This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 24 November 2014, At: 02:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Pedagogy, Culture & SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpcs20

Social pedagogy and the teacher:England and Norway comparedChris Kyriacou a , Ingunn Tollisen Ellingsen b , Paul Stephens b &Vanita Sundaram aa Department of Educational Studies , University of York , York, UKb Department of Social Studies , University of Stavanger ,Stavanger, NorwayPublished online: 10 Mar 2009.

To cite this article: Chris Kyriacou , Ingunn Tollisen Ellingsen , Paul Stephens & Vanita Sundaram(2009) Social pedagogy and the teacher: England and Norway compared, Pedagogy, Culture &Society, 17:1, 75-87, DOI: 10.1080/14681360902742902

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681360902742902

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Pedagogy, Culture & SocietyVol. 17, No. 1, March 2009, 75–87

ISSN 1468-1366 print/ISSN 1747-5104 online© 2009 Pedagogy, Culture & SocietyDOI: 10.1080/14681360902742902http://www.informaworld.com

Social pedagogy and the teacher: England and Norway compared

Chris Kyriacoua*, Ingunn Tollisen Ellingsenb, Paul Stephensb and Vanita Sundarama

aDepartment of Educational Studies, University of York, York, UK; bDepartment of Social Studies University of Stavanger, Stavanger, NorwayTaylor and FrancisRPCS_A_374460.sgm10.1080/14681360902742902Pedagogy, Culture and Society1468-1366 (print)/1747-5104 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis171000000March 2009ChrisKyriacouck1@york.ac.uk

Social pedagogy as practice refers to actions on the part of adults to promote thepersonal development, social education and general well-being of the childalongside or in place of parents in a range of educational and social care settings(e.g. pre-school play groups, residential care homes, youth clubs). This paperfocuses how the notion of social pedagogy as practice has been applied inEngland and Norway in the context of recent developments in policy and practiceregarding the interface between education services and childcare and welfareservices. In Norway, the notion of social pedagogy reflects many aspects of theway the term is often understood in continental Europe. In England, the term isonly just beginning to be used in this way following a major policy development,‘Every Child Matters’, which has led to a review of the role of the teacher in thecontext of integrating education and child welfare services. The paper considersthe implications of such recent developments for changes in the role of theteacher.

Keywords: social pedagogy; child welfare

Introduction

Social pedagogy ‘as practice’ refers to actions on the part of adults to promote thepersonal development, social education and general well-being of the child alongsideor in place of parents in a range of educational and social care settings (e.g. pre-schoolplay groups, residential care homes, youth clubs). At the heart of social pedagogicalpractice is the adopting by these adults of a parenting/caring role in meeting the needsof the ‘whole child’. In schools, the notion of social pedagogy overlaps with the ideaof pastoral care. Social pedagogy ‘as theory’ refers to an approach towards educationthat takes account of but goes beyond subject learning. The ‘social’ in social pedagogyaddresses socialisation into values and beliefs. To what extent this can be consideredas learning in the purely cognitive sense is hard to say because values and beliefsinvolve felt convictions, not just instructional understanding.

In continental Europe the term social pedagogy is widely used, and largely focuseson the work of child carers, social workers and child protection workers. Indeed, theprofessional training of social workers and child protection workers there, particularlyfor those working in residential child care, often includes a named course in socialpedagogy and such workers are often termed ‘social pedagogues’ (or simply ‘peda-gogues’). In the UK the term social pedagogy is beginning to be used in a similar way,

*Corresponding author. Email: ck1@york.ac.uk

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

76 C. Kyriacou et al.

mainly as a result of cross-national learning from continental Europe, and, in particu-lar, from Nordic countries.

A number of writers have sought to identify the origins and development of theterm social pedagogy. Smith (2007) refers to the coining of the term sozialpädagogikin Germany by Karl Mager in 1844, and notes that by the second half of the twentiethcentury it had become increasingly associated with social work, and a concern with aperson’s general well-being, which tended to underplay its educational credentials as‘education for sociality’ (Smith 2007, 1). Otto (2006) also highlights the educationaldimension of social pedagogy in his analysis. He notes that:

From the very beginning, the social pedagogical perspective was based on attempts tofind educational solutions to social problems … Historically, social pedagogy is basedon the belief that you can decisively influence social circumstances through education.Thus social pedagogy started with efforts to confront social distress pedagogically intheory and practice. (2006, 3)

Hallstedt and Högström (2005) conducted a comparative study of the curricula ofsocial pedagogy at tertiary colleges in Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway. In theiranalysis of definitions of social pedagogy, they emphasise the concern with specialcohesion, arguing that ‘Social pedagogy’s mission in society is social integration’(2005, 55)

An analysis by Davies Jones (2007) gives details of eight European countries thatuse ‘social pedagogue’ (or its near equivalent) as a professional title with associatedformal training in social pedagogy; these are: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Spain. The strong tradition of social pedagogy inthe five Nordic countries (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) has beenwidely recognised (OECD 2006; Petrie et al. 2006). Jarning (1997) has provided anoutline of the development of social pedagogy in Scandinavia, including an analysisof its development in Norway.

