Comparison of National Curriculums: Common Core and Finland’s National Curriculum

Student Name

Date

ED 533 Curriculum Foundations

Why We’re Behind: a Report by Common Core
What Top Nations Teach Their Students But We Don’t
Diane Ravitch & Antonia Cortese, Co-Chairs

We hear it all the time: America’s competitiveness in the global economy will suffer

if our students continue to fall behind their peers abroad.

Many of us in education wince at the idea that schools determine our nation’s

economic standing. Yet there is no denying that schools do build human capital and

do ultimately affect the social and economic well-being of our nation, albeit not in

the short run.

Over the years, American students consistently have ranked below those from

Finland, Canada, Japan, and at least a dozen other industrialized nations on

international tests of mathematics, science, and reading.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has done nothing to close this gap. And we

suspect that the law may be making matters worse. In part, this is because NCLB

has narrowed the curriculum so that most of our students are not acquiring the

broad base of knowledge they need to succeed as they advance through school.

While American students are spending endless hours preparing to take tests of

their basic reading and math skills, their peers in high-performing nations are

reading poetry and novels, conducting experiments in chemistry and physics,

making music, and studying important historical issues. We are the only leading

industrialized nation that considers the mastery of basic skills to be the goal of

K– 12 education.

The nations that consistently outrank us on math and science examinations do not

owe their success to concentrating solely or even mostly on those subjects. Nor are

they focusing relentlessly on skill subjects like reading and math, as we do, shorn of

any connection to history, science, or literature.

That is what the researchers who compiled this report have learned. The nations

that consistently outrank us on the Programme for International Student

Assessment (PISA) deliver a comprehensive, content-rich education to their young

citizens. They have adopted a wide range of approaches to getting the job done.

Hong Kong, Korea, Finland, and Japan each have a national curriculum. Australia is

in the process of writing a curriculum and already has national tests. Netherlands

and New Zealand have national standards. Switzerland and Canada have school

leaving exams that carry high stakes for students on a college-bound track.

These very diverse nations (Hong Kong is a territory, of course) ensure that their

students receive a deep education in a broad range of subjects. Why is this

important? Because America is on the opposite track. And because cognitive

scientists have consistently agreed that the high-performing nations are taking the

approach that works.

Learning experts have long recognized that the key to acquiring knowledge and

mastering skills is to have a base of background knowledge. The basic principle is

known in education as “the Matthew effect,” that is, those who have knowledge get

more knowledge, and those who have less, get less (or, the rich get richer, and the

poor get poorer).

Background knowledge allows one to acquire new knowledge, to read and

comprehend new information, to navigate unfamiliar challenges, to make

inferences, and to deduce solutions. Imagine having to play a chess game without

knowing how the pieces move, or even the point of the game. Or being told

someone’s rhetoric sounds “Kennedy-esque” without knowing anything about JFK

or perhaps not even recognizing the initials. Or hearing someone speak of the

lessons of Munich without having a clue what the expression refers to. That is the

level of puzzlement that people face when they lack background knowledge.

We believe that all of America’s schoolchildren deserve to receive the kind of

comprehensive, content-rich education that will give them the background

knowledge required to effectively pursue their dreams.

We’re publishing these excerpts while experts and policymakers debate whether

the United States should adopt national standards. We hope this report informs

that discussion by focusing it on questions of content that have heretofore been

overlooked. We hope as these discussions proceed they avoid the narrow trap

created by NCLB and that they recognize the importance of the arts, history,

literature, science, geography, civics, foreign languages, and other realms of

knowledge and experience essential to educating our children. This is what we can

learn from the nations that are most successful in educating their children.

We at Common Core believe that national standards will not improve education

unless they acknowledge that content matters. They could even make education

worse by cementing in the status quo. So we’re not moved by the idea of

standards, per se, until we are convinced that they will be excellent and that they

will not encourage continued indifference to the full education that we believe all

our students need. We’re also nonplussed by the frenzy over “competitiveness.”

What we have learned from the present study is that the best nations do what is

best for their students and that means building a great education system, not just

attempting to prepare them for the labor market.

ED 533 Curriculum Development
Technology Project Rubric

This project assignment is worth 10 points. The assignment is due Wednesday, November 24, 2021, at 11:59 p.m.

Technology Project Rubric

10 points

Content Accuracy Student(s) accuracy, perspective, and relevance of the content information is correct.

Technology Tool An innovative, creative technology tool with visuals and audio was used to complete the project.

