1

New Public Management in Educational Reform in Norway. Comparative analysis of how differences in approach to New Public Management between Centre - Conservative versus current Red - Green government policies in educational reform might challenge the Nordic model of education.

Aut: Trond Solhaug trond.solhaug@plu.ntnu.no Programme for Teacher Education Norwegian University of Science and Technology -NTNU Låven, Dragvoll Gård 7491 Trondhjem Norway

2

Introduction Education has in Norway been the crucial pillar in the

welfare state and qualifying its citizens for work, equality

and life (Aasen, 2003, p.). An all-inclusive school

system which emphasizes equal educational

opportunities should provide the basis for relative social equality and the welfare state named

the «Nordic model» in education (se below). Recently (2006), Norway has experienced a

reform process comprising the primary and secondary educational system.1 It was initiated by

the Labour party, but the Centre-Conservative cabinet ran the process from 2003 on,

introducing new public administration measurements in the educational sector. After their

electoral defeat in September 2005 a new coalition government (Red-Green Government),

made up of the Labour party, Centre party and Socialist Left Party, introduced several

important changes. These were introduced after intense debate about some of the reform

elements related to the New Public Management (NPM) - tradition. Key elements in NPM

are: hands-on management, greater emphasis on output control and accountability systems,

increased competition, devolution, customer service orientation and private sector

management techniques (Christensen & Lægreid, 2002, p.:269/270, Eriksen & Weigård,

2000, p.:134). These characteristics will also be considered as a definition of NPM in this

article.

Another source of influence on the reform process seem to be the much debated low scores

for Norwegian students in international school studies led by the OECD (PISA and TIMMS)

and published in 2001 and 2003 (Kjærnsli et al., 2003, p., Lie et al., 2001, p.). The low scores

and the studies are extensively cited in reform documents and may have influenced the

educational reform process and the knowledge focus in the syllabi (Sjøberg, 2005, p.,

Solhaug, 2006, p.). The international tests are an evaluation of educational output at the

national and international level. As output control it is consistent with and a part of NPM,

and may have promoted NPM thinking in the reform.

1 Examples of previous research on educational reform in Norway I’d like to mention Evaluation report from Norwegian research council (Haug, 2003, p.) , research by professor Sylvi S. Hovdenak in the field of pedagocial sociology (Hovdenak, 1998, p., Hovdenak, 2005, p.), historical research by Petter Aasen and Alfred O. Telhaug . (Aasen, 2003, p., Telhaug & Aasen, 2001, p., Telhaug et al., 2006, p.).

[“Educational policy in the twenty-first century is the key to global security, sustainability and survival.” (Olssen et al.,

2004, p.:1)]

3

These debate and contradiction between the governments has lead to a focus in this paper on:

how the two governments differ in their approaches to NPM in their educational policy as it

comes out in the reform; “The knowledge promotion”.

After analytical comparison I will further discuss whether different approaches to NPM might

‘challenge’ key values in the Nordic model of education. ‘Challenge’ imply in this case that

elements in the education policy might influence key values in the Nordic model of education

negatively. By ‘key value’ I refer to the value of all inclusiveness in education which has

become the basis for equal opportunity in education and relative social and political equality

in future Norwegian society.

The Nordic model of education Although there are differences between the Nordic countries, “the Nordic model” of the

welfare state comprises the following aspects: citizens’ equal rights to education,

responsibility of public authority (state) for welfare of all citizens, striving towards narrowing

differences in income and gender equality, striving towards full employment (Antikainen,

2006, p.) This model is “defined” by Antikainen as:

…an attempt to construct a national educational system on the foundation of specific local values and practices, but at the same time subject to international conditions and influences, and even as an internationally influential example. Equity, participation, and welfare state have been known as the major socio-political attributes of the Nordic model. The fourth attribute might be held to be progressiveness either as realization of new unprejudiced solutions, or at least as an image and myth associated with Scandinavian culture (Antikainen, 2006, p.). see also; (Telhaug et al., 2006, p., Tjeldvoll, 1998, p.).

An all-inclusive school system with few private schools has been considered as a major tool

in providing equal educational opportunity and equality between citizens in work life. The

Nordic model, with relative equality in opportunity and a all-inclusive school system2, has in

many ways become a part of our national identity and in the Nordic countries as well (Esping-

Andersen, 1996, p.).

The outline of the paper will be as follows. First I will briefly mention relevant theory and

understanding of global influence of NPM and its major characteristics. I will further identify

and compare the major elements in the educational reform between the two governments and

discuss them in relation to NPM characteristics. I will then discuss the results and the support

and challenge to the Nordic model of education from the two governments.

2 By using the term ‘all-inclusive’ I emphasize that there are schools for everyone and that the school is supposed to present an relatively equal education in terms of subjects up till grade 10.

4

New public management

Origin and ‘drivers’ The origin of the NPM movement can be traced back to late 1970-ties and early 1980-ties and

the growth of the New Right in the USA and UK (Tolofari, 2005, p.:76,77). It has since then

become a global phenomenon (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001a, p.). Starting in the early 1990-

ties NPM was introduced in different parts of public sector in Norway (Christensen &

Lægreid, 2003, p.). The public management reform has also been introduced during the

educational reforms in the nineties (Tjeldvoll, 1998, p.).

The influence from NPM is described by Tolofari: “NPM spreads quickly from the countries

where it is said to have originated to other parts of the globe, influencing government policies

both in developed and developing” (Tolofari 2005:75). Tolofari identifies what he calls

“drivers” promoting the introduction of NPM in public sector. First of all there are economic

drivers stemming form budget crises which demand efficiency in the public sector (Tolofari,

2005, p.:77). Second, there are political drivers which were linked to the rejuvenation of the

political New Right identified with Reagan/Thatcher regimes. The governments were to be

run like corporations and should implement techniques from business administration. Third

“social drivers” are linked to the relationship between government and the electorate.

Governments operate in a context of accountability and efficiency which also become a public

demand in a democracy. Fourth, the intellectual “drivers” which fuel NPM are mainly

economic theories like public choice theory, principal agent models and transaction cost

models (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001b, p.:18, Tolofari, 2005, p.:78) At the heart of this is

the theory of man as a rational actor, who wishes to act autonomously and to satisfy his best

personal interest (economic man). The public sector therefore needs to provide a variety of

services for public choice and consumption in a market. The problem of oversupply and

bureaucracy in providing public goods is solved by supply and demand in a market

mechanism where citizens become users or consumers of public goods. Education is in the

same way regarded as a public good which is offered on a market.

