Description: The overall planning goal of the Bologna process is to create The European Higher Education Area (EHEA). By reference to the minister meeting in Berlin 2003, the Bologna- process, has to deal with "evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment" and "a system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures." In this study, local Bologna work is analysed with reference to European equivalence, justice and accountability questions. The analysis is based on international documents about Bologna, inspection-reports from National Agency for Higher Education and results from a study about examination in six universities in Sweden. Results from three seminar-meetings with representatives from eleven departments in teacher education are also used, including a questionnaire to these departments.Different kinds of perspectives are used in the analyses. From a steering/ governance perspective (Daun, 1993; Lindblad & Popkewitz, 2000), the relation between new governance, deregulation, decentralisation and governing by goals and results is analysed. Teacher Education in Sweden has few national documents: On the national level we have the Higher Education Act and Ordinance and the Teacher Examination Requirements, documents that regulate at national level. At local level, policy documents developed at university level and syllabi at lower levels direct practice. In Sweden a fast decentralisation process has taken place. In the Bologna declaration "comparable procedures" are addressed which can be viewed as a step back to a more centralised education. National governing documents are open to local interpretation. This will influence the comparability in a wider context. In nations where national governing is characterised by local interpretations, this kind of comparability will be limited.Connected to the governance problems is the proposal for a new grading-system in the Bologna area. In Swedish Higher Education and especially in Teacher Education it is very common with a grading scale in two or three levels; Fail, Pass and Pass with distinction. Earlier reports and discussions within Teacher Education have shown very few arguments for more levels in the grading scale. The National Agency for Higher Education has argued for a six-step criterion related grading scale with reference to the Bologna declarations suggestion of a seven-level norm-related scale. If the goal is to increase comparability within the Bologna area, it will be an interesting measurement problem if countries differ in this way. Apart from that, our discussions show that more levels in the grading scale may influence the learning process in a negative way. From a socio-cultural perspective on learning (Gipps, 2000;Torrance & Pryor, 2001; Säljö, 2000; Black & William, 2003) there is an obvious risk for a higher level of control of the student. Departments may need proofs if a student questions the grade decisions, which in-turn can lead to more large scale tests and a product-view on learning. More levels in a grading scale may also lead to more work for involved teachers in order to compare each level. Dialogue between teachers in the grading process is one way to raise quality and guarantee students´ legal rights, but a main question is why we need more levels. It is hardly in order to get a good quality of learning, on the contrary it can lead in the opposite direction. From a governing and control perspective perhaps grading statistics can be useful for the National Agency for Higher Education. At worse they can use it if ranking different educations and universities. Combined with governing by economic allowance this could be a very powerful instrument.