In the Danish context, social pedagogy is an integrated concept, covering cognitivedevelopment, the socialisation and care of children, and personal and social develop-ment outside a school context (Cameron 2004; Petrie et al. 2006). Social pedagogueswork in a variety of educational settings, including nurseries, kindergartens, leisurecentres and youth clubs. The remit of a social pedagogue spans four broad and oftenoverlapping areas: caretaking (physical and emotional); socialisation and develop-ment of interpersonal skills; teaching for social participation and responsibility; anddeveloping individual skills. However, the perceived relevance of social pedagogy toother social sectors such as health care and education in schools is evident from thenumerous collaborative projects between the Danish National Federation for EarlyChildhood Teachers and Youth Educators and specialist actors/groups.

Social pedagogues in Denmark are very broadly qualified and while this work isseen as distinct from social work or rehabilitation, social pedagogues may work withvulnerable children, with individuals with a range of impairments, and with elderlypeople. This conceptualisation of the social pedagogue is seen to reflect a specificallyDanish stance towards the overall development and social education of children andyoung people. The provision of childcare is thus an independent and integral aspect ofDanish welfare society and is seen as separate from the formal educational system andpractice (BUPL 2006).

Smith and Whyte (2008) noted that the publication of the ‘21st Century Review’(Scottish Executive 2006), which looks at the future of social work practice in Scotland,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pedagogy, Culture & Society 77

considers how the concept of social pedagogy can provide a base for social help byintegrating social and educational perspectives. Smith and Whyte argue that such anapproach would broaden the notion of social help:

to include the integration of the individual in society and the promotion of social func-tioning, inclusion, participation, identity and competence as members of society withshared responsibility to that society. It offers a practical means of ‘promoting socialwelfare’ as charged by Scottish legislation. (2008, 11)

It is interesting to note that within the UK context (namely England, Scotland, Walesand Northern Ireland), the first social pedagogy course to be introduced and profes-sionally recognised in the UK occurred in Scotland: the BA in Curative EducationProgramme (Jackson 2006). This is a four-year programme which was recognised in2003 by the Scottish Social Services Council as an appropriate qualification foranyone working in the residential childcare sector in Scotland. The programme isparticularly innovative in that most students ‘live the course’ in residential carecommunities for children or adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.This ‘life-sharing’ aspect of the programme, Jackson argues, ensures that the princi-ples of dignity, value and mutual respect that underpin the social pedagogy model canmeaningfully be translated into practice.

This paper is a collaborative venture between two researchers based in Englandand two researchers based in Norway. The first and third authors are very familiarwith Education in both England and Norway and have jointly authored severalcomparative studies as part of the York–Stavanger Project (see below); the fourthauthor (based in England) completed her doctorate in Denmark and the second authoris a doctorate student in Norway. This collaboration was thus able to draw upon exten-sive experience and knowledge of education in England and Norway, and has alsobeen able to draw upon discussions taking place at meetings of a European networkof researchers interested in social pedagogy (Stephens 2007).

Our paper is stimulated by the introduction in England of the ‘Every ChildMatters’ (ECM) agenda (Cheminais 2006; Department for Education and Skills 2004)which views pupil performance and pupil well-being in schools as going hand in hand,and identifies five outcomes for children:

● being healthy: helping pupils to adopt healthy lifestyles, build their self-esteem,eat and drink well, and lead active lives;

● staying safe: keeping pupils safe from bullying, harassment and other dangers;● enjoying and achieving: enabling pupils to make good progress in their work

and personal development and enjoy their education;● making a positive contribution: ensuring that pupils understand their rights and

responsibilities, are listened to, and participate in the life of the community;● achieving social and economic well-being: helping pupils to gain the skills and

knowledge needed for future employment.

The ECM agenda has led to a review of the role of the teacher and, in particular theextent of pastoral care and how programmes of personal and social education inschools should operate. Petrie et al. (2006) have noted that most aspects of the ECMagenda accord with the perspectives involved in social pedagogy, and we can thusdraw on what we know about social pedagogy to inform practices in schools in orderto help implement the ECM agenda.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

78 C. Kyriacou et al.

This paper focuses on how the notion of social pedagogy can help inform the newemerging role of the teacher (perhaps as a social pedagogue as well as a cognitiveeducator) in the light of the ECM agenda in England, and compares this with thenotion of social pedagogy and the conception of the role of the teacher evident inNorway.

The comparison with Norway is undertaken for three reasons. Firstly, it draws upona current undertaking, the York–Stavanger Research Project on Teacher Education,which was established in 1998 to explore teacher education in England and Norwayby focusing on the views and experiences of student teachers at the Universities ofYork and Stavanger. Previous studies we have carried out have, for example, illus-trated how teacher education programmes in the two countries differ in terms of thegovernment’s ideological view of the nature and role of teacher education (Stephens,Tønnessen, and Kyriacou 2004), how student teachers at York and Stavanger helddiffering expectations about what the job of being a teacher will be like (Kyriacou etal. 2003), and, how student teachers at York and Stavanger held differing views regard-ing pupil behaviour in the classroom (Kyriacou et al. 2007).

Secondly, our past research indicates that the role of the teacher in Norway hasbeen conceived somewhat differently in having more attributes of the ‘social peda-gogue’ compared with England, where the role of teacher as an academic educator hasbeen paramount. This can be seen in how teachers in England and Norway viewteacher–pupil relationships more instrumentally in England and more expressively inNorway (Stephens, Kyriacou, and Tønnessen 2005).