Speaking of “drivers” implies that the process of introducing NPM in different sectors is

perceived to cause changes in the structure of the educational system. These changes may

challenge the educational system in several ways including the value of equality which will be

given a special emphasis here.

5

NPM characteristics NPM and its main characteristics is not viewed as consistent system. Research by Christensen

et.al. reveals inconsistencies and inherent contradictions between different parts, such as

devolution vs centralization and between convergence versus divergence (Christensen &

Lægreid, 2001b, p.). Despite the fact that NPM is fuelled by economic theory, NPM may be

seen as an administrative operationsalization of a mixture of economic and public choice

theory.

The below outlined characteristics of NPM will in the analysis be used to identify NPM in the

educational policy in the two governments.

First of all, NPM is identified by the prevalence of economic theory which emphasises

economic norms and values. This makes the concept and related reform programmes partly

one-dimensional (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001b, p.:18). This means that goals about

economic growth and development prevail, and this ‘market’ logic implies that education

needs to be priced and that a market needs to be visualized. Secondly, competition is looked

upon as a necessary condition for the market to function and also looked upon as a major

driving force. Third, “hands-on management” and discretionary control of an organization of

people who are free to manage. In NPM local managers are considered to be best suited to

solve local (pedagogical/school) challenges. They are therefore given relatively ‘free hands’

to meet the organizations goals. The devolution of decisions is thus an integral part of NPM.

However, the organization is at the same time controlled by explicit standards of performance

(output control). The managers are therefore only given freedom to reach these explicit

standards. Thus ‘accountability’ systems become an important tool for the control of

organization performance (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001b, p.).

The introduction of NPM, especially the creation of markets and consumers in education, may

promote the development of citizen roles as “user” and “consumer” of education which in

some respect will replace the traditional roles of citizens. (For changing citizens roles see:

(Eriksen & Weigård, 2000, p.:133)). Christensen and Lægreid also point out a similar change.

Particularly they emphasize that the consumerist role is more confined than the traditional

citizenship role (Christensen & Lægreid, 2002, p.:286ff). The promotion of the consumer role

of citizens in NPM-reforms thus imply what may be termed a ‘Supermarket model’ of the

state as opposed to the ‘Sovereign State’ (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001b, p.:13). The

nickname “supermarket state” emphasises that state and governments have a service

providing role and that good quality service is ‘produced’ most efficiently in markets where

6

citizens take the role as consumers, users or clients (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001b, p.) (Olsen

1988 241-242). The sovereign state on the other hand refers to ‘the sovereign rationality

bounded state’ with a large public sector in which standardization and equality are prominent

features all characteristics of the Scandinavian countries including Norway. The model

emphasises the collective and integrative features of political-administrative system, the

common heritage and the role of the citizen (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001b, p.:14) (referring

to March and Olsen 1989). Unlike the supermarket model which ascribes a more limited

model of a citizen as a «user and consumer», the sovereign state model underlines the citizen

role of full rights and obligations.

In the analysis I expect a clear difference between the two governments in their approach to

NPM. The reasons for this are: First, the traditionally politically conservative origin of the

public management thinking (Tolofari, 2005, p.). The second reason is that the administrative

model has its roots in economic theory and rational choice that are traditionally advocated by

right wing liberal or conservative parties. A third reason is that a more ‘communitarian’

approach is a fundamental ideology in the welfare state system particularly advanced by the

left wing parties.

Method The applied method will be a selective analysis of various sources, public documents, articles,

speeches by policymakers, parliamentary debates performed in the Norwegian Parliament and

implemented policy elements. I have made an overview of level of policy, actors and sources

in the following table:

Table 1 Level of policy, actors and sources of policy information.

Level of policy process

Policy actor Sources

Exposition Ministry of Ed/Norwegian directorate of Education

Scientific “Quality committee”

Policy intention Governmental (cabinet) Reports to the Storting (Parliament) Governmental declarations

Policy intention/level of ideas

Ministers of Education Articles written by ministers

Policy intention/level of ideas

Parliamentary representatives Parliamentary debates over policy

Implementation level Implemented policy elements (Implementation documents)

• Ministry of Education

information section • Norwegian Directorate for

Education and Training (Governmental implementation)

• Ideas in policy documents, • Management by school output • Explicit standards • Curricular devolution • New law on free/private

schools • State intervention -

7

redistribution • Public results on web-site • National test-system for

evaluation

As illustrated in left column, the sources of policy information come from all relevant steps in

the policy process from exposition to implemented policy elements. The selection of sources

and especially the implemented policy elements has been done in dialogue with the

Information centre of Ministry of Education. In every step of the policy process, the key

public policy documents are selected and documents of vital significance for the problem

raised in this paper should all be included. Implemented policy elements have been

considered as decisive for the policy comparison. Rhetorical disagreements are of importance,

but disagreements over implemented policy have been considered decisive.

The main actors in policy formation are governments lead by the ministers of education,

parliamentary representatives with education policy as their focus (members of The

committee for education in Norwegian parliament) , the ministry and the Norwegian

Directorate for Education and Training which is the implementation organization for the

government. These actors are all included in the present policy analysis.

The implemented reform elements are listed in the right column in the table above and are

carefully selected in dialogue (personal communication) with the Ministry of education –

Information centre. A focus will be on these ‘new institutional arrangements’3 that change the

structural framework of schooling. These arrangements regulate changes in the options for

learning and for exerting influence on students, parents and teachers. They also constitute the

major changes which regulate the relationship between the state, the schools and the public.

See f.i (Solhaug, 2006, p.).

The policy is identified by how ideas and intentions are presented in policy documents and

support implemented policy elements. Attention is also given to perceived contradictions in

the documents or between ideas/intentions and policy elements.

Key documents have been produced by the Quality committee” appointed by the Ministry of

Research and Education and published in 2003 (NOU, 2003:16, p.), The reports to the

Storting (Norwegian parliament), guidelines from the “Norwegian Directorate for Education

and Training” (executive organ for the ministry of education) like “This is the knowledge

3 Institutions are defined as: ‘…multiple, durable social structures, made up of symbolic elements, social activities, and material resources’ (Scott, 2001, p.).

8

boost4, and the “learning poster” are of particular significance (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2004,

p.). The “Soria Moria declaration” is the most important policy document from the new Red-

Green government (2005) and (Kunnskapsdepartementet & Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2006, p.).