Quality of Project The project is of high quality. Student(s) did an outstanding job to create the project.

5 points

Content Accuracy Student(s) accuracy, perspective, and relevance of the content information is somewhat correct.

Technology Tool An innovative, creative technology tool was used to complete the project.

Quality of Project The quality of the project is of good quality. The student(s) created a good project.

0 points

Content Accuracy Student(s) accuracy, perspective, and relevance of the content information is incorrect.

Technology Tool An innovative, creative technology tool was not used to complete the project.

Quality of Project The quality of the project needs improvement.

WHY WE’RE
BEHIND

A REPORT BY COMMON CORE

What Top Nations
Teach Their Students
But We Don’t

common core Board memBers

Barbara Byrd-Bennett

Antonia Cortese

Pascal Forgione, Jr.

Lorraine Griffith

Jason Griffiths

Joy Hakim

Richard Kessler

Lynne Munson

Juan Rangel

Diane Ravitch

Copyright © 2009 Common Core. All rights reserved.

WHY WE’RE BEHINDi COM MO N CO R E

Letter from Lynne munson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

foreword by diane ravitch and antonia cortese . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

finLand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

• National Curriculum
HISTORY—GRaDE 5 – 6

MuSIC—GRaDES 5 – 9

PHYSICS—GRaDES 7 – 9

CHEMISTRY—GRaDES 7 – 9

honG KonG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

• National Curriculum Framework
SCIENCE—GRaDES 4 – 6

VISual aRTS—GRaDES 4 – 6

south Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

• Subject Time Allocation Chart

• National Basic Curriculum
SOCIal STuDIES—GRaDES 7 – 9

HigH acHieving countries don’t narrow by martin west . . . . . . . . 13

canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

• British Columbia High School Exit Exams
HISTORY—GRaDE 12

lITERaTuRE—GRaDE 12

• Ontario Curriculum
MuSIC—GRaDE 8

JaPan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

• National Curriculum
SCIENCE—GRaDES 7, 9

WHY WE’RE
BEHIND

A REPORT BY COMMON CORE

What Top Nations
Teach Their Students
But We Don’t

WHY WE’RE BEHINDii COM MO N CO R E

new ZeaLand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

• National Curriculum
SCIENCE—GRaDES 7 – 8

• New Zealand Compulsory Education Exit Exam
SCIENCE—GRaDE 12

tHe case for content specificity by sheiLa byrd carmichaeL . . . . . . . 49

austraLia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

• National Curriculum Framing Document
HISTORY—GRaDES 7 – 10

• National Assessment
CIVICS aND CITIzENSHIP—GRaDE 6

netherLands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

• National Secondary School Leaving Exam
HISTORY—GRaDE 12

switZerLand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

• Matura Guidelines
HISTORY—GRaDE 12

GEOGRaPHY—GRaDE 12

• National Exit Exam for College-Bound Students
HISTORY—GRaDE 12

GEOGRaPHY—GRaDE 12

compreHensive education outside tHe united states
by eduardo andere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Permissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

acKnowLedGements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

WHY WE’RE BEHINDiii COM MO N CO R E

Letter from the
eXecutive director

“T
he plural of anecdote is data,” a political
scientist once said. We agree, in part because so
many important—and interesting—things defy

“counting” and can best be studied via anecdote. The
content of education here and abroad is one of them.

That is the conclusion we reached after a year of
research into whether America’s mediocre standing
on international comparison tests is due to differ-
ences between what our students and their peers in
other countries are taught. We concentrated on the
nine nations that consistently have outranked us on
the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA): Finland, Hong Kong (a territory), South Korea,
Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands,
and Switzerland. 1

But when we went looking for reports or books
describing the content of education in these nations we
didn’t find much. So we went to the Internet, to embas-
sies, and to ministries of education abroad (virtually) and
started collecting national curricula, standards, assess-
ments, school leaving exams—whatever documents gave
us the most detailed picture of the expectations those
nations set for the content of their students’ education.

As we began examining these materials, it became
obvious why national comparisons of educational content
are so rare: the research is terribly messy. You have to be
comfortable with juggling materials that vary by type,
by grade, by level of specificity. Not to mention that
policies and practices are constantly changing. National
curricula are dropped and then re-embraced a few years
later (Japan). Test subjects shift with a change in politi-
cal leadership (Australia). And this is in addition to the
complexities of tracking policies and, of course, consider-
able language obstacles.

