This paper regards the Norwegian national early childhood education and care (ECEC) reform policies of the last decade, in particular the revision of the framework plan for early childhood (EC) centers from 2017.

ECEC is an integrated part of the Norwegian education system. All children between age one and five have a right to the ECEC services, and the attendance rate at age five is 97% (Størksen et al., 2021). Norway is defined as a social democratic welfare state regime characterized by a comprehensive state, strong citizen rights, universal welfare arrangements (Esping-Andersen 1990), and a high trust society (Listhaug & Aardal, 2011). In line with this regime, the education system has promoted social inclusion by securing equal access to education for all, comprehensive public schools and an emphasis on democratic values, community, and equality (Aasen 2003; Arnesen & Lundahl 2006).

A revision of the Norwegian 2006 ECEC Framework Plan was initiated in 2015, with a government white paper labelled Time for play and learning. The then conservative government built its suggestions upon OECD reports that enhanced learning ambitions. The government paper evoked a strong mobilization, by some labelled “the kindergarten riot”, of interest groups critizizing the increased weight upon testing and learning and defending the role of play in the ECECs. The majority of the Norwegian parliament supported this critique revised framework plan was not launched until 2017, by the same government.

The new plan can be regarded a compromise between different ambitions and values related to the role of ECEC and stress the crucial role of inclusion and diversity on the one hand and play and learning on the other. The framework plan is part of a series of reforms aimed at growth, enhanced quality of the ECEC sector, as well as social cohesion.

Our research finds that the 2017 Framework Plan has gained strong support from EC center staff as well as public and private owners and authorities (Ludvigsen & Homme, 2020). Other research also find that the framework plan is an important tool for staff and referred to in their daily work (Eide et al., 2020). Thus, our research question concerns how the framework plan gained its high legitimacy in the ECEC sector by scrutinizing features of the policy process leading to the 2017 revision.

The paper is part of a five-year evaluation of the implementation of the 2017 framework plan, which is initiated and funded by the Norwegian Directorate for Education. The evaluation is a comprehensive project, aiming to study how actors on all level understands and work to implement the Framework Plan over a period of five years.

The paper draws on literature on characteristics and modes of democratic policymaking. Vukasovic and colleagues (Vukasovic et al., 2021) highlight four modes of democratic policymaking in governing reforms in higher education, which we apply in our study of early education policymaking: Pluralist, Corporatist, State centered, and Managerial democratic policymaking.

Building on the five-year evaluation, we here draw upon material on the policy process and design, and regard the role of preparatory elements in the policy design of the Norwegian ECEC 2017 Framework Plan The main empirical basis for our analysis consists of relevant policy documents, such as white papers, consultation papers, and government consultations and 12 semi-structured interviews with 21 key actors (from the ministry of education, Directorate for education and training, and from two (of 11) County Governors, professional associations, the National Parent Association, The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS), the National Association for Privately Owned Kindergartens (PBL), and the Sami Parliament, and experts). The themes covered in the interviews were the policy process, participants, reform objectives, policy tools and implementation process. All participants gave consent and were given opportunity to leave the study any time. Data is stored in a server with strictly limited access. Both authors took part in the interviewing. The interviews were done in person or via Teams or Zoom. Notes were taken, all interviews recorded and transcribed in full text. The interview data were coded and analyzed as part of a convergent mixed methods design (Creswell 2015) and the main method of analysis was thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Both authors read and reread the documents and transcripts and coded the data material separately and collectively (Eggebø, 2020)

The policy formation process that resulted in a revised framework plan for Norwegian ECEC was characterized by a combination of several modes of policymaking. Through negotiation, consultancy, dialogue, and strategic positioning (Vukasovic et al., 2021), the final document was formed as a compromise. Important interest groups have regarded the plan a continuation and clarification. The process can be regarded as a form of path dependency (Christensen & Laegreid 2001, 2007; Pierson, 2000), in the sense that the revised plan underlines core values of the sector. It also manifest a form of incremental change by incorporating enhanced learning ambitions. The use of dialogue-based policy making enables both partial change and legitimacy. In the revision process, the corporatist model was modified through including new interest groups in line with the managerial model; the sami parliament and the association of private kindergarten owners. Such participation is first and foremost a tool for building legitimazy (Vukasovic et al.,2021). The consultation process was vital to build legitimazy and support amongst a broad range of stakeholders and this involvement persisted throuhgout the implementation process. Moreover, the modified model was also vital for policy formation in the sense that the core stakeholders saw their viewpoints acknowledged in the process. The revised plan secured a continuation of sector values related to the child as a being and play as a core element, but it also secured weight on learning, teaching methods, and documentation. Even though the ambition was to make the plan more coherent, we find inherent tensions regarding its values and aims. The plan has double status as both a regulatory tool and a curriculum as it includes traditional values concerning childcare as well as educational ambitions. Moreover, it aims to enhance both service quality and equality, and relies on professional autonomy and adaptation to local needs.

Aasen, P. (2003). What Happened to the Social-Democratic Progressivism in Scandinavia? Restructuring Education in Sweden and Norway in the 1990s. In Apple, M.W. (ed.) The State and the Politics of Knowledge, 109–148. London: Routledge Falmer Arnesen, A.-L., & Lundahl, L. (2006). Still Social and Democratic? Inclusive Education Policies in the Nordic Welfare States. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50 (3): 285–300. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2001). New Public Management: The effects of contractualism and devolution on political control. Public Management Review, 3(1), 73-94. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). Regulatory agencies—The challenges of balancing agency autonomy and political control. Governance, 20(3), 499-520.Creswell, J. W. 2015. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eggebø, H. (2020). Collective qualitative analysis. Norwegian Journal of Sociology, 4(2), 106-122. Eide; H.M.K., Danielsen, H., Sataøen, S.O. & Olsen, T.A. (2020). Barnehagestudien. In Homme, A., Danielsen, H., Ludvigsen, K. (eds.). Implementeringen av rammeplan for barnehagen. Rapport nr 37/2020, NORCE Samfunn. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press Ludvigsen, K. & Homme, A. (2020). Utformingen av rammeplanens mål og virkemidler. In Homme, A., Danielsen, H., Ludvigsen, K. (eds.). Implementeringen av rammeplan for barnehagen. Rapport nr 37/2020, NORCE Samfunn. Listhaug, O. & Aardal, B. (2011). Politisk tillit – et mål på demokratiets helsetilstand? In Aardal, B. (ed.), Det politiske landskap. En studie av stortingsvalget 2009, (pp. 291–304), Cappelen Damm AS, Oslo. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American political science review, 94(2), 251-267. Størksen, I., Ertesvåg, S. K., & Rege, M. (2021). Implementing implementation science in a randomized controlled trial in Norwegian early childhood education and care. International journal of educational research, 108, 101782. Vukasovic, M., Frølich, N., Bleiklie, I., Elken, M., Michelsen, S. (2021). Policy processes shaping the Norwegian Structural Reform. NIFU Innsikt;2021-1