The local governance of Swedish schools in light of a new educational policy landscape empirical exploration and theoretical elaboration

ABSTRACT

In the Nordic curriculum theory (CT) tradition, questions linked to educational change and school governance have long been a crucial research issue. However, despite several decades of decentralized school systems, local school governance has been a highly neglected field of research. Considering the changing landscape of school governance in terms of re-centralization, where the state’s aim is to take stronger control of school outcomes, the conditions for local school governance have changed. Based on results from two research projects in two Swedish municipalities, and from a neo-institutional theoretical perspective, the aim of this article is to contribute to the CT research field by exploring and theorizing on local school governance. Four management strategies that local educational authorities (LEAs) employed to manage the schools could be distinguished: local school management via i) data use, ii) the standardization and formalization of schools’ quality assurance processes and routines, iii) quality dialogues, iv) professional learning and best practices. These management strategies and activities were mostly organized, and conducted within the scope of the LEAs’ quality assurance systems and were primarily built on normative and cultural – cognitive elements. A way to conceptualize this form of governance is through the concept of ‘local quality management’.

Keywords:

• Local school governance
• curriculum theory
• local quality management
• neo-institutional theory

Introduction

As in many other Nordic countries, the Swedish educational policy landscape has undergone extensive changes in the last few decades. Years of declining student achievement and deficiencies in equality between schools have spurred an intensive critique of the Swedish decentralized school system (subsequently detailed). This critique was even backed up by several reports by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) (i.e. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2014; 2015) that pointed to major weaknesses in the Swedish decentralized school system concerning, for example, the division of roles and responsibilities between the state, the school organizers, and the schools. Consequently, during the 2010s and 2020s, several educational reforms and policy initiatives were initiated to address these problems. Inspired by an international policy movement of standard-based reforms, we noticed: i) the establishment of a Swedish School Inspectorate with the aim of strengthening the national auditing and monitoring of schools; ii) the initiation of a number of national professional development programmes; iii) a national curriculum for compulsory and upper secondary schooling with strengthened national knowledge standards, assessment criteria, and a predefined knowledge corpus; and iv) an increasing number of directed government grants to school organizers, etc (Sundberg & Wahlström, 2012; Wahlström & Sundberg, 2017b). Researchers have described these policy changes in Sweden in terms of a re-centralization or re-regulation movement in which the state has advanced its own position with the aim of getting better control over schools’ educational quality and outcomes (C. H. Adolfsson, 2018; Andersson, 2023; Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022; Skedsmo et al., 2021).

The renewal of the Swedish decentralized school system

The Swedish school system has been characterized by far-reaching decentralization since the beginning of the 1990s. During just a couple of years, Sweden went from being one of the most centralized school systems in the world, to one of the most decentralized. This, in combination with a marketization of the school, where students attain a high degree of freedom to choose school (public as well as independent¹) implied a totally shift in the governance system of the Swedish schools (Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000). However, the responsibility for education was now divided between the national state, school organizers and the principals. In line with the ideas behind this decentralization, the school organizers (public as well as independent) together with the schools now comprised a high degree of autonomy, but also extensive responsibilities and obligations regarding the quality of the education, equality between schools, and students’ results. Most public schools are organized by the municipalities through a superintendent which manage the Local educational authority (LEA). According to the Swedish Education Act, the LEA, in the municipality, have the operational responsibility of leading principals, distributing resources, and supporting schools’ quality assurance work. However, in light of the above described ‘re-centralization’ movement, new conditions between the state and the local school organizers have emerged concerning the relationship between the national and the local governance of the school (C.-H. Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022; Wahlström & Sundberg, 2017a; Wahlström & Sundberg, 2017b). Accordingly, over the last decade we can notice how the national state has been more active in and taking stronger control over curriculum areas like for example teachers’ professional development, local quality assurance, the definition and development of teaching quality etc (Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022; Skedsmo et al., 2021). That is, issues and questions that previously was to a larger extent up to the LEA and the schools to decide and handle have now also become a matter of the national state. Considering this changing policy landscape, questions linked to local school governance can be raised concerning how the LEAs navigate in light of such change conditions and handle the tension between strengthened state regulations and the LEAs’ responsibility for educational quality.

Aim and research questions

In the Nordic curriculum theory (CT) research field, questions linked to educational change and school governance have traditionally been a crucial research issue (cf. Englund, 1986; Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000; Linné, 2015; Lundgren, 1979; Mølstad & Karseth, 2016; Wahlström, 2020). Nevertheless, despite several decades of a decentralized school system, local school policy and local school governance have been a mostly neglected field of research compared to the number of national school policy studies. Considering this and the changing landscape of educational policy, local school governance needs empirical exploration and theoretical elaboration. Based on the results from two research projects conducted in two larger Swedish municipalities, the aim of this article is to contribute to the Nordic CT research field by exploring and theorizing about the new conditions for local school governance in Sweden. The following research questions guided the study:

• - What strategies and activities do LEAs employ to manage schools?

• - What do LEAs try to control and support through these strategies and activities?

• - What characterizes ‘new’ local school governance?

The article is structured as follows. First, the background sets the focus of the article, with an overall discussion of the Nordic CT research field. In the next section, the theoretical starting points are detailed. Thereafter, the materials and methods are presented, followed by the results. The article ends with a discussion and some conclusions.

