Education policies globally have seen shifts from ‘state control’ or ‘big government’ of the welfare state towards ‘governance’ and ‘efficient free markets’, where citizens become clients of the state and consumers of education (Forsey et al. 2008).

Reforms of upper secondary school in the Nordic countries widely adhere to such ’new’ policies. A lot is at stake both for the students, for institutions, and for regions and communities trying to ensure as widespread education possibilities as possible. In Sweden for example, we see a clear increase in inequality depending on class, ethnicity and geographical origin (Fjellman et al., 2018). Challenges of upper secondary education include a generally decreasing number of students and that the institutions are under pressure both politically and economically. There is a political pressure on the one hand to get as many students as possible through upper secondary education and on the other hand, to assure an appropriate distribution between the vocational and the general educational tracks (Nevøy et al. 2014). There is an economic pressure for institutional survival to attract as many students as possible.

When opening up for students to ‘choose’ the institution they want to go to, the institutions have to compete for applicants and, to respond to this challenge, they do what they can to make themselves attractive to the students (Dovemark & Holm, 2017). The reforms have decentralised the governance of the schools; decisions on distribution of students and provision of education programmes are widely referred to municipal or regional/county levels. However, schools are also subject to general objectives and legislation that among other things state a high quality of education, a high completion rate, and a geographical availability of a varied educational provision.

As a vehicle for understanding the workings of education policies aiming to introduce choice and more market in education, Nordic countries can serve as exemplary cases. They retain some features of the traditional universal welfare states and are often highlighted – including in their self-understanding – as model societies with high levels of happiness, social equality, and democratic commitment; low levels of corruption; and free education and health care for all (e.g. OECD Better Life Index). In this sense, they are often treated as being in a league of their own (e.g. Wacquant, 2008).

The notion of the Scandinavian model being exemplary finds strong support in welfare state typologies that define the Scandinavian welfare states as belonging to a social-democratic regime type, characterized by principles of universalism and the decommodification of social rights (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Internally however, they can be assumed to contain some highly contrasting features that are critical in illustrating how global policies make transformations in national contexts that have hitherto focused on access to good education as a general good (Dovemark et al. 2018)

The symposium includes contributions from Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Denmark, which during the last twenty years have experienced reforms of education governance of the above type. With a general view to questioning access and diversity in upper secondary education, the contributions from each country will focus on the following questions,

1.       How is the distribution of students for upper secondary schools governed?

2.       What reforms have influenced the institutional structure and governance of upper secondary education?

3.       What does ’school choice’ mean to the institutional structure and new needs for regulation?

4.       How does the governing of upper secondary education ensure the geographical distribution of access?

Attaching importance to regional distinctions in the country cases, our key concern is to investigate, how the complex relationship between welfare policies of equity and market efficiencies/deficiencies of education policies are handled in local practice.

Dovemark, M., Kosonen, S.; Kauko, J.; Hansen, P., Magnúsdóttir, B. & Rasmussen (2018). Deregulation, Privatisation, and Marketisation of Nordic Comprehensive Education: Social Changes Reflected in Schooling, Education Inquiry, DOI 10.1080/20004508.2018.1429 Dovemark, M. & Holm, A-S. (2017). Pedagogic identities for sale! Segregation and homogenization in Swedish upper secondary School. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38(4), 518-532. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Fjellman, A.-M., Yang-Hansen, K. & Beach, D. (2018). School choice and implications for equity: the new political geography of the Swedish upper secondary school market. Educational Review 71, 518-539. Forsey, M., Davies, S., Walford, G., & University of Western Australia (eds.). (2008). The globalisation of school choice? Symposium Books. Nevøy, A., Rasmussen, A., Ohna, S. E. & Barow, T. (2014). Nordic Upper Secondary School: Regular and Irregular Programmes - Or Just One Irregular School for All? In Blossing, U., Imsen, G. & Moos, L. (eds. 2014). The Nordic education model: “a school for all” encounters neo-liberal policy. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. OECD (n.d.). Better Life Index. Retrieved March 29, 2019 from http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111 Wacquant, L. (2008). Urban outcasts: a comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press