1 Introduction
Moral values have always been guiding principles in the Finnish education system but interpretations of what is morally desirable have changed (e.g., Launonen, 2000). It can be argued, however, that equality is one of its core
Finland can be described as an egalitarian country. Since 1921, when elementary education became compulsory for every child, Finland has aimed to provide equal opportunities for quality education regardless of the child’s background. A hundred years later, in the 2020s, this means that all education from early childhood education and care (ECEC) to basic education, secondary education, and higher education is mainly free of charge. All teachers are educated at university to ensure quality in teaching. At every level education aims to support the development of active citizens who respect and advocate for human rights and democracy.
This chapter presents historical perspectives on moral education in the Finnish education system. It summarizes moral education with Fenstermacher et al.’s (2009) distinction between teaching morality and teaching morally. Teaching morality refers to conveying content that is considered good and right, whereas teaching morally means teaching in a manner that accords with notions of what is good and right. Manner in this context refers to the traits and dispositions the teacher exhibits in the process of instruction. It could also be claimed that a moral manner is a precondition for engaging in moral content (Fenstermacher et al., 2009).
The historical overview builds on earlier studies on the Finnish education system, which has mostly been studied from the perspective and in the context of compulsory education, basic education. However, in the second part of the chapter, we contemplate on all levels of education the moral nature of educational values and goals in the education legislation and curricula of the 2020s and discuss the implementation of and arrangements for specific ethics education, namely ethics as a school subject. The chapter ends with reflections on the future challenges of moral education in Finland.
On the one hand in this chapter, we use morality and ethics synonymously and on the other we acknowledge that morality (in Latin moralis) refers to behavior and manners, and individuals’ and societies’ understanding of what is right or wrong. While ethics (in Greek ἦθος ethos, ἠθική ethike) is one field of philosophy that studies the morality and reasoning of ethical principles.
2 Historical Perspectives on Moral Education in Finland
This section briefly describes the history of the Finns as a nation, the main developments of the education system and presents the origins of teaching morality and teaching morally covering educational ideals from the 16th
Historical perspectives on moral education in Finland
| History of Finland | Finnish education system | Teaching morality CONTENT | Teaching morally MANNER |
|---|---|---|---|
| BUILDING CHRISTIANITY
Part of the Kingdom of Sweden from the mid-14th century until 1809 |
Church responsible for education
|
Religious code with divine authority
All people should learn to read the foundations of the Lutheran faith and to live as Christians |
A good Christian is a good teacher |
| NATION-BUILDING
Autonomous Grand Duchy of the Russian Empire 1809–1917 Independence 1917– |
State responsible for education
|
Moral code with divine authority
|
Teachers as ‘candles of the nation’
The teacher as an exemplary citizen with a vocation to build the nation in the service of God |
| BUILDING WELFARE STATE
Post World War II 1944–1970 |
|
Civic code with national authority
|
Teachers as facilitators of progress, humanism and democracy |
| BUILDING EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS 1970– |
Academic education for all teachers
|
Individualistic code
|
Academic, autonomous and pedagogically minded teachers
|
2.1 Building Christianity—Religious Education Equals Moral Education
Finnish as a written language and the education system were established while the territory of present-day Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden, from the mid-14th century to 1809. During this period the King of Sweden Gustaf Wasa (1496–1560) changed the religion of his kingdom from Roman Catholic to Lutheran. One of the main ideas behind the Lutheran Reformation was that everyone should be able to read God’s word by themselves in their own mother tongue. Hence, Finnish became a written language in the 16th century.
The Swedish government invited the Czech educator and theologian Johan Amos Comenius to Sweden in 1642 to reform the education system of the Swedish realm (Husen, 2003). Later Comenius was to become the father of modern European education. In Finland Comenius’ ideals were implemented by the Lutheran bishop of Turku, Johannes Gezelius Senior. Due to Gezelius’s influence, the works of Comenius came to be used as textbooks in Finnish schools for centuries (Leinonen, 1998).
The Lutheran Church established ‘pedagogios’ (elementary schools), ‘trivial schools’ (secondary level) and gymnasia during the 17th century, and was responsible for organizing education well into the 19th century (Niemi & Sinnemäki, 2019). The first university in Finland, The Royal Academy of Turku, was founded in 1640 to educate the clergy and civil servants. In the Kingdom of Sweden teaching morality, followed a strict religious code, with religion at the core, according to which parents and the clergy represented divine authority that was not to be questioned (see Launonen, 2000). Teaching morally meant that a good teacher was a good and righteous Christian.
2.2 Nation-building—Moral Education with Divine Authority
As an autonomous Grand Duchy within the Russian Empire (1809–1917), Finland started to develop as a nation under the leadership of a Finnish nationalist movement known as The Fennomans. The focus was on Finnish national identity, culture, and civilization, with a moral emphasis. The leaders of the Fennoman movement were Swedish speakers, as were the majority of the Finnish intelligentsia, and thus it could be argued that the ‘Finnish national identity was not tied to language as much as to moral ideals and cultural factors, including Lutheran religion’ (Niemi & Sinnemäki, 2019, p. 38). This period witnessed many educational reforms aimed at nation-building following the German tradition of Bildung, Hegelian philosophy, and humanism (Uljens & Nyman, 2013; Niemi & Sinnemäki, 2019). In 1828 the university was transferred
The ideal of teachers as exemplary citizens and builders of the nation persisted after Finland gained independence in 1917 and survived the Civil War of 1918. The new Republic of Finland became officially secular in 1919, and freedom of religion was granted in 1923. The influence of religious thinking in education declined in educational documents (Launonen, 2000). Nevertheless, Lutheranism and education continued to be inextricably linked in the nation-building project (Uljens & Nyman, 2013) through the teaching practices (Simola et al., 2014) of the six-year elementary education that became compulsory in 1921.