In addition, speeches from the Minister of Education in addition to parliamentary debates are

an important source of information about political unity and dispute over the reform elements.

Empirical analysis In the following I present an overview of the major reform elements and some of the major

differences between the Centre-Conservative government and the Red-Green government,

classified within the framework of NPM characteristic. These governments are both broad

coalitions comprising three political parties. The fact that these political groupings continue

the same reform process will most likely imply reduced political differences. When e.g. the

Red-Green government took over the implementation process they initiated some important

changes, but these changes might have been greater if they have also carried out the entire

reform process – especially the subject curricula. Below, I will discuss the similarities and

differences between the two governments.

The primacy of economic values The Centre-Conservative minister for education, Kristin Clemet, justifies the reform in an

article titled, “Why we need a new curriculum”. She emphasizes that: Great social and

political changes such as globalization, individualization and pluralism during the last 10

years, have created the need for school adjustment and greater state control. “Today”, she

points out, the term ‘knowledge society’ underlines that knowledge and creativity is crucial in

wealth-creation, which implies that humans are the single most important factor to succeed in

business. Clemet also argues that there is a need for focus on knowledge in schools in society.

She also announces that schools and teachers need to be given more freedom and

responsibility within the curricular framework to adapt to this diversity (Clemet, 2004, p.:1-

2). In her article there is a strong emphasis on economic instrumentalism in education and

rather little of any rhetoric of Bildung5.

The primacy of economic values is not all that clear in the documents from the Red-Green

government. In the ‘Soria Moria Declaration’(by the Red-Green government) the rhetoric of

economic instrumentalism is downplayed. Instead, there is an emphasis on social values

4 Translation: This is the knowledge boost. 5 ‘Bildung’ is a German word which describes the overall goal of education and covers: skills, knowledge, capabilities of action (action competence) critical reflection and solidarity. See: (Klafki, 2001, p.)

9

(Primeminister'sOffice, 2005, p.:chap 10): This becomes apparent when looking at page 44

where the main emphasis in school is knowledge as well as aspects of ‘Bildung’. The minister

of knowledge, Øystein Djupedal, also underlines a broad ‘Bildung’ like knowledge-concept in

a speech held 27.10 2005 (Djupedal, 2005, p.:3). In another speech at BI, The Norwegian

School of Management (www.bi.no ), minister Djupedal repeated the same economic

instrumental thinking of education as his predecessor Clemet (Djupedal, 2006c, p.). The

human capital theory is further underlined by the new minister Solhjell (Red-Green

government) who was employed after Øystein Djupedal resigned in 2007. He is however,

explicitly critical of the role of markets in his latest article (Solhjell, 2008, p.:26 ff).

At the level of ideas the two governments seem to agree on ‘human capital’ as economic

resource but differ in their approach to market mechanisms as a driving force in educational

policy. While the Centre-Conservative government rely on market mechanisms the Red-

Green government is critical.

‘Hands on management’ The dynamics of NPM with both devolution and control is made remarkably explicit in the

article by former minister of education Kristin Clemet. She expresses that the state needs

control over schools and the control is related to explicit standards. At the same time there is

extensive devolution built into the reform, which underlines some of the ambiguity pointed

out by Christensen and Lægreid (Christensen & Lægreid, 2001b, p.).

Current minister Solhjell in the Red-Green agrees that schools need guidance. Political

authorities have to set standards and a knowledge focus for education(Solhjell, 2008, p.). It is

also clear that this control is going to be carried out by national tests, but the results should

not be made public. Solhjell also emphasise solidarity and all inclusiveness in education as

‘the most efficient’ school and is critical of market mechanisms as a driving force in

educational efficiency – all this at the level of ideas in policy formation.

Explicit standards (output control 1) The focus on basic skills in school may be perceived in isolation as a consequence of student

failure on international studies tests (Solhaug, 2006, p.). However, I will argue that they are

almost a prerequisite for test-focus and thus for output control. Both explicit standards and a

national test-system below is at the implementation level of policy.

In the report to the Storting (30) (forwarded by the Centre-Conservative government), a

distinction is made between key competencies and basic skills. Key competencies are reading,

10

writing, calculating, English communication, learning strategies, motivation and social

competence. The basis for this selection is the OECD – research project DeSeCo (Definition

and selection of competencies) (UFD, 2003-2004, p.:31). The list of basic competencies is

further reduced and focused in basic skills. The Centre-Conservative view is that basic skills

comprise of: reading, writing, express oneself, calculation and use of information technology.

Social skills are considered important in the workplace. Despite this they are characterized as

being of little value unless students also possess skills in relevant subject areas (UFD, 2003-

2004, p.:32). The basic skills are therefore focused on in the guideline for new subject

curricula. It is made clear that the basic skills are the policy response to students’ need for

education for democracy, equality and Bildung. It is also a response to low scores in the

international studies by the OECD (UFD, 2003-2004, p.:31).

In a parliamentary debate over the reform the leader of Committee for education in

Norwegian parliament, Rolf Reikvam (Socialist-Left Party-and later Red-Green Government)

underlined that these basic skills imply a shift in educational focus away form a Bildung

approach (Reikvam, 2005, p.). The minister, Kristin Clemet, refused to take a stand at this

point (Clemet, 2005, p.). Current minister Solhjells emphasis on all inclusiveness and

solidarity may be interpreted as an emphasis on broader values in education than the basic

skills. However, this seem only clear at the level of ideas and much less so at the

implementation level.

A national test system (Output control 2) Closely related to explicit standards is an implemented national assessment program (the

system has already been introduced) where the main function is to provide data for national

evaluation and comparison between schools in the areas of reading, writing and math. The

Centre-Conservative government intended to present the results from a variety of subjects on

a national website. On the website, the reason for publication is as follows (in my

translation):

“This is a tool which the school owners (counties and municipalities) and school leaders can use in different ways to evaluate and develop schools. The main goal is to provide information for the decision makers in the school sector. But “www.skoleporten.no” also gives useful information to parents, students and other that might be interested” www.skoleporten.no

The national tests have become firmly integrated in a school development policy, and this

may boost their importance as guidelines for teaching. In NPM-terms the governments are

here providing an infrastructure (data and web-site) for control which may become a

significant influence on day to day school practice and on the students’ learning. It may also

11

be considered as “price or value system” for school and function as the rational basis for

school choice.