Curriculum theory and the study of local school governance

The overarching aim in CT research is to acquire knowledge about how goals, content, and didactics are formed within educational processes, and how these are embedded in society (C. H. Adolfsson, 2018; Englund et al., 2012; Lundgren, 1983; Pinar, 2008. The traditional question in CT has been what knowledge is of the most worth. Deng and Luke (2008) described this as a multifaceted question comprising several dimensions. First, it contains an epistemological dimension concerned with various ways of knowing, and second, it comprises a normative dimension, which has to do with what should count as good knowledge and good schooling. Third, the question also contains a practical dimension linked to school actors’ curriculum making.

The CT tradition in Sweden and the Nordic countries originated from Dahlöf’s (1967) and Lundgren’s (1972) development of the so-called frame factor theory. The frame factor theory was developed to examine and understand the relationship between educational processes, outcomes, and external conditions in terms of frames, processes, and results. In Lundgren’s further work (Lundgren, 1979, Lundgren, 1983, the frame factor model was, to a higher degree, related to the curriculum, which implied that the curriculum had a broader meaning, where the educational system, the curriculum, and the teaching were placed in a broader societal context. The Nordic CT research field was successively opened up and became inspired by social theorists such as Basil Bernstein, Pierre Bourdieu, Michael Apple, Michael Young, and others. In light of this movement, the curriculum was now understood as an important governing resource for the state and likewise an expression of power, different social interests, and the state’s ambitions and prioritizing (see e.g. Englund, 1986).

At the beginning of the 2000s, Nordic CT research was strongly influenced by more discursive theoretical approaches (Sundberg, 2005). A discursive perspective implied a more multifaceted perspective on school governance, policy, and educational change, where the state, with its traditional regulative power, only represented one policy actor and one form of governance logic, among many others. These discursive approaches also enabled the ‘internationalization’ of the CT research field in terms of an interest in how different policy messages and ideas travelled between countries and were translated, recontextualized, and had an influence on national educational policy. The OECD and the European Union were now understood as important policy actors who had to be included in analysing the formation of national policy (see e.g. Grek, 2020; Nordin, 2012, 2017; Wahlström, 2020).

Regarding the development of the Nordic CT research field, it is clear that this has occurred in close connection with the emergence of national school reforms. That is, the Nordic curriculum tradition has mainly focused on the relationship between changed societal conditions and national school policy and its implications for school practice (Román et al., 2015). Consequently, studies that have investigated and theoretically elaborated on questions linked to local school governance are limited. Although there are, of course, some studies worth paying attention to. Román et al. (2015) have, for example, made an important contribution with their studies of municipal school policy in Sweden during the period from 1950 to 2010. The results point to the fact that, over time, school governance cannot be understood as a top-down and one-way sender – transmitter relationship. Instead, municipal school policy actors consist of important policy actors who respond to, interpret, and obstruct national reforms in different ways. Consequently, the authors concluded that the municipal dimension was crucial for understanding the interplay and tensions between national and transnational school initiatives and local school practices.

Considering the implementation of the ‘new’ Swedish curriculum for compulsory school in 2011, a number of studies (see e.g. Alvunger & Wahlström, 2021; Höstfält et al., 2017; Wahlström & Sundberg, 2017) have contributed with empirical and theoretical insights concerning the municipality as an important policy actor in national educational reform implementation. These studies show that the national level was very active during the implementation phase and had an interpretative prerogative concerning the content and outcomes of the reform. In terms of a of a ‘coordinating discourse’ the municipalities’ curriculum making was characterized by developing a common understanding of the national reform intentions among the schools. This coordinating discourse was in turn reinforcing a more ‘communicative’ oriented discourses that aimed to (in a more direct way) implement and establish the curriculum at the schools. The results show that the interplay between these discourses seemed to have been important for the implementation of reform in the way that it strengthened the couplings between the national and local levels within several curriculum areas.

In a Norwegian policy context Jensen and Ottesen (2023) made similar conclusions. In their study of how national policy reforms were enacted on a local school level they find that superintendent and school principals worked as institutional entrepreneurs by creating new organizational arrangements in which the new national reforms took place. This in some degree implied breaking away from existing scripts and organizational routines to adapt the existing organization to the existing reform in a more effective way. Consequently, the results to a high degree confirm the Swedish authors’ conclusions above concerning the middle-tier level’s important role as an active local policy actor in the implementation of national school policy.

Based on a strategic work approach, Hall et al. (2023) also have studied superintendents’ and school leaders’ role in the enactment of national Norwegian curriculum reform LK20 in compulsory schools. The results point to three central areas of strategic enactment activities: strategizing for collaboration, enlisting external partners or consultants, and exploiting tools for curriculum work. Furthermore, in terms of recursive and adaptive processes the authors were able to show how these strategic activities included both well-known strategies and practices that had been effective previously, and structures and procedures that were adapted to the situation at hand.

Back to a Swedish policy context, Hanberger and colleagues (2016) and Lindgren and colleagues (2016) have studied local policy processes but here from the perspective of national and international evaluation and accountability pressure. In line with the Hall et al. (2023) They show how local governments handle and cope with this external evaluation pressure by employing filtered and partly integrated strategies as a way to support local school governance. This is described as a learning process where local decision-makers have learned to navigate within this web of external evaluations, and through these, they have developed response strategies in a way that they can take into account what is useful and what cannot be ignored in order to avoid sanctions.

