Finland's educational success proves that a focus on social justice produces solid outcomes.

Education was rightly big on Obama's agenda in his State of the Union address last week. As he noted, "[T]o prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earl[y]." He proposed solutions to getting better outcomes from kindergarten to higher ed. But his eyes were mostly on containing the system we have.

Yet on a more general level, we're still having a conversation as a country about what we mean when we say that we owe every child a decent education. We're currently trying to fix an issue fundamentally about social justice by focusing on accountability, competition, and choice. A conversation about values -- the purpose of education and what it should bring each child -- is lacking. Why do we educate children? Is the end goal a higher salary? High test scores? Or something else?

Education isn't just about creating better widgets for a smooth running economic machine; it's also about ensuring equality of opportunity to all of our citizens. We used to view education this way, but somehow that framing has gotten away from us. But the example set by Finland's success shows that by keeping a focus on equality, the other desired outcomes will follow.

Finland has been making news recently for topping the PISA survey of 15-year-old achievement in reading, math, and science in OECD countries. And rightly so: its students rank second in math, second in science, and third in reading. Where do you think the U.S. stands? At a pitiful 24th place for reading, 30th for science, and 32nd for math. Yet, as Anu Partanen writes in an article for The Atlantic, Finland has no standardized tests. There are no lists of best schools or teachers. Finnish doesn't even have a word for accountability. Instead, the emphasis is on equality of opportunity across all of its schools. They all rise and fall together.

On top of this, no Finnish child pays a cent for education during his or her lifetime. None of the schools are allowed to charge tuition fees, and even its small number of independent schools are publicly financed. This goes for grade school and grad school alike.

Finland's education policy focus, in stark contrast to the U.S., is not about competition and choice. It's about equality. As Partanen writes, "Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality." And that focus has fostered success for all.

Click here to buy Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch’s new book on the epic health care reform battle, Fighting for Our Health.

Many will get to this point in the post and scoff that the United States is nothing like Finland. Therefore it can't possibly stand as a comparable example of what we might be doing. And it's true that Finland is much smaller and more homogenous. But its immigrant population has been rising without changing its educational outcomes. Going further, Finland's percentage of foreign-born residents is identical to a full 18 states here at home -- and education is almost entirely doled out at the state level in our country. And even if we continue to refuse the comparison, we can compare it to Norway, which has taken an approach to education very similar to ours. Yet Norway has produced mediocre PISA results.

As part of a mission to establish education as a driver of social equality, the issue of tuition has to be front and center. As I said, Fins don't pay a single cent for education, even if they go as far as getting a PhD. Could we do something similar here? Higher education offers one possibility. The skyrocketing cost of college is no secret. Yet most reforms focus on controlling high tuition and subsidizing the loans used to pay for it. What would it mean if instead we made college free? Mike Konczal added up all the money spent on subsidizing higher education through loans and found out that it's not far from what it would take to simply pay for each student's degree.

Meanwhile, the cost of a private elementary school education is getting closer to the price of a private college education at the same time that "failing" public schools are being shut down. A recent data analysis by the New York Times showed that the median price of a private first grade education has risen 35 percent nationally over the last decade, while the price of an Ivy League college education has only risen 24 percent. This trend is far starker in New York City, and while the city is notorious for inflated prices, it offers a glimpse into rising private tuitions alongside closing public schools. About 35 public schools have been scheduled to close this year. Meanwhile, the price of a first grade education has risen by 48 percent in the past ten years. Tuition at two schools, in fact, is higher than Harvard's. We're pricing many families out of a decent education. We can do better to extend accessible and quality education to every student.

Finland's approach to education puts equality squarely at the center of the conversation. And the U.S. is in desperate need of solutions for our yawning inequality. Obama said himself, "No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important... [than] restor[ing] an economy where everyone gets a fair shot..." Because that's not the reality we live with. In our reality, the gap between the richest one percent and the rest of us more than tripled over the last three decades, leading to a level of income inequality not seen since the Great Depression. Education can be one piece of our arsenal in fighting this inequality. And it will probably lead to better outcomes.

Bryce Covert is Editor of New Deal 2.o.

Beyond some symbolic gestures, keeping women employed may be fading from the president's radar.

In President Obama's speech before a joint session of Congress in September of last year, I didn't expect to hear much about the womancession. But I was pleasantly surprised. The plan he put forward had the womancession in its crosshairs: it included $30 billion to prevent up to 280,000 teacher layoffs, among other supports to keep women in the public sector in their jobs.

Government jobs are key to keeping women employed. During this weak recovery period, women have gained only three percent of the 1.4 million jobs added to the economy. And while men's unemployment rate rose dramatically during the recession, it's now fallen to a level where it may be converging with women's: men now stand at 8 percent while women are at 7.9. Public sector layoffs have had a lot to do with it: while women represent just over half of the public workforce, they lost 65 percent of the jobs cut. According to the White House itself, as of October nearly 300,000 education jobs had been lost, over half of all the job losses in local government. Women make up the overwhelming majority of teachers.

Obama's State of the Union on Tuesday took a different approach. Teachers were lauded for the difficult tasks they perform everyday, sometimes dipping into their own measly pay to buy classroom necessities. But the focus was mostly on improving education, not on helping teachers avoid getting laid off. Education is without question an issue begging to be addressed in this country. It's vital we keep investing in it in order to have a skilled workforce and spread equality of opportunity. But the issue of employment was off the docket.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Women have also been hemorrhaging jobs in the private sector, a fact that won't be addressed by his focus on bringing manufacturing back. Those manufacturing jobs are going to men. Symbolically, however, there was a nod toward some women who have been losing a huge amount of the private sector jobs: secretaries. As of July, women had lost a total of 925,000 jobs as office and administrative support, while men had gained 204,000, even though women make up 75 percent of these jobs.

Warren Buffett's secretary was in attendance, getting a long time in the camera's spotlight, although she was there as an example of everyday Americans who pay lower tax rates than those with lots of investments. But as Addie Stan tweeted during the speech, it was poignant to have a secretary stand in as an example of working Americans. Even if the fact that they're losing jobs wasn't mentioned, we should keep them in mind when we talk about the working class.

He also mentioned the gender wage gap, an issue pressing down on women in tough economic times. Yet it only warranted a quick reference. It's not the sort of problem that can be solved just by naming it.

Obama's renewed focus on fairness is refreshing and important. Women have been waiting for economic fairness for a long time. Many of the policies put forward on Tuesday are important and, if enacted, will help the economy for men and women alike. But the womancession may be slipping off his radar.

Bryce Covert is Editor of New Deal 2.0.