Download issue - Lärarutbildning

Linda Rönnbergto explore how increased competition is seen by principals and how their work and theorganisation of schooling is affected. Looking at the lived effects of marketisation, thefinding is that it certainly impacts Swedish principals and their work, but to varyingdegrees. Overall, their roles are affected and transformed from being more pedagogicalto more economic. Still, the principals in the study appear to take a pragmatic stancetowards the market-oriented policies.Ingrid Henning Loeb and Karin Lumsden Wass also study the heavily marketisedSwedish upper secondary education. They point to the internal processes of accountingin a teacher team in the article “Internal Marketisation and Teachers DefendingTheir Educational Setting – Accounting and Mobilisation in Swedish Upper SecondaryEducation”. There is a reported lack of close-up studies focusing on how teachers andteacher teams act and respond within the current forms of evaluation and control.Presented as a narrative, the findings illustrate how teachers have acquired accountingskills and that there is no possibility for teachers not to involve themselves in thetechniques and formats of accounting and control.In the fifth article, Swedish upper secondary is in focus once again but from quitea different angle. Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie Holm explore and analysea selection of for-profit education companies in “School as ‘Edu-business’: Four‘Serious Players’ in the Swedish upper secondary school market” by mapping newdevelopments of business formations and ownership relations of four large educationcompanies and their expansion inside and outside of Sweden. The results show thattoday’s upper secondary school sector in Sweden has indeed become “big business”,or “edu-business”.Moving on to the transformation of adult education in Sweden, reforms havehad the purpose to promote flexible forms as well as enhance efficiency and qualitythrough the introduction of market-like structures. Caroline Runesdotter’s article“Tensions in the Meeting Between Institutional Logics and Identities in Swedish FolkHigh Schools” analyses the dual forces of existing institutional rationalities and newpractices introduced that challenge the institution’s traditional values by increasingSwedish folk high schools’ dependence on external incomes. Based on interviewswith folk high school staff, Runesdotter concludes that relations are not only changingbetween the school leadership and teachers, but also between the teachers andstudents. In sum, the market-oriented changes are being perceived differently andmet by processes of both resistance and change.In “Evaluation – The (Not So) Softly-Softly Approach to Governance and its Consequencesfor Compulsory Education in the Nordic Countries”, Christine Hudsonfocuses on how public sector reform and restructuring along marketisation linesand governing by results and evaluation have affected the Nordic countries. Thearticle provides an overview of the development of institutions and techniques ofevaluation in the selected countries and discusses their results for the Nordic modelof education. In sum, Hudson finishes off by stating that there is not a unified single558

Linda RönnbergFinally, the complexities of simultaneous continuity and change also need to be recognised.What may appear as ‘new’ often has a longer history than is visible at firstglance. Or the apparent ‘new’ in a specific national context may be traced to ‘old’experiences in another national setting by policy learning or transfer. Or, as shownin several of the articles dealing with experiences and perceptions of marketisation(for instance Runesdotter, Holm & Lundström, Henning Loeb & Lumsden Wass), the‘new’ often exists parallel to ‘old’ ideas and values. As Simola et al. states: “The ‘new’is always entangled with and re-articulated through the ‘old’” (Simola et al. 2009:164, cited in Hudson’s contribution). This also needs to be acknowledged in the futurescholarly study of education policy and politics.560

Education Governance by Marketisation and Quality Assurance – Introductory NotesReferencesDolowitz, D. (2009) Learning by observing: Surveying the international arena. Policy and Politics,37(3), 317–334.Easton, D. (1953) The Political System: An Inquiry to the State of Political Science. New York:Knopf.Goldfinch, S. and Wallis, J. (2010) Two myths of convergence in public management reform. PublicAdministration, 88(4), 1099–1115.Hartman, L. (ed.) (2011) Konkurrensens konsekvenser. Vad händer med svensk välfärd? Stockholm:SNS.Jarl, M. and Rönnberg, L. (2010) Skolpolitik. Från riksdagshus till klassrum. Stockholm: Liber.Lascoumes, P. and Le Galès, P. (2007) Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments– From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation.Governance, 20(1), 1–21.Levin, B. (1998) An epidemic of educational policy: (What) can we learn from each other? ComparativeEducation, 34(2), 131–141.Lundahl, L. (2011) The emergence of a Swedish school market. In R. Hatcher & K. Jones (eds.) NoCountry for the Young: Education from New Labour to the Coalition (pp. 37–50). London:Tufnell.Meseguer, C. (2009) Learning, Policy Making and Market Reforms. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Neave, G. (1998) The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33 (3), 265–284.Ozga, J. (2011) Governing narratives: “Local” meanings and globalising education policy. EducationInquiry, 2(2), 305–318.Ozga, J., and Jones, R. (2006) Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer.Journal of Education Policy, 21(1), 1–17.Simola, H., Rinne, R., Varjo, J., Pitkänen, H. and Kauko, J. (2009) Quality assurance and evaluation(QAE) in Finnish compulsory schooling: A national model or just unintended effects ofradical decentralisation? Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 163–178.Vlachos, J. (2011) Friskolor i förändring. In L. Hartman, (ed.), Konkurrensens konsekvenser. Vadhänder med svensk välfärd? (pp. 66–111). Stockholm: SNS.561

Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, pp.563–579EDU.INQ.Crafting competition:Media rankings and the forming of a globalmarket for business schoolsLinda Wedlin*AbstractRankings are elements of market governance of higher education and research. Despite the growingimportance of these systems in global policy-making, little scholarly attention has been paid to therole rankings play as elements of governance. This paper presents an empirical study of the introductionof international rankings in management education and the responses to these developmentsamong European business schools. The paper analyses how rankings have shaped perceptions ofan international market and competition among business schools in this field via two importantprocesses: constructing comparability and thereby consolidating views of the “customer” and the“product” in a perceived global market, and by crafting perceptions and mechanisms for competitionamong business schools in this field. This suggests that rankings have been important in shapingthis field as global and competitive in character, contributing to what is commonly referred to asthe increasing “marketisation” of the field.Keywords: Marketisation, rankings, business schools, competition, governanceIntroductionIn only a few years, the global rankings of universities have become a salient featureof the higher education and research landscape. Rankings have virtually exploded innumber, they have become global in reach and scope, and interest in them has burgeoned(Harvey 2008; Kehm & Stensaker 2009). At the same time as rankings havemoved in to the centre of public debate on higher education and research, they havebecome a core concern for university managers and leaders but also for policy-makersof higher education (Hazelkorn 2007). Couched in arguments about accountabilityand transparency, rankings have proliferated and gained increasing interest as newelements in the governance of universities (King 2009). We see this in part in thefact that ranking practices are now being discussed, used and produced not only bymedia but by national and international quality agencies, academic institutions andstate authorities to assess and promote various aspects of higher education and itsinstitutions. We can also note an abundance of activities such as special conferences,meetings and the organising of groups and networks, where rankings and their rolein higher education and research are discussed and debated (Wedlin et al. 2009).*Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Sweden. E-mail: Linda.wedlin@fek.uu.se©Author. ISSN 2000-4508, pp.563–579563

Linda WedlinThe fact that the EU is seeking to develop its own global university ranking is furtherevidence of the centrality of rankings for contemporary university governance andchange (European Commission 2008).Despite growing recognition that rankings are influential and an essential feature ofcurrent university and higher education governance, we know little about the implicationsof this for universities and other higher education organisations. What does itmean that rankings are proliferating and gaining increasing attention and interest asnew governance mechanisms? What role do international rankings play in the governanceof higher education and research organisations? I address these questions in thispaper by analysing the introduction of international rankings in the field of Europeanmanagement education. In an empirical study of the reactions to the introductionof international rankings in this area, I trace the meanings associated with rankingsamong business schools and discuss how this is shaping the understandings and, tosome extent, actions of business schools in this field. Following recent research onthe role and function of rankings in other social fields (Kornberger & Carter 2010;King 2009), I argue in this paper that rankings have become an important driver fora market view of management education, and have been particularly influential incrafting elements of competition in this perceived market. Based on extensive empiricalmaterial, most significantly in the form of a survey of European business schoolsaiming to capture the responses and implications of rankings among these organisations,I argue that rankings have helped to drive a market perception of managementeducation via two important processes: constructing and consolidating views of the“customer” and the “product” of management education, and by crafting perceptionsand mechanisms for competition among business schools. This has, in essence,contributed to what is commonly referred to as the increasing “marketisation” of thefield. The main contribution of this paper is to provide empirical details of the rolethat rankings play in shaping such processes of marketisation.The paper is structured as follows. In the following section, I position rankings aselements of reformed governance for the field, specifying the roles ranking mechanismsplay in shaping and constructing markets and competition. I then explain themethodology and empirical context for this paper. The subsequent section draws onmaterial from a study of the responses to international rankings among Europeanbusiness schools, focusing first on how the rankings have consolidated views onmanagement education as a market, and second on the role they have played in constitutingbusiness schools as competitive units in this market. The paper ends withan analysis and discussion of the implications of these processes for the field and forhigher education more generally.Rankings and the development of market governanceThe introduction of rankings lists in higher education can be taken as a sign of whathas been termed the “marketisation” of universities (Czarniawska & Genell 2002).564

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolsIn higher education, the adherence to market ideals and principles includes theincreasing production and use of quality measures and performance assessments(Czarniawska & Genell 2002; Shore & Wright 2000), and the subsequent interestin and development of measures of value of various forms, including financial value(Bok 2004). It is accompanied by a marketing rhetoric about the role and functionof universities (Kirp 2003), increasing “consumerism” in education (Modell 2005),together creating claims of stronger “competition” in the marketplace, forcing theneed for “customer value” and a growing concern with producing relevant and usefulknowledge to clients and customers (Frank & Meyer 2007). While such marketterminology is well known to most people, we are less accustomed to it in universitiesand in education, and it is not easily reconciled with traditional perceptions of theuniversity and of the academic field.Rather than seeing them as evolving naturally, and unchallenged, from a developingmarket of higher education, we can also see rankings as elements in the – partial– construction of markets and market mechanisms for governance. Shaped by largergovernmental reforms of the public sector, to some extent following a New PublicManagement agenda (Paradeise et al. 2009), higher education and research have beentargets for demands to increase the transparency, efficiency and “customer orientation”of its activities, which have guided efforts to create new means to regulate andgovern the field. In part, such efforts have focused on creating markets – or ratherquasi-markets – and market-like features and mechanisms into the field. As part ofsuch reforms, states have come to focus increasingly on ex-post evaluations and assessmentsof results, leading to what some have termed the evolution of the “evaluativestate” (Neave 1998). Through, for instance, the development of procedures andmechanisms for accountability and quality assurance (Stensaker & Harvey 2010) andperformance-based funding (Whitley & Gläser 2007), the state’s role in governancehas partly changed. As a particular element of this changed approach to regulation,the notion of “control” seems to have been replaced with “audit” (Djelic, 2006, p. 72;cf. Czarniawska & Genell, 2002), which has spurred a general rise in and increasingattention to audit practices and technologies in what has been termed the “auditsociety” (Power, 1997).This development is in part the result of the increasing circulation and influenceof global models for managing and governing universities (King 2009), often significantlyinfluenced by neo-liberal ideas of markets and the more general spread ofmarket models for steering in many areas of society (cf. Djelic 2006). This includesan increasing interest in and attention to regulatory mechanisms described as “soft”in character (Djelic & Sahlin-Andersson 2006), largely meaning they are norm-basedand lack formal or law-based sanctions. For higher education, this development includesthe proliferation of accreditation procedures (Hedmo 2004) and rankings andleague tables (King 2009; Wedlin 2006). These systems are promoted and producedby professional organisations, the media, and other actors and are formed largely565

Linda Wedlinoutside the legal authority of the state (Hedmo et al. 2006). Such mechanisms areoften, but not always, international or transnational in scope and reach and rely toa large extent on voluntary co-operation and self-regulatory procedures (Djelic &Sahlin-Andersson 2006). The circulation of such market models for governance hasbeen aided by international and transnational organisations and policy processes,most notably perhaps the Bologna Process and the EU’s efforts to create European“markets” for higher education and research (Hedmo & Wedlin 2008), along withthose of the OECD and others (King 2009; Wright & Ørberg 2008).While the perspective outlined above suggests that rankings are elements of adeveloping market-based approach to the governance of higher education and of universities,it is unclear what the implications are of this development. What do rankingmechanisms do as elements of new forms of market governance? Here I will buildon recent work suggesting that one of the primary implications of a ranking system,noticed in higher education but also elsewhere, is that these systems tend to create,rather than necessarily follow from, competition among organisations. Kornberger& Carter (2010) for instance show in their study of league tables of cities how thesehave formed the a priori for competition among cities across the world. They arguethat rankings of cities have transformed the relations between cities and created acommon framework in which cities become “visible and comparable” which, in turn,has led cities to begin to form strategies and deploy resources to position themselvesagainst competing cities (Kornberger & Carter 2010: 331). In a similar manner, King(2009) notes, making references to parallel studies of the role of credit agencies inmarkets, that “university rankings help constitute national and global markets” andthat they “help to promote marketization, competition and increasingly globalization”(King 2009: 156).Building on this reasoning, the following empirical story is set out to explore howthe introduction of international rankings have helped to shape and construct competitionin the field of management education. I will point to two important rolesrankings have played in shaping understandings of competition in this field. First, theyhelp to construct understandings and mechanisms for accounting for “products” and“customers” in higher education and, second, they shape notions of higher educationorganisations as “competitors” in this field.There are two prime characteristics or abilities of rankings that make them particularlyimportant in this respect. The first is that they create comparability amongdisparate entities. This happens through a process of commensuration, which includesthe transformation of qualities into quantities, and the specification of commonmetrics for what is usually considered disparate characteristics or units (Espeland &Stevens 1998). This helps to reduce and simplify information, which allows people to“quickly grasp, represent and compare differences” (Espeland & Stevens 1998: 316)but which also highlights similarities and comparable features. Through rankings,universities and other higher education organisations are to some extent removed566

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolsfrom their cultural, political and institutional contexts and made comparable acrosssettings (Harvey 2008). The second important aspect of rankings is that they also,and simultaneously, produce and construct differences, particularly in a hierarchicalsense. By providing a hierarchical ordering of universities or other entities, the rankingsinfluence status and reputation positions and relations among actors (Elsbach& Kramer 1996; Sauder 2006) and thus tend to punish those ranked low and rewardthose positioned high in the rank order. Further, by being highly visible and widelyspread, the rankings promote and diffuse influential images of position and status ofuniversities to an external audience (Martins 2005: Sauder 2008). Taken together,these features make the rankings important for creating and shaping competitivedynamics among organisations. We will see more clearly how this plays out in thefollowing sections as we turn our attention to the business school field.Context and methodsThe empirical setting is the European field for management education. This is a particularlygood place to study the development of rankings, for two main reasons. First,rankings developed early in this field. National rankings of MBA programmes hadbeen prominent in this field in the USA since the mid-1980s, with rankings featuringin magazines such as Business Week and the U.S. News and World Report gainingincreasing attention also outside of the USA. With the launch of the Financial Times’(FT) international ranking in 1999, rankings quickly proliferated and also becamerecognised in Europe and across the world. This development precedes the one forgeneral university rankings by around 4 to 5 years, with the ARWU (Academic Rankingof World Universities, by Shanghai Jiao Tong University) being launched in 2003and the Times Higher Education Supplement global ranking being launched in 2004,and with a rapid proliferation thereafter. Second, for European business schools, thelaunch of international rankings in 1999 provides the first encounter with these systems.While national and regional league tables and rankings had been elements ofseveral national higher education systems even prior to 1999, many business schoolshad not been compared or assessed as individual units through these systems before,particularly in an international setting. Thus, this field provides good grounds foranalysing the dynamics and consequences of these developments for a particular setof higher education organisations.The empirical study was conducted between 1999 and 2004, when the developmentand expansion of rankings in this field was particularly salient. The analysisin this paper mainly builds on three sets of data: textual data on the content, formand development of rankings, interviews with the journalist and the statistician responsiblefor the rankings at the FT (interviewed in 2000 and 2001), and a surveyof European business school deans about the influence and effects of rankings in theEuropean field of management education. The first data set is mainly documents andnewspaper articles explaining the rankings and the methodology, provided on web567

Linda Wedlinpages and in printed form from the rankers. This textual material is supplementedwith interviews with the rankers concerning their views on the rankings and theprocesses of developing and launching the rankings and the discussions taking placeduring this process. These sets of data are used to show the process of setting up andestablishing the rankings as market mechanisms for this field. In contrast, to capturethe understanding and interpretation of the rankings among the ranked schools, Iuse a third set of data on the responses and reactions to rankings among Europeanbusiness schools. This data was collected through a survey sent to the deans of allEuropean business schools that had featured in international rankings 1 in the springof 2002, in total 40 deans. The response rate for this survey was 75%. In this survey,I asked deans a number of questions regarding their school’s position and participationin the rankings, their reactions and responses to the rankings, and the actionsthey had taken to respond to the increasing use of and featuring in internationalrankings. This data is used in this paper to analyse how the rankings have translatedinto understandings and actions among business schools in this field. Preceding thesurvey, and as part of a larger study, interviews were conducted with representativesof a number of European business about the role of and responses to rankings. Theseinterviews are not extensively reported here, although they are occasionally used toclarify or highlight results from the survey material.Constructing comparability in a global business school marketRankings of higher education and management education organisations and programmesare not new. Rankings of universities and higher education organisationshave been prominent in many countries for many years, for instance MacLean inCanada since 1991, the Times in the UK since 1993, and Der Spiegel in Germany since1989. For business schools, the most prominent rankings have been those producedby Business Week and the U.S. News and World Report in the United States (startedin 1988 and 1987, respectively). These rankings have received increasing interest inthe business school field also outside of the USA as the field of management educationhas expanded and internationalised.The ranking “trend” took a new turn in the late 1990s, however, as national rankingswere supplemented with international and global comparisons of educationalprogrammes and schools. Among the first of these we find the FT internationalranking of business schools and MBA programmes launched in 1999. While regionalrankings of MBA programmes had been in circulation before this time, for instancea European ranking of MBAs in the FT in 1998, their 1999 ranking was one of thefirst rankings attempting to compare educational organisations across countriesand continents that received significant attention in the business school community.This ranking compared North American and European MBA programmes in a singleranking, featuring 16 European, 3 Canadian and 31 American business schools in atop-50 ranking. Since this ranking was launched, other magazines and newspapers568

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolshave followed suit and launched international rankings of business schools and MBAprogrammes in rapid pace: the Wall Street Journal in 2001, the Economist in 2002,and Forbes in 2003. Business Week has also included non-US schools in its biennialsurvey since 2000, but has chosen to report the results in a separate ranking list of“international schools” rather than integrating it into their ranking of US schools.This international perspective of the rankings is partly a response to the increasinginternational character and scope of the field of management education, and aresponse to calls for structure and order in this field. The 1980s and 1990s saw a rapidexpansion of management education in many countries, with a number of new businessschools and programmes. In the 1990s, schools and programmes also becameincreasingly international in character and scope with, for instance, a rising numberof joint programmes between business schools both within Europe and with schoolsin the USA, and with new overseas campuses being established by both European andAmerican business schools. In the late 1990s, business schools were also developingstrategic partnerships across continents.Along with this internationalisation came increasing demands for comparabilityand structure in the field. The comparability required for such efforts is not, however,self-evident. Management education is taught in a wide variety of organisations: inuniversity-based business schools, in university departments or faculties, in independentbusiness schools or in private corporate training organisations. These can be bothpublic and private in character, and they can have all or only some of the standardactivities such as undergraduate, graduate, PhD and executive programmes. The programmesare also different and vary according to national systems of higher education.The international rankings have put particular focus on one such unit that makesbusiness schools in various contexts and settings appear comparable. This is the MBAlabel, or the Master of Business Administration, which is an American graduate degreethat has rapidly diffused around the world in recent years (Mazza et al. 2000).The main target of international rankings of business schools is the full-time MBAprogramme, which is ranked by all international rankers. The FT and Business Weekalso provide rankings of executive MBA programmes, and separate ranking lists ofexecutive education programmes.The development of rankings is thus also related to the spread and popularity of theMBA label in many parts of the world. The MBA has become an institutionalised partof most higher education systems around the world as the label proliferated during the1980s and 1990s (Daniel, 1998; Moon, 2002). In Europe, the first MBA programmewas set up at INSEAD in 1958, followed only by a few programmes in the 1960s and1970s. The proliferation intensified in the 1980s and 1990s as old programmes werere-labelled and new programmes were started at a rapid pace (Mazza et al. 2005).In 1998 there were approximately 450 MBA programmes on offer in Europe. Theexpansion also continued through the early 2000s so that in 2003 the number ofMBA-type programmes had increased to almost 700.569

Linda WedlinThe fact that the MBA label and MBA-type programmes have come into focus inthe rankings is not a coincidence. It is, as suggested above, one of few programmesthat is believed to be internationally and globally recognised and one that makesorganisations in a wide variety of settings and contexts comparable. Despite the factthat MBA programmes can also vary significantly, for instance between one and twoyears in length, they are perceived to be the marker for management education. TheMBA is also perceived to be the most internationally transferable degree in this field:No educational qualification carries across borders like the MBA (Interview European MBAdirector 2001).The wide use of the MBA label (Mazza et al. 2005) has made comparisons not onlydesirable but also possible, and the perceived international character of the degreemakes it a suitable entity for such efforts.Another feature of the MBA programme is its “commercial” character, which setsit apart from most other educational programmes being offered. The full-time MBAprogrammes, which charge commercial fees to individuals, can cost as much as EUR50,000 or perhaps even more for a one-year programme. Executive MBA programmesand other executive education courses also have very high fees, even higher than forthose of the full-time MBA, but they are charged to corporations sending their employeesfor longer or shorter management training programmes to business schools.The rankings have used the commercial character of these programmes to define amarket category for business schools, and to argue for the importance and viability ofrankings. The FT, for instance, argues in its first ranking issue that students need theguidance of rankings to navigate among offerings: “Courses can cost $100,000 or more,so students need guidance on finding value. The FT’s MBA league tables will providethat” (FT 1999: 1). Building on this, the rankings have promoted a “customer view” of theprogrammes offered at business schools. In the FT rankings, the customers are definedas business school alumni (graduates three years after graduation), and companiesbuying executive education courses. Other rankings have an even more pronouncedcustomer view, mainly Business Week that states: “Let the customer speak. That’s thephilosophy behind BUSINESS WEEK’s ranking of the best business schools” (BusinessWeek, 1998: 70). This magazine uses the opinions of business school graduates to makeup 90% of the final ranking of schools. The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand,focuses exclusively on company recruiters’ opinions for their rankings.Building on the commercial character of the programmes and this customer view ofeducation, the rankings have come to focus on the role of these programmes in advancingthe careers of managers and preparing students for more advanced managementpositions in business and industry. Using criteria to reflect this focus on the “usefulnessof knowledge”, the rankings have come to focus to a great extent on measuring the“outcome” and “value” of educational efforts (FT 1999). Common criteria in several570

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolsof the rankings include “value-for-money”, employment opportunities for graduates,recruitment efforts and job information at the schools, career progress and usefulnessof skills and networks developed during the programme. The FT and other rankingsalso have measures of salary, and salary increase, of students after going through theprogramme. The rankings thus tend to place significant attention on measures of the“employability” of graduates and the usefulness of business school training, ratherthan on more traditional measures of teaching and learning.Crafting competition among international business schoolsWe have thus far noted how the international rankings have been designed to constructand consolidate perceptions of the customers and the product in internationalmanagement education. In this sense, rankings play an important role in creating amarket, which was also one of the stated aims of founding the Business Week ranking:I felt there was no marketplace, really, to make the [business] schools even pay attentionto demand. […] So what I thought was this, one thing that a ranking would actually do is tocreate a market where none had existed. Create a market where schools could be rewardedand punished for failing to be responsive to their two prime constituents: the students andthe corporations (Selections Interview: 1-2).Whether a stated aim or just a consequence – intended or otherwise – of rankings, anincreasing focus on competition and competitive mechanisms is the second importantelement in the marketisation process of this field that has followed from the rankings.Rankings have introduced perceptions of and mechanisms for competition among,primarily, the international business schools that feature in the rankings. To see this,however, we need to look at the responses and reactions to rankings to understand howthe rankings are translated into actions and understandings of members of this field.In CompetitionInvestigating the role of rankings in crafting competition, we look at the argumentsprovided by business school deans when asked in the survey why they participate inthe rankings. While rankings can be carried out without the explicit knowledge orconsent of the ranked organisations, the FT ranking (as well as others in this field)rely on active participation of the ranked organisations to provide data and supplyinformation for the rankings. Eleven (of 20) criteria in this ranking are based on informationprovided by business schools themselves. In my survey, I thus asked whatthe main reasons were that business schools participated in, and supplied informationto, the rankings. From these responses, it is clear that two answers stand out asthe most important reasons for schools to participate: because it is believed to create,or enhance, international recognition, and because it is noted that “competitorsparticipate” (see Table 1). These aspects are ranked higher than those of “externalvisibility”, “distinction as an elite institution”, “a marketing tool”, and “demand for571

Linda Wedlinstudents”. While clearly connected to a general strive for visibility and marketing,these specifically enhance the perceived importance of the international and competitivecharacter and role of rankings for this field. These reasons are also distinctlydifferent from other reasons believed to be less important in relation to rankings,most prominently those related to quality development and control, and the need tocreate or enhance reputation within the academic community.Table 1: Reasons to participate in international rankingsRanked schoolsMean MedianInternational recognition 4.4 5Competitors participate 4.3 4.5External visibility 4.1 4Distinction elite inst. 4.0 4Marketing tool, programmes 4.0 4Demanded by students 3.7 4Academic reputation 3.3 3Demanded by corp. clients 3.2 3Quality development 2.8 3Quality control 2.3 2Adapted from (Wedlin 2006)While competition and competitive pressures are thus the most important reasonsto participate in rankings, there are also indications that participating in them, infact, also significantly increases the competitive pressures experienced by these businessschools. One business school representative, pondering the schools’ entry intointernational rankings in a Financial Times article, voices this as she claims that therankings have clearly placed her school in a competitive league: “We are now officiallyIn Competition” (FT, 2001: VIII). She goes on to describe how the rankings havecreated pressures to compete and to climb the rankings, and concludes that: “Thosehappy carefree days before we were ranked, when spring was devoted to tasks otherthan course analysis, are gone for good. But maybe, just perhaps, we will do betterthan No. 19 this year” (FT, 2001: VIII).The competition instigated by rankings is most notably linked to the MBA programme,and the experienced pressures to have a good and high-ranked MBA programmein the school. The full-time MBA programme has, as suggested above, becomeone of the most visible programmes in the business school, and these rankings areconsidered the most prestigious of the different rankings. A dean of a top-rankedbusiness school clearly pointed to the developing market for MBAs as the key toparticipating in rankings:What it is tied to is competing in a high-priced international competitive market. […] It isa combination of things, but nonetheless, faculty and applicants are making choices on thebasis of evidence, and if you are in the MBA and executive business school market, some ofthe evidence they use is rankings.572

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolsTo investigate these findings further, my survey also asked the business school deans tostate the importance of a good ranking for their schools, specifying a number of areaswhere rankings may have an influence. The results, presented in Table 2, support thesuggestion that rankings are important for the MBA programme: for recruiting MBAstudents and attracting MBA recruiters to the school. On the other hand, the rankingsare considered less important for recruiting executive clients, faculty and undergraduatestudents, as well as for securing financial resources. Yet it is also clear from theseresults that, alongside its importance for the MBA programme, the rankings are alsoconsidered important for a number of general “business school” issues: for buildinga brand, for building alliances with other schools, and for building connections withcorporations. These results suggest that while rankings are clearly tied to a market forMBAs and for gaining status in that market, they are also important for the businessschool as a whole, and for competition in the business school market. Thus althoughthe rankings are focused on one or a few aspects of business schools and managementeducation organisations, they are fostering competition among business schools alsoin other areas, increasing the attention to the business school as a competitive unit.Table 2: Claimed importance of rankingsRanked schoolsMean MedianRecruiting MBA students 4.4 4Build a business school brand 4.2 4Build business school alliances 3.7 4Attracting MBA recruiters 3.6 4Build corporate connections 3.4 4Recruiting executive ed. clients 3.3 3Recruiting faculty 3.2 3Attracting financial resources 3.1 3Recruiting undergraduates 2.8 3Adapted from (Wedlin 2006)Further evidence of the rising importance of the “business school” as the competitiveunit in this field is what appears as the sometimes frenetic activities of businessschools to position themselves and enhance their status and image in this perceivedmarket. As an illustration of this process, the number of “branding activities” amongbusiness schools is striking. A report from the professional organisation the Associationof Business Schools in the UK, called the “Business of Branding Report”, showsthat more than half of the questioned business schools in the UK have re-brandedtheir business schools in the past five years (The Times, 2005). This survey is, since2006, conducted in the rest of Europe with the aim to assist business schools in theirbranding and marketing efforts. The report lists over 40 business schools that haveparticipated in the branding study in the past years. Thus in line with the survey results573

Linda Wedlinpresented above, the attention to business school brands, and thus to the businessschool as a competitive unit, is significant.Responding to market pressuresThe ever stronger attention to the business school as a competitive unit has also meantan increasing interest in, and attention to, a number of activities that are believed tobe important for creating, upholding or enhancing reputation and for building competitivenessin the field. While the branding report referenced above notes the risinginterest in activities and features relating to information and PR activities, the role ofcareer services and alumni relations activities, and the reputation and standing of theschool relative to competitors (efmd, 2007), we can also assume that these, at leastin part, follow from or are related to the introduction of international rankings. Toinvestigate this, my survey asked European business schools deans to assess to whatextent they have introduced changes in their business schools as a direct response tothe international rankings. The deans were asked to rate the changes undertaken in11 areas on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is “not at all” and 5 is “very much”. The resultsare shown in Table 3.Table 3: Changes in response to rankingsRanked schoolsMean MedianAlumni relations 3.3 4PR/Media 3.2 3Career Services 3.0 3Advertising/marketing 2.9 3Recruitment of students 2.8 3Advisory board 2.6 3Facilities 2.2 2Recruitment of faculty 2.2 2Course offerings 2.1 2Course content 1.8 2Teaching materials 1.8 2Source: Adapted from (Wedlin 2006)The four areas where the most significant changes have been brought about arewhat can be termed the “external relations” functions of business schools: alumnirelations, PR/media, career services, and advertising/marketing. The single mostchanged area is alumni relations, a function of business schools that did not hold asignificant place in European business schools prior to the rankings. The importanceof alumni relations is directly linked to rankings for two reasons. First, the FT surveysalumni three years after graduation, which has put pressure on business schools tokeep track of and provide contact information for its alumni for the annual surveysfor rankings. Low alumni response rates may exclude schools from participating inthe rankings, or disfavour their positions. Second, good alumni relations are believed574

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolsto be important for receiving favourable alumni evaluations in ranking surveys, andstimulating alumni events and reunions can even be a way to enhance the perceptionof the school among its graduates. Together with the increasing attention and investmentin career services offerings, changes in alumni relations reflect the increasingattention to the “customers” of education.Two other areas that have been significantly influenced by the rankings are PR/media and advertising/marketing. These areas have gained ever more attention andresources as a result of increasing interest from the media and the general public inissues of management education. Particularly PR functions have expanded and professionalisedas business schools have experienced both increasing pressures to provideinformation to the press and the media, but also a stronger desire to structure theinformation going out and to work proactively to obtain media attention and coverage.Changes undertaken regarding the recruitment of students are related to the criteriain the rankings that measure the characteristics and composition of the incoming class.Recruiting the best students has become a top priority for admissions staff, but alsoto recruit a diverse class in terms of international representation, for instance. Thesefeatures are prominent in the FT rankings. In addition, the area “advisory board” isdirectly related to the rankings criteria that assess the composition of the board interms of female and international representation, for example. While deans admit torather large changes in these aspects, significantly less change is admitted in areassuch as faculty recruitment and facilities, which are also measured in the rankings.The smallest changes are reported for the areas of course content, course offerings,and teaching materials. These results thus seem to correspond reasonably well tothose presented above, stating that rankings are not considered particularly importantas quality tools or quality development mechanisms but are instead competitivemechanisms playing towards the perceived market and its customers.Marketisation through rankingsThe empirical section above has illustrated how the increasing marketisation of managementeducation has both driven and been driven by the introduction of rankings.Rankings build on ideas of a market where students and corporations, as customersand clients, can choose between educational offerings and buy and consume theeducation that best fits their needs. Such ideas of markets is a prominent feature ofthe reform agenda and rhetoric currently infusing higher education and research inmany contexts, shaping policy as well as practices in this sector. Yet I have also shownthat rankings are important elements for shaping this market and the market viewof higher education and research, as illustrated by the introduction of internationalrankings in the management education field. Here, I have pointed to two particularprocesses where rankings have played a role: creating comparability as well as creatingdistinction among organisations, largely framing and promoting a view of businessschools as competing units in a perceived international market.575

Linda WedlinThese results have implications for our understanding of current processes ofmarketisation of higher education, and for the role of rankings in such processes.Three interrelated aspects seem particularly important to note here.First, we need to conceptualise the marketisation of higher education and researchas a process rather than an established fact. This process of marketisation is bothongoing and continually constructed, and rankings are clearly elements in this process.I have particularly emphasised here that rankings have created, to some extent,the notion and understanding of competition among members of the managementeducation field, particularly depicting business schools as competing units within aperceived international market for MBAs. This notion of competition has furtheredchange and reform within business schools, particularly regarding the use of and attentionto PR and marketing as well as the alumni and external relations functionswithin these schools. This leads the process of marketisation even further. While someof these are responses to the increasing scrutiny and attention by the media, and evendirect responses to the introduction of rankings, business schools also use these to beproactive in order to increase their visibility and the reputation of their organisationand to build a business school “brand”. Thus, business schools are beginning to actmore as market-actors. This continued process of marketisation has likely helped tosolidify and consolidate the market perspective in this field.This leads to the second aspect which is the need to recognise rankings and rankingpractices as consequential. Building them into governance systems will inevitablyhave effects for the way higher education and research functions and for the role andunderstanding of competition in these fields. Variously depicted and promoted asmechanisms to enhance or promote quality (Federkeil 2008; Sowter 2008), as providersof consumer information and guidance (Morse 2008), or as new “transparencytools” (van Vught & Westerheijden 2010) for higher education, the rankings are oftengiven an aura of innocence and objectivity. They are assumed to reflect, representand, somewhat accurately, assess quality and performance in higher education. Whilethere may be many reasons to doubt such assumptions, it is particularly importantto recognise that rankings are influential in establishing the very principles of a perceivedmarket that these assumptions rest on. I have specifically noted how rankingsboth construct comparability, primarily by creating perceptions of “customers” and“products” of educational offerings; and craft competition, mainly by specifying themeans and the measures of competition for organisational units. This shapes notonly members perceptions of markets and competition, but also perceptions of whathigher education is, how quality and performance are to be measured, and who willbe successful in these market competitions.Following from the first two – the recognition that marketisation is a process andthe rankings are mechanisms in constructing this market – the third aspect of rankingsthat my results here point to is the political character and role of rankings in what isbecoming an increasingly global field for higher education and research. Rankings are576

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolstaken up by national governments (Siganos 2008), the European Union and others,and a host of national and transnational organisations are engaging in debate andproduction of rankings and ranking practices, and the reasons seem obvious: the rankingsare elements of political processes to defend, construct or revise the “geo-politicalpecking order” of higher education systems around the world (cf. Kivinen & Hedman2008) or, more fundamentally, to specify and define the terms of and conditions forcompetition within this field. This is also the reason that organisations – in my casebusiness schools, but likely also universities worldwide – are taking an increasinginterest in and feeling compelled to participate in rankings, as noted in the empiricalsection. As competition is becoming constructed and organised by ranking systemsof various forms, the needs to participate and to fare well in these comparisons arelikely to continue to put pressure on organisations to play to the market concerns asspecified by rankings.ConclusionsThe main argument in this paper is that international rankings are market mechanismshelping to construct and consolidate a market view and function of highereducation activities and organisations. This view helps us to better understand therole of rankings as elements of a new mode of market governance for higher educationand research. As mechanisms for creating comparability and crafting competition,rankings not only build on but also in important ways construct this market much insupport of the market ideologies of current policy initiatives. Thus, they form not anex-post evaluation or ordering of the market, but constitute an important element inconstructing this market. We thus need to revise our assumptions that rankings onlyfollow from the increasing marketisation of higher education and research, to insteadposition them as important elements of this process. I have also noted, however, thatthe introduction of the rankings and the measures and definitions they impose on themarket are consequential processes that lead to further changes in the activities, actionsand orientation of business schools as competitive organisations in this market.This forms an important part of the continued marketisation of the field.AcknowledgementThe author would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Swedish ResearchCouncil and the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation. Parts of the empirical studyhave been previously reported in the book “Ranking Business Schools”, published byEdward Elgar (2006).Linda Wedlin is Associate Professor of Business Studies at Uppsala University. Her current researchincludes a project on transnational, particularly European, regulatory reform of higher educationand research and a study of the local academic governance of Swedish universities in the contextof the recent “autonomy reform”. Her work has also focused on analysing the proliferation andimpact of international rankings and on the development of the field of management education.577

Linda WedlinReferencesBok, D. (2004) Universities in the Marketplace. The Commercialization of Higher Education.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Business Week, 19 October (1998), special report “The best business schools”, pp. 80–98.Czarniawska, B. and Genell, K. (2002) Gone shopping? Universities on their way to the Market.Scandinavian Journal of Management, 18(4): 455–474.Daniel, C. (1998) MBA: The First Century. London: Associated University Press.Djelic, M-L (2006) Marketization: From intellectual agenda to global policy-making. In M-L.Djelic and K. Sahlin-Andersson (eds.) Transnational Governance. Institutional Dynamics ofRegulation, pp. 53–73. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Djelic, M-L & Sahlin-Andersson, K., (2006) Transnational Governance. Institutional Dynamicsof Regulation, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Efmd, (2007) efmd Report series, Report 2, The business of branding: Enhancing business schoolmarketing effectiveness through better understanding key audiences. Available at www.efmd.org, 20008-01-22. (http://www.efmd.org/attachments/tmpl_3_art_070926nkfp_att_070926xwqk.pdf)Elsbach, K. and Kramer, R. D. (1996) Members’ responses to organizational identity threats: encounteringand countering the business week rankings. Administrative Science Quarterly,41(3): 442–76.Espeland, W., and Stevens, M. (1998) Commensuration as a process. Annual Review of Sociology,24(1): 313–43.European Commission, Press Release, IP/08/1942, Ranking Europe’s universities.Federkeil, G. (2008) Rankings and quality assurance in higher education. Higher Education inEurope 33(2): 219–231.Financial Times, 25 January (1999) “Rankings can both help and rankle”, FT Survey.Financial Times, 4 June (2001) “Some painful lessons for the e-learning sector”, FT Survey.Frank, D. and Meyer, J. W. (2007) University expansion and the knowledge society. Theory andSociety, 36: 287–311.Harvey, L. (2008) Rankings of higher education institutions: A critical review, Quality in HigherEducation, 14(3): 187–207.Hazelkorn, E. (2007) The impact of league tables and ranking systems on higher education decisionmaking. Higher Education Management and Policy 19(2): 87–110.Hedmo, T., Sahlin-Andersson, K. and Wedlin, L. (2006) The emergence of a European regulatoryfield of management education. In M.-L. Djeclic and K. Sahlin-Andersson (eds), TransnationalGovernance. Institutional Dynamics of Regulation, pp. 308–328. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.Hedmo, T. and Wedlin, L. (2008) New modes of governance: The re-regulation of European highereducation and research. In Mazza, C., Quattrone, P. and Riccaboni, A. European Universitiesin Transition: Issues, Models and Cases, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Kehm, B. and Stensaker, B. (eds) (2009) University Rankings, Diversity, and the New Landscapeof Higher Education. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.King, R. (2009) Governing Universities Globally. Organizations, Regulation and Rankings.Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Kirp, D. (2003) Shakespeare, Einstein and the Bottom Line. The Marketing of Higher Education.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Kivinen, O. & Hedman, J. (2008) World-wide university rankings: A Scandinavian approach, Scientometrics,74(3): 391–408.578

Crafting competition: Media rankings and the forming of a global market for business schoolsKornberger, M. and Carter, C. (2010) Manufacturing competition: How accounting practices shapestrategy making in cities. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 23(3): 325–349.Martins, L. (2005) A model of the effects of reputational rankings on organizational change. OrganizationScience, 16(6): 701–720.Mazza, C., Sahlin-Andersson, K., and Strandgaard Pedersen, J. (2005) European constructionsof an American model: Developments of four MBA programs. Management Learning, 36(4):471–491.Modell, S. (2005) Students as consumers?: An institutional field-level analysis of the constructionof performance measurement practices. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,18(4): 537–63.Moon, H. (2002) The Globalization of Professional Management Education 1881–2000: Its Rise,Expansion and Implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University, Stanford.Morse, R. (2008) The real and perceived influence of the US News Ranking. Higher Education inEurope, 33(2): 349–356.Neave, G. (1998) The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3): 265–284.Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (eds.) (2009) University Governance: WesternEuropean Comparative Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Sauder, M. (2006) Third parties and status position: How the characteristics of status systemsmatter. Theory and Society 35(3): 299–321.Sauder, M. (2008) Interlopers and field change: The entry of the us news into the field of legaleducation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2): 209–234.Selections, (2001) Interview with John Byrne of Business Week. http://www.gmac.com/selections/fall2001/byrne/index.html(accessed 19 November 2010)Shore, C. and Wright, S. (2000) Coercive accountability: The rise of audit culture in higher education.In M. Strathern (ed.), Audit Cultures. Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethicsand the Academy, pp 57–89. London: Routledge.Siganos, A. (2008) Rankings, governance, and attractiveness of higher education: The new Frenchcontext. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2): 311–316.Sowter, B. (2008) The Times higher education supplement and Quacquarelli Symonds world universityrankings: New developments in ranking methodology. Higher Education in Europe,33(2): 345–347.Stensaker, B. & Harvey, L. (2010) Accountability in Higher Education: Global Perspectives onTrust and Power, NY, Abingdon UK: Routledge.Times, 16 May (2005) “Branding makes a big difference for schools”.Van Vught, F., & Westerheijden, D. (2010) Multidimensional ranking: A new transparency toolfor higher education and research. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(3): 1–26.Wedlin, L. (2006) Ranking Business Schools. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Whitley, R. & Gläser, J. (eds.) (2007) The Changing Governance of the Sciences, Dordrecht, NL:Springer.Wright, S. & Ørberg, W. (2008) Autonomy and control: Danish university reform in the context ofmodern governance. Learning and Teaching: International Journal of Higher Education inthe Social Sciences (LATISS) 1(1): 27–57.Endnotes1The Financial Times, Business Week, or the Wall Street Journal rankings.579

