Finnish Pedagogy vs the Singapore Math Method
The Singapore math method is one of the most widely adopted named approaches to primary maths teaching worldwide. Finland's approach to maths is less branded but no less deliberate. Here is how the two actually differ for K-5 learners.
- The Singapore math method follows a defined concrete, pictorial, abstract (CPA) progression, using tools such as number bonds and bar modelling consistently to build mastery of a small number of topics in depth each year.
- Finnish primary maths teaching is less standardised around one named method: teachers have significant autonomy to choose materials and approaches within national curriculum goals.
- A comparative study of Finnish, Singaporean and Taiwanese maths textbooks found Finnish materials placed more emphasis on visual and intuitive understanding, while the East Asian textbooks leaned more heavily on abstract representation.
- Where Singapore's method is often summarised as teach less, learn more, with tight sequencing towards mastery, Finland places relatively more weight on equity, catching gaps early for pupils who are falling behind, and open-ended problem solving.
What the Singapore math method actually is
The Singapore math method was developed by Singapore's Ministry of Education in the 1980s and has since been adopted, in various adapted forms, by schools and publishers well beyond Singapore. Its defining feature is a consistent concrete, pictorial, abstract (CPA) progression: pupils first work with physical objects, then pictorial representations, then abstract numbers and symbols, for the same concept.
Alongside CPA, the method relies on specific recurring tools, particularly number bonds, which show how numbers split and combine, and bar modelling, a visual technique for representing word problems. The approach deliberately covers fewer topics per year in greater depth, often summarised as teach less, learn more, aiming for full mastery before moving on.
How Finnish primary maths teaching differs
Finland does not have an equivalent single, branded method. Instead, Finnish teacher autonomy means individual teachers and schools choose their own materials and sequencing within the goals set by the national curriculum, and maths teaching approaches can vary noticeably between classrooms even within the same municipality.
One consistent thread does emerge in comparative research: a study of Finnish, Singaporean and Taiwanese textbooks found Finnish materials leaned more on visual, intuitive representations of maths concepts, while the two East Asian countries' textbooks leaned more towards abstract representation earlier. Finnish maths teaching also puts particular weight on catching pupils who are struggling early, in keeping with the country's three-tier support model, rather than moving the whole class forward at a fixed pace.
Where the two approaches actually agree
Despite their different origins, the two approaches share real common ground. Both use concrete and visual representations before abstract symbols, reflecting a shared belief that pupils need to see and manipulate a concept before working with it purely numerically. Both also value depth over covering as many topics as possible.
Where they part ways is in standardisation and pacing: Singapore's method prescribes a specific sequence and toolset applied consistently across classrooms, while Finland leaves more of that decision to individual teachers, trusting classroom judgement to fit the pace and method to the pupils in front of them.
Which suits a K-5 classroom outside either country
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. A school building a Finnish-inspired K-5 programme can still borrow specific Singapore math tools, bar modelling and number bonds are genuinely useful visual aids, while keeping a Finnish emphasis on teacher autonomy, equity and early support for struggling pupils rather than adopting Singapore's tighter national sequencing wholesale.
For families comparing the two directly, the more useful question is not which method is objectively better, but which balance a school needs: a highly consistent, sequenced method such as Singapore math, or a more flexible, teacher-led approach in the Finnish style that still uses visual tools without prescribing one fixed path through them.
Singapore math prescribes the path to mastery. Finnish teaching trusts the teacher to find it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Singapore math a curriculum or a teaching method?
It is a teaching method and set of materials built around a specific progression, concrete, pictorial, abstract, rather than a full national curriculum, which is why it has been adopted by schools in many different countries.
Does Finland use bar modelling or number bonds?
There is no national requirement to, since Finnish teachers choose their own materials, but individual Finnish teachers and schools can and do use visual tools like these where they find them useful.
Can a school combine elements of both approaches?
Yes. Many K-5 programmes borrow specific Singapore math tools, such as bar modelling, while keeping a Finnish emphasis on teacher autonomy and early support for pupils who are struggling.
Related reading
Bring Finnish pedagogy to your school
OPPI affiliates a selective cohort of schools each year for its K-5 Finnish-pedagogy programme, backed by Education Finland. Tell us about your school and our team will reach out.
Backed by Education Finland. Over 20 schools have already affiliated, including DPS, Radcliffe and Sanctus. Places in each cohort are limited.
Apply to the affiliation cohort →