In the beginning of the 1990s, governance by rules and directives was replaced in Sweden by governance by objectives and results. This meant a transfer of decisions, responsibility and financial resources from the central authority to the municipality and the local schools. An earlier governing mechanism, also placed over to change, was the control of time spent on each subject in the compulsory school. In the autumn of 2000, the Swedish government started a five-year trial where a limited number of municipalities and schools were allowed to abandon the current national timetable for comprehensive school. During the trial period no limits have been placed on the amount of time spent on each subject. Only a guaranteed minimum time, for all subjects together, is mandated. No change, therefore, is to be made in the national curriculum, national grading criteria or national tests. The timetable-free trial is being evaluated nationally. The key questions are: Is a timetable necessary? And if so, what form should it take? This paper comes from an evaluation project which focuses on what happens to assessment and grading in timetable-free schools. Politicians, head- teachers and teachers have been interviewed in six schools about the effects of assessment and grading. Four of these schools are "timetable- free" schools, while the remainder work with the national timetable un-changed. The overall aim has been to study the effects of assessment and grading in relation to the national timetable, steering documents and other external frame factors. Subsidiary aims include assessment criteria and how/if time-discipline is involved in assessment and grading practice. The results from the interviews indicate that the basis of school assessment and grading is changing. Increasing "free choice" in schools is met from the schools with increased attention to time allocation and time-keeping. Assessment and grading are also about control. The control function is very explicit in years 8 and 9 in the comprehensive school (grundskola), because of a close connection between grading and admission to national programs in the upper-secondary school (gymnasieskola). The primary focus for teachers´ assessment and grading seems to be the national goals and grading criteria for year 9, the final year of the grundskola. Pass is a very important grade-level for pupils. Pupils must have a Pass in Swedish, Mathematics and English before they can be promoted to a socially - respectable line in the gymnasium. Teachers say in their interviews that they "seek high and low" for evidence in this situation. From the teachers´ point of view not reaching a Pass is seen as failure. At the decision point, teachers as human beings must take responsibility for fulfilling social goals. It seems very difficult at the same time to do this and "hold the axe." By increasing areas where pupils can choose their activities, time discipline seems to be an important factor in grading discussions, especially in year 9. Mentor- time is used for follow-up of how pupils have used their time. Increased freedom of choice requires increased responsibility from the pupils. Teachers argue that some pupils cannot take responsibility and therefore must be steered. The current study emphasizes grades and assessment as a very strong force linked with national goals and grading criteria. Grading has a very strong impact on teachers and pupils work in school, an impact much stronger than the national timetable. Increasing areas where pupils have to choose and plan by themselves in school can lead to more control from the school. Other grading criteria, more hidden than criteria expressed on the national level, can substitute or be a complement.