This paper examines in what different ways the local schools interpret what is sometimes called the “commission of knowledge”, stated in policy documents and emphasized in a result oriented educational system (cf. the term ‘commission of knowledge’ in for example SOU 2007:101). The aim of the paper is to explore the tensions between what I argue can be seen as two main fields in the debate about knowledge. One field understands learning mostly in terms of ‘delivery’ and schools as ‘delivery agencies’ (cf. Young 2006). The other field foremost understands knowledge as ‘education’, meaning what it means to be human, what it means to live with others in a world of difference and plurality (cf. Biesta 2006). By using the terms ‘fields’ and ‘tensions’, I indicate that in this paper I will not use different views of learning and knowledge as sharp demarcated views or opposites in the local arenas. Instead it is an attempt to make visible how learning within compulsory schools can be interpreted and challenged from different starting points in relation to these main fields. Consequently, my first point of departure is that the concept of learning, i.e. “the function of education is to promote learning” (Curriculum for the Swedish Compulsory School System, Lpo 94), is interpreted with different emphasis in different local school arenas. Thus, the meaning of the concept of learning is displaced in different directions. My second assumption is that language is constituating for different social actions (Englund 2005, Wahlström forthcoming). That is, the way we understand the meaning of different concepts at the same time direct and define possible ways of social actions. A third assumption is an understanding of curriculum as “what students have an opportunity to learn” (cf. Cherryholmes 1988; McCutcheon 1982).

My research question is: In what different ways is the curriculum’s offer of learning interpreted and constituated in local school arenas? From a perspective of a linguistic turn of curriculum theory, I make an empirical examination concerning in which different ways local actors interpret the meaning of the concept of learning in Swedish curriculum (the term curriculum is here used in a broad ‘Anglo-Saxon’ way, including national as well as local policy documents) and consequently act it in their practice. In a way this inquiry can be seen as a follow-up to Svingby (1978) in its empirical part, namely as an empirical study of in which different ways teachers (and principals and pupils) apprehend the goals in curriculum and, thereby, apprehend different possibilities of actions. My main questions are how pupils, teachers and principals interpret the meaning of the concept of learning in curriculum and in what different ways they create meaning and act in various educational situations in relation to goals and rules in curriculum. The interviews have been effected in six municipalities. Subjects of interviews are principals, teachers and pupils in grade 5 respectively grade 9; totally 34 interviews:

The expected outcomes sketched here are merely preliminary. From the empirical material I distinguish between five analytical different meanings of the concept of learning in the local arenas: - a subject centred learning concept - a goal centred learning concept - a social centred learning concept - a result centred learning concept - a growth centred learning concept I will argue that these different learning concepts lead to different ways of organising the teaching and to different ways of relating to the demands of a school governed by management by objectives and results. I will also argue that there is an ongoing displacement from “goal” to “results” in the Swedish goals and achievement-related school system and that this displacement partly can be understood in the language history of “goals and results” in Swedish public administration – but that there certainly also are resistance. Further, the official focus on goal fulfilment results in a contest between, on one hand, a goal centred and a socializing centred learning concept, and on the other hand, a subject centred and result centred learning concept. This contest is most evident in the attitude from the later part of compulsory school, met with opposition from the middle part of compulsory school, because of demands of goal-fulfilment in all subjects. Finally, the pupil is, albeit to some different degrees within different concepts of learning, considered as the sole responsible for his/her learning in school. Following the introductory concepts of knowledge and learning, learning as delivery is above all represented in a subject centred and a result centred concept of learning. The principals seems to be the main upholders for this interpretation. Concerning learning as education, a socializing centred and a growth centred concept of learning lie near at hand. The goal centred concept of learning tries to balance somewhere in between. The concept of knowledge and learning as education is mostly supported by teachers. My main conclusion tends to be that in ‘a language of management by objectives and results’ it is hard to object to the ‘logic’ of constantly better goal fulfilment and more efficiency in education and evaluation, even if this often is a too easy expedient for handling complex educational situations. This simplification put a lot of pressure on teachers and pupils.