In addition, in the international research field of school improvement and school management, there has been a growing body of research that can contribute important empirical and theoretical insights concerning local school governance, which is worthwhile for the CT research field. In many studies, the LEAs’ role in the implementation of national school reforms and school improvement initiatives has been examined. This research points to, above all, the LEAs’ important function of creating coherence and systematics within local school systems and strengthening the couplings between different organizational levels and subsystems with the aim of enabling the whole system to work in the same direction (Fullan, 2009; Hopkins & Woulfin, 2015; Moore Johnson et al., 2017). In the Swedish context, for instance, C. Adolfsson and Håkansson (2021), Håkansson and Adolfsson (2022), Nordholm (2016), and Liljenberg and Andersson (2023) have reached similar conclusions. Their results show that in an era of standard-based reforms and strengthened accountability, Swedish LEAs have increased their focus on evaluation systems to control and support schools.

Without overlooking the profound body of research exemplified above, local school governance is still in need of empirical exploration and theoretical elaborations. By exploring and theorizing about the new conditions for local school governance in Sweden the aim of this study is to make a contribution to the CT research field.

Local school governance in coupled school systems

To understand and empirically examine the new conditions for local school governance, the theoretical starting point is neo-institutional theory (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 2001, 2014) and organizational theory (Orton & Weick, 1990, Spillane & Burch 2006; Weick, 1976) These theoretical approaches offer a systemic way of understanding educational change and school governance that goes beyond a traditional top-down versus bottom-up dichotomy. Through such a theoretical approach, the focus is directed towards the couplings between different levels and layers of the school system (Orton & Weick, 1990; Weick, 1976). Coupling is crucial in the way in which it contains aspects of both distance and proximity within an organization’s different subsystems and levels, as well as aspects of openness and closeness in its external relationships to other organizations. Since the 1970s, researchers such as Weick (1976) and others have used the image of educational organizations as ‘“loosely coupled”’ systems to explain the relatively weak connection that often exists between different organizational levels, not least in relation to the instructional practice. Several studies have also empirically shown that such weak couplings have consequences for the conditions regarding reform implementation, school governance, and school leadership (C. Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2017; Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022; Spillane & Burch, 2006). The theoretical framework for understanding the school as a coupled system has provided the educational research field with powerful analytical tools with which to explain the inconsistencies between formal structures and classroom practice and why reforms fail to produce fundamental structural change (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). For instance, it has been argued that schools respond to pressures in the institutional environment by making symbolic changes in their formal structures (Meyer & Rowan, 1977) Through these changes, a school can preserve its legitimacy, but with the consequence that the core work tends to become decoupled from both the institutional environment and the school’s leading and administrative structures. However, over time, the theory of the school as loosely coupled has been revised and developed. Coburn (2004), for instance, identified five different forms of coupling mechanisms in his study of teachers’ responses to new teaching instructions: rejection, symbolic decoupling, parallel structures, assimilation, and accommodation. Consequently, the question of the nature of an organization’s coupling is understood as an empirical question rather than as something that is predetermined. This points to the fact that the couplings can be both tight and loose within the same organization, and that they can also change over time. Considering the school as a coupled system implies that school reform and school governance can be understood as an aspiration to strengthen the couplings between, for example, the national curriculum and teaching practice, with the aim of gaining better control over school processes and outcomes. In the same way, the activities and strategies that an LEA organizes and carries out are understood as a way of making the local school system a little less loosely coupled and thus more coherent and controllable.

The characterization of local school governance

If the theory about the school as a coupled system can offer important insights concerning what school governance is about, can neo-institutional theory (Scott, 2001, 2014) help us elucidate the different elements and logics of which different governance strategies and activities are composed. To understand how organizations remain stable, change, and attain legitimacy in relation to external and internal pressures, Scott (2014) emphasized the importance of studying an organization’s institutional aspects. That is, an organization is not only composed of formal aspects in terms of rules, groups, structures, routines, and so on, but also of social, normative, and cultural elements. This implies that over time, all organizations develop a set of social norms and values that, in turn, will frame how the organization’s members will act. This ongoing process can be described in terms of institutionalization, and gives a specific organization its specific character and identity. According to Scott (2001), institutions are composed of three ‘pillars’ or elements (regulatory rules, professional norms, and cultural – cognitive beliefs), which, in turn, are associated with different bases of compliance and order, logic of action, and sources of legitimacy.

The regulatory aspect refers to the laws and rules that together regulate and constrain organizational behaviour. Laws and rules are, in this context, associated with regulatory activities, such as rule setting, directives, inspections, and sanctions, which are intended to influence future behaviour.

The normative pillar, in turn, comprises dominating social aspects that constrain and empower behaviour through values and norms. Scott (2014) explained that these values and norms are to be understood as ideas of what is preferred and desirable – that is, various forms of known social agreements and expectations that control and direct members of organizations to act in desirable ways. Such social pressure may arise from norms, expectations, and attitudes linked to how members of organizations should work. This implies that the normative element primarily operates through soft regulations, with no formal legal sanctions attached.

