A comparative reflection on teaching in Finland and Spain: Practical observations at Espoo International School

Introduction 

My observation experience at Espoo International School (EIS) in Finland has been a  transformative journey, providing profound insights into the Finnish education system and its  pedagogical approaches. EIS follows the renowned Finnish National Curriculum across all grades  and is also an International Baccalaureate (IB) authorized school, offering the Middle Years  Program (MYP) for students in grades 7–9 alongside the National Core Curriculum. The school  includes both comprehensive school and high school, making it quite large. 

Additionally, Espoo International School is a state public school with a highly competitive  entrance process. Applicants must prove they have a strong level of English to be admitted.  

The facilities at EIS are excellent, with many classrooms, including several smaller  shared/common rooms. The gymnasium is divided into three sections. Classrooms are equipped  with the latest technology, such as iPads and Macs for certain subjects, modern projectors, and  touchscreen displays. They also have cameras in the teachers’ desks that can be connected to the  projector to show the activity book. English is the main language of instruction, but students can  also take courses in Finnish, Swedish, and French, among others. Most lessons last 45 minutes,  but some subjects, such as PE, Ethics/Religion, and Handicrafts/Arts, last 1 hour and 30 minutes,  with 20-minute recess breaks between longer classes. 

This essay reflects on how my observations in EIS have reshaped my understanding of teaching  and pedagogy in elementary school (1st–6th grades), as well as how these insights will influence  my career as an educational psychologist. While I am not a teacher, observations play a crucial  role in school psychology—not only for evaluating students but also for implementing preventive  measures and interventions at both group and individual levels. By comparing the Finnish system  with Spain’s early childhood education framework, I aim to highlight the strengths and weaknesses  of both models and explore potential improvements for each. 

Additionally, I will discuss insights gained from my group work, which focused on analyzing how  experiential learning is implemented at EIS. As Kolb (1984) defines it, learning is the process through which knowledge is created via the transformation of experience. The Finnish system  strongly emphasizes hands-on, active engagement rather than passive information intake. The  National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014 (2016) highlights learning through play,  exploration, creativity, and problem-solving, recognizing that children learn best when they are  actively involved in their own education. My group work based on these observations was very  enriching, enabling us to compare different teaching methods and strategies with those in our home  countries, such as Spain and Japan. This collaborative analysis allowed us to explore a variety of  educational practices and consider how they might be integrated into our future careers as  educators and educational psychologists. 

Comparison of basic education plans 

To compare the Spanish education system and the Finnish education system in this essay I provide  a general context of my home county’s educational system. 

The Spanish educational system is characterized by a decentralized structure, where the national  government and the autonomous communities share responsibilities (Ministerio de Educación y  Formación Profesional, 2023). The Ministry of Education and Vocational Training establishes the  national framework, including core subjects and evaluation criteria, under laws such as the Organic  Law for the Improvement of Educational Quality (LOMCE) and the Organic Law of Education  (LOE) (BOE, 2006; BOE, 2013). However, Spain’s 17 autonomous communities have the  authority to adapt and expand the curriculum, integrating regional languages like Catalan, Basque,  and Galician (Eurydice, 2023). This autonomy extends to budgeting, teacher recruitment, and  curriculum adjustments, leading to regional disparities in educational resources and quality  (OECD, 2019). The national curriculum sets minimum standards across Spain, covering subjects  like Spanish language, mathematics, foreign languages, and sciences (Ministerio de Educación y  Formación Profesional, 2023). Autonomous communities can modify content and teaching hours,  exemplified by Catalonia’s prioritization of Catalan as the primary instructional language  (Eurydice, 2023). Education funding is divided between the national and regional governments,  with significant disparities in allocation, affecting infrastructure, teacher salaries, and educational  materials (OECD, 2019). The Spanish system comprises public, private, and semi-private  (concerted) schools, with public schools being fully government-funded and concerted schools  receiving partial state support (Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional, 2023). Challenges include regional inequalities, language policies affecting student mobility, and  disparities in school choice between urban and rural areas (OECD, 2019). Spain’s legal framework,  rooted in the Spanish Constitution (1978), continues to evolve to address these challenges and  ensure equitable education access (Cortes Generales, 1978).  

The Spanish and Finnish education systems differ significantly in governance, curriculum, funding,  teacher training, and student outcomes. Spain's education system is highly decentralized, with  regional governments managing school infrastructure and curricula, which leads to disparities in  resources (OECD, 2019). In contrast, Finland ensures more equitable distribution through  centralized funding policies that support disadvantaged students (Sahlberg, 2015). While Spain's  curriculum follows a structured framework with standardized assessments (Ministerio de  Educación y Formación Profesional, 2023), Finland promotes flexible, student-centered learning  with a focus on creativity and problem-solving (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2023).  Finland also avoids standardized testing until the end of secondary education, prioritizing  formative assessments (Sahlberg, 2015). 

