The question almost feels inappropriate. Finland. The country that for years stood as proof that education could be organised differently. Fewer tests. More trust. Strong teacher education. Solid subject knowledge. And yet the question persists: what is Finland actually doing? A story about Finnish teacher education and competencies.

That question came to me while reading a recent discourse analysis of Finnish teacher education published in Teaching and Teacher Education by Janne Säntti and colleagues.

To be clear, this is not an effectiveness study and not another ranking exercise. It is not a panic piece either. What it offers instead is a careful reading of policy documents and reform plans, with close attention to language, assumptions and shifting taken-for-granted ideas. That is precisely what makes it interesting.

What stands out is not an abrupt break, but a gradual shift in how education is justified. Where teacher education in Finland was traditionally anchored firmly in academic disciplines and research, the language is increasingly moving towards competencies, flexibility, future skills, and social urgency. This happens quietly, step by step. Not as a rejection of knowledge, but as a repositioning.

That distinction matters. This is not a story of “Finland abandoning knowledge”. Teachers’ knowledge does not disappear, but it loses its central role as the organising principle. Knowledge becomes something that supports competencies, rather than something that legitimises education in its own right. The difference may seem subtle, but it is fundamental.

What makes this especially interesting is that the shift is not unique to Finland. It aligns closely with international policy agendas, including those promoted by the OECD, which increasingly frame education as a response to economic, technological, and ecological challenges. Finland now speaks this language too. Global citizenship. Sustainability. Innovation. Responsiveness. All understandable. All legitimate. And at the same time, not innocent. One might even wonder whether some of these agendas are already rather well-worn in educational thinking.

As the language changes, it actively reshapes how the teacher is understood. The teacher appears less as a subject expert and more as an adaptive professional. Less as a representative of a discipline and more as a node in a system expected to respond quickly to social demands. This shift is not inherently wrong, nor is it cynical. But it does establish a different normative frame.

The irony is striking. Finland earned praise precisely because it resisted fashionable educational rhetoric. Its success grew out of slowness, academic depth, and trust in knowledge and professional judgement. Today, that same system foregrounds urgency and excellence and presents itself as a global leader in future-oriented education. This move does not automatically signal a mistake. It does, however, reveal just how powerful and far-reaching this discourse has become..

The core issue, then, is not whether competencies matter. They probably do. The question is what happens when competencies become the primary answer to the question of what education is for. What moves into the background? Which forms of knowledge become less self-evident? And how does this reshape teacher education, precisely at the point where education reproduces itself?

Finland does not function here as a warning, but as a mirror. If even a system so strongly grounded in academic knowledge and research makes this shift, then this is not a marginal phenomenon. It deserves much broader reflection.

I am not arguing that Finland is “on the wrong path”. The analysis shows how difficult it is to escape a dominant narrative about what education is supposed to fix. And how easily even strong traditions begin to move along with it, often without anyone explicitly applying the brakes.

So the question “what is Finland doing?” is less accusatory than it sounds. It is primarily self-reflective. Because anyone who asks that question about Finland inevitably ends up asking it about themselves as well.