practise change agency in order to improve life quality. The fostering of pedagogic
ambition is vital here because it can sustain optimal performance, even when things
get tough. The celebration of empathic forms of communication, signals the con-
cern that the disability pedagogue is expected to have as regards personhood and
the will to cooperate rather than, except on rare occasions, to“force”a position.....
Bernstein’s( 2000 , p. 201) distinction between‘official pedagogic modalities’and
‘local pedagogic modalities’comes to mind here. Furthermore, the inclusion of the
user’s view (stated in the user’s language) places necessary limits on what Lewis
( 2003 , p. 23) calls,‘doing-to, rather than doing-for or doing-with the client’, or on,
to cite Bourdieu et al. ( 1999 , p. 2),‘setting up the objectivising distance that
reduces the individual to a specimen in a display case.’
There is a clear recognition in theFramework( 2005 ) that expert knowledge not
only resides in knowledgeable care professionals, but also with the disabled person.
Moreover, the anticipation is that the two different kinds of expert will engage in
respectful, cooperative dialogue, each having a voice that should be taken seriously
by the other. Sure, the voices might not always concur. Nevertheless, the aim is to
nurture democratic discourse instead of letting the disability pedagogue trump the
other party through professional misuse of communicative weight. It is pertinent to
note here that some people with intellectual disabilities are not always aware of
their rights, in which case disability pedagogues might sometimes have to support
those rights by proxy.
Whenconflictdoes arise, as it surely does, handling the situation in a concil-
iatory manner is essential.Respect for the human dignity of the other personis
considered paramount here. TheFramework( 2005 ) puts great stock too on critical
judgment, both throughself-scrutinyand by engaging indebates on the political
level. Permit me a short comment on this last matter. The expectation that disability
pedagogues should get involved in political debate and also follow a“curriculum”
comprised by the political elite, rings a bit hollow. Indeed, it seems something of an
oxymoron.
In conclusion, it appears to me that the call to serve people who are
marginalised—in this particular example, those with disabilities—is sealed by the
political imprimatur of the Norwegian welfare state. It is a plea based on the
mutually supporting values of empathy, solidarity and social justice, which together
shore up the principle ofego sum meus frater custodies(“I am my brother’s/sister’s
keeper”). In this regard, theFramework( 2005 ) holds the student disability peda-
gogue accountable for social justice-based practice. For all that, it is salutary to
reiterate, once again, that the document announces a political goal, not a guaranteed
outcome. If political rhetoric alone could turn the heart towards righteous action,
then there would be cause for celebration. In this concise chapter, I have cited some
real examples of inclusive practice, notably, UD, that certainly do align with
political intentions. The next step might be to conduct a quantitative study in order
tofind out if theFramework( 2005 ) can be considered as an independent predictor
of certain envisaged outcomes. But that’s another story for another time!
13 The Pre-service Education of Disability Pedagogues in Norway... 201