Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test of 15-year-olds’ reading skills is used to assess and benchmark the quality of national education systems, and PISA is a key pillar in the production of knowledge used to shape policy for steering educational systems (Carvalho, 2012; OECD, 2009). Although the validity of PISA for measuring quality in education systems has been questioned (Hanberger, 2014; Mangez & Hilgers, 2012), it is frequently used by policymakers for this purpose and OECD/PISA has a great influence on how quality in education systems is conceived. National education discourses and policies are significantly influenced by PISA tests and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) recommendations (Breakspear, 2012; Grek, 2010; 2012; Lawn, 2011). Sweden has a decade of declining PISA results and OECD has suggested that Sweden should take action to reform its education system to improve quality and equity (OECD, 2015). One example of the influence OECD and PISA have on Swedish education policy is a recently launched teacher training programme. The programme, initiated by the Swedish government in 2013 with explicit reference to the country’s failings in PISA, is supposed to enhance teachers’ collegial learning in literacy and aimed to improve teaching and student literacy, and Sweden’s performance in coming PISA tests (Ministry of Education, 2013).

The programme, the Literacy Lift, is currently implemented on a full scale and evaluated during its course to fine-tune the implementation of the programme. On commission by the National Agency for Education (NAE) to evaluate the programme, the authors of this paper along with our colleagues have published two interim reports on the material used for collegial learning and the effects of the programme after the first year of implementation.  In this paper we will analyse this programme with a purpose to unfold and probe the assumptions underpinning the Literacy Lift, a Swedish teacher training programme to enhance collegial learning in order to develop teaching that promotes literacy, in this case language-, reading- and writing-skills among the students. The paper will also explore what effects and consequences the programme has had so far.

The paper integrates knowledge from evaluation and education research. Programme theory (PT) evaluation (Leeuw 2003) unfolds how programme makers (the government and NAE) intend to improve the quality in the Swedish education system with this programme, and probes the consistence of the programme’s PT. The PT refers to the assumptions as to how the intended effects can be achieved. Stakeholder evaluation assesses how the main target groups (school owners, principals, supervisors and teachers) perceive effects, intended and other effects, and consequences of the programme.

Education research is used to analyse the programme’s contribution to improve quality in the education system and to probe the programme’s PT. Some education research used to inform policy underscores the importance of teaching quality in improving student learning and performance (Hattie 2009) and of holding schools accountable for learning outcomes (Atkinson et al. 2009; Hamilton, Stecher, Russell, Marsh & Miles 2008; Musset, 2012). School improvement research focuses on “change and problem-solving in educational practice” (Creemers & Reezigt 1997). School improvement does not occur if the “school culture” is not “favourable”, that is, schools “must have shared goals and feel responsible for success”. In addition, there must be a culture of “collegiality”, “risk taking”, “mutual respect and support”, and “openness” (Creemers & Reezigt 2005, 363).

Breakspear, S. (2012) “The Policy Impact of PISA: An Exploration of the Normative Effects of International Benchmarking in School System Performance”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 71, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9fdfqffr28-en Carvalho, L. (2012) The Fabrications and Travels of a Knowledge-Policy Instrument, European Educational Research Journal,11(2):172–188. Creemers, B. & Reezigt, G. (1997). School effectiveness and school improvement: sustaining links. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(4), 396–429. Creemers, B. & Reezigt, G. (2005). Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: the background and outline of the project. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 359–371. Grek, S. (2010) International Organisations and the Shared Construction of Policy ‘Problems’: problematisation and change in education governance in Europe, European Educational Research Journal, 9(3), 396–406. Grek, S. (2012) What PISA Knows and Can Do: studying therole of national actors in the making of PISA, European Educational Research Journal,11(2):243–254. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Russell, J. L., Marsh, J. A., & Miles, J. (2008). Accountability and teaching practices: school-level actions and teacher responses. In Strong states, weak schools: the benefits and dilemmas of centralized accountability, B. Fuller, M. K. Hanberger, Anders (2001) ’What is the Policy Problem? Methodological Challenges in Policy Evaluation’ Evaluation ,Vol. 7 (1):45-62. Hanberger, A. (2014). What PISA intends to and can possibly achieve: a critical programme theory analysis. European Educational Research Journal, 13(2), 167–180. Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: a synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. London: Routledge. Lawn, M. (2011) Standardizing the European education policy space, European Educational Research Journal, 10(2), 259-272. Leeuw, F. (2003) Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved, American Journal of Evaluation 24 (1): 5–20. Mangez, E. & Hilgers, M. (2012) The Field of Knowledge and the Policy Field in Education: PISA and the production of knowledge for policy, European Educational Research Journal,11(2):189–205. Musset, P. (2012). School choice and equity: current policies in OECD countries and a literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 66. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD (2009) PISA 2009 results: what students know and can do. Student Performance in Reading, Mathematics and Science. Paris: OECD OECD (2011). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education, SWEDEN. Paris: OECD Publishing. OECD 2015 Improving schools in Sweden: An OECD perspective. Paris: OECD Publishing. Ministry of education [Utbildningsdepartementet] (2013). Uppdrag om fortbildning i läs- och skrivutveckling – Läslyftet, Regeringsbeslut U2013/7215/S, 2013-12-05. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.