Since the 1990s, quality assurance and evaluation (QAE) has become a central mode of basic education governance in many countries (Grek, Lawn, Lingard & Varjo 2009). This growing emphasis on standardized testing and school performance indicators at local, national and international level has raised critical questions of the unintended consequences related to ‘the global testing culture’ (Smith 2016). Despite the criticism, many governments have started to publish school-specific performance data or compile different school ranking lists. This trend has been visible also in the Nordic countries, seen related to 'the neoliberal turn' which main features, decentralization, competition and parental choice with accountability policies have challenged the egalitarian traditions of the Nordic comprehensive school system (e.g. Blossing, Imsen & Moos 2014; Telhaug, Mediås & Aasen 2006).
However, the Finnish QAE policy differs most strikingly from all the other Nordic countries (Eurydice 2009). In Finland, the national testing is carried out sample-based and thus no evaluation results are being published on a school level. This notion supports the view that the global policies are rearticulated when meeting the given societal, historical and discursive contexts. In order to sustain their legitimacy, the institutions, understood here as the national QAE policy practices, have to deal with a certain type of ‘logic of appropriateness’ (March and Olsen 1989). This logic is however dynamic, meaning it may be challenged and changed as new ideas and discursive legitimations emerge in the society (Schmidt 2008; Erkkilä 2010).
In this paper we compare the discourses of national level QAE policy provided by the leading educational experts in four Nordic countries, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland. We approach our research data from the framework of neo-institutionalist policy research, namely discursive institutionalism. (Schmidt 2008). For Schmidt (2008), the underlying ideas and rationales, specific in a given society, are conveyed and exchanged through discourses in the interaction processes between different actors and audiences.
A special interest in the analysis is given to the use of results, in other words for whom the evaluation results are aimed for and why? This is important, as we highlight the concept of transparency as an essential factor to understand the change towards market accountability features in the Nordic context (Erkkilä 2012). Thus, our consecutive research questions are: 1) How is the recent national level QAE policy being discussed, legitimised or challenged in each country? 2) How are the different users (schools, decisionmakers, parents etc.) of evaluation results represented in the interviews? 3) How does the Finnish QAE policy differ discursively from the other Nordic countries and is there reason to expect changes in the Finnish QAE policy?