Between 1860 and 1940 education was based on Christian humanism and ethical objectivism, meaning that the morality and values represented by teachers and promoted in schools were considered something that existed regardless of individual beliefs or thoughts (Launonen, 2000). Teaching morality meant relying on a strict God-given moral code that endowed teachers with divine authority. Their task was to socialize students into embracing the objective moral values of society by cultivating individuals’ moral virtues. The emphasis was on helping and molding pupils to adjust to society using the pedagogical principles that generated feelings (moral emotions) like self-control, shame, and guilt in pupils. Individuals were obliged to become good citizens who would fit into the structures of society (Launonen, 2000). Teaching morally, in turn, reflected the view of teachers as setting moral and religious examples, and they were even called the ‘the nation’s guiding lights’ (Niemi, 2012). They enjoyed a relatively high status, and the trust of the common people as well as of the political and economic elite. Teaching was a popular career choice at the beginning of the 20th century and provided the opportunity to be identified with the upper social strata (Simola, 2014b).
2.3 Building a Welfare State—Moral Education Based on Civic Code with Nation-State Authority
The Second World War had a profound impact on Finnish society by bringing together a nation that had been divided in the Civil War of 1918. The left-wing politicians of the Social Democratic Movement gained power and, with the support of the parties in the political centre, started to build a welfare state with a ‘new’ elementary school (Launonen, 2000). Belief in education as a means of achieving social equality started to emerge as a form of educational consensus (Simola, 2014a). Problems within the parallel system referring to folk school and grammar school, the latter providing more educational opportunities, also
Belief in objective values was abandoned in favor of ethical constructivism after the Second World War in Finland. Moral values were now understood as social constructs and shared agreements. The moral code with divine authority was replaced by a civic code and societal authority (Launonen, 2000). Educational documents from the transitional period of 1944–1970 show that teaching morality was shifting from cultivating the virtues of individuals to teaching future citizens about social interaction, hard work, and frugality, whereas teaching morally identified teachers as models of progress, humanism, and democracy (see Launonen, 2000). Regardless of these changes, elementary-level teacher education and schooling continued to promote conservative and religious values, illustrating the co-existence of the old agrarian and the new industrial society (Simola, 2014a).
2.4 Building Equal Opportunities—Individualistic Code in Moral Education
From the 1970s onwards, Finnish society began to emphasize the provision of equal opportunities to all individuals—individuality, equality, and inclusivity becoming the prevailing values in education and education policy (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013, 2023; Tirri & Laine, 2017; Uljens & Rajakaltio, 2017). Nine-year comprehensive schooling for all children was established in 1970, with free education and materials, a warm meal (warm meals were already mandated by law in the 1940s) and attention to special needs. In 2020, the obligation to participate in education was extended to secondary education until the age of 18 (Finlex, 2020). Decision-making and responsibility for the basic education curriculum were decentralized by engaging the municipalities (from the 1980s onwards), schools (from the 1990s onwards), and parents and other stakeholders (from the 2010s onwards) (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013).
The professionalization of teaching was advanced via academization in the 1970s and the establishment of an ethical code in the 1990s. Academization was brought about by transferring elementary school teacher education to the universities in 1974. From 1975 onwards elementary school teachers graduated with a master’s degree, and from 2008 kindergarten teachers graduated with a bachelor’s degree from a university. Didactics and educational sciences became the main focus of teacher education (Simola, 2014a), and by the 2000s research-based teacher education and the development of pedagogical thinking were the prevailing approaches (Kansanen et al., 2000; Tirri, 2014). Finland was the first Nordic country to establish a teachers’ code of ethics in 1998 which was renewed in 2010 (Tirri& Kuusisto, 2022). The code defined the value basis
Given the educational and societal changes, the 1970s could be considered a turning point for moral education in Finland. The movement towards individualism (Launonen, 2000) meant that, for the first time in school pedagogy, individual rights and needs were given precedence over the interests of society (Simola et al., 2014). The aim of the ‘old’ elementary school system (1860–1940) in which individuals were modified to fit into society had gradually changed such that society was modified to serve individuals (Launonen, 2000). In other words, teachers were no longer expected to socialize pupils into adopting objective values ordained by God or society, but rather focused on helping individuals to realize their own potential and to change society to accept individual diversity. This is reminiscent of ethical constructivism, which is based on intersubjectivity and consensus, or even ethical subjectivism, according to which morality criteria are built on individual perceptions, emotions, and experiences (e.g., Han, 2015; Launonen, 2000). In terms of teaching morality this meant that teachers were guided to concentrate on ethical justification and to offer students various perspectives but not to assume any particular stance on ethical content (see Launonen, 2000). At the same time, empirical studies showed how Finnish teachers felt incompetent to resolve moral dilemmas in schools (e.g., Tirri, 1999). However, according to Campbell (2000, 2008), ethical subjectivism and moral relativism have no place in teacher ethics, and the code of ethics is one tool that teachers could use to reject the moral relativism that prevailed in societies and schools in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. These trends were also discernible in Finland from the 1970s onwards, when teacher-education programs lacked explicit reference to ethical education, and in the 1990s, when ethics was once again on the agenda in the guise of professional ethics (Launonen, 2000).
