Background for educational democracy in Finland

The Finnish educational system is based on equality of possibilities, with its free comprehensive school system (peruskoulu) that was established in the 1970s (Sahlberg, 2015; Niemi, 2012). It is important to note that education has since then been fully governed by the public sector and is free for all from the elementary level to university studies. Educational institutions in Finland are obliged to develop education for democracy (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2011), and with reference to the PISA 2000 project report, the Finnish school system has been considered, although somewhat overstatedly, as the best in the world (Sahlberg, 2015, p. xxi-xxii; Simola, 2005). Alongside the global and widespread implementation of neoliberal policies that have had an effect on the educational landscape (see e.g. Apple, 2006), the Finnish comprehensive school education system and its governance have also changed significantly over the past two decades, as part of the overall socio-political development of the post-comprehensive era (Marklund, 1981), referring to the increase of individualism and privatization in educational realms. In other words, loosened regulation has created new tensions and meanings for equality of opportunities and individual rights within educational justice (Kalalahti & Varjo, 2012). Nevertheless, even when compared to other Nordic countries, the differences between schools in Finland are still relatively small, yet emerging. Also, the influence of socio-economic background on learning achievement is relatively small but growing.

Hence, targeted policies on the early stage of learning and a special support for immigrant students have been created in order to balance out the specific needs of increasingly diverse student populations. Altogether, the Finnish basic education system has been alleged to have an inclusion principle as a starting point through integrative teaching arrangements and learning support regarding students with differing characteristics and needs (Sahlberg, 2015, p. 96).

Although it is located between the geographical and cultural spheres of Russia and the Nordic countries, and despite being a small country with a rather short history of independence only as of 1917, Finland has successfully adopted the Scandinavian welfare state ideology of educational opportunity and equality, along with the influence of the German educational system (Niemi, 2012).

Simultaneously, Finland and the Scandinavian countries, including Sweden and Norway, have adopted the ideology of normalization as the guiding principle for educational policy and political decision-making, including the development of the basic education system (Kristiansen, 1999, p. 395). Normalization can be described as a socio-political interpretation of human rights to guarantee each

citizen as normal a life as possible, and perceiving all human beings as equal citizens (Ibid.) – as one kind of preliminary form for inclusive education. Normalization is not far from the conceptual thinking of mainstreaming in the US and the UK contexts, with driving policies concerned by children’s equal rights (Lindsay, 2007).

Whilst the normalization ideology has been seen both as a means and an end to the equalizing sociopolitical reform in Scandinavian countries, a gap between the rhetorical use of normalization and the actualized practices and policies has been identified and criticized (Kristiansen, 1999). Moreover, according to the critics, normalization is not an unproblematic platform for an inclusive agenda, as it entails a distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ (Culham & Nind, 2009).

Nevertheless, the normalization principle has a historical significance in the establishment of Finnish educational democracy, leading the way to guarantee equal opportunity for everyone to pursue free education, without the student’s background determining equal participation or affecting learning outcomes (Ministry of Education and Culture (2014).

Finnish teacher education

Teacher education plays an important role in the success of the current educational system in Finland (Sahlberg, 2015; Niemi, 2012). First, all teachers from pre-primary level to general and upper secondary levels are required to have a Master’s degree, earned through a 5-year program. Second, applying to teacher education is relatively popular, which enables careful planning of entrance exams, emphasizing not only high test scores, but also a suitable personality including good interpersonal skills and a high motivation for teacher’s work (Sahlberg, 2015, p. 103; see also Laes, 2005). A third considered factor of the success of Finnish education is society’s trust in the educational actors (Niemi, 2012). In the Finnish educational policy regulation, in-service teachers’ professional skills are trusted over school inspections, standardized testing, and a strict state curriculum, all of which have been removed from the school system during the comprehensive school reform. Instead, teachers themselves have the key role in curriculum development, school planning, and student assessment (Sahlberg, 2015, pp. 122-123). This teacher leadership is taken into account in teacher education programs, which are highly research-based, nurturing cooperative and problem-based learning, and the integration of contemporary educational theories to reflective practice (Sahlberg, 2015, p. 116; for music teacher education, see Westerlund &

Juntunen, 2015).

Whilst the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture (2014) supports and regulates pre-service and in-service teacher education on the legislative level, it does not control the content of teacher education. Rather, higher education institutions themselves decide on the student admission processes, content emphasis, and methods of the teacher education programs. In all, whilst it has been argued that the legislation and policy level form a rather steady background for the continuum of developing educational democracy in Finland, the actual challenges may lie in adjusting between the societal needs relating to recent political, economic, and cultural changes, and promoting teachers’ professional skills and practical experience in diversifying school communities (Sahlberg, 2015;

see also Mayer & Reid, 2016 for a more global analysis). Especially developing positive attitudes towards inclusive education and integrated classrooms among pre-service and in-service teachers is considered as one of the main challenges for au courant Finnish teacher education (Saloviita, 2015).

