This paper discusses how representatives of the university and college sector (UCS) have experienced their participation in the Norwegian national reform strategy "Development for Lower Secondary School" The purpose is to elucidate the UCS enactment of education policy reforms and national strategies for school development in a micro-political perspective. The article is therefore based on Ball, Maguire and Braun (2012) and their definition of "policy enactment" which can best be defined as the interpretation of and negotiation of understanding of political initiatives (Ball et al. 2012).

We already know a lot about how the school professionals as participants' in the strategy work have experienced this policy initiative, but so far, we know little about how the university sector has experienced the initiative. A recent evaluation report (Normann & Postholm 2015) has assessed the work with the reform initiative. A great variation in implementation and weak anchoring among the teachers, but also that many actors are positive about the resources that have been offered to the schools through the initiative was found. The pupils on their side have experienced little variation and little practical teaching (Markussen et al. 2015). This article builds on this knowledge by adopting a perspective that looks more closely at the UCS- actors' enactment of the national educational policy intentions in the initiative. The article discusses the central political intention to make lower secondary school more practical, varied and motivating.

Studies have shown that contributions from the UCS sector can strengthen and develop practices and understandings in the school (Author & Colleague 2015). As part of the strategy in these initiatives, competence environments such as universities and university colleges have been invited to collaborate with schools and municipalities to achieve the various goals (Blossing et al. 2010). In other words, the university sector has been given a responsibility for contributing to anchoring political control signals through "translations" intended to be adapted to the school's context (Author & Colleague 2015; Røvik 2007).
  Recent studies have shown that such involvement from the UCS sector represents important contributions towards the schools, to strengthen and develop teachers' practices and understandings (Colleague & Author 2016; Helstad 2013; Postholm & Madsen 2012).

Ball, Maguire and Braun (2012) point to the strong contextual and relational significance for how political intentions are understood and interpreted. Through demands for changes, factors such as history, culture and reputation will play a greater role than external political expectations of change (Ball et al. 2012). With this as a starting point, the article discusses the following two questions: (a) What experiences with the youth initiative were expressed by development partners from the UCS sector after the first three years of the four-year initiative? (b) What challenges and opportunities related to these experiences have development partners from the UCS sector identified after their participation in the youth initiative?

In this case study (Yin 2014) we examine a selection of actors from the university sector and their experiences with their own participation in the youth initiative. The sample included in the article is the region of North in Norway. Discussions have been conducted on general discussions from nine regional collections for the UCS and the centers of competence, as well as the article authors' own participation as UCS actors in the initiative. A content analysis (Brinkmann & Kvale 2009; Stemler 2001) has been made of reports, powerpoint presentations and oral experience sharing from collaboration with schools and national and regional gatherings between the UCS sector and the Education Directorate. The content analysis made it possible to find delimited thematic categories for coding (Stemler 2001). As in other qualitative research, such a data collection requires that the researchers meet the culture and participants in this context in the best possible way (Postholm 2010). This does not mean that we, as researchers, cannot meet the field with anticipated issues, but the issues and the focus are clarified in interaction with the participants (Postholm 2010). The statements are generalized for reasons of anonymization.

This article has illustrated the possibilities and challenges inherent in the "new" meeting points between schools and the UCS, where negotiations will be conducted on understanding of political initiatives related to the development of the school (Ball et al. 2012). The opportunity space exists when the intention and content of the work for development in the school are reconciled and collectively understood. At the same time, the article has shown how a collaboration "across" can also present challenges, if not all the actors involved see the value of the work or understand what is to be "developed". The findings have highlighted a need to involve the UCS actors as active participants in the work of communicating, negotiating and creating a common understanding of both political and educational intentions at centrally initiated initiatives. In the youth initiative, the concepts and the language associated with the intention of the initiative have been changed along the way. The changed language related to the intention and the complex actor diversity has contributed further to challenges with the dissemination and the debate on understanding the policy formulation. In turn, this may have contributed to a twist of the original intention of more practical and varied training for the students in Norwegian lower secondary school. Future studies should also look at how universities and colleges handle political intentions; and how the intentions are processed and understood at several levels in the various UCS systems.

Ball, Stephen. J., Maguire, Meg & Braun, Annette (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge. Coburn, Cynthia. E (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of education, 77(3), 211−244. Cortazzi, M. (2014). Narrative analysis. London: Routledge. Spillane, James P, Diamond, John B, Sherer, Jennifer & Coldren, Amy Franz (2004). Distributing leadership. Developing Leadership: Creating the Schools of Tomorrow. New York: Open University Press. Spillane, James P. & Burch, Patricia (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. The new institutionalism in education, 6, 87−102. Elmore, Richard (2005). Agency, reciprocity and accountability in democratic education. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340−363. Weick, Karl E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative science quarterly, 21(1), 1−19. Yin, Robert K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods. Los Angeles: Sage.