This report presents the results of the municipal survey on Cultural Education Plans (CEPs) conducted by the Association of Children’s Culture in Finland (ACCF). The survey examined the coordination, resourcing and content of existing plans, as well as municipalities’ potential needs for support. It also explored reasons why some municipalities do not yet have a Cultural Education Plan or have faced challenges in implementing one. The survey represents the fifth annual data collection in this series.
The municipal survey was conducted between 9 February and 4 March 2026. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to all municipalities in Finland in both national languages. During the response period, the online survey organised by ACCF received 185 responses.
As in previous years, the results indicate that Cultural Education Plans have become an established element of cooperation between education and cultural services in Finnish municipalities.
The 185 responses represented a total of 165 different municipalities. Of these, 135 municipalities reported that they have a Cultural Education Plan. Twenty-six municipalities reported that they do not have a plan, while four respondents indicated that they were unsure.
How Up-to-Date the Plans Are and Responsibility for Coordination
Of the 185 respondents to the survey, 82% reported that their municipality has a Cultural Education Plan (representing 135 different municipalities). The following analysis focuses on responses from municipalities where such a plan has been established.
Based on the survey results, Cultural Education Plans are not static documents in municipalities but are actively developed and revised. A majority of respondents (56%) assessed their municipality’s plan as being up to date. In addition, 32 respondents reported that the plan is currently being updated or prepared. This indicates that in many municipalities Cultural Education Plans are reviewed regularly and updated to respond to changing operating environments, curricula and cooperation structures. The need for updates may relate, for example, to expanding activities, strengthening cooperation between sectors or clarifying coordination structures. Only 4.5% of respondents assessed that their municipality’s plan is not up to date and would require development measures.
The survey also examined responsibility for coordination by asking who or which body is responsible for coordinating the Cultural Education Plan in the municipality. A total of 128 responses were received to this question. The responses indicate that coordination models vary between municipalities. In some municipalities (18 responses), coordination has been assigned to a single person, such as a cultural producer, cultural coordinator or teacher. In many municipalities (52 responses), coordination responsibility has been clearly allocated to a specific administrative sector, most commonly cultural services or the education department.
In most municipalities, the coordination of Cultural Education Plans is cross-sectoral and based on cooperation between cultural services, education and early childhood education. In nearly half of the responses (58), coordination was described as cross-administrative collaboration involving cultural services, education, early childhood education and often also libraries or leisure services.
Individual responses also suggested that the level of responsibility for coordinating the plan is sometimes unclear. In most municipalities, coordination responsibility has at least formally been assigned, but in practice coordination may remain fragmented, project-based and dependent on the initiative of individual staff members.
Resourcing of Cultural Education Plans
For the second consecutive year, the survey examined the resources allocated to implementing Cultural Education Plans. A total of 135 responses were received to the question: “Has an annual appropriation been allocated in the municipal budget for the implementation of the Cultural Education Plan?” The following analysis concerns municipalities where a Cultural Education Plan is in use, representing 82% of all respondents.
According to the responses, the funding of Cultural Education Plans most commonly relies on existing sectoral budgets within municipalities. The most typical model is that costs are covered from the budgets of several administrative sectors, reported by 31% of respondents. In addition, 20% of municipalities indicated that funding is included within the budget of a single administrative sector, most often cultural services or education services. This suggests that the implementation of Cultural Education Plans is widely understood as a shared responsibility across several municipal service areas.
A separate budget allocation specifically earmarked for the implementation of a Cultural Education Plan is clearly less common. Approximately 13% of respondents reported that the plan has its own dedicated budget line. By contrast, 17% reported that activities are implemented without a separately allocated budget as part of regular services. This indicates that in many municipalities the Cultural Education Plan is closely integrated with existing services such as schools, libraries and cultural institutions.
Some municipalities also make use of external funding. Around 11% of respondents reported that activities rely primarily on project-based or grant funding, while approximately 7% indicated that funding is based on multi-year development funding.
Overall, the responses suggest that Cultural Education Plans are rarely treated as a separate budget item in municipal finances. Instead, their implementation is largely built on existing services and resources. This also reflects the cross-sectoral nature of the plans: implementation is typically connected simultaneously to cultural services, education, early childhood education and often also library services.