Thirdly, we have also noted examples in continental Europe of the ways in whichsocial pedagogy is being applied in schools, including the use of social pedagogues inthe school workforce. However, the role of social pedagogy in schools in the UK (andto some extent in Norway) is still relatively underdeveloped.

For example, Giedraitiené (2000) identified three fields of professional specialisa-tion for social pedagogues in Lithuania: (1) those working in schools; (2) those work-ing in specialised institutions for physically disabled children and children withprofound learning difficulties; and (3) those working with groups at social risk. Thepost of social pedagogue has primarily been introduced into schools in Lithuania inorder to meet the needs of disadvantaged and disaffected pupils. The social peda-gogue’s role is to provide pupils and parents with pedagogical assistance to help solveproblems of socialisation, and to emphasise equal opportunities.

[Ccaron] ech, in a study conducted in 12 primary schools in the Czech Republic, exploredhow a social pedagogue could contribute to school functioning in terms of improvingthe school climate, engaging with teachers, pupils and parents to arrive at ‘shared’ solu-tions to problems, and enabling the primary schools to change their practices in waysthat makes the school ‘a place not only for teaching but also for living’ (2007, 499).

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the relative neglect of the caring role of theteacher has been noted in research conducted in a number of countries, and yet muchresearch indicates that altruistic reasons (the desire to help others) is a major motivat-ing factor for those who decide to enter the teaching profession (Kyriacou, Hultgren,and Stephens 1999). For example, a study by O’Connor (2007) in Australia exploreddifferent facets of the teacher’s caring role based on an analysis of qualitative datafrom three mid-career secondary school teachers, and identified the importance thisrole had for their sense of professional identity as teachers. Such research indicatesthat some teachers have already incorporated aspects of the social pedagogue’sperspective within their lived experiences as teachers, despite the fact that within the

C

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pedagogy, Culture & Society 79

discourse of educational policy and teacher standards in many countries the caringnature of the teaching role has been marginalised.

England

In England two major issues have created a platform for considering how the role ofthe teacher in schools needs to move towards that of the social pedagogue: (1) theintroduction of the ECM agenda (Department for Education and Skills 2004); and (2)the widespread concern that schools need to play a more decisive role in combating arange of social issues, most notably bullying, truancy, school exclusion, child abuseand juvenile delinquency (Kyriacou 2003).

The Department for Education and Skills, in looking at the implications of theECM agenda for those working with children noted that in continental Europe ‘prac-titioners are commonly referred to as social pedagogues’ and that ‘the emphasis of thisprofessional model is on learning, care and upbringing being inseparable, inter-connected parts of life’ (2005, 36). The Department for Education and Skills alsonoted that ‘the pedagogue’s holistic way of working with children would seem to fitparticularly well with the increasing integration of children’s services’ (2005, 38) andhas called for a rethink of how teachers can take on a wider role.

The Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA, 2007) in England hasoutlined the impact of the ECM agenda for new teachers. The TDA noted that eachLocal Education Authority is expected to have a Children’s Trust by 2008 whichincludes schools, social and healthcare services and youth justice organisations whichwill be responsible for identifying children’s needs. The TDA added that schoolswould need to work in partnership with other services to provide pupils with person-alised support.

As a result of these considerations the Department for Children, Schools and Fami-lies (DCSF, 2008) is in the process of establishing an Expert Group to review the rolesof those professionals working with children in order to help the DCSF establish a setof principles that can underpin the DCSF’s vision for the children’s workforce in2020. This review will consider how different parts of the workforce can worktogether effectively in meeting the needs of children, including the roles to be playedby professionals based in schools; the DCSF has also explicitly asked the ExpertGroup to consider the value of introducing new professional disciplines such as socialpedagogues. It is worth noting here that interagency working in England has beenfraught with problems. A major challenge for this Expert Group will be to considerwhether the role of a social pedagogue is likely to make interagency workingsmoother, particularly when one takes account of the antipathy that occasionallyappears to be evident between teachers and social workers. Indeed, Smith and Whyte(2008) have noted that the historical bifurcation of education and social care in the UKmeans that the challenge of providing the kind of integrated services that childrenneed is unlikely to be met unless the professionals involved share a commonly under-stood conceptual base for their work.

Petrie identified the social pedagogue as a practitioner who ‘sees herself/himselfas a person in relationship with the child as a whole person (not just, for example, achild to be taught), supporting the child’s overall development: physical, cognitive,social, creative…’ (2005, 177). Petrie et al., in a study of children in care in England,Denmark and Germany, refer to the need ‘to provide young people with the resourcesfor social integration’ and describe a pedagogical establishment as ‘one which builds

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

80 C. Kyriacou et al.

on both individual and collectivist relationships to support the holistic development ofchildren and young people’ (2006, 154). These authors further note that this stancewas more evident in Denmark and Germany compared with England.

