sgMSQjKh

11
2Governing by new performance expectations in Norwegian
3schools
4Guri Skedsmo (guri.skedsmo@ils.uio.no) and Jorunn Møller (jorunn.moller@ils.uio.no)
5Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo
6To be printed in:
7Gunter, H., Hall, D., Serpieri, R. & Grimaldi, E. (2016): New Public Management and the
8Reform of Education: European lessons for policy and practice. Routledge.
9Introduction
10The Norwegian education system is part of the Nordic welfare state: for the most part publicly
11organised and financed and aimed at providing equality and the non-discriminatory right of
12everyone to achieve their desired level of education. Equity is one of the distinctive features
13of this model, on which social democracy as a political movement and broader ideology has
14had a crucial impact, and the system stands out as one of the most equitable worldwide, with
15small differences among schools (OECD, 2012).
16Since the end of the 1980s, the Norwegian educational system has gone through major
17reforms, influenced largely by new managerial ideas. Strategies to renew the public sector
18have been promoted as New Public Management (NPM) (Christensen & Lægreid, 2011).
19During the late 1980s and 1990s, NPM did not directly challenge the established tradition of
20schooling, since its main consequences were for the restructuring of the local school
21administration at municipal level in terms of deregulation, horizontal specialisation and
22management by objectives. To date, marketisation as a principle has been less espoused in 
232
24Norway, probably because the market in school choice for students and parents exists only in
25the larger cities. The population in Norway is widely dispersed, and decentralised settlement
26is still a desirable political aim for most political parties. Moreover, the comprehensive
27educational system remains strongly rooted in traditional ideologies and norms, and
28procedures for approving private schools are strictly regulated.
29However, the development of NPM changed direction and picked up speed when Norway was
30listed below the average of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
31(OECD) members by the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) in the
32early 2000s. The need for new assessment tools to measure and monitor students’
33performance levels, strong leadership in schools and accountability became key issues in the
34public debate on education, which centred increasingly on students’ achievements in basic
35skills as the main indicator of educational quality (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013; Skedsmo, 2009).
36New assessment policies with an emphasis on performance measurement, expectations about
37the use of data to improve education and emerging accountability practices characterise the
38transition process over the last decade. Yet we have limited knowledge about how managers
39at the municipal level and principals translate demands and respond to new expectations about
40performance management in Norwegian schools. This chapter aims to fill that gap.
41The present study explores how new modes of school governing are shaped and played out
42locally, with a particular focus on managerial elements, operative function and underlying
43logic. Moreover, we investigate how school principals engage with demands for increased
44performance and accountability, as well as their involvement in shaping and changing these
45governing structures. The study describes how one municipality has introduced and developed
46an evidence-based approach to school governance. 
473
48We start by briefly describing some distinguishing features of NPM adopted in Norway. The
49next sections outline the methodology and data sources, after which a thematic analysis of the
50data is provided. We conclude the chapter by highlighting tensions and paradoxes in
51Norwegian educational policy and the persistent dilemmas that are at the core of school
52leaders’ work.
53NPM reform in the Norwegian education system
54Student performance data as a quality indicator and the means to generate such data were first
55added to the policy agenda in Norway after the OECD review of Norwegian education in
561988 (OECD, 1988-89). The focus on outcomes achieved in relation to formulated goals and
57targets represents a key element of the NPM framework. Generally, during the 1990s, Norway
58was reluctant to adopt the new managerialism. After the publication of the first PISA results
59in 2001, a new discourse emerged, more insistent than anything previously, on educational
60quality and holding school leaders and teachers to account. In 2005, the parliament decided on
61a system for assessing national educational quality, called the National Quality Assessment
62System (NQAS).
63According to current national educational policies in Norway, the key to improvement lies in
64the use of performance data and output controls. Local authorities, school principals and
65teachers are expected to use this information to improve their practice in ways that enhance
66student outcomes, particularly national test results (Skedsmo, 2009). Reforms in the education
67sector during the 2000s have been largely shaped by managerialism, but Norway has
68employed only moderate incentives and sanctions linked to outcomes achieved. Interestingly,
69the monitoring and controlling aspects are concealed in the national policy rhetoric by a
70discourse that focuses on learning and development (Skedsmo, 2011). 