580

Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, pp.581–600EDU.INQ.Social inclusion and leadershipin education:An evolution of roles and values in the Englisheducation system over the last 60 yearsNafsika Alexiadou*AbstractThis article reviews the changing relationships between education policies and their links to socialdisadvantage and conceptions of school leadership. The argument is that definitions of leadershipevolve as the assumptions underpinning the relationships between society, the economy and educationinstitutions change. The article draws on the case of English education policy developmentsover the last 60 years, and places debates about school leadership against a set of changing relationshipsbetween the state and the institutions of the market. Defining a good school leader verymuch depends on ideas about the core school functions as well as dominant ideas about how thesefunctions relate the institution of the school to major social and economic structures.Education and disadvantage: A social and educational problemThe relationship between social advantage, disadvantage 1 and education 2 has beenwell documented and has provided social policy with a conundrum that is difficultto solve. It represents one of those really entrenched problems that seem to defy theattempts by governments to deal with it. How successive governments have decidedto conceptualise the problem – as something that needs social transformation andthe re-ordering of social arrangements (Jones 2010), or as something to be tamelymanaged for its worst effects – reflects their political/social approach to it, but it alsodetermines what kind of school leadership has been conceptualised as the most appropriatefor dealing with the particular definitions of the problem. This paper drawson developments in England that offer an interesting case study of policy reform ofschooling that has at times been explicitly and deliberately connected to policiesconcerning poverty and social inclusion. Leadership debates and the ways they haveshifted in the post-World War II period reflect the dominant ideas about public sectormanagement as well as ideas regarding the modernisation of education and welfaresystems more generally. Similar trends are of course observed at the European level,with (particularly) Scandinavian countries introducing new public management*Department of Applied Educational Sciences Umeå University, Sweden & School of Public Policy and PracticeUniversity of Keele, UK. Email: n.alexiadou@educ.keele.ac.uk©Author. ISSN 2000-4508, pp.581–600581

Nafsika Alexiadoutechniques in an attempt to “renew” the governance of education systems (Arnesen &Lundahl 2006, Lindblad et al. 2002, Moos & Miller 2003). The increased popularity ofeducation discourses on parental choice, institutional competition, benchmark-drivenperformative regimes and new forms of teacher professionalism and leadership, areall increasingly international trends that find distinct national manifestations in mostEuropean systems. However, the scope of this paper does not include a review of theinternational context. Instead, it aims to present one national case to illustrate theform these debates take in a schooling context that has been considered as possibly themost radical in Europe in its approach to reforming education along neo-liberal lines.I track three successive periods of policy 3 in relation to the above problematic. Ineach period I examine: (a) the normative assumptions that shape education policy andits links to social disadvantage (Popkewitz & Lindblad 2000); and (b) the emergingrole for school leadership in each period. Ideas about what the role of school headteachers/leaders should be inform the ways in which disadvantage is addressed withinschool leadership practice (Raffo & Gunter 2008). Methodologically, it is difficult toestablish causal connections between the two. It would also be naïve to try to do sosince this would entail an over-simplification of the factors that give rise to a politicaland social construction as complex as “leadership”. Accordingly, the approach thisarticle takes is one of connecting policy shifts in relation to education and disadvantageand emerging models of school leadership that tend to dominate particularperiods of schooling history. These two arenas are not understood as being distinctand separate, even though institutionally there are clear demarcation lines. Rather,the sphere of “policy” and the sphere of “school practice” are linked with discoursesthat define issues of purpose, and issues of ethics. Leadership functions as the connectingthread between these two spheres since it is often required to bridge the twothrough the role of school headteachers in mediating policy to practice, localisingnational policy, and interpreting reform at the classroom level. In this respect, eventhough particular policy choices do not determine the nature of leadership, they setthe parameters within which only certain leadership styles are possible or desirable.There is, of course, always scope for individual mediation of policy, reaction or resistance.But the discursive constraints of policy mean that there are distinct incentives(and disincentives) for headteachers to pursue particular courses of action in theirschool and locality.1944–1960s: Identifying the intractable problem ofdisadvantage and education – education for social control andfor social reformThis early period in education policy refers to the decades between the end of WorldWar II and the 1960s, when the development of a universal, expanded and highlydifferentiated education system was linked closely to questions of educational equalityand social justice. In particular, the period after the war saw the establishment582

Social inclusion and leadership in educationin Britain of a welfare state based on a “political consensus” 4 , which translated intoan educational settlement based on a partnership between central and local government,administrators and professionals. Politically, this period was characterised byconservative views (the Conservative Party was in power from 1951 to 1964) whichemphasised the need for controlled welfare and educational reforms in order to maintainthe social status quo 5 . The implementation of education policies was entrustedto the local government (the Local Education Authorities, LEAs) and to teachers andheadteachers whose professional judgement was seen to be politically neutral as theywere “quasi” civil servants (Lawn 1987).School headteachers were part of a bureaucratic machinery responsible for thedelivery of education reforms, together with their colleagues in the local authorities. Itwas a period when teachers were granted what Ozga (2000) called a “licensed” form ofprofessionalism by a state that exercised “indirect rule” on teachers by promulgatinga professional ideology of cooperation with the state (p. 16). In that context, school“leadership” was equated with “administration” within professional and technocraticparameters (Dale 1989). Teachers and headteachers enjoyed considerable autonomyin terms of curriculum and pedagogy, on the assumption they would not disturb thehierarchical and elitist schooling landscape in which selective grammar schools andexclusive private schools were setting the standards of quality. According to Bogdanor,it was also a system that worked only because a “small number of interests were involvedwhose rank and file were content to defer to elites and could therefore, be reliedupon to act sensibly” (in Dale, op. cit. p. 101). Nevertheless, the partnership betweencentral state and teachers should not be over-estimated. Teachers and headteachershad workplace autonomy, although they had very little power or control over theiroccupational group 6 . Still, workplace autonomy was seen as important by teachersin their collective perception that they were partners in transforming the lives ofindividual children through education:The promise of equal opportunity, of social justice, of economic efficiency and of talent utilisationwas to be delivered through the agency of teachers in the state system of schoolingand the mode of delivery was professional autonomy (Grace 1987:213).There was a “moral energy for change and a belief in the connection between educationand democratic culture”, while the status of teaching and of “headship” withinthe profession came from pedagogy and from an ideology of self-regulation (Gunter2001:22).Even though this was a very conservative and elitist period of schooling in itsorganisation, the selectivity of pupils at an early age, and nature of the curriculum,along with the relative autonomy of teachers and headteachers gave rise to debatesabout equality and the role of schooling in achieving a more socially just society.Ideas about social justice were not uncontested or uniformly expressed, but education583

Nafsika Alexiadouresearch in the tradition of “old sociology” preoccupied with the eradication of socialclass (mainly) inequalities was fairly dominant in certain political circles, academiaand schools (Shain & Ozga 2001). Influential research studies that emerged fromthe London School of Economics (Halsey et al. 1980, Health 2000) highlighted theconnections between socio-economic background and education destinations, in aschooling system that primarily reflected and reproduced patterns of advantage anddisadvantage rather than challenging them. This genre of research was politicallyimportant for the introduction of comprehensive schooling in 1965 (a long standingrequest of teachers’ organisations) that drew on egalitarian arguments supportingthe end of institutional selection of pupils for grammar schools at the age of 11. Yetthe patchy and uneven introduction of such schools throughout the country, and thecontinuation of systems of streaming and setting by ability within comprehensiveschools, meant that the structural change that organised teachers and the LabourParty were advocating was largely superficial (Benn & Chitty 1996, Jones 2003). Socialadvantage and disadvantage would continue to be reflected in educational outcomeswith unrelenting persistence.In the 1960s progressive ideas were gaining dominance and the abolition of the11+ examination (in many but not all parts of the country) were having significanteffects on primary schools in particular. Increasingly, equalising access to secondaryand later to higher education was not seen to be enough. Research in the 1960sthat attempted to understand the relationship between education and the systematicunder-achievement of the working class and the poor was drawing on explanations ofdeprivation of the disadvantaged. The focus shifted from the “old” to “new” sociologyof education (Whitty 1985), the micro-world of the classroom but also the family/home setting, while the influential Plowden Report that came out in England in 1967(on Children and their Primary Schools) promoted the idea of “cultural deprivation”caused by poverty (coupled with poor mothering and poor language stimulation).The Report was important because it was the first attempt by an official documentto deal with the relationship between poverty and education, and the consequencesof this relationship for schools and the level of resources necessary to deal with it(Glennester 1998). Even though the report was severely criticised for promoting adeficit model of working class culture and family life (Lee 1987), it was seen at thetime as very significant in: (a) redefining the meaning of equality of opportunity byarguing for positive discrimination to favour schools and children in areas of socialdisadvantage; (b) reorganising not just learning, but also the relationships betweenschools, families and communities; and (c) prioritising the “social” as the primarygoal of education (Jones 2003). The 1960s were characterised by high levels of diverseprovision in different parts of the country, a patchy picture of progressive reforms andmore traditional structures coexisting in an uneasy mix (ibid.). Thus, even thoughcomprehensive schools were introduced in 1965, the selective grammar schools stillexisted alongside them.584

Social inclusion and leadership in educationIn this period (and up to the early 1980s), the coordination of schools was characterisedby bureaucratic forms of organisation, welfare-driven in purpose, and led by headteacherswho (overall) were “socialised within the field and values” of schools (Gewirtz2002:31). As an ideal type, headship in that period was operating within contradictoryand dominant discourses. On one hand, there were the forces of political and socialconservatism, as expressed by the official ideology that expected headteachers to towthe line and not disturb the balance of the differentiated secondary school system.Curriculum experimentation in the new comprehensive schools was often taking placealthough, as Benn and Chitty (1996) argue, most comprehensive schools and theirheadteachers were suspicious of “progressive education and democratic management,choosing instead the good old-fashioned ‘tight-ship’ with a captain firmly in charge”(p. 293). On the other hand, a great number of teachers and headteachers (althoughby no means the majority) were increasingly identifying their educational and socialrole through ideological commitments to strong versions of equality of opportunity,social transformation, collegiality and professionalism understood as features of abureaucracy. Social problems to do with poverty, sex and racial discrimination, andthe perceived disconnection between schooling and its social context were addressedin many parts of the country by innovative (and in a few cases radical) teachers aslocal curriculum diversity and experimentation were possible (Jones 2003).The last phases of this period of education were characterised by unsettled formsof school organisation, a serious challenge to the social and educational differentiationthrough the end of universal selective schooling, and increasing experimentationwithin schools with innovative and progressive forms of knowledge and pedagogy.What many teachers and headteachers had experienced as positive outcomes of theirprofessionalised and relatively autonomous work identity were reversed rapidly in thefollowing decade when the central state reasserted control over the profession andreverted to more “direct” forms of control and practice (Ozga 2000). In terms of thedefinition of headteachers’ roles, this had profound implications for their capacity toact in innovative ways – including the possibility to pursue radical forms of changein the curriculum or pedagogy, but also for their forms of accountability that, up tothat point, were defined along professional bureaucratic lines.1970s–1980s: Education for competitive advantage andeconomic growthThe 1970s and 1980s saw the rise of human capital theories in education policy andtheir dominance in questions of system design and institutional leadership. A radicalshift in thinking about links between education and the economy, the strongercentralisation of control of education, and the introduction of market principles andpractices in the organisation of schooling were all prominent features of this period’seducation policies. The progressive and relatively egalitarian ideologies of the earlierdecades to some extent contributed to this shift by: (a) promoting the idea of pupil585

Social inclusion and leadership in educationadvantage, leading to a considerable widening of inequalities between the rich andthe poor (Joseph Rowntree Foundation 1995).Even though the education system was still publicly funded, provided by the stateand heavily regulated by the Secretary of State for Education, the reforms of the 1980sintroduced competition, the differentiation of schools and a profound change in theorganisation and cultures of schooling. Since 1988, schools have had to publish theresults of their tests of the National Curriculum, and be subsequently ranked in a“league table” on the basis of their performance. Parents (as the “customers” of theservice) are encouraged to select a school for their child on the basis of this information.This creates strong competition for places in the “desirable” high performingschools. The financial autonomy given to schools meant that their income dependedon the numbers of pupils they could recruit, hence the principle of competition becamethe most important driving force of the behaviour of both schools and parents.The advocated rationale behind this set of reforms was that parental pressure andchoice would ensure that all schools and teachers would perform better and raisetheir teaching standards. The assumption was that low performing schools werebadly managed, teaching was of poor quality, and accountability towards the parentsand children was absent. Improving standards was the ultimate goal for individualinstitutions within a heavily regulated environment where performance was measuredby inspections but also by market mechanisms (building reputation throughleague tables and the exercise of parental choice). The parameters for a new type ofheadteacher in this changing context were pretty clear. Heads of schools were notworking within a bureaucracy anymore, rather in a heavily bureaucratic and centrallycontrolled quasi-market where lines of accountability were shifting and performancewas evaluated with different benchmarks.In order to understand the changes in discourse and policy in this period and howthey impacted on the changing definitions of “leadership”, we need to briefly reviewthe types of research in education that the governments of the period favoured andfunded. Following the publication of the book 15 Thousand Hours (Rutter et al. 1979),School Effectiveness Research (SER) became politically dominant and highly attractiveto politicians who were keen to offer solutions to the perceived problems of education.Aimed at school improvement, the research tried to systematically assess the impactof schools and teachers on the development of children – the assumption being thatthe outcomes of the education process are not entirely determined by parental background.The central message of the SER is that schools differ in their performance notjust because of the different intake patterns of pupils, but because of their featuresas social organisations. It follows that the way schools are organised, managed andled became core issues that may determine successful educational outcomes. Despitethe numerous criticisms of this genre of research as failing to explore the relationshipbetween education practice and wider social inequalities and for emphasising almostexclusively the responsibility of schools for raising standards against the odds with587

Nafsika Alexiadoulittle or no help from the government (Goldstein & Woodhouse 2000: 354), the 1992Conservative government set up a School Effectiveness Unit. This Unit, and its NewLabour follow up Standards and Effectiveness Unit, were very keen to sponsor researchthat identifies successful education practice and breaks it down to its constituent elements.School “leadership” was identified as one of these elements and, since then,it has been seen as central to the policies of the 1980s and mid-1990s Conservativegovernments to improve school performance across the board. Responsibility for underachievementwas placed at the door of poor (progressive) teaching and leadershipwhich were seen to be preoccupied with the wrong things (social engineering) insteadof high quality traditional standards. What mattered most in this new climate wasnot the socio-economic background of the children but the organisational aspects ofthe schools so what were needed were effective structures, standard operating proceduresand a style of leadership able to meet centrally conceived education objectives.The bureaucratic form of headship previously in favour could no longer deliver thetargets set by the government in terms of providing high quality service to customers.The change of terminology (from “head-teachers” to “leaders”) signals a significantchange in roles and responsibilities. From being in charge of developing curriculumand overseeing teaching, the new “leaders” were responsible for organisations thatneeded to respond to the marketplace, their governors and their clientele.The Education Reform Act of 1988 and the various pieces of legislation throughoutthe 1980s and early 1990s that further refined the instruments of parental choice,institutional differentiation and competition required this new type of educationleadership. In fact, as Ball (1990:153) argues, “the need for good management ofschools” and other education institutions became an imperative, a new discoursein education that brought in many elements into the education sector that were importedfrom the world of business. Influential management texts of the period (seeCaldwell & Spinks 1992) advocated the importance of “transformational leaders” tocreate the Self-Managing Schools of the future. The social democratic purposes andorganisation of schools and the headship that accompanied this were now displacedby a quasi-market leadership style or, in Raffo and Gunter’s (2008) terms, a deliveryfocusedleadership. The work of the new leader in education was informed by thebreak away from the old welfare-driven discourses of the post-war social democraticperiod (Menter et al. 1997). Leaders were now emerging from (and had to conformto) discourses of responsiveness to the education market and competition, while alsodriving for excellence in standards and leading their school to produce the highestquality outputs:For the new manager in education, good management involves the smooth and efficientimplementation of aims set outside the school, within constraints also set outside the school.It is not the job of the new manager to question or criticise these aims and constraints. Thenew management discourse in education emphasises the instrumental purposes of schooling– raising standards and performance as measured by examination results, levels of at-588

Social inclusion and leadership in educationtendance and school leaver destinations – and is frequently articulated within the lexiconof enterprise, excellence, quality and effectiveness (Gewirtz 2002: 32).This new education leader was expected to draw on the School Effectiveness researchto inform practice and school re-organisation. Engaging with research drawing onsocial theory and exploring the ways in which education policy or practice reproducesinequalities was not a priority. The emphasis was on adopting a positive approach whereall problems were seen as solvable, an approach that would improve the performance ofthe school in the league tables. In the new glamorous era of the market, schools were ledby transformational leaders whose aim was to follow the School Improvement agendaas defined by the School Effectiveness Research. This kind of knowledge privileged leadershippractices that aimed at delivering high standards, almost always at the expenseof competing schools. The inclusion of “difficult” children (in terms of socioeconomicstatus, ethnicity or disability) that would require additional resources from the schoolis clearly not helping such a delivery agenda. There are examples in the literature wherethis has indeed been happening, and where local authorities and individual headteachershave adopted a more critical stance on the “delivering effectiveness” objective takingthe local social, economic and cultural context of schools into consideration (Thomson2009). There is no doubt, however, that these critical approaches to leadership goagainst the incentives of the market place, and often against the success of schools inthe league tables with all the compounding resources implications.1997–2010: The fight against social exclusion througheducationThe political rediscovery of the links between poverty and education was certainlyaccomplished by New Labour that designed an ambitious programme for the eradicationof child poverty. Social exclusion became public enemy number one. Thiswas a political aim that brought a big wave of optimism amongst practitioners andresearchers in education who were frustrated over 18 years of the earlier educationpolicy and practice that neglected the connections between education success, socialclass background, and other forms of social divisions related to ethnicity and gender.The decade following 1997 was very “favourable to an egalitarian agenda” given thesteady growth of the economy, the significant growth in real incomes across the population,and the political commitment of the new government to the goal of “equality”(Hills et al. 2009:341). The policies designed to address problems of poverty have hadincome redistributive effects with gains particularly for children in poverty, but theywere not significant or sustained 7 and at best they stopped further inequality fromrising 8 . The very disadvantaged groups did benefit from the economic and tax policiesof that decade, but not enough to truly narrow the income gap between the top andthe bottom, something that very directly mapped onto the picture of the educationperformance of the different socio-economic groups 9 .589

Nafsika AlexiadouEducation was particularly important for Tony Blair who linked it directly to questionsof economic growth and social justice. Capturing the European Union term of“social exclusion” the government was in a position to redefine the “equality” agendaas one primarily concerned with transforming social attitudes and institutions, ratherthan seriously redistributing income from the wealthy to the less so (Levitas 1998).The political aim was no longer “equality of outcome”, that was seen as neither desirablenor feasible since it would require a centralist prescription and imposition ofoutcomes, and the removal of incentives for excellence, but “equality of opportunity”.Throughout the 1990s the government defined the meaning of equality in modernpolitics as “equality of opportunity”, a view of equality of opportunity that is lifelong,comprehensive and intrinsically linked to economic growth. The argument, drawingon the discourse of globalisation, was that there is a need for an economic policy basedon more “supply-side measures to enhance competitiveness”, that full employmentis a thing of the past, and that investing in human capital is the basis of a successfulfuture “information economy” (Alexiadou 2002). Hence, what matters most inthe new economy is the development of skills across the workforce. This version ofequality of opportunity is seen to be the core underpinning idea of social justice sinceit leads to economic prosperity: “the most equitable solution is also likely to be themost efficient” (Brown 2003).The second important version of “equality” in New Labour’s policies was theadoption of the concept of “social inclusion” (Callinicos 2000). At the level of policythis is reflected in the creation of the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) in the CabinetOffice in 1997. The government relied on two related sets of policies to deal with theissues. First, it drew heavily on ideas that emphasised “community” as the answerto the problem of disconnection, social exclusion and disintegration. Communitieswere seen as important in the production of relations of trust between individualsand the inclusive partnership-driven society, and in the generation of “social capital”(Bagley 2011). The creation of the “extended” and “full service extended” schoolsin 2002 represents such an attempt to build community-oriented institutions thatbring families, communities and schools together (Dyson & Raffo 2007). Second,the New Labour government saw the answer to social inclusion primarily throughachieving “employability”. Brine (2002), Levitas (1998) and Lister (1998) have drawnout in detail the relationship between “opportunity” and “employability” in thepost-1997 government policies. The overriding concern of New Labour with “socialintegration” defined mainly as the integration of people into the labour market hasbeen criticised as a limited political and social project that defines “inclusion” and“exclusion” predominantly on the basis of paid employment (Levitas 1998). Sincethe traditional left concerns with policies that lead to full employment and aim ategalitarianism were seen to be no longer feasible, the key focus is on “promotingemployability” and employment opportunities. New Labour’s functionally-drivenpolicies underpin their interpretation of social stratification, the relationship be-590

Social inclusion and leadership in educationtween “stakeholding” and “community”, and the solutions provided to high levelsof unemployment and poverty:All (New Labour policies) rely upon a belief that a morally acceptable social generation of‘motivation’—through the provision of ‘opportunity’— can sufficiently fuel and satisfy ‘aspiration’so as to inspire a renewed social order based on feelings of ‘obligation’ alongsidethose of ‘responsibility’ … each show a conscious concern with order and norm. In this wayit is presumed that the extreme inequities of a polarized society could be overcome with aconcomitant attainment of ‘social cohesion’ … order and norm thus relate to a process ofexclusion and a superficial appearance of ‘self-marginalisation’ (Prideaux, 2001, p. 86).In education, as well as in other social policy fields, New Labour’s enthusiasm forindividual responsibility for success and failure, and competitiveness, introduced byearlier Conservative administrations, suggest an acceptance of “the emerging hierarchiesof privilege and opportunity that the operation of the market encourages andpromotes” (Alexiadou 2002:80). They have retained and further refined the earlierperiod’s emphasis on performance management and standards-driven curriculum,diversity of school types, and marketisation, all within a highly regulated schoolingthrough regular and frequent inspections. What the New Labour governments contributedto this agenda was placing these goals within the context of reducing socialexclusion. They reconfigured “educational opportunity” by placing the emphasis onhigh achievement by disadvantaged groups within a market context of social andeducational differentiation. A bewildering range of: (a) new types of schools intendingto increase diversity in the market place; and (b) programmes and projects,such as the Excellence in Cities initiatives, Sure Start, the Education Action Zones,Connexions and Full Service Extended Schools (FSES), Creative Partnerships, andmany more, have all been designed to raise education standards in disadvantagedareas. All these initiatives have indeed produced a lot of additional resources in poorareas and in many cases there have been significant improvements among particularcohorts of pupils and schools. There are also initiatives that suggest a more “holisticapproach” to education, such as the Every Child Matters agenda that emphasisedthe holistic nature of children’s and families’ needs, and the need for meeting theseneeds in an integrated way (Raffo & Gunter 2008:406, Thomson 2009). Nevertheless,despite these opportunities for pursuing the social justice agenda, the main featuresof the market structure, the “choice” and “selection” principles as they operatewithin schools, lead to a further emphasis on differentiation. This is a notion that isproblematic in relation to the school as a “community”, as well as the school as “partof the community” – however positively the extended schools and the Every ChildMatters agenda have been evaluated, their capacity for addressing disadvantage islimited (Cummings et al. 2006).School “leadership” in the New Labour period can be seen as an extension of the typeof leadership promoted by earlier Conservative policies, one defined by the standards591

Nafsika Alexiadouagenda and a strongly performative culture within a marketised system of schooling.This type of leadership is also informed by school improvement and effectivenessresearch in order to ameliorate performance. The New Labour government put a lotof resources and attention into the creation of the ideal educational leader. In 2000it set up the National College for School Leadership, renamed in 2009 the NationalCollege for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Service (hereinafter referred to as“the College”) 1 . The College exists to “serve school, children’s centre and children’sservices leaders and to improve leadership through the highest quality professionaldevelopment, strategic initiatives and by providing considered and informed adviceto government” (NCSL website, 2010), and part of its role is to train headteachersin England who can acquire the National Professional Qualification for Headship.Plenty of resources can be found on the website of the College and a number of themare related to the Every Child Matters agenda and the Child Poverty Act of 2010. Therecognition that poverty and disadvantage are a real issue within schools is clear. Butthe solutions offered through most of the documents and resources are consistentwith the New Labour ideas that an emphasis should be placed on the development of:– Higher ambitions for achievement amongst pupils, parents and teachers– Localisation and partnerships between schools and other community agents for integratedservices– Vision and entrepreneurial engagement– Enthusiasm and commitment to achieve higher standards even in the face of adversity.The message of the College is strong that there needs to be reduction of centralisedstate action and an increase in the responsibilities and powers of schools. As Hargreaves(2010) suggests, this is necessary since “increased decentralisation providesan opportunity for a new vision of school improvement that capitalises on the gainsmade in school leadership and in partnerships between schools” (p. 4). This idea ofthe “self improvement school” necessitates a changing attitude and culture aroundschooling where “schools take ownership of the problems and reject the notion thatthe school itself can do little or nothing because it is somebody else’s responsibilityto provide a solution” (ibid., p. 9); schools capitalise on resources they can produceby collaborating with other schools; and where leadership has a moral purpose,and is characterised by selflessness, and the desire to contribute to the success ofall schools rather than just your own. The notion of the “heroic”/ “transformative”leader is ever present, but it is now merged with the ideal type of the “distributive”leader who will be skilful not only in supporting teachers and drawing on their expertise,but also in cultivating the next generation of future leaders from amongstthe ranks of junior teachers and middle managers.The desirable characteristics for school leaders (drawing on personal charisma,and the right beliefs, attitudes and personal attributes) are promoted as important forthe high performance of all schools (Barber et al. 2010). Interestingly, many of New592

Social inclusion and leadership in educationLabour’s initiatives have required participating schools to be more outward looking(for instance, the Extended Schools), to be more flexible and innovative (for example,through Creative Partnerships) and to collaborate with other schools and partners(for instance, through Education Action Zones), although still within a strongly competitiveframework. These initiatives placed additional and new demands on schoolleaders whose practice has to be localised at the same time as being oriented to a socialjustice agenda. There are many examples of success stories where schools have beentransformed by exceptional headteachers (NCSL 2008). However, as Raffo & Gunter(2008) point out, “the evidence that the historical links between social exclusion, loweducational achievement and limited life chances have been broken is hard to comeby” (p. 406). For some commentators, the emphasis on the cultivation of “leadership”has been contributing to the lack of improvement of disadvantaged schools that havelimited resources to devote to too many projects:(New Labour) persisted too long with a managerial approach to school improvement, focussingon improving leadership and pedagogy and largely neglecting the organisationaldemands that make it hard for schools in disadvantaged areas to improve (Lupton et al.2009:88).Despite the successes of New Labour in terms of dealing with disadvantage in education,the main criticisms of the Labour administrations refer to their enthusiasticembrace of the quasi-marketised system, and their systematic refusal to deal withcritique and research that pointed out that diversity, competition and the market areworking against social justice. New Labour always approached with deep suspicionany argument that would be set against the “choice” agenda. Their education initiativesaiming to break the link between social exclusion and education were many, andcarried a lot of resources. Educational inequalities are now lower than they wouldhave been if Labour had not additionally invested in and targeted disadvantagedgroups/areas. But targeting resources in disadvantaged areas is not enough when thestructural inequalities within which schools in such areas operate are not recognised:Ironically, (the government’s) insistence that poverty should not cause educational disadvantage,and its focus on driving up academic standards through internal school improvements… has made it more difficult for schools to take a more rounded view and address the socialand economic disadvantages that do hold children back (ibid.:88).This neglect of the social context within which education success or failure isconstructed is the manifestation of a deeply functional policy, neo-liberal in itsassumptions, one limited in its capacity to produce a radical challenge to earlierestablished patterns of inequality. Achieving equality without social conflict andsubstantial resource redistribution is an illusion. Such an illusion has nonethelessbeen pursued by recent policy reform where we can observe a shift away from the“politics” of conflict towards an attempt “to secure a new educational and social593

Nafsika Alexiadousettlement, one that uses as its leitmotiv empowerment, social cohesion and inclusionas well as individual responsibility” (Avis 2007, p. 90). This context requiresschool leaders who manage the impossible task of combining market place success(against other less successful schools), inclusivity of all pupils (but with highlydifferentiated outcomes), and cooperation with other (competing) organisations.This model does not easily accommodate non-instrumental or critical approachesto school leadership, nor does it favour a localising focus for finding solutions toproblems of local disadvantage. The external pressures for good performance ininspections and league tables and the penalties associated with the failure to doso radically restrict the potential for inclusive leadership that would seek criticalengagement with socially disadvantaged children, parents and communities. Thiswould require spaces within the curriculum to develop alternative and critical approachesto teaching and learning and a headship approach that is not defined bythe demands of performativity of the marketplace.Concluding RemarksHow school success is defined, and the norms that shape the direction of educationreforms, are embodied in the way school leadership is conceptualised bothas an organisational issue and as an issue of individual work and practice. Whatconstitutes “good leadership” changes when educational success is re-definedfrom a period where the emphasis is on the “core relational work of teaching andlearning” (Blackmore 2004, p. 286) to one where success is judged in performativeterms, where league tables dominate and where differentiation (academic, and byassociation social) is rewarded. In this article, the example of the English case illustratesquite starkly the ways in which education reforms “embody” normativeassumptions about social categories (in this case of the “successful” or not schoolleader), and how these reforms reflect wider discourses concerning social justice– as equity of access and participation in schooling (Bottery 2004, Lindblad andPopkewitz 2001).Since spring 2010 there has been a new coalition government in the United Kingdomcomprising the Conservative and Liberal parties. Their policies in educationhave been outlined in a very similar trajectory as those of the previous government,with an additional emphasis on giving further autonomy to schools from the localgovernment, an approach that is likely to intensify competition among institutionsfor resources and for “good” pupils. Against the background of a serious economiccrisis and a commitment to cut public spending, the government has been quitekeen to suggest that “fairness” and “social mobility” are amongst its top priorities.In a speech by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg delivered in August 2010, he acknowledgesthe links between educational background and pupil outcomes as anunacceptable pattern that the government is committed to address. But, furtherin the same speech, the rhetoric on “how” the government plans to address these594

Social inclusion and leadership in educationissues is not dissimilar to that of the earlier government, with the emphasis placedquite firmly on: (a) the non-economic dimensions of the problem and on the needto redesign welfare state objectives; and (b) changing the attitudes of parents fromlow socio-economic backgrounds:Tackling poverty of opportunity requires a more rounded approach. Welfare reform, forexample, should be based on the need to improve people’s lives, not just raise their incomes.A young person from a household in the top fifth of the of the income distribution is threetimes more likely to get 5 GCSE’s between grades A and C than a young person brought upin a household in the bottom fifth. Our education policy is squarely aimed at reducing theseinequalities.According to one study, the amount of interest shown by a parent in their child’s educationis four times more important than socio-economic background in explaining educationoutcomes at age 16 … … Parents hold the fortunes of the children they bring into this worldin their hands. All parents have a responsibility to nurture the potential in their children.… … (Clegg 2010)The National College for School Leadership, a product of the previous Labourgovernment, is one of the few organisations the new government has retained andrepresents the quintessential forum for promoting and advocating a leadershipmodel for the marketised and autonomous school of the future. The new governmenthas committed itself to continue the rhetoric of an education policy for socialinclusion (with the accompanied types of leadership), but also continues to promotemeasures that intensify the principles and practices of the market in education. Itdoes not view the two as antithetical, as indeed they may not be, since their definitionof social inclusion draws on a model of citizenship where individuals have thesame right to participate in educational and social activities and they are free tomove between the boundaries of social and economic spheres. Pluralism in typesand forms of educational institutions is seen as a positive feature of the educationmarket, and it is up to autonomous individuals to take advantage of their freedomto enter networks of voluntary exchanges. In this “specialisation paradigm” of socialinclusion (Silver 1994), and in a meritocratic and competitive schooling system,responsibility for success is devolved to individuals and their parents, as the quotefrom Clegg clearly suggests.The role of the state is seen as promoting a general good standard of educationthroughout, and the right incentives for competition in the school market place. Oncethese are in place, the role of the school leader is to use the assets at their disposal(resources, teachers, social capital of pupils, parents and the community, and mostof all their own personality) to position their school in the best place possible in thehierarchy of schools. An “excellent” leader is one who will manage to use these assetsto overcome the problems of disadvantage, and perform over and above expectations.However, this is already discursively put in terms of a vertical differentiation where595

Nafsika Alexiadouless excellent leaders and their schools will fall behind. In the policies of both theLabour governments of the 1997–2010 period and the current coalition government,this is an acceptable outcome that will lead to social inclusion as defined from withinSilver’s specialisation model.Nafsika Alexiadou is currently an Associate Professor in the Department of Applied EducationalSciences of Umeå University in Sweden, and a senior lecturer in the School of Public Policy andProfessional Practice at the University of Keele (UK). Her research encompasses the areas of educationpolicy and governance, European education policy and comparative studies. She is currentlyworking on the area of changing education governance in Europe and the United Kingdom.Nafsika has published in education and social science journals and teaches education policy andresearch methods in undergraduate and postgraduate courses.596

Social inclusion and leadership in educationReferencesAlexiadou, N. (2002) Social inclusion and social exclusion in England: Tensions in education policy,Journal of Education Policy, 17(1), 71–86.Arnesen, A.L., Lundahl, L., (2006) Still social and democratic? Inclusive education policies in theNordic welfare states, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50 (3), 285–300.Avis, J. (2007) Education, Policy and Social Justice: Learning and Skills, London: Continuum.Bagley, C. (2011) From sure start to children’s centres: Capturing the erosion of social capital,Journal of Education Policy, 26 (1), January 2011, 95–113.Ball, S. (1990) Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology, London:Routledge.Barber, M., Whelan F., Clark M. (2010) Capturing the leadership premium: How the world’stop school systems are building leadership capacity for the future, McKinsey & Company,http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/Social_Sector/our_practices/Education/Knowledge_Highlights/~/media/Reports/SSO/schoolleadership_final.ashx(accessed 11 July 2011).Benn, C., Chitty C. (1996) Thirty Years On: Is Comprehensive Education Alive and Well or Strugglingto Survive?, London: David Fulton.Blackmore, J. (2004) Restructuring educational leadership in changing contexts: A local/globalaccount of restructuring, Australia Journal of Educational Change, 5 (3), 267–288.Bottery, M. (2004) The Challenges of Educational Leadership, London: Sage.Brine, J. (2002) The European Social Fund and the EU: Flexibility, Growth, Stability, London:Continuum.Brown, G. (2003) A modern agenda for prosperity and social reform, speech given to the SocialMarket Foundation at the Cass Business School, London, 3 February 2003. www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2003/press_12_03.cfmCaldwell, B., Spinks, J. (1992) Leading the Self-Managing School, Lewes: Falmer Press.Callinicos, A. (2000) Equality, Cambridge: Polity Press.Clegg, N. (2010) Speech on Social Mobility, 18 August 2010 http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Nick_Clegg_delivers_speech_on_social_mobility&pPK=38cf9a88-0577-403e-9dcb-50b8e30ed119Cummings, C., Dyson, A., Papps, I., Pearson, D., Raffo, C., Tiplady, L. & Todd, L. (2006) Evaluationof the full service extended schools initiative, second year: thematic papers, DfES researchreport 795.Dale, R. (1989) The State and Education Policy, Buckingham: Open University Press.Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) (2008) Households Below Average Income, 1994/95– 2006/07, London: DWP.Dyson, A., Raffo, C. (2007) Education and disadvantage: The role of community-oriented schools,Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 297–314.Gewirtz, S. (2002) The Managerial School: Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education, London:Routledge.Glennester, H. (1998) Tackling poverty at its roots? Education. In Oppenheim, C. (ed.) An InclusiveSociety: Strategies for Tackling Poverty. London: IPPRGoldstein, H., Woodhouse, G. (2000) School effectiveness research and education policy, OxfordReview of Education, 26 (3&4), 353–363.Grace, G. (1987) Teachers and the state in Britain: A changing relation. In M. Lawn & G. Grace(eds) Teachers: The Culture and Politics of Work, London: The Falmer Press.597

Nafsika AlexiadouGunter, H.M. (2001) Leaders and Leadership in Education, London: Paul Chapman.Halsey, A.H., Heath, A.F., Ridge, J.M. (1980) Origins and Destinations: Family, Class and Educationin Modern Britain, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Hargreaves, D. (2010) Creating a Self-improving School System, Report for the National Collegefor School Leadership.http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/docinfo?id=133672&filename=creating-a-self-improvingschool-system.pdf(Accessed August 2011).Heath, A. (2000) The political arithmetic tradition in the sociology of education, Oxford Reviewof Education, 26 (3&4), 313–330.Hills, J., Sefton, T., Steward ,K. (eds.) (2009) Towards a More Equal Society? Poverty, Inequalityand Policy since 1997, Bristol: Joseph Rowntree Foundation & Policy Press.Jones, K. (2003) Education in Britain: 1944 to the Present, London: Polity Press.Jones, K. (2010) Labour Governments and English education: a cultural record 1997–2010, EuropeanConference on Educational Research, Annual conference, University of Helsinki, Aug 2010Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1995) Inquiry into Income and Wealth, York: Joseph RowntreeFoundation (http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/income-and-wealth-report-jrf-inquirygroup,accessed August 2011).Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) (2010) Monitoring Poverty and Social Exclusion, December2010. http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/reports.shtml (Accessed August 2011).Lawn, M. (1987) What is the teacher’s job? Work and welfare in elementary teaching, 1940–1945,in M. Lawn, G. Grace (eds), Teachers: The Culture and Politics of Work, London: The FalmerPress.Lawton, D. (1994) The Tory Mind on Education 1979–1994, London: The Falmer Press.Lee, J. (1987) Pride and prejudice: teachers, class and an inner-city infants school. In M. Lawn, G.Grace (eds), Teachers: The Culture and Politics of Work, London: The Falmer Press.Levitas, R. (1998) The Inclusive Society? Social Exclusion and New Labour, Basingstoke: Macmillan.Lindblad, S., Popkewitz, T.S. (2001) Introduction to the Problematics, in S. Lindblad & T.S. Popkewitz(eds) Education Governance and Social Integration and Exclusion: Studies in the Powerof Reason and the Reasons of Power: A Report From The EGSIE Project, Uppsala Reports onEducation 39, Uppsala University.Lindblad, L., Johannesson, I. A. & Simola, H. (2002) Education governance in transition: An introduction,Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 237–246.Lister, R. (1998) From equality to social inclusion: New labour and the welfare state, Critical SocialPolicy, 18(2), 215–226.Lupton, R., Heath, N., Salter, E. (2009) Education: New Labour’s top priority. In J. Hills, T. Sefton,K. Stewart (eds) op.cit.Menter, I., Muschamp, Y., Nicholls, P., Ozga, J., Pollard, A. (1997) Work and Identity in the PrimarySchool, Buckingham: Open University Press.Moos, L., Miller, J. (2003) Schools and leadership in transition: The case of Scandinavia, CambridgeJournal of Education, 33(3), 353–370.National College for School Leadership (2008) Successful leadership for promoting the achievementof white working class pupils – Vignettes: 12 accounts of school life. http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17407(Accessed August 2011)Office for National Statistics (2009) Labour Force Survey 2009, http://www.ons.gov.uk/about/index.html (Accessed August 2011)598

Social inclusion and leadership in educationOzga, J. (2000) Policy Research in Educational Settings, Buckingham: Open University Press.Popkewitz, T.S., Lindblad, S. (2000) Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: Aconceptual review of equity and post-modern traditions, Discourse, 21 (1), 1–44.Prideaux, S. (2001) New Labour, old functionalism: The underlying contradictions of welfare reformin the US and the UK, Social Policy and Administration, 35(1), 85–115.Raffo, C., Gunter, H. (2008) Leading schools to promote social inclusion: Developing a conceptualframework for analysing research, policy and practice, Journal of Education Policy, 23 (4),397–414.Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours: SecondarySchools and Their Effects on Children, London: Paul Chapman.Shain, F., Ozga, J., (2001) Identity crisis? Problems and issues in the sociology of education, BritishJournal of Sociology of Education, 22 (1), 109–120.Silver, H. (1994), Social exclusion and social solidarity: Three paradigms, International LabourReview, 133 (5–6), 531–572.Thomson, P. (2009) School Leadership: Heads on the Block?, London: Routledge.Williams, F. (1989) Social Policy: A Critical Introduction, Cambridge: Polity Press.Whitty, G. (1985) Sociology and School Knowledge: Curriculum Theory, Research and Politics,London: Mehuen.Endnotes1In this article “disadvantage” is discussed in relation to socio-economic background. This selectivefocus was necessary because of limitations of space, but it also illustrates the author’s beliefthat this form of disadvantage is more powerful in determining educational outcomes over otherforms of social divisions (ethnicity, disability and gender). I nonetheless wish to fully acknowledgethe significance of these in a differentiating education process.2By “education” in this article I refer to compulsory forms of schooling. Again, limitations ofspace make it impossible to review post-compulsory sectors.3This “periodisation” represents ideal types with fairly artificial chronological boundaries. Still,it is fairly well accepted in the academic literature as describing the changing relationships betweenthe state and education policy.4The notion of the “consensus” has been very much critiqued, particularly from the left of thepolitical spectrum, as a fabrication of the ruling classes in an attempt to pacify the disadvantagedand to disguise the contribution of the state to the continuation of unequal distribution ofresources across the social classes, and across racial divisions (Williams 1989).5The challenge facing conservatism, according to Richard Crossman when writing in 1954, was“not to oppose public ownership or planning or the welfare state, but to use them … to maintainthe differences of wealth and status which are essential to stability” (quoted in Lawton 1994:25).6During the whole of this post-war period, proposals to form a Teachers’ General Council (in 1959and 1965) were rejected by both Conservative and Labour Ministers of Education (Grace 1987).7Even though by 2007 persistent poverty had fallen compared to the previous decade, povertyrates for certain categories of people (e.g. those of working age without children) rose (Departmentfor Work and Pensions 2008). Children living in poverty in workless households representedaround 16% of all children in 2009, while children living in poverty in working familiesrose to 2.1 million in 2010, the highest on record (Sources: Office for National Statistics 2009,Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2010).599

