This study takes the standards-based curriculum reform movement (Hamilton et al., 2012) as thepoint of departure, considering it as a ‘master-idea’ (Røvik & Pettersen, 2015) and a ‘successfulidea’ (Schmidt, 2008), legitimated as a powerful tool for school improvement (Chatterji, 2002). As key actors in the policy process, school principals act as translators of the standards-basedcurriculum on the local policy arena (Wahlström & Sundberg, 2018). To do ‘good translations’(Øygarden & Mikkelsen, 2020) of the intended policy ideas of the standards-based curriculum,contributing to ‘ideational success’ (Schmidt, 2008), school principals need ‘translator competence’(Røvik, 2008; 2016). With a focus on not only policy ideas, but also discourse, as well as agency asthe lived experiences of organizational members, this study draws on discursive institutionalism(Schmidt, 2008; 2010; 2015) and pragmatic institutionalism (Beaton et al., 2021). Starting fromRøvik’s theoretical framework of ‘translator competence’, an ideal of how to translate successfully,the aim of the study is to empirically explore and analyse school principals as translators, enactingthe standards-based curriculum into the practices of local schools. Schmidt’s (2010; 2011; 2015)framework of ‘sentient agents’ has been used as a critical methodology to analyse, not only schoolprincipals’ ‘background ideational abilities’, which guide them to do things right, but also their‘foreground ideational abilities’, that is analysing their critical and deliberative experiences whentranslating the standards-based curriculum. The study draws from empirical material collected byinterviews. School principals, from four compulsory schools in different geographical parts ofSweden were interviewed. In the analysis, various examples of the school principals’ ‘translatorcompetence’, interpreted as their background ideational abilities, were found. As knowledgeableand multi-contextual translators, the principals present in-depth knowledge about the core contentand principles of the standards-based curriculum, as well as its inbuilt conflicts, compromises, andambiguities. The empirical data also indicates translator skills as braveness and creativity, and theschool principals as patient and strong. When analysing the interviews, various discourses of theschool principals´ foreground ideational abilities emerged. The principals reflect critically anddeliberatively about how to balance legal requirements to professional autonomy, but also givesexamples of creative strategies to handle these tensions. Various contextual aspects affect thestudents´ academic outcomes and the principals problematize expectations of high standards andhigh academic expectations on students in relation to the contextual prerequisites of their schools.According to the principals, there is also a gap between the school and parents, which they considerhas increased over time. Finally, the principals express that they do not believe that students atdifferent schools are given equal opportunities. ‘A school for everyone, it no longer exists inSweden, I think’, tells one of the principals. They further criticise national state initiatives aimed atreducing inequality, which means that all schools should do the same. On the other hand, theprincipals emphasise professional agency and that they, as principals, have the best knowledge ofthe needs of their schools.

References:

Beaton, E. E., DeJordy, R., & Foster, P. (2021). The Lived Experience of Managerialization: UnderstandingValues Conflict in Non‐profits through a Pragmatic Institutionalism. Journal of Management Studies,58(6), 1471-1506.Chatterji, M. (2002). Models and methods for examining standards-based reforms and accountabilityinitiatives: Have the tools of inquiry answered pressing questions on improving schools? Review ofEducational Research, 72(3), 345-386.Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2012). Standards-based accountability in the United States:Lessons learned and future directions. Education inquiry, 3(2), 149-170.Røvik, K. A. (2008). Managementsamhället. Trender och idéer på 2000-talet. [The management society -Trends and ideas in the 21st century]. Liber.Røvik, K. A. (2016). Knowledge Transfer as Translation: Review and Elements of an Instrumental Theory.International Journal of Management Reviews, 18(3), 290-310.Røvik, K. A., & Pettersen, H. M. (2014). Masterideer. I K.A. Røvik, T.V. Eilertsen, & E.M. Furu (Eds.).Reformideer i norsk skole: Spredning, oversettelse og implementering (pp. 54-86). Cappelen DammAkademisk.Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. AnnualReview of Political Science, 11, 303-326.Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourses seriously: Explaining change through discursiveinstitutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 1–25.Schmidt, V. A. (2011). Speaking of change: why discourse is key to the dynamics of policy transformation.Critical policy studies, 5(2), 106-126.

33Schmidt, V. A. (2015). Discursive institutionalism: Understanding policy in context. In F. Fischer, D.Torgerson, A. Durnová, & M. Orsini (Eds.). Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 171-189). Edward ElgarPublishing.Wahlström, N., & Sundberg, D. (2018). Discursive institutionalism: towardsa framework for analysing the relation between policy and curriculum, Journal of Education Policy, 33(1),163-183.Øygarden, O., & Mikkelsen, A. (2020). Readiness for Change and Good Translations. Journal of ChangeManagement, 20(3), 220-246.