Regarding the third pillar, cultural – cognitive aspects are shared conceptions of social reality that serve as a platform for sensemaking (Scott, 2001, 2014). Compared to the normative pillar, these thoughts and identifications are often more deeply embedded in the lives of social organizations. That is, within a social organization, common sense or what is taken for granted is formed around what can be regarded as ‘correct’ and legitimate opinions, beliefs, and modes of behaviour (Scott, 2014). This often un-reflected upon and noticeable ‘common sense’ will constrain and enable a certain type of thinking, decision-making, and action.

Accordingly, understanding questions linked to educational change, school management, school governance, and so on from a neo-institutional perspective implies that not only formal and regulative aspects are taken into account. In addition, normative and cultural – cognitive elements – that is, softer forms of governance and management processes – are included in the analysis. This implies moving beyond a more technical – rational way of understanding and studying school governance.

Furthermore, Scott (2001) means that these institutional elements are enforced and move from place to place and from time to time with the help of various types of ‘carrying mechanisms’. Four types of such carrying mechanisms can be distinguished:

• - Symbolic systems – different sorts of symbolic schemata in which central information is coded and communicated.

• - Relational systems – interpersonal and interorganizational activities, contexts, and linkages.

• - Routines – formal and informal structures and regularities in the form of repetitive, recognizable patterns of action.

• - Artifacts – materialized ideas and thoughts with the aim of illustrating and assisting in the performance of tasks.

Linked to the CT and the questions of school governance, the institutional elements (regulative, normative, and cultural – cognitive), in combination with the different carrying mechanisms, constitute different forms of governance logics. That is, a specific governance or management strategy can be seen as composed of one or more of the institutional elements in combination with one or more of the so-called carrying mechanisms. In terms of the theory of the school as a coupled system, these governance strategies can in turn been understood as different efforts to strengthen the couplings within the school system, with the aim of gaining better control over school processes and outcomes. An analytical model based on these concepts has been developed and will, together with the study’s method, be presented in the following section.

Method and design of the study

The research questions were answered through data that was collected within two multi-year research evaluation projects, conducted in two Swedish municipalities. The two different projects were funded by the current municipalities and occurred during the timespan 2018 and 2022. The aim of the two projects was to follow, study and evaluate the LEAs’ quality management work in relation to schools’ leadership, organization and quality assurance processes. Accordingly, the focus of both studies comprised the dynamics between the national governance, the LEAs’ management system and processes and schools’ leadership, and quality assurance.

The first municipality (M1) is a city in the south of Sweden with approximately 350,000 inhabitants. The city is characterized by inhabitants with widely varying socio-economic levels and ethnic backgrounds. Consequently, its schools have extreme diversity in terms of student composition and achievement, among others. Thus, an important aspect of the work of the LEA in this municipality is dealing with this major equality problem. Six comprehensive schools were involved in the research project, together with the LEA. These schools were located in different areas, which meant that the schools showed a variation in the socio-economic index.

The second municipality (M2) is also located in the south of Sweden, has about 140,000 inhabitants, and is composed of a mixture of city and countryside. The municipality’s pupils were more homogeneous in terms of their ethnic background compared to the first municipality. However, the LEA had to handle a similar equality problem, but here, it was more linked to a city – country problematic and pupils’ different socio-economic backgrounds. Accordingly, this also affected the work of the LEA, as it tried to develop a management system that combined a high degree of autonomy and responsibility among the principals with central formalization and standardization for promoting equality. In this project, five schools were involved and were selected based on a variation in location and socio-economic index.

The aim is not primarily to compare the municipalities’ management systems with each other. Instead, these two municipalities, together, comprised a case where the research interest was to elucidate general context-transcending patterns of governing strategies and activities. That is, the focus of the analysis was on general similarities rather than differences (Patton, 2015; Yin, 2009).

Data collection involved a multi-method approach (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) with an emphasis on document analyses and recurring interviews with LEA officials and principals. The first step of the data collection and analytical process comprised an explorative approach that involved studying local policy documents linked to the LEAs’ and schools’ quality assurance systems (e.g. core documents on the organization of local schools, on the framework describing the LEAs’ quality management policies, and on leadership and management structures). The aim of this document analysis was to gain a deeper contextual understanding of the LEAs’ formal quality systems, management organization, and infrastructure for communicating results and controls in relation to the schools. The analysis revealed important insights and knowledge that, in turn, created a base for subsequent interviews with LEA officials and principals. The explorative approach also permeated the first round of interviews. The LEA officials that were interviewed had different types of managerial responsibilities and worked with different strategic and quality improvement assignments. The aim in this step was to identify and sort out general patterns of LEAs’ strategies and activities linked to their management systems, as well as how the principals made sense of these strategies and activities. That is, the analysis aimed to distinguish what appeared to be the most important governance elements at the LEA in each municipality. Based on the analysis of this first round of interviews, a number of more specific questions were formulated, which, in turn, comprised the point of departure for the second round of interviews. In this second step, the same – as far as possible – persons were interviewed. The aim of this this second round was to deepen the understanding of the LEAs’ management systems and its processes. The total amount of data used in this study is summarized below, in Table 1.

Table 1. Data collection.