Nafsika Alexiadou8In 2007, the UK still had one of the highest income inequalities in the EU (as measured by totalincome of the richest one-fifth / total income of the poorest one-fifth). (Source: EU CommunityStatistics on Income and Living Conditions, 2009).9In 2008, 11-year-old pupils eligible for free school meals (the proxy indicator of poverty in theEnglish school system) were around twice as likely not to achieve basic standards in literacy andnumeracy as other 11-year-old pupils. (Source: National Pupil Database 2009, Department forChildren Schools and Families).At age 11, 2009 saw the first rise in the proportion of children not reaching basic levels of numeracyand literacy over a decade. This rise was more pronounced among schools with a highproportion of children eligible for free school meals. Until 2009, these had been downwardstrends, at least since 1996 (JRF 2010, http://www.poverty.org.uk/summary/reports.shtml).600

Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, pp.601–617EDU.INQ.“Living with Market Forces”Principals’ Perceptions of Market Competitionin Swedish Upper Secondary School EducationAnn-Sofie Holm* & Ulf Lundström**AbstractThe Swedish education system has undergone major restructuring since the early 1990s. The newpolicy, including e.g. decentralisation, accountability, school choice and a tax-funded voucher system,has led to an expanding “school market”. This article explores how upper secondary school principalsperceive the increased competition among schools and its impact on their work and the school organisation.The data emanate from interviews with principals at eight schools in five municipalities.The presence of the market in everyday work is perceived as a reality, even if its significance varies.The principals argue that competition increases the staff’s efforts and improves school development.However, it is also perceived as problematic since it causes increased stress and uncertainty. The principals’professional identities seem to have changed from a pedagogical role to a more economics ditto.Most principals are pragmatic and make efforts to handle the new policy context the best they can.Keywords: upper secondary school principals, market influence, school competition, school leadershipIntroductionPrincipals are often described as key actors for change in international and nationaleducation policy rhetoric. School leadership is regarded as crucial for improvingschool performance, equity and the capacities of teachers (Pont, Nusche & Moorman2008). However, the way school leaders shape their roles and how they are influencedby marketisation and school choice policies is scarcely examined. As this is a currentstrong international policy trend, it is of interest to illuminate how it works in an unusuallyfull-blown “school market” such as Sweden. The expansion of upper secondaryindependent schools (also called “free schools”) has been rapid, from attracting 2%of all students in 1992/1993 to 24% in 2010/2011 (Skolverket 2011). Further, thereis a recent trend that independent school concerns are sold to and incorporated ininternational private equity firms (Erixon Arreman & Holm 2011a). As research onthe impact of these recent changes is still quite limited, this article may contribute tofurther understanding of the new market-influenced school context.This article explores how principals in eight Swedish upper secondary schoolsperceive the increased school marketisation and competition and how this impacts*School of Education and Behavioural Sciences, University of Borås, Sweden. Email: ann-sofie.holm@hb.se. **Department ofApplied Educational Science, Umeå University, Sweden. Email: ulf.lundstrom@edusci.umu.se©Author. ISSN 2000-4508, pp.601–617601

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf Lundströmtheir work and school organisation. More specifically, we ask how the principalsperceive: a) how the new policy context affects their school in terms of competition;b) if and how principals’ work and professional beliefs are changing in response tothe new policy context; and c) the impact of the new policy context on the schoolorganisation and quality.Due to the principals’ crucial position in a school system characterised by decentralisationand school-based management, it is valuable to deepen the understandingof how they respond to the new policies. The research on education policy is highlyrelevant to this study even if the work of school leaders and their significance is rarelyin the focus of this field. One example is Ball (2003:219) who illuminates “the newculture of competitive performativity”. He claims that three policy techniques, i.e.the market, managerialism and performativity, are changing organisations in thepublic sector. Methods, culture and ethics are being adopted from the private sector.This development opens up the way for more control, which makes school leaders“technicians of transformation” in the new culture (Ball 2003:219). Management isstrengthened but its purpose is to produce measurable outputs and transform theorganisation into an “auditable commodity” (Ball 2003:225).Several other policy researchers critically analyse reforms underpinned by neoliberalism,neo-conservatism, marketisation and new public management (e.g. Apple2001; Walsh 2006; Whitty 1997). Codd (2005) highlights the negative consequencesfor the overall purposes of public education. He claims that managerialism is obsessedwith the notion of quality, emphasising efficiency, external accountabilityand measurable outcomes, which has resulted in the intensification and deskillingof teachers’ work. Helsby (1999:4) speaks of “a new work order”. By deploying newpublic management, efforts are made to increase both efficiency and central control.However, “the twin strategies of marketisation of public services and the growth ofmanagerialism, (...) have profound effects upon the work of public sector employees”(Helsby 1999:8). Moos (2009) highlights recent changes of school leadership causedby increased demands for accountability. This means that school leaders need to balancethese external demands with the internal demands of teachers for discretion.An overview of current international school leadership is presented by Pont et al.(2008). Effective school leadership is emphasised as a way to improve both the efficiencyand equity of schooling. Some of today’s dominant school leadership conceptsare described and are frequently recurring in the research literature. Distributedleadership is about sharing and spreading the leadership activities within the organisation(Harris 2008). System leadership positions the school in a wider context andunderscores the value of collaboration with other schools. Another popular conceptis transformational leadership which focuses on cultural change (Hopkins 2003). Inshort, “there is a groundswell towards the leadership as empowerment, transformationand community-building and away from the “great-man” theory of leadership”(Harris et al. 2003). Further, some of the school leadership literature follows the lines602

“Living with Market Forces”of school effectiveness research (SER) (e.g. Höög & Johansson 2005; Mortimore et al.1988; Rutter et al. 1979). SER emphasises the fact that schools do make a difference,in spite of unequal socio-economic conditions. Research within this perspective hasoften ended up in lists of traits that characterise effective schools (including effectiveschool leaders and teachers). This development has been criticised for becominginstrumental and for paving the way for the negative impact of the marketisationtrend via league tables, performance management techniques, standardisation anddeprofessionalisation (Bottery 2001).Chubb and Moe (1988, 1990) and Hoxby (2002) are prominent advocates ofschool choice policy. From a Public Choice perspective, Chubb and Moe claim thatprivate schools are superior to public schools since the management is stronger, theteachers are more satisfied and the students perform better. Hoxby maintains thatthe productivity of public schools rises as a result of school choice. She also claimsthat students’ achievements rise when they attend voucher or charter schools (Hoxby2003). However, a study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes atStanford University paints a darker picture of the results of charter schools (CREDO2009), e.g. that the learning results of 37 percent of the students were significantlyworse than they would have been if they had remained in traditional public schools.A substantial part of the school choice literature has focused on a selection of Westerncountries. An anthology edited by Plank and Sykes (2003) is an exception wherethe selection is broader. From their analysis of several studies, they conclude that theresults show that the more advantaged students benefit from choice programmes,but that the findings are inconsistent as regards the impacts on student achievementand school quality.The international educational policy trends during recent decades are significantin Sweden as well, including decentralisation, quality, accountability, school choiceand marketisation (Lundahl et al. 2010). However, Sweden can be an interesting caseas an example of a more developed school market than in many other countries. The“free school model” has also received international attention and been “exported” tosome countries (Erixon Arreman & Holm 2011b). Allen (2010) paints a picture of thesignificance the Swedish reforms have had on England:The Conservatives’ support proposal to replicate Sweden’s “free school” reforms would bethe most radical reform of education in England since the dismantling of selective schoolingfour decades ago (Allen 2010: 4)Sweden has a long education and a political ambition to improve the educational levelfor all as a case of social justice, which has made the marketisation of schools andschool choice policy debated issues. However, during the 1980s the social democraticparty that had dominated the political scene for several decades started adoptingneoliberal discourses (Daun 2003), and the whole political field was increasingly603

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf Lundströminfluenced by ideas about school choice, marketisation and new public management.Several government decisions during the beginning of the 1990s resultedin the creation of a “school market”, which includes both public and independentschools. The allocation of resources was devolved to the municipalities, a vouchersystem was implemented and legislation created favourable terms for independentschools. The conservative government in office between 1991 and 1994 enforced thelegislation and voucher system, and argued: “A stimulating competition (...) cancontribute to higher quality and productivity in the school system” (GovernmentBill 1992/93:230:27, our translation). Independent schools were also allowed tooperate in a profit-making way. The development was carried on by the subsequentsocial democratic government. These changes paved the way for the substantialexpansion of independent schools and increased competition for students, which isexpected to rise as the number of upper secondary students declines over the nextfew years (Skolverket 2010).After WWII, the traditional principal role changed from being the most prominentcolleague, the primus inter pares (Ekholm et al. 2000), to being a civil servant. Theextensive reforms that intended to create an equal, prolonged and integrated educationfor all demanded a new sort of civil servant able to implement the extensiverestructurings. Around 1990, there was a second substantial shift in the principal’srole with the reforms that implied decentralisation, changed governance and devolvedresponsibility to the municipalities (SOU 2004:116). Principals became site-basedmanagers and executers of both state and municipal education policy responsible forgoal-attainment and school development. However, during the last few years this rolehas become challenged by a new governing force: the logics of the market.Theoretical frameworkOne basic assumption of this analysis, in line with an institutional perspective, is thatactions are shaped by the norms and formal rules of the institution – in this study theupper secondary school sphere. “The core idea that organizations are deeply embeddedin social and political environments suggested that organizational practices andstructures are often either reflections of or responses to rules, beliefs, and conventionsbuilt into the wider environment” (Powell & Colyvas 2007).We assume that institutions “fashion, enable and constrain political actors as theyact within the logic of appropriate action” (March & Olsen 2005:5). Freidson (2001)thus identifies three approaches to understanding how work can be organised andcontrolled: the logics of the market, bureaucracy and professionalism. In short, thelogic of the market includes concepts such as customer satisfaction, competition,selling and buying. The logic of bureaucracy is based on an emphasis on efficiency,regulation, standardisation and control, while the logic of professionalism entailsshared knowledge, work culture and ethics, autonomy and trust. The three logics representa different set of assumptions that make a difference in a workplace (Freidson604

“Living with Market Forces”2001). This is linked to the idea that organisational practices are responses to rules,values and assumptions built into the wider environment:The basic logic of action is rule following – prescriptions based on a logic of appropriatenessand a sense of rights and obligations derived from an identity and membership in a politicalcommunity and the ethos, practices and expectations of its institutions. Rules are followedbecause they are seen as natural, rightful, expected, and legitimate (March & Olsen 2005:8).However, at the same time we adopt a social constructive view of the principals’roles in the organisation (March & Olsen 2005). They are shaped by the new policycontext and organisational restructuring, but also they are able to shape what sort ofprincipal and school is constructed in the interplay between the old and new educationalcontexts. Policy impact is not all-determining; there is space for interpretationand negotiation at the local level (Ballet et al. 2006). In a similar way, the principals’professional identities are constructed in the interaction between the personal andthe context, so it is an ongoing process of learning and interpretation (Lamote &Engels 2010). Wenger (1999) describes this as a negotiation of meaning within acommunity of practice.As the focus of this paper concerns the introduction of the marketisation of schools,the market logics are highlighted and contrasted to the traditional view of how workin schools is carried out in the tension between the logics of bureaucracy and professionalism.However, Freidson’s concepts are ideal types. None of them exist in a pureform. Instead, they are used as tools for analysing and understanding the impact ofthe current changes in the educational field.MethodologyThis study is part of a larger research project, “Upper secondary education as a market”,financed by the Swedish Research Council. The aim of the project is to analysethe occurrences of market solutions and market steering, the strategies towards themby the involved actors, and their impact on upper secondary education.The empirical material of the present study stems from semi-structured interviewswith principals (two women, six men) at eight upper secondary schools in 2009.Five of the principals work at public schools and three at independent profit-makingschools. The schools vary in size; the public schools are quite large and the independentschools are smaller, which reflects the situation in Sweden at large. The selectedschools are seated in five municipalities representing various contexts (high and lowdegrees of a urban-rural context) and various degrees of school competition (basedon shares of students in independent schools in the municipality) (Table 1).605

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf LundströmTable 1. Selection of schools/principals1s 1Degree of urbanruralcontextHigh(Urban)Degree of competitionHighCity PublicCity IndependentLowSouth PublicSouth IndependentLow(Rural)North PublicNorth IndependentRural PublicRegional Public1The names of the schools are anonymised and indicate their geographical location (City=city in the South; South=middlesizedtown in the South; North=big town in the North; Rural=small town in a northern depopulated municipality;Regional=middle-sized town in a northern depopulated region) and ownership (Public; Independent).The basis for the interviews was a shared guide concerning the principals’ experiencesof the marketisation of upper secondary schools, the effects on their workingconditions as well as the school organisation. The interviews lasted about an hour andwere recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically in accordance with the researchquestions. The analytical approach was informed by institutionalism and theoriesof governing and leadership. The findings are organised and presented thematically(Competition and collaboration; Principals in the tension between educational andmarket values; Effects on the school organisation and quality). Quotations from therespondents are used to illustrate the themes and are selected to both reflect the“common view” and to provide especially descriptive examples.FindingsCompetition and collaborationThe interviews reveal that competition has become a reality in everyday school life:“No issue in the last ten years has meant so much as competition, no other reformhas had such an impact in school” one of the principals says. The narrations alsoshow that competition is not only between municipal versus independent schools.All schools are, in one way or another, competing and positioning themselves inrelation to the others. However, the experiences of the strength of the market varywith the local conditions, such as e.g. geographic location or which programmes thecompetitors are running. At schools with declining student numbers, the principalsexpress great concern over the situation and worry about the school’s survival: “it’sabout to eat or be eaten” (North Public). Principals at schools with more successfulrecruitment statistics are more confident. At City Public, the competition seems moreabout the prestige to attract the “right” kind of students and achieving high admissionscores. At Regional Public, which due to its geographic location has few competitors,the relations of competition emerge stronger in the media discourse/rhetoric than606

“Living with Market Forces”in the daily practice, the principal claims. However, she says she fears the pressureof competition will be harder in the next few years given the decreasing cohorts ofupper secondary students.For the principals at the public schools the competition seems to imply a specificdilemma since they are also, in line with the municipal policy, expected to co-operateregarding e.g. marketing, the distribution of programmes, student admission etc.Even though the principals told us about the recently expanded co-ordination andcollaboration between municipalities and public schools, competition is neverthelessperceived as unavoidable.So we [the schools in the municipality, authors’ comment] are competing quite hard againsteach other, even if it’s in a good spirit. Sometimes people get annoyed when our programmescollide, but actually we have no choice. Since all schools market themselves, it becomesnatural to market yourself against the others (North Public).Some narrations indicate that collaboration agreements between public schools mightbe at the cost of smaller ones. The principal at Rural Public says that in his regionthe spirit of hospitality has weakened lately and it has become harder for schools toobtain permission to visit each other to inform about their activities. This has had anegative impact on the student numbers in his own school, he argues. The principalat City Public thinks that the focus on reputation and popular/unpopular schools islikely to increase the polarisation between students and between schools.The respondents at the three independent schools describe issues with collaborationwithin their school concerns. The principal at City Independent expresses security inbeing part of a “corporate umbrella” which keeps the school “on track”. She admitsthat her school would probably not have survived without the financial support fromthe company. However, being part of a large school concern can be problematic ifsome of its members fail or behave badly. The principal at North Independent hasexperienced that a bad reputation can easily spread from one school brand to another,and claims it is hard to stop a negative rumour. There are arguments that competitionis not on equal terms for the independent versus the public schools. For example, therules for the different types of schools differ and are perceived as unfair. Such viewsare expressed by the principals of both school types and make them feel aggrieved sothat some are asking for more stringent rules.Most of the interviewees maintain they would prefer to avoid the pressure to competeand promote themselves, but since the present situation requires it they need tohandle it and make the best of it. They actually have no choice, they have to adapt tothe changing conditions, they argue.So this is the system now and we have to respond to it. (...) That’s the reality so it’s ready togo. (...) we must learn to live with the market forces and make the best use of them (SouthPublic).607

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf LundströmThe principal at South Independent says that he recently tried to initiate collaborationbetween the independent and public schools in his municipality, partly in order tosave advertising costs for both. However, the initiative was rejected by the municipality.The principal argues that is forcing his school to be “more aggressive” in itsmarketing, a situation that he would rather have avoided: “It is unfortunately not mychoice”. This feeling of actually having no choice but to compete is also expressed insome other interviews, pointing to an effect of the market situation: the dilemma ofbalancing competition and collaboration. Below, some other tensions are discussed.Principals in the tension between educational and market valuesThe respondents’ narratives suggest that their work and professional identities havebeen affected by the logic of the market. “Competition has, of course, become a considerablepart of the focus of my work” (Rural Public). Since attracting students iscrucial to the survival of the schools, an outgoing and customer-oriented approachis required.If we don’t get any students, the teachers won’t have a job anymore (...) So we have to be verygood at what we do and we have to work really hard, and constantly have market thinkingin our minds (South Independent).The principal of City Public claims that today each school needs to “prove itself” andclarify its vision in order to justify its existence. Marketing has thus become an “integralpart” of his profession, which implies that before any decision is to be takenhe must address the question: “Does it fit into the image of the school, does it helpus to attract students, does it cost more than it tastes”.For all the principals the marketing (or “information”, as some prefer to call it) hasbecome a highly prioritised task, including advertising in brochures, on the Internetor on TV, presence at school trade fairs, arranging open houses, innovating the schoolprofile or creating attractive programmes and so on. The marketing tasks involve mostof the staff at school and also cost a lot of money, the principals argue. Some claimthat the time their teachers spend on advertising and promoting tasks is at the costof their teaching duties, thus threatening the quality of education. “This means thatyou’re teaching less and spend less time with the students because you’re so busyplanning how to promote it” (Rural Public). In addition, the students are describedas engaged in promoting their school as inter-trained “ambassadors” or “frontlinefighters” in the dialogue with prospective students. The principals’ vocabulary is clearlyinfluenced by the economic discourse and concepts such as “business”, “profits” and“deliver results” are common in the interviews. There are also principals who talkabout education in terms of “selling a product to 16-year-olds”.In their work, the school leaders have to balance economic and pedagogical issues.Most of them stress that the pedagogical issues should be the governing source of the608

“Living with Market Forces”investments, but nevertheless the economic issues have won priority at the expenseof educational ones:My job has changed quite a lot. I think my profession has gone from being an educationalleader to an executive finance director, with economics, marketing, and education as equallyimportant issues. (...) The main governing force is the budget, the money. The economicframeworks are more pronounced than the ideological ones, I think (City Public).It is mainly the municipal principals who talk about the market-oriented workingconditions in terms of change. The independent schools in this study are relativelynew and, more than others, their principals seem to cultivate an enterprise culture anddescribe the intense planning and resource management more as part of the job. SouthIndependent is the most striking example of this new entrepreneurial leadership. Theprincipal adopts a manager role and describes his school as “a company of its own”based on a “profit mentality”. He is not an educated teacher but a business economistwho uses strategic recruitment for hiring teachers (or “associates/ employees” ashe prefers to call them), with the “right” attitude. This is particularly important, heargues, since they are expected to take care of a range of different tasks, e.g. that ofcaretakers and cleaners, in contrast to the “mainstream schools”. Since his staff work40 hours a week, there is always a teacher present at the school available for studentswith difficulties, he claims. The school has no collective employment contract, unlikein most public schools. A new element in the organisation is that teachers are givenbonuses that are linked to performance. Further, the principal claims that his ambitionis to make the South Independent staff shareholders in the school company.The perception that the role of the principal has become more manager-like andsimilar to a business leader emerges in many narrations. One of the principals stressesthat, in a strict sense, all schools, public as well as independent, are run like companies:Even a public school is like a business company. It has to set out and hold a budget that isdependent on the students. I don’t think there is much difference. (...) All schools, businessesor organisations have to make profit; otherwise, they can’t renovate or further train theirstaff or such (City Independent).Stress and uncertainty seem prevalent in the principals’ everyday work. An increasedworkload and concerns for the school’s survival are some of the reasons for this.The principals express anxiety about the teachers’ jobs since a declining number ofstudents ultimately leads to cutbacks. “The uncertainty is a concern each year, for allof us” (South Public). Competition is thus described as something that is always intheir minds and an aspect that might “permeate the school”:Yes, it [competition, authors’ comment] is always there, especially the period before thestudents are going to choose their upper secondary education. I think this is a ubiquitousissue that exists at all schools since competition has increased. The harsh reality is that the609

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf Lundströmteachers are dependent on the students in order to keep their jobs. Of course, this is somethingyou have in mind... (North Independent).If we lose our students, we lose our staff (...) The strategic work concerns how to respond tothe declining number of students. This is obviously an issue on the teachers’ agenda (NorthPublic).Several of the principals express uncertainty over which strategies are the mostsuccessful to reach potential students and which aspects ultimately determine theirchoices. It is hard to predict what attracts young people today and what kind ofinformation sells the school the best. Especially schools with declining numbers ofapplicants try desperately to find solutions to this. The principal at Rural Public describeshow he and his staff school struggles to find a winning concept and whetherit is the school or the programmes they should profile. At schools that already haveclearly identified brand names and concepts, this question seems less problematic.The principal at Regional Public says she is really proud that her school has not yet“fallen into any unethical traps” and started a programme for nail painting, despitean expressed interest for this among the students.There seem to be a tension dealing with market values versus the political aimof social justice. The principal at City Public talks about his dilemma of whether heshould invest in the “breadth” or “peak” at his school. On one hand, he thinks thatoffering a multitude of programmes, theoretical as well as vocational, would be moredynamic as it would promote diversity and attract a “mix” of students. On the otherhand, he presumes that it would be more profitable for the school to clarify its profileand invest in a few prestigious programmes:Both alternatives have advantages and that is what makes it so complicated. It is good notto get only one kind of people in one place. I don’t like that there will be some independentschools that have only blond Swedes with the same interests, the same taste in music andthe same style. (...) I think it is good to have a big school. (…) students who have academiccareers ahead will be mixed with those who don’t really know what they want to. That isone good thing for students to be mixed. The bad thing is of course ... with the competition,it is easier to stand out and niche that we are a school that is preparatory for higher education...(City Public).Effects on the school organisation and qualityThe interviews indicate contradictions and ambivalences connected to the impact ofmarketisation on the school organisation as well as the quality aspects. In this sectionwe will exemplify how the principals on one hand highlight several negative effectsof the tougher competition (some of which were already discussed above), but also,on the other hand, celebrate its positive incentives for improvements. Moreover, a“survival of the fittest” discourse emerges in the interviews, parallel to a common viewthat aspects other than quality determine the students’ school choices.610

“Living with Market Forces”There are opinions that the freedom of choice is positive, but also that the huge rangeof schools and programmes can complicate the students’ choices. During recent yearsthe principals have noticed an increase in changes and drop outs, a trend that also hasconsequences for the school organisation. They describe it as “extremely difficult” topredict the numbers of students applying since the search trend changes so quickly.The organisational work is also affected by other schools starting up or closing down.Some principals say that the short lead times for taking in students and an escalationof altered programme/school choices have hampered long-term planning andco-ordination. The situation has enhanced the demands to be strategic and flexibleand to adapt to the students’ desires:Readjustments are faster each year... there are trends in different directions. We’ve hadenormous pressure on our vocational programmes, and we’re obliged to respond to it so wecan take on the students. (...) So we have to be quite fast when we rearrange things, whichputs great pressure on the organisation, both on the leadership and on the staff. We mustbe flexible (South Public).We adapt, of course. Every year we make an overview of the programmes we offer and weadapt to the students’ aspirations and needs (...) We constantly need to reinvent ourselves(Regional Public).The principals highlight that the unpredictability and demands for customer satisfactionsometimes challenge professional judgement and autonomy. There are descriptionsof far-reaching efforts to “patch up” study plans for students who “jump”between schools or programmes during the semester. “If the option is that studentsdrop out, we have to do something” (North Public). The struggle to recruit and/orkeep students occasionally risks forcing the school staff to compromise and push thelimits. The Rural Public principal says “It is quite clear that the situation of competitionhas resulted in sacrifices on parts of the quality of education in order to attractstudents”. As an example, he describes how some schools redesign their courses andreduce the number of teaching hours in less popular subjects in fear of losing theirstudents. He confesses that his own school has succumbed to this strategy and adaptedto the students’ requests:The students did not want these foreign languages so we stood up for them and took thosesubjects away immediately, even though we felt the drop in quality. And this strategy hasbeen common in many contexts. You change the subjects according to the students’ wishes,regardless of whether or not is it good for them, or for Sweden, in the long run (Rural Public).Even though the perceived exposure to competition varies between the schools, thereis almost a consensus among the principals that freedom of choice and competitionis a driving force for the development of their schools. Since school quality is by andlarge viewed as linked to customer (i.e. student) satisfaction, the interviewees providenumerous examples of how the pressure to attract students is becoming an incentive611

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf Lundströmfor schools and their employees to make an effort and improve. The only way to getgood schools is by being alert, they claim. The principal at Rural Public describesthat the threat of losing their jobs has pushed his teachers to keep up, “sharpenup” their teaching and be more outward. City Public’s principal adds: “For some, itmight be an incentive and some might wake up from their slumber”. Thus, competitionis perceived as an external driving force when the internal one is not enough:Now, you’re forced to ask yourself, “what are we good at?” (...) Pride is important! But whenyour existence is threatened and your future is threatened, the situation forces you to developas well. (…) Without competition, you have no reason to improve yourself as you’re not facingany immediate threats. It’s only the internal momentum that promotes development,or a new report from the National Agency of Education. But this gives you external stimulito actually develop something (North Public).The principal at South Public adds that quality improvements have been a prioritisedissue among his staff. He thinks that the deregulation reforms have resulted in morespace and freedom for schools to develop and respond to the students’ requests. Theprincipals at the independent schools argue that the emergence of free schools hasprovided incentives for improvements at public schools. “I would like to be clear andsay that free schools have initiated and even taken school development in Sweden astep further – we have been pioneers” (City Independent). From having previouslybeen, as one interviewee put it “stagnant organisations”, the public schools are nowforced to “wake up” and see that their existence is not to be taken for granted anymore.Quality is in the public debate often connected to the reasons for the students’ choices,i.e. students are expected to choose the qualitatively “best school”. In line with this,some principals further the discourse that the competition will lead to a natural selectionof schools whereby the strongest ones will survive and the weaker ones will vanish.It will be a natural progress for the schools. At present, when competition is getting tougher,the schools that can’t keep up with the standards won’t get any students (...) Naturally,the worst schools will shut down. Hopefully, it will be the good schools that remain (CityIndependent).However, this “survival of the fittest” view is not always consistent with the principals’own multiple examples of reasons for student choice that can hardly be described asconnected to quality. One principal says that even trivial facts, such as a newly openedstore in the neighbourhood, might in some cases be a determining factor:Why does a sixteen/seventeen-year-old choose a certain school? we asked the students.“Gina Tricot” [a fashion brand, authors’ comment] is one of their answers. “Because GinaTricot has opened here”. This is a fact! (...) But travelling from N [a nearby town, authors’comment] and choosing this school can’t be only because it’s new and that’s cool. It’s becausethere is a whole town here. The students want to break free, there are various things thatattract them (South Public).612

“Living with Market Forces”Other examples of what might also be crucial in the student school choice processconcern the schools’ promotional offers, their geographic location, or group trendsamong the students. “So quality determines very little. Actually, most of it is on thesurface” (North Public). The examples problematise the quality discourse and theassumption that school choice is a rational choice made by fully informed customers.ConclusionsThe findings show that the market influences are having an impact on the principalsand their work. At their schools, the logic of the market is perceived as a reality, evenif its significance varies due to local conditions. There is a mixture of opinions aboutthe strength and impact of competition, e.g. depending on how successful the schoolis at recruiting new students or whether it is a public or an independent school. Theprincipals’ professional identity seems to have begun to change from a pedagogicalrole to a more economic and (customer-) service-oriented one; a move in the directiontowards a provider-consumer relationship (Powell & Colyvas 2007). Even if theinterviews demonstrate contradictory views of the effects of competition and schoolchoice, the principals are complying with this prevalent policy. They are pragmaticand make efforts to handle the new policy context the best they can. Most of themargue that competition per se might be positive since it increases the teachers’ effortsand improves school development. However, they do not link it explicitly withimproved student achievement. Further, the situation implies an increased workloadalong with other aspects that seem to contradict notions of professional values andquality – aspects that problematise the school choice rhetoric. The overall picture ofwhich qualities are actually promoted by competition is contradictory. The findingspartly run counter to the current school-leadership research as well; for example, thevalue of collaboration with other schools which is emphasised in system leadershipand the sharing of leadership that the distributed leadership speaks for.The presence of the market in everyday work confirms the findings of a studyconducted by the Swedish National Agency for Education: “The principals describea process in which they, the teachers and other staff, gradually realise that their workis not just about education but that they are actors on a competitive market as well”(Skolverket 2010:63, our translation). This is an example of overlapping logics: Itshows the impact of market logics but at the same time that the marketisation ofeducation is a highly prioritised government policy (i.e. the logic of bureaucracy). Asimilar situation is described in a study of English headteachers in the 1990s:While, in principle, the dilemma in the 1990s for English headteachers as school leaders iswhether they should take the path of market or community accountability in schooling, thisformulation of the leadership dilemma is over simplified. In the first place, the “options” areheavily constrained by government empowerment of, and advocacy for, market accountability(Grace 1997:314, 315).613

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf LundströmThe head teachers in Grace’s material expressed a resistance to the market influence“because they believe that market forces and market values in education will be inimicalto educational and professional values” (Grace 1997: 314). This differs to onefinding of our study: Even if the principals perceive that the marketisation of schoolsis problematic, they loyally carry out this prevalent policy. The difference could beexplained by the varying national contexts and time periods although, consideringthe long tradition of democratic and equity intentions in Swedish education policy,this seems quite unlikely. Rather, the explanation concerns a new spirit of the agein which the marketisation of public services and new public management are takenfor granted in many work contexts – a spirit which was not significant in Swedishschools at the time of Grace’s study.The findings also illustrate conflicting logics. The market-influenced flexibilitydiscourse competes with the tradition of long-term planning, an element of the bureaucraticlogic. The demands to satisfy customers and to prioritise marketisation(expressions of the logic of the market) sometimes oppose the principals’ professionalvalues of what the core tasks of education are and of what could be regarded as educationquality. The logics of the market imply “convincing arguments” that can hardlybe opposed since the threat of losing students may result in redundant staff or closingdown of the school. Thus, the impact of marketisation changes the institutional logicsand reduces the principals’ discretionary power – an essential trait in the logics ofprofessionalism. Previous research claims that the “leadership function is threefold:setting the direction for the school, empowering teachers and organising the school”(Moos 2009:402). These functions are affected by the market logics as they implycompelling demands to prioritise tasks such as marketisation and being competitive.Therefore, even if traditional bureaucratic and professional values and tasks are stillcrucial in the principals’ work, they can be characterised to a large extent as techniciansof transformation in the new culture of competitive performativity in line withBall’s (2003) formulation.Representatives of new institutionalism claim that pressures from the organisationenvironment result in a “startling homogeneity of organizational forms and practises”(DiMaggio & Powell 1983:148), which aims more to provide legitimacy than improveperformance. The findings of our study both confirm and oppose this claim. Thereis no doubt that a common transformation is going on: schools as traditional publicinstitutions have changed into market-competitive organisations. At the same time,this development illustrates that what previously could be regarded as a relativelyhomogenous school culture is now split up. The schools’ organisational identities areunder negotiation both in relation to their local context and to international as wellas national policy trends. Further, the increased attention to profiling themselvesmay contribute to even more diversity. For example, Regional Public mainly sticksto its organisational identity as a modern, integrated public school as it is marginallyaffected by competition. But City Public inserts the traditional high-status public614

“Living with Market Forces”school identity into the logics of the market as it works as a high-status brand in themarket. North and South Independent clearly cultivate an enterprise culture whileCity Independent emphasises its pedagogical profile. This development is more inline with observations in new research which shows that institutionalisation is notalways homogenous; organisational and professional responses to external pressuresshape practice in various ways (Powell & Colyvas 2007).The logics of the market and professionalism both imply a service ideal, yet withdifferent meanings. Examples from the interviews show that the principals need to takea stand between these competing logics. Should they stick to a professionally basedjudgement or should they be compliant with customer satisfaction? The literatureon professional and organisational identity emphasises the value of creating sharedmeaning within an organisation/profession (e.g. Brunsson 1996, March & Olsen2005, Wenger 1996). The principals’ position in the tension between the conflictinglogics shown in our study speaks of the need for support to find shared meaning andnew directions in this new educational landscape. However, there are no indicationsin our material that such systematic meaning-making is going on. This is a questionfor further research. As “the position and actions of the principal can act as a bridgebetween external demands and school staff” (Ballet et al. 2006:215), it seems crucialthat principals’ actions are based on deep, shared and systematic reflections.Ann-Sofie Holm is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the Department of Educational Studies,University of Borås. She has a background as a teacher in secondary school and holds a PhD inPedagogy. Her research interests include the marketisation of education in Sweden, and the fieldof gender constructions in school.Ulf Lundström is a senior lecturer in teacher education at the Department of Applied EducationalScience, Umeå University. He has a background as a teacher and principal in an upper secondaryschool and holds a PhD in Educational Work. His research is directed towards the teaching profession,professional development, the changes and impacts of education policy and reform implementation.He is currently engaged in a research project on school choice and the marketisation ofupper secondary Swedish schools.615

Ann-Sofie Holm & Ulf LundströmReferencesAllen, R. (2010) Replicating Swedish “free school” reforms in England. Research in Public Policy.Summer 2010.Apple, M.W. (2001) Educating the “Right” Way. Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. NewYork: Routledge Falmer.Ball, S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy,18(2), 215–228.Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G. and Loughran, J. (2006) Beyond intensification towards a scholarshipof practice: Analysing changes in teachers’ work lives. Teachers and teaching: theory andpractice, 12(2), 209– 229.Bottery, M. (2001) School effectiveness, school improvement and the teaching profession of thetwenty-first century. In A. Harris and N. Bennett (eds.) School Effectiveness, School Improvement,141– 159. London & New York: Continuum.Brunsson, N. (1996) The Irrational Organization. Irrationality as a Basis for OrganizationalAction and Change. Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.Chubb, J.E. and Moe, T.M. (1988) Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. The AmericanPolitical Science Review, 82(4) 1065–1087.Chubb, J. E. and Moe, T.M. (1990) Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools. Washington: BrookingsInstitution.Codd, J. E. (2005) Teachers as “managed professionals” in the global education industry: The NewZealand experience. Educational Review, 57(2), 193–206.CREDO (2009). Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States. Stanford: Center forResearch on Education Outcomes, Stanford University. http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf (accessed 2011-08-31)Daun, H. (2003) Market forces and decentralization in Sweden: Impetus for school developmentor threat to comprehensiveness and equity? In D.N. Plank and G. Sykes (eds.), ChoosingChoice. School Choice in International Perspective, 92-111. New York: Teachers College Press.DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 48, 147–160.Ekholm, M., Blossing, U., Kåräng, G., Lindvall, K. and Scherp, H.Å. (2000) Forskning om rektor– En forskningsöversikt. Stockholm. Skolverket.Erixon Arreman, I. and Holm, A-S. (2011a) School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” at theSwedish upper secondary school market. Education Inquiry 2,(4) (this issue).Erixon Arreman, I. and Holm, A-S. (2011b) Privatisation of public education? The emergence of independentupper secondary schools in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 26(2), 225–243.Freidson, E. (2001) Professionalism, the Third Logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.Government Bill (1992/93:230) Valfrihet i skolan. Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Grace, G. (1997) Politics, markets, and democratic schools: On the transformation of school leadership.In A. H. Halsey, H Lauder, P Brown, Wells, A Stuart (eds.), Education. Culture, Economy,and Society (311–319). New York: Oxford University Press.Harris, A. (2008) Distributed School Leadership. New York: Routledge.Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., Hadfield, M., Hargreaves, A. and Chapman, C. (2003) EffectiveLeadership for School Improvement. New York: Routledge and Falmer.Helsby, G. (1999) Changing Teachers’ Work. Philadelphia: Open University Press.616

“Living with Market Forces”Hopkins, D. (2003) Instructional leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, C. Day; D.Hopkins, M. Hadfield, A. Hargreaves and C. Chapman (eds.), Effective Leadership for SchoolImprovement. 55–71. New York: Routledge Falmer.Hoxby, C. M. (2002) School Choice and School Productivity. NBER working paper No. 8873.Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Hoxby, C.M. (2003) School Choice and School Competition: Evidence from the United States.Höög, J. and Johansson, O. (2005) Successful principalship: The Swedish case. Journal of EducationalAdministration. 43(6), 595–606.Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Lundström, U. and Rönnberg, L. (2010) Setting Things Right?Swedish Upper Secondary School Reform in a 40-Year Perspective, European Journal of Education.Vol. 45(1), 46-59.Lamote, C. & Engels, N. (2010) The development of student teachers’ professional identity. EuropeanJournal of Teacher Education. 33(1), 3–18.March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (2005) Elaborating the “New Institutionalism”. Working paper. No.11. University of Oslo: Centre for European StudiesMoos, L. (2009) Hard and soft governance: The journey from transnational agencies to schoolleadership. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3) 397–406.Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. and Ecob, R. (1988) School Matters. The JuniorYears. Somerset: Open Books.Plank, D. N. and Sykes G. (eds.) (2003) Choosing Choice. School Choice in International Perspective.New York: Teachers College Press.Pont, B., Nusche, D. and Moorman, H. (2008) Improving School Leadership. Volume 1: Policy andpractice. Paris: OECD. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/12/44374889.pdf (accessed 2011-03-20).Powell, W. W. and Colyvas, J.A. (2007) New Institutionalism. International Encyclopedia of OrganizationStudies. Retrieved 4 March 2011 from http://www.sage-ereference.com/organization/Article_n336.htmlRutter, M., Maughan, M., Mortimore, P. and Ouston, J. (1979) Fifteen Thousand Hours. SecondarySchools and Their Effects on Children. London: Open Books.Skolverket. (2010) Konkurrensen om eleverna. Stockholm: Fritzes.Skolverket (2011) Data compiled from The Swedish National Agency for Education http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/175 (accessed 2011-05-06).SOU (2004:116) Skolans ledningsstruktur. Om styrning och ledning av skolan. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.Walsh, P. (2006) Narrowed horizons and the impoverishment of educational discourse: Teaching,learning and performing under the new educational bureaucracies, Journal of EducationPolicy 21(1), 95–117.Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Whitty, G. (1997) Marketization, the state, and the re-formation of the teaching profession. InA.H. Halsley, H. Lauder, P. Brown and A.S. Wells (eds.), Education. Culture, Economy, andSociety, 299–308. New York: Oxford University Press.617

Ingrid Henning Loeb & Karin Lumsden Wasswere introduced to strengthen the choices of parents and students, and a system oftax-funded independent schools was introduced. After a slow start, the number ofindependent schools has grown immensely and, by the late 2000s, 48% of Swedishupper secondary schools were independent schools; an average of 22% of students isnow in independent schools. In the larger cities, the figure is higher (Skolverket, 2010).This marketisation trend has – as shown by e.g. Erixon Arreman & Holm (2011) andLundström & Holm (2011) – created municipal competitive school market ‘battles’,especially in upper secondary education.As argued by Pollit (1995), Flynn (2000), Goldfinch and Wallis (2010) and manyothers, “New Public Management” (NPM) is not a converging globalised model or setof prescriptions. There are different pressures and priorities in different local circumstances.Regarding the Swedish field of compulsory and upper secondary education,NPM started out as decentralisation reforms with deregulation to the municipalitieswhich at that time centred around management by objectives, responsible and professionalteachers interpreting and concretising educational goals (cf. Carlgren andNilsson McPhersson, 2002; Lundahl et al., 2010). In policy documents such as theschool development agreement of 1995 between the Swedish Association of MunicipalCo-operation and the teachers’ unions, collaborative work among teachers wasemphasised, and from the mid-1990s teachers have increasingly become organisedin teacher teams (cf. Carlgren & Klette, 2008). The development during the 2000sshows ‘a second wave’ of NPM, with increasing result measurements, evaluation, andcontrol (e.g. Hudson, 2007; Houtsonen et al., 2010). A national example of this isthe Swedish National Agency for Education which was reformed in 2003 and givena supervisory and regulatory role with responsibility for educational inspection, andthe monitoring and evaluation of the activities of schools and student performance.In 2008, this was reinforced by the establishment of a new independent agency: theSwedish Schools Inspectorate, with the task of carrying out educational inspectionthrough regular supervision and thematic quality evaluations.In this article the scene and its context is a municipality and we will show how withinthis second wave of NPM in the Swedish educational system, accounting practices areintrinsic to Swedish educational municipal managerialism, and how such practicesare dispersed to teacher teams. Teacher teams within the same municipal educationalunit serving ‘the same’ students are thus drawn into internal marketisation processesin which they have to defend and ‘legitimise’ the continuous existence and ‘quality’ oftheir pedagogical activity. The study presented here is part of a larger study within aresearch project 1 funded by the Swedish Research Council on the organising of educationalsettings for adolescents who attend a programme for youths ineligible forregular programmes in upper secondary school. 2 Our research interest has been tostudy the organising and re-organising during a period of major national reform ofthe Swedish upper secondary school, beginning in the academic year of 2011 (Govt.Bill, 2009/10:165). The specific municipality where this field study was conducted has620