714
72Although professional autonomy was still emphasised in the latest reform, the Knowledge
73Promotion (K06), trust in the profession itself seems to be replaced by trust in the results. On
74one hand, it was argued that the managerial approach to education aimed at ensuring a basic
75standard for all, by levelling out disadvantages; on the other hand, it was a push for debureaucratisation
76and de-centralisation, ostensibly allowing for more differentiation and
77specialisation (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013).
78New approaches to school governing have been developed in many municipalities that are
79responsible for the quality of schools, and in policy documents defined as school owners,
80alongside the new national expectations about using performance data to enhance educational
81quality.
82The key features of NPM, ‘the four Ms’, as outlined by Hood (1991), can be identified in
83some of the larger cities in Norway. New titles have been created for managers at the
84municipal level, who are often trained and accredited as managers using business models.
85They may or may not have an educational background. Managerial elements include a
86combination of performance measurement, quality indicators, target setting, accountability
87and the use of incentives and sanctions. Much faith is put in assessment tools that provide data
88and information. Results from national tests are used locally for benchmarking, the basis on
89which schools aim to perform better than the municipal average (Skedsmo 2011). Many Chief
90Education Officers (CEO) at municipal level also increasingly use performance-related pay to
91reward principals who can demonstrate good results in national tests in literacy and numeracy.
92At the same time, the welfarist legacy, which emphasises education for the public good,
93remains strong, mediating the reading, interpretation and shaping of international trends.
94However, conflicting rationales identified as neo-liberalism or technical–economic rationality
95are gaining ground. One of the main tensions is between discourses rooted in socially 
965
97democratic ideologies, linked to notions of equity, participation and comprehensive education,
98and discourses of competition and privatisation, which underpin NPM. The latter also
99includes strong leaders and entrepreneurs driving the modernisation project in education, and
100in many municipalities the logic of contractualism has been successfully institutionalised. The
101use of new evaluation technologies both by managers at the municipal level and principals to
102monitor student outcomes can be read as a shift towards what has been termed organisational
103professionalism, which incorporates standardised work procedures and relies on external
104regulation and accountability measures (Evetts, 2009). It echoes the management discourse
105promoted by the OECD, where performance orientation is closely connected to output
106control.
107A Norwegian study has identified how teachers are apparently redefining professionalism in
108this new governance regime. While holding to classical professional ideals, teachers have
109become more proactive in terms of creating legitimacy for their work (Mausethagen, 2013).
110Although cautious privatisation1
111is promoted nationally, to date elements linked to a market
112ideology are evident only in larger cities where competition among schools is possible, and to
113some degree in upper secondary education. Norway is comparable in size to Britain, but has
114only 5 million inhabitants. The population is widely dispersed, and many of the schools are
115quite small. In small municipalities far from the cities, managerial accountability is expected
116to happen ‘some time’ in the future.
117
1181 According to the Education Act, it is not permitted to make profits from private schools, and companies that
119have tried to bypass the law have lost their license and can no longer be in charge of schools.
1206
121Methodology and data sources
122This paper draws mainly on content analysis of selected policy documents that describe the
123procedures, tools and processes for local school governing in a particular municipality, which
124happens to be one of the largest cities in Norway. The city was chosen because it has taken a
125lead in stimulating national debates about testing and achievement scores. We identified and
126selected three key policy documents for analysis:
127Doc. 1: ‘Key Principles for Management by Objectives and Results’ describes elements in the school
128governing system (emphasis on quality management, quality indicators and the online platform where
129schools can access their results);
130Doc 2: ‘Strategic Chart’, based on balanced scorecard, presents prioritised areas, objectives and targets for
131schools and local administration;
132Doc 3: ‘Guidelines for Comprehensive Risk Management’ states the key principles for risk management and
133preventive measures to identify and reduce risk factors.