		Number
Target groups	Methods	M1	M2	Documentation
LEA officials	Individual interviews	2 × 8	2 × 6	Transcriptions
Principals	Focus-group interviews	2 × 6	2 × 5	Transcriptions
LEA policy documents	Policy analysis	6	5	Notes and categorizations
School policy documents	Policy analysis	30	25	Notes and categorizations

In the final step of the study, a comprehensive analysis was conducted of all collected data in relation to the study’s theoretical framework – that is, with the aim of elucidating the characterization of the management strategies, the aggregative data from the two cases were analysed through the lens of the institutional elements in combination with the different types of carrier mechanisms.

In the analysis process, regulative elements were linked to strategies and activities that were built on or partly built on laws and national and local regulations, obligations, and directives. The normative elements comprising strategies and social activities were desirable values and actions that were collectively formulated, recommended, and highlighted, which in turn aimed to activate normative pressure in the organization. When it comes to distinguishing the cultural – cognitive management logic, the focus was directed towards strategies and activities (or aspects of strategies and activities) that reinforced dominating ideas, concepts, and discourses linked to, for example, leadership, school improvement, and teaching. These elements could, in turn, be conveyed by one or more ‘carriers’ in the form of symbolic systems, relational systems, routines, and artefacts. Altogether, this means that a specific management strategy is composed of a combination of elements and carriers, which in turn constitute different forms of management logics. In the following analytical model, the operationalization of the combination of elements and carriers is depicted, with the aim of linking the empirical data to the theoretical framework.

To date, the ‘governance’ and ‘management’ concepts have been used rather synonymously, and I do not claim to comprehensively elaborate on the different analytical distinctions between them. However, in the following section, I will use the ‘management’ concept. The focus of this study is the LEAs’ strategies and activities that cover the administrative and ‘day-to-day’ operations of the organization and work in relation to schools. The more political dimension, in terms of setting objectives and policies and decision-making linked to the allocation of resources and so on, is just studied more indirectly (Ainley & McKenzie, 2000). This implies that the management concept better embraces the empirical objects that I have actually studied.

Accordingly, in the next section, the patterns of LEA management strategies and activities that were distinguished from the more explorative part of the analysis will be described. In the following discussion, these strategies and activities will then be theorized and discussed in light of the question of new conditions for local school governance.

Results

Local school management via data use

In both municipalities, data use seemed to constitute an important basis for the LEAs’ quality management systems. That is, there was a strong focus and reliance on data, evaluation, and data analysis when it came to control and support for the schools: ‘One device is that we control the schools through evaluation – we collect and analyse different forms of data linked to the schools’ results’ (LEA official 3, M1). Even in the other, smaller municipality, data seemed to constitute a central part of the LEA’s management system. One official at the LEA in M2 described how they were in the process of developing a new monitoring system that enabled the LEA, as well as the schools themselves, to get better control over the results:

We have implemented a new monitoring system. The quality assurance work will then be more systematic and structured, giving us better control over the schools’ results. (LEA official 3, M2)

Accordingly, collecting and analysing different forms of data seemed to be an important management strategy for the LEAs but also a way to attain an understanding of the schools’ improvement needs and what kinds of support the schools needed. When the informants referred to ‘data’, they primarily meant quantitative forms of data like student achievement, goal attainment, survey results etc. even if both LEA officials and principals also emphasized the importance of collect and use more qualitative forms of data, through for example interviews and lesson observations, to attain a deeper understanding of the schools’ results.

However, in the LEAs’ quality management strategies, it is clear that the focus was not only on the LEAs’ own data-use and data-evaluation processes. In addition, an important part of the LEAs’ work was comprised of controlling and strengthening the schools’ own local quality assurance systems. An important part of the work was characterized by securing the quality of central processes within both the LEAs’ and the schools’ quality assurance systems: ‘We must take stronger control over the schools’ quality systems’ (LEA official 5, M1). One example of this was the schools’ low levels of data literacy, especially when it came to collecting the relevant data and undertaking data analyses: ‘We must help the schools to build up capacity concerning their data use. In that way, we want them to learn how to identify development needs in their organization’ (LEA official 3, M1). An LEA official in the other municipality gave an example of how the LEA could control and support schools in their data collection and selection processes:

Before we run the quality dialogues with the principals, we inform them about the questions we will ask and discuss during the meeting. In that way, we give a signal to the schools about what we, from the LEA, think it is important to work with, but also what sort of data the schools need to collect and analyze. (LEA official 2, M2)

Based on the LEAs’ policy documents and on the interviews, it became clear that the LEAs’ data-based quality work contained a dual aim of control and evaluation on the one hand, and development and learning on the other. That is, different forms of data constituted an important resource for the LEAs to evaluate and control the schools’ results, but they were also an important knowledge source for principals’ and teachers’ professional learning and the exploration of their own organization.

The principals could also see this dual aim of data-based school improvement. However, some principals in both municipalities were critical about too much attention and reliance being placed on quantitative data: ‘The problem is that LEAs sometimes tend to place too much attention on pupils’ grades and results in the national tests – that sort of hard data’ (Principal 2, M1). That is, the principals meant that too much focus on this kind of data risked not giving the right and whole picture of the schools’ results. Therefore, they meant that more qualitative-oriented data should be upgraded and incorporated into the LEAs’ quality systems.