Finnish music teacher education

In Finland, music teacher candidates aiming to be subject teachers in comprehensive schools on primary and secondary levels graduate from an extended 5 to 5 ½ year degree program with an integrated Bachelor’s (180 ECT) and Master’s (120 ECT) degree at the university level. Whilst one may graduate with a music teacher degree from three different universities across Finland (situation in 2016), in the following I will outline the structure, aims, and content of music teacher education regarding the degree program at the Sibelius Academy of the University of the Arts Helsinki. This program distinguishes itself from other programs as being situated within the only music university in Finland, thus having the circumstances to offer high quality performative music education (PME) along with academic music education studies. Perhaps as a result of this, the program also has the most applicants, with only an approximately 10%

admission rate, in comparison to other music teacher education programs that have less emphasis on PME (Westerlund & Juntunen, 2015).

In the entrance examination, both musical / instrumental skills, and pedagogical / academic skills are evaluated and scored. Unlike some other countries’ music teacher education programs, in this degree program both pedagogical and music performance courses go hand in hand from the beginning to the end of studies, thus constructing a natural merger of performer and teacher identity, in contrast to challenges faced, for example, in the US context (see e.g. Pellegrino, 2009). As popular music is a governing practice in the Finnish music classroom

(Muukkonen, 2010), besides one’s own main instrument, music teacher studies include mastering all rock band instruments: keyboards, guitar, bass, drums, and percussion instruments. On top of that, all music teacher students study vocal skills in different musical genres, choir and orchestra conducting, music technology, music and movement, and either classical or pop-jazz theory, among others. As more and more students enter the program from a non-classical background, there is an ongoing need to diversify both musical and pedagogical flexibility in the studies in order to prepare future music teachers to work within various musical settings (Westerlund & Juntunen, 2015). Indeed, the ethos of Finnish music classroom teachers is strongly related to versatility and multidisciplinarity within the musical praxis (Muukkonen, 2010).

The fact that music subject teachers are expected to master several musical styles and have the capacity to teach large groups of students from all age levels requires its own unique educational program, one which is extensively different from those of the solo performance degree (Westerlund & Juntunen, 2015).

Thus, along with music instrument studies, students are obliged to complete a Teacher’s Pedagogical course (60 ECT) that includes pedagogical studies spread over the five years of studies, and several periods of teaching practice in comprehensive schools and adult education (Westerlund & Juntunen, 2015). The aims of the pedagogical studies have been and are constantly being developed in alignment with contemporary educational research streams. Consequently, recent developments have especially engaged with emphasizing music teacherhood as a reflexive practice (Juntunen, Nikkanen & Westerlund, 2013). Teachers’

pedagogical studies are comprised of study modules, for example in learning theories, philosophy of music education, music didactics (content, methods, and assessment), and research skills (Westerlund & Juntunen, 2015). All in all, Finnish music teacher education follows the tripartite model of involving knowledge production, practical preparation, and research oriented teaching as a set agenda for teacher education as a whole in Finland (Sahlberg, 2015;

Westerlund & Juntunen, 2015).

Despite the highly versatile nature of the teacher education program, including theoretical, philosophical, and practical perspectives on music teaching (Ferm Thorgersen, Johansen & Juntunen, 2016), the emphasis seems to be in music pedagogy, in other words highlighting musical diversity (e.g. through teaching ‘world music’, see Korpela, Kuoppamäki, Laes, Miettinen, Muhonen, Nikkanen, Ojala, Partti, Pihkanen & Rikandi, 2010) over pedagogical diversity.

Hence, it might be argued that less attention is paid to considering broader issues

of student diversity and social justice through the subject matter (Grossman, McDonald, Hammerness & Ronfeldt, 2008; Ballantyne & Mills, 2008). Indeed, it has been argued that the Finnish educational system is only now about to answer to growing diversity, after having long remained “ethnically homogeneous”

(Sahlberg, 2015, p. 95). This, of course, is a fallacy, as many cultural minorities have inhabited Finland already prior to the recent global migration movements.

Despite growing awareness on diversity issues through discourses of multicultural education in Finland and Scandinavia, however, further development of Finnish music teacher education calls for considering diversity issues more extensively (Karlsen & Westerlund, 2010; Karlsen, 2014). It is noteworthy, as well, that in the Finnish educational context diversity is often discussed in broader terms than only one of cultural diversity, encompassing discourses on (dis)ability (see chapter 2).