Yet—despite this cacophony—a strong similarity
among these high-performing nations is evident. Each of
the nations that consistently outrank the United States
on the PISA exam provides their students with a com-
prehensive, content-rich education in the liberal arts and
sciences. These nations differ greatly with regard to how

they accomplish this goal. Some have a national cur-
riculum and standards but no tests, others have both, and
some leave everything up to the states. Interestingly, no
state-based nation in our sample currently has a national
curriculum or standards, though one is attempting to
develop some.

So what is the common ingredient across these varied
nations? It is not a delivery mechanism or an account-
ability system that these high-performing nations share: it
is a dedication to educating their children deeply in a wide
range of subjects.

Our report lists the subjects each nation requires
in compulsory education. But it is the raw material—
the excerpts from national curricula, standards, and
assessments—that conveys the richness of education in
these nations:

Fourth graders in Hong Kong visit an artist’s studio, �
study Picasso’s Guernica, and analyze the works of
modernist sculptor Henry Moore.
Finnish 5th and 6th graders study how the invention �
of writing changed human life and the impacts of
the French Revolution; they trace a topic such as
the evolution of trade from prehistory until the 19th
century.
Seventh graders in Korea are expected to know not �
just about supply and demand, but about equilib-
rium price theories, property rights, and ways to
improve market function.
Japanese 7th to 9th graders “conduct experiments �
regarding pressure to discover that pressure is
related to the magnitude of a force and the area.”

Each of the nations that consistently outranks

the United States on the PISA exam provides

their students with a comprehensive, content-

rich education in the liberal arts and sciences.

WHY WE’RE BEHINDiv COM MO N CO R E

AUTHOR • Credentials

LET TER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Eighth graders from the Canadian province of �
Ontario are expected to create musical composi-
tions, conduct, and know musical terms in Italian.
Dutch 12th graders must know enough about seven �
events connected to the Crimean War to be able to
put them in chronological order.
Canadian 12th graders in British Columbia are �
expected to identify the author of the words: “Thou
art slave to fate, chance, kings, and desperate men”
and to what Admiral Nimitz was referring when he
said: “Pearl Harbor has now been partially avenged.”
On a Swiss examination 12th graders write an essay �
analyzing JFK’s October 1962 proclamation that led
to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

These nations’ dedication to providing their students
with a content-rich education may be their only com-
monality. After all, these high-performing nations are
scattered across four continents. None shares a border
with the others. Three are republics, three parliamentary
democracies, two constitutional monarchies, and one the
territory of a communist state. They range in popula-
tion from 4 million (New Zealand) to over 125 million
(Japan). The group boasts at least 14 official languages. 2

It is of course not possible to prove with absolute
certainty, based on the extensive anecdotal evidence we
gathered, that a causal link exists between the content
of education in these nations and their students’ perfor-
mance on the PISA exam. Proving such a link would take
vastly more data—and more resources—than we had.

But, considering these nations’ enormous geographic,
demographic, cultural, and governmental differences,
what other explanation could there be? We believe more
research should be conducted into the relationship
between content and achievement. This research should
be done now because if what this report suggests is
true—that a comprehensive, content-rich curriculum is
the key to high achievement—than we have a lot of work
to do here in the United States.

In recent years, America has increasingly embraced

education policies and practices that have made our
children’s education narrower and more basic. The No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is part of the cause of
this, but is by no means the only culprit. NCLB’s intense
focus on reading and math skills has dumbed down the
curriculum, but so have trends such as the 21st century
skills movement, which promote the teaching of skills
such as media savvy and entrepreneurship disconnected
from content of any significance.

We must join our desire to compete with other
nations with a willingness to learn from them. Common
Core hopes that the materials assembled here will
encourage that desire to learn.

In addition to extended excerpts from education ma-
terials from nine of the world’s top performing nations,
this report includes essays from three education experts
who found these documents, and the connection they
suggest, worth contemplating. Martin West, assistant
professor of education, political science, and public
policy at Brown University, notes that high-performing
countries emphasize liberal arts subjects not included in
the PISA exams and criticizes the narrowing of the cur-
riculum in the United States. Education consultant and
former teacher Sheila Byrd Carmichael conducts a close
examination of the excerpts and asks: “Is it possible that
resisting content specificity in standards and assessments
is a critical but overlooked aspect of stagnant student
achievement both within the U.S and internationally?”
And international education expert Eduardo Andere tells
us that the best strategy for raising student performance
is to do what top performing nations do—provide a deep,
comprehensive core curriculum to all students.

