This paper discusses how a local educational policy/strategy-document and lower secondary students in an Norwegian municipality draw on globally traveling policy ideas of 21^st century skills and responsibilization in their positioning and construction of “The good student”.

In 2020 Norway started implementing what is called the LK-20 reform throughout compulsory (grade 1–10) and upper secondary (grade 11–13/14) school. The reform has been developed and introduced by the Norwegian government through a series of policy and curriculum documents over a period of 5 years (2015–2020). This paper reports from the Reforming Education Norway (RENO)-project who follows the development as well as the introduction of the LK-20 reform. The LK-20 reform is characterized by the introduction of global policy ideas, such as 21^st century skills into Norwegian educational policy, and the first phase of the RENO-project had a special focus on how social, emotional and metacognitive competencies are included, legitimated and frame student identity in policy- and curriculum reform documents. Studies from the first phase of the project (e.g. Søreide, 2022; Søreide, Riese & Hilt, 2022; Hilt, Riese & Søreide, 2019) illuminate how the LK-20 reform frame student identity within a strong self-regulation discourse and responsibilisation techniques that Peeters (2019) call ‘reciprocal governance’ where “…governments try to activate citizens socially and improve their employability…” (p.56).

The RENO-project is now in its second phase and investigates how the 21^st century skills reform-ideas and self-regulation-discourse are interpreted and communicated by a) local educational authorities (municipalities) and b) students. The aim for the project is not to investigate how the reform is implemented on/by different hierarchical organizational levels in the educational sector. Rather, the approach is to explore how global and national educational policy ideas and discourses are enacted by significant educational agents (Ball et al., 2012) in the public school sector.

This paper reports from a study investigating the construction of “the good student” in a local policy/strategy document and in interviews with lower secondary school students in one of Norway’s lager urban municipalities. The study draws on a combination of discourse theory and positioning theory as analytical tools to identify how certain conceptions, rights and duties, and ‘truths’ about “The good student” are produced and legitimated (Ball, 1990; Harré & Langenhove, 1999; Ideland, 2016; Kayı-Aydar, 2019; Spohrer et al., 20189). A position is a discursively, socially and historically constructed cluster of rights and duties that allow persons or groups to act, feel, believe, and know in specific ways (Kayı-Aydar, 2019). Persons or groups can be assigned, ascribed, or denied certain positions by others, a process called ‘interactive positioning’, or they can appropriate or reject certain positions themselves, which is called ‘reflexive positioning’ (Harré & Langenhove, 1999).

Context: Although both public and private schools in Norway are regulated by a national curriculum and Education act, the responsibility for and governing of primary (grade 1 – 7) and lower secondary (grade 8 – 10) public schools are distributed to local educational authorities in 356 municipalities across the country. Local authorities develop educational policies that support the implementation of national policies and curricula and supervise and oversee the work and results of the schools in the municipality. The municipality where the 2nd phase of the RENO- project is conducted, is responsible for approximately 80 public schools. Based on the main ideas in two core LK-20 reform documents, the municipality developed a strategy-document describing designated areas of development, quality work and standards that all public schools in the municipality were expected to implement over a period of 3 – 4 years. At the time the student-interviews were conducted, the strategy had been implemented and “working” in the schools for approximately 3 years. 2 sets of material: 1)The strategy document developed by the municipality’s department of education. The document is based on the main ideas in two core national reform documents in addition to the municipality’s selected quality enhancement focus areas. 2)Focus group interviews with 5 groups of 4 – 5 10th grade students (age 15 – 16) in 3 lower secondary schools. The schools were situated in districts typically characterized by lower middle-class families. Informed consent were obtained from individual students and their parents. The interviews were conducted by a research assistant who also is an experienced lower secondary school teacher. Recordings of the interviews are stored on a university run server for sensitive research material with protected and limited access. This paper reports from the section of the interviews focusing on what a good student is and how young people can become/learn how to be a good student. Analysis: The transcribed interviews and strategy documents were analyzed in three main steps to identify constructions of “The good student”. Firstly, all descriptions and statements addressing students’ expected behavior, competencies, attitudes, and values were marked and extracted. Secondly the extracts were organized in inductively developed categories focusing on different aspects of what “The good student” do, think, feel, and know. Finally overlaps and differences in the positioning of “The good student” between the two sets of material were identified.

Preliminary findings indicate overlaps as well as differences in the positioning and construction of “The good student” in student interviews and the strategy-document. Although all positions mainly draw on self-regulation-discourses, student interviews and the strategy document emphasize different features of self-regulation and responsibility in their construction of “The good student”. In the student interviews, the three most dominant positions are: o The good student makes an effort. o The good student is open to learning. o The good student show respect. The three most dominant positions in the strategy-document are: o The good student is goal oriented. o The good student has insight in and control over their learning process o The good student is active. While the strategy document position “The good student” as a goal (outcome)-oriented learner, the student interviews focus on the importance of ‘making an effort’ and ‘doing your best’, regardless of the achieved results. Thus, activating two different approaches to how “The good student” should be motivated: by goals and expected outcomes or hard work and stamina. Further, the strategy document underscore “The good student’s” understanding, reflection over and control of their learning processes, while students position ‘The good student’ as open and willing to learn new things. Finally, while the strategy document position “the good student” as contributing to their own and other students’ learning by being active, students position “the good student” as contributing to the creation of a good learning environment by showing teachers and fellow students respect. To “show respect” include two different sub-positions; a) “The good student “respect the knowledge, opinions and utterances from teachers and other students and b) “The good student” do the chores they are assigned and are quiet, talk, move, sit still, and pay attention when they are supposed/expected to.

Ball, S. (1990). Politics and policy making in education. London and New York: Routledge. Ball, S., Maguire, M. & Brown, A. (2012) How schools do policy. Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Harré, R. & van Langenhove, L. (1999) (Eds.) Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Blackwell. Hilt, L. T., Riese, H. & Søreide G. E. (2019) “Narrow identity resources for future students: the 21st century skills movement encounters the Norwegian education policy context”. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51 (3), 384 – 402 Ideland, M. (2016) The action-competent child: responsibilization through practices and emotions in environmental education. Knowledge cultures, 4(2), 95 – 112 Kayı-Aydar, H. (2019) Positioning theory in applied linguistics: Research design and applications. Springer. Peeters, R. (2019) Manufacturing responsibility: The governmentality of behavioural power in social policies. Social policy and society, 18 (1), 51-65. Spohrer, K. , Stahl, G. & Bowers-Brown, T. (2018) Constituting neoliberal subjects? ‘Aspiration’ as technology of government in UK policy discourse, Journal of Education Policy, 33 (3), 327-342 Søreide, G. E. (2022) “Narrative control and standards for pupil identity in the Norwegian LK-20 educational reform” in Riese, H., Hilt, L. T. & Søreide, G. E. (eds) Educational Standardization in a Complex World. Emerald Publishing Limited. Søreide, G. E., Riese, H. & Hilt, L. T. (2022). “21st Century Skills and Current Nordic Educational Reforms” in William Pink (ed) Oxford Encyclopedia of School Reform. Oxford University Press.