Since the 1970s, teaching morally has meant that teachers are expected to respect human rights in their instruction and to demonstrate the human value of every pupil, regardless of social class, ethnicity, religion, worldview or disability and giftedness profiles (Mäkinen, 2013; Tirri & Laine, 2017). Teachers are expected to differentiate and to offer flexible learning environments in which
The implementation of individualism, equality, and inclusiveness as the core values of Finnish education was challenged during the 2010s (Mäkinen, 2013; Rajakaltio & Mäkinen, 2014). It has become overwhelmingly difficult to offer individualized support because of the lack of necessary resources and inadequate training in inclusive education (see e.g., Mäkinen, 2013; Rissanen et al., 2016; Tirri & Laine, 2017). The increasing numbers of students with diverse learning disabilities and social-emotional challenges, as well as newcomers with inadequate language skills and traumatic past experiences profoundly changed the reality at school and in classrooms (e.g., Eisenschmidt et al., 2019). There was speculation that concerning accounts of teacher attrition and burnout related to the challenges of inclusive education have caused the number of applications for teacher-education programs to drop to a historically low level (e.g., Mankki, 2019, p. 14; Räihä & Mankki, 2019; Teacher Student Union of Finland, 2019). This is remarkable, given that Finland’s teaching profession has traditionally been among the most appreciated career paths for young and talented people, especially females, even in the 2010s (Tirri, 2014).
3 Implementation of Moral Education in 2020’s Finland
3.1 The Principle in Finland That Every Teacher Is a Moral Educator
Although teachers are no longer seen as ‘the nation’s guiding lights’ and not every teacher can be considered a moral expert (Tirri & Kuusisto, 2022) or moral exemplar (see Colby & Damon, 2010), every teacher in Finland is nevertheless a moral educator. In ECEC and preschools (0–6-year-olds) at elementary schools (grades 1–6, 7–12-year-old students) teachers teach all content or subjects of their group or class and they typically teach the same children for several years, up to six years. This enables ECEC teachers and class teachers to learn to know their students and provide them individualized and differentiated support, also in the domain of moral education, while in secondary education and higher education with a subject teacher system where teachers are academic experts in one or two subjects and possibly teach hundreds of students weekly. Therefore, in the subject teacher system, understanding and encompassing moral education as part of the teachers’ professional identity is not necessarily equally internalized as among ECEC and class teacher traditions (Kuusisto et al., 2012; Kuusisto et al., 2016; Rissanen et al., 2018).
In subject teacher systems there has been a long tradition of class tutors (also known as homeroom teachers or form tutors, see Smilie, 2024; Cara, 2022, respectively). The Finnish school legislation from 1872 already mentions class leaders guiding students according to their natural talents and general good manners as well as monitoring the progress of their studies (Koulujärjestys [School order], 1872). Today class tutors are responsible for creating an inclusive atmosphere in the class and also for intervening in cases of absenteeism, problem behavior, substance abuse, violence, and learning difficulties as well as fostering home-school collaboration (Kuusisto et al., 2025). Regardless of the ever-growing responsibilities and expectations regarding class tutors in secondary education (and in higher education), the challenge is that there is currently no national legislation, curricula, guidelines or teacher education for this role in Finland. Thus, practices of class tutoring vary greatly, especially in lower secondary schools among 13–15-year-olds, who are navigating the challenges of puberty and thus would deserve both a teacher and an adult who can view their students as individuals while also considering the dynamics of the entire class. Nevertheless, the Finnish legislation and curricula offer a clear basis for a moral ethos of schooling to support the students’ holistic growth.
3.2 Moral Values and Aims in Educational Legislation and Curricula
Finnish education aims to enhance a student’s holistic growth as a person and to ensure equal opportunities for education and active participation in society. ‘The best interest of the child’ is explicitly mentioned as the guiding principle in the legislation on ECEC, basic education, and general upper secondary education (Finlex, 1998, 2018a, b; see also Tirri & Husu, 2002). While the Finnish universities aim to educate students to serve homeland and humanity (Finlex, 2009), the legislation pertaining to vocational education in secondary education and universities of applied sciences in higher education mentions no explicit moral connotation However, a moral undertone can be identified: Vocational education aims to impart the necessary knowledge and skills in supporting students’ personality (Finlex, 2017) and the universities of applied sciences aim to support students’ development into good, balanced, and civilized human beings and members of society (Finlex, 2014).
In the curricula for Finnish ECEC (EDUFI, 2022), basic education (Curriculum, 2014), and general upper secondary education (EDUFI, 2019), mention is made of three types of objectives: General objectives that are
Transversal competences and the key competences of lifelong learning have characteristics in common since they both aim towards holistically competent individuals capable of taking care of themselves, who are multiliterate with thinking and learning skills, who have good social and self-expression skills, who can interact with people from different cultures, who are capable and responsible regarding digital technology and who are building ecologically sustainable future as active members of society. In addition, the ECEC curriculum places strong emphasis on diversity of cultures, language, religions, and worldviews (EDUFI, 2022; see also Kuusisto & Lamminmäki-Vartia, 2012). Basic education stresses learning entrepreneurship (Curriculum, 2014). General upper secondary education has a special focus on Bildung (in Finnish: sivistys) which refers in the curriculum to ethical thinking and motivation to find solutions to conflicts in a moral and compassionate manner, thereby manifesting the classical values of truth, goodness, beauty, justice, and peace (EDUFI, 2019). In higher education, there are no shared curricula. However, in 2020 the rectors of the Finnish universities (UNIFI, 2020) and of the universities of applied sciences (Arene, 2020) declared their commitment to the United Nation’s Agenda 2030, to make sustainability visible in all higher education. This means that moral education in relation to sustainability with its ecological, social, and economic aspects is/should be a transversal topic in higher education, too (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2020).