The Red-Green government wants to continue with national tests. However, less time is to be

used on testing. Therefore, the extensive use of multiple choice tests has been an important

component (Djupedal, 2007, p.). The new minister of knowledge in the Red-green

government, Solhjell emphasis control of school outcome and the Red-Green government

seem to have moved towards standards and control during their period of governance. As

mentioned above, it still seem very important for them to underline all inclusiveness and

solidarity as the most efficient approach in education for which they also argue on the basis of

empirical research (Solhjell, 2008, p.:31) The Red-Green government is also critical of

making the results public and underlines that the tests should only be used for quality

improvement in teaching, learning and school development (Djupedal, 2006b, p.). It seems as

if the dispute over public results came to preliminary conclusion march 2008. The Committee

for education in the Storting forwarded its conclusion on a suggestion of making the national

test results public from the leader of the educational committee Ine Søreide and member of

the committee Gunnar Gundersen (Centre Conservative Government). The representatives

from the Red-Green government (majority) will limit the public insight to school owners

(municipalites and county authorities) and teachers and school leaders. They want the

negative effects of a public competition between schools.

New curricula The Guideline for the new curriculum emphasizes that there is to be a syllabus for each and

every subject in both primary and secondary school (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2004, p.)

(Centre- Conservative government policy). The syllabuses are however, to be less detailed

with a focus on clear competence goals. These competence goals are to be the basis for

dialogue between teachers, students and parents and therefore need to be clear and measurable

(Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2004, p.:10,11). Therefore, goals in basic skills are incorporated in

every subject syllabus (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2004, p.:1,9).

The guidelines for subject syllabi provide a fairly detailed framework for the subject

curricula, a framework adapted to the need for governmental national tests and control. There

are also some very strong signals about the willingness to specify the content and the process,

through the always measurable goals. This means that the new syllabi have been designed to

fit the new ways of controlling school outcome as well as to serve the purpose of

measurability, comparison and competitiveness.

12

The two governments don’t seem to differ much in their view of the curricula concept. One

explanation for this is that a change of curriculum is a long and expensive process. Since the

process of the curricula was closed around election time 2005, the new government accepted

the new subject curricula. This is perhaps an important point, where the differences between

the governments might have been greater if the curricula process had been restarted from

scratch.

To sum up, in NPM-terms the subject syllabi are all designed for proper “output control.”

This is in itself challenging because a lot of schools impact on the students is very hard, if

even possible, to measure properly – eg. ‘Bildung’. The disagreements between the

governments seem therefore to be related to this point.

Devolution First, there are five aspects of devolution that I will point out here: a restructuring of schools,

of syllabi design, local control over 25% of the curricula, local control over subjects of study

and overall municipal budget control – all this at the implementation level of policy.

There are two important changes in the restructuring of schools. The first is that the limit of

30 pupils/students in class has been removed, as has the “class” concept . The class is been

replaced with the “basic group”, and a contact-teacher is responsible for the students learning

and development in this group. However, the basic group is rarely a regular teaching unit.

Rather it is a student administrative unit or unit for general tutoring. The contact-teacher

therefore is supposed to serve many of the functions as the former “form master”. The Centre-

Conservative government did not set any limit to the number of students in the ‘basic group’

while the Red-Green government set a limit of 15. The general effect of this devolution is to

enhance the schools’ and municipalities’ freedom to organize teaching. There are

pedagogical as well as economic efficiency arguments for this. The disagreement over the

limit of student members in the basic group (and in some respect to devolution itself) should

be regarded as the Red-Green government’s concern about inequality in the distribution of

educational resources6

Second, the subject syllabi are designed to measure student competencies as opposed to the

former syllabi that were designed for management by objectives (Solhaug, 2003, p.).

6 A research report on use and distribution of educational resources in Norwegian municipalities (primary school) and countries (secondary school) concluded that the financial devolution resulted in great discrepancies between municipalities and between counties in their spending on schools. At the extreme some municipalities spent three times more pr student than the least spending municipalities. The Red-Green government’s concern over inequality in schools thus seems legitimate. (Borge & Naper, 2005, p.)

13

Considerable space has been left for local decisions on methods of teaching as well as local

subjects, so there seems to be consensus between the two governments over the design of

subject syllabi.

Third, the curricular reform will also enable students in present lower secondary school to

take some courses which are normally taught in upper secondary school. This could be

theoretical courses as well as vocational courses. These may enable greater “flexibility” and

facilitate student’s choice of subjects in upper secondary school. In practice there seems to be

little substantial disagreement between the governments over this part of the devolution.

Fourth, the schools may decide to adapt 25% of the curricula on an individual basis to

students who have special needs. To do this, schools need to decide, in cooperation with

parents, on a change of focus in the student’s learning. There seems to no substantial

disagreement between governments over this part of the devolution either.

Last, the financial system, where municipalities and counties decide on how they are going to

use the money for different part of education and the welfare system in general is not new, but

has been part of the educational system for two decades. There seems to be a relative

consensus between the two governments over the local freedom to decide on financial

priorities. However, there is a political cleavage concerning equality of outcome for different

groups of citizens, which can be traced back to the different priorities and financial

capabilities in the municipalities and in the counties. The Red-Green government is more

concerned about inequality in outcome consequences for vulnerable groups of citizens ref or

instance: latest report to the Storting (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2006-2007, p.).

Accountability systems The basis for “accountability” in public school is a test or evaluation system which makes it

clear that goals are achieved. I have already touched upon the test/evaluation systems where

the governments seem to disagree over how much testing and whether the test results should

be made public. The main purpose of the testing of school results seems to be an

accountability system where the teachers, school leaders or local authorities are made

responsible for achievement (success or failures) and related to institutionalized

consequences. Part of the fierce disagreement over the test system may therefore be related to

the possible use of test results in accountability systems in Norwegian schools. However,

according to Elstad 2007, there seem to be little or no use of explicit consequences for

teachers and school leaders of testing results in Norwegian schools (Elstad, 2007, p.). The

14

disagreement between the governments as to accountability systems are there, but still rather

unclear. The former minister of education in the current Red Green government, Djupedal,

has voiced self criticism for lack of knowledge focus and will continue “better quality

testing”, but there are no concrete consequences of testing

Competition – Public test results and more “free schools” (private) schools There are two interrelated aspects of competition that have been introduced in the reform. The

first is a web-site, www.skoleporten.no, which is designed to present the results from school

tests described above. The other is a major change, the reversing of the law on private

schools. Both these aspects have been subject of major disagreements between the two

governments.

