Uppeldi og menntun - 01.06.2015, Page 33

Uppeldi og menntUn/icelandic JoUrnal of edUcation 24(1) 2015 33
lOFTUr gUTTOrmssOn
This is the background to the student unrest that started in 1975. Growing in
number, the students made their voices heard in meetings and publications criticiz-
ing teaching arrangements and lack of student influence. Some amongst them did
not bother meeting the 80% attendance requirement, arguing that attendance was a
waste of time. When the UCE Council decided to apply a clause in its regulations that
obliged students to attend obligatory courses at least 80% of the time as a prerequisite
for sitting examinations, the entire student body boycotted the exams. The conflict
resulted in a compromise: student representatives were accepted as members on two
policy-making committees, and several staff/student working groups were estab-
lished in order to negotiate a common platform for reform. This cooperation led to a
number of curricular changes, for example reducing the number of compulsory courses
during the first two semesters and creating leeway for independent student work.
In the long run the reforms introduced in 1975 did not appease the student leaders.
During the next two years the student population grew rapidly and gained strength
and ability to impact UCE policy, under the leadership of a student council that regu-
larly issued an internal publication (Snepill) pressing for radical pedagogical reforms
of the curriculum and teaching methods. In their criticism the student leaders increas-
ingly referred to the Compulsory School Act of 1974 and the subsequent National
Compulsory School Curriculum (Námskrá fyrir grunnskóla, 1976–1977) prepared by the
DERD. The students considered the integration of a number of core subjects, including
pedagogy and didactics, as being appropriate and urgent for meeting new challenges
in teacher education. During the school year 1977–1978 these demands were the focus
of growing discontent and increasing pressure from students.
The teaching staff, mainly assistant professors and a few professors, did not react in
unison to the students’ demands. At the beginning the majority either took an outright
negative stance or a neutral one. In October 1977 the UCE‘s Council decided to estab-
lish a cooperation committee composed of five individuals from each side, students
and teachers. Its task was to work out concrete reform proposals concerning the form
and content of the UCE curriculum.
The work of the cooperation committee, which lasted throughout the winter, was
marked by intense discussions and was followed by general debates among both the
students and the teachers. The student organ Snepill publicized a variety of reform
proposals as they were taking shape. However, it was not until April 1978, after a
series of unexpected upheavals, that the cooperation committee reached a compro-
mise. A proposal submitted to the UEC‘s Directorate (skólastjórn) recommended the
reorganization of teacher education on the basis of a set of ideas presented by the
cooperation committee. Essentially, the committee proposed that several main themes,
appropriate for the integration of a number of subjects and learning tasks, should be
defined – i.e., a thematic approach should be implemented. By approving this proposal,
the UCE‘s Directorate committed itself to embark on implementing a reform policy
that affected teaching and learning at the UCE for the next decade (Ingólfur Ásgeir
Jóhannesson, 1991). It is argued that it was largely thanks to the resistance and strug-
gle of the student teachers that the national educational reform policy of the early
1970s was gradually implemented in teacher education in Iceland.