The Front and Back Stages of Swedish School Inspection: Opening the Black Box of Judgment

Abstract

This article provides results from a study of the hidden processes of consensus formation that precede and make possible official judgments and decisions of the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (SI). The research question for the study was: How is knowledge negotiated on the back stage of school inspection and presented on the front stage? The article builds on in-depth case studies of school inspection in four schools. Data include internal and official material from SI, on-site observations of inspection in schools and internal quality assurance meetings at SI, and interviews with inspectors. The analysis is inspired by Goffman's usage of the concepts “front stage” and “back stage.” The results suggest that the SI front stage borrows legitimacy from an evidence-based model aiming at objective and “equivalent” judgments, while the back stage displays a complex mix of rigorous formalized guidance and uncertainty that requires inspectors’ brokering and deliberation.

Keywords:

• school inspection
• front stage
• back stage
• knowledge production

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges support from The Swedish Research Council (VR) for financing the project “Governing by Inspection. School Inspection and Education Governance in Sweden, England and Scotland.” The author further acknowledges Umeå University for financing the project “Inspecting the ‘Market’: Education at the Intersection of Marketisation and Central State Control.” Finally, the author wishes to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments.

Notes

1 The notion “current model” is perhaps somewhat inaccurately named since SI has made several adjustments to their model for regular supervision—the last due to the introduction of new legislation and curriculum. The data for this study were generated during the first half of 2011, before the implementation of the new Swedish Education Act, the new curriculum, and the latest inspection model in the middle of 2011. Since then, the Inspectorate has been able to use penalties as a way to make responsible authorities rectify the identified shortcomings. If the responsible authority still fails to accommodate the shortcomings, SI may impose a fine or other measures at the principal organizer's expense.

2 The interviews with inspectors and school actors were used to reflect on these issues as well. For example, informants were asked to compare the observed events to previous events. Mostly informants described the observed events as typical, but there were few examples where school actors described earlier encounters with “rude” and “unprofessional” inspectors. It is impossible to say whether our presence as researchers muted such behaviour or if certain inspector styles were excluded from the study as some inspectors turned down the opportunity to take part in the project.

3 If not all students have taken the mandatory national tests, this is highlighted, since it makes it difficult for SI to judge the results of the particular school.

4 Answering questions about complex pedagogical aspects is difficult, not least as the answer is recorded and used as a basis for judging the standard of one's own work. Head teachers and teachers tend to be honest and open when interviewed by inspectors. In our research interviews with school actors, they were often surprised by questions about strategies or manipulation (e.g., window-dressing). Occasionally they open themselves to SI criticism by telling inspectors about deficiencies at their school that the inspectors would not have found out about otherwise.