National tests in Norway are part of the National Quality Assessment System, and the tests are mandatory in Norwegian, English and Mathematics at 5th, 8th and 9th grade. They have a dual function: increasing quality in schools and enabling insight into educational output (Skedsmo, 2009). The Norwegian school system is widely dispersed. In this context, national tests attempt to align the diverse policies and practices in Norwegian schools, and to clarify and (re)distribute responsibilities between local, municipal, and national levels in ways that also involve temporal dimensions. We draw from the theoretical strands that are ontologically embedded in the assumption of the mundaneness of governance and the active role of non-humans in its enablement (Woolgar & Neyland, 2013). The approach of policy instrumentation focuses on the mechanisms through which “authorities … [seek] to shape, normalise and instrumentalise the conduct, thought, decisions and aspirations of others in order to achieve the objectives they consider desirable” (Miller & Rose, 1990: 8). Looking at national tests as policy instruments, we then zoom further onto their functioning in two intertwined ways: as instruments governing time and governing through temporal elements. Here we bring together perspectives from the sociology of time that emphasise the sociomaterial and technoscientific construction of time and temporality, and time as a resource of governance (Adam, 2004; May & Thrift, 2001). We examine how these temporal elements, together, enable governance by the central authorities as a performative effect. The main research question we ask is: How do national assessments govern (through) time? Empirically, we analyse policy documents from the Directorate for Education and Training that outline specific recommendations and guidelines for the preparation, execution and interpretation of national tests. We also draw from ‘Statistikk’, a branch of the Directorate’s webpage that offers visualizations of national testing data. Whereas policy analysis is habitually concerned with flashy policy papers, such as strategies, programmes and decrees, we argue for the importance of looking at the gray and dull manuals, instructions, recommendations and similar mundane documents to disentangle the operations of governance through policy instruments and temporal processes specifically. We start the analysis by identifying three rhythms (yearly, processual and digital) as analytical entry points into the data, and look closely into how each of them governs time and through temporal processes. We argue that governance (through) time incites different actors across the country and across scales (schools, municipality) to align their practices.

Adam, B. (2004). Time. Cambridge, UK ;: Polity. May, J., & Thrift, N. (2001). Timespace : geographies of temporality. London: Routledge. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1-31. doi:10.1080/03085149000000001 Skedsmo, G. (2009). School governing in transition? Perspectives, purposes and perceptions of evaluation policy. University of Oslo, Oslo. Woolgar, S., & Neyland, D. (2013). Mundane governance : ontology and accountability (1. ed. ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.