connecting themselves either to traditions of‘didaktik’(content focused) research
developed within pedagogik(k) over the years or international educational research,
even though one canfind exceptions to the rule. Through the new teacher education
launched in Sweden in 2009 (‘Bäst i klassen’[Best in class] Bill 2009 /10:89), the
different subject disciplines are further ‘strengthened’, for example, by only
allowing studentsfinal papers in their respective programs in other disciplines than
pedagogik, depriving teacher students from more fully engaging in traditions of
knowledge formed within traditions of educational thought (pedagogik[k]). This is
more than alarming for the possibility to educate competent teachers in Sweden in
the future.
As for the Norwegian teacher education, it has for a long time been marked by
an official report—NOU 1996 :22Lærerutdanning—mellom krav og ideal [Teacher
Education—Between Demand and Ideal]. The majority in this committee wanted
increased number of lessons for pedagogikk in the teacher education, while the
minority (in which the educational historian Telhaug was part of) wanted to reduce
pedagogikk. What happened is almost indescribable, but it was the minority that
won acceptance for its view. Thus, pedagogikk was reduced by one third, from
three quarters to half a year. At the same time, the minority decided that the subject
Christianity with religion and life orientation should have its credits doubled in the
teacher education. Thus, pedagogikk suffered for many years in the Norwegian
teacher education, while the subjects and subject didactics (in Norwegian: fagdi-
daktikk) had strengthened their positions.
In 2010, another important event took place around the Norwegian teacher
education. Norwegian politicians had long looked to Finland to strengthen the tea-
cher education. What they found was that there was quite a lot of pedagogik in the
Finnish teacher education. Thus, upon the completion of the GLU-reform in 2010,
the Norwegian politicians increased the scope of pedagogikk to 60 credits. Atfirst
glance this looks like good news for pedagogikk, but upon closer inspection it is not.
Why might that be so? First, the politicians had made a change of term. What has
always been called pedagogikk should now be called pedagogikk og elevkunnskap
(PEL) [Pedagogikk and student knowledge]. Second, the state politicians had not
earmarked that pedagogikk should get all the 60 credits. Consequently, there was a
struggle regarding which subjects that could teach PEL. In several teacher educa-
tions in Norway, different subjects are involved with the teaching of PEL, ranging
from drama, to social studies, physical education and more. Thus, pedagogikk is
slowly but surely‘eaten up’by other subjects that claim to teach pedagogikk.
A recent example of this“strengthening of the disciplines in teacher education
trend”is the newly established HUMTANK in Sweden, which has as its main task
to strengthen the status of humanist disciplines within Swedish universities. Even
though we would be more than sympathetic to this initiative, not the least since our
understanding is that pedagogik(k) has its proper grounding within a humanist
strand of thinking, we are still a bit hesitant for the argument that humanist dis-
ciplines (in Swedish and Norwegian; humaniora) need to engage more fully in
teacher education for their own benefit. That is the need for strengthening‘hu-
maniora’in teacher education seemsnotbe based on an analysis of how that would
12 Doing Harm to Educational Knowledge: The Struggle over Teacher... 185