In Sweden, as in many other decentralized school systems, extensive responsibility and autonomy has been delegated to Local Educational Authorities (LEA). However, decades of declining student achievement and decreased equality between schools have spurred an intensive critique against the Swedish school system and triggered a more state-regulated governing with aim to take stronger control over the schools’ outcomes. Considering such a ‘re-centralization’ movement, new conditions between the state, the local education authorities (LEA) and the schools has emerged (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2017a; Adolfsson, 2018). In the light of such a changing governing landscape, questions linked to local school governance can be raised. Based on results from two research projects conducted in two large-sized Swedish municipalities, the aim of this paper is to explore and theorize the dynamics of local school governance. The research question guiding this paper can be formulated as: In the light of an emerging re-centralization movement in Sweden, what governing strategies and actions do the LEAs apply to control and manage the schools?

Considering a ‘classical’ perspective of school governance (Lindesjö & Lundgren, 2014) four aspects of governance is often mentioned: regulation, economy, ideology (content) and evaluation. In this paper, these aspects are understood in light of a neo-institutional theoretical framework (Scott, 2008). From this perspective, three dimensions can be highlighted regarding how institutions control and affect other institutions, respond to external pressure, and seek legitimacy: regulative (rules and sanctions), normative (prevalent norms, expectations and ideals), and cognitive-cultural/discursive (shared conceptions and frames of meaning-making). These theoretical concepts enable to elucidate the character of the different strategies and actions that LEA undertake in the local governance strategies of the schools.

Empirical data from two research projects have been used to answer the research question (Adolfsson & Alvunger, 2020; Håkansson & Adolfsson, 2021; Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2021). These two projects had a common interest in the dynamic interplay between the LEA and principals in relation to a changed governing and policy landscape in Sweden. The data collections in these research projects were carried out through a multi-method approach (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2010) in terms of policy analysis of local policy documents, interviews with various LEA actors and observations of meetings between LEA administration and school principals.  

In relation to the concept ‘Local quality management’ (Adolfsson & Håkansson, 2021) the results illustrate that the local school governance often is organized and conducted within the context of the LEA’s quality assurance systems. The following strategies can be distinguished as especially important:       

-          Governance through shared visions and language

-          Governance through standardization and ‘Benchmarking’

-          Governance through assessment and quality dialogues 

-          Governance through competence intervention 

Compared to national governance strategies, local quality management strategies are constituted by more normative and culture/cognitive elements rather than regulative. Finally, I’ll argue that ‘quality management’ should be seen as a fifth dimension of school governance.  

References 

Adolfsson, Carl-Henrik (2018). Upgraded curriculum? An analysis of knowledge boundaries in teaching under the Swedish subject-based curriculum. Curriculum Journal, 29(3), 424-440.

Adolfsson, C-H., & Alvunger. D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 128–142.

Adolfsson, C. & Håkansson, J. (2021a). Mötet mellan den statliga och kommunala kvalitetsstyrningen inom ramen för Samverkan för bästa skola. Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 26 (1). 15-41.

Håkansson, J. & Adolfsson, C. (2021). Local education authority’s quality management within a coupled school system: strategies, actions, and tensions. Journal of Educational Change.

Lindensjö, B., & Lundgren, U. P. (2014). Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning. Stockholm, Liber

Scott, W. (2008). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. London: Sage.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). Sage handbook: Mixed methods in social and behavioral research. London: Sage.

Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2017). Transnational curriculum standards and classroom practices: The new meaning of teaching. Routledge