23 SES 08 C, Inspection and Regulation
Parallel Paper Session
Within a global context, Norway has been a late-comer in applying accountability devices in education. The turning point in Norwegian educational policy came with a centre-conservative government (2001-5) which introduced national assessment policies and evaluation tools, such as standardised tests (Skedsmo, 2009).
The mediocre results achieved in PISA 2000, 2003 and 2006 brought about a new direction for Norwegian education policy, which can be described as a shift from input based school governing towards a stronger emphasis on performance and outputs (Skedsmo, 2009). At the same time as the assessment policy implied increased focus on national performance tests, the responsibility to follow up the schools on their achieved outcomes, lies with the municipalities. Not surprisingly, the extent to which schools meet national policy expectations during the 2000s, vary from municipality to municipality, which has turned into a political problem for the national government.
In 2005, The Office of the Auditor General of Norway reported on large differences between municipalities and the lack of consistency in evaluation systems. This office, which is mandated by the Norweigian Parliament, demanded for increased national control in the education sector. Since then, national school inspection has become an emerging policy issue.
This paper provides an overview of governing structures in Norwegian education, which are important to understand current inspection devices and practices. The overall problem of analysis is how modernizing trajectories in the national school inspection system are changing along with new methodologies of policy.
In Norway, school inspection has for many decades been conducted in terms of advicement, organized by national authorities to support municipalities and schools in their effort of structuring and developing their educative programs and activities. Historically, this practice has been highly regulated but at the same time decentralised, motivated by municipalities’ need for guidance to assure that education is in accordance with the overall legislation (Sivesind, 2008). Today this institutional practice is reorganized; new tools and methods are introduced, like school auditing and self-evaluation.
In the first part of the paper we describe differences between tools and methodologies applied in current systems for school inspection, like auditing, monitoring, supervision and advicement. Thereafter we discuss implications of introducing school auditing within the Norwegian context. Drawing on Pollit and Bouckaert (2004), we examine differences between compliance-oriented audit, which is heavily legalistic, and performance-audit which focuses on observed outcomes.These two forms of auditing is not contradictory but correspond to opposite accounts of trajectories. A related problem, discussed in the last part of the paper, is how different froms of inspection conceptualise norms through applied methodologies; wether inspection focus on norms as devices for action and/or norms as descriptive standards, detailing civil and individual rights. The paper concludes on how justification of legal norms depends on applied tools and methodologies in national school inspection, reflecting modernizing trajectories within a European policy context (Ozga, 2011).
Fitzgerald, Tanya. (2007). Documents and documentary analysis: reading between the lines. In Ann R. J. Briggs & Marianne Coleman (Eds.), Research Methods in Educational Leadership and Management (pp. 278-293). Los Angeles: Sage. Ozga, Jenny. (2009). Governing education through data in England: from regulation to self‐evaluation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 149-162. doi: 10.1080/02680930902733121 Ozga, Jenny. (2011). Fabricating quality in education: data and governance in Europe. London: Routledge. Pollitt, Christopher, & Bouckaert, Geert. (2004). Public management reform: a comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sivesind, Kirsten. (2008). Reformulating Reform. Curriculum History Revisited. Dissertation for the degree Dr.Phil.: The Faculty of Education Research. University of Oslo. Sivesind, Kirsten, & Bachmann, Kari. (2011). Et felles nasjonalt tilsyn - om forholdet mellom statlig styring og faglig skjønn. In Jorunn Møller & Eli Ottesen (Eds.), Rektor som leder og sjef. Om styring, ledelse og kunnskapsutvikling i skolen (pp. 51-73). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Skedsmo, Guri. (2009). School Governing in Transition? Perspectives, Purposes and Perceptions of Evaluation Policy. (PhD), University of Oslo.
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.