Local school management via the standardization and formalization of schools’ quality assurance processes and routines

As mentioned above, an important strategy for the LEAs involved taking a stronger grip on schools’ quality assurance systems to control and secure the quality of the schools’ school improvement work. This was, above all, conducted through the formalization and standardization of central management and communication processes and routines with the schools. One example of this was the standardization and formalization of the so-called quality reports that the schools were obligated to write every year. In these reports, principals should discuss the outcomes from the schools’ results analysis, identified development needs, and prioritized improvement strategies. This quality report has to be written using a central standardized template with a number of prescribed questions and issues: ‘When it comes to the formalization of the quality reports, we want to send a clear signal to the schools concerning what data they should collect and what results they should evaluate’ (LEA official 4, M2). This standardization process also included the goal of adopting more uniform language for selected concepts with specific definitions. The aim was to obtain higher-quality discussions between the school actors within and between schools and LEAs.

In both municipalities, the LEAs had invested in and implemented different forms of social – technical systems that the LEAs and all the schools should use for evaluation, documentation, and communication. These systems aimed to create coherence and uniformity between the schools in terms of focus, structures, and language, which, in turn, should enable the LEAs to aggregate all the schools’ results, thus improving their ability to make comparisons between schools.

Most of the interviewed principals in both municipalities emphasized the importance of having a coherent systematic quality assurance system both at the school and LEA levels to secure equal conditions for educational quality. However, the main critique of the LEAs’ quality assurance systems, and the social – technical systems in particular, was that these were too instrumental, unprecise, and were often decoupled from the schools’ local quality systems. Some of the interviewed principals also hinted at the frustration that they sometimes felt, as they were evaluated on what they regarded as unclear grounds: ‘Previously, I felt extremely pressured by the LEA to raise the schools’ results. This was not good. I was stressed and felt cornered’ (Principal 5, M1).

Due to the SFS 2010:800 (2010, p. 800), which emphasizes how the principal has a far-reaching obligation and autonomy concerning his or her school’s quality assurance system, LEA officials were asked if they, in some way, found it problematic that the LEAs were striving to take more control over the schools’ quality assurance systems. The LEA officials expressed different opinions regarding this. Some of them realized that this was not unproblematic and was something that they needed to discuss to a greater extent with each other and with the principals. One LEA official expressed this as follows: ‘No, this demarcation between the LEA and the schools is not clear here, in this municipality. However, I think it needs to be clarified’ (LEA official 1, M1). However, in the same municipality, another LEA official felt that due to insufficient equality regarding the schools’ improvement capacity, the LEA instead needed to increase control over the schools’ quality assurance systems: ‘My personal opinion is that we must take a stronger … we must have a more comprehensive approach in relation to the schools. Once again, my personal opinion is that we are too lame’ (LEA official 3, M1).

Local school management via quality dialogues

One important activity that could be identified in both of the LEAs’ management systems was different forms of so-called quality or results dialogues. They were conducted with the principals under the leadership of the LEA officials. Even if the structure and organization of these dialogues differed between the municipalities to some degree, there were many common elements. These quality dialogues took place four (M1) and five (M2) times a year with a specific focus and agenda. The basis for the dialogues was the schools’ results and school improvement efforts, which implied that, besides the quality reports, different forms of data constituted important grounds. An LEA official described this as follows: ‘The quality unit at the LEA provides us with statistical result data linked to the current school. This data will then constitute the basis for the questions we discuss with the principals’ (LEA official 5, M2). This kind of data was presented as an important way of achieving a neutral and objective picture of the school, disconnected from subjective opinions and ideas. That is, in line with the discussion above, the confidence in the data was high among the LEA officials. As one LEA official described it, ‘After all, data is the neutral part … we have this data and it’s hard to argue against it’ (LEA official 1, M1).

Just as with the data-based school management strategy, these dialogues contained both monitoring/evaluating and supporting/developing elements. That is, on the one hand, the quality dialogues comprise an important moment for the LEAs to gain an extended understanding of the schools’ results and school improvement work as a complement to the statistical data. On the other hand, the dialogues were also described as an occasion for learning and support linked to principals’ leadership and school improvement work.

Overall, the principals in both municipalities described these quality dialogues in quite a positive way. They considered these meetings with representatives from the LEAs as an important occasion for them to give a more comprehensive picture of their schools. Additionally, some of them also emphasized that the dialogue per se created an opportunity for learning and reflection linked to their own leadership: ‘The questions they ask prompt thoughts, and you start to reflect “maybe we should do it like this instead”. The questions trigger something. And that is something positive’ (Principal 7, M1).

Local school management via professional learning and best practices

Another important part of the LEAs’ quality management systems consisted of a strong focus on developing and strengthening principals’ capacity linked to leadership, organization, and school improvement. The interviewed LEA officials described how the LEAs had a central function in organizing professional learning seminars for the principals but also in leading the principals’ professional learning. Accordingly, in both municipalities, there were several contexts and activities organized and led by the LEAs, where principals were expected not only to receive information from the LEAs but also to interact and learn together with other principals. An important part of this included sharing experiences and knowledge related to leadership and school improvement. The principals described how the LEAs often also highlighted successful schools and used them as role models and good examples in communication with other schools: ‘Comparisons are continuously made between schools … some schools are elevated and vice versa. Some schools are highlighted as “good examples”. However, this is sometimes incorrect … the analyses are inadequate’ (Principal 8, M2).