134The first reading of these documents concentrated on identifying important features in the
135local school governing system. The second reading focused on the functions of the different
136tools, accompanying accountabilities, use of incentives or sanctions and inherent logic, with a
137view to exploring stakeholders’ perceptions of the implementation of these concepts and
138tools. In addition, the Chief Education Officer (CEO) and three principals at three different
139types of schools were interviewed2
140(see Table 1).
141Table 1: Criteria for selection of schools
142
1432
144These interviews were conducted in 2011 as part of Guri Skedsmo’s postdoc project and the Vifee-project
145which she led together with Therese N. Hopfenbeck.
1467
147The principal in School 1 is in mid-career, the principal in School 2 is at an early stage in her
148career and the principal in School 3 is a veteran. The interviews were conducted in locations
149chosen by the informants. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed, and the two
150researchers independently analysed the transcripts to identify emergent themes and
151characteristics of management approaches. Our presentation of the findings includes some
152illustrative excerpts from the interviews.
153Findings
154During the last 20 years, administrative structures with clear definitions of tasks and
155responsibilities have been established. Each school represents a self-governing unit, and the
156main type of accountability can be characterised as managerial through hierarchical
157relationships: the school principals monitor the teachers’ work, the principals are monitored
158by officers at the municipal level and the CEO is accountable to the elected local politicians.
159Procedures, tools and processes highlighted in key policy documents
160Analysis of the selected policy documents yielded three key features of the local governing
161system (see Table 2).
162Table 2: Key features of local school governing 
1638
164Hands-on professional management represents an overall management concept for this
165municipality. It relates to the establishment of schools as self-governing units, with
166management ensured by different tools. Performance management stands out as the main
167pillar for governing. Objectives and targets are specified in a ‘strategic chart’, which, together
168with performance indicators and measures of performance, is the most important tools for
169monitoring. Performance indicators are divided into three categories: 1) key statistics and
170facts about the schools and their resources; 2) student outcomes in national tests, local
171screening tests, the National Student Survey and the local survey of students’ learning
172environments; and 3) self-evaluation of efforts and results in strategic development areas.
173The local education authority has developed an extensive plan for testing throughout the
174school year. The results are used to set targets and initiate efforts to improves, monitor results
175and hold key actors to account. Students’ performance in tests is used to identify those who
176achieve below the critical limit. The underlying logic is performativity in terms of identifying
177dysfunctional organisation and management.
178The management contract provides a basis for the annual performance appraisal of principals.
179This reviews the previous year’s achievements and sets objectives and targets for the next
180year, which are negotiated by principals and municipal officers. Salaries may be adjusted
181accordingly: if targets are achieved or exceeded, the principal can receive an annual salary
182increase of 3000–4000 EUR. Data aggregated from individual schools are publicly accessible,
183creating reputational risk to schools and their principals. This may have consequences for the
184enrolment of students. Although most parents at primary level choose a school near their
185home, they are in principle free to choose any school.
186In recent years, risk management has become a central feature in school governing. It is
187defined as an ‘analytical tool to ensure that every threat to goal attainment is taken into 
1889
189account and properly managed’ (doc.3, p. 12). The analysis involves identifying important
190factors to achieve targets and assessing possible risks and taking action to mitigate them.
191School principals are required to develop a plan for each action, with targets, timelines and
192responsible persons, and are accountable for the implementation and timing of relevant
193measures to avoid failure to achieve targets.
194The third element is financial management. Key figures, budgeting and audits are used to
195control output and hold principals accountable, the underlying logic being to establish budget
196discipline.
197The next sections deal with how the CEO and three principals interpret and translate the
198policy into practice.