The survey also received 124 open-ended responses concerning the annual appropriations allocated to the implementation of Cultural Education Plans. These responses show that the scale of funding varies considerably between municipalities, and direct comparison of individual euro amounts does not provide a particularly accurate picture of the overall resourcing of activities.
Nevertheless, the open responses provide a relatively consistent picture of how the funds are used. The most frequently mentioned costs include transportation for pupil groups to cultural venues and the purchase of arts and cultural content such as performances, workshops, artist visits and museum visits. In many municipalities, appropriations are also used to cover costs related to coordination and production, including planning, communication and the organisation of cooperation. The responses also highlight collaboration with local cultural institutions, arts education providers and children’s culture centres.
Taken together, the responses suggest that the implementation of Cultural Education Plans in municipalities is built on a combination of different types of resources. Budget allocations typically cover only part of the activities, while a significant share of implementation relies on existing cultural and education services and their staff resources. This underlines the character of Cultural Education Plans as a collaborative model that builds on existing service structures and cross-sector cooperation.
Coverage of Cultural Education Plans
According to the survey, Cultural Education Plans are most commonly implemented in basic education. The figures refer to municipalities where a Cultural Education Plan is in use (n = 135). All responding municipalities reported that the plan applies to basic education. In 88% of the municipalities, the plan also covers early childhood education, and in 91% it extends to pre-primary education. This indicates that municipalities aim to integrate cultural education into children’s learning pathways already before the start of compulsory schooling.
At the upper secondary level, Cultural Education Plans are considerably less common. Only 37% of respondents reported that the plan covers general upper secondary education, and just 5% indicated that it includes vocational education and training.
The survey results suggest that Cultural Education Plans reach a significant number of children and young people in municipalities each year. In the municipalities that responded to the survey, the plans reach an estimated total of approximately 231,000 children and young people annually. As the survey covers roughly half of Finland’s municipalities, the results suggest that Cultural Education Plans reach approximately 400,000–450,000 children and young people nationwide each year.
However, the number of participants varies greatly between municipalities. In a typical municipality, a Cultural Education Plan reaches around 700 children and young people annually, whereas in larger cities the number of participants may rise to several thousand. These differences are explained primarily by municipal population size and by the levels of education included in the plan. In municipalities where the plan covers early childhood education and the full span of basic education, the number of participants is naturally higher than in municipalities where the plan applies only to certain grades.
Overall, the results indicate that Cultural Education Plans form an important structural framework for children’s and young people’s cultural participation in Finland. In many municipalities, activities are organised so that each age group participates annually in at least one cultural experience or activity included in the Cultural Education Plan.
Contents of Cultural Education Plans
The survey also examined the contents of Cultural Education Plans by art forms, types of cultural venues visited and types of activities included. Respondents were able to describe the contents both by selecting predefined options and by providing open-ended responses.
Music emerged as the most common art form included in Cultural Education Plans, while libraries and museums were the most common types of cultural venues visited. Each of these appeared in 94% of the municipalities. Visual arts (86%) and drama (82%) were also very common components of the plans. Less common were spatial and environmental art (38%) and especially circus, which was included in 33% of municipal Cultural Education Plans.
Among the different types of activities, visits to cultural venues were by far the most common element, appearing in 97% of the plans. Performances were also very common (90%), as were heritage and local culture education (85%) and workshops (84%). Online or digitally mediated content played a clearly smaller role, appearing in only 32% of the plans. Overall, the results indicate that Cultural Education Plans rely primarily on in-person experiences, cultural visits and live performances.
There are nevertheless clear differences between municipalities in the diversity of the contents included in the plans. From the list of 18 predefined options, municipalities selected an average of 12.8 items. In a typical municipality, the plan therefore includes a relatively broad range of content. However, variation between municipalities is considerable. In the most limited cases, a plan included only four types of content, while in the most comprehensive cases all 18 options were included.
A total of 68% of municipalities with a Cultural Education Plan reported that the Taidetestaajat (Art Testers) cultural education programme is included as part of their plan. The programme provides an additional resource for municipalities, as the coordination and implementation of the programme for eighth-grade pupils are organised nationally and therefore do not require direct financial resources from the municipality.