The first aspect, the web-site, was designed to make public all the test results (see above) and

function as a source of information to schools, teachers, students and to become the perfect

market place for “school-shopping”. The test results also became the “price” or “value

system” and might work as the rational basis for parents and decisions on school choice.

The second, and perhaps the most important change in the Norwegian school structure, is to

enable more private schools both at the primary and secondary level. A new law (Law on free

schools) was introduced by the Centre-Conservative government in july 2003 allowing for

more “free” schools. The law, introduced by the Centre-Conservative government, gave

anyone fulfilling the necessary pedagogical qualifications the “right” to establish a new

school with financial support from the state (UFD, 2003, p.:chap 2). The name “free” as

opposed to “private” schools is an interesting example of liberal rhetoric introduced by

Centre-Conservative government.

The Red-Green government on its part reintroduced a new law on “Private schools” and also

changed the name of the law which may reflect a “class rhetoric”. The debate over the name

underlines the major contradiction between a liberal position of consumer and free choice

versus an all-inclusive school system with restricted rights for minority’s socialization.

The “free” schools expanded the number of education options in the populated areas of

Norway in the period 2003-2005. In some areas, like the ‘big’ cities, applications for new

schools offering as many as 25% of the students in upper secondary school were presented to

the Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. In these areas the new schools became

an option and effective competition affecting perhaps 50% of the population, but in only 10-

15

15 % of the municipalities. The competition was much less effective in most rural

municipalities, at least in lower school levels, but more effective in upper secondary schools,

where students are more mobile and flexible.

The law from the Centre-Conservative government was interpreted as a break with the core

value on integrated and all-inclusive educational system in Norway and its basis in a welfare

state expressed since late 1800 (Aasen, 2003, p., Kjeldstadli, 2006, p., Telhaug, 1982, p.).

Therefore, the Red-Green government withdrew as many permits for new private schools as

possible. This was quite dramatic and shows how important this political struggle is regarded

by the current government. Ministers Solhjells current critique of the market forces in

education underlines this fight over implemented laws in education (Solhjell, 2008, p.).

State intervention – reintroduction of class rhetoric The Red-Green government introduced a new Report 16 to the Storting December 2006. The

consept of “class” is reintroduced in public Norwegian educational debate. The government

expresses that their overall goal is to even out class differences, and to reduce poverty and any

form of marginalization. The society is to be developed so that power, goods, services and

duties are evenly distributed (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2006-2007, p.:7). This class rhetoric

underlines that equality is highly valued and it aims at redistribution of educational resources.

So far the government plans to support students in their homework and provide this support

early in their school career (Djupedal, 2006a, p.). In the report the Red-Green government

wants to support students to avoid further increase in educational inequalities, which is a quite

ambituous goal! (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2006-2007, p.)

Equality is also an issue for the Centre-Conservative government which introduced a strategy

document for inclusive learning for minorities; “Equal Education in Practice 2004-2009”.

(Forskningsdepartementet, 2004, p.). Despite this, it’s fair to say that the Red-Green

government is much more focused on the equality issue when using their traditional state

intervention against perceived market failure through the redistribution of educational

resources. The active and strong interventionist state is somewhat contradictory to the market

orientation in NPM. This may be said to be one of the major differences between the two

governments in their approach to New Public Management in the field of educational reform

policy.

Below I have made a summary of similarities and differences in NPM approach.

16

Table 1 Summary and comparison of similarities and differences between the two governments in their approach to NPM. New Public Management

Centre-Conservative government Red-Green government

The primacy of economic values

“The knowledge economy” is the major justification of the reform

Small change of substantial focus of reform justification. Towards a ‘Bildung’ approach.

Hands on management of schools

-Change from management by objectives to evaluation of output. Less detailed control of counties and school leadership

-Change from management by objectives to evaluation of output. Less detailed control of counties and school leadership. -Less public results (output control)

Explicit standards -Basic skills –reading, writing oral communication, English and computer technology. -Curricula expresses measurable competences -Evaluation system for school improvement open to the public.

-Basic skills –reading, writing oral communication, English and digital competence, expanded to include: learning strategies, motivation and social skills. -Curricula expresse measurable competences -Evaluation system for school improvement

Devolution -Restructuring of schools – toward greater local autonomy, defining class size and differentiated learning – no exact limits. -Freedom to define 25% of curricula.

-Restructuring of schools – toward greater local autonomy, defining class size and differentiated learning – no exact limits. -Freedom to define 25% of curricula.

Competition I Private schools

New law on “free” schools 2003. Change of name from “private” to “free” schools Option for more “free schools” on all levels 1-13.

New change in law on “private” schools 2007. Change of name from “free” to “private” Option for fewer “private schools” on all levels 1-13.

Competition II National tests

-National tests and public results of school standards on web-site open access – test results “consumer choice” criteria?

-National tests and results of school standards on web-site – limited access. Removal of “consumer choice” criteria?! -Report 16 Storting(2006/7) on equality in education issue. -State intervention in market – support for homework..

Accountability systems

-Test system for evaluation of schools. – no explicit consequences so far for low achievement schools, but greater willingness to implement accountability systems?

-Test system for evaluation – “improved system” – no explicit consequences so far for low achievement schools

Democracy model Support for “supermarket model” – market and consumer orientation of students and parents?

Support for sovereign state model – less market orientation-state intervention

Discussion and conclusion To sum up, despite differences the two governments seem be quite similar in their approach to

NPM on major aspects like the primacy of economic values, hands-on management of

schools, exp

17

licit standards and devolution. The Labour party (largest coalition partner in the Red-Green

government) first introduced a financial system with local autonomy and budget responsibility

and also important aspects of devolution in other parts of public sector. This is also supported

by the other coalition partners. Devolution and the financial system are very important since

it is the basis for so many decisions by school authorities and school leaders. It advocates an

administrative structure and thinking that is easily applied to other parts of the educational

reform – like the syllabuses. In addition, labour parties in New Zealand and in Great Britain

have also advocated NPM-like reforms in education (Whitty et al., 1998, p.). This fact may

over the years have had ideological influence on the Norwegian Left as well.

The major disagreement between the two governments over NPM in the present educational

reform is related to competition with more private schools and making results public. These

disagreements have been fuelled by the political value cleavage between the two, and perhaps

of the perceived social and political consequences of a marketized reform in education

(Solhaug, 2006, p.). This political left-right cleavage of social equality is also present in the

government’s attitude to aspects of devolution and the national test-system. Due to substantial

agreement between these Governments also, one may perhaps speak of two versions of NPM,

a ‘Liberal’ one advocated by the Centre-Conservative government and a ‘Communitarian’ one

advocated by the current Red-Green government7. The ‘liberal’ is characterized by extensive

freedom of public choice in education where individual choice is made an essential part of

democracy also, and competition is regarded a major driving force in the development of

knowledge and schools.

