There is a manifest tendency for national education policy to follow global economic trends. In many Western industrialized countries, this relationship has intensified or strengthened within the last decades. The strengthening of this relationship has been seen, among other things, as evidence of the growing power of neoliberal ideology. The background reference for this article is the emergence of a neoliberal education policy ideology in the two creativity-related strategies implemented by the Finnish government during the first decade of the 21st century. The main focus of the study was the concept of creativity, for it has appeared to be the prevailing trend within the Finnish basic education renovation programme from 2010 to 2014. The sample (n = 1163) of research was composed of expert teachers, artists and university-level educated engineers. The results from the study revealed the demanding influence of the concept of creativity on curriculum planning. Perspectives on the significance or importance of creativity and creative education vary a lot and, for instance, are influenced by the respondent’s professional background. The results obtained from the study also provide the basis to reflect on the functionality of national democracy within the context of the educational policy decision-making process.
AhonenS. (2002). From an industrial to a post-industrial society: Changing conceptions of equality in education. Educational Review, 54, 173–181.
2.
BallS. J. (1998). Big policies/small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34, 119–130.
3.
BallS. J. (2001). Globaalit toimintaperiaatteet ja kansalliset politiikat eurooppalaisessa koulutuksessa. In JauhiainenA.RinneR.TähtinenJ. (Eds.), Koulutuspolitiikka Suomessa ja ylikansalliset mallit (Kasvatusalan tutkimuksia 1, pp. 21–43). Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura.
4.
BallS. J. (2004). Suorituskeskeisyys ja yksityistäminen jälkihyvinvointivaltion koulutuspolitiikassa [Achievement orientation and privatisation in the educational policy of post welfare state.] (HiilosH., Trans.). Kasvatus, 35, 6–20.
5.
BanajiS.BurnA.BuckinghamD. (2010). The rhetorics of creativity: A literature review (2nd ed.). London, England: Creativity, Culture and Education.
6.
BennerC. (2003). Learning communities in a learning region: The soft infrastructure of cross-firm learning networks in Silicon Valley. Environment & Planning A, 35, 1809–1830.
7.
BiestaG. (2006). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Herndon, VA: Paradigm Publishers.
8.
BrookhartS. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking skills in your classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9.
BurnardP. (2011). Creativity, pedagogic partnerships, and the improvisatory space of teaching. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.), Structure and improvisation in creative teaching (pp. 51–72). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CastellsM.HimanenP. (2002). The information society and the welfare state: The Finnish model. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11.
CernyP. G. (1994). The dynamics of financial globalization: Technology, market structure, and policy response. Policy Sciences, 27, 319–342.
12.
CohenG. D. (2006). Research on creativity and ageing: The positive impact of arts on health and illness. Journal of the American Society on Aging, 30, 7–15.
13.
CronbergT. (2012). Estejuoksu luovaan Suomeen (julkaisuja 86). Sastamala, Finland: Kunnallisalan kehittämissäätiön[The Foundation for Muncipal Develoment].
14.
Finland’s national innovation strategy. (2008). Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Employment and the Economy.
15.
FloridaR. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic books.
16.
FloridaR. (2005). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
17.
FloridaR.TinagliI. (2004). Europe in the creative age. London, England: Demos.
18.
Government Decree 422/2012. (2012). Valtioneuvoston asetus perusopetuslaissa tarkoitetun opetuksen valtakunnallisista tavoitteista ja perusopetuksen tuntijaosta.
19.
HabermasJ. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411–426.
HusénT. (1994). Skola och universitet inför 2000-talet. En utbildningsforskarens perspektiv. Stockholm, Sweden: Atlantis.
22.
HusénT. (1996). The idea of the university. Changing roles, current crisis and future challenges. In MorsyZ.AltbachP. G. (Eds.), Higher education in an international perspective, critical issues (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Garland Publishing.
23.
KalalahtiM.VarjoJ. (2012). Tasa-arvo ja oikeudenmukaisuus perusopetukseen sijoittumisessa ja valikoitumisessa (Kasvatus ja aika 6).
24.
LampinenO. (2003). Suomen koulutusjärjestelmän kehitys. Helsinki, Finland: Gaudeamus.
25.
LucasB.ClaxtonG.SpencerE. (2013). Progression in student creativity in school: First steps towards new forms of formative assessments (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 86). OECD Publishing.
26.
MaisuriaA. (2005). The turbulent times of creativity in the national curriculum. Policy Futures in Education, 3, 141–152.
NavarroJ.ArrietaC. (2010). Chaos in human behavior: The case of work motivation. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 244–256.
32.
OakleyK. (2006). Include us out – Economic development and social policy in the creative industries. Cultural Trends, 15, 255–273.
33.
PaijaL. (2001). The ICT cluster in Finland – The engine of knowledge-driven growth in Finland. In Proceedings of innovative clusters: Drivers of national innovative systems-OECD (pp. 19–43). Helsinki: ETLA.
34.
PluckerJ. A.MakelM. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In KaufmanJ. C.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
35.
RinneR. (2002). Kansallisen koulutuspolitiikan loppu? In HonkonenR. (Ed.), Koulutuksen lumo – retoriikka, politiikka ja arviointi (pp. 93–119). Tampere, Finland: Tampereen yliopistopaino.
36.
RinneR. (2004). Suomalainen korkeakoulupolitiikka ylikansallisessa talutusnuorassa. In LöfströmJ.RantalaJ.SalminenJ. (Eds.), Esseeitä historallias-yhteiskunnallisesta kasvatuksesta (Vol. 2, pp. 139–166). Helsinki, Finland: Historiallis-yhteiskuntatiedollisen kasvatuksen tutkimus- ja kehittämiskeskuksen tutkimuksia.
37.
SimolaH. (2004). Kenraali Adolf Ehrnrooth ja PISA:n ihme – Koulutussosiologisia huomautuksia erääseen suomalaiseen menestystarinaan. Kasvatus, 35, 76–83.
38.
StarkoA. J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom: Schools of curious delight. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
SternbergR. J.KaufmanJ. C. (2010). Constraints on creativity: Obvious and not so obvious. In KaufmanJ. C.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 467–482). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
TiberghienY. (2007). Entrepreneurial states: Reforming corporate governance in France, Japan, and Korea. New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
41.
TreffingerD. J.YoungG. C.NassabW.C.WittigC. V. (2004). Talent development: The levels of service approach. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
42.
UsherR.EdwardsR. (1994). Postmodernism and education. London, England: Routledge.
43.
VarjoJ. (2005). ‘Kolmannen tasavallan’ koulutuspolitiikan ohjelmanjulistus - Harri Holkerin hallituksen koulutuspoliittisen selonteon eduskuntakäsittely. In: Suomen kouluhistoriallisen seuran vuosikirja (pp. 120–141). Retrieved from http://www.kasvhistseura.fi/site/?lan=1&page_id=35
44.
VarjoJ. (2007). Kilpailukykyvaltion koululainsäädännön rakentuminen: Suomen eduskunta ja 1990-luvun koulutuspoliittinen käänne. Helsinki, Finland: Kasvatustieteen laitoksen tutkimuksia, Helsingin yliopisto.
45.
Von HayekF. A. (1945). The road to serfdom. London, England: Routledge.
46.
WileniusM. (2006). Yhteiskunta, tulevaisuus ja ennakointi. In HeiskalaR.LuhtakallioE. (Eds.), Kuinka Suomesta tuli kilpailukyky-yhteiskunta (pp. 218-237). Helsinki, Finland: Gaudeamus.