199Enactment of policy at the municipal level
200The CEO has headed the education sector for over 10 years, consistently promoting a strong
201focus on classroom practices and student learning: ‘My aim all the time was to establish a
202system with clear expectations and a practice where we can demonstrate effects on student
203learning.’ She describes this as both a self-defined mission and a mandate from city
204politicians. Leadership has attained a mantra-like status for her, ‘leadership, leadership,
205leadership’ is the solution for schools that score low in academic achievement. Accordingly,
206she has worked in close collaboration with the Norwegian Business School, which offers a
207master’s programme in management that stresses general leadership skills and the principal’s
208role in implementing policies to raise students outcomes (Møller & Ottesen, 2011).
209The CEO emphasises the need to develop solid structures in the school system and transparent
210systems for documenting learning outcomes:
21110
212The idea was […] to establish evidence-based practices in schools. […] The principal has a
213management contract […] this is part of our balanced scorecard system […] They have a strategic chart
214[…] this is part of our governing tools which we follow up on.
215She claims that setting high expectations for student achievement, keeping track of principals’
216and teachers’ professional development needs and holding them accountable for results are
217keys to school improvement. The management contract is a useful monitoring tool. At the
218same time, she criticises the national educational authorities for ‘accepting’ low academic
219scores and weak leadership in many schools, questioning how it is possible to claim that
220Norway offers equal opportunities for a good education for all within such a low-stakes
221system, and arguing for the need to act to avoid sliding backwards. Setting high expectations
222for students is important, particularly so for students from a minority background:
223I do not like to talk about minority language students; I prefer focusing on students who do not speak
224Norwegian properly. We need to create appropriate help and opportunities for these students because
225often they do not have support from their parents. There is a risk that they will not fulfil their potential if
226they do not speak Norwegian fluently.
227The CEO is pleased with her accomplishments over the last 10 years, particularly when
228reflecting on the situation in which she started this job:
229When I started in this municipality, we had creative teaching practices, good teachers and all that …
230there is no doubt about that. But there was no direction [knocks on the table for emphasis], there was no
231structure and there was no focus on results [knocks on the table] […]
232She strongly disagrees with those who argue that teaching in this city has become more
233bureaucratised during her leadership, because ‘we simply need to have control over learning
234processes’. She also ‘models’ the type of conversations she expects principals to have with
235teachers: 
23611
237What outcomes did you achieve last year? What is your ambition now? How are you going to work
238with your students to fulfil their potential? Why did your students perform less well in language than
239last year? And so on. It is a matter of what kind of expectations you have. Then, of course, the principal
240has to create conditions for the teachers to accomplish their goals.
241Her deputy directors check on each principal twice a year, asking questions such as: ‘What
242are your ambitions? What went well last year? How do you explain the performance data in
243your school?’ Her style can be characterised as ‘hands-on professional management’.
244Responses to policy at the school level
245The principals in this study have a positive perception of this governing system and the strong
246focus on students’ academic achievements. They all endorse the clear expectations conveyed
247by the CEO and her emphasis on striving to enhance students’ learning and provide them with
248the best possible foundation for the future. Moreover, they are satisfied with the ways they are
249monitored at municipal level and emphasise that they maintain a good dialogue about student
250achievement and maximising their school’s potential by taking the context (e.g. demography)
251and challenges into account. The results of national tests and the municipality’s own tests
252represent the most important quality indicator for principals. Principals use the national test
253results with a view to initiating strategies for improvement.
254The strong performance focus seems to place extra emphasis on the systems and tools used by
255teachers to monitor and track students’ learning. In all three schools, the students are tested at
256the end of each work period, i.e. after 1–2 weeks. The primary school has implemented a
257weekly quiz covering the main subject areas students have studied during the week. The
258results are used to adjust the work plan. If the students appear to have missed out on important
259areas, they are offered repetition classes. 
26012
261In the two lower secondary schools, students’ learning is tracked through tests administered
262by the teachers every second week. Additionally, they are assessed on the overall topic across
263the different subjects. Results from these tests form the basis for grading and recording the
264progress of individual students.