Internal marketisation and teachers defending their educational settingteaching activities and so on are translated and collectively edited into numbers, listsand tables – and materialised into an inscription, a package. Such entities work asnon-human actants, that human actants ally themselves with and that “do things”or “make things happen”.The educational setting, research context and researchmethodWe call the educational setting in focus here “The three-year alternative” which has60 students in the age range 16–20, and 10 teachers (7.3 full-time, spring 2009).Upper secondary school studies in this municipality were at the time structured intwo different tracks, one with a vocational profile and the other being a so-called PreparatoryCentre: two separate economic and organisational units located in differentparts of the city. The three-year alternative was part of the Preparatory Centre unit,with some 800 students in all, and with a basic organisation for some 300 students,and a handful of smaller profiled settings serving students with more specific needs.The three-year alternative was one of these, but there were also other settings in themunicipality, recruiting the same (or almost the same) category of students. It wasnot located in the main building of the Preparatory Centre, but in an annex in one ofthe city centre upper secondary schools, and has been in this location for seven years.This is the fifth location it has been in.The three-year alternative has a history of 15 years – and has had very much thesame concept from the beginning and during several municipal reorganisations. All ofthe teachers have worked there for several years, and three of them from the start. Ina text for a health project, the teacher team describes the setting in the following way:The three year alternative is an individual programme where one studies core subjects andprogramme-specific subjects from the business and administration programme and/or thearts programme. Our upper secondary school education is directed towards students withdifferent forms of learning disabilities, intellectual restrictions and neurophysiatric functions.The student is given adequate time for learning without stress, in a calm and secure environment.The studies are pursued in smaller groups (max 15 students) and at a slow pace. We havesubject teachers, teachers with a diploma in special needs education and home classrooms.The studies of core subjects make it possible for the student to make up for and completestudies in Maths, Swedish and English of the compulsory school. The student also has thepossibility to take the so-called A-courses of the core subjects of upper secondary school.Structured lessons are combined with field visits, group work and thematic studies. Excursions,camps and culture days are also part of the school year. In the third and final yearsof the programme, education and career counselling is increased. We also provide the possibilityof weeks of work placement.Our aim is that there shall be a plan for the time after The three-year alternative. We havethe possibilities of arranging contact with the employment office, with folk high schools andother forms of adult education in order to continue studying.625

Ingrid Henning Loeb & Karin Lumsden Wasson purchases all autumn.” … “And how can it be minus here: We already cut downon X (staff)”. The discussion of the posts goes on, and arguments on how to count forthe student voucher are put forward. The teacher team refer to a decision made bythe municipal board of education some years ago about a student voucher that washigher for their students than for students in regular programmes and programmesfor ineligible students. In the end, the teacher team not only decide to respond to theaccount, but also to formulate a text which they call their “assignment”.Narrative analysis:A new actant (the vice principal) appears in the plot. In this situation he is part of“management” and is expected to account for figures as he takes part of the translationprocess of the minus posts. The translation process is about unpacking the package,the inscription from the centre of calculation. The accuracy and truth of what thisinscription represents is contrasted with other ways of naming and numbering theeducational setting: categorisations of students, numbers of students, staff, teachinghours, costs of purchasing textbooks.The ambiguity of the minus posts and the old decision from the municipal boardtrigger the teacher team to collective action with the intention of keeping their educationalsetting and its resources stable. They will mobilise by producing an account andformulating their assignment. We regard this mobilising response to the programmeas the anti-programme.3. Collective actions and finding non-human actants to ally withThe next day: Two teachers start preparing the text that they shall write on theirassignment. The two teachers also search for and find a report, a task that was assignedto them by the head principal two years ago in which the students, the variousstudent categories with their problems and diagnoses were to be presented. They tellthe researcher how they worked on the task days before the summer break, and thatthey never got feedback on the report. The teachers study the document and say thatthe picture is the same. Although they do not have the same individuals any longer,it still accounts for same status of the setting and its students. They mean that, sincethey worked hard on the task and never received any feedback regarding their report,they can supply the same document again.Narrative analysis:The collective actions begin by connecting to an already existing document thatexplains the identity and status of the educational setting. We regard this as a nonhumanactant that the human actants ally themselves with. The document includesthe categorisations and principles of sorting that are in use in the administrativevocabulary, and also asked for by the centre of calculation. This is a document inwhich students have been translated and labelled as numbers, numbers represent-628

Ingrid Henning Loeb & Karin Lumsden Wass6. InscribingThe following week: The head teachers for each group fill in the template.Narrative analysis:A collective standard procedure has been agreed upon. The translation of studentsand courses into numbers is now a matter of the head teachers inscribing numbersin the right table and column.7. Trying to build strong alliancesThe same week: At the weekly teacher team meeting, the teachers and the vice principalcontinue their discussion about the minus posts that were presented two weekspreviously. The vice principal has received some additional information, that theteacher team asked about in their meeting two weeks before. The interpretation anddiscussion of the numbers continue and once again the teacher team provides argumentsbased on the old decision by the municipal board about their student voucher.After the teacher team meeting, the teachers have a meeting with teacher unionrepresentatives. They remind them about the old decision by the municipal board,they present the text they have written on their assignment and discuss this. Afterthis, the text of their assignment is further collectively revised.Narrative analysis:The continued translation process of the minus posts is an outcome of the meetingwith the vice principal two weeks earlier. Although there are thorough discussions,no consensus is reached. The process of collective translation and editing now alsoincludes the teacher union representatives. We regard the meeting with the unionrepresentatives as a connecting of these actants to the anti-programme, involvingthem and preparing them for the translation process that is expected to take placeat the centre of calculation when the package will be unpacked. Here we see how thehuman actants of the anti-programme work on building alliances with human actantsin the programme in order to make their anti-programme stronger.8. Sending the package offFriday the same week: The text of the assignment and the templates of accountingare sent to the union representative who came by less than a month before and toldthem about the need to account for their activity. Apart from these two documents,a copy of the report written two years ago is included. Tuesday the following weekis the monthly meeting of the head principal and the representatives of the unions.Narrative analysis:This is the end of this plot of mobilisation in which the teacher team has: 1) formulatedtheir assignment, 2) translated and collectively edited their students and their educa-630

Internal marketisation and teachers defending their educational settingtional activity into numbers and tables; 3) allied themselves with a historical report thatworks as strong non-human actants; and 4) allied themselves with human actants suchas the union representatives. The package is delivered on time, before the next meeting.Epilogue:The package was delivered but not unpacked: there was no discussion at the meetingconcerning this issue. As one of the union leaders explained to us in an interviewlater, there were other issues on the agenda that prioritised themselves. However, theteacher team had no budget cuts during the rest of the term. During these monthsthe other accounting procedures initiated by the political level (the Board of Education)and the administration level (the planning department) were also completed.A year later: the three-year alternative had been merged into the unit of the citycentre upper secondary school where it is located, and had been budgeted a higherstudent voucher relating to the old decision by the municipal board.ConclusionIn this article about municipal organising within a context of what we call the secondwave of NPM in Swedish education we have presented a story about an accountingrequest and a teacher teams’ mobilisation for their students and the continuous existenceof their pedagogical activity. The research questions that have guided us are:What are the features of accounting practices in Swedish upper secondary education?How do teachers mobilise – successfully – in situations of internal marketisation andaccounting requests? How do accounting procedures affect the professional talk aboutstudents? What are the changed roles of teachers and which skills are they acquiringwithin the second wave of NPM?The features of accounting practices in Swedish upper secondary education we meanare continual, frequent and dispersed. We have shown how Swedish educational “centresof calculation” (Latour, 1987; Miller & Rose, 2008) enact accounting procedurescontinuously as a means of organising and planning for the future. The teacher teamdid not have to produce a new document of their students’ diagnoses and disorders,they had already produced such a report after a request by the headmaster two yearspreviously. Accounting is continual and frequent: During our field visits the teacherteam was exposed to no less than three accounting procedures within a period of sixmonths, initiated by three inter-related centres of calculations. We have also shownhow calculating practices are dispersed. This is in line with the critique that Czarniawska(2004) formulated against the ideas of a “centre” in a “centre of calculation”.She argues that the accounting of today has no “centre” – it is instead a dispersedpractice, moving around in different settings. We have closely studied and analysedaccounting and mobilising in one of the many educational settings for students whoare not eligible for regular programmes, but all such settings in the municipality wereinvolved in various accounting procedures during this period.631

Ingrid Henning Loeb & Karin Lumsden WassThis brings us to our second research question, i.e. how teachers mobilise – successfully– in situations of internal marketisation and accounting requests. As we statedinitially, we regard the accounting request and response as a matter of internal marketisationprocesses and performance management. We have shown how teachersand teacher teams within the same municipal educational unit serving ‘the same’students continuously and frequently have to account for and ‘legitimise’ the existenceand ‘quality’ of their pedagogical activity. The teachers have to involve themselves infact fabrication and the techniques in use, and must mobilise if they want to defendtheir educational setting. As Ball points out, the possibilities of being otherwise areextremely limited (2003:218).Just as there is no way of not involving oneself in the techniques in use, it is, asBall also argues (op. cit.), difficult to reject the use of a prevailing vocabulary. Thisbrings us to our third question, how accounting procedures affect the professionaltalk about students. The translation of students into certain categories with certainlabels affect the way teachers, educational staff, local politicians and others talk aboutstudents, their achievements and shortcomings. As shown by e.g. Ezzamel and Hoskin(2002), Frandsen and Mouritsen (2008), Frandsen (2010) “naming and numbering”,or “writing, recording and counting”, is always a form of valuing and generatespecific references that soon become taken for granted in daily work. In our case, ‘thepackage’ included different kinds of categorisations of diagnoses and disorders – categoriesalready in use and thus established as ‘neutral’ ways of defining students. Bytranslating the students into these already existing categories, these categories werereinforced as a favourable way of representing.The document the teachers wrote which they call “the assignment” also includeswhat Ball would call “prescribed signifiers” (2003:218). By this they “make themselvesdifferent” and make their activity “stand out” from others. One can also say that theythereby “contribute to the competitiveness of the goods and services they produce”(op. cit.). However, as we just stated, mobilising and defending one’s students andone’s educational activity means involving oneself in the techniques in use. This alsomeans that there are limited possibilities of presenting and representing in differentways than the already prescribed signifiers. This brings us to our fourth and concludingresearch question of the changed roles of teachers and the skills they are acquiringwithin the second wave of NPM.Our study shows how the teachers carry out the collective editing and the inscribingin a professional way. We previously argued that the accounting response was atask that was handled, it was a tension that was balanced and did not colonise theirregular daily activities (Hargreaves, op. cit.). However, engaging in accounting practicesand learning to master such new skills is also a matter of transformation or,what Engeström (2001), would call “expansive learning”. Professional teacher rolesin Sweden today are expanded as teachers are engaged in accounting activities anddevelop accounting competencies. Teachers’ performance management is crucial in632

Internal marketisation and teachers defending their educational settingorder to successfully defend one’s students and one’s educational setting. Hereby onecan also understand how the practice of accounting is continuously reinforced andstrengthened in the Swedish field of education.Epilogue:We have presented a story with a positive outcome for the educational settings, theteachers and the students. However, within internal marketisation there are “winnersand losers”. As we have demonstrated, accounting practices are continual, frequentand dispersed. This was one of several educational settings that we studied, and allwere involved in accounting procedures. We could have told a different story about aprofessional teacher team involved in accounting procedures, defending their studentsand their educational setting, but where the outcome were cuts, and less resources tostudents with the same needs as the students in the three-year alternative. Teachers’performance management and the involvement in accounting procedures are intrinsicto internal marketisation processes, but a positive outcome is not guaranteed.AcknowledgementsOur special thanks to Ann-Christine Frandsen, Essex Business School, and MilbreyMcLaughlin, Stanford University, for their valuable comments and critical engagementwith drafts of this article. We are also grateful to F. Pinar Acar and Inga-LillJohansson and others at the SWG-7 network at the EGOS conference 2010 in Lisbon,and the participants of STUP (Network for Studies on Politics in Education), especiallyUlf Lundström, Ann-Sofie Holm and Katarina Sipos Zackrisson for their closereading at the network meetings. Finally, we would like to thank our two anonymousreviewers for their constructive comments and Colin Park, University of Gothenburg,for translation assistance.Ingrid Henning Loeb holds a PhD in Education and works as a Senior Lecturer at the Departmentof Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg. Her research interest lies in schoolorganisation, education policies and governing processes, especially within upper secondary VETand adult education.Karin Lumsden Wass holds a PhD in Education and works as a Senior Lecturer at the Departmentof Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg. Her research interest covers schoolorganisation, education policies and governing processes within upper secondary school and adulteducation.633

Ingrid Henning Loeb & Karin Lumsden WassReferencesBall, S. J. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy18, 215–228.Boedker, C. (2010) Ostensive versus performative approaches for theorising accounting-strategyresearch. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 23, 595–625.Carlgren, I. and Nilsson McPherson, A. (2002) Swedish teachers about teachers’ work in the1990s. In: K. Klette et al. (eds.) Restructuring Nordic Teachers: Analyses of Interviews withDanish, Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian Teachers. Oslo: Institute for Educational Research,University of Oslo.Carlgren, I. and Klette, K. (2008) Reconstructions of Nordic teachers: Reform policies and teachers’work during the 1990s. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52, 117–133.Chua, W. F. (1995) Experts, networks and inscriptions in the fabrication of accounting images: Astory of the representation of three public hospitals. Accounting, Organizations and Society20, 111–145.Czarniawska, B. (1998) A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. London: Sage Publications.Czarniawska, B. (2004) On time, space, and action nets. Organization 11, 773–791.Czarniawska, B. (2008) A Theory of Organizing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Diefenbach, T. (2009) New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides ofmanagerialistic enlightenment. Public Administration 87, 892–909.Engeström. Y. (2001) Expansive learning at work. Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization.Journal of Education and Work 8, 63–93.Erixon Arreman, I. and Holm, A-S. (2011) School as “Edu-business”: Four “Seriuos Players” in theSwedish upper secondary school market. Education Inquiry 2(4) (this issue)Ezzamel, M. and Hoskin, K. (2002) Retheorizing accounting, writing and money with evidencefrom Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 13, 333–367.Flanagan, J.C. (1954) The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin 51, 327–358.Flynn, N. (2000) Managerialism and public services: Some international trends. In J. Clarke et al.(eds) New Managerialism. New Welfare? London: Sage Publications.Frandsen, A-C. (2004) Rum, tid och pengar – en studie om redovisning i praktiken. DoctoralThesis, Göteborg: BAS.Frandsen, A-C. (2009) From psoriasis to a number and back. Information and Organization 19,103–128.Frandsen, A-C. (2010) The role of disciplining/translating accounting practices in patient-centredcare. International Journal of Public Sector Management 23, 381–391.Frandsen, A-C. and Mouritsen. J. (2008) Scale, distance and performance management – Theinvention of the “10-minute patient” and the composition of medical practices. In T. Gstraunthalerand M. Messner (eds) Performance in Context: Perspectives from Management Research.Innsbruck: Innsbruck University Press.Goldfinch, S. and Wallis, J. (2010) Two convergence myths in public management reform. PublicAdministration 88, 1099–1115.Govt. Bill 1990/91:18 Ansvaret för skolan. Regeringens proposition.Govt. Bill 2009/10:165 Den nya skollagen – för kunskap, valfrihet och trygghet. Regeringensproposition.Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Times. Teachers’ Work and Culture in thePostmodern Age. London: Castell.634

Internal marketisation and teachers defending their educational settingHines, R.D. (1988) Financial accounting: In communicating reality, we construct reality. Accounting,Organizations and Society 13, 251–261.Hjörne, E. (2004) Excluding for Inclusion? Negotiating School Careers and Identities in PupilWelfare Settings in the Swedish School. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 213. ActaUniversitatis Gothoburgensis.Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69, 3–19.Hoskin, K. (1996) The ‘awful idea of accountability’: inscribing people into the measurement ofobjects. In R. Munro and J Mouritsen (eds.) Accountability: Power, Ethos and the Technologiesof Managing. London: Thomson International Business Press.Houtsonen, J., Czaplicka, M., Lindblad, S., Sohlberg, P. and Sugrue, C. (2010) Welfare state restructuringin education and its national refractions. Finnish, Irish and Swedish teachers’ perceptionsof current changes. Current Sociology 58, 597–622.Hudson, C. (2007) Governing the governance of education – the state strikes back? EuropeanEducational Research Journal 6, 266–282.Hägerstrand, T. (1970) What about people in regional science? Papers of the Regional ScienceAssociation, Vol. XXIV.Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Latour, B. (1998) Artefaktens återkomst. Ett möte mellan organisationsteori och tingens sociologi.Stockholm: Nerenius & Santérus förlag.Lindberg, K. and Czarniawska, B. (2006) Knotting the net of action, or organizing between organizations.Scandinavian Journal of Management 22, 292–306.Lindblad, S., Johannesson, I. and Simola, H. (2002) Education governance in transition: An introduction.Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 46, 237–245.Lundahl, L. (2002) Sweden: Decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets and then what? Journalof Education Policy 17, 687–697.Lundahl, L. (2005) A matter of self-governance and control. European Education 37, 10–25.Lundahl, C. (2006) Viljan att veta vad andra vet bedömning i tidigmodern, modern och senmodernskola. Arbetsliv i omvandling 2006:8. Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet.Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman I., Lundström, U. and Rönnberg, L. (2010) Setting things right?Swedish upper secondary school reform in a 40-year perspective. European Journal of Education45, 46–59.Lundström, U. (2007) Gymnasielärare — perspektiv på lärares arbete och yrkesutveckling vidmillennieskiftet (Upper secondary school teachers — perspectives on teachers’ work and professionaldevelopment at the turn of the millennium). Umeå: Umeå University.Lundström, U. and Holm, A-S. (2011) Market competition in upper secondary education: Perceivedeffects on teachers’ work. Policy Futures in Education 9, 193–205.Miller, P. and Rose, N. (2008) Governing the Present. Administering Economic, Social and PersonalLife. Cambridge: Polity Press.Mäkitalo, Å. (2002) Categorizing Work: Knowing, Arguing and Social Dilemmas in VocationalGuidance. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 213. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Polkinghorne, D. (1995) Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal ofQualitative Studies in Education, 8, 5–23.Pollit, C. (1995) Justification by works or by faith? Evaluating the new public management. Evaluation1, 133–154.Preston, A. M., Cooper, D. J. and Coombs, R. W. (1992) Fabricating budgets: A study of the productionof management budgeting in the national health service. Accounting Organizationsand Society 17, 561–593.635

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie HolmIn the late 1980s the state control of education weakened and the municipalitieswere given greater freedom for school development and teacher employment,although still under the overarching control of the state (Lundahl, 2002; Lundahlet al. 2010; Rönnberg, 2011 cf. Edström, 1995). In the early 1990s, new policiesdrawing on economic and social ideas of management and results by goal-settingwere introduced for the funding and regulating of public services, includingeducation (Blomqvist & Rothstein, 2000; Govt. Bill, 1992/93:100). The previousdetailed financing system was now replaced by a lump sum given by the state tothe municipalities for education and other public services (Björklund et al., 2005).In line with the new system, a new national “goal-oriented” curriculum and goalorientedsyllabi for the study paths were introduced in 1994. Similarly, a new,goal-oriented grading system was designed (Wikström & Wikström, 2005). Underthe new goal-setting polices, the control and implementation of education wastransferred from the national to the local levels, or decentralised. The national goalsof the curriculum, syllabi and grading system were now to be locally interpretedby staff and school leaders at each public and independent school. Responsibilitiesfor teacher employment (and teacher salaries) were also handed over fromthe state to local levels, including independent schools (Lundström & Parding,2011; Ringarp, 2011). At the national level, a new authority, the National Agencyfor Education, was set up to serve as a node for gaining and spreading knowledgeon education – though not for control – and for licensing the new independentschools (Jarl & Rönnberg, 2010).The Swedish independent school systemThe new Swedish policies combine the transfer of state responsibilities to the locallevel with the promotion of new, independent school actors with the generous fundingand weak regulation of the independent schools. The policies seem to have few oreven no counterparts elsewhere (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2006; Ministryof Education, 2011), which is why they are often considered to be unique (Björklundet al., 2005; Baggesen Klitgaard, 2008; Lubienski, 2009). For Chubb, who is a ferventproponent of free market policies in education, the Swedish policy system is distinctivesince in his view it does “full justice to the principles of the market” (2007:53–54).The strengths recognised by Chubb include the almost equal financing of independentschools, no local veto against establishment, the open attitude to all providersincluding profit-maximising organisations and no limitations on the number ofschools. In the UK, the so-called “Swedish model” of independent schools is usedby the Conservative Party to promote a similar system of new “Academy Schools”(Wiborg, 2010; Conservative Party, 2010).What then are the traits of the Swedish system for independent schools? As alreadymentioned, the independent schools are fully publically financed, free to attend, andshould also be open for all (National Agency for Education, 2011a). Students may640

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school marketchoose the school they like, public or independent, and anywhere in the country(National Agency for Education, 2007).The funding is received via a student voucher which is funnelled through themunicipalities, although granted by the state (Govt. Bill, 2008/09:171). Since 2003,the sum of the student voucher is recommended by the government on an annuallyupdated national “price list” (“Riksprislista”). In 2009, the recommended sum was€ 10,972 per year for an average independent upper secondary student (NationalAgency for Education, 2008a). The government’s decision for a new price list with“fixed” and lower funding from January 2010 was however met with harsh criticismfrom the National Association for Independent Schools (Friskolornas riksförbund,2010), which is why the government revoked it and reintroduced the previous higherfunding for the first six months of 2010 (Ministry of Education, 2010).Various forms of non-public actors which can acquire licensing include individuals,parents, interest groups, religious communities and business companies. This meansthat in a legal sense independent schools are private. All companies (co-operativesocieties, limited companies, sole proprietorship, trading companies) have the rightto freely use the surplus of the student voucher (Ministry of Education, 2008, 2011).Up until 2008 licensing was handled by the National Agency for Education andthereafter by the then new authority, the Swedish School Inspectorate. In the licensingprocess, the views of the municipality concerned regarding the assumed effectsof a new independent school for the overall local school situation might be taken intoconsideration by the national authorities, although the municipalities have no vetopowers (School Act 1985, 2010; Nylén, 2011). The principles for licensing an independentschool as formulated in the Swedish School Act (SFS 1985:1100 Ch. 9, 8 §1-5) were applicable when this study was conducted. The principles included that theapplicant should be able to provide opportunities for all students to complete theireducation and to qualify for entry to higher education. Another precondition was thatthe school should be open to all, “excepting students in need of extra support andtherefore in need of extensive funding or organisational disadvantages to the school”.Additionally, there should be a willingness to recruit teachers whose training correspondedto that deemed necessary for the teaching role. Exceptions were allowedwhere there were no suitably qualified teachers available, or when the situation allowedother possibilities.Although formally required to comply with the overarching pedagogical demandsof the public school sector, independent schools had fewer responsibilities and fewerregulations. Up until 1 July 2011, they were freed from the more costly demands onpublic schools to provide specific and well-equipped premises (gym halls, sciencelaboratories, school meal premises). They were also exempted from public schools’obligations to hire staff and organise and provide premises and equipment for socialservices (health care, school meals, school libraries) (Ministry of Education 2008).Nor were they obliged to have adequately qualified study and guidance officers. Fur-641

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie Holmther, independent school actors did not have to provide facilities for students withfunctional hindrances.The frameworks of the policies for independent schools, including the practice ofthese policies, have been questioned in various ways. In the mid-2000s the policiesmet with harsh criticism from the national audit office for being too weak and for notbeing practiced in accordance with the intentions of the Parliament and the SchoolAct (Riksrevisionen 2005:11–12). The national audit office noticed that many independentschools had few appropriately qualified teachers, which was not in line withthe formal policy declaration of the school made when it sought licensing to providecompetent teaching staff. The government and the national education authority weretherefore criticised for shirking their responsibilities to provide high quality educationas they did not use their legal powers to hinder or stop independent schools which hadfew qualified teachers. Though teaching competency has gradually increased in theindependent sector, there still tend to be fewer qualified teachers than in the publicschools. For example, in 2008/09 about half (54,6 percent) of the teaching staff atindependent upper secondary schools had formal teaching qualifications, whereas inmunicipal schools, the proportion was almost eight out of ten (78,1 percent) (NationalAgency for Education 2010b).Also, tendencies of “grade inflation” or too high a grade setting in upper secondaryeducation, and particularly at the independent schools, were criticised in researchstudies in the 2000s (Wikström & Wikström, 2005; Henrekson & Vlachos, 2009).Henrekson and Vlachos, researchers at the Swedish Research Institute of IndustrialEconomics, considered the effects of grade inflation as negative for both individualsand the production of new knowledge in the country as student recruitment to highereducation in Sweden is primarily based on final grades in upper secondary education.In a report entitled The Competition for Students the National Agency for Education(2010a) found that policies for competition between all school actors whichhad led to the ongoing growth of new independent schools had not only caused greatinstability but also higher costs for the upper secondary school sector. Despite thevarious problems identified, the authority saw few opportunities to alter the situationwithin the current policy system.Expansion trends of independent schools and school companiesIn the first decade of the 2000s the expansion of new schools was primarily relatedto the establishment of independent schools which more than tripled in number(from 135 to 489 schools) between 2000/01 and 2010/11, whereas the municipalschools showed a modest increase (from 485 to 505 schools) (National Agency forEducation, 2008b, 2010c). The growth of independent schools included a risingconversion rate of municipal post-16 schools into for-profit independent schools(National Agency for Education, 2008c). The expansion of new schools was paralleledby a demographic increase in student cohorts until 2008/09, when a peak of642

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school market396,000 students was reached. Thereafter, the decline in student cohorts is expectedto continue till around 2016 when there will be about 25 percent fewer students(Statistics Sweden, 2009).In 2010 the independent upper secondary schools constituted almost half of allschools (48%) in the sector and recruited almost a quarter (24%) of the students(National Agency for Education, 2011b). The independent schools are spread all overthe country, although they are particularly concentrated in Sweden’s three big cityregions (Stockholm, Västra Götaland, Malmö) which in 2010/11 had 61 percent ofthe independent students (National Agency for Education, 2011c).By 2010/11 almostnine out of ten independent upper schools were run in various forms of companies(National Agency for Education, unpublished). Slightly over 85 percent of the schoolswere owned by limited companies. Less than 9 percent were organised by foundations,and fewer than 4 percent by non-profit organisations.Four large independent school actorsWho then were the major actors in the independent sector by the end of the decade?From our sources we identified four limited companies that seemed to dominatein terms of the number of schools and/or students: AcadeMedia AB, John Bauer OrganizationAB, Kunskapsskolan i Sverige AB, and Baggium Utbildnings AB (Table 1).Table 1. Number of schools and students of the four dominant independent actors in2010 and early 2011ActorNo. of uppersecondary schoolsNo. of studentsAcadeMedia AB Over 70 13,000John Bauer Organization AB 29 12,500Baggium Utbildnings AB 50 6,000Kunskapsskolan i Sverige AB 9 2,500The main characteristics, including expansion trends of the four large independentschool actors, are set out below.AcadeMedia ABThe largest education company identified in 2010 and early 2011 was by far Acade-Media AB. In early 2010, AcadeMedia operated about 100 schools via different companiesspanning pre-school, compulsory school, upper secondary school and adulteducation, and involving 2,500 employees and more than 45,000 students. At theupper secondary level AcadeMedia had around 13,000 students in over 70 schools,of which the majority were oriented to academic study paths (AcadeMedia, 2010a).Thus, AcadeMedia reveals impressive growth since 2007/08 when the companyhad 24 schools and less than 3,800 students at the upper secondary level (SchoolsInspectorate, unpublished).643

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie HolmIn 2008 AcadeMedia merged with another large education company, Anew LearningAB, to form the “new” AcadeMedia. Prior to the merger, the two companies were ratedsecond and third in size by the national education authorities. The new AcadeMediathen became the largest independent school actor in Sweden, also at the upper secondarylevel where it overtook the previous leading actor, the John Bauer OrganizationAB (AcadeMedia, 2008). The AcadeMedia annual report of 2009 reported a raisedcompany value due to the merger and new company structures (AcadeMedia, 2010b).AcadeMedia’s then main owner was the Swedish venture capital company,Bure EquityAB. The “new” AcadeMedia reported 20 percent growth in student numbers in theupper secondary sector in both 2008 and 2009.The expansion of schools and students is taking place according to the “organic”growth of its own schools, the opening of new schools and purchases of other schools.For example, in just the autumn of 2009 AcadeMedia grew in the upper secondarysector by opening 15 new schools and recruiting 2,500 more students. In mid-2011AcadeMedia ran 12 upper secondary school clusters, each with a specific profile orpedagogical concept (Didaktus, Vittra, IT-gymnasiet, Framtidsgymnasiet, Rytmus,Nordens Teknikerinstitut, Mikael Elias Teoretiska Gymnasium, Drottning Blankasgymnasium, Ljud och Bildskolan, Plusgymnasiet, Pro Civitas Privata Gymnasium,Sjölins) (AcadeMedia, 2011a).In 2010, the majority of AcadeMedia was sold by Bure Equity to two other venturecapital companies after a bidding war characterised in the media as both raffling andbizarre (Svenska Dagbladet, 2010a). The main new owner is EQT V Limited, whichtook over 80 percent of the shares, and the other is Providence Equity Partners,registered in the USA, which bought 18 percent. EQT V is in turn part of Investor, alarge industrial holding company in the Nordic region (Investor, 2011a). The nationalstatus of EQT V Limited remains somewhat unclear. According to the EQT V website(no date, a) the company is registered on Guernsey and has offices in many differentcountries, which is also reported by business media (Fokus, 2010). However,AcadeMedia emphasises on its website that EQT V Limited is a Swedish company(AcadeMedia, no date, b).For the new owners, which both operate in the international arena, education ishowever a new business orientation. EQT V has an industrial approach and operatesin Northern and Eastern Europe and Asia (EQT V, no date, a). Providence is involvedin communication, media and entertainment in different countries (Providence, 2011).According to business commentators, EQT’s management defines education as a typeof business which is “under development” and where there is “still much to do” (E24,2010), also abroad (Dagens SPS, 2010; Affärsvärlden, 2009; Dagens industri, 2010a;see also Lärarnas Nyheter, 2010).In mid-2011 AcadeMedia expanded by acquiring the company Pysslingen Förskoloroch Skolor, Sweden’s largest private actor in pre-school and lower compulsoryeducation. Pysslingen was founded as a Swedish company, but was previously (in644

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school market2009) acquired by a Danish venture capital company, the Polaris Equity (AcadeMedia,2011b). Following the merger between AcadeMedia and Pysslingen, AcadeMedia nowhas about 240 schools responsible for 64,000 students. Information on the expansionof AcadeMedia can be found in press releases and elsewhere on the companywebsite which is continuously updated. However, at the time of completion of thestudy (September, 2011) there was no information on the precise number of uppersecondary students.According to the Swedish daily national newspaper, Svenska Dagbladet (2011),which focused on venture capital interests in the independent school sector, in 2009the turnover of AcadeMedia was SEK 2,103 million, of which it made a profit of SEK170 million. While significant gains over the years have also been announced in AcadeMedia’sannual reports, the company’s message to a wider audience was howeverthat no profits were distributed to the company’s shareholders. The managementemphasised that the economic surplus from education was used to pay debts, economicrents or make investments in facilities, equipment and staff training (Lärarnasnyheter, 2010).John Bauer Organization ABThe second largest actor was the John Bauer Organization AB, which in 2010 hadabout 12,500 students (John Bauer, no date, a) and thereby about 3,000 more studentsthan in 2007/08 (cf. Schools Inspectorate, unpublished). The John Bauer schoolsstarted in the southern part of Sweden and are today spread all over the country. Theschools are run in line with a franchise concept, which means they are linked to themain owner and have to follow the central concept of John Bauer Organization AB(National Agency for Education, 2004). From the outset John Bauer schools’ studypath was more restricted and oriented to IT and technology, and had a vocationaldirection. Today the John Bauer schools offer many national study paths, althoughan emphasis on vocational study directions may be noted (John Bauer, no date, b).The company’s expansion took place also in the compulsory sector where accordingto various newspapers it sought authorisation in 2010 for 16 new compulsory schools(Borås Tidning, 2010; Blekinge läns tidning, 2010). Currently, in the autumn of 2011the John Bauer Organization provides an education to a total of about 16,500 studentswithin different affiliated companies covering compulsory, upper secondary and adulteducation (John Bauer, 2011a). The John Bauer Organization’s expansion has beennoticed by business media which in 2008 listed three companies (Drivkraft Värend,Fourfront, Ultra Education) within the organisation among the fastest growing companiesin Sweden (Affärsvärlden, 2008). In other media, the company’s founder andoriginal owner has been scrutinised and criticised for making profits, parallel to theuncertain qualities of the study paths provided (TV4, 2007a, 2007b).In late 2008 the main part (90 percent) of the John Bauer was sold to the Danishventure company Axcel for an unknown sum of money. Axcel was previously associ-645

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie Holmated with housing, fashion and pet food and had no previous experience in education(Axcel 2011).As one of the independent school pioneers, the John Bauer schools were among thefirst in Sweden to provide a personal laptop to their students, something it still does(John Bauer, 2011 b). The John Bauer pedagogical concept, which has changed overtime from “problem-based learning” to “entrepreneurial learning”, emphasises theindividual’s responsibilities for their own learning (Erixon Arreman and Holm, 2011).It seems that the John Bauer sees great potential for an international expansionin education (Dagens Industri, 2010b). Thus, in 2005 a holding company for educationalinstitutions and projects outside Scandinavia, John Bauer International S.L.,was established. According to its website, by the late 2000s the company had alsoexported its pedagogical concept of entrepreneurial learning by setting up schools inNorway, Spain and China (John Bauer International, no date). The company furtherannounced it was aiming to establish schools in other countries considered to havegood economic growth, for example Nepal, Cambodia and India:We are therefore now seeing the beginning of strong growth in private education in countriessuch as India, Nepal and Cambodia in order to cater for the needs of the growing numberof students. Thus this trend, which generally started or strengthened around 2000, createsa strong demand for private education. /.../ the entrepreneurial spirit of the people behindJohn Bauer International, always keen to engage in new projects and to take the organisationfurther, as well as a genuine desire to make a difference and contribute to the advancementof society through educational development, especially in lesser developed countries, arethe very reasons for our existence (John Bauer International, no date).The international ambitions were further stressed in press releases where the companyannounces it had been invited by the Ministry of Education in Abu Dhabi (in theUnited Arab Emirates) to set up schools and introduce a similar system as in Swedenfor its independent schools (Ultra Education, 2008).Baggium Utbildnings ABBaggium Utbildnings AB had by 2011 expanded to become the third largest actor withabout 50 schools and around 6,000 students in apprentice education. Baggium startedin the education sphere in 1999 after previous experience of running foster homesand homes for young refugees. The pedagogical concept emphasises the student’sindividual aims and responsibilities for achieving the goals. The company’s expansionall over the country is particularly prominent in the western parts. Its growth has beenrelated to the establishment of new schools and the purchase of other schools, bothpublic and independent (Baggium, no date). According to the regional newspaperGöteborgs-Posten (2010), in 2009 the company had the highest turnover of educationcompanies in the region, with profits of about 15 percent. Baggiums’ owner found thatthe school’s success was due to the fact that the then new apprentice study paths wereattracting students from many parts of Sweden, meaning that the company received646

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school marketschool vouchers from four out of five municipalities (ibid). According to the samesource, the company’s profits for both 2008 and 2009 amounted to SEK 10 millionper year, which were distributed to its two owners.In spring 2010, 70 percent of the company shares were sold to a Norwegian venturecapital company, FSN, for an unknown sum. Göteborgs-posten estimated thatthe owners had “earned millions” from the transaction. In an examination of thecompany’s finances, Swedish Television (2011a, 2011b) showed that Baggium hadreceived specific government grants of SEK 194 million for a pilot apprentice educationprogramme between 2008 and 2010 on top of the “ordinary” school vouchers, despitethe fact that the company had not fulfilled the requirements to provide compulsoryin-practice-training for all students. In spring and autumn 2011, various Baggiumschools around the country attracted massive criticism from the national educationauthorities, and new applications for new schools were rejected (Nyhetspressen, 2011).Kunskapsskolan i Sverige ABKunskapsskolan i Sverige AB currently runs 33 schools in Sweden, involving about10,000 students and 800 employees at compulsory and upper secondary levels.The upper secondary sector has nine schools and about 2,500 students. As clearlyindicated by its name (“The Knowledge School”) Kunskapsskolan wants to provide“knowledge”. Other pedagogical concepts used and announced by the school areindividualised learning and personal goals (Kunskapsskolan, no date), whereas theteaching of various subjects is regulated by a centrally decided educational model forteachers to follow (Ståhle, 2006).The expansion on the upper secondary level in Sweden has mainly been via purchasesof schools, while schools at the compulsory level are mainly started and builtfrom “scratch” (Schools Inspectorate, unpubl.). Kunskapsskolan’s idea is to makemaximal use of large-scale advantages for teaching and premises, and also of opportunitiesto identify success factors, follow up and assess the schools’ work (see Ståhle,2006). Since 2002 the majority of the company shares (70 percent) have been ownedby one of the company’s two founders, while 30 percent are owned by Investor AB(Investor, 2011b).Since the establishment of Kunskapsskolan in the late 1990s the aim has been to become“Sweden’s best school” and the “leading actor on the market” (Ståhle, 2006:27).Kunskapsskolan’s ambitions in the UK were highlighted in 2004 by the British BBCNews. One of Kunskapsskolan’s founders has also participated as expert advisor of theBritish Conservative Party by outlining a system for independent schools and schoolvouchers similar to “the Swedish model” (Conservative Party, 2007; Skolvärlden,2010; Svenska Dagbladet, 2010b).In October 2007, Kunskapsskolan opened an office in London and in 2009 theeducation company signed an agreement with the British government to open twoschools in London in autumn 2010 (Kunskapsskolan 2009). Today, it seems that Kun-647

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie Holmskapsskolan has adopted more long-term perspectives with regard to its internationalexpansion, although the idea of education becoming a Swedish export industry is stillmaintained by its owners (Investor, 2011b; Dagens Nyheter, 2009a).It should also be mentioned that there is an ownership relationship between Kunskapsskolanand AcadeMedia since both are owned, or affiliated through ownership,to the venture capital firm Investor AB. Further, the person who is the major owner ofKunskapsskolan is a public consultant of the large Swedish Wallenberg foundation,which is also affiliated with Investor (Realtid.se 2010).Summary and conclusionsIn this article, the expansion of the Swedish school market in upper secondary educationis explored and analysed in relation to policies for the public funding of privatelyrun schools, so-called independent schools. The aims also include identifying thefour biggest providers of independent upper secondary education, and new businessformations and expansion trends in both the independent upper secondary sector inSweden and abroad.In the late 2000s, it was obvious that a highly competitive market situation in theupper secondary sector had been established (National Agency of Education, 2010a).The emergence of a school market was related to a policy shift in the early 1990s fromcentral directives and control of education to the transfer of state responsibilities tothe local levels, including new independent actors.In the last decade the number of schools in the upper secondary sector has almostdoubled and the new schools are almost exclusively independent, which means thatthe independent sector has more than tripled. Today the sector is heavily dominatedby for-profit providers. In 2010 more than eight of ten were limited companies (NationalAgency of Education, unpublished).To collect data for this study, a variety of official and “non-official” sources wereused. The media and company documents provided insights which could not be gainedfrom official authorities or statistics.The four major independent education providers identified in the study are alllarge education companies: AcadeMedia AB, John Bauer Organization AB, BaggiumUtbildnings AB and Kunskapsskolan in Sverige AB. Although the education providersdiffer in some aspects, e.g. regarding their geographical location, ownership structures,the delivery of study paths and pedagogical profiles, they were all organisedas limited companies.The study points to great instability in the independent upper secondary sector.In just the last three years, ownership, organisational forms and financial relationshave shifted in the three largest companies studied. The number of students has alsoincreased, albeit with great variety between the providers. Whereas the largest actor,AcadeMedia, had a spectacular expansion between 2007 and 2010, from about3,800 to 13,000 students and from 24 to 70 schools, the growth of Kunskapsskolan648

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school marketat the upper secondary level was modest, with its expansion strategies being directedinstead to the compulsory school sector.At the time of completing this study, the four actors were all connected to largerprivate venture companies. In 2002, Kunskapsskolan became partly owned by theSwedish venture capital company Investor. More recently, the three other independentactors were taken over by equity companies registered in other countries (John Bauerby Axcel in Denmark; AcadeMedia by EQT V and Providence, in Guernsey and theUSA, respectively, and Baggium by FNS in Norway). For the new owners, previouslyall active in a variety of businesses and industrial sectors outside Sweden, educationwas then a new investment. For any venture company, education is however a financialactivity in line with other businesses (Isaksson, 2006). Further, for the schools beingrun on a franchise concept (see Dictionary.com, 2011), the right of licence is grantedby the main company owner, whereby part of the income (the student voucher) ishanded over from each school to the main organisation.The expansion of independent schools is at first glance primarily related to students’opportunities of choice. The numbers of students opting for independent schools,including the student cohorts in the 2000s, have also steadily grown. In 2010 the independentupper secondary sector recruited about a quarter of the student population inthe country. Other studies indicate that students’ choice of independent schools relatesto a variety of factors, including the excitement of the “new”, a specific pedagogicalprofile, new, different premises and new surroundings (Palme, 2008). In the 2000sindependent schools also tended to offer various things for “free” such as a personallaptop, a driving licence, travels abroad and even “school free” Wednesdays (Holm &Erixon Arreman, 2009). Independent schools may also have specific study orientation(for example, music or sciences) which might then attract specific groups of students.The independent sector’s growth should also be understood in relation to the manylegal opportunities to exploit a number of cost-reduction strategies. Large-scale concepts,as indicated by the AcadeMedia management and annual reports, may reducethe costs of school materials, computers and administration. However, large-scaleadvantages can also be used by public schools. A favourable condition for independentschools is that private actors can sign short-term contracts for premises to allowthem to adapt more quickly to varying student numbers. Premises represent greatexpenses for the public sector (cf. Svensson, 2010) that cannot easily be reduced aspublic schools have specifically constructed premises to comply with various regulations.Since those premises can seldom be used for purposes other than education,the related costs will be constantly high. However, one strategy to avoid high costsfor school premises being used by a growing number of municipalities is to convertmunicipal schools into independent schools (National Agency for Education 2008c).Moreover, whereas the public schools are obliged to include everyone in the municipalitywithin the student cohorts, including those with functional hindrances andwith special needs, the independent actors do not have such responsibilities. Further,649