3.3 Ethics and School Subjects in Finland
The sections above show how moral education in Finland is/should be embedded in all teaching regardless of the subject matter or educational level. Besides this kind of implicit moral education, the Finnish education system also provides explicit ethics education. However, the arrangements for and development of ethics as an independent school subject have been a contested topic for the past hundred years, especially in basic education and general upper secondary education (Hämäläinen, 2024). In vocational education and higher education,
In basic education and general upper secondary education, four serious attempts have been made to establish a school subject called ethics (in Finnish siveysoppi in the 1920s and 1960s, and later etiikka) (Hämäläinen, 2024): The efforts started in the 1920s, when the first education reform was implemented in independent Finland and elementary education became mandatory for all children. The second time was when the nine-year comprehensive school system was constructed in the 1960s. The third was during the reform of general upper secondary education in the 1990s and the fourth when the allocation of lessons in basic education was discussed in the 2010s. Even though each time the education policy-makers decided not to proceed, some significant changes were made (Hämäläinen, 2024). In 1985, secular ethics (elämänkatsomustieto, ET) was established as an alternative subject to religious education (RE) for students with no religious affiliations (Salmenkivi et al., 2019; Åhs, 2020). In 1994, philosophy was introduced as a new compulsory subject in general upper secondary school and in 2015, an ethics course as part of philosophy became mandatory for every student in general upper secondary school (Hämäläinen, 2024). Since the latest reform, all Finnish students have for the first time shared the same ethics lessons and these lessons are detached from religious and worldview education, namely RE and ET.
In discussions on ethics education, the main issue has been whether and how ethics and morality are linked with/based on religions and worldviews, and whether or not ethics can be separated from them (Hämäläinen, 2024). Due to historical reasons, there has been a political will to tie together religious and ethical education. However, some scholars argue that ethics education in Evangelical-Lutheran RE does not differ from ethics education ET since the Lutheran faith includes a strong tradition of natural moral law (e.g., Kallioniemi, 2001, as cited in Hämäläinen, 2024). In both Evangelical-Lutheran RE and ET, the ethics education is linked firmly to the United Nations’ declarations on Human Rights and the Rights of the Child (Hämäläinen, 2024). Simultaneously, it should be noted that scholars of both RE and ET state that these subjects cannot not be reduced to ethics education only since they both have their individual substance and a solid scientific base (Hämäläinen, 2024).
Some scholars and schools have studied and called for an integrated subject, worldview education (WE) (Rautionmaa & Kallioniemi, 2017; Åhs, 2020), to replace the present system of ET and 14 different curricula for RE subjects
Ethics education in all RE s means that ethics is taught in the following contexts: own religion, world of religion, and the good life. The content of ET in elementary school (grades 1–6) includes: good life, diverse lifestyles, nature and sustainable future, and in lower secondary school (grades 7–9): worldviews and culture, basics of ethics, human rights and sustainable future (Curriculum, 2014). It can also be stated that ET is the school subject that explicitly addresses the general and moral aims of the curriculum (Hämäläinen, 2024). It can also be summarized that in basic education, the parallel system of RE s and ET, where students study ethics in worldview-based groups reflects ideals of individual ethics with an emphasis on moral education as good manners. Ethics in general upper secondary education, where students share the same mandatory ethics course as part of their studies in philosophy, constitutes a conceptual, theoretical, and formal kind of ethics education (Hämäläinen, 2024).
4 Topical Issues in Moral Education in Finland—Towards Cultivating Resilience and Hope for Learning and Sustainable Future
In 2025, on Holocaust Memorial Day, the world commemorated the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, and contemplates the continuation of the war in Ukraine, the tensions in the Middle East, political polarization in global societies, threats of climate change and the unknown possibilities of artificial intelligence. In the midst of these challenges, it is no wonder that young Finns’ faith in the future is at its lowest level for the past 30 years (Happonen & Kiilakoski, 2025). These all emphasize the need to cultivate hope, resilience and the moral skills of both students and teachers in Finnish schools, namely ethical sensitivity, ethical judgement, ethical motivation, and ethical actions (Narvaez & Endicott, 2009; Rest, 1983).
Ethical sensitivity is also needed in acknowledging students with learning challenges and/or giftedness as well as students on spectra of autism and neuropsychological diversity (see Kuusisto et al., 2021; Tirri & Kuusisto, 2013, 2023; Tirri & Laine, 2017). Giftedness in particular remains a rarely acknowledged topic in Finnish education (see Curriculum, 2014; EDUFI, 2019; Kuusisto et al., 2021).
Besides the above-mentioned issues related to social and cultural sustainability, environmental concerns have become a pressing matter in moral education. Finnish scholars call for ecological and eco-social awareness that should be understood as a fundamental prerequisite for human living (e.g., Salonen & Konkka, 2015; Värri, 2018). The anthropocentric approach is contested and seen as unsustainable for the planet and human beings themselves. Consumerism, flying, vegetarianism, and veganism and other lifestyle choices are vividly discussed topics in Finnish moral education. Activists are fighting against climate crises and young people want to receive more climate change education in schools (e.g., Reilly et al., 2024). Still, surprisingly few Finnish adolescents and higher education students mentioned ecological topics when responding to a survey by writing about their personal life purposes (Kuusisto et al., 2023, Kuusisto & Tirri, 2021; Viljanen & Kuusisto, 2021, 2024) or their professional purposes (Kuusisto & Rissanen, 2023).
