essential public infrastructure rather than optional cultural amenities. In Helsinki, contemporary architecture and institutions such as the Oodi Central Library embody the principle of accessible lifelong learning, while neighbouring Espoo, home to Aalto University, demonstrates the links between education, design, entrepreneurship and technological research. These places offer a broader view of the Finnish model than league tables alone can provide.
From Lahti to Tampere, education shapes Finnish cities
The connection between learning, culture and urban life continues outside the capital region. Lahti, internationally recognised for its environmental policies, has used education and research to support its transition from an industrial centre to a European sustainability hub. Tampere, meanwhile, combines a major university community with museums, former industrial districts and a growing technology sector. Visiting these cities reveals how the Finnish commitment to public learning reaches beyond compulsory education and forms part of a wider civic culture.
Turku connects Finland’s educational past and present
In Turku, Finland’s historic academic traditions coexist with contemporary research and student life. The city was home to the country’s first university and remains an important centre for higher education, medicine, science and the humanities. Its historic centre, cathedral and castle also show how cultural heritage contributes to learning outside formal classrooms. For travellers, a visit to Turku and the surrounding archipelago can therefore complement the modern institutions of Helsinki, Espoo and Tampere with a view of the deeper historical foundations of Finnish education.
Reform without abandoning the model’s strengths
Finland is responding by increasing attention to literacy and numeracy, strengthening learning support and attempting to restore calmer classroom conditions. The government has acknowledged that the effects will take time to appear in international assessments. That patience will be important. PISA measures valuable competencies, but it does not establish that one individual policy — limited homework, shorter days, digital devices or the absence of frequent national tests — caused a country’s rise or decline. Finland’s task is not to recreate the schools of the 1990s or to imitate East Asian systems wholesale. It is to recover strong foundational learning while retaining educational equality, professional teachers, pupil welfare and the relatively small differences between schools that continue to distinguish the Finnish system.
A model under revision, not a model disproved
The Finnish school system is no longer the apparently effortless success story presented to the world two decades ago. Its decline is real, prolonged and serious enough to demand reform. Yet PISA 2025 also shows a country that remains above the OECD average in all three traditional domains, leads the Nordic region in science and performs strongly in computational problem-solving. A journey through Finland, from Helsinki and Espoo to Tampere, Lahti and Turku, still reveals a society in which education, libraries and public knowledge occupy an unusually prominent place. Finland has not demonstrated that low-stress education is a failure. It has demonstrated that even a highly regarded system must adapt when reading habits, technology, demographics and the circumstances of childhood change.
Suggested Online Sources
Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture: PISA 2025 results | OECD: PISA 2025 Results — Future-Ready Students | University of Jyväskylä: Finland’s PISA 2025 performance | OECD Education GPS: Finland’s student performance
