This paper analyses how the development work of the new national curriculum in Finland (OPS-LP 2016) was led (2012-2016) at the National Board of Education with respect to transational developments, national political decision making and expert/pressure groups concerning aims, contents and methods of the curriculum as well as how this extensive and complex work was organized. Theoretical framework The position draws on non-affirmative theory of education (Benner, 1991; Uljens, & Ylimaki, 2015) and discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2008). Educational leadership is considered a non-affirmative activity where the National Board of Education (NBE) mediates and positions itself concerning a) aims, b) contents and b) methods between transnational policies, national political decision making and policy work, various pressure and expert groups as well as school practice. Methods Educational leadership is analyzed in terms of three relations. First, we focus on how National Board of Education (NBE) was involved in the preparation of the decrees to be decided by the parliament. We looked at the dynamics involving the Ministry of Education and how the Governmental Decrees reconceptualized the aims of education. Second, on the basis of interviews with three key actors within the Steering Committee of Curriculum Development (SCCD) at NBE, we analyze how the work related to transnational policies and cooperated with authorities in other countries. Third, we focus on how NBE designed, organized and lead the curriculum work with respect to expert groups, local education authorities and crowd sourcing with the public. Results In terms of discursive institutionalism the policy culture in Finland framing the curriculum leadership is coordinative and dialogical, i.e. typical of political consensus with broad governments, providing more autonomy for the educational administration. We assume this is crucial for a non-affirmative leadership policy to be put in practice. The political culture in Finland includes that the NBE itself is trusted to make autonomous decisions on the part of political steering while the municipalities (districts) have the right and obligation by law to lead, evaluate and develop basic education. Concerning the curriculum itself we identify changes concerning a) aims, b) contents and b) methods. The aims in OPS 2016 reflect an expansion towards a competence oriented curriculum. Learning the subject matter is more clearly seen as a vehicle for Bildung purposes. A collaborative and school development oriented culture is promoted.

Benner, D. (1991). Allgemeine Pädagogik: eine systematisch-problemgeschichtliche Einführung in die Grundstruktur pädagogischen Denkens und Handelns. Weinheim: Juventa. Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive Institutionalism: The Explanatory Power of Ideas and Discourse. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 303–26. Uljens, M. & Ylimaki, R. (2015). Towards a discursive and non-affirmative framework for curriculum studies, Didaktik and educational leadership. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy 1(3). http://nordstep.net/index.php/nstep/article/view/30177