Specific contracts have been developed for public and education governance over the past 30 years (Andersen, 2003; Bovbjerg, Krause-Jensen, Wright, Brorholt, & Moos, 2011; Moos & Krejsler, 2021). The inspiration for this came from the OECD (2016). The contracts are part of public governance, and thus part of the relationships between governments and organisations, consultancies, institutions, and individuals. There are distinctive forms of governance contracts, like vertical, top-down contracts between political-administrative principals and local and institutional agents. They encourage actors to compete for contracts both within the public administration and with external private enterprises or consultancy firms. There are also horizontal contracts within agencies or authorities. One kind of contract is written in such detail that it is necessary to use social technologies such as international and national comparisons or governance packages (manuals or planning prescriptions, strategies). Such contracts leave decisions to the practice level, where people must manage themselves and their work. This type of leadership through values means that organisations and individuals must take over the values and norms laid out by the superior level (Andersen, 2003). Contract governance is essentially a model for separating goal-setting from production and measuring results. For those purposes, there is a need for clear and measurable goals/standards and reliable measurements of results/outcomes (Moos, 2021). Introducing the PISA and other transnational comparisons of measures of student outcomes has contributed considerably to this tendency. In line with English experiences (Gunter & Mills, 2017), we see that ministries and agencies make extensive use of private consultancies. This development has supported moves to privatize education. Private schooling is made into schools on contracts with authorities. Contract also makes it necessary to be very clear and detailed in setting the standards for the services provided and at the same time have rigorous and unified means of measuring the results and outcomes. That is part of the explanation of the fast-growing need for metrics and statistic (Moos, 2020). Numbers are unfortunately seen as pivotal signifiers for quality (Nóvoa, 2013). These numbers are used for comparison and for ‘naming, shaming or faming’ (Brøgger, 2016).

Andersen, N. Å. (2003). Borgernes kontraktliggørelse [Contracting citizens]. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzel. Bovbjerg, K. M. et al.(2011). Nye ledelsesrationaler i offentlige organisationer [New Leadership rationales in Public Organizations]. In K. M. Bovbjerg (Ed.), Motivation og mismod i det moderne arbejdsliv. Copenhagen: Aaarhus Universitetsforlag. Brøgger, K. (2016). The Faceless Masters of Higher Education. Governing through standards: The Bologna Process and the New Realities of Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Gunter, H. M., & Mills, C. (2017). Consultants and Consultancy: the Case of Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L. (2020). Contracts in Danish Educational Governance. In H. Ârlestig & O. Johansson (Eds.), Educational Authorities and the schools. Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L. (2021). Operating in an Outcomes-based and a Democratic Bildungs Discourse. In M. Uljens & A. v. Oettingen (Eds.), Reinventing General Theory of Education - Non-Affirmative Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Moos, L., & Krejsler, J. B. (2021). Nordic School Policy Approaches to Evidence, Social Technologies and Transnational Collaboration. In J. B. Krejsler & L. Moos (Eds.), What Works in Nordic School Policies? Mapping Approaches to Evidence, Social Technologies and Transnational Influences. Cham: Springer. Nóvoa, A. (2013). Numbers Do Not Replace Thinking. European Educational Research Journal, 12(1), 139-148. OECD. (2016). Contract Management. http://www.oecd.org/governance/procurement/toolbox/search/sigma-contract-management-public-procurement.pdf.