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie Holmaccording to the policies which were valid until 1 July 2011 the independent schoolswere not required to provide many activities and services (libraries, health services,school meals, gym halls etc.) which were compulsory for the public schools and couldnot be avoided. With these services being set aside, the surplus of the student voucherthat accrued to the school owners could increase. The independent schools could alsoreduce costs by hiring staff who were not qualified for study guidance and counselling.Statistics also suggest that independent actors tend to employ strategies to lowercosts by using teachers with lower formal teaching qualifications, and also proportionallyfewer teachers (National Agency for Education, 2010b). In this study, thepedagogical concept of three of the four school companies (John Bauer, Baggiumand Kunskapsskolan) emphasised the individual student’s own responsibility forachieving the individually set goals. This focus on the individual student can also beseen as a cost-reduction strategy (cf. Ståhle, 2006).The study also reveals that three of the four large independent providers conceivethe Swedish policies for independent schools as “exportable” and providing future opportunitiesin education outside Sweden. For the largest actor, AcadeMedia, educationis more widely considered a future “export industry”, whereas for Kunskapsskolan morefirm steps were taken in collaboration with the British Conservative Party (2007) tointroduce the “Swedish model” for independent schools in the UK. For the John Bauerorganization, various measures are being taken for expansion in Europe and Asia.The study further indicates that the four main education companies are all profitable.However, the profits of the companies which have been noticed and discussedin the media, and sometimes in annual reports, have tended to not be recognisedby the company owners who have either not wanted to comment on the issue orargued that they did not distribute any profits to the shareholders or owners, andthat the profits made were used for improving the schools’ equipment or premisesor for teachers’further education. Thus, what is highly relevant when it comes tounderstanding the expansion of independent schools in Sweden is that their ownerscan freely distribute and use the surplus of the voucher money, unlike the publicallyadministered schools for which any surplus goes back to the public administration(Ministry of Education, 2011).Therefore, by referring to Ball (2007) we have identified a Swedish market discoursein education, which is underpinned by a complex policy system for financingand deregulating education (Govt. bill 1992/93:100). The market discourse includeslanguage and actions, according to Ball (2007) and also to Whitfield (2006). TheSwedish policy shift in education can thus be considered a good example of a marketdiscourse which has clearly integrated policy rhetoric (language) and policies (actions)for the promotion of private actors. The policy changes, as Swedish policy-makerssuggested, would result in “higher quality” and “efficiency” in education, phrasesand words which belong to a frequently recurring market-discourse vocabulary. Wecan also see that the policy rhetoric was underpinned by affirmatively loaded words650

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school marketwhich included suggestions about better schools, better teachers, the best educationin Europe and also better knowledge in Sweden (Govt. bill 1991/92:95, 1992/93:230).The suggested needs for reform and the suggested outcomes and improvements arealso in line with the market discourse, according to Ball. The new policies were alsoemphasised as being needed at many levels, including the local (students, teachers),the national (Sweden as a knowledge nation) and the global (Europe) (Statement ofGovt., 1991). Here, we can again draw on Ball who maintains that the market discourseis strengthened by its emphasis on the individual, the nation-state, and the nation’scompetitiveness in the international arena. By reference to Whitfield (2006) we cansay that the business transformations in the upper secondary sector, reflect typicalfeatures of the interrelations between privatisation and marketisation. We can alsosee that upper secondary education has come to represent a new market in whichschool companies and public schools, including housing, are being sold. The studyalso discerns “structural couplings” between policy-makers and business interests,as mentioned by both Ball and Whitfield, and which we found in the study were mostclearly represented by Kunskapsskolan and John Bauer, both active policy-makersfor independent schools inside and outside Sweden.Moreover, the policy idea to introduce new systems for competition (includingschool choice, the voucher system, and school profiling) was meant to transfer educationfrom the public to the private sector (Govt bill 1992/93:100). These strategies arealso recognised by Whitfield (2006) who points out the use of competition, choice andcommercialisation for moving education and other public services, as well as publicgoods, “out of” the public sector.Finally, this study points to the dramatic growth of for-profit independent schools inthe 2000s, a trend which seems unstoppable (National Agency for Education, 2010a).Thus, Swedish upper secondary education has clearly become what Ball (2007: 67)calls an “edu-business”, that is to serve the interests of big business as well as education.However, as education is central to each nation particularly with today’s emphasison the importance of “knowledge production”- evidence of grade inflation (Wikström& Wikström, 2005; Henrekson & Vlachos, 2009), and a lower percentage of qualifiedteachers in the independent sector (National Agency for Education, 2010b, 2010c)should be seen as warning signals for what is to come. A question which thus remainsfor decision-makers is what the independent schools can do for their students andtheir country, rather than what they can do for themselves (see also Vlachos, 2011).Inger Erixon Arreman, Umeå University, is a senior lecturer and associate professor in teachereducation. Her research interests include policy-making and gendered dimensions in education.She is currently engaged in a research project on upper secondary Swedish schools.Ann-Sofie Holm is a senior lecturer at the Department of Educational Studies, University of Borås.Her research interests include the marketisation of education in Sweden, and the field of genderconstructions in school.651

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie HolmReferencesAcadeMedia (2008) ”Bindande avtal tecknat mellan Bure och AcadeMedia om samgående mellanAcadeMedia och Anew Learning” Bilaga till pressmeddelande 2008-09-18. http://feed.ne.cision.com/wpyfs/00/00/00/00/00/0D/33/BA/wkr0010.pdf Retrieved 2011-06-21AcadeMedia (2010a) Interim report Jan.-March 2010. http://www.academedia.se/Portals/0/docs/IR_Engelska/Q1_2010_eng_h.pdf Retrieved 2011-09-17.AcadeMedia (2010b) Årsrapport. [Annual report 2009]. http://www.academedia.se/Portals/0/docs/Årsredovisningar/ÅR2009_AcadeMedia.pdf Retrieved 2011-11-05.AcadeMedia (2011a) Verksamheter. http://www.academedia.se/Start/Verksamheter.aspx Retrieved2011-06-21AcadeMedia (2011b) AcadeMedia och Pysslingen går samman. http://www.academedia.se/Start/OmAcadeMedia/Finansiellinformation/Pressmeddelanden.aspx?guid=588391 Retrieved2011-07-14.AcadeMedia (no date, a) AcadeMedia - “the short story”. http://www.academedia.se/Start/OmAcadeMedia/InEnglish.aspx Retrieved 2011-09-01.AcadeMedia (no date, b) Academedias ägare. http://www.academedia.se/Start/OmAcadeMedia/Ledning/AcadeMediasägare.aspx Retrieved 2011-09-06.Affärsvärlden. (2008) Rakt in på första plats. http://www.studentconsulting.se/affarsvarlden-7sidor_maj2008.pdf Retrieved 2011-10-09.Affärsvärlden (2009) Fyra frågor till vd Marcus Strömberg. http://www.affarsvarlden.se/hem/nyheter/article2590145.ece. Retrieved 2011-11-05.Alm Rosenblad, M., Rutgersson, J. (2011) Utdelning och koncernbidrag inom svenska utbildningskoncerner.Göteborg: Handelshögskolan, Göteborgs universitet.Apple, M. W. (2010) Global Crises, Social Justice, and Education. In M.W. Apple (ed.) Global Crises,Social Justice, and Education. Routledge Falmer: New York, 1-5.Axcel (2011) Cases. JB Education. http://www.axcel.dk/virksomheder/cases/jb-education.aspx.Retrieved 2011-09-20.Baggesen Klitgaard, M. (2008) School vouchers and the New Politics of the Welfare State. Governance:An international Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 21, No. 4,479-498.Baggium (no date) Historik. http://www.baggium.se/historik.aspx Retrieved 2011-11-05.Ball, S. (2007) Education Plc: understanding private sector participation in public sector. NewYork: Routledge.BBC News (2004) Swedish parents enjoy school choice. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm Retrieved 2011-05-25.Björklund, A., Clark, M. A, Edin, P-A., Fredriksson, P. and Krueger A.B. (2005) The Market comesto Education in Sweden. An Evaluation of Sweden’s Surprising School Reform. New York:Russell Sage.Blekinge läns tidning (2010) John Bauer vill starta grundskolor. http://www.bltsydostran.se/ nyheter/karlshamn/john-bauer-vill-starta-grundskolor(2350649)gm Retrieved 2011-11-05.Blomqvist, P. and Rothstein, B. (2000) Välfärdsstatens nya ansikte. Demokrati och marknadsreformerinom den offentliga sektorn. Stockholm: Agora.659 School as “Edu-business”: Four“serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school market.Borås tidning (2010) John Bauer vill starta grundskola i Borås. http://www.bt.se/nyheter/boras/john-bauer-vill-starta-grundskola-i-boras(1872303).gm Retrieved 2011-11-05.652

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school marketChubb, J. E. (2007) Kommentar: Att få ut det mesta möjliga av marknaden. [Comment: How toGain the Most Possible from the Market]. In A. Lindbom (ed.) Friskolorna och framtiden –segregation, kostnader och effektivitet [Freeschools and the Future – Segregation, Costs andEfficiency], 51-57. Stockholm: Institutet för framtidsstudier.Chubb, J. E. and Moe, T.M. (1990) Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington: BrookingsInstitution.Dagens industri (2010a) ”EQT:Därför lockar Academedia”. http://di.se/Default.aspx?tr=271309&rlt=0&pid=205551__ArticlePageProvider Retrieved 2011-11-05.Dagens industri (2010b) Grundskolan het för investerarna, 2010-08-17, p 6.Dagens nyheter. (2008) Ny boom för friskolor [New Boom for Freeschools]. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/ny-boom-for-friskolor Retrieved 2009-11-25.Dagens Nyheter (2009) Friskolorna vill växa utomlands. http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/friskolorna-vill-vaxa-utomlandsRetrieved 2011-11-23.Dagens Nyheter (2010) Skolan: Sverige inte längre förebild. http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/skolan-sverige-inte-langre-forebild Retrieved 2011-06-15.Dagens SPS (2010) Grundskolan den nya guldgruvan. http://www.dagensps.se/artiklar/2010/08/17/65487731/index.xml Retrieved 2011-11-05.Dictionary.com (2011) Franchise. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/franchise Retrieved2011-10-22.E 24 (2010) Därför vill EQT köpa AcadeMedia. http://www.e24.se/business/bank-och-finans/darfor-vill-eqt-kopa-academedia_2015669.e24 Retrieved 2011-10-24.Edström, Anders. 1995. Styrning i ett ekonomiskt perspektiv. [Steering in an economic perspective]In S.-G. Servais (ed.) Skolans styrning. [School Governance] Stockholm: Arbetslivsinstitutet,4-5.EQT (no date a) Contact. http://www.eqt.se/en/Contact/ Retrieved 2011-11-06.EQT (no date b) Company profile. http://www.eqt.se/en/Media/Press-kit/. Retrieved 2011-11-06.Erixon Arreman, I (2005) Att rubba föreställningar och bryta traditioner. Forskningsutveckling,makt och förändring i svensk lärarutbildning”. Umeå: Umeå UniversityErixon Arreman, I. & Holm, A-S. (2011) Privatisation of Public Education? The emergence of independentupper secondary schools in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy. Vol. 26, No. 2,225–242.Finn, C., Manno, B. and Vanoureik, G. (2001) Charter Schools in Action: Renewing Public Education.Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press.Fokus (2010) Wallenberg ringer in. http://www.fokus.se/2010/05/wallenberg-ringer-in/ Retrieved2011-09-02.Friskolornas riksförbund (2010) Slående sänkningar i riksprislistan. http://www.friskola.se/Nyheter_Slaende_sankningar_i_riksprislistan_DXNI-1300599_. aspx Retrieved 2010-11-18Foucault, M. (1972) The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Pantheon books.Govt bill (1991/92: 95) Regeringens proposition om valfrihet och fristående skolor. Stockholm:Ministry of Education.Govt bill (1992/93:100) Regeringens proposition med förslag till statsbudget för budgetåren1993/94. Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Govt bill (1992/93:230) Valfrihet i skolan. Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Govt bill. (2008/09:171) Offentliga bidrag på lika villkor. Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Göteborgsposten (2010) Tjänar miljoner på friskolan. http://www.gp.se/ekonomi/1.400487- tjanar-miljoner-pa-friskolan.Retrieved 2011-06-09.653

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie HolmHenrekson, M., and J. Vlachos. (2009) Konkurrens om elever ger orättvisa gymnasiebetyg. DagensNyheter. 2009-08-17. http://www.dn.se/opinion/debatt/konkurrens-om-elever-gerorattvisa-gymnasiebetyg-1.932111Retrieved 2009-11-24.Holm, A-S.,Erixon Arreman, I. (2009) Upper-Secondary Education in Sweden. The Expansion ofIndependent Schools. Presentation at the Nordic Education Research Association conference,Trondheim, March, 6-9.Investor (2011a) Investeringar. (http://www.investorab.com/sv/OmInvestor/Verksamhet/FinansiellaInvesteringar.htmRetrieved 2011-10-12.Investor (2011b). Finansiella investeringar. http://www.investorab.com/ Retrieved 2011-09-06Jarl, M., Rönnberg, L. (2010) Skolpolitik: från riksdagshus till klassrum. Stockholm: Liber.John Bauer (2011a) JB Education. http://www.jbeducation.se/press/pressmeddelanden/2011/jbo-blir-jb-education Retrieved 2011-06-25.John Bauer (2011 b) Arbetssätt http://www.johnbauer.nu/om-skolan/arbetssatt Retrieved 2011-09-05.John Bauer (no date, a) Om JB Education. http://www.jbeducation.se/om-jb-education Retrieved2011-05-25.John Bauer (no date, b) Våra program http://www.johnbauer.nu/program. Retrieved 2011-08-25.John Bauer International (no date) From the Director. http://www.johnbauerinternational.com/jbi.php?id=2 Retrieved 2011-05-25.Kunskapsskolan (2009) Kunskapsskolan träffar överenskommelse med engelska regeringen.http://www.kunskapsskolan.se/foretaget/kunskapsskolanisverigeab/nyhetsarkivet/200407/nyhetsarkiv/kunskapsskolantraffaroverenskommelsemedengelskaregeringen.5.14fbec4011fcb8447c280009.html Retrieved 2011-05-25.Kunskapsskolan (no date) Personligt utformad utbildning. http://www.kunskapsskolan.se/ Retrieved2011-05-25.Lubienski, C. (2009) “Do Quasi-markets Foster Innovation. in Education?: A Comparative Perspective”.EducationWorking Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing.Lundahl, L. (2002) Sweden: decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets – and then what?Journal of Education Policy, 17, no. 6: 687-697.Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Lundström U. and Rönnberg, L. (2010) Setting things right?Swedish upper secondary school reform in a 40-year perspective, European Journal of Education,Vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 49-62.Lundström, U. (2007) Gymnasielärare – perspektiv på lärares arbete och yrkesutveckling vidmillennieskiftet. Umeå: Umeå University.Lundström, U. & Parding, K. (2011) Teachers’ experiences with school choice - clashing logics inthe Swedish education system. Education Research International. Vol. 2011, Article ID 869852.Lärarnas nyheter (2010) Friskolejätte siktar utomlands. http://www.lararnasnyheter.se/utbildningsforetag/2010/02/19/friskolejatte-siktar-utomlandsRetrieved 2011-10-12.Marklund, S. (1989) Skolsverige 1950-1975. Rullande reform. Stockholm: Utbildningsförlaget.Ministry of Education and Culture (2006) Offentliga bidrag till fristående skolor. http://www.opengov.se/govtrack/dir/2006:3/ Retrieved 2011-06-21. Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Ministry of Education (2007) Regeringen vill främja avknoppningar med tydliga regler. Pressrelease. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/9420/a/90195 Retrieved: 2010-04-19. Stockholm:Ministry of Education.Ministry of Education (2008) Förslag om nya regler för fristående skolor. SOU 2008:122. Stockholm:Ministry of Education.654

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school marketMinistry of Education (2010) Oförändrade ersättningar till friskolor. Press release. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/12475/a/138148. Retrieved 2011-06-16. Stockholm: Ministry of Education.Ministry of Education (2011) Regler och villkor för fristående skolor m.m. http://www.opengov.se/govtrack/dir/2011:68/ Retrieved 2011-10-03. Stockholm: Ministry of Education.National Agency for Education (2004) Genomförd utbildningsinspektion över utbildningarna vidJohn Bauergymnasiet i Umeå. Dnr 54-2004:1690. Retrieved 2011-11-01 Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2006) Schools like any other? Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2007) Frisökning. Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2008a) Riksprislista för ersättning till fristående skolor 2009.http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/2116/a/14279. Retrieved 2011-10-16. Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2008b) Skolor och elever läsåren 1996/97 - 2001/02. Table. 6.1A.Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2008c) Mängden avknoppningar är en ny situation. http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/2096/a/11314. Retrieved 2008-11-26. Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education. (2010a) Konkurrensen om eleverna. Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2010b) Gymnasieskolan–Personal–Riksnivå. Table 4 A. http://www. skolverket.se/sb/d/1719/a/15474 Retrieved 2011-03-08. Stockholm: SkolverketNational Agency for Education (2010c). Gymnasieskolan – Elever – Riksnivå. Table 2 A. http://www.skolverket.se/sb/d/1718. Retrieved 2011-06-11. Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2011a) Viktiga förändringar. Retrieved 2011-02-02. Stockholm:Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2011b) Fristående skolors utveckling. http://www.skolverket.se/forskola_och_skola/2.300/fristaende-skolors-utveckling-1.100553. Retrieved 2011-06-15.Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (2011c) Snabbfakta om fristående skolor. http://www.skolverket.se/forskola_och_skola/2.300/snabbfakta-om-fristaende-skolor-1.120820. Retrieved 2011-06-15. Stockholm: Skolverket.National Agency for Education (Unpublished) Huvudman, huvudmannatyp och organisationsnummerför gymnasieskolor som var verksamma eller planerade att starta höstterminen2010. Stockholm: Skolverket.Nyhetspressen (2011) Om Baggium. http://www.nyhetspressen.se/om/Baggium/. Retrieved2011-11-03.Nylén, J. (2011) Styrideal och konflikt: Om friskoleetablering i tre norrländska kommuner.Härnösand: Mittuniversitetet.Palme, M. (2008) Det kulturella kapitalet. Studier av symboliska tillgångar i det svenska utbildningssystemet1998-2008. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.Providence (2011) Providence Equity Partners. http://www.crunchbase.com/financial-organization/providence-equity-partnersRetrieved 2011-08-23.Realtid.se (2010) Peje om EQTC:s AcadeMediabud. http://www.realtid.se/ArticlePages/201004/28/20100428120816_Realtid088/ 20100428120816_Realtid088.dbp.asp Retrieved 2011-06-05.Riksrevisionen (2005) Rätt utbildning för undervisningen. Statens insatser för lärarkompetens.Stockholm: Riksrevisionen.655

Inger Erixon Arreman & Ann-Sofie HolmRingarp, J. (2011) Professionens problematik: lärarkårens kommunalisering och välfärdsstatensförvandling. Stockholm: Makadam.Rönnberg, L. (2011) Exploring the Intersection of Central State Control and Marketisation throughSwedish National School Inspection. Paper presented at network meeting Studier av utbildningsområdetspolitik Umeå, 10-11, February.Sainsbury, D. (1996) Gender, Equality and Welfare States. Cambridge: University Press.Schools Inspectorate. (Unpublished) Vilka är det som driver fristående skolor? Stockholm: Skolinspektionen.SFS 1985:1100. School Act. Stockholm: Government Offices of Sweden.SFS 2010:800. School Act. Stockholm: Government Offices of Sweden.Skolvärlden (2010) De har makten i Skolsverige. http://www.skolvarlden.se/artiklar/de-harmakten-i-skolsverige.Retrieved 2011-09-05.Statistics Sweden (2009) Trender och prognoser 2008. Örebro: SCB.Ståhle, Y. (2006) Pedagogiken i tiden. Om framväxten av nya undervisningsformer under tidigt2000-tal – exemplet Kunskapsskolan. Stockholm: HLS förlag.Svenska Dagbladet (2010a) AcadeMedia rider på vågen. http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/academedia-rider-pa-vagen_5098369.svdRetrieved 2011-06-02Svenska dagbladet (2010b) England är bara början. http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/england-ar-bara-borjan_4401739.svdRetrieved 2011-09-06.Svenska Dagbladet (2011) Storaffär i skolbranschen. http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/storaffar-iskolbranschen_6311058.svd#after-adRetrieved 2011-09-06.Svensson, S. (2010) Perspektiv på skolan - om det fria skolvalets effekter på skolans likvärdighet.Stockholm: Lärarförbundet.Swedish television (2011a) Lärlingsbolaget - en miljardkoncern.http://svt.se/2.58360/1.2420661/utskriftsvanligt_format?printerfriendly=true). Retrieved 2011-07-12.Swedish television (2011b) Var sjätte elev får ingen praktikplats. http://svt.se/2.22620/1.2419332/var_sjatte_elev_far_ingen_praktikplats?lid=puff_2419332&lpos=rubrik. Retrieved 2011-07-12.The Conservative Party (2007) Speech. Michael Gove. Education Education Education.. Retrieved2011-10-12.The Conservative Party. (2010) Draft Manifesto for Schools. Mending our broken society. http://www.conservatives.com/news/news_stories/2010/01/cameron_launches_our_draft_manifesto_for_schools.aspxRetrieved 2010-06-02.The Guardian (2009) Should state school turn a profit? http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/06/swedish-state-schools-conservative-plans.Retrieved 2010-05-23.TV4 (2007a) Tittarstorm efter friskolegranskning. http://www.nyhetskanalen.se/1.201253/2007/11/07/tittarstorm_efter_friskolegranskning. Retrieved 2011-02-05.TV4 (2007b) John Bauer-koncernens affärer. http://www.nyhetskanalen.se/1.199924/2007/11/04/john_bauer_koncernens_affarer Retreived 2011-02-05.Ultra Education (2008) Gasellföretag erbjuds utvecklingsmöjlighet i Abu Dhabi. http://www.mynewsdesk.com/se/view/pressrelease/gasellfoeretag-erbjuds-utvecklingsmoejlighet-i-abudhabi-215688Retrieved 2011-05-12.Vlachos, J. (2011) Friskolor i förändring. In L. Hartman(ed.). Konkurrensens konsekvenser.Stockholm: SNS, 66-110.Whitfield, D. (2006) A Typology of Privatisation and Marketisation. ESSU Research Report,no.1 http://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/publications/essu-research-reports/essu-research-paper-1/essu-research-paper-1.pdfRetrieved 2011-01-31.656

School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players” in the Swedish upper secondary school marketWiborg, Susanne (2010) Swedish Free-schools do they work? LLakes Research Paper 18. http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/LCEN_50.html London: Institute of Education. University of London.Wikström, C., Wikström, M. (2005) Grade inflation and school competition: an empirical analysisbased on the Swedish upper secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 24. 3, 309-322.Endnotes1The reserch project, entitled Upper Secondary Education as a Market, was financed by the SwedishResearch Council (2008–2011).2After this study was completed, a new Education Act came into force on 1 July 2011. NationalAgency for Education, 2011b. http://www.skolverket.se/lagar_och_regler/2.3351/2.2253657

658

Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, pp.659–670EDU.INQ.Tensions in the meeting betweeninstitutional logics and identities inSwedish folk high schoolsCaroline Runesdotter*AbstractSwedish folk high schools previously held an autonomous position with their own courses, speciallytrained teachers and the teachers’ association. With the introduction of market-like structures inadult education a variety of providers including folk high schools have become involved in thecompetition for public and private educational commissions. This article focuses on the tensionsat folk high schools when perceived dependence on income from competitive commissions resultsin new practices that challenge existing institutional values. The impact of the changed conditionsis experienced differently, although interviews with staff at different folk high schools indicate agrowing gulf not only between the leadership and the teachers, but also between the new practiceand what was traditionally considered to be the core values of folk high schools.Keywords: public sector reforms, institutional change, marketisation, folk high schoolsIntroductionStanding outside the public school system and compulsory education, folk high schoolsdepend on their reputation and legitimacy in order to obtain both public funding andstudents. Since the early 1990s, reduced public funding and the need for externalincomes have led to a market orientation whereby folk high schools compete withother providers for courses on demand, resulting in new practices that affect bothrelations and activities in those schools.The Nordic Folk High Schools represent a locally rooted type of school and were thefirst to offer education for adults. In Sweden the first folk high schools were establishedby wealthy farmers in the second half of the 19th century with the purpose of providingboth general and civic education. The farmers’ aim was to foster their sons to becomemodern farmers who were also able to defend their political interests (Tengberg,1968; Simon, 1989). The founders were eager to keep the autonomy of the schools,and managed this to some degree. Despite the fact that they soon became dependenton financial support from the state as well as from the county and municipality, folkhigh schools were never restricted by a national curriculum (Swensson, 1968).*Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. E-mail: Caroline.Runesdotter@ped.gu.se©Author. ISSN 2000-4508, pp.659–670659

Caroline RunesdotterToday, the 150 folk high schools in Sweden have different forms of ownership: themajority are owned by popular movements, some by foundations and a third by countycouncils and municipalities. They also represent different ideological traditions, suchas temperance movements, free church and working class movements. In spite of theirdiversity, folk high schools have a common identity formed around the traditions ofcivic education and co-operative and participative forms of education (Paldanius &Alm 2009; SOU 1996:75). Traditionally, the teachers and the teachers’ associationhave had a strong position and played an important role in the development of folkhigh schools (Bogärde, 1974; Mustel, 2002).Throughout history, folk high schools have played different roles in relation tothe school system. As long as access to upper secondary education was limited, folkhigh schools prepared for higher education, like nursing schools and teacher trainingcolleges (Landström 2004). Different school reforms during the 1960s incrementallyreduced the limitations of the school system, and this impacted on folk high schools.Up until then, folk high schools had been boarding schools in the countryside but sincethe 1970s the majority of new folk high schools have been established in suburbs andoffered education for people with a low standard of education (Runesdotter, 2010).Simultaneously with an educational reform concerning compulsory schools, theGovernment Bill about Liberal Adult Education (1990/1991:82) imposed a new wayof governing with the effect that public funding was considerably reduced. The needfor additional funds paved the way for activities that could generate external incomes.As adult education continued to be reformed during the late 1990s conditions wereintroduced that resembled the idea of the market (e.g. Lumsden Wass, 2004, Henning-Loeb, 2006). Since competition between various providers was supposed to enhancequality, folk high schools as well as study associations were invited to compete inorder to offer courses for adults. These externally financed courses have improvedthe economic circumstances of some folk high schools, but this development has alsobeen accompanied by new practices concerning employment conditions for teachersand the admission of students.Folk high schools as constituting an organisational fieldThe empirical data consist of semi-structured interviews with principals, economicassistants, teachers and members of school boards in a sample of eight differentschools and representatives of the teachers’ association. The interviews were carriedout in 2005 and 2008 in connection with a project funded by the Swedish ResearchCouncil, Transforming incentives in Swedish Adult Education. The selection offolk high schools was guided by the ambition to obtain the widest possible varietyof owners (popular movements or municipalities) and locations (countryside or inproximity to cities).In spite of their diversity, folk high schools assert their specific identity which hasevolved over time. In order to understand the impact of the links between folk high660

Tensions in the meeting between institutional logics and identities in Swedish folk high schoolsschools and what is held as a common history and identity, I have applied the conceptof organisational fields (Powell & DiMaggio, 1983). Within an organisational field,legitimacy is enhanced by institutionalised common characteristics like rules, ritualsand traditions. That which becomes institutionalised is that which is supported withinthe group or the surrounding society (Czarniawska & Wolff, 1998). Institutionalisationis a source of resistance to quick changes. For rules, rituals and traditions tobe subject to institutionalisation it is not enough that they be embraced by singleschools, they must be accepted by the majority, the collective of, in this case, folkhigh schools. Further, what is institutionalised is often viewed as the only alternative,becoming taken for granted. DiMaggio and Powell assert that “Institutions donot only constrain options: they establish the very criteria by which people discovertheir preferences” (1991:11).Over time, organisations within a field develop an institutional logic that can bedefined as “a set of material practices and symbolic constructions which constitutes itsorganizing principles” (Friedland & Alford 1991:248). These can consist in both patternsof behaviour and taken-as-given understandings about how to perform activities. Withinthe group of folk high schools, institutionalisation has been an ongoing process. Somemain characteristics have remained while others have changed through history sinceinstitutionalisation is a continuing process of adjusting to changes in society. What isinstitutionalised is manifested in rules, traditions and institutional myths. In the caseof folk high schools, these are referred to as “folk high school spirit” that includes, forinstance, a respectful and personal relationship with the students and a variety of teachingmethods (e.g. Arvidson, 1988; Höghielm 1992; Paldanius & Alm, 2009). Howevervague the folk high school spirit may be, in the sense that it is an example of traditionsand manners maintained as a product of history, it is an important part of a common,institutional identity. That which is preserved obtains acceptance in a group or society,and there will always be some kind of resistance to quick changes and, when a takenfor-grantedinstitutional identity within a field is changed, it normally does not takeplace without contradictions and conflicts (Scott, 2008).Public sector reforms affecting folk high schoolsReductions in public funding for folk high schools started in the late 1970s and continuedduring the 1980s. When these schools were permitted to pursue commissionededucation programmes in 1986 this represented a shift from the earlier public fundingthat both implied secure funding and control of courses as well as student numbers.The growth of commissions was slow during the first years, but now represents a considerableshare of the incomes at some folk high schools (SOU2003:125). Althoughcompetitive commissions make up a relatively small part of folk high schools’ budgets,they are also one of the few elements that schools can seek to influence. This canexplain why competing for commissions is becoming disproportionately importantfor such schools.661

Caroline RunesdotterThe Government Bill (Bill 1990/91:82) transferred the authority for folk high schoolsto a non-governmental board directed by representatives of the owners. The reformrepresented a shift from strong state regulation to governance through self-regulationat the local level in accordance with objectives and results. The teachers’ associationthat until then had a considerable influence through the governmental authority wasnot represented in the new board and was henceforth left without a formal influence(Mustel, 2002).The decision to change the authority for folk high schools also impacted uponthe internal relations at the schools. One intention of the Government Bill (Bill1990/91:82) was to transfer power from teachers to those directing the schools, i.e.school boards and principals. In the new regulations the decree about teacher influencedisappeared (SFS 1991:977). The relations of teachers among themselves andwith principals were affected when the system of central negotiations was abolishedand local as well as individual negotiations were introduced.Different governmental initiatives to offer education to the unemployed increasedthe volume of short-term education commissions in adult education as well as amongfolk high schools. The Government Bill (1995/96:222), called the Adult EducationInitiative, aimed to transform adult education not only in order to provide educationto the high number of unemployed but also to correspond to the needs of a changingsociety. In the search for flexible forms for education one idea was to abolish the municipalmonopoly in adult education, and open up for competition with the intentionthat quality would be raised through competition (Lumsden Wass, 2004). The AdultEducation Initiative led to a 50 percent increase in the number of students at folk highschools, from approximately 20,000 to 30,000 a year over five years. Consequently,when it came to an end the necessary adjustments were painful at many folk highschools that had acquired budget deficits.General characteristics of public sector reformsIn many ways the changes that affected the folk high schools are in line with thechanges that took place in the public sector in general. Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson(2000) argue that the public sector reforms in different European countriesfollowed similar patterns of public sector restructuring. They considered the reformsas attempts to change different public entities in order to more closely resemble theidea of complete organisations. Put differently, they interpreted many public sectorreforms as attempts to construct organisations. The intention was to change the wayto manage, control and account for activities, not to control products or services.Decisive steps were to transfer responsibility and accountability to different units,strengthen hierarchy and transfer disciplinary means to those directing (Brunsson& Sahlin-Andersson, 2000).In addition, the way of defining environments and borders has been affected. Inorder to define costs, assets and results for the newly regarded organisations, categories662

Tensions in the meeting between institutional logics and identities in Swedish folk high schoolssuch as customers or competitors are applied instead of colleagues, students or patients(Forssell & Jansson, 1996). Being considered as organisations rather than schools orhospitals has also opened up new ways to appoint leaders. The lack of private sectorexperience has been treated as a problem and experience of managing organisationsin general has been more highly esteemed than experience from the specific field oractivity in question (Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 2000).These changes concern folk high schools in a couple of ways. First, the reformulationof folk high schools’ relations with their environment has had the peculiar effectthat the schools’ customers are not considered to be students, but rather the publicor private entities, organisations or companies that purchase services, in this caseeducation. The students are sometimes renamed participants – but not considered ascustomers. Second, connected to the development sketched by Brunsson and Sahlin-Andersson (2000) is the recruitment of directors, principals and board members fromoutside the circles of folk high schools or study associations. Instead of experience ineducation provision, management experience has often been prioritised (Mustel, 2009).Evaluations of the changed practices at folk high schoolsSince the introduction of the new governing principles there have been evaluationsat the national level by specially appointed Inquiry Chairs, the most recent in the2002–2004 period. Further, an evaluation of the effects of the new ways of directingand controlling the folk high schools was performed by the National Audit Office(Riksrevisionsverket) in 1999. Their interviews and inquiries with principals showedthat the economy played a superior role and that all questions concerning externalincomes were focused on (1999 p. 93). One reflection in the report was that “the roleof the principal has been transformed from being a pedagogue or ideologist to beinga business executive and that was not considered to promote quality” (Riksrevisionsverket,1999 p. 62).What was also observed by the National Audit Office was a growing disagreementbetween rhetoric and practice (Riksrevisionsverket 1999 p. 51). The National AuditOffice concluded that ideological aspects and core values had a limited significancecompared to the consideration to market or economic efficiency (Riksrevisionsverket,1999 p. 97).In the second national evaluation of folk high schools, the governmental InquiryChair (SOU 2003:125) also came to similar conclusions. In one of its reports theeconomic situations at the schools were scrutinised. It revealed that in 1999–2000,for the first time in history, there had been a deficit among the folk high schools as awhole, meaning that the overall expenses exceeded the overall incomes and funding.Surprisingly, this took place during the period of the large-scale, government-financedAdult Education Initiative. The report showed how feeble the economy was for manyschools. It revealed the harsh conditions caused by reduced funding and, as the reportconcluded, a failure by the schools to identify and adjust to the changed conditions663

Caroline Runesdotter(SOU 2003:125). Although some adjustments had taken place and affected the sizeof classes, teachers’ workloads and the maintenance of school equipment and buildings,it was obvious, the Inquiry Chair stated, that the economic situation had forcedsome folk high schools to become engaged in activities that were, if not alien, at leastperipheral to the idea of the folk high school.The leadership of schoolsOne intention of the Government Bill (Bill 1990/91:82) was that the schools shouldbe directed by the principals and boards – not by the teachers’ assemblies. As oneprincipal declared, a task for both the board and principals has been to reduce thepower of the teachers. In order to facilitate the authority of the principal, those appointedhave preferably been external persons, in contrast to the previous practicethat the best educated and most experienced teacher should be appointed. Whenasked, the representative of the teachers’ association connected the recent problemswith the ways new principals were being recruited:… if you generalise, one can say that some of the principals, that come from totally differentsectors, tend to behave more like traditional business executives and are inclined to pointwith the whole hand in a way that teachers at folk high schools not are comfortable with.Instead they are used to, as a collective, having a considerable influence on the activitiesperformed (Secretary at the Teachers’ Association 2005).The expectations of the principals have often been contradictory; on one hand, theyare expected to stabilise and hopefully expand the economic situation of the school.On the other, they are expected to be an ideological and pedagogical leader. Whenthose appointed have in many cases been people without folk high school experience,they have faced difficulties obtaining legitimacy among teachers. Some have met withresistance, especially as in some cases they have had a more or less explicit missionto depose the teachers’ assembly, as one of the interviewed principals said:Many of those that are employed as principals nowadays have a certain mission from theboard: get a new agreement on working hours, introduce individual salaries and reduce theinfluence of the teachers’ board (Principal 2008).In many schools, workforce reductions were the solution to do away with a growingdeficit. One interviewed principal who had been forced to dismiss many teachersconfessed she had to make a clear separation between what were emotions and whatwas the legal point of view. She had been working as a principal for many years, butuntil recently had not been forced to familiarise herself with the labour legislation(interviewed 2008). Her experiences are not unique and at many folk high schools theleadership seemed to be concerned about the problem of having teachers permanentlyemployed when a considerable part of the activities were temporary educational pro-664

Tensions in the meeting between institutional logics and identities in Swedish folk high schoolsjects. It has led the schools to carefully consider who to employ and under what conditions,as an employee responsible for economic affairs at a folk high school explained:The greatest expense is wages and that’s why you need to have staff that are flexible and youcan use, and that are not stuck in permanent employment. Rather, they should be employedfor a limited period, in order to avoid having to pay wages during half a year for a projectthat wasn’t extended. /…/ We must be prepared to have staff that we can quickly get rid of(Economic assistant, 2005).But the situation at the folk high schools has also affected the position of the principals.Five of the eight principals in my sample had been appointed in order to replace a principalwho had left prematurely. Although not representative, it corresponds to the trendat the national level. The number of principals who have been relieved of their post hasescalated since the beginning of the 1990s and this has recently led to an initiative ofthe trade union (i.e. the teachers’ association) to investigate the reasons for principalsleaving (Mustel, 2009). In the 2003–2009 period, 133 principals left their employment.This is a high number if we compare it with the total number of folk high schools: 150.Some schools experienced repeated changes of principals. Behind the numbers therewere different reasons to leave the schools – some were dismissed, some on sick leaveand others left their employment on their own initiative (Mustel, 2009).The high turnover of principals can be seen as symptomatic of the contradictory challengesfacing folk high schools – to keep a clear and distinctive profile and at the sametime to maintain a stable economic situation, while also needing to have staff who arededicated and flexible and prepared to leave the school when necessary. Mustel’s explanationsof the high turnover of principals point to the unrealistic expectations of what ispossible to achieve as a principal. In the interviews some of the new principals declaredthey had expected to “change and modernise the school, develop and renew the pedagogyor be in the direction of a school with an ideological profile” they found themselves carryingthrough saving campaigns and chasing after new incomes for the school (Mustel,2009 p. 4). A principal at one folk high school in my sample explained what this meant:I read a lot, many papers and watch the news and things like that. I have to interpret themarket. /…/ it takes a long time and requires, so to say, a certain competence. If you don’t likeit you can quit. Some schools went in for conference establishments and a spa. For me, it’s aquestion of what is most convenient for the folk high school. An average time for principalsto stay is 2.5 years. Their position is not safe any more (Principal, 2005).Principals without former folk high school experience encountered difficulties obtaininglegitimacy among the teachers when they wanted to implement changes. Theconflicts which erupted when they tried to cancel existing working hours agreementswas a frequent reason for principals to leave, according to Mustel (2009). The fact thatprincipals are leaving at a rate never experienced before can be seen as a symptomof the problems in the schools.665

Caroline RunesdotterThe folk high school teachersThe economic situation of the folk high schools also affects teachers by putting theiremployment at risk. How do they react when the economic situation of their schoolsis uncertain? What kind of responsibility can one expect from them by way of supportingtheir schools? One of the teachers interviewed was also a representative ofthe teachers’ association and referred to a discussion at one of their meetings aboutwhat kind of loyalty they were obliged to show their employers:Can we support that some folk high schools shall be closed down? That also means that ourcolleagues and members in the association will be unemployed. If they can’t finance theeducation, how can the schools continue? There is no real answer to that question, but it isa problem (Teacher, 2005).At some folk high schools in my sample there were attempts to involve the teachers inthe schools’ economic affairs. For example, budget management for courses could bedelegated to the courses’ teachers. In some schools teachers were involved in tenderingfor courses that could generate external incomes. The efforts to assure the teachers’employment were also a valid argument for the principals. As one intervieweedeclared, “if you feel that some of our activities are at risk, you will be more keen todiscuss how to protect us /…/ we were all very conscious of why we did it, we werelooking for alternative ways to retain staff”.The folk high school studentsWith the economic situation as the central concern, students represent incomes orcosts for the school. A person who fails to complete a course can mean a lost incomefor the school. Further, if he or she needs special support this can involve high costsfor which the school risks not being compensated. These are conditions that affect theeconomic situation of the school, and both teachers and principals are aware of this.One way to transfer responsibility to the teachers is to make them responsible for boththe recruitment and admission of students. But having the economics of the schoolas a constant, the central concern affects how teachers consider course applicants,namely whether or not they are economically desirable enough to be admitted to study:If you think this may be a person that will cause us problems, you will avoid those you thinkwill cause problems or those that most likely will interrupt their studies (Teacher, 2005).When the size of a school’s student body decreases along with the number of applicantsfor future courses, this can quickly affect the number of employees at the school, andthis tends to encourage the feeling that everyone is in the same boat, that everyonehas common interests:In this case for the teachers, it is a question of coming to an agreement as best one can. Buthere we do everything together, that means there are very few contradictory interests among666

