Skip to main content

“Governing by templates” through new modes of school inspection in Norway

Journal of Educational Change volume 18, pages 161–182 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

To date, few observational studies have addressed Scandinavian school inspectors in the field, specifically how inspectors use templates to monitor the formative assessment routines of schools and local school authorities. This paper investigates how the current inspection handbook is being adopted and enacted on the municipal level and the school level in Norwegian compulsory schools. Specifically, this study illuminates through observation two empirical examples of how one of the 17 County Governors’ Offices, as part of a larger study, conducted regular, state school inspection. Conceptually, the paper focuses on how inspection guides and steers though use of fixed templates. Analysis shows that inspectors and schools under scrutiny are struggling in combining the traditional focus on legal compliance with a more performative emphasis on formative assessment of students. In addition, the examples given highlight how combining field observation and the concept of “governing by templates” contributes to school inspection studies, in a dynamic policy context undergoing substantial change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Apple, M. W. (2005). Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly, 47, 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy Sociology and Critical Social Research: A personal review of recent education policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2015). Education, governance and the tyranny of numbers. Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 299–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J. A. (2014). An independent inspectorate? Addressing the paradoxes of educational inspection in 2013. School Leadership & Management, 34(1), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J., Grek, S., & Segerholm, C. (2015). Regulatory frameworks: Shifting frameworks, shifting criteria. In S. Grek & J. Lindgren (Eds.), Governing by inspection. Studies in European education studies (pp. 27–37). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behnke, K., & Steins, G. (2016). Principals’ reactions to feedback received by school inspection: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Change. doi:10.1007/s10833-016-9275-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (1843). The works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. IV, J. Bowring (Ed.). (Edinburgh: Simpkin, Marshall and Company) [Reprinted 1962. (New York: Russell and Russell).

  • Bitan, K., Haep, A., & Steins, G. (2015). School inspections still in dispute: An exploratory study of school principals’ perceptions of school inspections. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 419–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case studies in policy sociology. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: Examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 547–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2011). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder [Social research methods]. Malmö: Liber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, J. (2015). Inspections: Governing at a distance. In S. Grek & J. Lindgren (Eds.), Governing by inspection. Studies in European Education Series (pp. 11–26). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, S. J. (2016). Post-panopticism and school inspection in England. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 37(4), 623–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarniawska-Joerges, B. (2007). Shadowing: And other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: An overview of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dedering, K., & Müller, S. (2011). School improvement through inspection? First empirical sightings from Germany. Journal of Educational Change, 12(3), 301–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2006). Towards a theory on the impact of school inspections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehren, M. C. M., & Visscher, A. J. (2008). The relationships between school inspections, school characteristics and school improvement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(2), 205–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstad, E. (2009). Schools which are named, shamed and blamed by the media: School accountability in Norway. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(2), 173–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1987). Övervakning och straff [Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison]. Lund: Arkiv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourcade, M. (2010). The problem of embodiment in the sociology of knowledge: afterword to the special issue on knowledge in practice. Qualitative Sociology, 33(4), 569–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Government Act. (1992). Act relating to municipalities and county authorities (“The Local Government Act”). Retrieved from www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/krd/tx-23249-kommuneloven-eng.pdf.

  • Government Act. (1998). Act relating to primary and secondary education (“Opplæringsloven”). http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/KD/Vedlegg/Grunnskole/Education_Act_Norway_30_September_2010.pdf.

  • Grek, S. (2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA ‘effect’ in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 23–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grek, S., Lawn, M., Ozga, J., & Segerholm, C. (2013). Governing by inspection? European inspectorates and the creation of a European education policy space. Comparative Education, 49(4), 486–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grek, S., Lawn, M., Ozga, J., Shapira, M. & Weir, A. (2010). School self-evaluation in Scotland. (Scotland: National Report, 2010.2, 10).

  • Grek, S., & Lindgren, J. (Eds.). (2015). Governing by inspection. Studies in European education series. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grønmo, S. (2004). Samfunnsvitenskapelige metoder [Methods in social science]. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. B. (2016). State School Inspection: The Norwegian Example. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Teacher Education and School Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo. ISSN 1501-8962/No. 259.

  • Hall, J. B. (2017). Examining school inspectors and education directors within the organisation of school inspection policy: Perceptions and views. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 61(1), 112–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. B., & Sivesind, K. (2015). State school inspection policy in Norway and Sweden (2002–2012): A reconfiguration of governing modes? Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 429–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, T. (2013). Beneath the surface of accountability: Answerability, responsibility and capacity-building in recent education reforms in Norway. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 113–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgøy, I., & Homme, A. (2006). Policy tools and institutional change: Comparing education policies in Norway, Sweden and England. Journal of Public Policy, 26(02), 141–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind: Schooling in the age of accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, C. (2011). Evaluation-The (not so) softly softly approach to governance and its consequences for compulsory education in the Nordic countries. Education Inquiry, 2(4), 671–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (1993). Social-political governance: Introduction. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern governance: New government—society interactions (pp. 1–8). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawn, M., & Grek, S. (2012). Europeanizing education: Governing a new policy space. Oxford: Symposium.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Legal Standards and Professional Judgment in Educational Leadership: The LEX-EL project. (2016). (Oslo: The University of Oslo). http://www.uv.uio.no/ils/english/research/projects/legalstandardsedu/.

