(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In war and love, as is well known, everything is allowed. Now this has obviously begun to apply in politics as well. In Ny Tid, which was published on 29 August, AUF leader Martin Henriksen delivered a frontal attack on what he calls the right-wing school policy. To substantiate and legitimize his arguments, he resorts to a particularly creative reading of several reports.
Henriksen believes the OECD report "Equity in education" documents that level differentiation is a bad proposition and that the unity school is highlighted as an ideal. However, this study focuses little on differentiated education, but is most concerned with cultural and socio-economic restrictions on the right to receive education. On the contrary, the Thematic Report on Norway demonstrates that we have a "Norwegian paradox", where the use of resources does not match pupils' skills: "The results of international tests show that Norwegian 15 year old pupils perform only at an average OECD level, and there is a greater than average spread of the score, despite the high level of fairness within the system. "
Another example of academic dishonesty is how the AUF leader uses the Swedish report "Freedom of choice – fiction and reality" as proof that independent schools have created greater differences and social segregation. But this report is not primarily about independent schools; it is a study of how the swedish education system has developed with a more differentiated public education course that began as early as the 1960s, where a clearer distinction was made between vocational subjects and more theoretical lines. It touches on how the entry of independent schools may have strengthened social segregation. The conclusion should not frighten anyone other than independent school opponents: "The differentiation of upper secondary school is largely the same as in the sixties".
It is usually a sign that you have a bad policy when you spend most of your time talking about what you are against. The only solution the AUF leader so far suggests is more of the same. More money, more teachers and a longer school day. But a bad movie does not get better by extending it by an hour. When the content of the school does not meet goals, it is precisely because the focus on knowledge has been too weak. The school policy dividing line does not go between the view of public and private schools – it is what we want to do with the public school that is important. This is where 98 percent of the students are.
Today's starting point, with everyone joining, means that no one escapes. The red-green government's school policy is about evening out the differences by pushing everyone through the same education. Social democracy is pushing the pyramid flat. This is good for the average, but both good and weak students thrive poorly in such a system. Therefore, FpU wants a more differentiated educational course. At Strinda upper secondary school, the school has tried a scheme where students are allowed to be taught in two different groups to give the individual help at their level. In the course of one year, the failure rate in math decreased from 10 to 0 percent. Differentiated education is about taking the individual student's needs seriously.
The importance of teachers in the classroom is not about quantity either, but about quality. Norway already has a high teacher density, but many teachers have a lack of competence. SV and the Labor Party will weaken this further by removing grade requirements for entering teacher education. I am a supporter of re-establishing the teacher's leadership role, both professionally and managerially. The leveling philosophy has today reduced the teacher to being in line with the students – a kind of well-meaning friend who will guide without taking the lead himself. Teacher education must be designed to become a master's degree, which emphasizes the teacher's central pedagogical significance, with better leadership training. Thus, the teacher can gain authority without being authoritarian.
We also need a better subject structure that ensures a greater degree of relevance between what a teacher at school and further career choices. I think more than the undersigned have been frustrated about having to memorize language rules when there were other subjects that aroused greater interest and in which it would have been an advantage to get more elaboration. Freedom of choice therefore means well-being in many ways, and to be realized even through their own choices.
In 1988, Gudmund Hernes stated, clearly as always, that "the challenge for Norwegian knowledge policy is that the country does not get enough competence out of the population's talent". 20 years later, it is time that we take this challenge seriously.