The ‘communitarian’ version, advocated by the Red-Green government, uses many of the

same administrative arrangements. However, it tries to avoid increased social discrepancies in

a marketized and competitive educational system. This is also another example of the

‘hybrid’character of NPM pointed out by Christensen and Lægreid (Christensen & Lægreid,

2001b, p.).

There are two aspects of these differences that I would like to discuss further: First I would

like to reflect upon the implications of a marketization in education? Second I will shred some

light on how are we to understand the strong fight over private schools in the future

educational system in Norway? 7 I use the term ‘Liberal’ and ‘Communitarian’ in the meaning outlined by Jürgen Habermas 1995 (Habermas, 1995, p.).

18

Regarding the first question: The educational system is society’s institution for knowledge

and competence building, socialization, integration between groups and identity building

(Aasen, 2003, p., Arnove & Torres, 1999, p.:chap:12-16, Brown et al., 1997, p., Solhaug,

2003, p.). This implies that changes in the educational system may have a number of

consequences for student’s work and socialization in a school dominated by what is often

described with the term “hidden curriculum”. These unintended consequences may be of

various kinds like e.g. ideological dominance. For example, the introduction of NPM systems,

especially the elements of choice and competition, imply an emphasis on market values and

ideas which have consequences for students’ knowledge, for their socialization, development

of identity and Bildung (Solhaug, 2006, p.). The debate over basic skills is in one sense

technical, but can also be interpreted as a focus for a general debate over ideological

dominance in education and thus the socialization of future citizens in society. Therefore the

contradictions over what basic skills are may be perceived as a contradiction over values and

goals in education.

The underlying contradictions over values in the debate over ‘basic skills’ brings me to the

second aspect of the discussion, the fierce conflict about competition, private schools and

public test – results. The new law on private schools, like the one introduced by the Centre-

Conservative government, would enable an alternative educational system. This may imply

segregation between students and classes, contrary to the core values of the all-inclusive

school in the modern Norwegian welfare state. As outlined by Aasen and Telhaug, the

Labour Party (the major coalition partner in the Red-Green government) has always strongly

advocated an all-inclusive public schools (Aasen, 2003, p., Telhaug, 1982, p.). This is also

firmly supported, especially by the coalition partners, Socialist-Left Party and also by the

Center Party. In the all-inclusive school everyone is granted a right to free education up to

university level. This has been the educational basis for “equal opportunity” among students,

not only in educational outcome but also of professional development and self-support within

the welfare state. The debate over private schools may therefore not just be over some

student’s educational options, but over the all-inclusive school as fundament for social

structure, the welfare system itself and social integration. It seems that the educational system

in Norway has become the prime arena for a political struggle along the traditional left/right

cleavage which is deeply rooted in the political system. The struggle over private schools thus

becomes the trigger of the old struggle between classes and social segregation versus social

inclusion. In my view the ‘Liberal’ and the ‘Communitarian’ version of NPM may influence

19

the equality orientation and the all-inclusive aspect of the Nordic (Norwegian version) model

of education quite differently. Especially, the ‘Liberal’ version may challenge both the

emphasis on equality through market orientation and possibly increased inequality in

educational opportunity. Heinz Sünker writes about markets and equality between groups:

“Market strategies always lead to intensified disparities. Because of their weak market position, the disadvantaged fall behind in their position, and are certainly not able to improve it. What is “improved” in the market-oriented education system is, rather, the reproduction of inequality” (Sünker, 2005, p.:140).

The inequality may be enhanced by the increase in student’s free choice of schools. The

creation of more “free/private” schools makes it easier to have de facto elite schools but it

also may have the effect of segregating religious groups (Christian as well as other). So far,

quite a few of the new applications for free schools have come from religious groups (

www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no ). The ‘liberal’ version of NPM advocated by the Centre-

Conservative government may therefore challenge the equality as well as the all-inclusive

aspect in the Nordic model (Norwegian version). This may also be interpreted as a challenge

to core values in the Norwegian welfare state and explain a substantial part of the

contradiction between the two parts. However, the increase in “free/private” schools may also

have other effects, such as increased educational pluralism and cultural diversity. The support

for the supermarket model of democracy might legitimize free choice and market models in

education and blur the distinctions between the governments.

Model of democracy Support for a model of democracy is of course not explicit, but may be interpreted as a result

of an analysis of policy elements. The major difference in education policy between the two

governments is related to the competitive element in the public results of school evaluation

and to the new law on “free schools” since the creation of more schools is necessary to ensure

students’ and parent’s choice and increased competition. Thus, this educational reform policy

by Centre-Conservative government turns the educational system into an arena for parents

and students choice and ‘consumption’ of educational services. In another article I have

analysed the ‘identity’ (Bernstein, 2000, p.) of the educational policy of the Centre-

Conservative government (Solhaug, 2006, p.). Here I suggest that, the focus on basic skills,

measurable competence goals, public results, restructuring of classes and more private school

all pave the way for a competition as a driving force and competitive thinking at different

levels in school. Making test results public as a measure of school quality may also work as

the basis for choice of school or otherwise for competition. This is all part of an ideology (

20

“the system of ideas”) (Apple, 1990, p.) that is promoted as part of this marketized

prospective identity (Bernstein’s term) (Solhaug, 2006, p.). This market ideology is gradually

saturating the thinking of school administrators, teachers, students and parents as they adapt

and see themselves in a market situation. Such an institutionalisation of market mechanisms

may work at different levels. First, it may promote teachers’ and students’ thinking about

education in competitive terms and legitimizing competition as an educational driving force.

Second, it may affect the teaching practice in the classrooms with focus on basic skills and the

content of national testing. Third, the marketization of the schools is grounded in the

economic rationalism and thus fairly consistent with the economic thinking. Furthermore, it

will serve to promote the basic logic in rational economic thinking in school see: (Solhaug,

2006, p.).

Viewing this analysis together with the present NPM-perspective, it is evident that the

educational policy of the Centre-Conservative government supports the supermarket model

with its emphasis on public choice, both structurally and ideologically.

