Skip to main content

Schools which are named, shamed and blamed by the media: school accountability in Norway

Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability volume 21, pages 173–189 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

Since Norway introduced tests and other types of measurements the press, with a negative bias, has placed the spotlight on those schools which performed badly in attainment measurements. The press reconstructs from public sources “league tables” of aggregated student achievements but at present the official position opposes the public ranking of schools. This article discusses the consequences within schools of such negative media coverage and the responses within badly performing schools that have been named, shamed and blamed in prominent headlines. This media spotlight brings into play a complex emotional process which may spur schools into improvement mechanisms or provoke a hostile reaction, or result in panic measures.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. Ministry of Education 1996.

  2. Ole Briseid.

  3. This was so despite the fact that Norway had in 1995 the lowest score in Science topics in the 4th grade of all European countries, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, TIMSS.

  4. PISA is an acronym of Programme for International Student Assessment

  5. From the CEO of the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, the executive agency for the Ministry

  6. School performance (value added) indicators supplement the existing information about school quality and results. The indicators control for differences in family background. They are useful in identifying schools with good practices, and they make it possible to identify school-level decisions that enhance student achievement. School performance indicators are developed for compulsory schools and upper secondary schools in Norway.

  7. http://skoleporten.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/default.aspx

  8. https://lextra.oslo.kommune.no/ude/kvalitetsportalen?

  9. “Previously principals would be congratulated if they received extra funding through political contacts. Now we get criticised.”(Principal Johannes Øvereng in Aftenposten 23.12.2002).

  10. http://www.utdanningsetaten.oslo.kommune.no/tall_fakta/arsmelding/

  11. The reasoning goes like this: When the teacher selects a high degree of effort and high intensity, the student selects low intensity. When the teacher selects a low degree of effort and low intensity, the student selects low intensity. No matter what the teacher chooses, the student chooses low learning intensity. Equally, the teacher chooses a low degree of effort no matter what the student chooses.

  12. No interaction between the school’s agents is pre-destined to converge towards the equilibrium of comfort (see Elstad 2006, 2008a for a more detailed explanation). There are also other plausible strategy combinations: (I) the student chooses low learning intensity and the teacher chooses high academic ambitions, (II) the student chooses high learning intensity and the teacher chooses low academic ambitions and (III) the student chooses high intensity and the teacher chooses high academic ambitions.

  13. Guilt is triggered by a negative belief about one’s efforts, when one realizes that one has not done enough to meet a social or moral norm. Shame cognition occurs as a result of the emotional experience of guilt.

  14. A fine grained mapping of teacher emotions is found in Leithwood 2007.

  15. I use small letters related to the arrows in Fig. 2 to discern different mental mechanisms.

  16. We are not in a position to isolate the effects of improved teaching practice with students from possible other improvement efforts, for example students’ familiarity with the test format, and increased opportunity to practice test-taking.

  17. Most students shift school in the autumn term of year 8.

  18. https://lextra.oslo.kommune.no/ude/kvalitetsportalen?

  19. Leo Tolstoy, cited in Elmore 2005.

References

  • Andersen, M., Dellemyr, M. Eckhoff, M. R. (2005). Nye vurderingsformer—ny kurs for skoleledere? [New forms of assessment—new policy for school leaders] Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

  • Boudon, R. (1986). Theories of social change. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools. A core resource for improvement. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creemers, B. P. M., Stoll, L., Reezigt, G., & the ESI Team. (2007). Effective school improvement—Ingredients for success: The results of an international comparative study of best practice case studies. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Part Two (pp. 825–838). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dale, E. L., & Wærness, J. I. (2003). Differensiering og tilpasning i grunnopplæringen. [Differentiation and adjustment in education]. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. G. (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 

  • Dosronningen, S. (2007). Hvordan ansvarliggjøres ledere i skolen? [How are school leaders accountable?]. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out. Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore, R. (2005). Building New Knowledge. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/spring05/elmore.htm. Accessed 24 February 2009

  • Elstad, E. (2002). Towards a Model of Strategic Actions in the Classroom: Games theory as research heuristic. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(1), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstad, E. (2006). Understanding the nature of accountability failures in the technology-filled classroom: disaffected students and teachers who give in. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 459–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstad, E. (2008a). Towards a theory of mutual dependency between school administrators and teachers. Bargaining theory as research heuristic. Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, 36(3), 383–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstad, E. (2008b). Ansvarliggjøringsmekanismer: Når skoleeier eller pressen stiller skoler til ansvar.[Accountability mechanisms: When the school owner or the media held schools accountable] In:Gjert Langfeldt, Eyvind Elstad & Stefan T. Hopmann (eds.) Ansvarlighet i skolen. Oslo: Cappelen Forlag.