265Principals hold dialogues with teachers, establish routines for collaboration and exchange
266across teacher teams, and prioritise target areas. In the primary school, the students did not
267perform well on the national tests in literacy two years ago. The principal met with the fifthgrade
268teachers to target the problem areas, and with the fourth-grade teachers in order to learn
269from previous years. She also decided that the teachers should devote 15 minutes every day to
270reading with their students, focusing on reading strategies. The next year, the school improved
271its literacy results and achieved its goal of performing above the average of schools in the
272municipality.
273National test data are used to stream students, but the groups are not established permanently,
274as this would conflict with the Education Act. We identified some differences between
275schools related to practices for streaming and formulating learning goals. In one of the lower
276secondary schools, the students’ goals are aligned with their achievement levels. In the
277primary school,
2783
279the principal states that there is no reason not to have the same learning goals
280and assessment criteria for all students. The school has invested time in formulating
281understandable and measurable learning goals and the teachers have worked intensively on
282differentiated ways of providing feedback to students. The students then differ according to
283their respective degrees of accomplishing their aims. The school also hopes that teachers will
284
2853
286In primary schools, there is no grading, but parents meet the teachers and discuss their children’s progress.
287These schools also provide written reports on the students’ progress.
28813
289work more effectively on the mandatory written reports that are used as the basis for
290dialogues between teachers, individual students and their parents.4
291All three principals realise the need to monitor and support teachers’ work in the classroom.
292In two of the schools, a ‘school walkthrough’ [skolevandring] has been implemented, where
293the principals conduct brief lesson observations. However, the principals unfortunately cannot
294do this as often as they would like, because of their heavy administrative workload. However,
295the teachers in these schools find the observations and subsequent feedback useful and a sign
296that their work is valued. In the third school, this practice is not yet established.
297In one of the schools, the principal regularly meets students who are performing below the
298critical level, and they sign a contract agreeing on the learning goals for the next six months.
299When he follows up on these students, he finds the intervention has made a significant
300difference, because the students take it more seriously than discussions with their teachers.
301All the principals have management contracts that state their targets, which are evaluated in
302two annual performance appraisals with officers at municipal level. One of the principals
303admits not reaching his targets in the beginning because he was too ambitious. However, he
304has learned to become more strategic:
305To begin with, it was hard to articulate aims that you could actually achieve. After a while, you become
306more strategic when you formulate the aims so that it is actually possible to accomplish them (Principal
307in School 3).
308National test results are often used as a quality indicator on which the municipality may
309decide to award teachers a salary increase. Additionally, the principals have contracts with
310
3114
312The Education Act states that all students in Norway are entitled to have two annual assessment dialogues with
313their teachers, in which the parents also participate.
31414
315their teachers, and, in the annual performance appraisals, they assess the teachers’
316achievements according to the development aims and target areas stated in their contracts.
317Although the principals in the three selected schools may agree with the local policies and
318strong performance orientation, they also reflect on the implications of such a one-sided
319focus. This came out particularly in the interview with the veteran principal of the school with
320the most heterogeneous student group. On one hand, he thinks the schools in this municipality
321have profoundly improved their practices through their strong performance orientation. On
322the other hand, he points out some vital aspects of education that seem to receive less
323attention:
324[…] the aspects you focus on get better […] The general part of the curriculum gets less attention; it is
325saved for public sermons. In our school, we have struggled with social issues among the students and
326we need to focus on these issues in parallel […] If not […] then the consequences could be very bad for
327the students involved (Principal in School 3).
328The principal in the high SES school is also somewhat critical of stressing basic skills to the
329extent that schools feel obliged to direct all their efforts towards improving students’
330performance in these skills. She states:
331The students need to develop themselves in a range of areas and I am critical of putting the general part
332of the curriculum aside to focus only on developing basic skills (Principal in School 1).
333However, it seems that there is less leeway for discussing such issues at the municipal level.
334The three principals emphasise that they focus on student learning outcomes and work
335systematically to foster a conducive learning environment by enhancing collaboration among
336teachers and establishing effective routines to support practice. By doing so, they try to align
337high performance expectations with specific school priorities and their own sets of
338professional norms and values.
