This paper engages with the ongoing discussion on juridification of and in education. The context is the current curriculum reform and the new Education Act in Norway. The paper aims to contribute to the knowledgebase of juridification in and of education in Norway during the last decades (2000-2025) by looking at juridification as a governing mechanism (Rosén et al., 2023). Juridification is studied both as a theoretical concept and an empirical phenomenon. Both epistemological, social, political and educational implicationsof the (juridical) discourse is studied.

Recent research points to the juridification of basic education, which means that processes in areas that were previously treated as pedagogical now are solved with juridical measures and juridical ruling (Andenæs, 2016; Hall, 2019; Ottesen & Møller, 2016; Novak, 2019). As a governance instrument, the curriculum can take different forms and vary from being strictly regulated and detailed on one hand to being broadly governed on the other. Regulation of the curriculum includes both the process of how the curriculum is developed and the outcome, or product, of this process (Mølstad & Hansén, 2013). The national curriculum is a legal document and a mayor educational governance instrument. This paper will be looking at the national curriculum’s function as legal regulation in the interplay between the arena of formulation of policy and the arena of realisation of policy (Lundgren, 1986). Important questions being asked are: What characterises the legal regulation of primary and lower secondary education in Norway? And how does the national curriculum function as a governance instrument in this respect?

A critical perspective will be part of the theoretical framework for this paper as there is an intention to ask how the present order came to be and to call present governance mechanisms into question. The paper has a discursive approach. Discourse analysis can be applied in analysis of many different social domains, including organisations and institutions and in societal and cultural developments involving communication. The discursive approach is applied both in policy document analysis and in analysis of practices and talk (interviews). The study has a poststructural and Foucault-inspired approach to policy analysis (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). Policy is understood as discourse (Ball, 1993) and discourse is considered to constitute the social world, meaning also that changes in discourse are a means by which the social world is changed. Lundgren (2002) identify four instruments for political governing of educational systems: the legal system, the economic system, the ideological system (goals and content) and the evaluation system. According to Lundgren, these four governance mechanisms make up the frames for governing of public education/schools. They interact and the balance between them may vary. The concepts in Lundgren’s frame factor theory are used in this paper to analyse governing mechanisms and the relations between the state, society and the educational system. The paper also draw on Habermas’ social theory of how materialised regulation might colonialise the life-world (here: education and schools) (Habermas, 1987). To analyse and discuss findings, the paper activates Blichner & Molander’s (2008) five dimensions of juridifcation. This conseptualisation is used to understand different aspects of juridification of and in education in Norway.

The paper describes and analyse the national curriculum’s function as legal regulation in the interplay between the arena of formulation and the arena of realisation (Lundgren, 1986). The arena of formulation is studied applying a poststructural and Foucault inspired WPR approach to policy analysis (Bacchi & Goodwin, 2016). The empirical material is a selection of relevant White and Green Papers and central questions are what characterises the discourse on legal governing through the national curriculum and what deep-seated presuppositions underlie these representations in the documents. The arena of realisation, delineated to national governing bodies in the public education system and regional governing bodies, is studied using empirical data from interviews. A strategic selection of key representatives from the governing bodies will be interviewed.

Preliminary findings show that there is a tendency in the discourse to focus on simplification and clarification of the curricula. There is also an emphasis on the need for better coherence between the Education Act and the curricula. A need for more equal practice, quality improvement and to ensure that curricula is met for all students is implied. Underlying goals are to improve the schools’ ability to self-evaluate and to increase students’ legal protection. There is a tendency towards increased individualisation.

Bacchi, C., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural Policy Analysis: A Guide to Practice. Palgrave Macmillan US.  Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. The Australian Journal of Education Studies, 13(2), 10-17. Blichner, L. C., & Molander, A. (2008). Mapping Juridification. European Law Journal, 14(1), 36-54. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action (Vol. II). Boston: Beacon Press. Hopmann, S. T. (2008). No child, no school, no state left behind. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(4), 417–456. Lundgren, U. P. (2002). Political governing of the education sector: Reflections on change. Studies in Educational Policy and Educational Philosophy, 2002(1), 26781 Novak, J. (2019). Juridification of Educational Spheres: The case of Sweden. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 51(12), 1262-1272. Rosén, M. et al. (2021). A conceptual framework for understanding juridification of and in education. Journal of Education Policy, 36(6), 822-842.