In addition, artificial intelligence provides both opportunities and moral challenges in education. For example, schools and higher education institutions have encountered new forms of plagiarism which can compromise the development of students’ skills and competencies. One of the challenges in Finland is that there is no consensus on what plagiarism means (Moore, 2020). At the same time, new technologies such as virtual realities have been utilized successfully in international studies in developing the empathy skills of future teachers (e.g., Michalsky & Choen, 2024).
Malleability beliefs refer to Carol Dweck’s theory on implicit beliefs whether human qualities, groups, and even cultures are changeable or not. These beliefs have a profound influence on human learning, attitudes and behaviors (Dweck, 2006). Growth mindset means that different qualities are understood as malleable versus fixed mindset, which refers to unchangeability. Even though malleability beliefs are backed with findings from brain research on neuroplasticity, humans’ behavior can be guided by fixed views that hinder learning, especially when encountering challenges and mistakes. However, research shows that malleability beliefs enhance resilience (Yeager & Dweck, 2012) and growth mindset helps one to recover better from mistakes (Puusepp et al., 2021). In addition, there is evidence from Finland that growth mindset shapes intercultural competences (Häärä et al., 2023; Rissanen & Kuusisto, 2022; Rissanen et al., 2022) and is associated with climate action among young people (Rissanen et al., 2024).
In understanding purpose, we utilize William Damon et al.’s (2003) definition: Purpose is ‘a stable and generalized intention to accomplish something that is at once meaningful to the self and of consequence to the world beyond the self’ (p. 121). Damon’s work builds on Victor Frankl’s notions. Frankl was an Austrian psychiatrist who during the Second World War became a holocaust victim. By observing himself and his fellow prisoners he arrived at some profound conclusions: Human beings are always free to choose their attitude regardless of the circumstances. The purpose that reaches beyond oneself is what makes life meaningful and brings resilience and hope even into unbearable situations (Frankl, 2004). In other words, purpose can serve as a moral beacon (Moran, 2009) that imbues life with profound direction, reason and meaning. Moral purposes contribute not only to the wellbeing of oneself but also of other people, society or nature (e.g., Colby & Damon, 2010).
Finnish purpose studies indicate that young people in Finland can articulate their personally meaningful purposes. However, their purposes are typically described in a rather self-oriented manner, from the perspective of what one wishes (only) for themselves (Kuusisto et al., 2023a, b; Kuusisto & Tirri, 2021; Viljanen & Kuusisto, 2021, 2024). These results call for moral education
To conclude, by educating teachers and students about ethical sensitivities, malleability beliefs and the plasticity of the brain as well as cultivating their moral purposes suggests encouraging perspectives for moral education towards resilience and hope for learning and a sustainable future in Finland.
References
Åhs, V. (2020). Worldviews and integrative education: A Case study of partially integrative religious education and secular ethics education in a Finnish lower secondary school context. [Doctoral Thesis, University of Helsinki]. Helda. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/318126
Arene. (2020). Sustainable, responsible and carbon-neutral universities of applied sciences – Programme for the sustainable development and responsibility of universities of applied sciences [Conference session]. The rectors’ conference of Finnish universities of applied sciences, Arene. https://www.arene.fi/wp-content/uploads/Raportit/2020/Sustainable%2C%20responsible%20and%20carbon-neutral%20universities%20of%20applied%20sciences.pdf?_t=1606145574
Cara, N. (2022). What is the nature and value of the Form Tutor and Form Time in Secondary schools in England? What happens, how does it happen and why is it important? [Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London)]. UCL Discovery. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10152217/
Colby, A., & Damon, W. (2010). Some do care. Simon and Schuster.
Curriculum. (1970). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelmakomitean mietintö 1. Opetussuunitelman perusteet [Report of the curriculum committee for basic education 1. Core curriculum]. Committee report 1970: A4.
Curriculum. (1985). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet 1985 [Core curriculum for comprehensive school 1985]. Finnish National Board of Education.
Curriculum. (1994). Peruskoulun opetussuunnitelman perusteet 1994 [Core curriculum for basic education 1994]. Finnish National Board of Education.
Curriculum. (2004). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2004 [Core curriculum for basic education 2004]. Finnish National Board of Education.
Curriculum. (2014). Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014 [National curriculum for basic education 2014]. Finnish National Board of Education.
Curriculum preschool. (2014). Esiopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2014 [National curriculum for preschool 2014]. Finnish National Board of Education.
Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose. Free Press.
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Bronk, K. C. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_2
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
EDUFI. (2019). Lukion opetussuunnitelman perusteet 2019 [National core curriculum for general upper secondary education 2019]. Finnish National Agency for Education.
EDUFI. (2022). Varhaiskasvatussuunnitelman perusteet 2022. [National core curriculum for early childhood education and care 2022]. Finnish National Agency for Education.
Eisenschmidt, E., Kuusisto, E., Poom-Valickis, K., & Tirri, K. (2019). Virtues that create purpose for ethical leadership: Exemplary principals from Estonia and Finland. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 40, 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1618152
Fenstermacher, G. D., Osguthorpe, R. D., & Sanger, M. N. (2009). Teaching morally and teaching morality. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36, 7–19.