***
This report is not intended to be an endorsement

of the idea of national standards or a national test. At

We must join our desire to compete with other

nations with a willingness to learn from them.

WHY WE’RE BEHINDv COM MO N CO R E

AUTHOR • Credentials

LET TER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Common Core, we believe that the content of a student’s
education has a greater influence on his level of achieve-
ment than does delivery or accountability systems. So
reform ideas like standards or tests don’t impress us
unless they make content a priority. Thus far, the debate
in this country over those measures has discounted the
importance of content. We hope this report will help to
change that. But, while we‘re indeed presenting a wide
array of examples of what other nations are doing, we
don’t want it to be overlooked that most of the nations
included in our study are small enough to serve as models
for US states.

New Zealand could serve as a model for Kansas or
Nevada—Australia a model for Florida or Pennsylvania.
In order to help the reader “scale” these nations and make
comparisons with states, we’ve included in each nation’s
overview a list of which US states are similar in popula-
tion size and in the number of students enrolled in K-12
schooling. Of course there are numerous variables a state
would use to determine if a nation’s education system
provided a useful model. We provide this most basic
information as a starting point.

Lynne Munson

PresidenT and execuTive direcTor

common core

This report is not intended to be an

endorsement of the idea of national standards

or a national test.

WHY WE’RE BEHINDvi COM MO N CO R E

foreword

W
e hear it all the time: America’s
competitiveness in the global economy will
suffer if our students continue to fall behind

their peers abroad.
Many of us in education wince at the idea that schools

determine our nation’s economic standing. Yet there is
no denying that schools do build human capital and do
ultimately affect the social and economic well-being of
our nation, albeit not in the short run.

Over the years, American students consistently have
ranked below those from Finland, Canada, Japan, and at
least a dozen other industrialized nations on international
tests of mathematics, science, and reading.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has done noth-
ing to close this gap. And we suspect that the law may be
making matters worse. In part, this is because NCLB has
narrowed the curriculum so that most of our students are
not acquiring the broad base of know ledge they need to
succeed as they ad vance through school.

While American students are spending endless hours
preparing to take tests of their basic reading and math
skills, their peers in high-performing nations are reading
poetry and novels, conducting experiments in chemistry
and physics, mak ing music, and studying important
historical issues. We are the only leading industrialized
nation that considers the mastery of basic skills to be the
goal of K–12 education.

The nations that consistently outrank us on math
and science examinations do not owe their success to
concentrating solely or even mostly on those subjects.
Nor are they focusing relentlessly on skill subjects like
reading and math, as we do, shorn of any connection to
history, science, or literature.

That is what the researchers who compiled this report
have learned. The nations that consistently outrank us
on the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) deliver a comprehensive, content-rich education
to their young citizens. They have adopted a wide range
of approaches to getting the job done.

Hong Kong, Korea, Finland, and Japan each have a
national curriculum. Australia is in the process of writing
a curriculum and already has national tests. Netherlands
and New Zealand have national standards. Switzerland
and Canada have school leaving exams that carry high
stakes for students on a college-bound track.

These very diverse nations (Hong Kong is a territory,
of course) ensure that their students receive a deep
education in a broad range of subjects. Why is this
important? Because America is on the opposite track.
And because cognitive scientists have consistently agreed
that the high-performing nations are taking the approach
that works.

Learning experts have long recognized that the key
to acquiring knowledge and mastering skills is to have
a base of background knowledge. The basic principle is
known in education as “the Matthew effect,” that is, those

While American students are spending

endless hours preparing to take tests of their

basic reading and math skills, their peers

in high-performing nations are reading

poetry and novels, conducting experiments

in chemistry and physics, making music, and

studying important historical issues. We are

the only leading industrialized nation that

considers the mastery of basic skills to be the

goal of K–12 education.

WHY WE’RE BEHINDvii COM MO N CO R E

AUTHOR • Credentials

FOREWORD

who have knowledge get more knowledge, and those who
have less, get less (or, the rich get richer, and the poor get
poorer).

Background knowledge allows one to acquire new
knowledge, to read and comprehend new information,
to navigate unfamiliar challenges, to make inferences,
and to deduce solutions. Imagine having to play a chess
game without knowing how the pieces move, or even
the point of the game. Or being told someone’s rhetoric
sounds “Kennedy-esque” without knowing anything
about JFK—or perhaps not even recognizing the initials.
Or hearing someone speak of the lessons of Munich
without having a clue what the expression refers to. That
is the level of puzzlement that people face when they lack
background knowledge.