In addition, in the first municipality, the principals and the LEA’s officials had undergone an extensive professional development programme with a focus on school leadership and school improvement. The LEA initiated the programme and organized it in the form of literature studies, seminars, and training modules. This professional programme, according to the LEA officials and the principals, greatly influenced the opinions and views on what should count as good leadership and good school improvement. In a similar way, the programme contributed to the development of a common language for shared concepts and a shared understanding. In the second municipality, close collaboration with a university was developed over several years. Above all, this collaboration implied that many of the teachers and principals had the opportunity to undergo supplementary academic education. This was described as an effective way to raise the competence level within the organization around central areas, but also as a way to attain uniformity and coherence. However, some principals and LEA officials also described this educational effort as problematic. For example, it could be difficult to use a teacher’s or a principal’s new competence in a productive way. This, in turn, led to some teachers and principals applying for new jobs in other schools, in other municipalities, or even at the university:

If you let your employees undergo an academic education, the risk is that they will move on after they have finished that education. Competence disappears from the school. Therefore, I will not, for example, let my special needs teachers undergo further education—I need them so much, and I cannot risk them leaving. (Principal 2, M2)

In sum, comparing schools with each other and highlighting successful schools in combination with a focus on specific quality standards linked to school leadership and school improvement seemed to be an important management strategy for putting pressure on schools to change in a desirable and more uniform direction.

Theorization of the local governance of schools

In the results section above, the strategies and activities that the LEAs employed to manage schools were explored. These have been categorized as follows:

• - Local school management via data use

• - Local school management via the standardization and formalization of schools’ quality assurance processes and routines

• - Local school management via quality dialogues

• - Local school management via professional learning and best practices.

Considering the theoretical framework of the study, the aim of this discussion is to examine what characterizes the ‘new’ local governance of schools. Concretely, this means that the identified management strategies and activities above will be analysed through the initially presented analytical model (see Table 2).

Table 2. Analytical model.

	Institutional Elements
Carriers	Regulative	Normative	Cultural-Cognitive
Symbolic Systems	Education act, curriculum, local policy, inspections documents	Values, visions and goals, recommendations, guidelines	Constitutive schemas, typifications, educational programs, literature
Relational Systems	Governance systems, formalized areas of, responsibility and decision-making	Authority systems, positions and roles, leading systems	Role models, discourses, identification, common sense, shared knowledge
Routines	Structered routines and regularities, operating procedures	Social and professionel expectations, obedience to duty	Habitus and shared logics of thinking and actions
Artifacts	Objects complying with rules and obligations	Objekts and technical systems reinforcing norms and conventions	Objects and technical systems possessing discourses, taken for granted

Local school management via data use

Using different forms of data was a central part of the LEAs’ quality assurance systems and likewise their central management strategies for controlling schools. Indirectly, the data-use management strategies comprised regulative elements, as they were legally sanctioned and attained legitimation by referring to the national curriculum and SFS (2010):800, 2010. That is, the national curriculum pointed out what should be evaluated, and the SFS 2010:800 (2010) prescribed that all schools must conduct quality assurance work. However, above all and more directly, the strategy comprised normative and cultural – cognitive elements in the form of normative expectations and social pressure in combination with a shared understanding linked to what counted as good teaching quality, school leadership, and school improvement. The data were, for instance, highlighted as an objective and neutral basis for principals’ decision-making and school improvement. Accordingly, this puts pressure on the principals to develop their own leadership and quality assurance systems in a desirable and more uniform direction.

These management strategies and activities were, in turn, carried by different symbolic systems in the form of local frameworks for school improvement, recommendations, and guidelines, but also via common educational programmes. Even relational systems and artefacts can be seen as important carriers, as data use was linked to school actors’ and especially principals’ professionalism, but also through the LEAs’ different technical systems for school documentation, data allocation, and communication.

Local school management via the standardization and formalization of schools’ quality assurance processes and routines

The standardization and formalization of schools’ quality assurance systems was an important way for the LEAs to gain stronger control over the schools’ quality assurance work. Through different routines, activities, and artefacts in the form of structured quality dialogues and standardized templates for quality reports, but also through the implementation of technical systems, normative and social pressure was put on the principles to develop their local schools’ quality assurance systems in a desirable and uniform direction. The above-discussed data-based-oriented approach to school improvement and school leadership is an example of such a clear normative ideal that all schools were expected to develop towards. However, closely linked to the normative elements, the management strategy of standardization can also be seen to contain cultural – cognitive elements: a shared and common understanding and taken-for-grantedness. These were carried by symbolic systems, such as uniform educational programmes and literature, in combination with relational systems via establishing common concepts and a common language.

In addition, this management strategy can be seen to attain indirect, but at the same time very important, legitimacy by falling back on national legal requirements from the SFS (2010):800, 2010 and regular inspections from the Swedish School Inspectorate. Both emphasize the importance of a well-developed quality assurance system. That is, LEAs could motivate the necessity of their commitment to and control of the schools’ quality assurance systems by referring to regulative elements relating to the national governance of schools.

