What is the approach to knowledge in education? When education takes place, in teaching and learning processes, a type of knowledge is pursued. For the purpose of this paper we differentiate between two general domains of knowledge, practical knowledge assessed in terms of quality (knowing how) and universal knowledge assessed in terms of truth (knowing that). This paper argues that today, in education, there is a drive towards universal knowledge defined by truth claims. A background for this is the idea of making education evidence based. The evidence for best quality is provided by science and research. One of the scientific methods applied in order to produce this evidence is driven by psychometrics and testing theory used worldwide, known as Item Response Theory (IRT). Through testing, science produces evidence which creates an image of knowledge that pretends it knows how to do education. Over time, a hierarchy of knowledge that privileges theoretical abstract knowledge which is testable and downgrades practical, hands-on (concrete and context bound) knowledge, has developed within education. This has influence on what type of knowledge is pursued in teaching and learning processes.  

Education internationally has been affected by a type of high stakes testing (PISA; TIMMS; PIRLS) which seek to differentiate and say something about the quality of education in the participating countries. At the same time organizations like the EU and OECD see education as an instrument to promote competition in the market and enhance economic prosperity.  This has been discussed and problematized within education research over the past decade’s, and at ECER 2015 and 2016 ².

In this paper we take departure from a Norwegian context and national testing regime in order to discuss knowledge in education, but understand what is happening to the framing of knowledge in education as a global process. With some examples from the test itself and also the methodological framework¹ for the national tests based on IRT, we show what kind of knowledge this testing demands.  One of the more disturbing facts about how knowledge is assessed in these tests are linked to the need for ‘accurate measurement of skills’ (in this context this implies the skill to read and understand an abstract theoretical language), so that the ‘same number represents the same skill’ (p 3), and one thereby can achieve a higher precision in what is assessed, and then be able to make accurate comparisons over years (p.4).

Assessing quality, when that is the objective, always requires a reference to time and place. A good and functional housing is not the same in southern Italy and northern Norway. Assessing quality and craftsmanship has to take context (place) and the developments within the craft (time) into account. Developing and knowing what is a good (enough) quality in work and lived life requires experiencing, actual engagement and involvement of teachers and students. Furthermore, the assessment of quality has to be made in the process and as products are made.

From this discussion about what knowledge is privileged in education we draw some conclusions about what are our future common challenges. First of foremost, an education for all asking everyone to be able to read the abstract theoretical languages of the different school subjects (disciplines) will fail (which can be seen in the relatively high dropout rates from school – especially in the periphery where we have worked, in the Artic). Furthermore, an education which privileges theoretical knowledge over practical knowledge will gradually loose connections with the types of practical knowledge and competences necessary to uphold the daily lives in our societies (Sennett, 2008).

Then education not only produces a huge amount of young people with low self-esteem, but also loses its position as an institution safeguarding a right to knowledge for everyone. This has grave consequences for societies today and in the future. When practical knowledge is downgraded, or not addressed at all, this has consequences for individuals and societies. References: (1) https://www.udir.no/globalassets/filer/vurdering/nasjonaleprover/metodegrunnlag-for-nasjonale-prover.pdf [The methodological framework for national tests – Norway] (2) Symposiums between network 13. Philosophy of Education and network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement were held both in 2015 and 2016. Articles from the first symposium resulted in a special issue of Ethics and Education, 2016, vol.10, nr. 3. Ricoeur, P. (2005). The Course of Recognition. Cambridge Ma. and London: Harvard University Press. Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven and London: Yale University Press