The U.S. had the blueprint for a high-class education--but abandoned it

Key points:

The U.S. lost sight of what made its education system great
Moving beyond transparency to accessibility and awareness
Embracing a growth mindset when reviewing student data
For more news on education policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub

In the 1970s, educators and policymakers from across the globe (including from Finland) viewed the United States as a model of forward-thinking education–American schools were well-regarded for their holistic, child-centered approaches, as well as their attempts to democratize education.

Ironically, Finland borrowed key elements from the United States and went on to build one of the most effective and equitable educational systems in the world, but the United States systematically dismantled its own blueprint for success. Today, Finland routinely ranks near the top of international assessments, but the United States lags behind and is also burdened by inequity, over-testing, and fractured policy.

In the decades following World War II, the United States made sweeping investments in public education. Landmark legislation like the GI Bill and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 aimed to level the playing field for all students (regardless of race or background). Progressive educational thinkers like John Dewey emphasized learning by doing, collaboration, and fostering democratic values in the classroom. Schools embraced a broader vision of learning by nurturing curiosity, critical thinking, and emotional growth (as opposed to solely standardized test scores).

Even while the nation was grappling with desegregation and civil rights, there was a belief that public education could be a great equalizer. In fact, it was the ideal of education as a vehicle for equity and democracy that drew Finnish officials to study the United States education system in the 1970s. What they saw inspired them to pursue their own reform–one rooted in universal access, pedagogical trust, and educational excellence.

Finland took what the United States did well and refined it. Instead of treating education as a battleground for political ideologies or profitable experiments, Finland treated it as a national investment. Its policymakers favored the comprehensive school model that served all students equally. Teachers became the cornerstone of reform. They were required to earn a master’s degree, were deeply trained in pedagogy, and were entrusted with classroom autonomy. Rather than inundating students with standardized tests, Finland focused on formative assessments, collaboration, and professional trust. The Finnish system became child-centered and equity-driven. Students received minimal homework, shorter school days, and built-in time for recess and play. Every child had access to a well-funded neighborhood school. All teachers were seen as capable professionals as opposed to bureaucrats to be monitored or managed.

In sum, Finland’s reforms were slow, intentional, and unfolded over decades. Finland became one of the most equitable and high-performing education systems in the world, regularly topping international rankings like PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment).

While Finland built upon the best of U.S. philosophy, the United States itself began drifting from its own values. Specifically, in the 1983 report A Nation at Risk, the American education system was declared to be in crisis and needed urgent reform. The crisis narrative took root, and the focus shifted from ‘equity and opportunity’ to ‘accountability and performance.’ This engendered the “standards and testing” era. Federal and state policymakers started tying funding and reputation to standardized test scores. The No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and Race to the Top (2009) entrenched these policies, and emphasized test-based accountability, school competition, and punitive measures for “failing” schools. Standardized testing became ubiquitous and often crowded out the arts, physical education, and even recess in under-resourced schools.

The reforms were ineffective, as well as damaging. Teaching to the test narrowed curricula. Schools in low-income communities were labeled as failures rather than supported. Teachers became overworked and undervalued, and their performance was measured more by test scores than by meaningful student growth. Inequities deepened as affluent districts thrived and poorer ones were left behind. Adding to the issue, the United States embraced school choice and privatization in the name of innovation and accountability. Charter schools, voucher programs, and for-profit education management organizations proliferated, but while some charters offered innovative models, the overall impact on public education has been inconsistent. Furthermore, education policy became highly politicized. From curriculum wars to book bans to ideological disputes over critical race theory, schools became a cultural battlefield, thereby losing the original vision of education as a humanistic enterprise.

The irony remains that Finland succeeded by honoring and preserving the core ideals the United States once championed: education is a public good and not a marketplace, teachers are professionals as opposed to test administrators, equity is the foundation instead of an afterthought, and learning is a holistic process instead of a score. Of note, Finland did not “outdo” the United States. Finland stayed the course guided by the vision the United States abandoned.The United States chased quick fixes, surrendered to market logic, and lost sight of what made its schools aspirational in the first place.