We believe that all of America’s schoolchildren de-
serve to receive the kind of comprehensive, content-rich
education that will give them the background knowledge
required to effectively pursue their dreams.

We’re publishing these excerpts while experts and
policymakers debate whether the United States should
adopt national standards. We hope this report informs
that discussion by focusing it on questions of content
that have heretofore been overlooked. We hope as these
discussions proceed they avoid the narrow trap created
by NCLB and that they recognize the importance of the
arts, history, literature, science, geography, civics, foreign
languages, and other realms of knowledge and experience

essential to educating our children. This is what we can
learn from the nations that are most successful in educat-
ing their children.

We at Common Core believe that national standards
will not improve education unless they acknowledge that
content matters. They could even make education worse
by cementing in the status quo. So we’re not moved by
the idea of standards, per se, until we are convinced that
they will be excellent and that they will not encourage
continued indifference to the full education that we
believe all our students need. We’re also nonplussed by
the frenzy over “competitiveness.” What we have learned
from the present study is that the best nations do what
is best for their students and that means building a great
education system, not just attempting to prepare them
for the labor market.

Diane Ravitch

Antonia Cortese

co-chairs

These very diverse nations ensure that their

students receive a deep education in a broad

range of subjects. Why is this important?

Because America is on the opposite track.

We at Common Core believe that national

standards will not improve education unless

they acknowledge that content matters.

WHY WE’RE BEHIND1 COM MO N CO R E

2 0 0 0
matH science reading

5 4 1

2 0 0 3
matH science reading

2 1 1

2 0 0 6
matH science reading

2 1 2

Population size: 5,288,719
Student enrollment: 570,689 in 2007
U.S. states with similar statistics: Connecticut, Oregon

General description of K – 12 education:

Compulsory education begins for all children at age seven and ends at age 16. The
school year is 190 days long. Finland has a national curriculum called the National
Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Teachers carry out assessment in their respec-
tive subjects based on objectives and assessment criteria written into the curriculum.
There are two tracks for upper secondary education: general and vocational. General
upper secondary schooling ends with a national matriculation examination, which
include tests in Finnish, Swedish, a foreign language, and one test in either mathemat-
ics, humanities, or sciences.

Required subjects:

Finnish, Swedish, literature, foreign languages, environmental studies, civics, religion
or ethics, history, social studies, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, geography,
physical education, music, visual arts, craft, home economics and pupil counseling.

finLand

PISA Rankings

excerpts

The documents included for
Finland are excerpts from the
national curriculum, obtained
from the Finland National
Board of Education:

History—grades 5 – 6 �
Music—grades 5 – 9 �
Physics—grades 7 – 9 �
Chemistry—grades 7 – 9 �

WHY WE’RE BEHIND2 COM MO N CO R E

Excerpts

national core curriculum for

Basic education

History • Grades 5 – 6

The purpose of history instruction in the fifth and sixth
grades of basic education is to familiarize the pupil with
the nature, acquisition, and basic concepts of histori-
cal knowledge; with their own roots; and with certain
historical events and phenomena that have acquired
importance, from prehistory to the French Revolution.
Instruction in the content defined in the core curriculum
underscores the functionality of history and the pupils’
ability to place themselves in the past.

oBJectives

The pupils will
Come to understand that historical information �
consists of the interpretations of historians, which may
change as new sources or methods of examination
emerge
Come to understand various ways of dividing history �
into eras; they will use the concepts of prehistory,
history, antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern era
correctly
Learn to recognize changes in the history of their own �
families or home region, and to depict changes, such
as the birth of farming, that are seen as having had a
fundamental impact on life
Learn to identify the continuity of history with the aid �
of examples
Learn to present reasons for historical changes. �

core content

Historical knowledge and one’s own roots
History of one’s family and home region �
Interpreting the meanings of recollections, writings, �
objects, images, and the construction environment

Prehistoric and historic times and the first advanced
cultures

Living conditions of Stone Age people, and changes in �
those conditions as a result of the invention of bronze
and iron
Impacts on human life of the commencement of farm- �
ing, emergence of states, and invention of writing.