As for the Red-Green government, the picture is a bit more blurred. The government has

strongly opposed competitive elements like private schools and also making test-results

public, most probably for structural and ideological reasons. Their emphasis on ‘Bildung’, a

wider all-inclusive approach to education in society, also makes the current governments’

approach somewhat different from that of the Centre-Conservative government. In the policy

field of education, this government avoids educational markets and a consumerist approach.

For these reasons the Red-Green government can be said to be less supportive of the

‘supermarket’ model of democracy in education and more supportive of the sovereign state

model. 8

Conclusion This analysis has revealed that the Centre-Conservative and the Red-Green government agree

on several important aspects of NPM in their approach to educational reform. However, I

have pointed out important differences, so we may speak of a ‘Liberal’ and a

‘Communitarian’ version of NPM in the educational policies of the two governments.

Though the governments agree on basic economic values, devolution and some of the national

test system, there is substantial controversy about the marketization process and the possible

8 Changing models of democracy also may have great implications for citizens roles and for political socialization which will not be touched upon further: literature: (Apple & Beane, 1995, p., Dewey, 1948, p., Mansbridge, 1999, p., Solhaug, 2003, p., Torney-Purta et al., 2001, p., Westholm et al., 1990, p.).

21

consequences for equal educational opportunity due to ascribing a consumer role to students

and parents. The disagreements are clearly related to the old left/right cleavage, egalitarianism

and an all-inclusive society with equal opportunity for citizens versus market orientation and

possible increasing inequalities. This disagreement may further be perceived as a challenge to

“Nordic model” (Norwegian version) and its goal of providing equal educational opportunity

for its students. The challenge to an egalitarian society may particularly come from the

Centre-Conservative government and its ‘Liberal’ version of NPM.

The educational sector is of particular importance because schools are society’s institutions

for socialization and are to prepare citizens for future participation in society. The structural

changes in education will in the long run have important effects on society. As indicated in

the introduction to this paper, the educational system becomes increasingly important in the

future for economic development, cultural integration in an increasingly plural society. We

my thus expect that this controversy is not over but may continue and take new forms.

22

Litterature Antikainen, A. (2006). In Search of the Nordic Model in Education, Scandinavian Journal of

Educational Research, 50(3), 229-243.

Apple, M.W. (1990) Ideology and Curriculum. London: Routledge.

Apple, M.W. & Beane, J.A. (1995). The Case for Democratic Schools., in: M.W. Apple & J.A. Beane (Eds) Democratic Schools. Lessons from The Chalk Face. Buckingham, Open University Press.

Arnove, R.E. & Torres, C.A. (Eds.) (1999). Comparative Education The Dialectic of the Global and the Local. Oxford, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. Theory, Research, Critique. London, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC.

Borge, L.E. & Naper, L.R. (2005). Ressurssituasjonen i grunnskolen 2002 - 2004.[Resource situation in primary school; in Norwegian] Senter for økonomisk forskning (SØF)

Brown, P., Halsey, A.H., Lauder, H. & Wells, A.S. (1997). The Transformation of Education and Society: An Introduction, in: P. Brown, A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder & A.S. Wells (Eds) Education, Culture, Economy Society. Oxford. Oxford University Press.

Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2001a). Introduction, in: T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds) New Public Management The Tansformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot. Ashgate.

Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2001b). A Transformative Perspective on Administrative Reforms, in: T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds) New Public Management The Transformation of Ideas and Practice. Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2002). New Public Management: Puzzles of Democracy and the Influence of Citizens. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(3), pp. 267-295.

Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. (2003). Politisk styring og privatisering: holdninger i elitene og befolkningen [Political contol and privatization: attitudes in the elites and in the demos; in Norwegian] Norsk statsvitenskapelig tidsskrift. 19(3), pp. 385-411.

Clemet, K. (2004) Derfor trenger vi nye læreplaner. [Why we need a new Curriculum].www.skolenettet.no

Clemet, K. (2005) Case 7. Detbatt om Norsk utdanningsreform 2 juni. [Debate over Norwegian curriculum 2. June;in Norwegian]. Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament) http://www.stortinget.no/stid/2007/index.shtml.

Dewey, J. (1948) Demokrati och Uppfostran. [Raising for Democracy;in Sweedish] (Stockholm, Natur och Kultur).

Djupedal, Ø. (2005) (speech) En politikk for Kunnskaps-Norge.[A policy for knowledge in Norway] http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/aktuelt/taler_artikler.html?id=597

23

Djupedal, Ø. (2006a). (speech) En inkluderende og mangfoldig fellesskole. Leksehjelp et virkemiddel for sosial utjevning. [An all-inclusive and pluralisic school. Support for homwork promoting social equality; in Norwegian]. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/aktuelt/taler_artikler.html?id=597

Djupedal, Ø. (2006b). (speech) Ny kurs eller kursjustering? - om det nasjonale kvalitetsvurderingssystemet.[New course or course adjustment - on national assessment system; in Norwegian] http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/aktuelt/taler_artikler.html?id=597

Djupedal, Ø. (2006c). (speech) Vår vei mot kunnskapsnasjonen. [On the road to knowledge- Nation] http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/aktuelt/taler_artikler.html?id=597

Djupedal, Ø. (2007). Nye Nasjonale Prøver [New National Tests; in Norwegian] (Aftenposten 25.04).

Elstad, E. (2007) Fornuft og sensibilitet: Hvordan forholder skoler seg til ansvarliggjøring av skolens bidrag til elevenes læringsresultater? [Sense and Sensibility: How schools relate to being made responsible student assessment results; in Norwegian] University of Oslo, Avalilable from author.

Eriksen, E.O. & Weigård, J. (2000). The end of Citizenship?, in: C. McKinnon & I. Hampsher-Monk (Eds) New Roles Challenging the Political Order. (pp.13-34) Continuum).

Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). After the Golden Age? Welfare State Dilemmas in a Global Economy., in: G. Esping-Andersen (Ed) Welfare States in Transition. National Adaptations in Global Economies. London: Sage.

Forskningsdepartementet,Utdanning og. (2004). Equal Education in Practice. Strategy for better learning and greater participation by language minorities in day-care centres, schools and education, 2004-2009.

Habermas, J. (1995). Tre normative demokratimodeller: om begrepet deliberativ politikk.[Three Normative Democracy Models] in: E.O. Eriksen (Ed) Deliberativ Politikk. Demokrati i teori og praksis. Oslo: Tano.

Haug, P. (2003) Evaluering av Reform 97 sluttrapport frå styret for program for evaluering av Reform 97 [Evaluating Reform 97. Report from the board of evaluation on REform 97; in Norwegian]. Oslo: Norges forskningsråd.

