Finnish Pedagogy vs Latvia's Education System

Latvia's Skola2030 reform already borrows from the same competency-based thinking behind Finland's national curriculum, which makes this comparison less about opposites and more about how far each system has taken a shared idea, especially in the primary years.

Two education systems, one shared direction of travel

Finland and Latvia are not starting from opposite ends of the spectrum. Children in both countries typically begin formal basic education at age 7, later than in most of Western Europe, on the premise that early childhood education and care in the years before that should focus on play, language and social development rather than formal instruction. In Latvia, that basic stage (pamatizglitiba) runs as a single nine-year structure, usually organised as a sakumskola phase covering grades 1 to 6 and a second stage covering grades 7 to 9, sometimes housed in separate schools and sometimes in one all-through pamatskola.

Finland's equivalent, the nine-year peruskoulu, is organised similarly, though Finnish schools have generally kept a stronger emphasis on the same class teacher staying with one group across the early primary years. For a school outside either country looking to model its K-5 provision on the Nordic or Baltic approach, the practical starting point, a single unbroken basic stage rather than a hard break between primary and lower-secondary schooling, is genuinely comparable between the two.

Skola2030 and Finland's curriculum reforms: a shared competency-based logic

Latvia's Skola2030 reform, rolled out nationally from the 2019/2020 school year under the National Centre for Education (Valsts izglitibas satura centrs, VISC), reorganised the curriculum around transversal skills, including critical thinking and problem-solving, creativity, self-directed learning, cooperation, civic participation and digital literacy. That list will look familiar to anyone who has studied Finland's national core curriculum, which introduced its own seven transversal competencies in 2016 and pushed Finnish schools toward phenomenon-based, cross-subject learning rather than isolated subject drilling.

The overlap is not a coincidence. Skola2030 and Finland's reforms both drew on the same wider Nordic and European thinking about 21st-century competencies, and both put particular weight on the primary years (classes 1 to 3 in Latvia's framing) as the stage where these skills take root. Where the two systems diverge is less in the stated goals and more in how deeply the pedagogy behind them, how Finnish-style teaching actually plays out in a Latvian classroom, has been worked through in teacher training, lesson structure and everyday classroom culture. A written curriculum framework and a lived pedagogical practice are two different things to build, and that gap is usually where schools need the most practical support.

Assessment, teacher autonomy and the classroom day

Latvia assesses primary pupils through non-graded diagnostic tests (diagnosticejosie darbi) typically administered in grades 3 and 6, intended to give formative feedback to pupils and teachers rather than to rank schools or students. Results are generally reported as percentages and do not affect semester or annual grades. This is broadly in step with Finland's own reputation for avoiding high-stakes standardised testing in the primary years, where teachers rely instead on ongoing, mostly formative assessment and considerable classroom-level autonomy to decide how and when to check understanding.

Where the systems part ways more clearly is in degree rather than kind. Finnish class teachers typically hold a research-based master's degree and are given wide latitude over pacing, grouping and method within the national framework, a level of professional autonomy that took Finland decades to build through teacher education reform. Translating a competency-based curriculum document into that same everyday trust in the classroom, rather than a fixed lesson script, is usually the harder and slower part of any transition, in Latvia or anywhere else.

Language policy and what it means for adopting schools

One genuine structural difference worth naming plainly: since September 2023, Latvia has been phasing in Latvian as the sole language of instruction across publicly funded pre-schools and schools, with the transition applying grade by grade through to 2025. That is a different starting context from Finland, which has long run parallel Finnish-medium and Swedish-medium school systems under the same national curriculum. Neither approach is a verdict on pedagogy itself, but it is a real difference in the language and staffing environment a school is planning within, and it is worth accounting for separately from any decision about teaching method.

For schools comparing options, the more useful question is usually not which national system to copy wholesale, but which specific elements, curriculum structure, formative assessment habits, teacher autonomy, phenomenon-based projects, actually transfer to a K-5 setting with different language, staffing and regulatory constraints. That is the practical work of adaptation, not just translation of a curriculum document.

Where Skola2030 asks what a nine-year-old can do with what they know, Finland's national curriculum has been asking the same question since 2016.

Frequently asked questions

Related reading