Finlex. (1998). Basic Education Law. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628
Finlex. (2003). Basic Education Law. 13§ 6.6.2003/454 Uskonnon ja elämänkatsomustiedon opetus [Teaching of religion and secular ethics]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980628
Finlex. (2009). University Law. 2§ Tehtävät [Objectives]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2009/20090558
Finlex. (2014). University of Applied Sciences Law. 4§ Tehtävät [Objectives]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2014/20140932
Finlex. (2018a). Early Childhood Education and Care Law. 4§ Lapsen edun ensisijaisuus [The best interest of the child]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2018/20180540
Finlex. (2018b). General Upper Secondary Education Law. 2§ Lukiokoulutuksen tarkoitus [Purpose of general upper secondary education]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2018/20180714
Finlex. (2020). Compulsory Education Law. https://finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2020/20201214
Frankl, V. E. (2004). Man’s search for meaning. Ebury Press. (Originally published in Germany in 1946)
Happonen, K., & Kiilakoski, T. (Eds.). (2025). Nuoruuden kolme vuosikymmentä. Nuorisobarometri 2024 [Three decades of young people. Youth barometer 2024]. Valtion nuorisoneuvosto & Nuorisotutkimusseura & Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriö [National Youth Council & Youth Research Association & Ministry of Education and Culture].
Häärä, M., Rissanen, I., & Kuusisto, E. (2023). Finnish Teacher-students’ Mindsets and Intercultural Competences. In V. Tavares & T.-A. Skrefsrud (Eds.), Critical and creative engagements with diversity in Nordic education (pp. 67–87). Lexington Books. https://rowman.com/WebDocs/OA_LEX_9781666925852_CriticalandCreativeEngagementswithDiversityinNordicEducation.pdf
Hämäläinen, E. (2024). Sata vuotta katsomuskamppailua: Yhteinen etiikan opetus suomalaisessa koulukeskustelussa [A century of cultural and political struggle – Ethics education in the Finnish school debate, Doctoral dissertation, Tampere University]. Niin & Näin. https://netn.fi/syn_publication/sata-vuotta-katsomuskamppailua/
Han, H. (2015). Purpose as a moral virtue for flourishing. Journal of Moral Education, 44(3), 291–309.
Husen, T. (2003). Comenius and Sweden, and Bengt Skytte’s Sophopolis. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(4), 387–398.
Kallioniemi, A. (2001). Uskonnon ja elämänkatsomustiedon sisältötiedon ja tieteenalastruktuurin vertailua peruskoulun vuoden 1994 opetussuunnitelman pohjalta [Comparison of the content and scientific structure of religion and secular ethics in the 1994 national curriculum for basic education]. In Didacta Varia (pp. 37–60). University of Helsinki.
Kansanen, P., Tirri, K., Meri, M., Klokfors, L., Husu, J., & Jyrhämä, R. (2000). Teachers’ pedagogical thinking. Theoretical landscapes, practical challenges. Peter Lang.
Kaukko, M. (2024). Kolme tapaa nähdä pakolaislapsi väärin [Three wrong ways to see a refugee child]. Kasvatus & Aika, 18(3), 123–127. https://doi.org/10.33350/ka.146526
Koulujärjestys [School order]. (1872). 91§. https://www.norssit.fi/sivut/1_8_armollinen_koulujarjestys.php
Kuusisto, A., & Lamminmäki-Vartia, S. (2012). Moral foundation of the kindergarten teacher’s educational approach: Self‐reflection facilitated educator response to pluralism in educational context. Education Research International, 2012(1), 303565. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/303565
Kuusisto, E., de Groot, I., de Ruyter, D., Schutte, I., & Rissanen, I. (2023a). Values manifested in life purposes of higher education students in the Netherlands and Finland. Journal of Beliefs and Values. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2023.2279866
Kuusisto, E., de Groot, I., de Ruyter, D., Schutte, I., Rissanen, I., & Suransky, C. (2023b). Life purposes: Comparing higher education students in four institutions in the Netherlands and Finland. Journal of Moral Education, 52(4), 489–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2022.2159347
Kuusisto, E., Gholami, K., & Tirri, K. (2016). Finnish and Iranian teachers’ views on their competence to teach purpose. Journal of Education for Teaching, 42(5), 541–555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2016.1226553
Kuusisto, E., Koskela, T., Viljanen, M., & Järvelä, V. (2025). Näkymätön näkyväksi - Yläkoulun opettajien tuentarve luokanohjaajan opiskeluhuoltotehtävissä [Making the invisible visible – Lower secondary school teachers’ needs as class tutors in student welfare support]. Kasvatus, 56(3).
