While the world is heatedly discussing how AI will revolutionize classrooms and achieve “personalized learning,” renowned Finnish education expert Professor Pasi Sahlberg offers a powerful reminder to the sector: “If we think that just by embedding AI to school systems that we have now, then things will get significantly better, I don’t think that’s going to happen”

We have all heard the doubts surrounding traditional education—uniform teaching materials, widening learning gaps, inefficient assessment systems, declining student passion, and a global teacher shortage. But where do the roots of these problems lie? If we are to reform, where should we start? What kind of talent do we need for the future, and how can these qualities be cultivated? At EDUtech Asia 2025 last November, Professor Pasi Sahlberg was undoubtedly the most anticipated keynote speaker. In his speech, he provided a deep analysis of the origins of the modern education dilemma and why the situation continues to worsen. He offered a starting point for policymakers and schools, highlighting the critical factors to watch during transformation. The Unwire team witnessed his compelling presentation and had the privilege of speaking with him afterward to explore his core arguments in depth.

The Root of the Problem: The Formation of a Dilemma

Professor Sahlberg believes the root of global education issues lies in being “outdated.” Today’s massive dilemma was formed by increasing resources to implement “reforms” in the wrong direction.

“Our current education systems were originally designed for an entirely different era and purpose. Previously, society needed a collective workforce with basic literacy; today, society needs future talent that is flexible, creative, collaborative, and passionate about finding their own path. Keeping the old system largely intact is where the problem starts.”

Sahlberg noted that the education sector hasn’t ignored the issues. In fact, the resources invested globally over the past 25 years to “reform” education and improve efficiency have been staggering. The reason for the lack of results, he argues, is that we are trying to solve new-age problems within an old framework. He brilliantly dubbed this quarter-century movement the Global Education Reform Movement, or GERM. Sahlberg believes that this reform movement has not only failed to keep education up to date but has further eroded its foundations. He analyzed four areas where GERM “reforms” have focused, each leading to unintended consequences:

School Competition:
Treating schools as an “industry” and introducing market competition. Originally intended to improve quality through competition, it resulted in skewed resources and inter-school hostility.

Narrow Curricula:
Over-emphasizing literacy and numeracy as the core paths to intelligence. Arts, music, and physical education—vital for holistic development—have been marginalized.

Text-based Accountability:
Using large-scale standardized testing that prioritizes scores and rankings. Students learn under “accountability” systems, bearing heavy pressure. “Studying only for grades” has become a global phenomenon.

De-valuation of Teachers:
Helping students achieve stellar exam results has become the primary KPI for teachers. Teaching has become mechanical, devaluing the profession and discouraging young people from entering the field, worsening the global teacher shortage.

Data shows that during the reign of GERM, despite unprecedented investment in funding and technology, average student performance has stagnated, creativity has declined, and the sense of belonging at school is at an all-time low. Sahlberg joked: “If education were an industry, it’s likely the only one that could see zero return on performance for 25 years and still have its budget approved by the board to continue ‘reforming’ in the same failed direction.”

Breakthrough Thinking: “Equality” vs. “Equity”

While Sahlberg acknowledges the importance of technology and funding, he emphasizes that reform must precede investment for resources to be truly meaningful. The starting point for this reform lies in distinguishing between two often-confused concepts: Equality and Equity.

Sahlberg argues that many policymakers believe they are practicing equity when they are actually merely providing “equality of opportunity,” a strategy that frequently backfires. “Giving every student—regardless of personal talent or family wealth—the right to choose an expensive, advanced AI course follows the principle of ‘Equality.’ But is it equitable or inclusive? 25 years of data says no. In fact, it leads to children from disadvantaged backgrounds being more thoroughly marginalized.” He believes that pursuing “Equality” in isolation exacerbates existing imbalances. This creates a polarized system of “elite” schools that parents fight to enter and “weak” schools that no one wants to attend. Students in the latter are not only negatively impacted in their self-confidence by being labeled “mediocre,” but also continue to experience systemic unfairness in resource access throughout their learning journey.

Sahlberg shared the model used in Finland and other Nordic countries, which shares the goal of inclusion but bases resource allocation on Equity. “Simply put, it is about using education to transform an unfair society into a fair one (Equity). In Finland, we call this Positive Discrimination. The goal is to make every school a ‘good school.'”

