As discussed in this inquiry, in Finland, as in many other countries, the ‘planned or official curriculum’ and the ‘received or experienced curriculum’ (see Kelly, 2013) seem to differ when it concerns composition and creative collaboration within music education. As the curricular aims concerning the implementation of musical creation have not been widely adopted into educational practices over the last several decades, new approaches are required so that more can be done to strengthen the role of musical creation.
As stated by Seikkula-Leino (2007), “curriculum reforms should focus on promoting teachers’ professional development, streamlining local curriculum work and developing core components” (p. 9) concerning each subject matter. Linking professional growth and teacher reflection to curricular renewal enables changes in teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and actions, and through these changes, teaching-learning situations and students’ learning may also change. Within music education, this underlines the need to further discuss the issues of creativity and agency in education. Thus, when developing local curricula from the national core curriculum, support for adopting the national curricula aims and support for making local focusing is needed. It is also essential for teachers’ pre-service and in- service training to include deep familiarization with the national core curriculum. Teacher training throughout the career should be supported by public authorities and provided for every teacher. Too often the curriculum remains abstract words even through the document could instead be seen as an important everyday tool. If seen as an everyday tool, however, the form of the document and formulation of its text is crucial. For instance, thought could be given how the curriculum could be presented using technology so that it would be inviting and inspiring both in appearance and easy to understand in content.98
Educators can play key roles in the design, implementation, and evaluation of educational reform, without the need to rely solely on the decisions made by policymakers and administrators (see Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Kelly (2013) also stresses that, “in all successful curriculum development and implementation the teacher is the crucial element” (p. 13). As discussed in Chapter 2, however, there are tensions concerning teacher agency, because teachers are expected to “maintain the overall authority for educational policy” (Campbell, 2012, p. 183) acting as “agents of socialization as well as change agents” (ibid.).
98 However, having had the possibility to be one of the eight-member group for forming the music part of the National Core Curriculum of Finland for the year 2016, this is not an easy task.
Viewing teachers as ‘the crucial element’ has sometimes led to teachers being seen as crucial for the realization of others’ thoughts without questioning or offering insights of their own. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) even acknowledge that, “There is no question that the current regime of scientifically based research and evidence-based education positions practitioners as the recipients of other people’s knowledge” (p. 11). This highlights the importance asking what we mean by teacher agency overall and in relation to the curricula and assessments. The results of such deliberation are political in nature and reveal the underlying values of our society and (see Campbell, 2012, p. 183). Additionally it is necessary to consider, what do teachers “strive for as a result of their own agency and what do they similarly aim to facilitate in their students’ ongoing development of agency?” (Campbell, 2012, p. 184).
In Finland, the process of creating the 2016 National Curriculum is an example of collaborative reform. It has been made into a participatory process, in which teachers and administrators have been invited to contribute to the draft several times. This has been made possible through a transparent long-term process facilitated by technology. Although such an approach is time consuming, it has the potential to give teachers more ownership of the curriculum compared to top-down models.99 Although the current process of writing the Finnish curriculum has been based on transparency and inquiry, the end product is be the norm upon which local curricula are created. How the support mechanisms are built will determine how challenging or not it is to implement the new curriculum. If the teacher is to be considered the ‘crucial element’, special emphasis should be put to support their work when adopting the new curriculum. The teachers’ in-service education is necessary during curricula reform because, as seen in practice, well-formulated curricular sentences alone do not suffice. Furthermore, teacher agency must allow for creative agency in curricular implementation, which necessitates deep knowledge of the curriculum.
As the Finnish curriculum is intended to be quite open compared to “centralized control” curricula (Kelly, 2013, p. 14) and “pre-packaged programmes” (ibid.), teachers will need practical scaffolding and in-service training focussed on the new curriculum and workshops on how to use it to create local curricula.100 However, such support should
99 For instance, the UK’s current curriculum has been criticized for having been implemented using a top-down approach (Kelly, 2013).
100 Although the word ‘training’ sometimes connotes being compliant, it is used here as it is used by Finnish teacher training schools to refer to teacher education. Finnish teacher training schools are part of the universities and aim to support teacher agency and an inquiring attitude. The terms ‘pre-service’ and ‘in-service teacher education’ might be clearer, and perhaps their future could be discussed in Finland.
focus on situational needs, rather than providing “teacher-proof” packages to be accepted and adopted by teachers “in the precise form that the central planners had in mind” (Kelly, 2013, p. 14).101
Kelly (2013) demonstrates, for example, how in Britain the materials provided in teaching packages, in every case, were adapted and used by teachers in their own ways and for their own purposes, which irritated the project directors. This phenomenon, however, is a good example that teachers have the need to be agents in their work. Programs that are meant to be implemented top to bottom are not always the most efficient. Instead, having a curriculum that provides frames and possibilities for creative agency and collaborative inquiry in the classroom seems to be a more fruitful approach. Even more fruitful this may be when teachers are provided with proper support and training.
It is essential to clarify the value basis for the curricula. Although creativity has been and is currently seen as one of the central issues in education, its inclusion has been inconsistent in music education. Therefore, as this inquiry has showed, there is a need to encourage the issue of creativity in practice.