Mature educational systems continually adjust their strategies—including their use of technology—to enhance learning. In Brazil, however, the Finnish example has been used as a justification for questioning technology education, whether due to a lack of understanding, misinterpretation, or oversimplification of a structural issue. Since this criticism often comes from within the educational field itself, it is necessary to set the record straight.

What Finland Actually Did

Finland has not done away with technology in schools. In 2024, it restricted the unrestricted use of personal cell phones during class, allowing their use only for educational purposes.

The measure aimed to reduce distractions and protect the cognitive learning environment. At the same time, schools that had relied too heavily on tablets and digital books began to rebalance their practices, reintroducing physical books and handwriting after evidence emerged of a negative impact on concentration and reading comprehension.

Technology remains a required subject in the national curriculum. Since 2016, programming, computational thinking, and digital production have been part of basic education. Computers, robotics, and maker culture continue to be integrated into the curriculum. Finland has not removed technology from education; rather, it has refined its use.

Food for thought: Does it make sense to assume that a country that teaches programming and digital skills would abandon technology—or does this reveal a misinterpretation of the facts?

Why This Distortion Harms Brazil

Finland has built a highly productive technology ecosystem. Nokia reported revenue of €24.9 billion in 2023, operating networks in more than 130 countries. Companies such as Supercell and Rovio have created digital products that are enjoyed around the world. The country is home to more than 3,800 startups, with an ecosystem valued at approximately €48 billion.

Brazil has between 13,000 and 15,000 startups, most of which focus on the domestic market, while its digital infrastructure—operating systems, cloud services, and platforms—is primarily provided by foreign companies.

The difference is structural: Finland builds technological capacity. Brazil still relies heavily on it.

Food for thought: Does using the example of a country that exports technology to question technology education help Brazil produce technology—or does it reinforce its dependence?

See also:

• ECA Digital, Connectivity, and Regulation: The Digital Environment and Its Impact on the School Ecosystem
• Cyberdeck and AI Gadgets: From Hacker Culture to the Transformation of Education
• The Accompanying Voice: Assisted Consciousness, Agents, and the Role of the Teacher in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Structural Differences Between Public Education in Finland and Brazil

Finland has about 550,000 students in K-12 education. Brazil has more than 47 million. Annual spending per student is about $12,000 in Finland and approximately $3,800 in Brazil.

Finnish classrooms have an average of about 20 students. In Brazil, they often exceed 30 students. The quality of public education in Finland is highly consistent. In Brazil, there is significant inequality among school systems and regions.

These decisions take place within profoundly different structures.

Food for thought: Does copying isolated decisions without creating those same conditions bring Brazil closer to Finland’s results—or just to the appearance of them?

The real lesson: Countries that teach technology build self-reliance

Countries with structural limitations have transformed their economies by integrating technology into education.

Estonia has brought computers and the internet to all its schools and now teaches programming from an early age, giving rise to global companies such as Skype and Bolt.

India has integrated computing into technical and higher education and has created companies such as Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, as well as producing leaders who head global companies like Google and Microsoft.

Israel has integrated engineering and programming into its elementary education system and has one of the highest densities of startups in the world. Portugal has expanded access to computer science in schools. Vietnam has integrated STEM into its curriculum and has become an emerging technology hub.

These countries have not scaled back their technology education programs. They have expanded them.

Finland has also followed this path. Its success stems from a focus on teacher development, a consistent curriculum, and the integration of education and technological development.

Food for thought: If the goal is to foster autonomy, does it make sense to reduce technology education—or to strengthen the capacity to produce it?

Conclusion

There is a deeper dimension to this debate that is rarely made explicit: the persistence of a “metropolis-colony” dynamic in the field of technology. Countries that produce technology structure their educational systems to support that production. Countries that do not produce technology tend to import not only the tools, but also the limits of their own role within that system.

Education is the point at which this dynamic can be perpetuated or broken. When a country educates students capable of understanding and creating technology, it builds autonomy. When it weakens this education, it cements its position as dependent on infrastructure, platforms, and solutions developed outside its borders.

The balance between analog and digital is not a step backward—it is pedagogical maturity. Reading on paper, writing by hand, and cultivating deep attention do not preclude teaching programming, computational thinking, and maker culture.

Strong educational systems combine cognitive focus with technological proficiency. The issue is not choosing between a notebook and code. It is ensuring that both serve a consistent vision of education and autonomy.

About the author:

Share on social media:

References (ABNT):

DEALROOM. Finland Tech Ecosystem Report 2023. Amsterdam: Dealroom, 2023. Available at: https://dealroom.co. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.

FINLAND. Ministry of Education and Culture. Restrictions on the use of mobile devices in comprehensive schools. Helsinki: Ministry of Education and Culture, 2024. Available at: https://okm.fi. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.

FINNISH NATIONAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2014. Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016. Available at: https://www.oph.fi. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.

ANÍSIO TEIXEIRA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH. 2023 Basic Education School Census. Brasília: INEP, 2024. Available at: https://www.gov.br/inep. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.

NOKIA CORPORATION. Annual Report 2023. Espoo: Nokia, 2024. Available at: https://www.nokia.com/about-us/investors/results-reports/. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.

OECD. Education at a Glance 2023. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2023. Available at: https://www.oecd.org. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.

STATISTICS FINLAND. Statistics on Comprehensive School Students. Helsinki: Statistics Finland, 2023. Available at: https://www.stat.fi. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.

WORLD BANK. World Development Indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2023. Available at: https://data.worldbank.org. Accessed Feb. 19, 2026.