Finnish education proactively invests more resources into children with poorer learning conditions or lower socioeconomic status to help them rise to a level playing field. Sahlberg believes that only by creating an equal starting point through intentional resource reallocation can social class gaps be eliminated. When education achieves true Equity, inclusion happens naturally, allowing society to foster truly diverse talent.

The True Key: Timing of Investment

Another point Sahlberg emphasized is when resources are invested. “We have known for a long time that the earlier you invest in a child’s education, the more significant the impact and the higher the return.”

Research by Nobel Laureate in Economics James Heckman confirms: the earlier the investment in educational resources, the higher the impact.

He cited Nobel laureate James Heckman’s research from the 1990s, which proved that the ROI for early childhood education is far higher than late-stage remediation. “What is most baffling is that even though this knowledge has been public for 30 years, many systems still don’t prioritize early education. I believe this is the main reason education costs keep rising while effectiveness remains low.” Currently, Finland’s investment in early childhood education is triple that of Australia.

Reform Before Technology

Regarding the hype that “AI will solve century-old education pain points,” Sahlberg does not join the frenzy. He notes that we have experienced this tech-optimism at least twice before.

He recalls: “In the 80s, when ‘one computer per person’ became possible, everyone expected ‘personalized learning’ to arrive. It didn’t. In the 90s, with the rise of the internet, people said global resource sharing would revolutionize education. It didn’t.” He reiterates that AI’s true value will only appear after structural reform. “If we think plugging AI into the old system will change things, I don’t think it will happen.”

However, he sees potential for AI to reduce administrative burdens for teachers. If AI can free up time for teachers to explore diverse assessments and engage in constructive dialogue, that would be its true contribution.

Teacher Training as “Astronaut Training”

Sahlberg offered a radical thought for leaders: teacher training should mirror the design principles of an “Astronaut Training Program”—where 90% of the curriculum is dedicated to preparing trainees for the unexpected.

“In a real classroom, a teacher’s energy and capacity should ideally only require 10% for routine tasks and practical operations,” Sahlberg explained. “The remaining 90% is for managing the interpersonal dynamics with students and other complex, unpredictable situations. This requires adaptive leadership.” He argues that current teacher training systems, as well as the teams leading these educational bodies, are too focused on that 10% of basic tasks. This resistance to change is why the system falls into a state of panic when transformation becomes unavoidable. Perhaps this explains why, with the emergence of AI, the academic community’s most heated discussions still revolve around “teachers’ fear of being replaced,” rather than “how teachers can be empowered.”

Beyond the role of teachers, Sahlberg reminded leaders that a narrow focus on academic performance is outdated. A student’s well-being, resilience, level of engagement, interpersonal relationships, life balance, and openness to knowledge are all critical areas for assessment. “In my home country of Finland, we emphasize the ‘Whole Child Approach.’ We do not view students as mere containers for academic knowledge. Compared to traditional subjects like language and mathematics, we place higher value on the arts, music, physical education, and civic education, focusing on nurturing a child’s sense of happiness and civic values.” He added that his home country has been showing a testament to their resolve, as they stay committed to holistic education as the fundamental premise of learning even when Finland’s position on the PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) rankings fluctuates.

Trust Our Children

“Please trust our children,” was Sahlberg’s sincere appeal to the educational leaders in the room. “We too often assume young people can’t do this or that, or will go astray. We then conclude: ‘Let me teach you; let me tell you what you need to know.’ The truth is, we severely underestimate them.”

Sahlberg noted that children possess talents and potential that far exceed the level of trust we typically grant them. Their innate hunger for learning and their aspirations for self-growth are qualities that our traditional education system cannot produce. He pointed out that Finland and other leading education systems are currently committed to a profound shift in mindset: moving from viewing students as “objects to be taught” to seeing them as the leads of their own learning (Student Agency). This involves building an educational culture that truly believes in a young person’s ability to participate in—and take charge of—their own learning journey and future development.

Editor’s Note

Professor Sahlberg’s insights touch on the deepest pain points of modern education. While proud of the Finnish system, he admits candidly in his book, Finnish Lessons 3.0, that no system is perfect. Our hope is that this interview sparks a meaningful dialogue rather than a debate over who is right.

It is an invitation for us to set aside the biases and defenses tied to our specific roles and positions, so that we may collectively examine the increasingly stark reality of our society. We must ask ourselves: Has mainstream education shifted children’s dreams from “having a happy family,” “contributing to the community,” or “protecting the planet” to simply “getting good grades”?

If so, is that truly what we want to leave for the next generation?