Kuusisto, E., Laine, S., & Rissanen, I. (2021). Education of the gifted and talented in Finland. In E. Kuusisto, M. Ubani, P. Nokelainen, & A. Toom (Eds.), Good teachers for tomorrow’s schools – Purpose, values and talents in education (pp. 195–216). Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004465008_011
Kuusisto, E., & Rissanen, I. (2023). Kohti päämäärätietoista yhteiskunnallista opettajuutta? Opettajaopiskelijoiden tulevalle työlleen asettamat päämäärät [Towards a purposeful, societal teaching profession? Student teachers’ work-related purposes]. Kasvatus, 54(4), 385–398. https://doi.org/10.33348/kvt.138074
Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2021). The challenge of educating purposeful teachers in Finland. Education Sciences, 11(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11010029
Kuusisto, E., Tirri, K., & Rissanen, I. (2012). Finnish teachers’ ethical sensitivity. Education Research International, 2012, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/351879
Launonen, L. (2000). Eettinen kasvatusajattelu suomalaisen koulun pedagogisissa teksteissä 1860-luulta 1990-luvulle [Ethical thinking in Finnish school’s pedagogical texts from the 1860s to the 1990s, Doctoral dissertation, University of Jyväskylä]. JYX. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-5334-8
Leinonen, M. (1998). Johannes Gezelius vanhempi luonnonmukaisen pedagogiikan soveltajana. Comeniuslainen tulkinta [Johannes Gezelius the Elder as implementer of natural pedagogy. A Comenian interpretation. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Jyväskylä]. JYX. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-8026-9
Löfström, J. (2025). Moral education and citizenship education by bringing emotions and meaning-giving in the history curriculum: A Finnish view. In K. Tirri (Ed.), Nordic perspectives on moral and citizenship education (Chapter 3.2). De Gruyter Brill.
Löfström, J., & Ouakrim-Soivio, N. (2022). Politics and ethics of civic and citizenship education curricula in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. In R. Desjardins & S. Wiksten (Eds.), Handbook of civic engagement and education (pp. 182–190). Edward Elgar. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/book/9781800376953/book-part-9781800376953-25.xml
Mäkinen, M. (2013). Becoming engaged in inclusive practices: Narrative reflections on teaching as descriptors of teachers’ work engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 51–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.005
Mankki, V. (2019). Opettajankouluttajat portinvartijoina opettajankoulutuksen opiskelijavalinnassa [Teacher educators as gatekeepers in student selection of teacher education, Doctoral dissertation, Tampere University]. Trepo. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-03-1339-5
Michalsky, T., & Choen, L. (2024, October 12). Enhancing preservice teachers’ empathy skills through virtual reality (VR) [Conference presentation]. EARLISIG11&13 conference in Oxford, England.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2020). Policy on sustainable development in the administrative branch of the Ministry of Education and Culture. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-263-706-2
Moore, E. (2020). Inconsistent responses to notifications of suspected plagiarism in Finnish higher education. Journal of Academic Ethics, 18(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-019-09354-0
Moran, S. (2009). Purpose: Giftedness in intrapersonal intelligence. High Ability Studies, 20(2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130903358501
Narvaez, D., & Endicott, L. (2009). Nurturing character in the classroom, EthEx series, book 1: Ethical sensitivity. ACE Press.
Niemi, H., & Sinnemäki, K. (2019). The role of Lutheran values in the success of the Finnish educational system. In K. Sinnemäki, A. Portman, J. Tilli, & R. H. Nelson (Eds.), On the legacy of Lutheranism in Finland – Societal perspectives (pp. 113–154). Finnish Literature Society. https://helda.helsinki.fi//bitstream/handle/10138/312281/on_the_legacy_of_lutheranism_in_finland.pdf?sequence=1
Puusepp, I., Linnavalli, T., Huuskonen, M., Kukkonen, K., Huotilainen, M, Kujala, T., Laine, S., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2021). Mindsets and neural mechanisms of automatic reactions to negative feedback in mathematics in elementary school students. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635972
Ouakrim-Soivio, N., & Löfström, J. (2022). Aims, concepts, and assessment of the citizenship education curriculum in Northern Europe. In R. Desjardins & S. Wiksten (Eds.), Handbook of civic engagement and education (pp. 173–181). Edward Elgar. https://www.elgaronline.com/display/book/9781800376953/book-part-9781800376953-24.xml
Räihä, P., & Mankki, V. (2019, May 22). Uhkaako Suomen kouluja pian opettajapula? [Will Finnish schools be threatened by a shortage of teachers?]. Helsingin Sanomat, Mielipide. https://www.hs.fi/mielipide/art-2000006113286.html
Rajakaltio, H., & Mäkinen, M. (2014). The Finnish school in cross-pressures of change. European Journal of Curriculum Studies, 1, 133–140.
Rautionmaa, H., & Kallioniemi, A. (2017). Integrated religious education to promote dialogue in inter-worldview education: A Finnish approach. In D. Wielzen & I. Ter Avest (Eds.), Interfaith education for all (pp. 147–158). Brill.
Reilly, K., Dillon, B., Fahy, F., Phelan, D., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., De Vito, L., Gnecco, I., Gopinath, D., Holmes, A., Laggan, S., Mansikka-aho, A., Palla, A., Portus, R., Rissanen, I., Sposito, S., Williams, S.-J., & McEwen, L. (2024). Learning from young people’s experiences of climate change education. GEOGRAPHY, 109(1), 44–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2024.2297616
Rest, J. (1983). Morality. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology, fourth edition. Volume on cognitive development (J. Flavell & E. Markman, Vol. Eds., pp. 556–629). Wiley.