33915
340Discussion
341The present research exemplifies how managerial modes are (or may be) shaped and
342implemented as part of local school governing in Norway. Our analysis of local policy
343documents shows how managerialism is integrated into accountability policy, with the aim of
344setting clear performance targets to hold schools to account for achieved outcomes. The
345principal’s role is framed as that of an organisational manager, expected to respond to external
346demands and the needs of families or ‘consumers’. Performance expectations are closely
347related to national and municipal test results. By adding risk management, the intention is to
348ensure that threats to the attainment of goals are taken into account and managed. In certain
349ways, it implies control of processes leading up to educational outcomes and a kind of rational
350calculation of possible failure. Financial incentives connected to management contracts are a
351further motivation to achieve targets.
352The document analysis and the interview with the CEO clearly demonstrate how managerial
353elements have been introduced in local school governing, enabling a strong performance
354orientation through management by objectives and results, transparent structures and
355processes to monitor school results and explicit expectations of key actors to improve learning
356outcomes. Even though the study is small, the interviews with the principals exemplify how
357their translation of policy is mainly a process of compliance. The principals’ understanding of
358the mission and priorities of education largely chime with that of the CEO. Two of the
359principals acknowledge some dangers with performativity, as it directs the focus on what can
360be tested, while other aspects of education receive less attention unless the schools
361specifically prioritise them. The veteran principal is concerned with social problems among
362his students, and in his discussions with municipal officers he has to justify the time spent on
363this issue. Nonetheless, all three principals embrace the strong focus on learning outcomes,
36416
365realising that their hard, systematic work produces results and highlights how teachers can
366support students’ learning. They also emphasise the importance of analysing data to decide on
367the actions that will have the most impact on school improvement. The principals’
368justification of their actions with respect to achieving targets reflects the culture of
369accountability that exists in the municipality. If the targets are not achieved, the principals
370must provide explanations; if the results continue to decline, their performance will be
371scrutinised or they may be advised to find another job.
372Compared to the ways in which accountability practices are implemented in relation to highstakes
373testing in other countries (e.g. the UK or the USA), low test scores do not lead to
374closure of schools or dismissal of principals in Norway. Still, accountability policies do
375influence principals’ and teachers’ work (Mausethagen, 2013). Schools are keen to perform
376well in the tests because of concerns about their reputation in their municipality (Skedsmo &
377Mausethagen, forthcoming 2016). Some municipalities publish school results while others do
378not, but, either way, all the schools know how they performed in relation to one another. The
379use of management contracts and performance appraisals for principals strengthen the basis
380for the development of performativity. Moreover, accountability is enforced by implementing
381consequences if the school or the principal fails to meet performance targets.
382So far, international research has not verified the effectiveness of high-stakes systems in terms
383of significantly sustainable impacts (Figlio & Ladd, 2010; Fryer, 2011). On the contrary,
384depending on what kind of accountability practices are applied, particularly regarding
385sanctions, elements such as performance-based incentives may lead some teachers to cheat in
386order to meet their targets. The extent of such occurrences is unknown, but research in major
387American cities has documented such trends (Meier et al. 2004). 
38817
389The CEO’s ideas on the characteristics of teacher effectiveness chime with those suggested by
390research on overall school effectiveness. It is argued that achieving equality of opportunity is
391possible when educators are determined that all students can succeed and that this expectation
392should override the impact of structural disadvantage or a culture that emphasises
393disadvantage and marginalisation. In a multicultural environment, it is sensible to focus on
394basic skills such as reading, writing and numeracy to give all students the opportunity for
395social mobility and social access. Access depends on students’ proficiency in the Norwegian
396language and can be aligned to the legacy of a ‘common school for all’ and of abolishing the
397class-based society.
