An officially endorsed national curriculum: institutional boundaries and ideational concerns

Abstract

Recently, there has been a notable renewal in nationalisation processes, which has had consequences on public policies and curriculum development in different countries (Winter 2018). There are both pros and cons associated with this development; increased nationalism can favour a kind of populism that hinders a society from adequately acting upon global problems, or national movements can result in domestic unification as people defend their democratic rights using institutional boundaries (Calhoun 2007; Hroch 1996). National movements can, for example, justify public education as an egalitarian project to guarantee democratic rights for all citizens. This was the case for the populist movement that evolved in the last part of the 19 th century within the Nordic countries, where a folk movement served as a counter-force to state regulations that did not take egalitarian values and people's interests into account (Jarning 1998; Lauglo 1995). It is from the viewpoint of relational power developed through local deliberations and public endorsement that this article examines a set of rationales for developing a national curriculum.

Exploring the perceived learning of ‘students as researchers’ through two theoretical lenses

“…In the Nordic countries influenced by Didaktik, defining state curricula traditionally meant making decisions regarding what to teach in the schools. By limiting state control to input and leaving the evaluation of output-that is, individual students' learning-to teachers, an autonomous space was created within which schooling could take place while still making public deliberation and the official endorsement of the national curriculum possible (Sivesind & Karseth, 2019). To the teachers working within this tradition 'the knowledge of how to create a bridge, by means of argument, i.e.…”

Hybrid forms of education in Norway: a systems theoretical approach to understanding curriculum change

“…Based on the European tradition of Didaktik, the essential aim of education has been Bildung, understood in terms of growth and autonomy through individual engagement with the subject matter (Willbergh, 2016). Consequently, curricula have traditionally been based on knowledge, teaching, and content (Sivesind & Karseth, 2019), combined with a strong sense of national integration and reconstructions of Norwegian cultural heritage (Hilt, 2020).…”

11. Frå fellesskap til kompetanse

“…Mykje av denne forskinga har historiske perspektiv, der utviklinga i laereplanverket vert forstått på bakgrunn av allmenne politiske mål og saerskilte mål for skuleverket (jf. Sivesind & Karseth, 2019;Telhaug & Mediås, 2003). Det er òg mykje forsking på utdanningssystemet si historie, der utviklinga i laereplanverket gjerne vert sett i samband med utdanningspolitiske reformer (Thuen, 2017;Helsvig, 2017).…”