Why are Finnish schools so successful?

A blog article in the Guardian described the success of the Finnish school system:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/apr/09/finish-school-system

I commented:

The "free everything" element is not true of higher education. Tuition is free, and that's your lot. Living costs are high, accommodation is hard to find, and materials are not cheap.
The utopian tone of the article is a pity, cos it weakens a very strong case. Finland is riven by class differences and the usual social, economic and political tensions of well-off capitalist countries. Life is hard for wage-earners, and tough for the poor and for immigrants. And the egalitarianism (within class boundaries NB) is soured by Lutheran killjoy look-after-number-one-ism and who-the-fuck-do-you-think-you-are-ism. (Personally I'd rather live in Finland than Britain but that's cos I like saunas and the smell of wood...)
What the schools show is that decent education to a high general standard is possible and can feel natural without a socialist revolution - ie it's a bourgeois democratic aspiration that isn't utopian. All it needs is the political will. 
The proof of this is in the historical record. In Britain during the first flush of the postwar Welfare State local authorities sent hordes of wage-earners' kids to university for free - not just tuition, but the works, maintenance and all. And Britain (if we believe the capitalist mantra of "getting better all the time") in those days was a far poorer and shabbier place than it is today - far less able to "afford" this kind of thing. Which shows that "affording" is not the issue. 
Same thing in Sweden during the "golden years" of their Home of the People (folkhem) welfare state - say '65 to '90. The Swedish comprehensive system, like Finland's but far less formalistic, worked wonders for the kids and national skills, culture, etc. High PISA results for instance. Dazzling performance in research, sports, culture (ABBA :-). In 1991 (I think it was) the Economist even had a panegyric about it. Great high general level of education produces the skills and attitudes needed by business and industry. Trouble is, the article was published just after the then minister of education, Social Democrat Göran Persson, soon to be prime minister, had begun the ruthless dismantling of the system the Economist loved so much. 
Swedes, compromising hypocritical bastards that they are in government, are nothing if not ruthless and single-minded when they want to be (ask any Europeans on the receiving end of the armies of Gustavus Adolfus or Charles XII :-D. They began by emulating Britain, and have now ruined the educational system so thoroughly that Britain is beginning to emulate them (how about "free schools" allowed to operate for profit??).
Again, it's not a question of "affording" anything. Sweden today is pig-richer than ever. It's the political will. If you think (as a bourgeois government) that you can get away with screwing the working class out of past concessions, you'll go ahead. Money is the whole object. And fear the decisive factor. 
So, Sweden and Britain used to be up there with Finland as admirable examples of educational achievement. Now they're slithering in the sewers with the rest and no better than they should be.
For various reasons (including a powerful teachers lobby with real political influence) Finland is still admirable, while Sweden and Britain are despicable.
The main thing I suppose is that there are no miracles or utopias involved. Finland is nothing like Utopia. Nor were Britain or Sweden a few decades ago.

It can be done, it has been done, and it can also be undone. ABOVE ALL, IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF BEING ABLE TO AFFORD IT.


---

The riots in Britain - London, Bristol, Birmingham and Liverpool so far

I made the following comment on the live coverage of the riots in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/09/london-riots-violence-looting-live)



Very briefly - it's not the government, it's the class they represent. The bourgeoisie has a monopoly of everything public in Britain Europe and most of the world today, and they're using this public authority to smash all public enterprise, goods, services and amenities they can. To put the profits from this into their own pockets (that's what profit is - private money after productive capital investment and unproductive military and ideological expenditure are taken care of). They're looting the general public (us) using the monopoly of public violence (military, police) their system gives them, not us.
Now the most reviled and criminalized and impoverished section of the general public - immigrant, slumdwelling working class lads are reacting in the way they have seen the ruling class acting towards reviled, impoverished and criminalized foreign countries - burning and looting. But they show none of the indiscriminate ruthlessness of the bourgeoisie on the rampage in the colonial wars of Britain and France, or the imperialist wars of the US.
They are a barometer showing the way the rest of us are feeling. They can react spontaneously this way because they aren't tied down by property debt, car and other loans, or a job to lose. And have the energy of youth. The rest of us don't challenge state (class) violence so lightly.
But when we do, it will need more than thousands of police to curb us. There are so many of us that we'll be kettling them, and occupying their lives the way they have been occupying ours.
And we'll be organized, and have a clear idea about what we need to do to get them off our backs for good, and tear public wealth out of their greedy, gory hands.