Local school management via quality dialogues

The quality dialogues were closely integrated into the two above-discussed management strategies. That is, the schools’ results and different forms of data comprised the central content and focus of the dialogues. In addition, the same quality dialogues encompassed a clear example of the LEAs’ standardization and formalization strategies. The quality dialogues had a dual purpose, containing dimensions of both control and learning. Consequently, the current management strategy gains legitimacy through positive connotations, using the dialogue concept for an activity that, at the same time, consists of processes of accountability and control. Accordingly, quality dialogues can be seen as an important routine within the LEAs’ management systems that carry elements of normative expectations and pressure. This was reinforced by symbolic systems involving the documentation and compilation of ‘neutral’ school data.

Local school management via professional learning and best practices

This management strategy had a strong focus on developing principals’ capacity for leading and improving, and was comprised of activities focused on learning seminars and more formal educational programmes. Accordingly, this management strategy comprised clear cognitive – cultural elements through developing a common understanding and language linked to school leadership and school improvement. Relational systems and routines were important carriers of cultural – cognitive elements, where best practices and role models contributed to processes of isomorphism and identification. In addition, this management strategy was closely linked to the quality dialogues. If the management strategy of professional learning is primarily constituted by cultural – cognitive elements, the quality dialogues can be seen as a carrier and a conserver of what the school actors learned within these learning activities.

Discussion

The aim of this article was to contribute to the Nordic CT research field by exploring and theorizing about the new conditions for local school governance in Sweden. I argued that despite several decades of decentralized school systems, local school governance has been a mostly neglected field of research within the Nordic CT tradition. Based on the results of this study, I will in this discussion further elaborate the question – what characterizes ‘new’ local school governance?

When considering the school system as a loosely coupled system (Orton & Weick, 1990; Spillane & Burch, 2006) the national and the local governance of the school should be understood as an aim of strengthening the links between organizational levels, central functions, the curriculum, and the schools’ core work, with the aim of gaining better control over the schools’ educational quality and results. Considering the re-centralization and re-regulation trends of Swedish schools, where the state, primarily through regulative means, aims to take greater control over school educational quality and outcomes, local school organizers have to develop and undertake other governance strategies to fulfil their obligations and responsibilities.

Understanding this development and the results of this study through the lens of a neo-institutional theoretical perspective (Scott, 2001, 2014), there seems to be a crucial difference between national and local governance and management strategies regarding what institutional elements they are structured on. While national governance of schools is primarily constituted by regulative and coercive elements through laws (e.g. the SFS 2010:800, 2010), rules (e.g. the national curriculum), inspections, and sanctions (e.g. The Schools Inspectorate), local school governance is primarily built on more normative and cultural – cognitive elements in combination with different carriers. This implies that the classic forms of governance in terms of legislation, economy, ideology (content), and evaluation that used to be emphasized within curriculum theoretical studies (Lindensjö & Lundgren, 2000) are insufficient. That is, when it comes to understanding and studying local school governance, we need new theoretical concepts. In the final part of the discussion, I will elaborate on the concept of ‘local quality management’ and argue that this concept comprises a central way of analytically understand and further explore local school governance.

Local quality management: a fundament in local school governance

Based on the analyses above of the strategies and activities that the LEAs employed to manage the schools, some general characterizations concerning local school governance could be distinguished. The analysis indicates that these management strategies and activities mostly were handled, organized, and conducted within the scope of the LEAs’ quality assurance systems. A way to conceptualize this management phenomenon is through the ‘local quality management’ concept (Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2022). A closely related concept that can be found in economic and management research is Total Quality Management (TQM) (Lagrosen, 1997; Psychogios & Priporas, 2007). However, the TQM concept has no specific theoretical definition, but should instead be understood as an overall description of companies’ development of systems for quality assurance processes with the aim of optimizing desirable outcomes (Psychogios & Priporas, 2007). In this study, local quality management constitutes a theoretical concept that embraces a crucial part of local school governance. Local quality management is defined here as a form of governance that is characterized by how a school actor, in this case a local school organizer, through different strategies and activities, evaluates and controls the school’s educational quality and results. Integrated into these strategies and activities are also elements of support as an effective way to develop schools in a desirable direction. In addition, a central part of this double-sided management, in terms of control and support, is the goal of also controlling and affecting schools’ local quality assurance systems regarding their organization, processes, and leadership. In other words, the aspiration is to secure the quality of the schools’ local quality assurance systems. When considering the results of this study in light of the it’s theoretical framework, Local quality management, with its different strategies and activities, is constituted by softer governance logics in the form of normative and social obligations, expectations, and pressure, as well as cultural – cognitive elements based on uniformity, shared understanding, and the logics of actions and taken-for-grantedness. However, even if these strategies are primarily normative and culturally – cognitively grounded, they, as I have shown, indirectly gain legitimacy by referring to more regulative elements and coercive mechanisms linked to the SFS 2010:800 (2010), national curriculum, school inspections, and so on.

In line with the purpose of this article, this study has contributed both empirically and theoretically to the CT research field concerning how to understand and study local school governance. In light of a changing policy landscape in terms of re-centralization, I have showed how the LEAs in two Swedish municipalities, in form of different strategies and activities, manage the schools. Based on these results, the study also made an important theoretical contribution in terms of the elaboration of theoretical concept Local quality management. However, local governance is in need of further research in form of more empirical studies, which in addition could enable further development and refining of the Local quality management concept.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. Independent school means, in a Swedish policy context, that the organizer is private, but the school is still publicly funded and stand and work under the same national curriculum as the public schools.