A study by Vulliamy and Webb (2003) in England evaluated a project in whichfive full-time school-based home–school support workers worked in seven secondaryschools. Their task was to carry out casework with disaffected pupils who werereferred to them by the senior management in the school, predominately because oftheir challenging behaviour. These workers were successful in dealing with a range ofproblems facing these pupils, including reducing their risk of school exclusion, theprevention of bullying, stopping pupils from truanting, and helping them to cope withpersonal problems. One particularly interesting finding was how pupils viewed theseworkers: ‘Support workers were regarded as very different from teachers and “morelike a friend than a social worker”. They were viewed by pupils as always calm,prepared to listen to pupils’ accounts of events and able to be counted upon to suggesta way forward’ (2003, 279). This study, which provides evidence of the supportoffered to these pupils by a ‘social pedagogue’, mirrors similar evidence reported byMajauskiene (2003), who detailed how the activities of school social workers inLithuanian and German schools were valued by pupils.

Another study by Webb and Vulliamy (2001, 2002) in England is particularlypertinent to this paper as it explored the extent and nature of the social work dimen-sion of primary teaching. The study was initially conducted in 15 primary schools andincluded interviews with the headteachers and classroom teachers. This was thenfollowed by a national survey based on 303 respondents from primary schools (ofwhich 69% were headteachers and 31% were classroom teachers) to a questionnairesurvey covering four categories of social work which emerged from their analysis ofthe interview data: helping parents with personal problems; supporting pupils withemotional and behavioural problems; child protection; and working with agencies inrelation to these and other issues. They reported that 99% of the respondents to thequestionnaire agreed with the statement ‘primary teachers are concerned with thewell-being of the whole child’ (Webb and Vulliamy 2001, 73) and that 79% agreedwith the statement ‘primary schools are ideal sites from which to operate supportsystems for parents and carers’ (Webb and Vulliamy 2002, 180). However, they alsonote that concerns have been expressed that the role of primary teachers has beengrowing rapidly, and that the pressure on primary school teachers to raise pupils’attainment makes it difficult to see how teachers can be expected to expend more timeand energy on their welfare role. They argued that ‘It is therefore extremely importantthat in order to maintain and/or extend schools’ social work responsibilities, includingmaking a more substantial contribution to child protection, they are resourced accord-ingly’ (Webb and Vulliamy 2001, 74).

Forrester (2005) has also expressed a concern that a performance culture hasdeveloped in primary schools in order to meet demanding attainment targets in numer-acy and literacy, and that this has had the effect of overshadowing and rendering invis-ible ‘caring’ activities. Forrester used an ethnographic approach to explore theexperiences of 22 teachers and four headteachers in four primary schools in England.The study illustrated how teachers were finding it difficult in a performance culture toengage in caring activities such as maintaining space within which they could listento pupils’ concerns in their lives. To some extent the ECM agenda has been introducedto counteract this, but as long as a performance culture in schools dominates, it willbe hard for social pedagogy to flourish.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pedagogy, Culture & Society 81

It is evident from writings concerning how schools can support pupils facing prob-lems (Kyriacou 2003) that there is a need for someone in the school to adopt therole of the social pedagogue. A good example of this is the analysis by Thambirajah,Grandison, and De-Hayes (2008) of how schools can help ‘school refusers’ return toschool. Thambirajah, Grandison, and De-Hayes argue the need for someone to take onthe role of a ‘school key worker’ (2008, 102) whose functions will include supportingthe pupil and his/her parents, liaising with teachers and other professionals, andtrouble-shooting when difficulties occur.

It is also important to make a distinction between pedagogical practice in stateschools and alternative educational settings. Petrie et al. (2006) found that children inresidential care in Denmark and Germany had a better quality of life and outcomesthan their contemporaries in England. A major reason for this was the child-centredand reflexive approach adopted by staff – a pedagogy underpinned by children’s rightsand participation. Although almost never named as examples of social pedagogy inteaching, there are examples of similar approaches in educational settings in England,for example in Steiner and Montessori education.

The pedagogic principles of Steiner and Montessori schooling emphasise learner-centred, self-directive education, which take a more holistic approach to the develop-ment of the child – integrating physical health and safety with emotional, cognitiveand spiritual well-being (Woods, Ashley, and Woods 2005). The role of the peda-gogue is to facilitate this development, but Jackson (2006), writing about the incorpo-ration of anthroposophist principles of Steiner pedagogy into care settings, points outthat the mutual character of the relationship between the person receiving care and thecaregiver (or in an educational context, the student and the teacher) must be recogn-ised. He argues that the sharing of power ‘across inequalities makes a reality of therhetoric of empowerment [of children]’ (2006, 70). In Danish and German models ofsocial pedagogy, the emphasis is similarly clearly on enabling young people to takeresponsibility for themselves (Cameron 2004).

In Cameron’s (2007) study of social care professionals in England and social peda-gogues in Denmark, social pedagogy was identified as being concerned with three keyprinciples: supporting children in developing their own self in relation to others;ensuring attachment to an adult for emotional security and for mutual enjoyment of‘being together’; and meeting the needs of individuals. Conventional modes of school-ing in England rarely enable the normalised inclusion of all children; the structure ofmainstream classrooms often hinders close and individual relationships betweenpupils and teachers being formed. Indeed, some experts on teaching and effectiveclassroom management suggest that these close relationships should not be encour-aged, in contrast to those who adopt a humanistic approach (Kyriacou 2002).