Emergence of European civilization
Society and culture of ancient Athens and Rome �

Reflections of the classical period in today’s Europe �

The Middle Ages
Impacts of religion on human life; the unequal social �
status of people
Sweden’s annexation of Finland �

The dawn of the modern era
Changes in the European’s values and conception of the �
world at the end of the Middle Ages: the Renaissance in
art, the Reformation in religion, and science’s expan-
sion of the conception of the world.

Finland as part of the Kingdom of Sweden
Life as a king’s subjects, and as inhabitants of a great- �
power state
Finnish culture takes shape �

Liberty gains a foothold
Impacts of the French Revolution �

In addition, one of the following themes, whose
development is examined from prehistory up until the
19th century:

An advanced culture outside Europe �
Evolution of trade �
Evolution of culture �
Development of means of mobility and transport �
Demographic changes �

assessment criteria

Acquiring information about the past
The pupils will

Know how to distinguish fact from opinion �
Know how to distinguish a source from an interpreta- �
tion of that source.

Understanding historical phenomena
The pupils will

Know that the past can be divided into different �
eras (chronology); they will be able to name features
characteristic of societies and eras
Recognize the continuity of phenomena from one era �
to another and understand that change is not the same
as progress, and does not mean the same thing from
the perspectives of different people and groups, either
Know how to place themselves in the position of a per- �
son from the past: they will know how to explain why
people of different eras thought and acted in different
ways, and will know the importance of the cause-and-
effect relationship

finLand

WHY WE’RE BEHIND3 COM MO N CO R E

FINL AND • EXCERPTS • GRADES 5-6, 5-9, 7-9

Applying historical knowledge
The pupils will

Know how to present an account of the matter under �
consideration so as to explain the event or phenom-
enon from the standpoint of some of the parties
involved
Know that some things can be interpreted different ways; �
they will be able to explain why that happens to be so

Music • Grades 5 – 9

In music instruction in the fifth through ninth grades,
the musical world and musical experiences are analyzed
and pupils learn to use musical concepts and notation in
conjunction with listening to and playing music.

oBJectives

The pupils will
Maintain and improve their abilities in different areas �
of musical expression, acting as members of a music-
making group
Learn to examine and evaluate various sound environ- �
ments critically, and to broaden and deepen their
knowledge of different genres and styles of music
Learn to understand the tasks of music’s elements— �
rhythm, melody, harmony, dynamics, tonal color, and
form—in the formulation of music; and to use the
concepts and notations that express these elements
Build their creative relationship with music and its �
expressive possibilities, by means of composing.

core content

Exercises that develop voice control and vocal �
expression; single- and multiple-voiced repertoire
representing different styles and genres, with part of
the repertoire learned by heart
Exercises that develop skills for playing instruments �
together; instrumental repertoire representing different
musical cultures and styles in a varied way
Diverse listening selections and their analysis in terms �
of time, locale, and culture
Experimenting with one’s own musical ideas by impro- �
vising, composing, and arranging, using sound, song,
instruments, movement, and musical technology

assessment criteria

The pupils will
Participate in group singing and know how to sing, �
follow a melody line and the correct rhythm
Master, as individuals, the basic technique of some �
rhythm, melody, or harmony instrument so as to be
able to play in an ensemble
Know how to listen to music and make observations �
about it, and present justified opinions about what they
have heard

Know how to listen to both their own music and music �
produced by others, so as to be able to make music
together with others
Recognize, and know how to distinguish between, �
different genres of music and music of different eras and
cultures
Know the most important Finnish music and musical life �
Know how to use musical concepts in conjunction with �
making and listening to music
Know how to use the elements of music as building �
materials in the development and realization of their
own musical ideas and thoughts

Physics • Grades 7 – 9

The purpose of physics instruction in the seventh
through ninth grades is to broaden the pupils’ knowledge
of physics and their conception of the nature of physics,
and to strengthen skills in the experimental acquisition of
information.
The starting points for physics instruction are the
pupils’ prior knowledge, skills, and experiences, and their
observations and investigations of objects, substances,
and phenomena in nature. From these, the instruction
progresses towards the laws and fundamental principles
of physics. The purpose of the experimental orienta-
tion is to help the pupils both to perceive the nature of
science and to learn new scientific concepts, principles,
and models; to develop skills in experimental work and
cooperation; and to stimulate the pupils to study physics.

oBJectives

The pupils will
Learn to work and investigate natural phenomena �
safely, together with others
Learn scientific skills, such as the formulation of ques- �
tions and the perception of problems
Learn …