Distribution of students for upper secondary school and early school leaving appear as considerable challenges for society, as well as individuals. Early childhood efforts as well as the importance of transition phases between education levels are important to the further success in education and later the labor market (see Alexiadou et al. 2019; Markussen ed. 2010; Mogstad & Rege 2009). In Norway, the county municipalities decide between the two main principles for enrolment for upper secondary education, i.e. free school choice (1) or the right to attend school as close to home as possible (“nærskoleprinsippet”) (2). Among versatile initiatives for change and improvement, the Norwegian Government is currently proposing to implement free school choice as mandatory enrolment principle for upper secondary education nationally, restricting the regional autonomy to decide on enrolment principle. This underlines the importance of exploring the rationale behind different strategies for distribution of students for upper secondary school. Our analysis relies on a multi-level governance perspective (Bache & Flinders, 2004) implying an understanding of governance as continuous negotiations between decision-makers and stakeholders at different levels (Marks 1993) as well as mutual dependence between levels. We make use of the analytical concept governing capacity (Lodge and Wegrich 2014). Governing capacity includes formal, structural, and procedural features of the governmental administrative apparatus as well as informal elements such as how the features work in practice (Christensen, Rykkja and Lægreid 2016). The policy solutions for recruitment to upper secondary education and reducing dropout rates transcend administrative levels, sectors and professions, and involve both national and regional levels, as well as different school owner levels (Helgøy et al., 2019). Thus, to implement national policies, governing capacity and coordination at county and municipal levels is crucial. The county municipalities govern upper secondary education with a high degree of discretion. As school owners, the county municipalities are subject to legal regulations and policy decisions from the Ministry of Education, but at the same time, they are able to govern within their local jurisdiction. Our aim is to explore how county municipalities at regional level enact governing capacity through governing school choice. This paper examines and compares possible consequences for governing capacity in two Norwegian counties that govern the distribution of students differently. By comparing counties with different institutional structure and governance of upper secondary education, we illuminate and explore how the different principles of enrolment both respond to and influence regional educational challenges.

Alexiadou, N., Helgøy, I. & Homme, A. (2019) «Lost in transition – policies to reduce early school leaving and encourage further studying in Europe” Comparative Education, 55:3, 297-307. Bache, I & Flinders, M.V. (2004) Multi-level Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press Christensen, T., Lægreid, P. & Rykkja, L. H. (2016), Organizing for Crisis Management: Building Governance Capacity and Legitimacy. Public Admin Rev. doi:10.1111/puar.12558 Helgøy, I., Homme, A., Lundahl, L. & Rönnberg, L. (2019) «Combating Low Completion Rates in Scandinavian Welfare States: Policy Design in Norway and Sweden». Comparative Education 2, 2019. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (Eds.). (2014). The problem-solving capacity of the modern state: governance challenges and administrative capacities. Oxford University Press, USA. Marks, G. (1993) «Structural Policy and Multilevel Governance in the EC», i Cafruny, A. og Rosenthal, G. (red.) The State of the European Community Vol 2: The Maastricht Debates and Beyond. London: Longman. Markussen, E. (red.) (2010). Frafall i utdanning for 16–20 åringer i Norden, København: TemaNord 2010:517. Mogstad, M. & Rege, M. (2009). ”Tidlig læring og sosial mobilitet: Norske barns muligheter til å lykkes i utdanningsløpet og arbeidslivet”, Samfunnsøkonomen, 5, p. 4-22.