Cameron (2006), in a study which included exploring the knowledge and attitudesof children services professionals in England regarding social pedagogy, concludedthat, although the prospects for social pedagogy in England have never been better, itsadoption faces two major barriers:

insufficiently high cultural value attached to children, child rearing and child welfare inEngland; and the current cultural environment in which education and training takesplace, relying as it does on accrediting performance rather than valuing critical enquiry.(2006, 6)

A further strand of writing and research in England concerns the link between socialpedagogy and the use of small group work (e.g. Association of Professionals in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

82 C. Kyriacou et al.

Education and Children’s Trusts 2006; Kutnick, Blatchford, and Baines 2002). Suchauthors take the view that the greater use of small group work in the classroom couldplay an important part in combating disaffection by engaging pupils in positive learn-ing experiences through structured co-operation. The holistic approach of Steinerpedagogy to children’s education (including their well-being) facilitates the develop-ment of effective relationships with others through group and collaborative learning.The traditional model of Steiner education sees one teacher be responsible for anentire class for up to seven years, which encourages an emotional attachment in bothdirections, between the pupil and the teacher. Moreover, the learner-centred approachadopted in Steiner schools means that the learning needs of individuals are recognisedand more readily met. Children with special educational needs are not educated inseparate classrooms or placed in lower ‘sets’. The notion of social pedagogy thatunderpins Steiner education has, as Jackson argues, ‘the potential for offering childrenwith special needs not simply a new approach but an approach which is more inclusiveand normalizing’ (2006, 72).

Norway

Unlike England, where social care and teaching in schools are seen as having distinctroles, in Norway these two functions are officially regarded as incorporated. Indeed,the Norwegian government has reminded teacher education faculties that to be ateacher means more than being able to teach subjects: it also involves membership ofa caring profession (Stephens, Tønnessen, and Kyriacou 2004).

In Norway, social pedagogy has a strong academic as well as a pronounced voca-tional tradition.

Today, though, it is fair to say that social pedagogy has become more often asso-ciated with practice than theory (Mathiesen 1998). This is reflected, for example, inthe current ‘National Framework and Regulations for the 3-year Education of ChildWelfare Pedagogues’ (Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet (UFD) 2005b), wheremore weight is given to practical rather than theoretical social pedagogy. It should alsobe noted that social pedagogy is the core discipline in the National Framework.

The official origin of social pedagogy as a university (and essentially theoretical)discipline in Norway can be traced to a dispute involving researchers at the Universityof Oslo in the mid-1970s. Inspired by the new sociology of education, a group of radi-cal academics in the Department for Educational Research set up a course in socialpedagogy as an alternative to the existing (mainly cognitive-based) programme ineducational studies. For the next two decades, students of education at the Universityof Oslo could choose between two courses: educational studies (the establishedprogramme) or social pedagogy (the new alternative programme).

The social pedagogy course drew its influence from critical theory and, in partic-ular, from the writings of Marx, Marcuse, Foucault and Habermas. ‘Oslo Social Peda-gogy’, though largely theoretical, fostered critical interest in the nature of pedagogicrelations and led to a redefining of those relations. There were calls, for example, formore symmetric communication between lecturers and students and for a prominentstudent role in matters concerning the curriculum. The Oslo radicals also argued for abroader understanding of pedagogy as a subject that had as much to do with sociali-sation and upbringing as it had with cognitive learning.

To what extent this critical voice moved social pedagogy outside of ‘pure’, disci-pline-based debates is hard to say. It seems likely that the development of social

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pedagogy, Culture & Society 83

pedagogy at the University of Oslo did play a role in broadening the scope andcontext of pedagogical work. A discipline that gave as much attention to the social aswell as the cognitive dimensions of human development was bound to appeal tosocial professions such as child welfare pedagogy and (so-called) ‘health socialwork’. Indeed, in both of these professions (but in particular, child welfare peda-gogy), social pedagogy is now an integral part of initial professional education.Relational issues are to the fore here, with a strong focus on communication skills,co-operation, conflict resolution and psycho-social well-being.

In addition, the labour organisation representing child welfare pedagogues inNorway, the Allied Association of Child Welfare Pedagogues, Social Workers andHealth Social Workers (Fellesorganisasjonen for barnevernpedagoger, sosionomer ogvernepleiere (FO)), makes it clear that members are charged with ‘promoting socialchange’, ‘emancipation’ and ‘showing solidarity with the socially disadvantaged’ (FO2008). The same organisation explicitly describes child welfare pedagogues as socialworkers (FO 2002). However, unlike ‘social workers’ (sosionomer) and ‘health socialworkers’ (vernepleier, who tend to work with disabled people), ‘child welfare peda-gogues’ mainly work with disadvantaged children and their families in a variety ofsettings, including the school. In that respect, they can be designated as ‘child socialworkers’. In fact, the FO (2008) explicitly states that, ‘The theoretical basis for theprofession (child welfare pedagogy) is distilled from social pedagogy and social work’.

While it is hard to identify a unified and clear-cut Norwegian take on the role ofthe social pedagogue in society, the official view is found in the respective NationalFrameworks for the education of child welfare pedagogues (UFD 2005b) and healthsocial workers (UFD 2005a), but not, surprisingly, in the National Framework for theeducation of social workers (UFD 2005c). That said, general social work educationdoes promote social pedagogical awareness, even though the term ‘social pedagogy’is not explicitly stated. As noted earlier, the social pedagogical emphasis on caring forchildren is also prescribed in Norwegian teacher education.

