Loading…
Janus-faced discourse in contemporary Norwegian policy framing for tackling educational inequality? A critical analysis of contemporary tensions and contradictions
This paper focuses on contemporary tensions and contradictions in current Norwegian educational policy discourse. Based on critical discourse analysis (CDA) of Norwegian governmental white papers our analysis reveals that contemporary Norwegian policy formulation is torn between an egalitarian and a...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Online Access: | Request full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | This paper focuses on contemporary tensions and contradictions in current Norwegian educational policy discourse. Based on critical discourse analysis (CDA) of Norwegian governmental white papers our analysis reveals that contemporary Norwegian policy formulation is torn between an egalitarian and a selection discourse about how to tackle educational inequality in the Norwegian comprehensive school system. The egalitarian discourse is characterised by principles like inclusion, equity and recognising diversity in the education system with a stated aim to balance educational outcomes. The selection discourse advertises greater selection, competition, and outcome control in the light of international competition and calls for better correspondence between schooling, higher education, and labour market needs. Paradoxically, both discourses are advertising themselves as proper solutions for tackling and reducing educational inequality in Norway. Taking indications of growing social inequality in Norway into consideration we conclude that growing importance of selection and competition arguments in contemporary Norwegian educational policy have increased dissonance and inconsistency in discourse and have started to overpower egalitarian values. We conclude that this will, against egalitarian creed and rhetorical claim in Norwegian educational policy, rather foster than reduce educational inequality. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1679-1693 |