Spain’s educational model includes public, private, and semi-private schools, with disparities in  funding affecting quality (OECD, 2019). Finland, in contrast, provides fully government-funded  education, covering meals, transport, and materials, ensuring equality (Finnish National Agency  for Education, 2023). Teacher training in Finland is rigorous, requiring a master’s degree for all  teachers and emphasizing research-based methods, whereas Spain’s teacher training programs  vary in quality and funding (Eurydice, 2023). Finland consistently ranks among the top-performing  countries in international assessments like PISA, while Spain lags behind, partly due to  socioeconomic inequalities (OECD, 2019). These differences highlight Finland’s emphasis on  equity and student well-being, making it a global model for effective education systems. 

Personally, I find the differences between these two systems fascinating and, at times, frustrating.  I believe that education should be a tool for reducing inequality rather than reinforcing it, and  Finland’s model truly embodies this ideal. It feels inspiring to see how much trust Finnish society  places in its educators, allowing them the freedom to teach in ways that best support their students.  I can’t help but wonder how much Spain could benefit from a similar approach, where teachers  are empowered rather than restricted by rigid structures and standardized tests.

I feel that Spain’s regional autonomy is both a strength and a weakness. On one hand, it allows for  cultural and linguistic diversity, which is invaluable. On the other hand, it creates disparities that  affect students' opportunities depending on where they live. It’s disheartening to think that a child’s  education quality might depend so much on geography rather than their abilities or efforts. 

From my perspective, one of the biggest differences lies in how each country values education as  a whole. Finland treats education as a societal priority, ensuring that all students have access to  equal opportunities. In Spain, while education is certainly important, the system sometimes feels  weighed down by bureaucracy, outdated policies, and economic constraints. 

Reflecting on this comparison, I wonder how these differences could be addressed in Spain. Could  we implement some of Finland’s successful strategies while still maintaining Spain’s unique  cultural identity? I believe that with the right reforms, more investment in teacher training, and a  shift towards a more student-centered approach, Spain could significantly improve its education  system. It’s a challenge, but one that I feel passionate about, and I hope that future policies will  prioritize equity, trust, and student well-being as Finland has done so well. 

Personal takeaways and future applications based on my observations

One of the aspects the Finnish Education System I found quite controversial, or contradictory is  its approach to assessments and evaluations. that even if the focus is not on the assessments and  tests, but in the process of learning, still to get in schools and most high schools and Universities the students get in based on their GPA. While the primary emphasis is placed on the learning  process rather than standardized tests and examinations, admission to schools, high schools, and  universities is still largely determined by students' Grade Point Averages (GPA). Sahlberg (2011)  highlights that Finnish schools prioritize formative assessments, collaborative learning, and  project-based evaluations over standardized testing. This stands in contrast to the educational  system in Spain, where assessment is predominantly exam-based, and grades play a crucial role in  demonstrating a student's academic proficiency, which contributes to heightened anxiety levels  among students. However, despite the Finnish model's reduced emphasis on formal testing, GPA  remains a significant factor in academic progression. 

My observations, particularly among high school students and even sixth-grade children, reveal  that receiving grades on mathematics tests still evokes strong emotional responses, including disappointment and stress. This raises the question: What is the true impact of minimizing the  number of tests if grades continue to hold considerable weight in students' academic development? A key challenge, therefore, lies in striking a balance between reducing the frequency of formal  examinations and acknowledging the significance of grades, which is something that Finland  implements in his system by using alternative assessment methods that might mitigate stress while  maintaining academic rigor. But I would definitely like to continue exploring this phenomenon because students remain suffering from anxiety and stress when it comes to grades.  Another significant aspect I observed was the high level of autonomy granted to students in their  learning process. For instance, during the first recess, all students are required to go outside to get  fresh air and engage in physical activity. This rule helps prevent excessive screen time, particularly  among high school students, by encouraging movement and social interaction. However, during  the second recess, many students freely use their phones. In Finland, students are allowed to use  their phones during class, although they need permission for phone calls. In contrast, in Spain,  mobile phone usage is highly restricted. Many schools do not permit students, particularly younger  children, to bring phones to school. When phones are allowed, their use is typically limited to  specific academic activities, such as group research projects or interactive exercises like Kahoot  quizzes. If a student needs to make a call, they must request permission, and in some cases, the  school itself contacts the parents on behalf of the student. Additionally, in Spain, teachers are often  authorized to confiscate phones if students use them inappropriately during lessons. Beyond phone usage, Finnish students also experience autonomy in their classroom activities.  They can choose whether to complete exercises individually, in pairs, or in groups, and they are  permitted to listen to music with headphones while working. Moreover, students are actively  involved in selecting topics for certain subjects, such as religion, where they have the freedom to  decide which themes they wish to explore. 

Another striking difference I observed was in the school cafeteria. At EIS, students have complete  autonomy in selecting their meals, including both the type and quantity of food they consume. As  a result, some children choose minimal portions, such as two leaves of lettuce and a single nugget,  while others take large quantities, such as 20 nuggets with no vegetables. In contrast, in Spain,  school meals are pre-portioned on trays, ensuring a balanced distribution of vegetables,  carbohydrates, and protein. While students can request additional servings, if necessary, the meals  are designed to provide adequate nutrition. This contrast raises questions about the implications of allowing young children to make their own dietary choices. Are there potential risks associated  with this level of autonomy in food selection, particularly in terms of nutrition and healthy eating  habits? 

