community no person is excluded from.’In that regard, the Norwegian Framework
( 2005 ) has gone a long way—but still has a longer way to go—in putting what
Florian and Linklater ( 2010 , p. 372) speak of as the‘ethic of everybody’into
tangible practice. I am, without apology, impatient about speeding up the journey;
notwithstanding, it is encouraging to see that the politicians understand how
important it is to turn rhetoric into action. I shall say more about the practical side of
things later.
The good news is that the state-sanctioned directive for intending disability
pedagogues is unequivocal. The edict is articulated in a parliamentary document,
Rammeplan for vernepleierutdanning (The Framework for the Education of
Disability Pedagogues; in Norwegian 2005 ). Disability pedagogy educators have
got what they want: a mandate from the Department of Research and Education
(Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet) to prepare disability pedagogues for
work that is based,‘on egalitarian principles’, as well as a clear‘focus on service
user influence and participation’(Framework 2005 ; 3). The aim is ambitious; but
why settle for “less bad” instead of “much better”? The compilers of the
Framework( 2005 ) understand this, by establishing common disciplinary [in the
subject sense] standard, regardless of the course provider. Common purpose must
be maintained and protected throughout the country.
I know this might sound rather prescriptive. However, the politicians have
delineated fundamental markers withoutfilling in details. The upshot is enough
wiggle room for disability pedagogue educators to exercise reasonable judgment
regardingfiner points, so long as they keep to the bold outlines. That said, certain
criteria are non-negotiable. For example, student disability pedagogues are expected
to,‘Identify interests, resources & limitations in cooperation with service users’
(ibid, 3).
In addition, theFramework( 2005 , 3) requires disability pedagogy students to
show the,‘Ability to analyse and map the relationship between societal conditions
and individual service user circumstances’. If the policymakers achieve the outcome
they seek, the removal, or at least the amelioration, of potential obstacles to
inclusive policy will get the chance it deserves.
There are echoes of radical sociology and emancipatory social pedagogy in these
enunciations, and that inspires me. Later in the chapter, I have constructed a more
systematic oversight of the specific criteria that apply to the education of disability
pedagogue students, as prescribed in the Section 3 goals of theFramework( 2005 ).
I have used document analysis and semantic coding for the purpose. For now,
though, I shall consider words and (some) action in policymaking circles.
13.6 Time to Walk the Walk
It is all very well to make grandiose statements, but if they count for nothing, then
the words are just words. The important issue of the extent to which the stated
intentions of the Framework have brought about inclusive action on the ground,
13 The Pre-service Education of Disability Pedagogues in Norway... 197