398The CEO is very clear in what she expects from her schools. At the same time, she advocates
399a monocultural approach to teaching and learning. Although she expresses concern for
400students from linguistic and ethnic minority groups, she does not talk about explicit strategies
401for inclusion but instead focuses on minority students’ deficits in speaking Norwegian
402fluently. It is crucial to enhance basic skills for all students, but inclusion of minority students
403does not appear to be a strategic priority for her. As Kalantzis and Cope (1999) argued, it
404would require space and time to develop critical conversations about inclusion in local
405schools.
406In this municipality, individual schools seem free to prioritise such conversations and align
407the need to promote social competencies with their efforts to drive up performance in basic
408skills. The emphasis on performativity may encourage principals to be more responsive to
409external demands. Schools may also experience tensions between improving test scores and
410the need to equalise learning opportunities and accommodate cultural and socioeconomic
411differences. As a solution, some schools use the national and municipal test data to divide
412students into groups according to their academic achievement, in an attempt to standardise
413and make teachers’ work more efficient. Standardisation at group level becomes a means to 
41418
415fulfil legal requirements on adapting teaching according to individual needs and abilities.
416Since the Education Act prohibits streaming in permanent groups in compulsory education,
417schools have to change the group structure quite frequently.
418If student test results are the outcome measure that must be met, schools will be likely to
419focus on them at all costs. Therefore, as equity is not included as an outcome in economic
420models of agency theory and public choice, there is a risk of sacrificing equity in the
421implementation of managerial policies in education.
422Conclusion
423In this chapter, we have explored how new modes of school governance are shaped and
424played out. The analysis shows how NPM features are evident in the public provision of
425education in the municipality studied. The CEO’s approach can be characterised as hands-on
426professional management, and she expects the principals to implement similar strategies.
427Thus, there are explicit expectations and measures of performance for principals and schools.
428All these elements show NPM interventions in education and a shift towards organisational
429professionalism (Evetts, 2009), which may replace the reliability of professional ethics with
430external forms of regulation and accountability. From the interviews with principals it is
431evident that this new focus brings good results, but at the same time can indicate a narrow
432focus and a neglect of key features of the legacy of education in Norway, such as citizenship
433and democracy. Moreover, it can divert from challenges at local school level unless the
434principals tackle these themselves. Considering these aspects as well as responding to new
435performance expectations create dilemmas for the principals.
43619
437A large emphasis on control of outputs is noticeable, as well as on avoidance of risk. On the
438one hand, the underlying logic of the managerial elements identified in this local system
439signifies accountability practices concentrating on performativity. On the other, the logic
440inherent in such elements implies identifying failures in specific practices and systems, which
441can be traced back to the decisions and performances of individual persons. If the search for
442failure becomes too dominant, principals may adopt certain strategies in order to avoid
443negative consequences. Over time, this could imply changes which break with the legacy of
444professional autonomy and trust in the profession.
445Despite variation in the ways the 428 municipalities in Norway have adopted managerial
446ideas in their local governing system, certain trends may be identified across the country (cf.
447Karseth, Møller & Aasen, 2013). Based on the analysis of documents and the interview data,
448we argue that the language and local governing practices are changing. Introducing
449management principles into education has allowed for a reinterpretation of the educational
450process in terms of an economic transaction. The learner is often described as a consumer, the
451teacher as the provider and education as a ‘commodity’ to be delivered (Møller, 2007). This
452new language may erode a broader discussion about education for citizenship over the long
453term (Biesta, 2004).
454It may be questioned whether traditional egalitarian values, concepts of equity are being
455challenged by these new managerial elements, particularly performativity. However, even
456though multiple managerial devices have entered educational policy, the narrative of a
457common public school for all remains strong. While equity refers to an appreciation of
458diversity that values the students’ different abilities and competencies, measurement and
459standardisation imply identifying and aiming to bridge achievement gaps. Such an approach
460may indicate a belief in minimising or suppressing individual differences. Whether Norway 
46120
462will maintain its legacy of valuing the common school for all as a tenet of equal educational
463opportunity remains an open question. 