Rissanen, I., & Kuusisto, E. (2023). The role of growth mindset in shaping teachers’ intercultural competencies: A study among Finnish teachers. British Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3875
Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Aarnio-Linnanvuori, E., Portus, R., Williams, S.-J., Laggan, S., Reilly, K., & Vainikainen, M.-P. (2024). Exploring the association between growth mindsets and climate action with young people. Social Psychology of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09937-9
Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., Hanhimäki, E., & Tirri, K. (2018). The implications of teachers’ implicit theories for moral education: A case study from Finland. Journal of Moral Education, 47(1), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2017.1374244
Rissanen, I., Kuusisto, E., & Kuusisto, A. (2016). Developing teachers’ intercultural sensitivity: Case study on a pilot course in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 446–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.018
Rissanen, I., Laine, S., Puusepp, I., Kuusisto, E., & Tirri, K. (2021). Implementing and evaluating growth mindset pedagogy – A study of Finnish elementary school teachers. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 753698. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.753698
Salmenkivi, E., Kasa, T., Putkonen, N., & Kallioniemi, A. (2022). Human rights and children’s rights in worldview education in Finland. Human Rights Education Review, 5(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.4456
Salminen, L., Metsämäki, R., Numminen, O. H., & Leino-Kilpi, H. (2013). Nurse educators and professional ethics—Ethical principles and their implementation from nurse educators’ perspectives. Nurse education today, 33(2), 133–137.
Salonen, A. O., & Konkka, J. (2015). An ecosocial approach to well-being: A solution to the wicked problems in the era of Anthropocene. Foro de Educación, 13(19), 19–34.
Simola, H. (2014a). Educational science, the state and teachers – Setting up the corporate regulation of teacher education in Finland. In H. Simola, The Finnish education mystery – Historical and sociological essays on schooling in Finland (pp. 69–94). Routledge.
Simola, H. (2014b). The Finnish miracle of PISA – Historical and sociological remarks on teaching and teacher education In H. Simola, The Finnish education mystery – Historical and sociological essays on schooling in Finland (pp. 207–223). Routledge.
Simola, H., Heikkinen, S., & Silvonen, J. (2014). The birth of the modern Finnish teacher – A Foucauldian exercise. In H. Simola, The Finnish education mystery – Historical and sociological essays on schooling in Finland (pp. 95–114). Routledge.
Simola, H., Kivinen, O., & Rinne, R. (1997). Didactic closure: Professionalization and pedagogic knowledge in Finnish teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(8), 877–891.
Smilie, K. D. (2024). Guiding teachers guiding students: The birth of homeroom and historical questions of teacher autonomy. Paedagogica Historica. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2024.2312283
Teacher Student Union of Finland. (2019, April 30). Opettajien vaikeutuneet työolot heikentävät alan suosiota [Hardened working conditions reduce popularity of the teaching profession]. https://www.sool.fi/vaikuttaminen/kannanotot/opettajien-vaikeutuneet-tyoolot-heikentavat-alan-suosiota/
Tirri, K. (2014). The last 40 years in Finnish teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.956545
Tirri, K. (1999). Teachers’ perceptions of moral dilemmas at school. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 31–47.
Tirri, K., & Husu, J. (2002). Care and responsibility in ‘the best interest of the child’: Relational voices of ethical dilemmas in teaching. Teachers and Teaching, 8(1), 65–80.
Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2013). How Finland serves gifted and talented pupils. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212468066
Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2022). Teachers’ professional ethics: Theoretical frameworks and empirical research from Finland. Brill. https://brill.edhh.ma/display/title/63853
Tirri, K., & Kuusisto, E. (2023). Inclusive education from the perspective of teachers’ professional ethics – the case of Finnish teachers. In L. Gearon, A. Kuusisto, S. Poulter, A. Toom & M. Ubani (Eds.), Religion and Worldviews in Education: The New Watershed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003265696-16
Tirri, K., & Laine, S. (2017). Teacher education in inclusive education. In D. J. Clandinin, & J. Husu (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of research on teacher education (Vol. 2, pp. 761–776). Los Angeles: SAGE Reference. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402042.n44
Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2011). Measuring multiple intelligences and moral sensitivities in education. Sense Publishers.
Trade Union of Education in Finland. (2010). Ethical principles of teaching. https://www.oaj.fi/en/education/ethical-principles-of-teaching/teachers-values-and-ethical-principles/
Trade Union of Education in Finland. (2017). Comenius Oath. https://www.oaj.fi/en/education/ethical-principles-of-teaching/comenius-oath-for-teachers/
Värri, V.-M. (2018). Kasvatus ekokriisin aikakaudella [Education at a time of eco-crisis]. Vastapaino.
Uljens, M., & Nyman, C. (2013). Educational leadership in Finland or building a nation with Bildung. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influence on values and practices in Nordic Educational Leadership: Is there a Nordic Model? (pp. 31–48), Studies in Educational Leadership 19. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6226-8_3
UNIFI. (2020). Theses on sustainable development and responsibility. https://www.unifi.fi/viestit/theses-on-sustainable-development-and-responsibility/
Viljanen, M., & Kuusisto, E. (2021). ‘Haluan olla onnellinen ja kokea paljon ja elää täysillä’ – Peruskoulunsa päättävien nuorten elämänpäämäärät [‘I want to be happy and experience a lot and live and live life to the full’ – Life purposes of young people at the end of basic education]. Kasvatus ja Aika, 15(3–4), 282–299. https://doi.org/10.33350/ka.110613
Viljanen, M., & Kuusisto, E. (2024). Life purposes of Finnish adolescents. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2024.2394394
Viljanen, M., Kuusisto, E., & Rissanen, I. (2025). Elämänpäämäärät jäsentyvät tekemällä, pohdiskelemalla ja odottelemalla - haastattelututkimus pirkanmaalaisista nuorista [Purpose in life is structured by doing, reflecting or waiting - Interview study with young people in Pirkanmaa, Finland]. Nuorisotutkimus, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.57049/nuorisotutkimus.9160905