More and more Norwegian stakeholders conceptualize the society as an increasingly knowledge-dependent economy. Therefore, schools and higher education (t.ed.) take a more central role in society’s institutional fabric. The efficiency and effectiveness of a nation’s education institutions are judged as guarantee for future well-being (and competiveness). This rather new point of view was driven forward through the application of ‘new managerialist’ practices (Ball 1998). Nevertheless, the implementation of these new techniques of New Public Management had to break with traditional policy making in education in Norway. For this, a broad public reform discourse was started. Mainly two reasons for reforming schools and teacher education have been mentioned (Werler 2011a). For the first, schools and teacher education have failed. They are neither efficient nor effective, and the entire education system is characterized as dysfunctional. A second line of argument focuses on reform initiatives as response to a perceived erosion of economic competitiveness (lack of qualified workers, lack of skills). These arguments build widely on the amalgamation of politically steered interpretation of results from evaluation research (PISA, NOKUT 2006) and educational governance interests. Put it simply, a however observed and public communicated crisis gets the starting point for reform efforts. The same is true when one looks closely at the latest curriculum reform efforts in Norway.

The research project will test the hypothesis that curriculum reform is just a measure to introduce a new mode of educational governance in Norway in order to create a tight coupling between teacher education and school. Stakeholders had to focus on both schools and teacher educations curriculum (knowledge promotion 2006, teacher education reform 2010) in order to be powerful enough to change the entire landscape of education. It was necessary to transform the loose coupling between the curriculum of the school and the curriculum of teacher education into a tight coupling. This happens by evaluation (with the purpose to establish a crisis) and by creating a school curriculum focusing on measurable outcomes and a curriculum for teacher education focusing on the teacher’s capacity and ability to “produce” demanded outcome. 

Ball, S.J. (1998). Big Policies/Small World: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education 34, 2, pp. 119-130 DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. (1991). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality. In: Powell, W.W/DiMaggio, P.J. (eds.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago, University Chicago Press, pp. 63-82. Werler, Tobias (2011): Profesjonens kjerne? PEL faget og ny norsk lærerutdanning. (The core of the profession. Education studies and new teacher education in Norway) in: Langfeldt, Gjert; Fusche Moe, Vegard (eds.) Å lære å bli lærar. Om læring og undervisning i fag, tema og ferdigheiter i ny lærarutdanning. Høgskolen i Song og Fjordane, Avdeling for lærarutdanning og idrett. HSF Rapport 6/11, pp. 113 – 130.