Hovdenak, S.S. (1998) Pedagogisk diskurs i 90-åras utdanningsreformer.[Pedagogical discourse in educational reforms during the 90-ties; in Norwegian]. Disertation. Institute for Pedagogy - Faculty of Social Science Tromsø: University of Tromsø.

Hovdenak, S.S. (2005) Education reforms and the construction of identities at the macro and micro level. The Norwegian Case, Nordisk Pedagogikk, 25(4), pp. 314-328.

Kjeldstadli, K. (2006) Skolens nye samfunnsprosjekt.[Schools new social project; in Norwegian] Norsk pedagogisk Tidsskrift, (2), pp. 109 -119.

24

Kjærnsli, M., Lie, S., Olsen, R.V., Roe, A. & Turmo, A. (2003) Rett spor eller ville veier?[Right track or Wrong Way;in Norwegian] Norske elevers prestasjoner i matematikk, naturfag og lesing i PISA 2003. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Klafki, W. (2001) Dannelsesteori og didaktikk - Nye studier [Bildungtheory and didactics - New studies; in Danish] (Århus, Forlaget Klim).

Kunnskapsdepartementet (2006-2007). ...og ingen stod igjen [...and noone is left behind; in Norwegian] Stortingsmelding 16 [White paper to the Storting].

Kunnskapsdepartementet & Utdanningsdirektoratet (2006) Læreplanverket for Kunnskapsløftet [A Curriculum for the knowledge promotion] - Midlertidig utgave Kunnskapsdepartementet.

Lie, S., Kjærnsli, M., Roe, A. & Turmo, A. (2001) Godt rustet for framtida? Norske 15-åringers kompetanse i lesing og realfag i et internasjonalt perspektiv. [Well prepared for the future? Norwegian 15 year old student's competence in reading and science in an international perspective; in Norwegian]. Acta Didactica 4. Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutviking: Universitetet i Oslo.

Mansbridge, J. (1999). On the Idea That Participation Make Better Citizens, in: S.L. Elkin & K.E. Soltan (Eds). Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions. University park Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press).

NOU (2003:16) I første rekke. Forsterket kvalitet i grunnopplæringen for alle. [In the Forefront. Improved Quality in Primary Education; in Norwegian] Norges offentlige utredninger (Oslo, Utdannings og forskningsdepartementet).

NOU (1988:28) Med viten og vilje : innstilling fra Universitets- og høyskoleutvalget oppnevnt ved kongelig resolusjon av 22. juli 1987 : avgitt til Kultur- og vitenskapsdepartementet 9. september 1988. [Consious decision: Proposal from the Committe on Universties and University colleges, established by Royal decision on 22. july 1987, to the Ministry of Science and Culture; ]Oslo,Kultur og Vitenskapsdepartementet.

Olssen, M., Codd, J. & O'Neill, A.-M. (2004). Education Policy Globalization, Citizenship & Democracy. London: Sage.

Primeminister'sOffice (2005). Soria Moria Erkæringen [The Soria Moria declaration. Political Platform for a Majority Government: Social Democratic Party, Socialist Left Party and Centre Party].Oslo: www.regjeringen.no

Reikvam, R. (2005). Case 7. Debatt om norsk utdanningsreform 2 juni. [Debate over Norwegian curriculum 2. June] [in Norwegian Storting]Oslo: http://www.stortinget.no/stid/2007/index.shtml

Scott, R.W. (2001). Institutions and Organizations. London: Sage Publications.

Sjøberg, S. (2005). PISA, TIMSS og norske læreplaner, [Pisa and TIMSS in the Norwegian Curriculum; in Norwegian] Bedre Skole 2, pp.34-33.

25

Solhaug, T. (2003). Utdanning til demokratisk medborgerskap.Institutt for lærerutdanning og skoleutvikling Universitetet i Oslo: Unipub.

Solhaug, T. (2006). Bildungsreform für Gleichheit oder fortgesetzte ungleichheit. Eine Analyse der norwegischen Schulreform in demokratischer Perspektive, [Bildungsreform for social equality or continued inequality. An Analysis of Norwegian Curicuar Reform in a Democratic Perspective; in German] in: H. Sünker & I. Miehte (Eds) Herausforderungen und Perspektiven für Gewerkschaften und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Solhjell, B. V. (2008) En solidarisk kunnskapsnasjon. [A Solidaric Knowledge Nation] Samtiden, 1, 26-37.

Sünker, H. (2005). How Much does Education Need the State?, in: G.E. Fishman, P. McLaren, H. Sünker & C. Lankshear (Eds) Critical Theories, Radical Pedagogics and Global Conflicts.Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Telhaug, A.O. (1982). Norsk skoleutvikling etter 1945. [Norwegian School Development after 1945]. Oslo: Didaktika.

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), pp. 301-326.

Telhaug, A.O. & Aasen, P. (Eds.) (2001). BÅDE-OG 90-tallets utdanningsreformer i historisk perspektiv.[Have the cake and eat it too. Educational reforms during the 90-ties in a historical perspective]. Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk forlag.

Tjeldvoll, A. (1998). Quality of Equality? Scandinavian Education Towards the Year 2000., in: A. Tjeldvoll (Ed) Education and the Scandinavian Welfare State. London, Garland Publishing Inc.

Tolofari, S. (2005). New Public Management and Education, Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), pp. 75-89.

Torney-Purta, J., Lehman, R., Oswald, H. & Schultz, W. (2001) Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries. Amsterdam, IEA: The international Association for Educational Achievement.

UFD (2003). Lov om frittstående skoler [Law on Independent Schools] (friskoleloven) www.lovdata.no

UFD (2003-2004). St. meld 30 Kultur for Læring. [Culture for Learning; in Norwegian] Det Kongelige Utdannings og Forskningsdepartement).

Utdanningsdirektoratet (2004). Retningslinjer for arbeid med læreplaner for fag (Basert på St-meld. nr. 30 (2003-2004) Kultur for læring.[ Guidelinges for work with new syllabi. Based on Report 30 (2003-2004) to the Storting] Oslo: Utdannningsdirektoratet. www.utdanningsdirektoratet.no

Westholm, A., Lindquist, A. & Niemi, R.G. (1990). Education and the Making of the

26

Informed Citizen: Political Litteracy and the Outside World., in: O. Ichilow, I.O. (Ed) Political Socialization, Citizenship Education and Democracy. London: Teachers