We have over time experienced the rise of an audit culture in Western Europe, where the auditees are increasingly prone to new tools, external evaluation and performance measurement (Apple, 2005; Hood, 2007). In the Norwegian case, inspection policy is currently adjusting to new expectations, governing and controlling legal compliance through use of School Self-Evaluation (SSE) as well as fixed templates (Hall, submitted). Additionally, the focus of inspection is now on student learning outcomes, representing a clear shift in state policy. Thus, implementation of the current inspection handbook (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2013) is now increasingly spearheaded towards new areas of concern. School inspectors must not only decide upon how to base their judgments, but there also seems to exist leeway for interpretation and deliberation in the course of the inspection process (Hall, in press; Sowada & Dedering, 2014). This paper focuses specifically on these current changes, moving from a previous system of audit (2006-2012) to a regime including a new mixture of tools and evaluative methods (2013-2017). Theoretically, the paper draws on key concepts such as governing (Kooiman, 1993), regulatory tools (Hood, 2007) and institutionalism (Scott, 2014). Through school inspection, a mixture of tools is administered, targeted at guiding, steering, managing or controlling schools (Hall & Sivesind, 2015). As suggested in this paper, the mixture of these tools is in the process of shifting towards more emphasis on evaluative approaches, in addition to controlling legal compliance where SSE and use of fixed templates play an important role in both inspection policy and practice. The study is based on observation data of inspection teams in the field collected in 2013-2014, supported by policy documents (Hall, submitted). This was done though field observation of 13 meetings in three municipalities during implementation of the new handbook in course of inspecting compulsory schools on the primary and lower-secondary level. Data was theme-coded and analysed drawing on the overall theoretical framework. Through implementation of the current inspection handbook (The Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training, 2013), the study shows how new, fixed templates and SSE have become central tools, thus strictly steering the inspection process. Through use of these templates, inspectors are now more focused on 'moving towards the checkout line', where completing the inspection process within strict guidelines and timeframes outweighs supporting schools in complying with legal requirements.

Apple, M. W. (2005). Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly, 47(1/2), 11–29. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-1562.2005.00611.x Hall, J. B., & Sivesind, K. (2015). State school inspection policy in Norway and Sweden (2002–2012): A reconfiguration of governing modes? Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 429–458. http://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.945488 Hall, J. B. (in press). Examining school inspectors and education directors within the organisation of school inspection policy: Perceptions and views. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. Hall, J. B. (submitted). “Governing by templates” through the new state school inspection handbook in Norway. Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127–144. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00347.x Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance: New government – society interactions. London: Sage. Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. (2013). Methods for inspection – a handbook of inspection methods in compliance with the Pre-school Act and the Education Act. Oslo: Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Sowada, M. G., & Dedering, K. (2014). Ermessensspielräume in der Bewertungsarbeit von Schulinspektor/innen. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 4(2), 119–135. http://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-014-0091-y