Advertisement

Norway: Centralisation and Decentralisation as Twin Reform Strategies

  • Jorunn Møller
  • Guri Skedsmo
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 19)

Abstract

This chapter aims to identify how teaching and leadership within the Norwegian education sector have been conceptualised over time. It starts by sketching some key elements in the history of the education system, including how teachers have played a crucial role in the processes of shaping of national identities. While central regulation was important in building up the comprehensive education system after the Second World War, decentralisation became more dominant as a reform strategy in the public sector from the 1980s and onwards. At the same time, national curriculum reforms were used as a central strategy.

In the new millennium Norway was listed among lower-performing countries according to PISA and other international tests. While before the public and the parents had trust in the professionals above all, attention is now increasingly directed to trust in measured results. Students’ academic performance has become a focal point in the public debate, and it is argued that strong leadership is needed in order to change schools into learning organisations. Moreover, the curriculum reform, labelled The Knowledge Promotion, which was introduced in concert with a national quality assessment system, represents a shift in educational policy from input-oriented policies to more output-oriented policies. A main argument in this chapter is that recent developments have to be viewed in the larger picture, which is influenced by policies and recommendations made by international bodies such as the OECD and the EU.

Keywords

Education System National Curriculum Educational Quality School Leadership Language Minority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Askheim, O. P., Fauske, H., & Lesjø, J. H. (1993). Kommunen som aktør i utviklingen av skolen [The local authority as an agent in school development]. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidsskrift, 77(2), 83–96.Google Scholar
  2. Bergersen, H. O. (2006). Kampen om kunnskapsskolen [The battle of the ‘knowledge school’]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  3. Blackmore, J. (2011). Lost in translation? Emotional intelligence, affective economies, leadership and organizational change. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 43(3), 207–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackmore, J., & Sachs, J. (2007). Performing and reforming leaders. Gender, educational restructuring, and organizational change. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Education Act. (1998). Act relating to primary and secondary education (with amendments). http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/education-act.html?id=213315. Retrieved September 26, 2011.
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engeland, Ø. (2000). Skolen i kommunalt eie – politisk styrt eller profesjonell ledet skoleutvikling? [The municipality as ‘school owners’ – Political governing or professional guided school improvement]. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  8. Engeland, Ø., Langfeldt, G., & Roald, K. (2008). Kommunalt handlingsrom: Hvordan forholder norske kommuner seg til ansvarsstyring i skolen? [Autonomy and responsibility at muncipal level: How do Norwegian local authorities frame school accountability in practice?]. In G. Langfeldt, E. Elstad, & S. Hopmann (Eds.), Ansvarlighet i skolen. Politiske spørsmål og pedagogiske svar [Accountability in schools. Political issues and educational answers] (pp. 178–203). Fagernes: Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  9. Engelsen, B. U., & Karseth, B. (2007). Læreplan for Kunnskapsløftet – et endret kunnskapssyn? [The knowledge promotion – A changed view on knowledge?]. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 91(5), 404–415.Google Scholar
  10. Gundem, B. B. (1993). Rise, development and changing conceptions of curriculum administration and curriculum guidelines in Norway: The national-local dilemma. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(3), 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2009). The fourth way. The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  12. Hopkins, D. (2007). Every school a great school. Realizing the potential of system leadership. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hopmann, S. (2003). On the evaluation of curriculum reforms. In P. Haug & T. A. Schwandt (Eds.), Evaluating educational reforms. Scandinavian perspectives (pp. 111–132). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Hopmann, S. (2007). Epilogue: No child, no school, no state left behind. Comparative research in the age of accountability. In S. T. Hopmann, G. Brinek, & M. Retzl (Eds.), PISA according to PISA. Does PISA keep what it promises? (pp. 363–415). Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, L., Møller, J., Pashiardis, P., Vedøy, G., & Savvides, V. (2011). Culturally responsive practices. In R. Ylimaki & S. Jacobson (Eds.), US and cross-national policies, practices, and preparation. Implications for successful instructional leadership, organizational learning, and culturally responsive practices (pp. 75–101). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karlsen, G. E. (1993). Desentralisert skoleutvikling. En utdanningspolitisk studie av norsk grunnskole med vekt på 70- og 80-tallet [Decentralized school development. A study on the Norwegian compulsory schools in the 1979s and 1980s]. Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.Google Scholar
