At the turn of the century profound critics were raised against teacher education in Norway. Implementation of The Bologna Process was in progress, and parallel with this, the results of international evaluations of student learning outcome in compulsory education showed that Norwegian students scored low on most subjects compared with students from other European countries. This study´s hypothesis is that the pedagogical studies in teacher education must take some of the blame. Documentary studies showed that pedagogy in Norway and Scandinavia had developed from being an important knowledge base, providing tools for practicing as a teacher, to being a subject concerned with reflections on ideology. This led to less weight on didactics and effective teaching and learning strategies, witch again had impact on student results in compulsory school. A hypothesis was that teaching and learning practice in comprehensive school was grounded on ideological perspectives rather than science of teaching and learning, and by this restraining teaching and learning practices that promote student learning. Rather than focusing on individual student learning outcome, the focus was on ideological perspectives to be fulfilled. The pedagogical and political ideology with its practices thereby prevented the right to equal opportunities to education for all, due to that equal legal opportunities were not followed by equal opportunities to succeed in the learning process. In 2006 a new curriculum plan for compulsory school, The National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion was introduced with proclamation of more weight on actual knowledge in school. The curriculum was goal- and result-orientated, which was a new approach in contrast to an ideological and political approach.  This study focuses on the teachers and their leaders attitudes towards changes in curriculum and thereby changes in their priorities, practices and focus in their work. Have the teachers rearranged their teaching and put more weight on knowledge? Do the teachers to a higher degree encourage and motivate the individual student towards success through their feedback and assessment? How do the teachers rate social and personal development compared to intellectual learning and competence? Are the teachers to a higher degree focusing on results and teacher efficiency? The changes found in the study are examples of a more practical approach on improving efficiency and students learning outcome in schools, in contrast to making changes through changing ideology, learning theories or make more profound changes in the system.  The didactics is thus made the priority in teaching to secure equal opportunities, not only to learn, but also to succeed in the learning process. This also means that changes in teaching practices, the practical way to make changes in schools that secure students learning more, is also a way of internationalizing the school. In this area we start out free from ideological boundaries. That we are all members of the same species, and thereby in whole learn much the same way, add another argument for letting ideology go and focus on students learning.

Cochran-Smith, M., Feiman-Nemser, S., McIntyre, D., & Demers, K. E. (2008). Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, Third Edition. New York: Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (. (2005). Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. What Teachers should Learn and Be Able to Do. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Schulman, L. (2005). The Design of Teacher Education Programs. In L. Darling-Hammond, & J. Bransford, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/. (n.d.). Retrieved from Education. Jakku-Sihvonen, R., & Niemi, H. (2006). Research-based Teacher Education in Finland - Reflections by Finnish Teacher Educators. Finnish Educational Research Association. LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., & Akar, H. (2005). Classroom Management. In L. Darling-Hammond, Preparing Teachers for a Changing World. What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do (pp. 327-357). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Report to the Storting no.11. (2008-2009). The Teacher - the Role and the Education. Kunnskapsdepartementet. Skovgaard-Petersen, V. (2005). Meningen med en læreruddannelse - en afsluttende refleksion. In K. B. Braad, C. Larsen, I. Markussen, E. Nørr, & V. Skovgaard-Petersen, - for at blive en god lærer. Seminarier i to århundreder (pp. 397-410). Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag. Spitzer, M. (2006, Vol.2006,no. 3). Schooling for Tomorrow Personalising Education. SourceOECD, Education & Skills, pp. 53-70. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment Crisis: The Absence of Assessment for Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 758-765. UNESCO. (2012). A Place to Learn: Lessons from Researc on Learning Environments. Technical Paper no.9. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2006). The National Curriculum for Knowledge Promotion in Primary and Secondary Education and Training. Kunnskapsdepartementet. Vinje, M. (2011b). Fra profesjon til utdanning. En lærerutdanning designet av lærerne selv. Avdeling for lærerutdanning og internasjonale studier. Oslo: HiO-rapport 2011 nr 14 Høgskolen i Oslo.