  • Elster, J. (1999). Alchemies of the mind. Rationality and the emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elster, J. (2006). Weakness of will and preference reversals. In J. Elster, O. Gjelsvik, Aa Hylland & K. Moene (Eds.), Understanding choice, Explaining behaviour (pp. 57–74). Oslo: Oslo Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helgeland, G. (2001). Opplæringslova. [The Education Act]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kydland, F. E., & Prescott, E. C. (1977). Rules rather than discretion: The inconsistency of optimal plans. Journal of Political Economy, 85(3), 473–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J. J., & Martimort (2002). The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leithwood, K. (2007). The emotional side of school improvement: A leadership perspective. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Part Two (pp. 615–634). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lie, A. L. K. (2007). Skoleledelse og elevresultater [School leadership and students’ results]. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1975). The comparable-case in comparative research. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 158–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lysne, A. (2006). Assessment theory and practice of students’ outcomes in the Nordic countries. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 327–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education (1996). Curriculum for primary, lower and upper secondary education. http://www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/templates/) Accessed 1 October 2008.

  • Nilsen, Y. (2007). Offentliggjøring av elevresultater. [Publicity of student results]. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Day, J. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review, 72(3), 293–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • PISA (2001). Messages from PISA 2000. http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/15/20/34668095.pdf. Accessed 27 December 2008.

  • Popper, K. R. (1976). The logic of the social sciences. In T. W. Adorno, H. Albert, R. Dahrendorf, J. Habermas, H. Pilot & K. R. Popper (Eds.), The positivist dispute in german sociology (pp. 87–104). London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronneberg, I. (2007). Nye system for evaluering. Følelser—en kategori i accountability-mekanismer? [New assessment systems. Emotions—a category in accountability mechanisms?]. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (2006). Strategies of Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sejersted, F. (2005). Sosialdemokratiets tidsalder. [The age of social democracy]. Oslo: Pax Forlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skrede, S. (2004). Hvorfor er norske elever svake i fag og på topp i bråk? [Why have Norwegian students so bad performance results and noisy?] Aftenposten 20.12, page 11 (chronicle)

  • Strom, K. (2006). Nasjonale prøver i matematikk [National tests in Mathematics]. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The nordic model in education: education as part of political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, S., Peng, W. J., & Gray, J. (2007). Modelling patterns of improvement over time: value added trends in English secondary school performance across ten cohorts. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 261–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 202–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tønnesen, L.K. (2004). Norsk utdanningshistorie. [The Norwegian history of education], Høgskoleforlaget, Kristiansand.

  • White Paper no. 30 (2003-4). Kultur for læring. [Culture for learning]. Oslo: Ministry of Education.

  • White Paper no. 31 (2008-9). Kvalitet i utdanning [Educational Quality]. Oslo: Ministry of Education

  • Wiggins, A. & Tymms, P. (2000). Dysfunctional effects of public performance indicator systems: a comparison between English and Scottish Primary Schools. Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh.

Download references

Acknowledgement

The study was granted by The Research Council of Norway (The research project was called ‘Achieving School Accountability in Practice’). This article builds on interviews done by Mona Andersen, Monica Dellemyr, Mette Eckhoff, Ingrid Ronneberg, and the author. The author was supervisor for these students and express gratitude to them. I am also in debt to the principals, teachers and superintendents in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Eyvind Elstad

Authors
  1. Eyvind Elstad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eyvind Elstad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elstad, E. Schools which are named, shamed and blamed by the media: school accountability in Norway. Educ Asse Eval Acc 21, 173–189 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9076-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-009-9076-0

Keywords

  • Accountability
  • School accountability
  • Norway
  • Media