  17. Lundgren, U. P. (1990). Educational policy-making, decentralisation and evaluation. In M. Granheim, M. Kogan, & U. P. Lundgren (Eds.), Evaluation as policymaking. Introducing evaluation into a national decentralised educational system (pp. 23–41). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Møller, J. (2009). School leadership in an age of accountability: Tensions between managerial and professional accountability. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Møller, J. (2012). The construction of a public face as a school principal. Journal of Educational Management, 26(5), 452–460.Google Scholar
  20. Møller, J., & Ottesen, E. (2011). Building leadership capacity: The Norwegian approach. In T. Townsend & J. MacBeath (Eds.), International handbook of leadership for learning (pp. 619–635). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Møller, J., Sivesind, K., Skedsmo, G., & Aas, M. (2006). Skolelederundersøkelsen 2005. Om arbeidsforhold, evalueringspraksis og ledelse i skolen [A survey of school principals 2005. Work conditions, practices of evaluation and leadership]. Acta Didactica, no. 1. Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutvikling, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  22. Olsen, J. P. (2002). Towards a European administrative space? (ARENA Working Papers WP 02/26). University of Oslo, ARENA Centre for European Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  23. Ozga, J., & Jones, R. (2006). Travelling and embedded policy: The case of knowledge transfer. Journal of Education Policy, 21(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD publishing.Google Scholar
  25. Ranson, S. (2003). Public accountability in the age of Neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5), 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sahlberg, P. (2011). The fourth way of Finland. Journal of Educational Change, 12(2), 173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sivesind, K. (2008). Reformulating reform. Curriculum history revisited. Thesis for the Doctor Philos grade, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  28. Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition? Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Education, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  29. Skedsmo, G. (2011). Formulation and realisation of evaluation policy: Inconsistencies and problematic issues. Journal of Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 23(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Statistics Norway. (2011). Immigration and immigrants. http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/00/00/10/innvandring_en/. Retrieved January 30, 2012
  31. Strathern, M. (2000). The Tyranny of transparency. British Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stugu, O. S. (2001). Educational ideals and nation building in Norway 1840–1900. In S. Ahonen & J. Rantala (Eds.), Nordic lights: Education for nation and civic society in the Nordic countries, 1850–2000 (pp. 107–123). Helsinki: Studia Fennica, Historica 1.Google Scholar
  33. Telhaug, A. O., Mediås, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic model in education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 245–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tjeldvoll, A. (2008). School management: Norwegian legacies bowing to new public management. Managing Global Transitions, 6(2), 177–205.Google Scholar
  35. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2006). The quality framework. http://www.udir.no/Upload/larerplaner/Fastsatte_lareplaner_for_Kunnskapsloeftet/5/prinsipper_lk06_Eng.pdf?epslanguage=no. Retrieved February 22, 2010
  36. Utdanningsdirektoratet. (2011). The education mirror: Analysis of primary and secondary education and training in Norway. http://www.udir.no/Tilstand/Utdanningsspeilet/Education-Mirror/The-Education-Mirror-2011/. Retrieved January 30, 2012
  37. Weiler, H. N. (1990). Decentralisation in educational governance. In M. Granheim, M. Kogan, & U. P. Lundgren (Eds.), Evaluation as policymaking (pp. 42–65). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Werler, T., & Sivesind, K. (2007). Norway. In H. Döbert, W. Hörner, B. von Kopp, & W. Mitter (Eds.), The education system of Europe (pp. 573–589). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education and School ResearchUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations