Juridification of examination systems: extending state level authority over teacher assessments through regrading of national tests

References

• Andersson, H. 1999. Varför betyg? Historiskt och aktuellt om betyg [Why Grades? Historical and Actual Views on Grading]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Bacchi, C. L. 2009. Analysing Policy. What’s the Problem Represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. 2003. “The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Performativity.” Journal of Education Policy 18 (2): 215–228.10.1080/0268093022000043065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J. 2006. “What is Policy? Texts, Trajectories and Toolboxes.” In Education Policy and Social Class. The Selected Works of Stephen J. Ball, edited by S. J. Ball, 43–53. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, S. J., A. Braun, and M. Macguire. 2012. How Schools Do Policy. Policy Enactments in Secondary Schools. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Blanchenay, P., Burns, T., and Köster, F. 2014. “Shifting Responsibilities – 20 Years of Education Devolution in Sweden: A Governing Complex Education Systems Case”. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 104, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jz2jg1rqrd7-en.
   Google Scholar
• Blichner, L. C., and A. Molander. 2008. “Mapping Juridification.” European Law Journal 14 (1): 36–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bringselius, L. 2014. “The Dissemination of Results from Supreme Audit Institutions: Independent Partners with the Media?” Financial Accountability & Management 30 (1): 75–94.10.1111/faam.2014.30.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Carlbaum, S. 2016. “Customers, Partners, Rights-Holders. School Evaluations on Websites.” Education Inquiry 7 (3): 327–348. doi:10.3402/edui.v7.29971.
   Google Scholar
• Cerna, L. 2014. “Trust: What It is and Why It Matters for Governance and Education”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 108, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxswcg0t6wl-en.
   Google Scholar
• Dale, R. 2006. “Policy Relationships Between Supranational and National Scales: Imposition/Resistance or Parallel Universes?” In Supranational Regimes and National Education Policies Encountering Challenges, edited by J. Kallo and R. Rinne, 27–52. Helsinki, Finland: Finnish Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2009-08-18. Gymnasieskolor som sätter för höga betyg ska straffas [Upper Secondary Schools Awarding Too High Grades Shall be Punished].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2009-10-29. Skolprov ska rättas om [Tests Shall be Regraded].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2010-04-17. Nationella prov ger inte rättvisa. Lärarnas rättning gör resultatet till ett lotteri [National Tests Do Not Provide Justice. Teachers’ Gradings Make Test Results a Lottery].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2011-05-17. Nationella proven har blivit ett lotteri. Skolinspektionen föreslår nya rutiner för rättningen [The National Tests Have Turned into a Lottery. The Schools Inspectorate Proposes New Procedures for Grading].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2011-11-15. Ingen genväg till rättvisa – nationella prov [No Shortcut to Justice – on the National Tests].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2011-11-17. Rektorer utsätter lärare för otillbörlig påverkan – betygen i skolan [Headmasters Expose Teachers to Undue Influence – on the Grades].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2011-11-28a. Olika hur nationella proven värderas [Variations in How National Tests are Measured].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2011-11-28b. ‘Mirakelskola’ gav eleverna överbetyg [‘Miracle School’ Gave Students Overgrades].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2011-12-01. Nya regler ska hejda överbetyg – skolan [New rules Will Stop Overgrades – on the School].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2012-03-31. 19 av 20 granskade skolor underkänns – allvarliga brister. Skolinspektionen kritiserar betygssättningen [19 out of 20 Inspected Schools Fail the inspection – Serious Shortcomings. The Schools Inspectorate Criticizes the Grading].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2012-08-31. Nationella proven uppfyller inte målet [The National Tests do Not Fulfill Their Purposes].
   Google Scholar
• DN (Dagens Nyheter). 2012-09-01. Ingen säker kunskap [No Certain Knowledge].
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, A. and Tobe, P. 2014. “The Effects of Standards Based School Accountability on Teacher Burnout and Trust Relationships: A Longitudinal Analysis”. In Trust and School Life: The Role of Trust for Learning, Teaching, Leading, and Bridging, edited by D. Van Maele, P. B. Forsyth and M. Van Houtte, 121–143. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-8014-8
   Google Scholar
• Elstad, E. 2009. “Schools Which are Named, Shamed and Blamed by the Media: School Accountability in Norway.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21 (2): 173–189.10.1007/s11092-009-9076-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englund, T. 2012. “Slaget om lärarutbildningen [The Battle of Teacher Education].” In Föreställningar om den goda läraren [Conceptions of the Good Teacher], edited by T. Englund, 99–214. Göteborg: Daidalos.
   Google Scholar
• Eurydice. 2009. National Testing of Pupils in Europe: Objectives, Organisation and Use of Results. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Cultural Executive Agency (EACEA). doi:10.2797/18294.
   Google Scholar
• Geertz, C. 1983. Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gewirtz, S., M. Dickson, and S. Power. 2004. “Unravelling a ‘Spun’ Policy: A Case Study of the Constitutive Role of ‘Spin’ in the Education Policy Process.” Journal of Education Policy 19 (3): 321–342.10.1080/0268093042000207647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grek, S. 2009. “Governing by Numbers: the PISA ‘Effect’ in Europe.” Journal of Education Policy 24 (1): 23–37. doi:10.1080/0268093080241266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gustafsson, J.-E., and G. Erickson. 2013. “To Trust or not to Trust?—Teacher Marking Versus External Marking of National Tests.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 25 (1): 69–87.10.1007/s11092-013-9158-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschl, R. 2008. “The Judicialization of Politics.” In The Oxford handbook of Law and Politics, edited by K. E. Whittington, R. D. Keleman and G. A. Caldeira, 119–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Høyer, H. C., J. M. Paulsen, E. Nihlfors, K. K. Kofod, P. Kanervio, and S. Pulkkinen. 2014. “Control and Trust in Local School Governance”. In School Boards in the Governance Process, edited by L. Moos, and J. M. Paulsen, 101–115. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-05494-0
   Google Scholar
• Hudson, C. 2007. “Governing the Governance of Education: The State Strikes Back?” European Educational Research Journal 6 (3): 267–282.
   Google Scholar
• Kushner, S. 2012. “Case Study and Equity in Evaluation.” In Evaluation for Equitable Development Results, edited by M. Segone, 172–191. New York: UNICEF.
   Google Scholar
• Lindgren, L., A. Hanberger, and U. Lundström. 2016. “Evaluation Systems in a Crowded Policy Space. Implications for Local School Governance.” Education Inquiry 7 (3): 237–258. doi:10.3402/edui.v7.30202.
   Google Scholar
• Lingard, B. 2011. “Policy as Numbers: Ac/Counting for Educational Research.” The Australian Educational Researcher 38 (4): 355–382.10.1007/s13384-011-0041-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard, B., and S. Rawolle. 2004. “Mediatizing Educational Policy: The Journalistic Field, Science Policy, and Cross‐Field Effects.” Journal of Education Policy 19 (3): 361–380.10.1080/0268093042000207665
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lingard, B., and S. Sellar. 2013. “‘Catalyst Data’: Perverse Systemic Effects of Audit and Accountability in Australian Schooling.” Journal of Education Policy 28 (5): 634–656.10.1080/02680939.2012.758815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundahl, L. 2002. “Sweden: Decentralization, Deregulation, Quasi-Markets - and Then What?” Journal of Education Policy 17 (6): 687–697.10.1080/0268093022000032328
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundahl, C. 2009. Varför nationella prov? – framväxt, dilemman, möjligheter [Why National Tests? – Emergence, Dilemmas, Opportunities]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. 2009a. Uppdrag till Statens Skolinspektion om viss central rättning av nationella prov [Mission to the Schools Inspectorate to Centrally Control National tests]. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. 2009b. Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2010 avseende Statens skolinspektion [Regulation Letter Regarding the Schools Inspectorate for the Budget Year of 2010]. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. 2010. Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2011 avseende Statens skolinspektion [Regulation Letter Regarding the Schools Inspectorate for the Budget Year of 2011]. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. 2011a. Uppdrag om nationella prov [Mission on national tests]. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. 2011b. Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2012 avseende Statens skolinspektion [Regulation Letter Regarding the Schools Inspectorate for the Budget Year of 2012]. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Education. 2012. Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2013 avseende Statens skolinspektion [Regulation Letter Regarding the Schools Inspectorate for the Budget Year of 2013]. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Mons, N. 2009. “Theoretical and Real Effects of Standarized Assessment”. Background paper to the study: National Testing of Pupils in Europe, Eurydice Network, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/111EN.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Moos, L., E. Nihlfors, and J. M. Paulsen. 2016. Tendencies and Trends. In Nordic Superinendents: Agents in a Broken Chain, edited by L. Moos, E. Nihlfors and J. Paulsen, 311–334. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-25106-6
   Google Scholar
• National Agency for Education 2016. Statistik i tabeller. [Statistics in Tables]. Accessed April 11, 2016. http://www.skolverket.se/statistik-och-utvardering/statistik-i-tabeller
   Google Scholar
• Novak, J. 2016. Juridification and Education. In Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory, edited by M. A. Peters, 1–6. Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_480-1.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2011. OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education – Sweden. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/sweden/47169533.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Oehme, F. 2015. “Konzeptionen ‘gerechter Schulinspektion’ aus einer institutionen- und einstellungsanalytischen Perspektive. Ein Blick nach England” [Conceptions/Ideas about ‘Fair School Inspection’ – Analysing Institutions and Attititudes. An English Outlook]. In Zur Gerechtigkeit von Schule. Theorien, Konzepte, Analysen, edited by V. Manitius, B. Hermstein, N. Berkemeyer, and W. Bos, 293–315. Münster: Waxmann.
   Google Scholar
• Ozga, J., P. Dahler-Larsen, C. Segerholm, and H. Simola, eds. 2011. Fabricating Quality in Education. Data and Governance in Europe. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. 1997. The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawolle, S. 2010. “Understanding the Mediatisation of Educational Policy as Practice.” Critical Studies in Education 51 (1): 21–39.10.1080/17508480903450208
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds, C., and H. Smaller. 1997. “Professionalism as Paradox: Past and Present Struggles for Control over Teachers’ Work in Canada.” Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference of the International Study Association on Teacher Thinking, Kiel, October.
   Google Scholar
• Rönnberg, L. 2015. “Marketization on Export: Representations of the Swedish Free School Model in English Media.” European Educational Research Journal 14 (6): 549–565.10.1177/1474904115610782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rönnberg, L., J. Lindgren, and C. Segerholm 2013. “In the Public Eye. Swedish School Inspection and Local Newspapers: Exploring the Audit-Media Relationship.” Journal of Education Policy 28 (2): 178–197.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachs, J. 2005. “Teacher Professional Standards: A Policy Strategy to Control, Regulate or Enhance the Teaching Profession.” In International Handbook of Educational Policy, edited by N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood and D. Livingstone, 579–592. Netherlands: Kluwer.10.1007/1-4020-3201-3
   Google Scholar
• Segerholm, C. 2009. “‘We are Doing Well on QAE’: The Case of Sweden.” Journal of Education Policy 24 (2): 195–209.10.1080/02680930902734103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SOU (Government Official Report). 2007:101. Tydlig och öppen. Förslag till en stärkt skolinspektion [Clear and Open. A Proposition for a Reinforced School Inspection]. Stockholm: Fritzes.
   Google Scholar
• SOU (Government Official Report). 2016:25. Likvärdigt, rättsäkert och effektivt - ett nytt nationellt system för kunskapsbedömning. Stockholm: Fritzes.
   Google Scholar
• SSI (Swedish Schools Inspectorate). 2008. “Central rättning av nationella prov [Centrally Grading of National Tests].” Dnr 2008: 348.
   Google Scholar
• SSI (Swedish Schools Inspectorate). 2010. Kontrollrättning av nationella prov i grundskolan och gymnasieskolan. [Control Grading of National Tests in Compulsory- and Upper Secondary Education]. April 16.
   Google Scholar
• SSI (Swedish Schools Inspectorate). 2011. Lika eller olika? Omrättning av nationella prov i grundskolan och gymnasieskolan. [Same or different? Regrading National Tests in Comprehensive- and Upper Secondary Education]. May 16.
   Google Scholar
• SSI (Swedish Schools Inspectorate). 2012a. Riktad tillsyn av bedömning och betygssättning hos skolor med stora avvikelser vid omrättning av nationella prov [Targeted Inspection of Assessment and Grading in Schools with Large Deviancies Detected During Regrading of National Tests]. March 30.
   Google Scholar
• SSI (Swedish Schools Inspectorate). 2012b. Lika för alla? Omrättning av nationella prov i grundskolan och gymnasieskolan under tre år. [The Same for Everyone? Regrading National Tests in Compulsory- and Upper Secondary Education during Three Years]. Aug 31.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, R. E. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Strömbäck, J. 2008. “Four Phases of Mediatization: An Analysis of the Mediatization of Politics.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (3): 228–246.
10.1177/1940161208319097
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SvD (Svenska Dagbladet). 2011-04-24. Bekämpa betygsinflationen. [Combat the Grade inflation].
   Google Scholar
• SvD (Svenska Dagbladet) . 2011-05-17. Skillnad på rättade prov. [Differences between Graded Tests].
   Google Scholar
• SvD (Svenska Dagbladet). 2011-11-15. MVG blev IG när prov rättades igen. [A’s were Turned into F’s When Tests were Regraded].
   Google Scholar
• SvD (Svenska Dagbladet). 2011-11-17a. Finns det rättvisa betyg: Ja [Do Fair Grades Exist: Yes].
   Google Scholar
• SvD (Svenska Dagbladet). 2011-11-17b. Finns det rättvisa betyg: Nej [Do Fair Grades Exist: No].
   Google Scholar
• SvD (Svenska Dagbladet). 2012-03-31a. Skolan bedömer nationella prov fel [Schools Assess National Tests Incorrectly].
   Google Scholar
• Tveit, S. 2014. “Educational Assessment in Norway.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 21 (2): 221–237. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2013.830079.
   Google Scholar
• Tveit, S., and C. Lundahl. forthcoming. “New Modes of Policy Legitimation in Education: Explicating a Government’s Supranational (Mis)representation, Perpetrating Assessment Reform”. European Educational Research Journal.
   Google Scholar
• Wahlström, N. 2002. Om det förändrade ansvaret för skolan. Vägen till mål- och resultatstyrning och några av dess konsekvenser [On the Shift of Responsibility for Compulsory Schooling. The Path to Management by Objectives and Results and Some of Its Consequences]. PhD diss., Örebro University, Örebro.
   Google Scholar
• Waldow, F. 2014. “Conceptions of Justice in the Examination Systems of England, Germany, and Sweden: A Look at Safeguards of Fair Procedure and Possibilities of Appeal.” Comparative Education Review 58 (2): 322–343.10.1086/674781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiklund, M. 2006. Kunskapens fanbärare: den goda läraren som diskursiv konstruktion på en mediearena [Standard-bearers of Knowledge: The Good Teacher as a Discursive Construction in a Media Arena]. PhD diss., Örebro University, Örebro.
   Google Scholar
• Wiklund, M. 2012. “Medialiserad utbildningspolitik – ett nedslag i utbildningsbevakning och debatt i svenska medier 2008”. [Mediatized Education Policy - a Crackdown in Education Coverage of and Debate on Education in the Swedish Media in 2008. In Föreställningar om den goda läraren [Conceptions of the good teacher], edited by T. Englund, 215–246. Daidalos: Göteborg.
   Google Scholar
• Wikström, C. 2005. “Grade Stability in a Criterion‐Referenced Grading System: The Swedish Example.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 12 (2): 125–144. doi:10.1080/09695940500143811.
   Google Scholar
• Wikström, C. 2006. “Education and assessment in Sweden.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 13 (1): 113–128. doi:10.1080/09695940600563470.
   Google Scholar
• Wikström, C., and M. Wikström. 2005. “Grade Inflation and School Competition: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Swedish Upper Secondary Schools.” Economics of Education Review 24 (3): 309–322.10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.04.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar