Schools around the world have two main missions – to promote the pupils academic knowledge and to develop their civic conscience and social competences. In Sweden the second mission is labelled norms, values and personal development (NVP) and is based on the Education Act and the National Curriculum. The National Agency in Sweden has developed an instrument called BRUK (an abbreviation short for assessment, results, evaluation, and quality) to support the process of quality assessments in Swedish schools. Each item in the instrument, which is quite large, is related to the different aspects of the steering documents. How do we know that schools fulfil these missions? School systems are normally good at assessing the academic objectives but bad in assessing the pupils’ development concerning NVP. The purpose of this paper is twofold.
The first is to present a tool for the analyses of how schools accomplish the social and civic objectives. How can social and civic goals be measured and what differences between schools and groups of students can be found when it comes to achieving these objectives? Results from questionnaires to 58 schools with a total of 3000 students in grades 6 and 9 in Swedish compulsory schools are presented where the relation between academic and social and civic goals will be displayed.  If there are differences between schools in their achievement of the social objectives, how does this relate to the academic achievements? Can measures of academic, social and civic development be aligned and seen as a more complete assessment of school performance.
The second purpose goes deeper into the relation between social/civic and academic results. If schools are strong in reaching the social and civic objectives but not equally proficient when it comes to the academic performance, what happens over time. Does these schools stay where they are or does there strength in the social/civic field have an effect on their academic achievement in the long run? If so, what are the social mechanisms in such an effect? Which are the social contexts of schools with this development and what constitutes these schools structure, culture and leadership? If schools stay where they are, why is that?

Höög, J., Johansson, O., & Olofsson, A. (2007) Successful principalship – The Swedish Case. I Day, C., Leithwood, K. (Ed.) Successful Pricipal Leadership in Times of change: An International Perspective. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishers. Ahlström, B (2009) Bullying and Social Objectives. Thesis. Department of Sociology, Umeå Univiersity. Ahlström, B. & Höög, J. (2010) Measuring the Social and Civic Objectives of Schools. I Huber, S., Saravanabhavan, Rc & Hader-Popp, S. School Leadership – International Perspectives. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishers.Studies in Educational Leadership. Höög, J., Johansson, O. & Olofsson, A (2011) Swedish Successful Schools Revisited. I Moos, L., Johansson, O & Day, C. (2011) How School Principals Sustain Success over Time – International Perspectives. New York. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishers. Studies in Educational Leadership 14. Höög, J., Johansson, O., Olofsson, A. (2005): Successful principalship: the Swedish case. Journal of Educational Administration,Volume: 43 Issue: 6, 595 - 606. Höög, J., Johansson, O., Olofsson, A. (2009): Swedish successful schools revisited. Journal of Educational Administration, Volume: 47 Number: 6, 742 - 753.