Based on the responses, the diversity of the plans does not appear to depend primarily on municipal population size. While plans in the largest municipalities are somewhat more diverse than those in the smallest ones, the difference is not dramatic. In municipalities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, plans include on average 14.1 types of content, while in municipalities with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants the average is 13.1. Small municipalities therefore do not appear to have automatically narrower plans in terms of content. Differences are more visible in the types of content included. Less common art forms, such as circus, are significantly more common in large cities, where 67% of municipalities with more than 100,000 inhabitants include circus, compared with 38% of municipalities with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants. In smaller municipalities, by contrast, libraries, museums, local cultural heritage and visits to cultural venues play a particularly prominent role.
The diversity of the contents is also clearly linked to the extent of the educational pathway covered by the plan. In municipalities where the plan covers only basic education, the average number of content types is 11. When the plan extends from early childhood education to basic education, the average increases to 12.5. The most diverse plans are found in municipalities where the plan covers early childhood education, basic education and upper secondary education; in these municipalities the average number of content types rises to 14.1. This suggests that the broader the educational pathway covered by the plan, the wider the range of cultural contents and art forms included.
The diversity of the contents is also connected to how respondents evaluate the benefits of the plans. In municipalities where respondents assessed that the plan had improved the quality of cultural education, the average number of content types is 13.4, compared with 11.8 in other municipalities. Similarly, in municipalities where the plan was seen to have made cultural education more systematic and continuous, the average number of content types is 13.2, compared with 11.4 elsewhere. This suggests that content-rich plans are also associated with more positive assessments of their overall benefits.
There are some differences between regions, although the responses do not support the assumption that plans in more remote areas would be less diverse. When examining regions represented in the dataset by at least five municipalities, the most diverse plans are found in South Ostrobothnia (an average of 14.2 types of content per municipality), North Ostrobothnia (14.1) and Uusimaa (13.5). In this dataset, the most limited plans in terms of content are found in Päijät-Häme (10.8), North Savo (10.9) and Ostrobothnia (11). Overall, the results suggest that the diversity of Cultural Education Plans is not explained solely by geographical location. It is likely also influenced by local cooperation structures, the organisation of cultural services and the extent of the educational pathway covered by the plan.
The Binding Status of Cultural Education Plans
For the second consecutive year, respondents to the municipal survey were asked about the binding status of Cultural Education Plans within their municipalities. Among the predefined response options, 45% of respondents indicated that the plan is a binding part of the local curriculum, while 29% responded that it is not binding. A further 17% reported that they were unsure, and just under 10% selected “other” and provided an open response. The open responses, together with additional comments from those who answered “yes,” show that the binding status of Cultural Education Plans is understood in several different ways in municipalities, although some clear patterns can be identified.
Most commonly, the binding nature of the plan is linked to its inclusion in the local curriculum, either as a section within the curriculum or as an appendix. In these cases, the binding character of the plan derives from the guiding role of the curriculum itself: when the Cultural Education Plan is incorporated into the curriculum, its contents are intended to be implemented in school activities.
Some municipalities describe the plan less as a formally binding document and more as a tool that complements or guides teaching. In these cases, the extent of implementation may vary depending on available resources or the level of interest within individual schools or units. Several responses also note that the binding nature of the plan is clearest in basic education, whereas participation in early childhood education may be more flexible. Overall, the responses suggest that the binding status of Cultural Education Plans in municipalities is shaped both by their connection to the local curriculum and by the ways in which they are implemented in everyday school practice.
Benefits and Challenges of the Plans
Based on the survey results, Cultural Education Plans are generally perceived in municipalities as useful and effective tools for organizing arts and cultural education. The most commonly reported benefit relates to increased planning and continuity. A total of 76% of municipalities assessed that the Cultural Education Plan has made cultural education in the municipality more systematic and continuous than before. As one respondent noted, “Cultural education has become a visible and recognized part of the municipality’s education and cultural services.”