Children may choose foods based on taste preferences rather than nutritional value, leading to diets  high in processed foods, sugars, and fats but low in essential nutrients like vitamins, minerals, and  fiber. And allowing children to consistently choose unhealthy foods may reinforce poor eating  habits that persist into adulthood. This can increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, and other diet related health conditions. In my opinion, autonomy is important for fostering independence, it  should be balanced with guidance to ensure children develop healthy eating habits.  

The last aspect I would like to mention is that Espoo International School perfectly exemplifies  experiential learning by providing students with hands-on, immersive activities that encourage  autonomy, critical thinking, and real-world application. With state-of-the-art resources, including  iPads, Macs, touchscreen displays, and well-equipped classrooms, students engage in practical  projects such as building electrical circuits, participating in business simulations, and debating  complex topics. In contrast, Spanish schools, while academically rigorous, often prioritize  theoretical instruction over experiential learning. Classes in Spain tend to be more teacher-directed,  with longer explanations, heavier homework loads, and fewer opportunities for independent  exploration. 

A clear example of this difference is seen in math education. In Finland, sixth-grade students spend  most of the lesson working on exercises with minimal theory, as teachers provide only a brief  explanation before allowing students to practice independently. Additional worksheets are  available for those who finish early, and individualized support is provided by both a teacher and  an assistant. In Spain, however, math classes are more lecture-driven, with lengthy explanations  and limited time for hands-on problem-solving. Homework is significantly heavier, as students are  expected to practice extensively at home due to time constraints in class. 

The availability of resources also plays a key role in shaping the educational experience. In music  classes, Finnish students have access to a wide range of instruments and equipment, allowing them  to create their own songs with minimal theory while fostering autonomy and creativity. In contrast,  Spanish schools often emphasize music theory and solfège, but many lack the instruments needed for students to engage in practical music-making. This limits opportunities for hands-on learning  and forces a more structured, theory-heavy approach. 

This contrast highlights how Finnish education prioritizes active learning and self-directed  exploration, whereas Spanish education leans toward structured instruction and content-heavy  lessons. The key difference lies in the balance between freedom and direction, where Finland  fosters independent learning through cutting-edge facilities and interactive methodologies, while  Spain maintains a content-driven, teacher-led model that places greater emphasis on theory over  practice. 

In conclusion, my experience observing at Espoo International School has been an eye-opening  and enriching journey that deepened my understanding of the Finnish education system. The  welcoming atmosphere, the emphasis on student autonomy, and the high societal value placed on  education have all contributed to an inspiring learning experience. This observation has also  sparked my curiosity about key educational aspects such as student autonomy, assessment methods,  and experiential learning, which I aim to explore further in my career as an educational  psychologist. 

One of the most impactful takeaways is how Finland prioritizes equality in education, ensuring  that every student has access to quality learning opportunities regardless of their background. This  stands in contrast to some of the challenges I have observed in other educational systems,  particularly regarding disparities in resources and rigid assessment structures. While the Finnish  model is not without contradictions—such as the continued reliance on GPA despite the emphasis  on holistic learning—it offers a compelling vision of an education system built on trust, autonomy,  and student well-being. 

Moving forward, I am eager to apply these insights to my professional journey, exploring ways to  balance autonomy with guidance, refine assessment methods, and advocate for more student centered approaches in education. This experience has reinforced my belief that education should  be a tool for reducing inequalities, and I hope to contribute to creating learning environments that  empower students to thrive both academically and personally.

About the author

Hi! My name is Lucía Liting :)

I hold a Bachelor’s degree in General Psychology and am currently pursuing a Master’s in Changing Education, with a focus on educational psychology. My academic journey includes a comparative analysis of the Finnish and Spanish education systems as part of a practical observation course. Passionate about enhancing student well-being, I am particularly interested in innovative approaches that support mental health and foster positive learning environments.

References:  

BOE. (2006). Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (LOE). Boletín Oficial del Estado, 106,  17158-17207. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2006/05/03/2 

BOE. (2013). Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad educativa (LOMCE).  Boletín Oficial del Estado, 295, 97858-97921. https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2013/12/09/8 Cortes Generales. (1978). Constitución Española. Boletín Oficial del Estado, 311, 29313-29324.  https://www.boe.es/eli/es/c/1978/12/27/(1)/con 

Eurydice. (2023). Spain: Overview. European Commission. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national policies/eurydice/content/spain_en 

Finnish National Agency for Education. (2023). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014.  Finnish National Agency for Education. https://www.oph.fi/en/statistics-and publications/publications/national-core-curriculum-basic-education-2014 

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall. 

Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. (2023). Sistema educativo español. Gobierno de España.  https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/portada.html 

OECD. (2019). Education at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/f8d7880d-en 

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press. 

Sahlberg, P. (2015). Finnish lessons 2.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.