  • Lindgren, J. (2015). The front and back stages of Swedish school inspection: Opening the black box of judgment. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 58–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maroy, C. (2012). Towards post-bureaucratic modes of governance: A European perspective. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2012 (pp. 62–79). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mausethagen, S. (2013). Accountable for what and to whom? Changing representations and new legitimation discourses among teachers under increased external control. Journal of Educational Change, 14(4), 423–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986–1988. European Journal of Education, 23(1/2), 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. & Ehren, M. (2014). Review and synthesis of evidence on the (mechanisms of) impact of school inspections. http://schoolinspections.eu/impact/review-on-the-impact-and-mechanisms-of-impact-of-school-inspections/.

  • Ozga, J. (2009). Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (Eds.). (2011). Fabricating quality in education: Data and governance in Europe. Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozga, J., & Grek, S. (2008). Governing by numbers? Shaping education through data, CES Briefing No 44. Edinburgh: Centre for Educational Sociology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozga, J., & Segerholm, C. (2015). Neo-liberal agenda(s) in education. In S. Grek & J. Lindgren (Eds.), Governing by inspection. Studies in European education studies (pp. 27–37). Oxon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: Disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perryman, J. (2007). Inspection and emotion. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin, C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2011). Constructing social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Oaks Press/Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regulation. (2006). Forskrift til opplæringsloven FOR-2006-06-23-724 [Regulation pertaining to the Education Act, 1998]. Oslo: The Ministry of Education and Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rönnberg, L. (2014). Justifying the need for control. Motives for Swedish national school inspection during two governments. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(4), 385–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segerholm, C. (2009). “We are doing well on QAE”: The case of Sweden. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data. London/Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, M. (2014a). Governing education without reform: The power of the example. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 712–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons, M. (2014b). Governing through feedback: From national orientation towards global positioning. In T. Fenwick, E. Mangez, & J. Ozga (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2014: Governing knowledge: Comparison, knowledge-based technologies and expertise in the regulation of education (pp. 155–171). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivesind, K. H. (1999). Structured, qualitative comparison. Quality & Quantity, 33(4), 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sivesind, K. (2012). Law + pedagogy = truth? Regular, state inspection of schools: On new forms of governing and use of professional judgment. In H. Jakhelln & T. Welstad (Eds.), Utdanningsrettslige emner - artikler med utvalgte tema fra skole- og arbeidsrettens område (pp. 655–681). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademiske.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivesind, K., Skedsmo, G. & Hall, J. B. (2016). Et felles nasjonalt tilsyn: reformbaner og scenarier. [Regular, state inspection: reform trajectories and scenarios through history]. In K. Andenæs & J. Møller (Eds.), Retten i skolen – mellom pedagogikk, jus og politikk (pp. 99–122). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

  • Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition. Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Teacher Education and School Research, Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Oslo.

  • Statistics Norway (SSB). (2016a). Key figures on municipal activities(KOSTRA). https://www.ssb.no/en/offentlig-sektor/kostra.

  • Statistics Norway (SSB). (2016b). Official website. http://www.ssb.no/en/.

  • The Knowledge Promotion. (2006). Oslo: The Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/Stottemeny/English/Curriculum-in-English/_english/Knowledge-promotion—Kunnskapsloftet/.

  • The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013a). Methods for inspection: A handbook of inspection methods in compliance with the Pre-school Act and the Education Act. Oslo: The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013b). The education mirror (2013): Facts and analysis of kindergarten, primary and secondary education in Norway. (Oslo: The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training). http://www.udir.no/globalassets/upload/rapporter/theeducationmirror_2013.pdf.

  • The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2015). Endringer i regelverket om vurdering [Amendments in regulations concerning assessment]. https://www.fylkesmannen.no/PageFiles/606861/Endringer-i-regelverket-om-vurdering.pdf.

  • The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2016a). Regelverk - Tilsyn i utdanningssektoren [Regulations: Inspection in the educational sector]. http://www.udir.no/Regelverk/regelverk/tilsyn/.

  • The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2016b). Felles nasjonalt tilsyn 2014–2017 [Regular state inspection 2014–2017]. http://www.udir.no/regelverk-og-tilsyn/tilsyn/felles-nasjonalt-tilsyn/felles-nasjonalt-tilsyn-2014-2017/.

  • Trujillo, T. (2014). The modern cult of efficiency intermediary organizations and the new scientific management. Educational Policy, 28(2), 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (2009). Enacting an environment: Infrastructure of organizing. In K. E. Weick (Ed.), Making sense of the organization: The impermanent organization (Vol. II, pp. 184–197). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2013). Att följa lärande - formativ bedömning i praktiken [Embedded formative assessment]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, A. (2014). Professionalizing school governance: The disciplinary effects of school autonomy and inspection on the changing role of school governors. Journal of Education Policy, 30(2), 182–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the Research Council of Norway (Project No. 212328), who financed the project “Legal Standards and Professional Judgment in Educational Leadership” (LEX-EL), based at the University of Oslo, Norway. The author wishes to thank colleagues at the Faculty of Educational Sciences in Oslo for their valuable comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Teacher Education and School Research, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1099, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway

    Jeffrey Brooks Hall

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Brooks Hall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Brooks Hall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hall, J.B. “Governing by templates” through new modes of school inspection in Norway. J Educ Change 18, 161–182 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9295-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9295-y

Keywords

  • Educational policy
  • Governing by templates
  • Governing tools
  • Policy enactment
  • School inspection
  • School self-evaluation