The compilers of the National Framework for the Education of Child WelfarePedagogues (UFD 2005b) emphasise the importance of people skills such as empathy,being able to reach mutual understanding and constructive relationship-building.Weight is also attached to the role that child welfare pedagogues should have in help-ing clients to mobilise their own ‘change potential’ in ways that promote improvedsocial functioning. This is not just about changing ways of thinking. Child welfarepedagogues are expected to show solidarity with vulnerable families by helping themto set up self-help groups in their own communities, and by working alongside them.

The significance of social pedagogical skills in health social worker education isstated, but little is said about what this actually entails (UFD 2005a). There is,however, mention of the need to foster a healthy psycho-social environment for the(mainly disabled) clients with whom the health social worker deals.

While it would be an exaggeration to regard the above-mentioned NationalFrameworks as national curricula, they do state the overriding themes that colleges anduniversities have to address in the ‘local’ programmes that institutions produce ‘in-house’. In that respect, the Frameworks in Norway are comparable with the officialstatements that formally set out what, for example, a trainee teacher is expected toknow, understand and be able do in order to obtain qualified teacher status in England.The similarity, of course, only applies to the notion of frameworks, not to specificprofessional studies. Teacher Frameworks are specific to teachers, child welfare peda-gogue Frameworks to child welfare pedagogues and so on.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

84 C. Kyriacou et al.

Social pedagogical practice in Norway is found in the many and varying life spacesthat children occupy: after-school clubs, children’s homes, foster homes, child welfareservices and schools, to name but some. Given that, in this paper, we are primarilyinterested in the application of social pedagogical principles in schools, it is relevantto note that some schools in Norway actually employ social care professionals, someof them child welfare pedagogues. The role of these individuals is to improve thepsycho-social environment of the school, and for this reason they are often designatedas environmental therapists (miljøterapeuter). Their work is explicitly social pedagog-ical in nature, with a strong focus on positive teacher–pupil and pupil–pupil relation-ship-building (see Bakken, Berge, and Eikrem 2005).

Underlying the use of ‘environmental therapy’ in schools is the idea that humansocial behaviour develops and changes through social learning during interaction withothers. The aim is to nurture a school climate in which teachers and pupils not onlylearn to respect each other but also feel that this is morally right. This uniting of thecognitive and affective elements of human development lies at the heart of socialpedagogy in Norway. Herein lies a belief that ‘social work’ (in its broadest sense) isan integral part of teaching in schools.

Given the attention attached to the social atmosphere of classroom settings inNorway, it is not surprising to find that the Norwegian government is backing nationalefforts to promote prosocial schools. Particular emphasis is placed on making schoola safe and positive place to be, which is why the deployment of school interventionprogrammes to prevent and tackle bullying and other forms of anti-social behaviour ishigh on the political and educational agenda. Two such programmes, the Olweusprogramme (Olweus 2001) and the Zero Programme (Roland and Sørensen Vaaland2003), both of which receive state funding, have introduced explicit social curriculainto schools throughout Norway with the express purpose of nurturing a supportiveschool climate that promotes caring and other respectful and helpful behavioursbetween pupils.

It is also interesting to note here that a study in Norway based on a national repre-sentative sample of nearly 4000 adolescent pupils found that ‘perceived emotionalsupport from teachers showed the strongest positive association with desired pupilbehaviour’ (Bru, Stephens, and Torsheim 2002, 287). Put simply, this study indicatesthat positive emotional engagement by teachers with pupils appears to enhance effec-tive classroom management.

It will be evident from this consideration of the situation in Norway that writingsand research on social pedagogy largely focus on caring professionals outside theschool, but the ideological stance regarding the professional identity adopted by teach-ers in Norway is based on a social-educational perspective of the social pedagogue (astance they share with other professionals involved with children): namely, a concernfor the care, development and social functioning of the whole child.

Conclusion

This consideration of social pedagogy in England and Norway has given rise to threemain questions.

Firstly, what is meant by social pedagogy? It would appear that social pedagogy(at least, as practice) is best conceived of as involving a family of underlying andoverlapping components. Each country wishing to employ the term needs to have aclear idea of what social pedagogy is, which particular components are to be included,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pedagogy, Culture & Society 85

and what weight of importance should be given to each component. This will need totake account of prevailing attitudes and values within the society towards the relation-ship between the notions of education and care of children.

Secondly, to what extent can the provision of the different components of socialpedagogy be carried out by different professionals in different contexts, and when andhow do such professionals need to work together? In this paper we are primarilyconcerned with the role of the teacher in the context of schooling. However, it is clearthat in principle some of the social pedagogical components of schooling could beundertaken by other professionals working in schools, and by some teachers morethan others. This raises the issue of what should be the precise role exercised by eachtype of professional, and to what extent might one type of professional (e.g. a teacher)liaise with or indeed ‘take over’ an aspect of the role of another professional in theschool. Changes to the organisation of education and care professionals and theirconstituent roles will clearly involve both conceptual and logistical challenges.

