Music curriculum history of Finland

Understanding music’s journey into the national curriculum of Finland requires a historical perspective. The beginning of curriculum in Finland involves elementary schools (“kansakoulu”), grammar schools (“oppikoulu”) and teacher education institutions (“seminaarilaitos”). According to Pajamo (2009), as the importance of supporting children’s mental development and individual abilities in addition to teaching reading and writing skills was understood, teacher education institutions were founded to train teachers. Teacher education institutions have been important for music education in Finland. The first institution was led by its principal Uno Cygnaeus and founded in 1863. (Pajamo, 2009, 36.) The ability to sing and play instruments was required for teachers and singing ability was an entry requirement as Cygnaeus recognised how important music was for children’s education (Pajamo, 1976, 71).

According to Pajamo (2009) Cygnaeus linked singing with awakening and developing children’s aesthetic, moral and religious feelings, highlighting the power of singing for children’s upbringing. In general conversation singing became something more than a recreational subject and a medium for reaching the general aims of education. Elementary school teachers were also vital in creating the music scene of rural areas. Singing became a central part of everyday life and celebrations in schools in addition to building a foundation for a life-long relationship with music. (Pajamo, 2009, 40-47.) These elements built the foundation for the appreciation of music education.

According to Pajamo (1976, 13) many legal regulations for education used singing related titles as the subject title for music education although in teacher education music education also included instrumental studies in organ and piano. Vitikka (2009) states that in year 1925 the first curriculum for basic education in Finland was introduced. Up until that point elementary schools used teachers’ work plans, which also functioned as work plans for model schools.

Herbart’s didactics affected teaching in elementary school and the curriculum was consequently

focused on outlining the content for each subject. There was flexibility with regards to teaching methods even though the principles and the content of the curriculum was quite specific.

(Vitikka, 2009, 50-58.) The Committee Report “Komiteanmietintö” (1925, 8) included the following curriculum content: reading and writing, “relatively broad course in calculus”,

“significant course in religion” and “singing has been the only recreational subject, which has always belonged in children’s first school curriculum”.

According to Suomi (2009) Dewey’s pedagogical views replaced Herbart’s didactics for the 1952 Finnish curriculum. Consequently children’s developmental stages and individual aptitudes became focal elements of teaching. In this curriculum singing still had very clear goals and the music education content revolved around singing. (Suomi, 2009, 71.) The Committee Report (1952) states:

“Music as it is – therefore song, composition, sometimes playing – has to be the starting point for teaching of singing. Learning based on the listening perception is the most fundamental aspect of it”. (Komiteanmietintö, 1952, 183.)

Teaching of singing consisted of the following content areas: “performing repertoire for singing as well as vocal formation and articulation”, ”musical skill and knowledge” and ”listening and composition” (Suomi, 2009, 72-73).

Suomi (2009) states that in the 1960s school music education in Finland experienced an expansion as the discussion regarding music education being important for children’s upbringing intensified. It was felt that practical musical activity and versatile music lessons were essential so that children could build their connection with music. (Suomi, 2009, 73-74.) Tenkku (1996, 46) states that music curriculum started to expand with more versatile methods and functions instead of focusing on singing and consequently in 1963 music replaced singing as the subject title. According to Uusikylä and Atjonen (2005) the Finnish education system changed in 1970 with elementary and grammar schools changing to a comprehensive school (”peruskoulu”). The previous system had led to inequalities for career opportunities and earning potential between students graduating from elementary and grammar schools. (Uusikylä &

Atjonen, 2005, 58.) The 1970 curriculum consisted of two sections including content and aims for each subject as well as general aims and principles for the curriculum (Vitikka, 2009, 62).

These two sections can also be seen in the music curricula of today. However, in the current curriculum general aims and subject content are linked and are in many ways inclusive of one

another. The Committee Report states that the expansion of music education was visible in the new curriculum through creative elements such as ”free and descriptive physical improvisation”, “performing stories with musical effects” as well as the playing of instruments being included (Komiteanmietintö, 1970, 274-287). Creative elements, playing instruments and musical-kinaesthetic activities are still an important part the music curricula of today.

After the 1970 music curriculum music education went through a structural change which was evident in the 1985 music curriculum and the music education books of the era (Suomi, 2009, 82). Tenkku (1996, 47) describes the Finnish music curriculum being affected by the international ideas presented by Robert Werner regarding structuring the music curricula around four fundamental elements of music: pitch, duration, volume and tone colour. According to Suomi (2009) the fundamental elements of music are presented as the foundation for the music curriculum content in 1985. Towns were now able to design their curricula and therefore the 1985 music curriculum can be seen as a guidance document for the curriculum planning in local areas. (Suomi, 2009, 82.)

The freedom to plan curricula locally in towns and schools had been increasing since the beginning of comprehensive school system and this is particularly evident in the 1994 music curriculum (Suomi, 2009, 83). According to Juntunen (2007) the responsibility to decide content and methods was given to the teachers and the music curriculum consisted of indicative advice and ideas for music education. Pupils’ individual musical interests became more important as a starting point for music education and as a consequence the musical styles used in music education were extended to include popular music. (Juntunen, 2007, 60.) This curriculum was also structured differently as content wasn’t presented separately for each grade (Uusikylä & Atjonen, 2005, 60).

The loose curriculum framework which accentuated the freedom of individual schools to plan their curriculum sparked a concern regarding the consequent inequality of music education in Finland (Suomi, 2009, 85). The 2004 curriculum expanded with a great deal of detail (Uusikylä & Atjonen, 2005, 61). Whether the curricula were planned for each school or for each town was up to the local town’s decision (Vitikka, 2009, 66). Music education’s role for holistic education was emphasised and music making was seen as a content as well as a method for music learning (Juntunen, 2007, 60-61).

The new 2014 music curriculum remains a guidance document with local educators being involved in the local curriculum making. Meaningful learning experiences and students actively constructing their own learning are key in this curriculum, also applying to music education as a whole. There is also a focus on cross-curricular learning and digital competence. This music curriculum will be further analysed in my research.