The second most frequently reported benefit concerns the strengthening of quality. Sixty percent of municipalities assessed that the Cultural Education Plan has improved the quality of cultural education. In addition, 40% of municipalities reported that the plan has increased the appreciation of culture within the municipal organisation. Less frequently mentioned but still notable benefits include clearer evaluation of the impact of cultural education (26%) and improved clarity in the leadership of cultural services (18%). Taken together, the results suggest that Cultural Education Plans have strengthened the role of cultural education in municipalities, particularly in terms of organisational structures and quality.
At the same time, the survey also explored challenges related to the implementation of the plans. The most frequently mentioned challenge concerns the sufficiency of resources, which was highlighted by 64% of municipalities. A total of 27% of municipalities assessed that awareness of the Cultural Education Plan within the municipal organisation is insufficient. Nearly as often, respondents mentioned variation in participation between schools or classes (26%), as well as practical implementation challenges such as scheduling activities (25%) and ensuring effective communication between different actors (25%). Challenges related to the perceived value of cultural education or to teachers’ attitudes were mentioned least frequently. Only around 7% of municipalities identified these as challenges.
Overall, the responses indicate that Cultural Education Plans have become a widely accepted and valued operating model in municipalities. Their successful implementation, however, requires continuous coordination, sufficient resources and effective cooperation between different administrative sectors. The challenges identified in the survey therefore relate less to the principle of cultural education itself and more to the practical conditions needed to carry out the activities.
Municipal Support Needs
The survey also asked municipalities what kind of support they would like to receive from the Association of Children’s Culture in Finland (ACCF) and its member organisations in relation to Cultural Education Plans.
“Opportunities to share experiences with other municipalities and hear how similar issues have been solved elsewhere.”
“It is also important to make cultural education visible and advocate for it at the national level.”
“We hope the Association will advocate for the inclusion of Cultural Education Plans in the national core curriculum and highlight the importance of funding allocated to cultural education.”
The open responses suggest that municipalities primarily see ACCF as a builder of networks, a mediator of information and a national developer of cultural education. The most frequently requested forms of support relate to practical tools, peer exchange and training. In addition, many respondents emphasize the role of the Association in strengthening the visibility and appreciation of cultural education.
Municipalities Without a Cultural Education Plan
A total of 26 municipalities that responded to the national survey reported that they do not currently have a Cultural Education Plan. The responses indicate that the most common reason for the absence of a plan is limited resources, combined with the fact that the preparation of a plan has not yet been initiated. Municipalities with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants were the most likely to report not having a plan; 68% of municipalities without a plan fall into this size category.
In many of these municipalities, cultural education nevertheless takes place in the form of visits, workshops and collaborative projects, even though these activities have not been consolidated into a single plan. Some responses also highlight a characteristic approach in smaller municipalities, where cooperation between cultural actors and schools is often informal and a separate plan has therefore not been considered necessary. At the same time, a large share of municipalities without a plan (74%) reported that the preparation of a Cultural Education Plan is currently being planned or is already underway. This suggests that Cultural Education Plans are widely recognised even in municipalities where they have not yet been formally adopted.
Background of Respondents
The professional titles of respondents varied considerably. Around one hundred different job titles appeared in the responses, reflecting the fact that responsibility for Cultural Education Plans is situated within a wide range of administrative structures in municipalities, including education services, cultural services, libraries, wellbeing services and schools. Approximately 30% of respondents represent the highest level of municipal sector leadership, such as directors of education or culture. Around 20% represent middle management positions, for example heads of education or leisure services. School leadership accounts for about 15% of respondents, and a similar share consists of coordinators and other specialist-level professionals. The remaining respondents, around 20%, are teachers or cultural producers. A majority of respondents (51%) represent the cultural sector, while 37% represent education services.
The respondents represent 165 different municipalities, corresponding to 54% of all municipalities in Finland. In total, twenty municipalities submitted more than one response. Responses were received from all 19 regions of Finland. Of all respondents, 59% represent municipalities with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants, while 13% represent municipalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants. The survey reached Finland’s largest cities particularly well: most of the municipalities with the largest populations responded, including all six of the country’s largest cities—Helsinki, Espoo, Tampere, Vantaa, Turku and Oulu. Only a few medium-sized cities were not represented among the respondents.