46421
465References
466Biesta, G. (2004). Against learning: Reclaiming a language for education in an age of
467learning. Nordisk Pedagogik, 24(1), 70-83.
468Christensen, T., and Lægreid, P. (2011). Beyond NPM? Some development features. In T.
469Christensen and P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to New Public
470Management (pp. 391-403). Farnham, England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
471Clarke, J., and Newman, J. (2009). Public, politics and power. Remaking the public in public
472services. London: Sage.
473Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Policy, practice, and performance.
474Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
475Eriksen, T. H. (2012). Immigration and national identity in Norway. In Bertelsmann Stiftung
476(Ed.), Rethinking national identity in the age of migration (pp. 342-363). Gütersloh:
477Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.
478Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, England: Polity
479Press.
480Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and New Public Management: Changes, continuities
481and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8(2), 247-266.
482Figlio, D., and Ladd, H. (2010). The economics of school accountability. In D. Brewer and P.
483McEwan (Eds.), Economics of education (pp. 351-356). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
484Fryer, R. (2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City
485public schools. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
486Hallinger, P., and Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
487Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership
488and Management, 30(2), 95-110.
489Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3-19. 
49022
491Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the
492tools of government after two decades. Governance: An International Journal of
493Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 20(1), 127-144.
494Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., and Mackay, T. (2014). School and system
495improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School
496Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(2), 257-
497281.
498Kalantzis, M., and Cope, B. (1999). Multicultural education: Transforming the mainstream. In
499S. May (Ed.), Critical multiculturalism: Rethinking multicultural and antiracist
500education (pp. 245-276). London: Falmer Press.
501Klausen, K. K. (2001). Skulle det være noget særligt? [Is that supposed to be special?]
502Copenhagen: Børsen.
503Lascoumes, P., and Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding public policy through its
504instruments – from the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy
505instrumentation. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and
506Institutions, 20(1), 1-21.
507Leithwood, K., and Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San
508Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. A Wiley Imprint.
509Mausethagen, S. (2013). Reshaping teacher professionalism. An analysis of how teachers
510construct and negotiate professionalism under increasing accountability. PhD
511dissertation, Oslo and Akershus University College, Oslo.
512Meier, D., Kohn, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Sizer, T., and Wood, G. (Eds.) (2004). Many
513children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and
514our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
51523
516Møller, J. (2007). Educational leadership and the new language of learning. International
517Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(1), 31-49.
518Møller, J., and Ottesen, E. (2011). Building leadership capacity: The Norwegian approach. In
519T. Townsend and J. MacBeath (Eds.), International handbook of leadership for
520learning (pp. 619-635). Dordrecht: Springer.
521Møller, J., and Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernizing education – NPM reform in the Norwegian
522education system. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(4), 336-353.
523OECD (1988-89). Ekspertvurdering fra OECD. OECD-vurdering av norsk
524utdanningspolitikk. Kirke-, og undervisningsdepartementet. Kultur- og
525vitenskapsdepartementet. Organisasjonen for kulturelt og økonomisk samarbeid. Oslo:
526Aschehoug.
527OECD (2012). Equity and quality in education. Supporting disadvantaged students and
528schools: OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-
529en
530Peters, G., and Pierre, J. (Eds.) (2005). Handbook of public administration (2nd edn.). London:
531Sage.
532Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis.
533New Public Management, governance, and the neo-Weberian state. New York:
534Oxford University Press.
535Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie, C., and
536Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-of-the-art
537review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of
538research, Policy and Practice, 25(2), 197-230.
539Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition? Perspectives, purposes and perceptions
540of evaluation policy. PhD dissertation, University of Oslo. 
54124
542Skedsmo, G. (2011). Formulation and realisation of evaluation policy: Inconsistencies and
543problematic issues. Journal of Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
54423(1), 5-20.
545Skedsmo, G., and Mausethagen, S. (forthcoming 2016). Accountability policies and
546educational leadership – a Norwegian perspective. In J. Easley and P. Tulowitski
547(Eds.), Accountability and educational leadership – Country perspectives. London:
548Routledge.