Tensions in the meeting between institutional logics and identities in Swedish folk high schoolsthe employer and employees. I mean, we have no conflicting interests, we have one interestin common (Principal, 2005).Although similar opinions were expressed by both teachers and principals, it was alsoobvious that their interests conflicted in at least one way. A teacher reported that,together with their colleagues, they felt they needed to bring money into the school:“as teachers it just feels like we are costing money”. Occasionally this has been felt aquite a tough demand: “particularly this requirement that we must generate income”.This teacher thinks that the administration at the school has to become more transparent,“...and in a way, we have needed to be involved and influence”. But he alsothinks that a lot depends on the leadership and their attitude. It is possible to use thepresent structures in a way which makes it easy to bulldoze over teachers.The identity of the folk high schools and as a folk high schoolOrganisations tend to adhere to institutional rules and myths. The legitimacy of anorganisation is built on the reputation of its activities and ideology plays a crucial rolein enhancing legitimacy (Berg & Jonsson, 1991). An organisation enjoys legitimacy asconfirmation that its aims and activities have a justification in wider circles. But legitimacyis always at risk as it is not “a commodity to be possessed or exchanged, but rathera condition reflecting perceived consonance with relevant rules and laws, normativesupport, or alignment with cultural-cognitive frameworks” (Scott, 2008 p. 59).During my interviews at the different folk high schools I gained the impressionthat ideological considerations were a low priority, if they even existed at all. At oneschool, the teacher representative regretted the lack of discussion and said that itpartly depended on the retirement of certain colleagues:The ideological discussions disappeared when the ideologists at the school retired. Withthem, the discussions also disappeared. But it is also a consequence of the new conditionsfor work at the school. I name it “new conditions” because you can’t point out how and whenthey were introduced, but we work with a pistol pointed at our heads and all are consciousthat the situation is frail and can easily change in the wrong direction. So that’s what we arediscussing today instead of ideology (Teacher, 2005).A general impression is that many of the leading ideologists have now retired and thatthere seems to be a lack of live debate about the objectives. But against this backdrop, Imet teachers who were concerned about the absence of ideological debate and stressedthe need to ideologically motivate the allocation of public funding for the schools.Resistance to institutional changeThe high turnover of principals can partly be considered a result of resistance byteachers when they challenge taken-for-granted assumptions and try to impose anew institutional logic.667

Caroline RunesdotterIn my interviews with the teachers, I witnessed insecurity, a preoccupation with economicconsiderations that had little to do with education, and also something which Iinterpreted as a reaction of resistance. For example, teachers at one school were notconsulted about the appointment of their new principal and the teacher I interviewedwas upset about not having any influence on the decision. But, in contrast, at anotherschool the leadership had to take the wishes of the teachers into consideration whenappointing a new principal because the teachers would not accept anyone else.Another example of resistance to change had to do with the introduction of a newpay structure for folk high schools. When the rigid system of centrally negotiatedsalaries was replaced by a system in which teachers negotiated their salaries on anindividual basis with their principals, the principals gained a position of enhancedauthority. It also had the effect to divide the teachers. But where teachers wereinvited to design pay structures differences in salaries were diminished instead ofincreased compared to the prior, centrally negotiated wage system. At one school theprinciple even went so far as to introduce the same salary for all, in accordance withthe wishes of the teachers. In addition, the disappearance of ideological discussionswere attended to at one school where they started organised studies of the historyand ideas of folk high schools as a defensive action of the position as an alternativeto traditional formal education.Concluding remarksThe idiosyncratic institutional logic that has evolved over time in folk high schoolshas contributed to legitimating their activities. Having developed around certain,predictable conditions regarding public funding, this logic has become challengedby other rationalities centred around economic efficiency. Since the leadership of thefolk high school is supposed to be able to adjust the supply of education according tofluctuations in demand, i.e. according to the market, new practices have been applied.In this case, when a logic formed by market principles has been imposed and coexistedwith another, in many ways contradictory logic, dilemmas and tensions have emerged.In a situation where the employment of colleagues is at risk, the whole staff can beunited in efforts to attract more students which often implies an acceptance of thenew practices. But when folk high schools deviate from their institutionally acceptedidentity, their legitimacy is at stake. Practices considered to contradict the existinginstitutional logic are in some cases met with resistance that can be interpreted as away to protect values in what is perceived as their traditional institutional identity.Caroline Runesdotter is a former folk high school teacher and is now a Senior Lecturer at the Departmentof Education and Special Education at the University of Gothenburg where she is involvedin teacher education. Her research interest encompasses different organisational and institutionalaspects of education system restructuring, especially the current process of marketisation and howit affects relations and working conditions in schools.668

Tensions in the meeting between institutional logics and identities in Swedish folk high schoolsReferencesArvidson, Lars (1988) Frihet till vad? En belysning av folkhögskolans förutsättningar och utvecklingi Lars Arvidson et al. Folkhögskolans pedagogiska miljö – några teoretiska aspekter påformella och informella bildningsprocesser. Rapport LiU-PEK-R-129. Linköping: LinköpingsUniversitet, Institutionen för pedagogik och psykologi.Berg, Per and Jonsson, Christer (1991) Strategisk ledning på politiska marknader: opinionsbildningoch intern förankring i förvaltningar och folkrörelser. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Bogärde, Bengt (1974) Svenska lärarföreningens lärarförening och staten 1902-1970: en studie iorganisationsinflytande. Statsvetenskapliga föreningen i Uppsala, skrift nr. 66. Uppsala: Rabénoch Sjögren.Brunsson, Nils and Sahlin-Andersson, Kerstin (2000) Constructing organizations: The example ofpublic sector reform. Organization Studies 2000 21(4), pp. 721–746.Czarniawska, Barbara and Wolff, Rolf (1998) Constructing new identities in established organizationfields: Young universities in old Europe. International Studies of Management & Organization,28(3): 32–56.DiMaggio, Paul and Powell, Walter (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional morphism andcollective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.DiMaggio, Paul and Powell, Walter (1991a) Introduction. In Paul DiMaggio & Walter Powell (eds.)New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.Friedland, Roger and Robert A. Alford (1991) Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices andinstitutional contradictions. In Paul DiMaggio & Walter Powell (eds.) New Institutionalism inOrganizational Analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Forssell, Anders and Jansson, David (1996) On the conversion of non-business organizations. InBarbara Czarniawska & Guje Sevón (eds.) Translating organizational change (pp. 93–115).Berlin: de Gruyter.Henning Loeb, Ingrid (2006) Utveckling och förändring i kommunal vuxenutbildning. Enyrkeslivhistorisk ingång med berättelser och lärarbanor. Göteborg: Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis.Government Bill 1990/91:82 Folkbildning. Regeringens propositionGovernment Bill 1995/96:222 Vissa åtgärder för att halvera arbetslösheten till år 2000, ändradeanslag för budgetåret 1995/96, finansering m.m. Regeringens proposition.Höghielm, Robert (1992) Folkhögskolans pedagogiska praxis. En studie av pedagogiska arbetsformerpå långa kurser. Stockholm: HLSLumsden Wass, Karin (2004) Vuxenutbildning i omvandling. Kunskapslyftet som ett sätt att organiseraförnyelse. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Löwkrantz, Bo och Fryksmark, Emma (2003) Särdrag kostar – en studie om folkhögskolornasekonomiska förhållanden. SOU 2003:125. Stockholm: FritzesMustel, Kerstin (2002) Från rektorsförening till fackförbund. Svenska folkhögskolans lärarförbund1902-2002. Stockholm: Svenska Folkhögskolans Lärarförbund.Mustel, Kerstin (2009) Omsättningen av rektorer på folkhögskola 2003-2009. Stockholm: SvenskaFolkhögskolans Lärarförbund.Riksrevisionsverket (1999) Folkbildning Styrning och kontroll. Effektivitetsrevisionen RRV1999:44, Stockholm: Riksrevisionsverket.Scott, W. Richard (2008) Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests. Thousand Oaks,Calif: Sage.669

Caroline RunesdotterSFS 1991:977 Förordning om statsbidrag till folkbildningen.Simon, Erica (1989) Nationell väckelse och folklig kultur i Skandinavien. Linköping: Universiteteti Linköping, Fortbildningsnämnden.SOU 1998:75 Värden i folkhgöskolevärlden. Stockholm: Fritzes offentliga publikationer.SOU 2003:125 Särdrag kostar – en studie om folkhögskolornas ekonomiska förhållanden. Stockholm:Fritzes offentliga publikationer.Paldanius, Sam and Alm, Charlotte (2009) Folkhögskoleanda och Folkhögskolemässiga handlingar.In B. Gustavsson; G. Andersdotter; L. Sjöman (eds.), Folkhögskolabs praktiker i förändring.pp. 79–118. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Runesdotter, Caroline (2010) I otakt med tiden? Folkhögskolorna i ett föränderligt fält. Göteborg:Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Runesdotter, Caroline (2009) Folkhögskolan och folkbildningsreformen 1991 i backspegeln. In B.Gustavsson; G. Andersdotter; L. Sjöman (eds.), Folkhögskolabs praktiker i förändring. pp.273–291. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Tengberg, Erik (1968) Folkhögskolans uppkomst i Svensk folkhögskola 100 år. Del 1. Uddevalla:Svenska Folkhögskolans Lärarförening och Bokförlaget Liber.Viklund, Rune (1995) Ombudsmannen har ordet. In Folkhögskolan 1995 nr 1.670

Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, pp.671–687EDU.INQ.Evaluation – the (not so) softlysoftlyapproach to governance andits consequences for compulsoryeducation in the Nordic countriesChristine Hudson*AbstractPublic sector reform involving decentralisation and marketisation has led to “soft” indirect formsof governance aimed at steering more fragmented systems. Although based on information andguidance rather than hierarchy and legislation, these new methods of regulating through evaluationand quality control may be as powerful as more direct control methods. Frequently embodyingpractices building on values concerning consumer choice and competition, they may challengevalues of equality and social justice associated with the Nordic model of education. Drawing on aqualitative analysis using documentary data concerning evaluation structures and techniques, thedevelopment of an evaluative culture and consequences for compulsory education in the Nordiccountries are examined. Although soft governance techniques of evaluation and control have impactedon compulsory education in all five countries, there are differences concerning the extent towhich the Nordic model’s values have been challenged. Further, there are signs of resistance andreluctance to abandon the model’s basic tenets.Keywords: evaluation, soft governance, self-regulation, calculative practices, Nordic model ofeducationIntroductionOver the past three decades, processes of public sector reform involving decentralisation,deregulation and marketisation have led to more dispersed and fragmentededucation systems with more autonomous schools and agencies, even in the previouslystrongly state-controlled Nordic countries (Antikainen 2006; Telhaug et al.2006). New forms of governance, adapted to arm’s-length steering, have emergedincorporating new management methods collectively known as New Public Management(Tolofari 2005). There has been a shift from norm-based management tomanagement by objectives (Antikainen 2010; Nusche et al., 2011) requiring, amongstother things, quality assurance and performance management through techniquesof audit and evaluation (Andersen et al. 2009; Simola et al. 2009; Segerholm 2009).These “soft” or more indirect forms of control involve new ways of regulating thatmay be as powerful as, or even more coercive than, traditional methods of direct*Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Sweden. E-mail: Chris.hudson@pol.umu.se©Author. ISSN 2000-4508, pp.671–687671

Christine Hudsoncontrol (Moos 2009). Frequently embodying practices and procedures that build oneconomic norms and market values concerning consumer choice, competition andself-interest (Tolofari 2005), they may challenge values and practices of equality,welfare, social justice and a strong state role characteristic of the Nordic model ofeducation (Antikainen 2010; Telhaug et al. 2006). Calculative practices associatedwith evaluation and quality control, such as those inherent in data-based systems ofinspection and performance management, can function as powerful mechanisms ofself-regulating performativity as well as central steering (Ozga 2009). They may serveto direct attention to what can be quantifiably measured (targets, indicators) and beused to improve efficiency, accountability and performance in terms of the logic ofthe market rather than promoting fairness and solidarity (Moos 2009).The focus in this paper is not on whether these developments have led to a retreatof the state in Nordic compulsory education, but on the implications of the evaluativetechniques of “soft” governance for the Nordic model. The aim is to provide anoverview of the development of institutions and techniques of evaluation in the fieldof compulsory education (i.e. primary and lower secondary education) in the Nordiccountries and to discuss their consequences for the Nordic model of education. Towhat extent have evaluative institutional frameworks and techniques and practicesof soft government been introduced in the different countries and in which ways arethey challenging the underlying values in the Nordic model of education?Methodologically, the paper utilises a qualitative analysis based primarily on publiclyaccessible documentary data concerning evaluation structures and techniques.These include official policy documents, statements and evaluation reports such asthe OECD reviews of Evaluation and Assessment for Denmark, Sweden and Norway 1 ;the information database Eurybase on European education systems; and the websitesof the education ministries and evaluation agencies in the respective countries. Thepaper is structured as follows: it begins with a discussion of the changing forms ofgovernance and the development of “soft” methods of steering related to evaluationand their implications for education. It then examines what has been happening in theNordic countries in terms of the introduction of: i) institutional frameworks fosteringan evaluative culture in education; and ii) techniques and practices of evaluation. Forreasons of space, the latter are limited to a number of developments that have had awide impact: self-evaluation, and national tests and web-based information portals.The consequences of these for the Nordic model of compulsory education are thenconsidered and, in the final section, some brief conclusions are presented.Changing governanceThe decentralisation, deregulation and marketisation of state institutions have beenseen as leading to the need for new ways of ensuring performance, quality and efficiencyin public services such as education (Newman 2005). In the transition fromgovernment to governance, the state has been altering its methods of steering to adjust672

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceto the problems of managing a more dispersed and fragmented system at arm’s length(Clarke 2004). There has been a tendency for hard governance in the form of legallybinding and more precisely defined laws to be replaced by soft forms of governance thatare persuasive and advisory (Abbott & Snidal 2000). Soft governance has been usedto refer to the methods of “steering” developed in global and EU governance in areaswhere organisations such as the OECD and the EU commission are not empoweredto use direct forms of control such as laws and regulations (Moos 2009). Applied inthe national context, soft governance is seen as leading the state to rely increasinglyon information and guidelines rather than on hierarchical imposition to steer localgovernment and local agencies (Brandsen et al. 2006).Initially, these new methods of governance were seen as marking the retreat ofthe state. However, this has been increasingly questioned (see Hudson 2007, 2010)and, rather than implying less state control, the devolution of authority, removal ofconstraints and awarding of managers and organisations such as schools with greaterfreedom constitute processes of re-regulation involving new forms of control, albeit“a much more ‘hands-off’, self-regulating regulation” (Ball 2003: 217) characteristicof NPM (Tolofari 2005). Indeed, Moos (2009) argues that “(h)ard law stands forregulations that influence people’s behaviour, while soft law/governance influencesthe way people perceive and think about themselves and their relationships with theoutside world. Soft governance therefore influences agents in much deeper ways”(Moos 2009:399).The search for new ways of steering in the de-centred state has, according to Clarke(2004), led to the emergence of the “performance-evaluation nexus” or evaluative state(Neave 1998) comprising a cluster of governance institutions and practices involvedin evaluating, auditing, inspecting and regulating. Rose (1999) drives this argumentfurther, suggesting that a culture of evaluation has developed that penetrates all levelsof society from the supranational to the local level and in which all aspects of socialbehaviour have been reconceptualised along economic lines – as calculative actions.The focus is shifted to the practices and procedures of governance and the ways inwhich these are shaping, guiding or affecting conduct and making some forms of activitythinkable and practicable (Newman 2005; Swyngedouw 2005). Technologies bothin the form of agency by which the individual is made responsible for her/his actionsand of performance involving benchmarking rules (Dean 2010) have appeared. Databasedsystems of inspection and performance management associated with evaluationand quality control, whilst couched in neutral terms as measuring tools providinginformation about “outputs” or “outcomes”, can constitute a means of centralisedsteering (Ozga 2009). Promoting marketised values of efficiency, effectiveness andperformativity, they can function as powerful mechanisms for dictating normalitythat are “deeply penetrating, consciousness-molding” (Grek et al. 2009b: 129).673

Christine HudsonSoft Governance and EducationAt the level of compulsory education (i.e. primary and lower secondary education),the decentring of the state (Clarke 2004) has often meant decentralisation to localgovernment, to the market and to schools themselves. However, this apparent extensionof local freedom has often gone hand-in-hand with requirements for systematicevaluation and documentation of performance with local government, schools andeven teachers and pupils being given responsibility for carrying out self-regulationand self-evaluation (Hudson 2010). The drive for improved quality in education hasbeen linked to the requirement for even better evaluation (Simola et al. 2002) sothat “(t)he idea that improving quality entails an evaluation of education systems isnow taken for granted”(Eurydice 2004:2). A focus has been placed on controlling theoutput side of education and quality control mechanisms have been implemented toimprove efficiency, accountability and performance in education (Ball 2003). Calculativepractices, framed in terms of measurable objectives providing the basis formonitoring and means of ensuring accountability, have been introduced (Grek et al.2009b). By directing attention to what can be (and is) measured, education policyrisks being moulded through data (Grek et al. 2009a). This emphasis on the quantifiablehas been seen as having negative consequences – reducing education quality toa technical language of evaluation (Simola et al. 2009; Segerholm 2009) expressedin terms of quantifiable indicators, results and standards – the “language” of globalbenchmarking (Grek et al. 2009a). This facilitates comparisons between schools notjust locally or nationally but also internationally, so that education is judged via aconstant, competitive comparison for improvement (Grek et al. 2009b).National governments now produce a plethora of soft-steering instruments –guidelines, models for evaluation; “best” or “good” practice, “tool-kits’, trainingcourses on how to evaluate and assess quality, advice on what level of quality shouldbe regarded as the professional standard (Brandsen et al. 2006), as well as educationconsultation services, “help” materials and information services. Processes ofcontinual monitoring and evaluation, seeking improvement and better performance,may however lead to a narrowing of the purposes and goals of education. Indeed, Ball(2003) argues that the need to recreate or re-make themselves in response to targets,indicators and evaluations is leading educational practitioners to produce “fabrications”of performance to create the most beneficial account in order to be accountable.In a worst case scenario, this could lead to the development of a regime of panopticperformativity (Perryman 2006) in which the “frequency of inspection and the senseof being perpetually under surveillance leads to teachers performing in ways dictatedby the discourse of inspection … Lessons are taught to a rigidly prescribed routine,school documentation and policies closely mirror the accepted discourses of schooleffectiveness and the whole school effort is directed away from education and towardspassing inspection” (Perryman 2006: 148).674

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceThe Emergence of the Evaluative State in the NordicCountries?What has been happening in the Nordics? These countries have been regarded asrepresenting a particular model of education that builds on specific Nordic valuesand practices of equality, welfare, social justice and with a strong state involvement(Antikainen 2006; Telhaug et al. 2006; Tjeldvoll 1998). These characteristics mightbe expected to temper the effects of marketisation, competition and individualisation.However, even the Nordic countries are subject to international conditions andinfluences (Antikainen 2006) and it is difficult for them to isolate themselves from the“Global Educational Reform Movement” involving a trans-national policy of testingand ranking (Simola et al. 2009). Processes of deregulation and decentralisation ofeducation to local government, to schools and even to the market have taken place inthe Nordic countries over the last 30 years (Hudson 2007, 2010). Public administrativereforms, collectively known as New Public Management (NPM), characterisedby marketisation, privatisation, managerialism, performance measurement and accountability(Tolofari 2005) have also been implemented.Norm-based management and central control of the input side of education characteristicof the Nordic model (Antikainen 2010) has been replaced by the managementby objectives and control of outputs inherent in NPM. Techniques of qualityassurance, performance management and the use of evaluative data in educationaldecision-making have been introduced (Nusche et al. 2011; Andersen et al. 2009;Segerholm 2009) that build on social technologies utilising the liberal core conceptof choice where the citizen-consumer is able to make comparisons between competitors(Moos 2009). In other words, new “soft” governance ways of managing moredispersed and fragmented systems at arm’s length have also appeared in the Nordiccountries. These are challenging some of the basic tenets of the Nordic educationmodel concerning equality and social justice (Simola et al. 2009), shifting the focus ineducation from “Democratic Bildung” to “back to basics” (Moos 2009; Solhaug 2011),and promoting a pedagogic ideology subjecting pupils to even higher expectationsand competitive levels of performance (Telhaug et al. 2006).The next section willconsider whether the modes of soft governance being introduced are contributingto the formation of an evaluative culture involving both institutions and techniquesof accountability and performativity in relation to compulsory education in the fiveNordic countries.Institutional Frameworks for EvaluationSweden has been a frontrunner, even in an international context. The idea of usingevaluation as a control instrument within primary and secondary education wasintroduced early, with an (unsuccessful) attempt in the mid-1980s to implement anevaluation system based on the idea of management by objectives and results (FossHansen 2009). Whilst lacking a separate evaluation agency, the Swedish National675

Christine HudsonAgency for Education (NAE), particularly since its reform in 2003, has been playingan increasingly important part in the monitoring and evaluation of schools. It is, forexample, charged with collecting educational statistics that can be used as comparativeindicators for schools. From 2004 onwards, schools have been obliged to use thecriteria drawn up by the NAE in their self-evaluations (Eurydice 2004: 80). Followingcontinued criticism of insufficient attainment of goals throughout the school system,the NAE was reformed yet again in 2008 and, as well as reaffirming its responsibilityfor following up and evaluating compulsory educa tion, it was given a role in ensuringquality assurance in school development. Inspection as a form of evaluation of schoolswas strengthened through the establish ment of a new separate government authority,the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen) “to respond to the needsof national evaluation, audit and accountability in a highly decentralised system ofgovernance with a high degree of local responsibility” (Eurydice 2009/10e: 215). Oncean inspection is completed, schools receive a very detailed and specific “to-do list”and inspectors usually return to check whether the required action has been taken,making it difficult for schools to ignore the feedback (Nusche et al. 2011). The newEducation Act, in effect from 1 July 2011, further enhances the supervisory power ofthe Swedish Schools Inspectorate by allowing it to impose fines and other sanctionson both public and private bodies responsible for schools (Rönnberg 2011).In Finland, evaluation has been statutory in all sectors of education since 1999,which is considered to have strengthened its importance as a tool for managingeducation (Eurydice 2009/2010b). Indeed, Finland has been characterised as the“Evaluative State” attempting to “practice education policy through governing byresults” (Simola et al. 2002: 253). A separate Council for Educational Evaluationwas established under the Ministry of Education and Culture in 2003 (Eurydice2009/2010b) to organise external evaluations of the operations and activities ofeducation providers and of educational policy and to publish the results. A NationalEvaluation Plan for external evaluations and assessments of learning outcomes andsetting priorities concerning the effectiveness, quality and efficiency of education isdrawn up at regular intervals by the Ministry of Education and Culture. However,in contrast to Sweden there are no national regulations or recommendations for theevaluation or inspection of individual schools, the education providers (the municipalities)are responsible for evaluating education and deciding about the approachto local evaluation (Simola et al. 2009).Iceland also has a well-developed evaluation system and has established a separateevaluation and supervision division in the Min istry of Education, Science and Culture.Increased decentralisation and schools’ greater responsibility for evaluating their ownactivities are seen as requiring the Ministry to monitor activities more closely thanbefore (Ministry of Education Science and Culture 2005). This function was reinforcedin the 2008 Education Acts and the Ministry is charged with responsibility for conductingcomprehensive external evaluation at all school levels (Eurydice 2009/2010c).676

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceDenmark, on the other hand, has been criticised for its lack of an evaluative culture.Poor results in PISA 2003 and the highly critical 2004 OECD review highlighted asubstandard evaluation culture. The absence of school self-evaluation and an inadequatesharing of good practice were indicated as serious weaknesses in the Danishschool system (Eurydice 2009/10a). These findings were seen as challenging the traditionaltrust in schools and municipalities to manage themselves (speech by JørgenBalling Rasmussen, Chief Adviser at the Danish Ministry of Education) 2 and demandswere raised for a new, stronger culture of evaluation with attainment targets and amandatory national assessment system. The Evaluation Institute (EVA) was set upin 1999 to be responsible for the systematic and mandatory evaluation of teachingand learning at all levels of education (Eurydice 2009/10a) and to help bring abouta shift in focus from inputs to outputs (Shewbridge et al. 2011). It was supplementedin 2006 by the Agency for the Evaluation and Quality Development of Primary andLower Secondary Education, under the Ministry of Education (Eurydice 2009/10a).This new agency was given specific responsibility for improving the evaluation culturein Danish schools; contributing to the docu mentation and analysis of schoolresults; disseminating best practice; and for overseeing the municipalities’ qualityassurance of public schools (Hudson 2010). According to Rambøll (2011), it can beseen as “institutional evidence of the increased focus on evaluation and assessmentin the Danish school system” (Rambøll 2011: 11). The creation of a separate Qualityand Supervision Agency from 1 March 2011 would appear likely to further strengthenthe quality control function (Danish Ministry of Education 2011). 3 Thus, a culture isemerging in Denmark in which evaluations are explicitly considered to have a controlfunction informing stakeholders about the quality of education (Eurydice 2009/10a).Nevertheless, the recent OECD review (Shrewbridge et al. 2011) considers that, despiteconsiderable efforts to stimulate an evaluation culture, competency in this field is stillvery limited and a coherent framework for evaluation and assessment is still lackingin the compulsory education system (Ramboll 2011).In Norway, critical OECD reports concerning its evaluation system spurred onthe development of the National Quality Assessment System (NKVS) with nationaltests, a web-based portal (Skoleporten) for publishing results and other data, and usersurveys concerning learning and well-being (Norwegian Directorate for Education &Training 2011). The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Train ing (DET), set upin 2004, has the overall responsibility for developing, organising and imple mentingNKVS. It is charged with ensuring that there are suitable and adequate quality assurancesystems to assess and follow-up on school performance and frequent evaluations(Eurydice 2009/2010d). Schools are required to provide information on a number ofquality areas which are then used for follow-up and improvement. Central inspectionand guidance functions have been strengthened following the change of governmentin 2005 (Norwegian Directorate for Education & Training 2011). Further, the DET isresponsible for all national statistics concerning primary and secondary educa tion,677

Christine Hudsonmaking these public and for using them to continuously assess the status of Norwegianeducation. However, despite these efforts the evaluation culture in Norway is stillconsidered to be poor at both the system and individual levels (Norwegian Directoratefor Education & Training 2011).Calculative practices in the Nordic countries?National Tests and Web-Based PortalsSweden was a forerunner in introducing national tests. However, the way in whichtesting is used changed as a result of the educational reforms in the 1990s. Followingthe decentralisation of education to local government and the transition from a regulatedschool system to results-based management, tests began to be used to monitorthe education system as a whole. Whilst “league tables” of schools are not producedin Sweden, the use of tests for monitoring and accountability (and hence control) hasbeen seen as introducing a different and conflicting purpose into the system, one thatcompounds questions about validity, reliability and equity in assessment (Björklund etal. 2004). In the past, testing tended to play a compara tively minor role, mainly helpingteachers to ensure equitable and consistent marking. However, given greater parentalchoice, the growth of competition between schools and increased public dis trust inteachers, Söderberg et al. (2004) suggest that assessments designed for summing upstudent achievement have become a means for checking up on schools and teachers.Nevertheless, a survey carried out by the NAE in 2004 shows resistance on the part ofSwedish teachers to adapt teaching to take account of the content of tests (Audiovisualand Culture Executive Agency 2009), i.e. a reluctance to “teach to the test”.The online information system SIRIS, developed by NAE and in operation since2001, contains information (much of it at the individual school level) on results andquality. The focus on the need for improved account ability in education figures clearlyin SIRIS’ aims, which include “to make it easier for schools and municipalities to seewhat can be improved by examining their own performance and comparing themselveswith others” (SIRIS 2011) 4 and to encourage debate, locally and nationally, on how tobetter achieve the goals set for education. It allows teachers, parents, school leadersand other stakeholders to see not only the school’s current performance but also itsimprovement (or failure) over time and its performance compared with municipaland national averages (Nusche et al. 2011).Further, even when the results are usedonly to identify areas for improvement, teachers may work to find ways of “laundering”their figures to avoid the public stigma of poor results. Indeed, Henning-Loeb &Lumsden-Wass (2011) illustrate, in the context of a Swedish school, how the need touse a certain “vocabulary” in evaluating pedagogical activities (in order to be “successful”)led the teachers to present themselves and their setting in a performativeway. Thus, according to Segerholm (2009), there is a risk that values such as equalityand democracy that have long been important in Swedish education are being pushedback in favour of easily tested competencies.678

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceIceland also introduced national testing early. Initially these were purely for pupilassessment, but have in recent years also been used in monitoring the education systemand for comparing schools. Iceland has had since 1993 an independent institute,the Edu cational Testing Institute, responsible for the development, implemen tationand grading of national tests and for making results public (Eurydice 2009/10c).Although they are not used as “aggressively” as in Sweden, national tests neverthelessrepresent a means of centralised control that can be used to assess and comparehow well schools are meeting national goals. Indeed, the new Education Acts in 2008put more weight on quality assurance, emphasising schools’ (and municipalities’)accountability to their pupils, parents and society, and requiring schools to developtheir internal quality processes and provide information about their activities andresults (Eurydice 2009/10c). However, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture ExecutiveAgency (2009) points out that, in Iceland, improving the quality of educationhas been closely coupled to efforts to promote the development of a self-evaluationculture. National tests were introduced to function as a “mirror” to enable schoolsand teachers to improve their performance on their own initiative. It thus arguesthat tests have been used “mainly to support the learning of individual pupils byidentifying their needs and adapting teaching accordingly” (Audiovisual and CultureExecutive Agency 2009: 20). This seems to be reinforced by the abolition in2009 of the use of national tests to stream pupils for academic or vocational uppersecondary education.In Norway, national tests have a more recent origin and form an important part ofthe National Quality Assessment System (NKVS) set up in 2004. They are intendedto clarify the school’s responsibilities (Eurybase 2009/2010d). However, there hasbeen conflict over their introduction and a major criticism has been that they can bean instrument for controlling schools and teachers. There are fears that the publicationof test results is leading to schools being ranked and thus to greater pressureon individual teachers. Following a change of government in 2005, a time-out wascalled during which extensive changes were made to the system. National guidelineswere developed to define and delimit what should be tested; the implementation ofthe tests, the requirements for reliability/validity and the presentation and reportingof results and how they could be used when working with students in the classroom(Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2011). A special website Skoleporten(the School Portal) was created in 2004 where test results are published andwhich contains various data concerning primary and secondary schools. Followingheated debates concerning the publication of results from the quality assessmentsystem, Skoleporten has undergone a number of revisions and now comprises anopen portal available to all and a closed portal accessible only to specific groups suchas school leaders, county governors and national education authorities. According tothe Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training (2011), the website is intendedto be a resource for schools and municipalities in relation to the systematic evaluation679

Christine Hudsonand development of education and contribute to quality assessment and develop mentwithin schools by providing “access to relevant information and practical aids usefulfor systematic, local self-evaluation” (Eurydice 2009/10d: 154). However, although itis targeted mainly at head teachers, school administrators and politicians, it is availablevia the open portal to parents, pupils and the public in general and thus offerspotential as a means of “soft” regulation of school performance. Indeed, Solhaug (2011)argues that it can “serve as a marketplace for ‘school shopping’, where the test resultsmight function as a ‘price’ or ‘value system’ for students and parents when choosinga school” (Solhaug 2011: 274).Denmark was also a late introducer of national tests (2007) and these were againthe subject of controversy. Introduced with the explicit aim of enhancing the evaluationculture in Danish schools (Eurybase 2009/2010a), according to the DanishMinistry of Education they are a means of monitoring the quality of the educationsystem and a pedagogical tool for teachers in planning their teaching. However, thetests have been heavily criticised for, amongst other things, leading to the subjectscovered by the national tests (particularly Danish and mathematics) being accordedgreater importance to the detriment of subjects such as history, biology and geographyand resulting in, for instance, schools giving greater priority to the continuingprofessional development of those teaching these subjects (Education, Audiovisualand Culture Executive Agency 2009). Following the collapse of the technical computerisedsupport structure for the national tests (Andersen et al. 2009), a time-out wascalled with reintroduction of the tests planned in 2011. There is a strong emphasis inDenmark on making information from tests readily available to parents and pupilsand, by providing improved access to comparable information on education andschools, enabling individuals to make informed choices. At present, the Folkeskole Actforbids the use of results of the national tests for benchmarking purposes. However,this seems likely to change as the current government has stated that the test resultswill be made public in the future (Regering 2010).Danish schools are required to have a website containing detailed informationabout their educational provision, publish grade averages for individual subjects andlevels together with other relevant information for assessing the quality of teachingprovided. A special website – the national evaluation portal (evaluering.uvm.dk)– has been set up, directed not only towards teachers but also pupils, parents andcommunities to act as a knowledge base for evaluation in schools, providing information,inspiration, good practice and tools for evaluation. The intention is to enableschools to compare themselves with each other, learn from the experience of others,and in this way promote the spread of good practice (Eurydice 2009/10a). The websiteprovides information about “how the evaluation culture can be promoted in schools”and provides links to relevant laws, regulations and reports (Evaluation Portal 2011) 5In addition to general guidance on evaluation, it provides information for teacherson no less than 27 evaluation tools!680

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceFinland has dragged its feet when it comes to introducing standardised testing andevalu ation. Tests are used for diagnosis and improvement (and never for “naming andshaming”). There has been considerable discussion and strong pressure from the mediaabout whether to publish school rankings, “but the national consensus in the ensuingdebate was against publicising test results” (Education, Audiovisual and Culture ExecutiveAgency 2009: 55). Finland has, as Simola et al. (2009) point out, a long and strongtradition of good and detailed statistics in the field of education and a national testbank has been created so it is possible to check levels of skill and knowledge in schoolsubjects. “Obligatory national testing has, however, never been applied in the Finnishcomprehensive” (Rinne et al. 2002: 650). Indeed, according to Aho et al. (2006), Finlandhas not followed the Anglo-Saxon accountability trend, but has instead developed theidea of flexible accountability in which the focus is on deep learning and not on testing.They argue that a culture of trust has developed in the Finnish education system whichmeans that “the Ministry of Education and the National Board of Education, believesthat teachers together with principals, parents, and their communities know how toprovide the best possible education for their children”(Aho et al. 2006: 138). As Rinneet al. (2002) point out, the new means of control and assessment are not as burdensomeor as strict as in many other countries. However, even in Finland measures are beingtaken that strengthen central influence. The Better Basic Education (POP) Programme2007– 2011, for example, defines national quality criteria that “offer a useful tool forlocal policy-makers for evaluating shorter and longer-term effects of their decisions onschool quality” (Lankinen 2010). Indeed, the Association of Finnish Local and RegionalAuthorities challenges the view that evaluation is only used for development arguingthat “it is a tool of municipal management and control” (Simola et al. 2009: 171).Self-EvaluationIn Sweden, following criticism of the extent to which education goals were beingmet, annual School Quality Reports were introduced in 1997 as a way of monitoringprogress. Schools were required to carry out an internal audit and assessment oftheir performance in relation to the national education objectives. Teachers, otherstaff and even pupils and parents participated in drawing up these quality reports.They were publicly available and had to assess the extent to which the goals set upby the state were being achieved and make proposals for necessary changes if thesewere not being met. However, the limited use and impact of these reports has led totheir abandonment and new provisions on systematic quality enhancement procedures(that are to be documented) are currently being developed. The municipalityor organisation responsible for the schools still has, however, to systematically andcontinuously plan, monitor and develop its educational services in accordance withthe national objectives for education (Eurybase 2009/10e).Swedish schools are “encouraged” to use the national tests as a guide and selfevaluationsare to contain common and comparable measures of, for example, the681

Christine Hudsonnational test results. The NAE aims at systematically strengthening quality assurancein education and is developing standardised measures for assessing results. It publishesgeneral advice and comments on how schools should present quality standardsand improvements in their written reports as well as “encouraging” schools to utiliseevaluative tools. It operates, for example, a school self-assessment tool “Assessment,Reflection, Evaluation and Quality” (BRUK). This is an online questionnaire, availablethrough NAE’s website, which allows schools to identify their strengths andweaknesses in relation to curriculum-driven activities (Swedish National Agency forEducation 2011) 6 . Nevertheless, in its recent review of Sweden, the OECD judged,based on stakeholder feedback, that teachers had a sense of ownership over the schoolself-evaluation and that there was a democratic dialogue over the meaning of qualityin education (Nusche et al. 2011).In Norway, schools are also obliged to undertake self-evaluations of how far theorganisation and implementation of their activities are in line with the national objectivesfor education (Eurydice 2009/2010d). Whilst there is no fixed format, nationaltools have been developed for schools to use in their assessments. These include anorganisational analysis (used to analyse the school as a knowledge workplace) anda local point-of-view analysis (used to make an assessment of the school’s teachingpractice and the pupils’ learning environment). These are available on the Directoratefor Education and Training’s website as well as “guidance” material to “help” schoolsuse these tools correctly (Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training 2011).In Denmark, the requirement for schools’ systematic self-evaluation and followupis considered to be a central principle in the Danish approach to quality (Eurybase2009/2010a) and a model has been developed and is set out in the DanishEvaluation Institute’s publication A Key to Change: School Improvement throughSelf-evaluation. This is intended to guide the school through the evaluation processand make clear the types of issues that need to be tackled (Leth Nielsen and MunchThorsen 2003). As Andersen et al. (2009) point out, this is a rather questionable“self-evaluation” as the school does not set its own agenda, but has instead to reportits “view on a list of items sent in print to the school from the Evaluation Institute.It is not evident whether the term “self-evaluation” is an appropriate term for thispractice” (Andersen et al. 2009:139). Another example is the binding nationalCommon Objectives introduced in 2003, and further strengthened in 2006, thatprovide the overall framework for the content of teaching. The Folkeskole Act explicitlystates that the continuous evaluation of student learning outcomes mustinvolve these objectives. Obligatory municipal quality reports were introduced in2007 which can again be seen as a method of central steering as the majority ofthe content of the report is prescribed by national regulation. Input, process andresult indicators are specified in detail and, although the data are provided by themunicipalities and schools, the legislation specifically prescribes what should beproduced (Shewbridge et al. 2011).682

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceIn Iceland, schools are also required by law to carry out self-evaluations and the IcelandicMinistry of Education, Science and Culture has responsibility for investigatingthe self-evaluation methods used by the schools (Ministry of Education, Science andCulture 2005). To this end, it has published the booklet Sjálfsmat skóla [Schools’ Self-Evaluation]. This lists criteria for self-evaluation, suggestions for imple mentation,and a checklist and guidelines for writing the final report (Eurydice 2009/2010c).Further, the results from the national tests are used as recommendations that shouldbe taken into account in the schools’ self-evaluations (Education, Audiovisual andCulture Executive Agency 2009).Finland once again deviates somewhat here in that, although schools and othereducation pro viders have a statutory duty to evaluate their own activities followingnational guidelines (Eurydice 2009/2010b), it is up to local government to informnational government of the findings – if it chooses (Hudson 2010).ConclusionsSoft governance though evaluation is prevalent in all the Nordic countries. An evaluationculture has emerged with institutional frameworks in terms of special organisations/agenciesfor evaluation and appraisal purposes, and techniques of evaluationand quality control. The emphasis has moved from controlling inputs to regulatingoutputs. An array of quality management and evaluation instruments have been producedwhich can be used to provide guidance to municipalities, schools and teachers;and as a way for the state to measure the quality of results in primary and secondaryeducation, obtain information on the extent to which educational goals are being metand to ensure compliance with them. Accordingly, strong government remains withinsoft governance in the Nordic countries – albeit in more subtle forms.With the exception of Finland, obligatory national tests are used as part of theprocess of evaluating schools. Standardised testing is not new, but was previouslymainly used for diagnosis and to support fairness and consistency in teachers’ marking.Now these tests are employed as national outcome measures, with the increasedavailability of information con cerning test results providing opportunities for makingcom parisons between schools and municipalities and increasing competition betweenschools and between pupils. Greater interest on the part of the media, municipalitiesand the general public for school results has “encouraged” increased generation ofstatistics and information portals and online systems have been developed that facilitatethe spread and comparison of data. Thus, despite the lack of league tables in theNordics it is, never theless, possible to compare schools’ performances. This enablesnot only the state to regulate and monitor the “output” of schools, but it also opensup for parents to compare schools and exercise choice (i.e. it is stimulating marketvalues concerning consumer mentality and freedom of choice).All five countries have also introduced self-evaluations for municipalities andschools, often including both pupils and parents in these processes. Whilst this im-683

Christine Hudsonplies a decentral isation of responsibility, it also opens up potential for central steeringeither directly through the provision of specific guidelines or an evaluation “model” or,more subtly, through training courses and materials and information disseminating“best practice”. The quality assurance and evaluation initiatives involving goal-setting,mandatory tests and reporting mechanisms and employing calculative practices builton economic norms and market values have consequences for the Nordic model ofcompulsory education often challenging fundamental values concerning equality, socialjustice and solidarity. Although not reaching the level of panoptic performativity,these practices and procedures have a “guiding” effect on conduct making some formsof activity thinkable and practicable and others not. They are tending to foster newstrategies and methods to achieve new ends in education concerned with standards,quality, competition and comparison (both national and international).However, even if the focal point of education policy has been shifted towards alogic of the market involving pricing, competition, consumer choice, managerialismand performativity, there are differences between the countries in how far this is affectingthe underlying values and practices of the Nordic model. “The ‘new’ is alwaysentangled with and re-articulated through the ‘old’” (Simola et al. 2009:164) and thuseach country responds in its own ways to the new international discourses. There aresigns of resistance and reluctance to abandon the basic tenets of Nordic educationin all five countries. Finland seems to have resisted the strongest and developed anevaluative culture that builds on flexible accountability focusing on deep learning andnot testing. Both Denmark and Norway were slow starters in terms of developing anevaluative culture and there continue to be struggles over the use of evaluative techniquesbased on market values. Although Finland has dragged its heels the hardest,the introduction of national tests, for instance, led to fierce debate in all the Nordiccountries. Even in Sweden which has, in many ways, been the front-runner, there hasbeen resistance on the part of educationalists and a reluctance, for example, to narrowteaching “to teaching to the test”; and Iceland has abandoned the use of national testsfor streaming purposes. Thus, there is not a unified single Nordic or even nationalresponse to quality assurance and evaluation; instead, there are dynamic processesof ongoing tensions and struggles, acceptances and rejections within each countryboth around and within quality assurance and evaluation initiatives.Christine Hudson is associate professor at the Department of Political Science, Umeå University,Sweden. Her main interest lies in the governance of education particularly from a comparativeperspective. She has published several articles and book chapters in this field.684

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceReferencesAbbott, K. & Snidal, D. (2000) Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organization,54(3), 421–456.Aho, E., Pitkänen, K. and Sahlberg, P. (2006) Policy Development and Reform Principles of Basicand Secondary Education in Finland since 1968, Washington, DC: The World Bank, EducationWorking paper series, No. 2.Andersen, V. N., Dahler-Larsen, P., & Strømbæk P., Carsten (2009) Quality assurance and evaluationin Denmark. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2): 135–147.Antikainen, A. (2006) In search of the Nordic model in education. Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearch 50(3), 229–243.Antikainen, A. (2010) The capitalist state and education: The case of restructuring the Nordic,Current Sociology, 58(4): 530–550.Ball, S. (2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy,18(2): 215–228.Björklund, A., Edin, P.-A., Fredriksson, P. and Krueger, A. (2004) Education, Equality, and Efficiency– An Analysis of Swedish School Reforms during the 1990s, IFAU – Education, Equality,and Efficiency Report.Brandsen, T., Boogers, M. & Tops P. (2006) Soft governance, hard consequences: The ambiguousstatus of unofficial guidelines. Public Administration Review, 66(4): 546–553.Clarke, J. (2004) Changing Welfare, Changing States. London: Sage.Dean, M. (2010) Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage. 2 nd EditionEducation, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (2009) National Testing of Pupils in Europe:Objectives, Organization and Use of Results, Eurydice, Brussels.Eurydice (2004) Evaluation of Schools Providing Compulsory Education in Europe, Eurydice,Directorate-General for Education and Culture, European Commission: Brussels.Eurydice (2009/10a) Organisation of the education system in Denmark http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.phpEurydice (2009/10b) Organisation of the education system in Finland http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.phpEurydice (2009/10c) Organisation of the education system in Iceland http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.phpEurydice (2009/10d) Organisation of the education system in Norway http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.phpEurydice (2009/10e) Organisation of the education system in Sweden http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/index_en.phpFoss Hansen, H., (2009) Educational evaluation in Scandinavian countries: Converging or divergingpractices? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(1): 71–87.Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B., Ozga, J., Rinne, R., Segerholm, C., Simola, H. (2009a) Nationalpolicy brokering & the construction of the European Education Space in England, Sweden,Finland & Scotland. Comparative Education, 45(1): 5–21.Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B. & Varjo, J. (2009b) North by northwest: Quality assurance & evaluationprocesses in European education. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2): 121–133.Henning Loeb, I. and Lumsden Wass, K. (2011) Internal marketization and teachers defendingtheir educational setting. Accounting and mobilization in Swedish upper secondary education.Education Inquiry 2(4) (this issue).685

Christine HudsonHudson, C. (2007) Governing the governance of education – the state strikes back? EuropeanEducational Research Journal, 6(3): 266–282.Hudson, C. (2010) Transforming the educative state in the Nordic countries? In Jakobi, A. P.,Martens, K. & Wolf, K. D. (eds.) Education in Political Science Discovering a Neglected Field,London & New York: Routledge.Lankinen, T. (2010) Case studt/Finland presented at Building Blocks for Education: Whole SystemReform conference 13-14 September, Toronto, Canada.Leth Nielsen, K. & Munch Thorsen, K. (2003) Development of Methods of Self-Evaluation in theDanish School Sector, ICSEI Australia.Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2005) The Ministry of Education, Science and Culturein Iceland, Reykjavík: Min istry of Education, Science and Culture.Moos, L. (2009) Hard and soft governance: The journey from transnational agencies to schoolleadership. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3): 397–406.Neave, G. (1998) The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education 33(3): 265–84.Newman, J. (2005) Introduction. In Newman, J (ed.) Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politicsand the Public Sphere. Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 1–15.Norwegian Directorate for Education & Training (2011) OECD Review on Evaluation and AssessmentFrameworks for Improving School Outcomes Country Background, Report for Norway.Nusche, D., G. Halász, J. Looney, P. Santiago & C. Shewbridge (2011) OECD Review of Evaluationand Assessment in Education Sweden, OECD.OECD (2002) Education at a Glance, Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Ozga, J. (2009) Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation.Journal of Education Policy, 24(2): 149–162.Perryman, J. (2006) Panoptic performativity & school disciplinary regimes. Journal of EducationPolicy, 21(2): 147–161.Rambøll (2011) Country Background Report for Denmark, for OECD Review on Evaluation andAssessment Frameworks for Improving School Outcomes, Ramboll management, Aarhus,Denmark.Regeringen (2010): Danmark 2020 Viden > vækst > velstand > velfærd, København:StatsministerietRinne, R., Kivirauma, J. and Simola, H. (2002) Shoots of revisionist education policy or just slowreadjustment? The Finnish case of educational reconstruction, Journal of Education Policy,17(6): 643–658.Rose, N. (1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Rönnberg, L. (2011) Exploring the intersection of marketisation and central state control throughSwedish national school inspection. Education Inquiry, 2 (4), 695-713.Segerholm, C. (2009) “We are doing well on QAE”: The case of Sweden. Journal of EducationPolicy, 24(2): 195–209.Shewbridge, C., Jang, E., Matthews, P. & Santiago, P. (2011) OECD Reviews of Evaluation andAssessment in Education, Denmark, OECD.Simola, H., Rinne, R. & Kivirauma, J. (2002) Abdication of the education state or just shiftingresponsibilities? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 247–264.686

Evaluation – the (not so) softly-softly approach to governanceSimola, H. et al. (2009) Quality assurance and evaluation (QAE) in Finnish compulsory schooling:A national model or just unintended effects of radical decentralisation? Journal of EducationPolicy, 24(2): 163–178.Solhaug, T. (2011) New public management in educational reform in Norway. Policy Futures inEducation, 9(2): 267–279.Swyngedouw, E. (2005) Governance innovation and the citizen: The Janus face of governancebeyond-the-state.Urban Studies, 42(11) 1991–2006.Söderberg, S., Wirén, E. and Ramstedt, K. (2004) The Role of Evaluation, Assessment and Inspectionin Swedish Educational Policy, Berlin: Sixth Conference of the Euro pean EvaluationSociety (EES) “Governance, Democracy and Evaluation”, 30 Septem ber–2 October.Telhaug, A., Oftedal, M., Odd, A. and Aasen, P. (2006) The Nordic model in education: Educationas part of the political system in the last 50 years, Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearch, 50(3): 245–283.Tjeldvoll, A. (ed.) (1998) Education and the Scandinavian Welfare State in the Year 2000: Equality,Policy, and Reform, New York: Garland.Tolofari, S. (2005) New public management and education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1):75–89.Endnotes1Iceland and Finland did not participate in this review.2Presentation at 3rd Seminar on Educational Evaluation, Barcelona, 20063http://www.uvm.dk/Aktuelt/Aktuelt/Aktuelt/2011/Feb/110224%20Faa%20overblik%20over%20Undervisningsministeriets%20nye%20struktur.aspx. 25/2/2011.4http://siris.skolverket.se/portal/page?_pageid=33,90158&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL21/2/20115http://evaluering.uvm.dk/templates/laerereOgLedere_layout.jsf 25/2/20116http://www.skolverket.se/bruk 26/2/2011687

688

Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, pp.689–707EDU.INQ.Exploring the Intersection ofMarketisation and Central StateControl through Swedish NationalSchool InspectionLinda Rönnberg*AbstractThis article focuses on the role of the state in the context of an increasing market orientation in Swedisheducation policy. It asks if and how a market orientation and privatisation can be reconciled withattempts to re-establish central output control. The controlling function of the state is emphasised inthe form of efforts to inspect both public and private schools. Drawing on the literature on governance,dealing with the “hollowing-out” and “filling-in” of the state, two scenarios are distinguishedasserting that a market orientation in the case of education policy could either reduce or intensifythe need for state-led control. It is concluded that the characteristics of Swedish education policyconform to the “filling-in” line of argument, namely that central state control is strengthened at apoint in time when a market orientation and greater choice and privatisation are gaining ground.Keywords: marketisation, governance, inspection, Sweden, education policyIntroductionThe peculiarity of the Swedish school choice design is that, on the one hand, it is utterlyderegulated with universal vouchers and encouragement to competition. On the other handit has firmly remained under the central and local governments’ wings through (…) financialresources, (…) national curriculum, the central inspection authority (Bunar, 2010: 13).The social, economic and political challenges of recent decades have put the nationstateunder extreme pressure to respond to the resulting transformations and demands,not only at the international and national level but also at the local level. Neo-liberalinfluences entailing choice, accountability, efficiency, privatisation, marketisationand ideas of new public management have all set their mark on domestic politics andpolicy. Notably, the field of education is no exception. This is clearly evidenced inSweden. In the early 1990s, a series of educational reforms were introduced. Amongother things, striking changes were made to the educational policy in Sweden thatultimately broke the “state monopoly” on education. This resulted in greater schoolchoice and allowed for the private ownership of schools, albeit tax funded through*Department of Political Science, Umeå University, Sweden. E-mail: Linda.Ronnberg@pol.umu.se©Author. ISSN 2000-4508, pp.689–707689

Linda Rönnberga voucher system, and since then there has been a rapid expansion of independentschools in Sweden.Overall, the introduction of a range of market mechanisms and the subsequentemergence of an educational quasi-market can be viewed as one of the most importantchanges in Swedish education during the last few decades (Lundahl, 2007). Even froman international perspective, the Swedish education system is viewed as being extensivelyeffected by marketisation. For example, it allows school owners to withdraw profitfrom the still publicly-financed independent schools. The choice reforms of the 1990s“transformed the Swedish school system from a virtually all-public, bureaucraticallyoperated system with very little room for parental choice, to one of the world’s mostliberal public education systems” (Blomqvist, 2004: 148). Indeed, this Swedish “model”seems to be travelling to other countries and systems. This was apparent during theBritish national elections in 2010 when the Swedish model of independent schools wasstrongly advocated by the Conservative Party (Wiborg, 2010; Allen, 2010).A strict comprehension of the “market” is often not applicable when it comesto describing the provision of welfare services, especially since such services oftenremain publicly funded through taxes. Instead, the term “quasi-market” is probablybetter suited to describe what we are witnessing when the logic of the market entersthe public sphere. Through mechanisms such as consumer choice and competitionbetween different welfare providers, the public sector is increasingly orienting itselftowards the functions of a “market” or, more correctly, a more market-like situation(Lubienski, 2009, c.f. Montin, 2006). Privatisation is often used to denote the processof transferring ownership from the state or state institutions to private actors (Lundqvist2010). In the case of education, the distribution of the ownership of independentschools has changed during the last decades. In the 1990s, foundations and othernon-profit organisations were the most common own ership forms of independentschools. However, today the share of independent schools run by profit-making corporationshas rapidly increased (Lundahl, 2011). In addition, privatisation can also beconceptualised in light of the increasingly complex involvement of private providersin education policy, “through advice, consultation, evaluation, philanthropy, partnerships,representation, programme delivery and other outsourcing” (Ball, 2009: 96).Taken as a whole, these developments have opened the way for new actors to takepart in both educational policy-making and in the provision of educational services,and this has created complex networks and interactions blurring traditional privatepublicdistinctions (Ball, 2008; 2007; Pierre & Peters, 2000). As the number of actorsmultiplies and the rules of the game change, the stakeholders’ roles are affected indifferent ways and this means that these roles must be renegotiated. The more longtermeffects on education policy and practice, including classroom effects, largelyremain to be seen.Research on marketisation in Swedish education was relatively scarce during theprevious decade (Nilsson, 2002), but now there appears to be increasing academic690

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Controlinterest in these issues (c.f. Daun, 2006; Lindbom 2010; 2007; Bunar, 2010; 2008;Lund, 2008; Fredriksson, 2010; 2009; Johnson & Lindgren, 2010; Nyhlén, 2011;Lundahl, 2011; Erixon Arreman & Holm, 2011; Lundström & Holm 2011; also seethis issue of Education Inquiry). However, even with this growing interest, researchhas neither primarily nor explicitly targeted the role of the state in these transformations.Instead, it has tended to focus on important topics relating to the origins andeffects of market-oriented reforms in education on teachers, parents, students etc.Thus, the state as an actor central in both affecting and being affected by these contemporarytransformations remains largely under-researched in the Swedish case.As “privatisation and the state need to be thought together” (Ball, 2009), there is aneed to elaborate further on these issues within the Swedish education policy setting.Aim and outlineThis article focuses on the role of the state in the context of an increasingly marketorientededucation policy sector. In order to explore these issues, some thoughts fromthe governance literature on the role of the state are discussed by using the Swedisheducation policy as a point of departure. In particular, the state’s controlling functionis emphasised and discussed with reference to the efforts to inspect both public andprivate schools. The empirical material includes official government publicationsand policy texts, as well as secondary sources and scholarly literature. The selectionof texts has been guided by – and later read in relation to – the aim of the study byperforming a qualitative content analysis (c.f. Bergström & Boréus, 2005).In the following section, some arguments from the governance literature are outlined,placing the issue discussed in a theoretical context. Next, some of the maineducation policy developments are briefly illustrated, including the state’s utilisationof school inspection as a means of governing education. Finally, the concluding sectionfocusing on the role of the state in an increasingly marketised education systemin which choice and competition have been actively endorsed while, at the same time,some core education policy levers remain in the hands of the central state.Governance: “hollowing-out” and “filling-in”On a general note, it is often argued that the processes of globalisation, deregulationand privatisation weaken the nation-state’s ability to govern. The shift from governmentto governance, emphasising the role of networks and interactions between themultiple public and private actors involved in policy-making, has been used to graspsome of the changes the state is undergoing (Peters & Pierre, 2001; Pierre & Peters,2005; 2000).The forces and developments mentioned above have indeed affected the state,contributing, some scholars argue, to the state being hollowed-out since the state nolonger exercises the same authority and control as it previously did. However, othershave questioned the “governing without government thesis” (Davies, 2002) and the691

Linda Rönnberghollowing-out of the state (Bell et al., 2010; Bell & Hindmoor, 2009). It appears that,by having taken part in the very processes of change that are challenging it, in somecases the state has even increased its capacity for central steering (Goodwin & Grix,2011; c.f. Pierre & Peters, 2000). As such, the state is still “a critical player” (Davies,2002). One way of conceptualising these tensions is to claim that simultaneous forcesmay be at play, resulting in both the hollowing-out and filling-in of the state.According to Cope et al. (1997) this can be pictured in two, oversimplified, scenarios:The hollowed-out state has a severely reduced governing capacity. Processesof decentralisation push policy-making authority downwards in the system, privatisationoutwards and increased Europeanisation upwards (see Figure 1 below). On theother hand, the filling-in state is strengthening its capacity inwards by processes ofcentralisation, i.e., transferring authority and responsibilities back to the centre (seeCope et al., 1997, 448; Bell et al., 2010, for a discussion of a society-centred perspectiveversus a state-centric relational approach). Further, the centre is increasinglyemploying other policy instruments to give effect to public policy (Jordan et al.,2005). As a result, the “iron fist may now be clothed in a velvet glove” (Hudson &Rönnberg, 2007: 17), as instruments connected to output control become more andmore important (c.f. Ozga et al., 2011).Hollowing-outEuropeanisationPrivatisationThe StateFilling-inby processes ofcentralisationDecentralisationFigure 1. Processes of Hollowing-out and Filling-in of the StateThe controlling role of the state in an increasingly market-orientedpolicy sectorDrawing on these lines of reasoning, we may on one hand anticipate that an increasedmarket orientation would reduce the importance of and functions of the state as acontrolling entity, given that authority and decision-making are transferred fromthe state to private actors. Combined with other transformations such as Europeanisationand decentralisation that push former state authority both “upwards” and“downwards” in the system, this reduces the policy-making and controlling role of692

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Controlthe state. This is in line with the hollowing-out argument. Accordingly, the choicesmade by educational consumers, such as parents and students, are expected tofacilitate, more or less by themselves, educational quality and results since goodperforming schools are the ones being selected and thereby walk off as winnersin the competitive game to attract students (c.f. Chubb, 2007). The logic of choiceand user orientation is thus based on an assumption that they create incentives foreducational providers to innovate and become more consumer-oriented. 2 In such asystem, the main controlling agency is thus placed in the hands (more correctly thefeet) of educational consumers as their choices contribute to the system regulatingitself by orienting itself towards innovation and by increasing its quality in order toattract consumers. In this way, this “market” controls itself and the controlling roleof the state is neither evident nor necessary.On the other hand, we may expect an increased market orientation to result inthe state playing an even more important role as a controlling entity in the system.Following the filling-in argument, the state is far from a passive bystander; rather, itremains an important player, even if its presence is altered and the policy tools andinstruments used to formulate and give effect to public policy are subjected to change.As authority is increasingly transferred to entities other than the state, one way for thestate to retain command is to transfer some authority – mainly output and controlorientedmeans – back to the centre. Market-oriented reforms contribute to, for instance,a plethora of welfare providers and this in turn creates demands for additionalcontrol and actions on the part of the state. For example, there is a perceived needto collect and transparently display “objective” information as the consumers struggleto navigate their choices. Consumers find education’s quasi-market increasinglydifficult to grasp as the supply of education providers multiplies and their marketingefforts turn more and more intense. The state is thus perceived as a legitimate andobjective entity to produce information about the system and its schools, which theconsumers can then act on (c.f. Clarke, 2008; Wilcox & Gray, 1996).In addition, these controlling acts on the part of the state have an important role toplay when it comes to accountability, and the possibility to set up such arrangementsholding different parties to account. The ever more blurred system, in which bothprivate and public actors interact and are increasingly interconnected, creates a needfor new and additional accountability systems. Even though accountability arrangementsare indeed highly dependent on their administrative and political contextsand structures, they share the common denominator of being linked to some form ofretrospective control (Erkkilä, 2007). The state, once again, has an important role inboth setting up and providing information to support and uphold these accountabilitysystems by exercising different acts of inspection, evaluation and checking as well asemploying other measures related to output control. Taken together, the utilisationof such levers contributes to processes of filling-in.693

Linda RönnbergReforming education and bringing in the marketA story of decentralisation, deregulation and marketisationThe Swedish education system has undergone profound changes over the last coupleof decades. The early 1990s was a period of intense educational reform marked byefforts towards decentralisation, deregulation and marketisation. In retrospect, onemight argue that the changes, especially those at the beginning of the 1990s, hada dramatic and fundamental, rather than incremental, character – Sweden turnedfrom having one of the most centralised education systems to having one of the mostdecentralised systems (OECD, 2002). The process of restructuring Swedish educationthat took place during the 1990s has been described as “the most far-reachingalteration in a modern public organization in Sweden” (Helgøy, 2006: 100).The reforms included transferring employer responsibilities for all teachers andhead teachers from the state to the municipalities and abolishing targeted educationprogramme funding and replacing this funding by a general grant that left allocationof the financial package to the municipalities. Further, new curricula were implemented,allowing for greater local and professional decisional roles in reaching thestill nationally-defined educational objectives. In addition, during that period a newsystem of education governance was adopted, namely, management by objectives andresults. The official motives for reform concerned, for instance, efficiency, democracyand professionalisation. It was argued that resources were more efficiently used ifallocated locally and that local (municipal) responsibility increased both participationand teacher autonomy. During this intense reform period, two separate governmentstook decisions that resulted in the emergence of an educational quasi-market. By introducingvouchers, school choice and promoting the establishment of independent(but still tax-funded) schools, the state monopoly in the formerly strongly-regulatededucation sector was broken (Lundahl, 2002).It is worth noting that the Social Democrats made no decisive efforts to terminatethe choice reforms launched during the non-socialist government of 1991–1994. Whenreturned to office in 1994, the Social Democrats largely accepted that developmentand in certain aspects even took it further. In fact, even before the shift in governmentin 1991 the Social Democratic party had already begun to initiate a discussionabout increasing local autonomy, choice and other reforms (c.f. Jarl & Rönnberg.2010). Even so, the fact that this development took place in Sweden has been seenas quite a “puzzle” by observers of Swedish society. As Baggesen Klitgaard (2008:479) points out:School vouchers might seem a natural feature of the liberal welfare model of the U.S. andAmerican society generally. However, for social democratic welfare states in Scandinavia,school vouchers would seem to be a contradiction. Nevertheless, school vouchers have facedsevere resistance in the USA (…) In Sweden, however, the social democratic welfare stateadopted a national, universal public voucher scheme (…) Seen through the lenses of this very694

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Controldominating perspective in comparative welfare state analysis, two decades of institutionalreforms in primary education in the USA and Sweden present an intriguing puzzle.However, it was not only in Sweden that such educational reforms were taking place.There was what has been described as “an epidemic of education policy” (Levin 1998)that spread and was diffused among and between education systems in the Westernindustrialised world (Dolowitz & Marsh, 1996; Ozga & Jones, 2006). This “reformepidemic” was characterised by strides towards decentralisation, a market orientation,a focus on accountability and results, and ideas influenced by the New Public Managementphilosophy (c.f. Goldfinch & Wallis, 2010 for a recent discussion). Naturally, allsuch reforms had to be adapted, revised and implemented within a specific nationalcontext taking the society’s own social, political and cultural history as well as previouswelfare-state trajectories into account. Given the specific national circumstances andhistory, the story of Swedish education policy and its extensive market orientationpresents us with a particularly interesting case.The long-term effects of the market-oriented reforms from the 1990s are only beginningto emerge. Statistics on the use of school choice and selection tell the story ofa rapid increase in student numbers at independent schools. Over the last five yearsthere has been a 26 percent increase in enrolment in independent schools and currentlyapproximately 11 percent of the students at the compulsory educational levelare enrolled in independent schools. At the upper secondary level, the expansionof independent schools is particularly strong with independent schools having a 22percent share of student enrolment (Lundahl, 2011).Increasing national control in educationTowards the end of the 1990s and in the early 2000s, there were some signs thatthe central state was re-announcing its presence in education to some extent, forinstance, by reintroducing targeted state-funding programmes that were explicitlydirected towards specific activities such as hiring additional teaching staff. The NationalAudit Office claimed that the National Agency for Education had become oneof the government’s most important means to exercise governance over educationby such use of target financial funding. Such a direction is contrary to the Agency’sinitial direction leading towards management-by-objectives (Riksdagens revisorer,2002). In addition, other measures also pointed to intensified national control, suchas the reintroduction of the national school inspection in 2003. Nevertheless, and atapproximately the same time, there were continuing efforts to deregulate and decentralisedecision-making authority in other respects, for example, decisions regardingthe distribution of school time (Rönnberg, 2007).After being swept off the agenda in the wake of the extensive decentralisation reformsin the 1990s, direct school inspections were reintroduced by the Swedish governmentin 2003. By this decision, the state reclaimed ownership of this instrument695

Linda Rönnbergof control that it had previously divested itself of and handed over to the municipalities.In addition, other control and evaluative activities have been set up during thelast few terms of office under both socialist and non-socialist governments. Nationaltests for young pupils, individual development plans and written individual subjectachievements from first grade onwards are just a few examples of activities institutedor reinstituted in the last decade.Taken as a whole, the higher number of control activities in Swedish education hasbeen described as implying a new regime of scrutiny and control (Forsberg & Wallin,2006). The National Agency for Education describes the independent schools’ relationand obligations towards the municipalities and the central state in the following way:Independent schools are independent from requirements set by central muni cipal level.When it comes to insight, review and evaluation, however, the inde pendent schools havean obligation to participate to the extent required by the municipality in which they arelocated. They are also obliged to participate in the National Agency for Education’s reviews,evaluations and inspections, as well as in national tests as laid down by the government orthe agency appointed by the government (Skolverket, 2006: 16)In the following section, the issue of school inspection as an act of national educationalcontrol is addressed.Tightening the reins by inspectionIn 1991, a drastic decision to discontinue the National Board of Education as wellas the county school boards was taken and a new agency, the National Agency forEducation (NAE), was established. The focus of this new agency was to disseminateknowledge and information, rather than exercising active control (Jacobsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 1995). Therefore, the NAE did not examine individual public schools, but“halted at the municipal level” (Statskontoret, 2005). This was very much in line withthe reforms of the 1990s as the architects behind it strongly emphasised municipalaccountability. Overall, this meant that the NAE exercised “an arms-length relationshipwith public schools, taking its main duty to be the monitoring of municipalitiesrather than of individual schools” (OECD, 1995:127).However, to be more accurate, in fact the state never relinquished educationalcontrol by means of inspection when it came to the independent schools, as had beenthe case with public school inspection in the 1990s. Since the NAE was founded, it hada responsibility to approve licenses and inspect independent schools. A new schoolneeded to have a licence in order to operate and certification was needed in order toreceive the tax-funded subsidies that accompanied each pupil through the vouchersystem. After a new independent school had been in operation for a couple of years,or earlier if complaints were filed, the NAE undertook an official visit to the school,inspecting and verifying that the approval of the licence was still in order and that theschool still met the requirements upon which it was initially judged when it obtained696

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Controlits licence to open. Reports were filed for both the approval and the introductoryinspection. The NAE aspired to inspect each independent school over a three-yearcycle but, due to an insufficient budget and the rapid growth of independent schools,this pace was impossible to sustain. In addition, the NAE had the right to conductunannounced school visits of independent schools, for instance, if complaints hadbeen filed or if the NAE otherwise had received indications that there may be violationsof regulations or other problems (Skolverket, 2004). On the whole, this inspectionscheme is still in operation for independent schools but is now carried out bythe Swedish National Agency for School Inspection, called the Schools Inspectorate,established in October 2008 (Skolinspektionen, 2010).It is interesting to note that state control measures, such as recurrent inspectionover a three-year cycle and the possibility to make unannounced visits, which sincethe 1990s had been applied to independent schools, are currently being applied to allschools in the system. The strengthened school inspection performed by the SwedishSchools Inspectorate expands on measures that were already in operation, even duringthe time of the NAE that was characterised by disseminating knowledge rather thanexercising control, and reflects a changed policy toward public schools. The toolboxfor the national control of independent schools also contains other instruments notavailable for controlling public schools such as the possibility to withdraw the rightto public grants or the license to operate as an independent school.In sum, during the early 1990s the NAE continued to inspect independent schools,while inspection was largely non-existent for public schools with the exception ofinvestigating filed complaints (RRV 2001:24). The state “halted at the municipallevel” when it came to public schools and was reluctant to enter classrooms as an“arms-length relationship” was preferred. This was never the case for independentschools as the state, in fact, never went away. After 2003, inspection was reintroducedthroughout the system and all schools and municipalities were subjected to inspectionsperformed over a six-year cycle.After the Inspectorate was moved from the NAE to an independent agency in 2008,the direction taken was towards a more intensified and strengthened inspection. Today,national control and inspection are converging for the two types of schools, i.e.,public and independent. Under the present school act, for instance, regulations areto be applied to all schools and responsible authorities, both public and private (SFS2010:800; Prop. 2009/10:165). The sanctions are to be similar as well, for instance,the possibility of collecting fines from schools that do not meet the standards. Theauthority to apply fines will be adopted in new legislation, but closing schools hasalready been an option when it comes to independent schools and would thus beextended to public schools.The harmonisation of inspection processes is also underway (Skolverket, 2008).Even though this is the goal, there are certain differences in the inspection frameworkbetween public and independent schools. Independent schools are inspected697

Linda Rönnbergaccording to additional criteria, such as whether school admissions have adhered tothe regulations, whether teaching is being conducted in an impartial way, whetherthere is financial stability, as well as issues dealing with the number of students, managementand licence (Skolinspektionen, 2010b; SOU 2007:101; Skolverket, 2006b).Concluding discussionThe central issue of this article is if and how a market orientation and privatisation,(hollowing-out of the state) meet and intertwine with re-centralising attempts atcentral output control and similar processes (filling-in by the state) during a periodwhen “market politics” meet “accountability politics” (c.f. Moos, 2009: 398). It furtheraddresses the question of how we can conceptualise the state’s role within this context.At the outset, by drawing on some parts of the literature on governance two differentscenarios were distinguished, asserting that a market orientation in the educationpolicy case can either reduce or intensify the need for state-led control.Embracing choice, privatisation and marketisation…The previous discussion has stressed the far-reaching market orientation currently atwork in the Swedish education system. As such, a number of policy elements are oftenfound in the process of creating quasi-markets in different areas of the public sector.Those elements display an overall logic that can often be found in these types of reforms,irrespective of policy sector and national characteristics. As Lubienski (2009) elucidates:• [Q]uasi-markets are premised on decentralising authority away from large,input-based bureaucracies. (…)• This decentralisation is accomplished largely through deregulation, wherelocal organisations are given substantially more operational autonomy, oftenunder the implicit understanding that they can then find more effective waysof improving services.• Moreover, not only are the decentralised state organisations then expected tocompete with each other for funds based on the number of clients they attract,but private sector organisations are also allowed to enter the quasi-marketand compete for funding, thereby creating cross-sectional competition, anddiminishing public-private distinctions.• When service-users are then given the freedom to choose from a range ofservice providers – rather than being assigned to a local government provider– competitive dynamics can emerge as various providers have to strive toattract and satisfy users, or “consumers.”• Hence, quasi-markets can create competitive imperatives that incentiviseorganizational behaviour of service providers to be more innovative both in698

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Controlresponding to consumer demands and in finding efficiencies that allow formore favourable revenue balances. (…)• [L]ocal organisations are accountable to consumers, having to demonstrateeffectiveness and responsiveness to users, while users indicate preferencesthrough market-style signals such as the threat of exit (Lubienski, 2009: 10f,emphasis in the original).The processes and implications of a market orientation in the Swedish educationsector can, on the whole, be described in accordance with the logic outlined above.Indeed, from a comparative perspective, the Swedish case has been regarded as veryliberal in this respect (Blomqvist, 2004; Baggensen Klitgaard, 2008). The Swedishmodel of creating an educational quasi-market has embraced choice, privatisationand marketisation – all in all, adding up to a system far from the state monopolisticone that was once in force.… And yet retaining and reinforcing state control…Another distinctive feature of the Swedish education policy case concerns the reinforcedefforts for central control in education. As already noted, governance theoristshave argued that contemporary states are forced to use new techniques of governmentdue to the fragmented and network-based society of today. In order to retain controloutput-oriented measures, such as evaluation, audit and checking, central tools arebecoming reactive rather than proactive (c.f. Johansson, 2006). These tendencies,involving an intensified control function of the state, have been variously labelled asan “audit society” (Power, 1999), an “evaluative state” (Neave, 1998) or an emerging“new regime of scrutiny” (Taylor, 2005). However, these are not the only availablemeans for state steering and input-oriented mechanisms, as a detailed and standardisednational curriculum, organisation and the licensing of teacher and headteacher education etc. could also be mentioned (Jarl & Rönnberg, 2010). All in all,they keep the state in command. Drawing on the previous theoretical discussion, wemay interpret these developments as ones in which processes of hollowing-out areaccompanied by simultaneous processes of filling-in.Indeed, the rise of central output control can be understood with reference to theprevious decentralisation and transfer of responsibilities from the centre, as a casewhere “increased local autonomy in the public sector increases demands for externalcontrol” (Lægreid et al., 2008: 23). Thus, there is a widespread notion that the greaterthe local autonomy, freedom and empowerment, the greater the need for monitoring,supervising and auditing from the centre (Leeuw & Furubo, 2008; Taylor 2005; Farell& Morris, 2003). Accordingly, somewhat paradoxically though not illogically, reducedcentral activity (such as incorporating private actors into the policy-making processand welfare service provision) tends to be coupled with processes and mechanismsthat increase central control (Helgøy et al., 2007). This is all very much in line with699

Linda Rönnbergan understanding of the filling-in attempts on the part of the state. These tendenciescan also be observed in the UK education policy context, as “the core executive hasextended, refined and intensified hierarchal control mechanisms in certain policy sectors”(Goodwin & Grix, 2011: 552), contrary to the hollowing-out governance narrative.As Power simply but clearly puts it, “Trust releases us from the need for checking”(1999, 1). But what about the state’s “trust” in the increasingly market-oriented educationsystem and the trust in independent schools as reliable welfare service providers?From the previous discussion in this article, it is evident that the state has differentdemands on and control over public education on one hand, and independent educationon the other. The state has utilised more measures of national control, includinginspection, licensing and unannounced visits, when it comes to independent schools.In that sense, the control efforts have been intense all along. But for public schools,those efforts began to increase in the early 2000s. By then, independent schools hadfor over a decade experienced several reintroduced or reinforced instruments of outputcontrol, such as inspection. Indeed, elements of control exercised by the state in thecase of independent schools were later transferred to public schools and practicesalready in operation for independent schools were applied to public ones. In this context,it is also important to recognise that the market-oriented reforms have affectedthe whole system, not only independent schools but also public schools. Competition,privatisation and changing the rules of the game are part of the contemporary policyreality for all schools in the system, whether public or independent.Education as a policy field is characterised by a large number of different actorsinteracting in several organisational and hierarchical levels of the system (public, private,national, municipal, local, professional, political etc.). This situation, involvingcomplex networks and governance interactions, creates a need for information andsurveillance of the situation, which often is directed from the centre of the system,i.e., the national level. In addition, this policy field can be of particular significanceto the nation-state: “The importance of education not only in terms of creating andmaintaining national identity but also for economic development suggests that this isan area from which the state will not willingly abdicate its role” (Hudson 2007: 224).It may be argued that the need for central state control is intensified, rather thanreduced, as a market orientation and reforms of choice and privatisation gain ground.This may be interpreted in terms of supporting the filling-in line of argument. However,and importantly enough, this is not to argue that there would be any clear-cutcausal link between marketisation and reinforced control on the part of the state.The argument only asserts that there is intensified competition and a quasi-marketsituation in which instruments for and use of central state control is strengthenedfor all schools in the system. In Moos’ terminology, it appears as if “market politics”and “accountability politics” tend to accompany each other in the Swedish educationpolicy case (2009: 398).700

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Control… Resulting in an “odd combination”?This final section addresses the question of whether endorsing market reforms whileat the same time reinforcing central control is an odd combination or, on the contrary,perhaps a logical state of events. Voices have been raised that it certainly is a peculiarsituation when a market orientation and increased central control are simultaneouslygaining ground. As Apple (2005: 11) puts it:The odd combination of marketisation on the one hand and centralization of control on theother is not only occurring in Education; nor is it only going on in the United States. Thisis a worldwide phenomenon.This gives rise to the question of whether this creates a “hybrid” type of education system.In an OECD assessment of the current Swedish system the simultaneous effortsat market orientation and reinforced control are portrayed as such an amalgamation:The Swedish education system has developed an increasingly hybrid nature: on the onehand, deploying the philosophy and means that support local autonomy and the operationof a quasi-market situation while, on the other, adopting greater measures of supervisionat the centre through quality assurance and control mechanisms (Nicaise et al., 2006: 33).In contrast, others ask if this situation is rather a logical consequence and is what isto be expected from the creation of public quasi-markets. In order to buttress suchan argument, however, some of the core assumptions of the logic of the market needto be revised. Notably, it challenges the presumption that choice in itself will enhancethe quality of the delivered services and the performance of the welfare producersregardless of which other control measures are used. It asserts that the feet of theconsumers cannot constitute the only mechanism of control and accountability inthat case.If the state still holds the upper hand, and is still in fact a “key orchestrator” (Bell etal., 2010: 852) or “core executive” (Ball, 2009: 96) and thusly finds alternative waysto navigate and remain in authority in an increasingly blurred and multiple-actornetwork governing context, should we then better speak of “a regulated market”,limiting choice and involving a “standard model” decided and controlled by the state,as outlined below?The State, regulating the market, insists upon a standardised curriculum and standardisedassessment so that rational choices can be exercised. Thus, there is central control, a standardmodel, and limited choice within a regulated market (Turner 1996, 15 cited in Zajda, 2006: 6).This article takes as its final argument that such questions need be posed and addressedby further research. The resultant answers could prove instrumental to facilitatingour understanding of contemporary governing arrangements, their transformationsand effects from both an empirical and theoretical perspective.701

Linda RönnbergAcknowledgementsThe author acknowledges support from four projects, three financed by the SwedishResearch Council (VR): Swedish national school inspections: Introducing centralisedinstruments for governing in a decentralised context (research fellowship project,Linda Rönnberg, no 2007-4031), Upper Secondary Education as a Market no 2007-3579) and Governing by Inspection (no 2009-5770). Finally, the project Educationat the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Control is financed by UmeåUniversity, no 223-514-09. The author further acknowledges comments on earlierdrafts from the research teams mentioned above and comments from the SwedishPolitical Science Association’s workshop on Public Administration as Business, inGothenburg from 30 September to 1 October 2010 and at the STUP-network meetingon Policy Developments in Education: Governance by Marketisation and QualityAssurance in Umeå, 10–11 February, 2011.Linda Rönnberg (PhD, Umeå University) is a research fellow at the Department of Political Science,Umeå University. Her main research interest concerns governance and policy, with a specific focuson education. Current projects include inspection as a means of governing and marketisation inSwedish education.702

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State ControlReferencesAllen, R. (2010) Replicating Swedish “free school” reforms in England. Research in Public Policy10, 4-8.Apple, M. (2005) Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly 47 (1–2), 11–29.Baggesen Klitgaard, M. (2008) School vouchers and the new politics of the welfare state. Governance21 (4), 479–498.Ball, S. J. (2009) Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research:Network governance and the “competition state”. Journal of Education Policy 24 (1),83–99.Ball, S. J. (2008) New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. PoliticalStudies 56 (4), 747–765.Ball. S. J. (2007) Education PLC. Understanding Private Sector Participation in Public SectorEducation. Abingdon: Routledge.Ball, S. J. (1990) Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology. London:Routledge.Bell, S., Hindmoor, A. and Mols, F. (2010) Persuasion as governance: A state-centric relationalperspective. Public Administration 88 (3), 851–870.Bell, S. and Hindmoor A. (2009) Rethinking Governance. The Centrality of the State in ModernSociety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Bergström, G. and Boréus, K. (2005) Textens mening och makt. Metodbok i samhällsvetenskapligtext- och diskursanalys. Lund: Studentlitteratur.Blomqvist, P. (2004) The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s.Social Policy & Administration 38 (2) 139–155.Bunar, N. (2008) The free schools “riddle”: Between traditional social democratic, neo-liberal andmulticultural tenets. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 52 (4), 423–438.Bunar, N. (2010) Choosing for quality or inequality: Current perspectives on the implementationof school choice policy in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy 25 (1), 1–18.Chubb, J.E. (2007) Att få ut det mesta möjliga av marknaden: lärdomar av fritt skolval i USA.In A. Lindbom (ed.) Friskolorna och framtiden: segregation, kostnader och effektivitet (pp.51–59). Stockholm: Institutet för Framtidsstudier.Clarke, J. (2008) Performance paradoxes: The politics of evaluation in public services. In H. Davis& S. Martin (eds.) Public Services Inspection in the UK. Research Highlights in Social Work50, (pp.120–134). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Cope, S., Leishman, F. and Starie, P. (1997) Globalization, new public management and the enablingstate. Features of police management. International Journal of Public Sector Management10, (6), 444–460.Daun, H. (2006) Privatisation, decentralisation and governance in education in the Czech Republic,England, France, Germany and Sweden. In J. Zajda (ed.) Decentralisation and Privatizationin Education. The Role of the State (pp. 75–96). Dortrecht: SpringerDavies, J. S. (2002) The governance of urban regeneration: A critique of the “governing withoutgovernment” thesis. Public Administration 80 (2), 301–322.Dolowitz, D. and Marsh, D. (1996) Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transferliterature. Political Studies 44 (2), 343–357.Erixon Arreman, I. and Holm, A.-S. (2011) Privatisation of public education? The emergence of independentupper secondary schools in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 26 (2), 225–243.703

Linda RönnbergErkkilä, T. (2007) Governance and accountability – A shift in conceptualisation. Public AdministrationQuarterly 31(1), 1–38.Farell, C. and Morris, J. (2003) The “neo-bureaucratic” state: Professionals, managers and professionalmanagers in schools, general practices and social work. Organization 10 (1), 129–156.Forsberg, E., and Wallin, E. (2006) Skolan som moraliskt rum. In E. Fors berg and E. Wallin (eds.)Skolans kontrollregim – ett kontraproduktivt system för styrning? (pp. 8–19). Stockholm:HLS.Fredriksson, A. (2010) Marknaden och lärarna. Hur organiseringen av skolan påverkar lärarnasoffentliga tjänstemannaskap. PhD. diss., Gothenburg: Department of Political Science.Fredriksson, A. (2009) On the consequences of the marketisation of public education in Sweden:For-profit charter schools and the emergence of the “market-oriented teacher”. EuropeanEducational Research Journal 8 (2), 299–310.Goldfinch, S. and Wallis, J. (2010) Two myths of convergence in public management reform. PublicAdministration 88 (4), 1099–1115.Goodwin, M. and Grix, J. (2011) Bringing structures back in: The “governance narrative”, the “decentredapproach” and “asymmetrical governance” in the education and sports communities.Public Administration 89 (2) 537–556.Helgøy, I. (2006) Rhetoric and action in regulating the public schools in Norway and Sweden.Scandinavian Political Studies 29 (2), 89–110.Helgøy, I., Homme, A. and Gewirtz, S. (2007) Local autonomy or state control? Exploring the effectsof new forms of regulation in education. European Educational Research Journal 6, (3),198–202.Hudson, C. and Rönnberg. L. (2007) State Governing and Local Autonomy. Paper presented at the35 th Annual Congress of the Nordic Educational Research Association, symposium 15: RecentChanges and Challenges in Research on Politics of Education, 15–17 March 2007 in Turku,Finland.Hudson, C. (2007) Governing the governance of education: The state strikes back? European EducationalResearch Journal 6 (3), 267–282.Jacobsson, B. and Sahlin-Andersson, K. (1995) Skolan och det nya verket. Skildringar från utvärderingensoch styrningens tidevarv. Stockholm: Nerenius och Santérus Förlag.Jarl, M. and Rönnberg, L. (2010) Skolpolitik. Från riksdagshus till klassrum. Stockholm: Liber.Johansson, V. (2006) Tillsyn och effektivitet. Umeå: Boréa.Johnson, M. and Lindgren, J. (2010) “Great location, beautiful surroundings!” Making sense ofinformation materials intended as guidance for school choice. Scandinavian Journal of EducationalResearch 54 (2), 173–187.Jordan, A, Würsel, R. K. W. and Zito, A. (2005) The rise of “new” policy instru ments in comparativeperspective: Has governance eclipsed govern ment? Political Studies 53 (3), 477–496.Lægreid, P. Roness, P. G. and Rubecksen, K. (2008) Controlling regulatory agencies. ScandinavianPolitical Studies 31 (1) 1–26.Leeuw, F. G. and Furubo, J.-E. (2008) Evaluation systems: What are they and why study them?Evaluation 14 (2) 157–169.Levin, B. 1998). An epidemic of educational policy: (What) can we learn from each other? ComparativeEducation 34 (2), 131–141.Lindbom, A. (2010) School choice in Sweden: Effects on student performance, school costs, andsegregation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 54 (6) 615–630.Lindbom, A. (ed.) (2007) Friskolorna och framtiden: segregation, kostnader och effektivitet.Stockholm: Institutet för Framtidsstudier.704

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State ControlLubienski, C (2009) Do Quasi-Markets Foster Innovation in Education? A Comparative Perspective.OECD Education Working Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing.Lund, S. 2008. Choice paths in the Swedish upper secondary education – A critical discourseanalysis of recent reforms. Journal of Education Policy 23 (6): 633–648.Lundahl, L. (2011) The emergence of a Swedish school market. In R. Hatcher & K. Jones (eds.) Nocountry for the young: Education from New Labour to the Coalition pp. 37-50. London: Tufnell.Lundahl, L. (2007) Gymnasiet som marknad. Projektplan. Vetenskapsrådet, Dnr 2007-3579.Lundahl, L. (2002) Sweden: decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets – and then what?Journal of Education Policy 17(6), 687–697.Lundqvist, L. J. (2010) Privatisering. In B. Rothstein (ed.) Politik som organisation. Förvaltningspolitikensgrundproblem (pp. 216–244). Stockholm: SNS.Lundström, U. and Holm, A.-S. (2011) Market competition in upper secondary education: Perceivedeffects on teachers’ work. Policy Futures in Education 9 (2), 193–205.Montin, S. (2006) Styrnings- och organisationsspåret – teoretiska perspektiv och empiriska illustrationer.Arbetsrapport inom projektet Utvärdering av ny nämnd- och förvaltningsorganisationi Uppsala kommun. Örebro: Samhällsvetenskapliga institutionen, Örebro Universitet.Moos, L. (2009) Hard and soft governance: The journey from transnational agencies to schoolleadership. European Educational Research Journal 8 (3), 397–406.Motion 1999/2000:Ub259. Skolpolitiken. Motion av Sten Tolgfors (m). Stockholm: Riksdagen.Neave, G. (1998) The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education 33 (3), 265–284.Nicaise, I., Esping-Andersen, G, Pont, B. and Tunstall, P. (2006) Equity in Education. ThematicReview. Sweden country note. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/5/35892546.pdf, Retrieved2010-08-08.Nilsson, I. (2002) Fristående skolor. Internationell forskning 1985-2000. Stockholm: Skolverket.Nyhlén, J. (2011) Styrideal och Konflikt – Om friskoleetablering i tre norrländska kommuner.Phd. diss., Sundsvall: Mittuniversitetet,OECD (1995) Schools under Scrutiny. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.OECD (2002) Education at a Glance. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C. and Simola H. (eds.) (2011) Fabricating Quality inEducation. Data and Governance in Europe. London: Sage.Ozga, J. and Jones. R (2006) Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer.Journal of Education Policy 21(1) 1–17.Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (2001) Development in intergovernmental relations: Towards multilevelgovernance. Policy & Politics 29 (2), 131–135.Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2000) Governance, Politics and the State. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2005) Governing Complex Societies. Trajectories and Scenarios. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.Power, M. (1999) The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Prop. 2009/10:165. Den nya skollagen – för kunskap, valfrihet och trygghet. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.Raab, C. D. (2000) The devolved management of schools and its implications for governance. InM. A. Arnott and C. D. Raab (eds.) The Governance of Schooling. Comparative Studies of DevolvedManagement (pp. 19–32). London: Routledge.705

Linda RönnbergRiksdagens revisorer (2002) Statens styrning av skolan – från målstyrning till uppsökandebidragsförmedling. Rapport 2001/02:13. Stockholm: Riksdagens revisorer.Rönnberg, L. (2007) A recent Swedish attempt to weaken state control and strengthen school autonomy:The experiment with local time schedules. European Educational Research Journal6 (3), 214–232.Rothstein, B. (2002) Vad bör staten göra? Om välfärdsstatens moraliska och politiska logik (2nded) . Stockholm: SNS förlag.RRV 2001:24. Skolverkets tillsyn. Stockholm: Riksrevisionsverket.SFS 210:800. Skollag.Skolinspektionen (2010) The Inspectorate of Educational Inspection of Sweden. http://www.skolinspektionen.se/PageFiles/1854/SwedishSchoolsInspectorate2009.pdf?epslanguage=enRetrieved 2010-09-06.Skolverket (2004) Skarpare rutiner vid tillståndsprövning och inspektion av fristående skolor.Avrapportering av ett regeringsuppdrag. Rapport 2004-01-15. Dnr 01-2003:1995. Stockholm:Skolverket.Skolverket (2006a) Schools like any other? Independent schools as part of the system 1991–2004.Stockholm: Skolverket.Skolverket (2006b) Resultat från inspektion av fristående skolor 2003-2006. PM 2006-12-18.http://www.skolverket.se/content/1/c6/01/00/91/PM-inspektion-frist_skolor.pdf. Retrieved2010-09-03.Skolverket (2008) Privat och offentligt. Fristående skolor i andra länder. Stockholm: SkolverketSOU 2007:101. Tydlig och öppen. Förslag till en stärkt utbildningsinspektion. Betänkande avutbildningsinspektionsutredningen. Stockholm: Fritzes.Statskontoret (2005) Statliga myndigheters reglering av kommunal verksamhet. Nås via: http://www.statskontoret.se/upload/Publikationer/2005/200529.pdf, Retrieved 2010-09-05.Taylor, D. (2005) Governing through evidence: Participation and power in policy evaluation.Journal of Social Policy 43 (4) 601–618.Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B. and Henry, M. (1997) Educational Policy and the Politics ofChange. London: Routledge.Wiborg, S. (2010) Swedish Free Schools: Do They Work? LLAKES research papers 18, publishedby the Centre for Learning and Life Chances in Knowledge Economies and Societies at: http://www.llakes.org.Wilcox, B. and Gray, J. (1996) Inspecting Schools. Holding Schools to Account and HelpingSchools To Improve. Buckingham: Open University Press.Zajda, J. (2006) Introduction. In J. Zajda (ed.) Decentralisation and Privatization in Education.The Role of the State (pp. 3–31). Dortrecht: Springer.706

Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State ControlEndnotes1.The state is indeed a “much-debated concept” (Raab, 2000:26). In this article, I employ a relativelynarrow definition of the state, i.e., the parliament and government, its ministries and central stateagencies (Rothstein, 2002:113). By the state, I thus refer to formal political arrangements andinstitutions located at the national level, and the municipal and local arenas are therefore not includedin this hierarchical definition of the state. Even so, I agree with claims that the state cannotbe considered a unitary entity, and that the conceptualisation of the state needs to be undertakenwith caution (Taylor et al., 1997: 29f; Ball, 1990: 19f).2.As an empirical example, this presumption and overall logic is expressed as follows in a parliamentarymotion from a member of the Moderates: “When school choice is implemented, the goodand serious schools will be rewarded. Schools that are lagging behind or are mismanaged willsee their number of students decreasing. Since the resources are accompanying the student [byvouchers, author’s remark] and no school shall receive special treatment from the municipality(which unfortunately is occurring today) schools become completely dependent on their abilityto attract students. It profoundly alters the way we think about education. Each school’s quality,profile and how it is perceived by and connected to the local community will be central. Noschool management can afford not to look at how their results are developing. Schools that fail tomeet quality standards will be forced to close down, either by withdrawing the voucher or by thestudents choosing to attend other schools” (Motion 1999/2000:Ub259).707

708

Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, December 2011, pp.709–723EDU.INQ.Why Quality in Education – andWhat Quality?– A Linguistic Analysis of the Concept ofQuality in Swedish Government TextsAndreas Bergh*AbstractThis article analyses why the concept of quality has become such a central theme in Swedish educationpolicy, and what quality or qualities successive governments have pursued between 1990and 2010. The analysis is based on a close reading of a collection of policy texts from the late 1980sonwards. With a linguistic and historical perspective, the theoretical approach is inspired by QuentinSkinner (1988a, 1988b) and speech act theory. The study shows that certain “criteria of application”long associated with education have gradually been challenged and partly marginalised by criteriahighlighting results and relating to market and system needs. As a consequence it can be argued,with support from speech act theory, that use of the concept of quality has led to an acceptance ofnew social perceptions in education.Keywords: education, concept of quality, educational policy, speech act, SwedenIntroductionHistorically, the concept of quality has been used in different contexts, including, tosome extent, that of education. Since an explicit emphasis was put on quality in theSwedish government’s development plan for education in 1997 (Skr 1996/97:112),the concept has spread quickly within and between different arenas in Sweden’seducational system.The two questions discussed in this paper are why the concept of quality has beenintroduced and become such a central theme in Swedish education policy; and whatquality or qualities – i.e. quality in what sense or senses – successive governments havepursued in the last two decades. There are several reasons for asking these questions.To begin with, since the late 1990s the concept of quality has become a central issuein education policy in Sweden. In a way, it is hardly surprising that a concept suchas quality has spread so rapidly, as few people are likely to contest the importanceof good quality education. However, the concept in itself says nothing about what iseducationally desirable. Although by definition a positive and attractive concept, itnevertheless appears intriguingly lacking in content – at least at first sight. Another*School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, Örebro University, Sweden. E-mail: andreas.bergh@oru.se©Author. ISSN 2000-4508, pp.709–723709

Andreas Berghcharacteristic of the quality concept, which makes it somewhat unique, is its ability tobe combined with many other words, as in quality work, quality monitoring, qualityreport and so on.Throughout history, the concept of quality has been used in many different contexts,with a variety of meanings. Its roots can be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy(Liedman, 2007) and it became a central concept in Japanese industrial productionafter the World War II (Axelsson and Bergman, 1999). Today, the quality concepthas gained a prominent position in many countries and is commonly used in varioussocial contexts, in private and public sectors alike (Bergh, 2010). In Swedish education,the concept is used by many different actors: not only in the formal national andlocal arenas but also by different interest groups, such as the Swedish Association ofLocal Authorities and Regions (Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting, 2009), the Confederationof Swedish Enterprise (Svenskt Näringsliv, 2010) and the teachers’ tradeunions (Moberger, 2005). Quality is also a central concept in international policydevelopment. For example, the Lisbon Strategy, in which the EU in 2000 formulatedthe need for Europe to become “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-basedeconomy in the world” (Presidency Conclusions, 2000:2), was followed two years laterby a detailed work programme whose objectives included “Improving the quality andeffectiveness of education…” (Council of the European Union, 2002:15).Looking at international research, it also becomes clear that use of the concept ofquality in education is widespread. Developments similar to those seen in Swedisheducation in the last two decades are reported from several other countries around theworld (e.g. Biesta, 2004; Broadfoot, Osborn, Planel and Sharpe, 2000; Ozga, 2009).Already in the early 1990s, Alfred Oftedal Telhaug (1990) notes the introduction of anew way of talking about education in educational policy (cf. Englund, 1996). Froma European standpoint, it is further reported that travelling policies and policy discourses,with quality assurance and evaluation as their main instruments, have spreadacross Europe (Grek, Lawn, Lingard and Varjo, 2009; cf. Segerholm, 2009). In addition,to make clear that the quality concept is not limited to either Sweden or Europe,an example can be mentioned from South Africa, where Peliwe Lolwana (2007), inthe light of apartheid, writes that it is hardly surprising that high quality education ishighlighted as a citizenship right in the country’s legislation. At the same time as thisillustrates that the concept of quality is shaped by national and local conditions, herquestion “Does quality assurance improve the quality of education?” simultaneouslypoints to structural similarities between countries: written local quality reports werefor example one of the instruments introduced by the Swedish government in 1997(Skr 1996/97:112).The methodology used in this article is based on Quentin Skinner’s speech acttheory (1988a, 1988b), a theory which in a wider sense can be understood in relationto the “linguistic turn” (Rorty, 1967). The endeavour to shift attention from theobject of language to language itself, which was brought into the limelight in a reader710

Why Quality in Education – and What Quality?edited by Richard Rorty (1967), is prompted by an idea earlier formulated by LudwigWittgenstein, namely that many philosophical questions are ultimately questions oflanguage (Jordheim, 2003). In very general terms, the linguistic turn can be said tohave taken place in different ways within at least three traditions: besides speech acttheory, also in hermeneutics (mainly German) and in structuralism and post-structuralism(mainly French), with Reinhart Koselleck and Michel Foucault as centralnames. For this article, and for the questions asked, I find speech act theory and itsinterest in the rhetorical use of concepts useful.Skinner (1988a) has developed speech act theory into a theory of language as amedium for use in concrete political conflicts, where groups with contradictory viewsseek to control language. Since concepts with performative functions such as qualityor equivalence (Englund and Quennerstedt, 2008) not only describe but also valueand create, they can be used with separate and contradictory intentions by differentlanguage users. To understand what a speaker or writer is doing in a specific situation,with what intention he or she makes a certain “move in an argument” (Skinner,2008:651), Skinner mainly directs his interest towards what is termed the “illocutionary”aspect of the speech act:to be able to characterize a work in such a way, in terms of its intended illocutionary force,is equivalent to understanding what the writer may have meant by writing in that particularway. It is equivalently to be able, that is, to say that he must have meant the work as anattack on or a defense of, as a criticism of or a contribution to, some particular attitude orline of argument, and so on (Skinner, 1988b:76).In this article, by linking Skinner’s interest in the arguments to the question of whythe concept of quality has been introduced, my intention is to identify the problem,or problems, quality was meant to resolve, and thereby to understand why qualityhas been introduced and become such a central theme in Swedish education. Thequestion of what quality or qualities Swedish governments have pursued over the1990–2010 period stems from a linguistic and historical urge to understand changein the light of earlier tensions between different educational ideals, and the varyingmeanings that the concept of quality has been given in other social contexts. However,instead of merely analysing the meaning of a concept, Skinner suggests that analysisshould focus on how the concept’s criteria of application (i.e. the terms for using it)are struggled over rhetorically. According to Skinner, we might disagree about one ofat least three different things, not all of which are self-evident disagreements aboutmeanings:about the criteria for applying the word; about whether the agreed criteria are present ina given set of circumstances; or about what range of speech-acts the word can be used totransform (Skinner, 1988a:123).711

Andreas BerghThe text that now follows is divided into four parts. Starting in the period when theissue of quality became a governmental concern, I first contextualise it to the 1980sand early 1990s. Next, focusing on the development plan of 1997 (Skr 1996/97:112),I turn to the period when quality, as a solution to educational problems, made itsfirst concrete appearance in the field of education. After that, the analysis examineshow the concept of quality is used in government texts from the last two decades,and highlights changes in its criteria of application. The final discussion concludesthe analysis with reference to the three potential areas of disagreement identified bySkinner (1988a), as cited above, which will give us the answers to the two questions:why quality in education and what quality/qualities?Quality becomes a concern of the Swedish governmentAlthough the government’s development plan (Skr 1996/97:112) can be seen as anofficial starting point for quality thinking in Swedish education (Bergh, 2010; Nytell,2006), the question of quality was at that time far from new at the governmental level.As early as 1984, the Ministry of Industry was made aware of the problems faced bydomestic industrial companies which were struggling to keep up with internationalcompetition, especially from Japan (Hasselbladh and Lundgren, 2002). Two yearslater the National Committee for Swedish Quality was founded, chaired by HRHPrince Bertil and including representatives of both the government and the industrialand public sectors (SIQ, 2010). The Ministry of Industry launched an inquiry withthe aim of gaining a greater insight into research on quality and identifying activitiesthat could meet the need for improved training in quality control (Hasselbladh andLundgren, 2002). Another inquiry, initiated by the predecessor of today’s SwedishNational Agency for Higher Education, focused on the country’s universities and suggestedthat all students of economics and engineering should take at least one coursein basic quality management. In 1990, a more permanent organisation, the SwedishInstitute for Quality (SIQ), was founded. The SIQ took over the National Committee’srole of actively promoting quality development in all sectors of Swedish society. Oneof the early ambitions was to develop a Swedish quality award, and in 1992 “UtmärkelsenSvensk Kvalitet” (The Swedish Quality Award) was awarded for the first time.The concept of quality also appears in government texts from the late 1980s, inreports on current international trends in education (Prop. 1988/89:100). At this time,though, the quality problems observed in other countries still seem remote from aSwedish vantage point. On the contrary, the government maintains that standards inSwedish schools are not only high in general, but also equally high across individualschools. One of the concerns reported from other countries is that too many studentsare leaving school with inadequate knowledge, impairing their future working livesand their opportunities to participate in society. In a broader perspective, there arealso concerns that education is not a sufficient driving force for societal developmentand economic growth. The latter especially appears to be a major issue in OECD712

Why Quality in Education – and What Quality?debates, according to the government. Those debates also include discussions andsuggestions concerning evaluation, stemming from a perceived need to assess howwell schools perform.A few years later, the picture has changed. Far from being distant trends, of noimmediate relevance to Sweden (Prop. 1992/93:220), the same concerns are nowbecoming increasingly influential in the Swedish education system as well. Thegovernment concludes that there is an established causal link between educationalquality, knowledge and economic growth. Education is an important factor in globalcompetition, and Swedish education has to be among the best in the world. This,according to the government, is an inescapable fact, regardless of any reservationsthat may be made with reference to problems in measuring the quality of schools anddetermining the relevance of different forms of knowledge. Looking to the future, thegovernment asserts that new demands will be made on teachers, school leaders andschools, demands that may occasionally seem contradictory.Thus, when the concept of quality becomes a concern of the Swedish governmentin the 1980s, it is primarily promoted by arguments about economic growth and internationalcompetition. As a consequence, when the concept gradually takes shapewithin education, it is already loaded with specific criteria of application.Quality as a solution to education problemsGiven the widespread use of the quality concept in various social contexts, it is ina way hardly surprising that it was eventually introduced in Swedish education aswell. From that perspective, the relevant question is when, rather than if, it would beintroduced. Whether there were educational problems or not, the concept of qualitybrought a solution that needed a problem to address (cf. Furusten, 2002). Thatsaid, several arguments of differing character are nevertheless put forward by thegovernment when the concept of quality is introduced and emphasised in 1997 (Skr1996/97:112), arguments that will now be presented.Besides international competition, other motives are expressed, such as a need todirect local attention towards qualitative goals and the necessity to counteract anysegregation that might result from increased freedom of choice within the educationsector (Skr 1996/97:112). Other motives have to do with goal achievement and results,especially with reference to international tests, but also because the new system ofgrades reveals results in a much clearer way than before. Individual and societal developmentis also discussed in relation to both democracy and working life. Increasingdifferences between students and schools raise concerns, and the importanceof a good quality education for all is stressed. These problems are considered withregard both to overall societal development and, specifically, to the education takingshape at the local level.Further, it is recognised that the educational reforms of the 1990s have coincidedin time with reduced economic resources at the municipal level (Skr 1996/97:112).713

Andreas BerghReferences are made to different bodies whose inquiries and evaluations have reportedshortcomings. The National Agency for Education, for instance, has drawn attentionto problems in local governance, and the predecessor of the present Swedish NationalAudit Office has stated that supervision by the Agency for Education must be givenpriority. The government has also rejected a proposal presented in the Swedish Parliamentfor an independent audit institute, i.e. independent of both parliament andgovernment. In response, the government declares that the supervision and audit oflarge societal sectors such as education are responsibilities that cannot not be left toindependent institutes or private actors.Summarising the arguments presented in the development plan (Skr 1996/97:112),I conclude that the government was under pressure, both through international educationalco-operation and from different groups and interests within the country. Thevarious criteria applied to the concept of quality at this time reflect a tension betweendemocratic societal ideals and an ambition to make Sweden more competitive. In Skinner’s(1988a) terms, this can be understood as a linguistic struggle in which groupswith contradictory views are seeking to control language. In this perspective, disputesover interpretation can be understood as a question of gaining precedence in definingthe concept of quality in order to be able to take advantage of its performative function.Use of the concept of quality over two decadesThe following analysis, which examines how the quality concept has been used in asuccession of Swedish government texts, illustrates how the criteria of application havechanged over time. Although the analysis is mainly concerned with the period from1997 (Skr 1996/97:112) to 2010 (Prop. 2009/10:165), there are also some referencesthat refer back to the late 1980s. As an appropriate starting point, I have chosen thefollowing passage from the government’s development plan:Schools must provide high-quality teaching… The government gives priority to the qualityof education. Steps must now be taken to improve and secure the quality of education. Qualitycontrol must therefore be developed at all levels... The teacher’s role has become moredifficult as well as more important… The role of the National Agency for Education needsto be developed... (Skr 1996/97:112, pp. 3-5) 1 .With these words in mind, we will now take a closer look at the manner in whichquality is discussed in relation to education, national school authorities and teaching.Education for democracy – education for economic growthDuring the period analysed, speech acts concerning the relationship between qualityand education increasingly come to focus on goal achievement and emphasise Sweden’sfuture role as a leading knowledge nation. These intentions are quite different incharacter from the government’s ambition in 1989 to give all citizens a good generaleducation, thus turning education into a social equaliser (Prop. 1988/89:100).714

Why Quality in Education – and What Quality?Although the criteria applied to the concept of quality in 1997 (Skr 1996/97:112) varyin character, the importance of goals such as justice and democracy is emphasised.It is also stressed that evaluations by local school authorities must be given priority,as a way to secure an equivalent education of the quality described in the objectives:Without quality, equivalence is emptied of substance, and without equivalence the qualitydiscussion leads away from the objectives of justice and democracy. Evaluations mustensure that students receive an equivalent education of the quality stated in the objectives(Skr 1996/97:112, p. 8).A few years later, the tension between democratic ideals and the need to strengthenSwedish competitiveness is still there (Skr 2001/02:188). Yet there is a shift in whatreceives most emphasis. The government declares the need to intensify national efforts,to speed up development and to raise the quality of education. So, what qualityor qualities does the government have in mind at this time? The message is clear:action must now be taken to remedy deficiencies that prevent goal achievement. Thisis expressed even more clearly in the government’s quality programme published thefollowing year (Regeringskansliet, 2003). In that programme, democratic motivesare no longer mentioned, but have been replaced by an emphasis on individualisation,knowledge and the need to develop straightforward information and qualitycontrol. “Sweden must be a leading knowledge nation,” according to the government(Regeringskansliet, 2003:2). The ideal is a “knowledge school” for all:Such a school closely monitors each student’s development and has a clear dialogue with thestudent and the home about the results achieved at school. To succeed, schools must closelymonitor, review and evaluate their own performance and their own work in relation to theobjectives. The deficiencies which emerge must lead to concrete action (Regeringskansliet,2003:1).Thus, during the period studied the criteria applied to the concept of quality, in relationto education, change: from arguments advocating development in educationas an answer to the needs of both individuals and society, with reference to bothdemocracy and working life, to a more one-dimensional emphasis on results andgoal achievement, springing from the ambition to transform Sweden into a leadingknowledge nation.National school authorities: between development and controlThe expectations directed towards the national school authorities, through the conceptof quality, can in overall terms be described as an ambition to develop a stricter andmore efficient system for controlling quality in schools and local school authorities.Yet there is a change over time in how these arguments take shape linguistically.In 1997 the government (Skr 1996/97:112) calls for the National Agency for Educationto be more active than before in using and drawing conclusions from the results715

Andreas Berghobtained from follow-ups, evaluations and statutory supervision. By intensifyingactivities of various kinds, the Agency is expected to influence the development ofand contribute to a societal debate about education.Five years later, the government (Skr 2001/02:188) decides to split the NationalAgency for Education in two in order to separate the controlling function from supportfor development. More resources are now made available and a new departmentis created for educational inspection, leading to stronger national control. Despitethis outcome, only another five years later the government decides to reorganisethe national school authorities again (Prop. 2007/08:50). This time, the change isprompted by the need to clarify the respective roles of the two new national authorities,the Agency for Education and a new Schools Inspectorate, and to make themmore predictable and efficient. The reorganisation is also a central part of a largerreform project, with increased sanctions for schools not complying with the regulatoryframework, and actions to enhance the achievement of goals:In order to improve goal achievement, moreover, the government intends to clarify objectives,syllabuses and other governance documents and to strengthen the monitoring of students’knowledge and results, among other things through increased use of national tests. As part ofthis work, the government sees a need for an authority structure that supports this increasedfocus on supervision and follow-up of knowledge (Prop. 2007/08:50, p. 38).The expectations placed on the national school authorities change during the periodstudied. From 1997 onwards, the need for stricter, stronger and more efficient exerciseof authority is communicated (cf. Rönnberg, 2011). Not only are the arguments formore control put forward in increasingly resolute terms, but economic resources forthe purpose are also considerably increased. The intention that the national schoolauthority should contribute to a societal debate was soon discarded and replaced bymore and more one-sided language stressing the importance of goal achievement,legal safeguards, and identifying shortcomings.Teaching as a tension between local autonomy and being part of anational systemParallel to the changes in the criteria applied to the quality concept, in relation toeducation and the expectations directed towards the national school authorities, therewere also changes in the comments on teaching, and in views of the role of teachers.The earlier expectations of teachers are, among other things, related to welfaremotives (Prop. 1988/89:100), with an emphasis on the social, theoretical andpedagogical competence of teachers (Skr 1996/97:112). It is also pointed out thata teacher’s work requires perspectives on knowledge, learning and teaching whichcannot be governed by national regulations, and that it “is, rather, the interplaybetween teachers’ theoretical knowledge and the practical activities undertaken thatis crucial” (Prop. 1992/93:220, p. 18). From 2002 (Skr 2001/02:188) onwards, the716

Why Quality in Education – and What Quality?character of speech acts changes as the focus shifts towards questions of internationalcompetition and economic growth. There is also an ambition, built aroundthe concept of quality, to introduce management by objectives and results as a toolin teaching practice. Playing a decisive role in the education system, teachers areexpected to realise the ambitions formulated in the curriculum and, with the help ofthe tools that are developed, to continuously follow up and evaluate, so as to ensurea high level of goal achievement.These changes also determine what criteria of application the concept of qualityis given in relation to teaching activities. In the early 1990s, the government stressesthat it is important that teaching does not become limited to a set of skills that fitneatly within subject boundaries (Prop. 1993/92:220). Instead, emphasis is placedon students’ own reflections and thinking, and also on the importance of creative,aesthetic and ethical dimensions being incorporated into school work. Further, theconcept of “Bildung” is discussed, as well as motives related to democracy and values(Skr 1996/97:112):Students must learn to change perspective. The ability to change perspective is essential ina democracy. Seeing with the eyes of others, empathising with others’ situations and understandingothers’ arguments are all crucial to a capacity to feel solidarity. This is ultimatelywhat the fundamental values of the curriculum are all about (Skr 1996/97:112, p. 21).In later texts these intentions are hardly mentioned. The ambition now is to build aneducation system and make Sweden a leading nation:For Sweden to be a successful country in the 21st century, world-class education and researchare required, and an education system that has the capacity to see the potential in every pupiland student (Prop. 2008/09:87, p. 7).To sum up, the expectations regarding teaching and teachers’ roles expressed ingovernment texts up to the late 1990s can be characterised as an emphasis on localautonomy, on the basis that teaching activities cannot be governed by nationalregulations. From the early 2000s onwards, when the focus shifts towards the aim ofbuilding an education system, there is a linguistic change as arguments about teachingand teachers become more instrumental in character.Final discussionConcluding analysisTo analyse the tensions between different criteria of application, the three potentialareas of disagreement highlighted by Skinner are a useful tool to illuminateconceptual struggles. As mentioned in the introduction, Skinner (1988a:123)argues that we might disagree about one of at least three different things: “aboutthe criteria for applying the word; about whether the agreed criteria are present717

Andreas Berghin a given set of circumstances; or about what range of speech-acts the word canbe used to perform”.My analysis reveals a tense relationship between different criteria of application,with some becoming dominant while others are challenged and/or marginalised. Thecriteria of application that are challenged to varying degrees are, generally speaking,those that have been used in education for a long time, whereas partly “new” onesbecome dominant. While some criteria that have ”traditionally” been used in educationdecrease in prominence (e.g. welfare and “Bildung”), others (e.g. knowledge) remainwith a strong linguistic force, but with a tension between different interpretations anda tendency to challenge and marginalise earlier meanings. A criterion of applicationthat becomes increasingly dominant is goal achievement. Other dominating criteriaare competition, growth, education system, legal safeguards and efficiency.The tension between different criteria of application can also be understood inrelation to the second of Skinner’s (1988a) areas of disagreement, with a focus ondifferent circumstances in which the concept of quality is, or once was, used. Accordingto my analysis, the criteria of application that can be understood in relation to anearlier educational discussion gradually become less prominent. Instead, criteria thathad been used in other social contexts, such as international policy, quality systemsand law, increases in significance. Examples of the last two are the various steeringinstruments introduced and/or strengthened through regulation during the periodstudied, such as quality reports, national tests, individual development plans, qualityreviews and inspections.Skinner’s (1988a) third area of possible disagreement directs our attention to speechacts and to how language is used to make “moves” in an argument. While the speechacts performed by Swedish governments in the late 1980s and for some years afterthat (Prop. 1988/89:100; Prop. 1992/93:220) signal some hesitation about the possibilityof measuring and evaluating quality, this is something that changes over time.When the government states in 2010 that “an equivalent education requires that legalsafeguards and quality in schools can be assured”, and that, for the students’ sake, itis of “the utmost importance to observe and draw attention to shortcomings early on”(Prop. 2009/10:165, p. 538), these arguments are put forward as having unchallengedstatus. The message is completely different in character from two decades earlier,when the government highlights the concept of “Bildung” (Prop. 1992/93:220) andemphasises that education should not be merely a planning instrument to meet thedemands of contemporary society.Why quality in education – and what quality?We will now return to the two opening questions of this article: why the concept ofquality was introduced and has become such a central theme in Swedish educationpolicy, and what quality or qualities successive governments have pursued in thelast two decades.718

Why Quality in Education – and What Quality?Beginning with the question why, one could argue that it can be answered in severaldifferent ways, or rather with a combination of many explanations. From a broaderperspective, however, we can discern two different lines of argument. First, that thequestion of quality is connected with a global trend that would very probably havearrived in Swedish education, whether there was a need for it or not. The second lineof argument takes into consideration all the different reasons given by the governmentin the development plan (Skr 1996/97:112) described above.The many arguments formulated in 1997 to explain why quality needed to be givenpriority in Swedish education reveal that the concept of quality was at that time givenseveral different criteria of application. However, it is important to note that, in theyears that follow, the criteria applied to the concept gradually changes. The earliercriteria, which relate to a greater degree to what can be called a traditional educationaldiscussion, gradually make way for criteria used in other social contexts. With referenceto the international policy arena, criteria such as goal achievement, results andcompetition are stressed. A similar attitude is based on market-inspired thinking, asfor example when the government states that competition between different localschool authorities will improve the school system (Prop. 2009/10:165). Proceedingfrom an ambition to build an education system, other criteria, referring to areas suchas law and quality systems, are given prominence.To answer the question what quality or qualities governments are pursuing duringthe period analysed, four concluding criteria of application can be formulated.Although they can be abstracted analytically into four different categories, when usedin concrete contexts they are interwoven.The first concluding criterion of application can be termed educational quality.This, however, should not be understood as a set of uniform interpretations withoutinner tensions, but as a way of drawing together different meanings that have longbeen linked to education. Some examples are meanings such as knowledge, democracy,“Bildung” and, in a wider sense, questions about goals and content which historicallyhave been discussed and debated for quite some time in relation to education. Further,to say that the concluding criterion educational quality is challenged and partlymarginalised does not mean that it disappears. It is more correct to say that somemeanings more or less disappear, while others are strengthened with support fromthe dominant criteria of application.The first of the dominant concluding criteria of application is results-basedquality. By choosing the expression “results-based quality”, rather than “goalachievement quality”, I want to stress the dominant use of the quality concept.“Goal achievement” refers in a wider sense to national goals, including qualitativegoals such as democracy and various social and communicative processes that arepart of daily school life. “Results”, on the other hand, are limited to those aspectsthat can be measured, such as grades and the level of goal achievement in differentschool subjects.719

Andreas BerghThe concluding criterion of application that I call market quality includes meaningsthat can be understood in relation to discussions referring to international policyand market needs, such as competition and economic growth. The shift in the useof the concept of goal achievement, from an emphasis on goals to an emphasis onresults, occurrr at the same time as the ambition to make Sweden a leading nationis formulated. Simultaneously, the national school authority is reorganised and thenew national education inspections begin.Finally, the last of the three dominant concluding criteria of application can bereferred to as system quality. It consists of meanings such as education system,efficiency and legal safeguards. This concluding criterion can also be understoodin relation to the different structures that are developed, such as national qualitymonitoring, inspections, local quality reports, individual development plans, writtenassessments and national tests.Broadly speaking, the use of the quality concept by successive Swedish governmentscan be described as a change in three steps: (1) Before the term quality is used morefrequently, the concluding criterion educational quality is dominant; (2) from the late1990s and a few years after that, there is a tension between educational quality andthe challenging criteria of results-based quality, market quality and system quality;and (3) at the beginning of the new millennium, educational quality is marginalisedas speech acts are increasingly dominated by results-based quality, market qualityand system quality.Final remarksWith support from speech act theory (Skinner, 1988a), it can be argued that use ofthe concept of quality has led to an acceptance of new social perceptions in education,as a result of which the concept has been applied with unchanged meanings from itsearlier use in other contexts. As a consequence of the linguistic change, earlier criteriafor what was considered or argued to be educationally desirable have been weakenedin their linguistic force. To what extent this change, emerging from an analysis ofgovernment policy texts, has also had an impact on educational practice is an empiricalquestion that requires further exploration. However, my own dissertation (Bergh,2010), which includes studies of three local school authorities and schools, points todistinct similarities in the way the concept of quality takes shape linguistically, butalso shows a clearer tension between different criteria of application in local arenasthan is the case in national policy texts.Finally, it is important to point out that the changes institutionalised through theconcept of quality are clearly influenced by what is happening in the rest of the world.International educational co-operation, global market pressures and the ambitionto develop a system of management by objectives and results have a very significantimpact on the Swedish school system. Using Skinner’s (1988a, 1988b) linguistic andhistorical approach, as in this article, we can achieve a distance from our own time720

Why Quality in Education – and What Quality?and its hegemonic ideas of timeless truths. This knowledge highlights our freedom tochallenge the normative language which in our own period holds education in place.What education will be like in the future is partly an open question.Andreas Bergh (PhD) is a research fellow at the School of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences,Örebro University. His research interests relate to education policy and curriculum studies.A current project includes an analysis of how different promotion and prevention programmes arebeing used in Swedish schools.721

Andreas BerghReferencesAxelsson, J. R. C. and Bergman, B. (1999) Att bygga och riva pyramider – offensiv kvalitets- ocharbetslivsutveckling. In Tommy Nilsson (ed.): Ständig förbättring – om utveckling av arbeteoch kvalitet, pp. 31-95. Solna: Arbetslivsinstitutet.Bergh, A. (2010) Vad gör kvalitet med utbildning? Om kvalitetsbegreppets skilda innebörder ochdess konsekvenser för utbildning [What Does Quality Do to Education? Different Meaningsof the Concept of Quality and their Consequences for Education]. Örebro: Örebro Studies inEducation, 29.Biesta, G. (2004) Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potentialof accountability be regained? Educational Theory, 54(3), 1-22.Broadfoot, P., Osborn, M., Planel, C. and Sharpe, K. (2000) Promoting Quality in Learning. DoesEngland Have the Answer? London: Cassell.Englund, T. (ed.) (1996) Utbildningspolitiskt systemskifte? Stockholm: HLS Förlag.Englund, T. and Quennerstedt, A. (2008) Linking curriculum theory and linguistics: the performativeuse of “equivalence” as an educational concept. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(6),713-724.Council of the European Union (2002) Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectivesof education and training systems in Europe http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/misc/69810.pdf [accessed 22 August 2011].Furusten, S. (2002) Från idé till institution. In E. Bejerot and H. Hasselbladh (eds.): Kvalitet utangränser – En kritisk belysning av kvalitetsstyrning, pp. 19-39. Lund: Academia Adacta.Grek, S., Lawn, M., Lingard, B. and Varjo, J. (2009) North by northwest: quality assurance andevaluation processes in European education. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 121-133.Hasselbladh, H. and Lundgren, R. (2002) Kvalitetsrörelsen i Sverige. In E. Bejerot and H. Hasselbladh(eds.): Kvalitet utan gränser – En kritisk belysning av kvalitetsstyrning, pp. 40-58.Lund: Academia Adacta.Jordheim, H. (2003) Läsningens vetenskap. Utkast till en ny filologi. Gråbo: Bokförlaget Anthropos.Liedman, S.-E. (2007) Sancta Æmulatio, Den heliga tävlingslusten. Om kvantiteternas roll i etthistoriskt perspektiv. In L. Strannegård (ed.): Den omätbara kvaliteten, pp. 26-40. Stockholm:Norstedts akademiska förlag.Lolwana, P. (2007) Does quality assurance improve the quality of education? Lessons from SouthAfrica. In C. Odora Hoppers, U. P. Lundgren, J. Pampallis, E. Motala and E. Nihlfors (eds.):Dilemmas of Implementing Education Reforms, pp. 109-132. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet,Studies in Educational Philosophy, Research Reports 11.Moberger, B. (ed.) (2005) Vi värderar kvalitet – om självvärdering och lärares utvecklingsarbete.Stockholm: Lärarförbundet och Lärarnas Riksförbund.Nytell, H. (2006) Från kvalitetsidé till kvalitetsregim. Om statlig styrning av skolan. Uppsala:Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Education, 114.Oftedal Telhaug, A. (1990) Den nye utdanningspolitiske retorikken. Bilder av internasjonal skoleutvikling.Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Ozga, J. (2009) Governing education through data in England: from regulation to self-evaluation.Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149-162.Presidency Conclusions (2000) Presidency Conclusions. Lisbon European Council, 23-24 March.http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm [accessed 22 August 2011].722

Why Quality in Education – and What Quality?Prop. 1988/89:100. Regeringens proposition med förslag till statsbudget för budgetåret 1989/90.Bilaga 10.Prop. 1992/93:220. En ny läroplan för grundskolan och ett nytt betygssystem för grundskolan,sameskolan, specialskolan och den obligatoriska särskolan.Prop. 2007/08:50. Nya skolmyndigheter.Prop. 2008/09:87. Tydligare mål och kunskapskrav – nya läroplaner för skolan.Prop. 2009/10:165. Den nya skollagen – för kunskap, valfrihet och trygghet.Regeringskansliet (2003) Alla skolor ska vara bra skolor – regeringens kvalitetsprogram förskolan. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.Rorty, R. (ed.) (1967) The Linguistic Turn. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Rönnberg, L. (2011) Exploring the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Control throughSwedish National School Inspection. Education Inquiry, 2(4) (this issue).Segerholm, C. (2009) “We are doing well on QAE”: The case of Sweden. Journal of EducationPolicy, 24(2), 195-209.SIQ (2010) Institutet för kvalitetsutveckling. Kvalitetsutmärkelsen Bättre skola. http://www.siq.se/UtmarkelsenBattreSkola.php [accessed 22 Feb. 2010].Skinner, Q. (1988a) Language and social change. In J. Tully (ed.): Meaning and Context. QuentinSkinner and His Critics, pp. 119-132. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Skinner, Q. (1988b) Motives, intentions and the interpretation of texts. In J. Tully (ed.): Meaningand Context. Quentin Skinner and His Critics, pp. 68-78. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.Skinner, Q. (2008) Part two: Is it still possible to interpret texts? The International Journal ofPsychoanalysis, 89(3), 647-654.Skr 1996/97:112. Utvecklingsplan för förskola, skola och vuxenutbildning – kvalitet och likvärdighet.Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.Skr 2001/02:188. Utbildning för kunskap och jämlikhet – regeringens utvecklingsplan förkvalitetsarbetet i förskola, skola och vuxenutbildning. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.Svenskt Näringsliv (2010) Kvaliteten i välfärden – så bra är kommunerna på att informera medborgarna2009. Stockholm: Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting (2009) Aktuellt om skola och förskola. Stockholm: SverigesKommuner och Landsting.Endnotes1This quotation, like others in the article, has been translated from Swedish by the author.723

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe Editors and the board wish to gratefully acknowledge all those listed below who havegenerously given of their time to referee papers submitted to Education Inquiry during 2010and 2011.Anna-Carin Jonsson, Sweden Inger Eriksson, Sweden Mikael Quennerstedt, SwedenAnna Sundström, Sweden Jan Bengtsson, Sweden Mona Holmqvist, SwedenAnne Larson, Denmark Jani Ursin, Finland Nafsika Alexiadou, EnglandBarbro Grevholm, Sweden Janne Varjo, Finland Nihad Bunar, SwedenBirgitta Qvarsell, Sweden Jonas Höög, Sweden Olof Johansson, SwedenBjörn Stensaker, Norway Joakim Lindgren, Sweden Paul Garland, EnglandBrian Hudson, Scotland Julie Allan, Scotland Pavel Zgaga, SloveniaChristian Lundahl, Sweden Kari Smith, Norway Per Andersson, SwedenChristina Segerholm, Sweden Karin Rönnerman, Sweden Peter Dahler-Larsen, DenmarkChristine Stephen, Scotland Katrin Hjort, Denmark Petter Aasen, NorwayDennis Beach, Sweden Kent Löfgren, Sweden Robert Thornberg, SwedenElise S Tønnesen, Norway Knut Steinar Engelsen, Norway Sharada Gade, SwedenFlorian Waldow, Germany Lew Zipin, Australia Shirley Booth, SwedenGaby Weiner, England Lisbeth Lundahl, Sweden Solveig Hägglund, SwedenGeorge Head, ScotlandMaj Asplund Carlsson, Sweden Staffan Larsson, SwedenGlenn Hultman, Sweden Margareta Petersson, Sweden Susanne Wiborg, EnglandGreta Galloway, South Africa Marianne Dovemark, Sweden Symeon Dagkas, EnglandGunn Imsen, Norway Marie Brennan, Australia Tim Simkins, EnglandGuri Skedsmo, Norway Marie Perker-Jenkins, Ireland Therese Nerheim Hopfenbeck, NorwayHelen Nixon, Australia Mark Priestley, Scotland Ulf Lundström, SwedenIngegerdTallberg-Broman, Sweden Mats Ekholm, Sweden