Evidence Matters | Two Paths, a Shared Future: What the U.S. and Estonia Can Learn From Each Other – Part I

by Kelly Gregory, Catherine Schumacher, and Susie Shannon

When you fly into the Estonian capital of Tallinn, first you see the woods. These vast swaths of green quickly give way to huge gray blocks of Soviet Era architecture. Finally, you notice the pointed red roofs and multi-colored walls of one of the best-preserved Medieval cities in Europe. That’s a lot in a three-minute fly-over…but it’s just a fraction of the story. What you don’t see? That with an advanced digital infrastructure and strong education system at its foundation, this tiny Baltic state outpaces and outperforms far larger and wealthier countries.

Global education comparisons frequently cite Finland, Singapore, and South Korea as exemplars of best practice. However, Estonia has emerged as a quiet frontrunner and is now seen by many as a leader in educational equity and academic outcomes.

According to the 2022 OECD PISA results, Estonian students ranked first in science, first in reading, and tied for first in mathematics among European nations (OECD, 2023). Notably, Estonia also demonstrated one of the lowest levels of performance disparity, with socioeconomic status explaining only 16 percent of variation in student achievement—far below the OECD average and significantly lower than the 37 percent observed in the United States (OECD, 2023).

One of the hallmarks of Estonia’s education system is a centralized policy framework, which allows for consistent implementation, accountability, and targeted investment across communities. In a country where music and song take center stage, you might say that Estonian education leaders and practitioners are “singing from the same song sheet.”

Many of these uniform policies, such as universal access to free meals, textbooks and transportation echo historically similar priorities in the U.S. However, differences in other aspects, such as teacher autonomy, remain. According to recent data from the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), 93 percent of Estonian teachers report having control over determining course content in their class, compared to 84 percent on average across OECD countries. Additionally, schools and local municipalities in Estonia are given an immense amount of control over how they structure their school days and programs in order to meet the diverse educational needs of their students.

There are other differences, too. Estonian students begin formal schooling at age 7, which research suggests may allow for the growth and development that is required by many of the cognitive and behavioral tasks required during a full school day. And, in contrast to other PISA-participating countries, Estonian students spend less time on core academic subjects during the day, while also demonstrating better assessment results.

During the school day, students are often able to spend time in clubs, or “hobby clubs,” that interest them. Look along a school hallway, and you might see a group of students in a cooking club, while a few doors down, several students who are interested in finance are engaged in a budgeting project. But just because these students aren’t sitting in math class, doesn’t mean they aren’t learning. On the contrary, they are likely learning about fractions, decimals, and division in an engaged, hands-on, and student-driven way. Collaborative group work and effective communication are almost certainly front and center as well.

While Estonia’s highly centralized, equity-driven model has succeeded in producing top-tier academic results, it faces emerging challenges common in many other countries, such as teacher shortages and the need to transition Russian-speaking students into Estonian-speaking schools. Additionally, a lack of flexibility within Estonia’s higher-education system, may prevent students from pursuing a wider variety of career opportunities.

Drawing from the United States’ experience with these challenges could prove beneficial in meeting these demands. While Estonia provides a compelling example of how small states can lead in education, its future success may depend on how well it integrates flexibility into its model. And, for that, it might look to the U.S.

Part II will explore what Estonia can learn from the U.S. model.

---

Kelly Gregory is The Riley Institute’s Director for Public Education Projects and Partnerships.

Catherine Schumacher is the president and CEO of Public Education Partners.

Susie Shannon is the president and CEO of the South Carolina Council on Competitiveness.