Thirdly, where does professional preparation in social pedagogy fit in? Such prep-aration could be included as part of the preparation of all teachers and all other profes-sionals involved with children. In addition, a greater degree of social pedagogicaleducation could be afforded to those teachers and other professionals who wish to takeon a greater social pedagogical role. Moreover, there may be a need for exclusiveeducation in social pedagogy for those individuals wishing to work as ‘social peda-gogues’. A distinction also needs to be made here between education which seeks toinform professionals about social pedagogy, and education which is designed toenable professionals to practise social pedagogy. A distinction also needs to be madebetween initial professional preparation and continuing professional development, toenable professionals to undertake more work in particular aspects of a social pedagog-ical role as they progress through their career.

In England it is clear that reforms in the roles of education and care professionals areunder active consideration; this is also true in Norway, albeit to a lesser extent. For suchreforms to succeed, there is a need for greater conceptual clarity regarding the extentand nature of how the role of the teacher may change with respect to the understandingand practice of social pedagogy, and how any such change can best be supported.

ReferencesAssociation of Professionals in Education and Children’s Trusts (Aspect). 2006. Personalised

learning: From blueprint to practice. Wakefield, UK: Aspect. http://www.aspect.org.uk/files/1188/PL%20From%20Blueprint%20to%20Practice.pdf (accessed March 3, 2008).

Bakken, H., D.M. Berge, and K. Eikrem. 2005. Sosialpedagogisk team ved Sellanrå skole:Evaluering av et forsøksprosjekt [The social pedagogical team at Sellanrå primary school:A project evaluation]. Report 0511. Molde, Norway: Møre forskning, Molde AS.

Bru, E., P. Stephens, and T. Torsheim. 2002. Students’ perceptions of class management andreports of their own misbehaviour. Journal of School Psychology 40: 287–307.

BUPL. 2006. The work of the pedagogue: Roles and tasks. Copenhagen: BUPL. http://www.bupl.dk/ikoner/pdf_filer/budpaapaedagogiskarbejde.pdf (accessed March 3, 2008).

Cameron, C. 2004. Social pedagogy and care: Danish and German practice in young people’sresidential care. Journal of Social Work 4, no. 2: 133–51.

Cameron, C. 2006. New ways of educating: Pedagogy and children’s services. Final report tothe Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute ofEducation, University of London.

Cameron, C. 2007. Social pedagogy and the children’s workforce. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/08/08/105392/social-pedagogy-and-the-childrens-workforce.html(accessed March 1, 2008).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

86 C. Kyriacou et al.

[Ccaron] ech, T. 2007. Vision of the role of social pedagogue in making school healthier. School andHealth 21: 499–507.

Cheminais, R. 2006. Every child matters: A practical guide for teachers. London: DavidFulton.

Davies Jones, H. 2000. The social pedagogues in Western Europe – Some implicationsfor European interprofessional care. http://www.childrenuk.co.uk/chaug/aug2000/social_pedagogues.htm (accessed February 20, 2008).

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). 2008. Building brighter futures: Nextsteps for the children’s workforce. London: DCSF.

Department for Education and Skills. 2004. Every child matters: Change for children inschools. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Department for Education and Skills. 2005. The children’s workforce strategy: A strategy tobuild a world-class workforce for children and young people. London: Department forEducation and Skills. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/5958-DfES-ECM.pdf (accessed February 22, 2008).

Fellesorganisasjonen for barnevernpedagoger, sosionomer og vernepleiere (FO). 2002. Barn-evernpedagog: et spennende yrke med mange muligheter [The child welfare pedagogue:An exciting occupation with many opportunities]. Oslo and Stavanger: FO.

Fellesorganisasjonen for barnevernpedagoger, sosionomer og vernepleiere (FO). 2008. Barn-evernpedagogen [The child welfare pedagogue]. http://www.fo.no/barnevernpedagogen/barnevernpedagogen-article332-232.html (accessed March 24, 2008).

Forrester, G. 2005. All in a day’s work: Primary teachers ‘performing’ and ‘caring’. Genderand Education 17: 271–87.

Giedraitiené, E. 2000. The position of a social pedagogue in Lithuania. Paper presented at theScottish School Board Association Parents’ Conference ‘Parents in Education Around theWorld’, May, in Glasgow. http://www.schoolboard-scotland.com/conference/Workshops/Lithuania%20-%20Elvyra.htm (accessed February 20, 2008).

Hallstedt, P., and M. Högström. 2005. The recontextualisation of social pedagogy: A study ofthree curricula in the Netherlands, Norway and Ireland. Malmö Studies in EducationalSciences, no. 21. Lararutbildningen: Malmö hogskola. http://dspace.mah.se/bitstream/2043/1818/1/Hallstedt,H%C3%B6gstr%C3%B6m%20manus.pdf (accessed March 3, 2008).

Jackson, R. 2006. The role of social pedagogy in the training of residential child workers.Journal of Intellectual Disabilities 10, no. 1: 61–73.

Jarning, H. 1997. The many meanings of social pedagogy: Pedagogy and social theory inScandinavia. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 41: 413–31.

Kutnick, P., P. Blatchford, and E. Baines. 2002. Pupil groupings in primary school classrooms:Sites for learning and social pedagogy? British Educational Research Journal 28: 187–206.

Kyriacou, C. 2002. A humanistic view of discipline. In Leadership and behaviour manage-ment, ed. B. Rogers, 40–52. London: Paul Chapman.

Kyriacou, C. 2003. Helping troubled pupils. Cheltenham, UK: Nelson Thornes.Kyriacou, C., E. Avramidis, H. Høie, Å. Hultgren, and P. Stephens. 2007. The development of

student teachers’ views on pupil misbehaviour during an initial teacher trainingprogramme in England and Norway. Journal of Education for Teaching 33: 293–307.

Kyriacou, C., Å. Hultgren, and P. Stephens. 1999. Student teachers’ motivation to become asecondary school teacher in England and Norway. Teacher Development 3: 373–81.

Kyriacou, C., R. Kunc, P. Stephens, and Å. Hultgren. 2003. Student teachers’ expectations ofteaching as a career in England and Norway. Educational Review 55: 255–63.

Majauskiene, L. 2003. Interaction between a social worker and a school community: Compar-ative analysis of Lithuanian and German experience. Paper presented at the European Confer-ence on Educational Research, September 17–20, in Hamburg, Germany. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003532.htm (accessed February 25, 2008).

Mathiesen, R. 1998. Fokus på sosialpedagogikkens teoretiske grunnlag: Hvordan skal vi forståbegrepet sosialpedagogikk i en teoretisk sammenheng? [Addressing social pedagogy’s theo-retical foundations: How shall we understand the theoretical concept of social pedagogy?].http://www.socialpedagogik.dk/pdf/Mathiesen%20Fokus%20p%E5%20Socialp%E6dagogikken%20Nr%202%201998.pdf (accessed March 24, 2008).

O’Connor, K.E. 2007. ‘You choose to care’: Teachers, emotions and professional identity.Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 117–26.

C

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Pedagogy, Culture & Society 87

OECD. 2006. Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/edu/earlychildhood (accessed March 1, 2008).

Olweus, D. 2001. Olweus’ Kjerneprogram mot Mobbing og Antisosial Atferd: EnLærerveiledning [Olweus’s core program against bullying and antisocial behaviour: Ateacher handbook], version III. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Otto, H.-W. 2006. Social pedagogy and social work: Evolution and perspectives. In Proceedingsof the Congresso Internacional de Pedagogia Social 2006, São Paulo. http://www.proceedings.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=MSC0000000092006000100017&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=en (accessed February 26, 2008).

Petrie, P. 2005. Schools and support staff: Applying the European pedagogic model. Supportfor Learning 20, no. 4: 176–80.

Petrie, P., J. Boddy, C. Cameron, V. Wigfall, and A. Simon. 2006. Working with children incare: European perspectives. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Roland, E., and G. Sørensen Vaaland. 2003. Zero, SAFs program mot mobbing: Lærerveiledning[Zero, SAF’s anti-bullying program: A teacher’s guide]. 2nd ed. Stavanger, Norway: Centrefor Behavioural Research, Stavanger University College.

Scottish Executive. 2006. Changing lives: Report of the 21st century social work review.http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/02/02094408/ (accessed February 26,2008).

Smith, M. 2007. Social pedagogy. In The encyclopaedia of informal education. http://www.infed.org/biblio/b-socped.htm (accessed February 21, 2008).

Smith, M., and B. Whyte. 2008. Social education and social pedagogy: Reclaiming a Scottishtradition in social work. European Journal of Social Work 15, no. 1: 15–28.

Stephens, P. 2007. Social pedagogy. Welcoming address to a meeting of a European Networkon Social Pedagogy, November 29 to December 1, in Stavanger, Norway.

Stephens, P., C. Kyriacou, and F.E. Tønnessen. 2005. Student teachers’ views of pupil misbe-haviour in classrooms: A Norwegian and an English setting compared. ScandinavianJournal of Educational Research 49: 203–16.

Stephens, P., F.E. Tønnessen, and C. Kyriacou. 2004. Teacher training and teacher educationin England and Norway: A comparative study of policy goals. Comparative Education 40:109–30.

Thambirajah, M.S., K.J. Grandison, and L. De-Hayes. 2008. Understanding school refusal: Ahandbook for professionals in education, health and social care. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA). 2007. What is every child matters?London: TDA.

Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet (UFD). 2005a. Rammeplan for Vernepleierutdan-ning [National framework for the education of health social workers]. Oslo: UFD.

Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet (UFD). 2005b. Rammeplan og Forskrift for 3-ÅrigBarnevernspedagogutdanning [National framework and regulations for the 3-year educa-tion of child welfare pedagogues]. Oslo: UFD.

Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet (UFD). 2005c. Rammeplan for 3-Årig Sosionomut-danning [National framework for the 3-year education of social workers]. Oslo: UFD.

Vulliamy, G., and R. Webb. 2003. Supporting disaffected pupils: Perspectives from thepupils, their parents and their teachers. Educational Research 45: 275–86.

Webb, R., and G. Vulliamy. 2001. The primary teachers’ role in child protection. BritishEducational Research Journal 27: 59–77.

Webb, R., and G. Vulliamy. 2002. The social work dimension of the primary teacher’s role.Research Papers in Education 17: 165–84.

Woods, P., M. Ashley, and G. Woods. 2005. Steiner schools in England. Research ReportRR645. London: Department for Education and Skills.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

02:

14 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014