European Educational Research Journal, Volume 6, Number 3, 2007

SYMPOSIUM
JOURNALS

Towards a New Professionalism in School?

A Comparative Study of Teacher
Autonomy in Norway and Sweden

INGRID HELGØY & ANNE HOMME

Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies, Bergen, Norway

ABSTRACT Local autonomy is one of the recent trends in reforms of compulsory education.
However, several parallel trends such as individual accountability, performance and visibility challenge
professional autonomy. The aim of this article is to explore how accountability and transparency
reforms affect teacher autonomy in Norway and Sweden. The authors argue that both individual
teacher autonomy at the local workplace and autonomy at the national level embracing teachers as a
collective group are important in analysing teachers’ professional autonomy. In comparing teachers’
professional autonomy they differentiate between processes of individualisation and collectivisation.
Their analysis indicates, although intra-national differences, that the difference between Norwegian
and Swedish teachers is striking. While the Swedish teachers experience a high degree of individual
autonomy, their influence on national policy processes seems weakened. This leads to the assumption
that professional autonomy as a result of transparency and accountability reforms, even if the teachers
report individual professional autonomy, reduces the authority of the profession at the national policy-
making level. The analysis indicates that Norwegian teachers are characterized by old professionalism.
The strong input regulations in Norway limit individual teacher autonomy. Even with weakened
individual autonomy, teachers still manage to supply conditions for national education policy making.
This means that teachers still are autonomous at the collective level. Moreover, the findings indicate
that national standards and control in education are accepted as tools for securing professional
knowledge and status.

Introduction
Although educational research is increasingly concerned with international trends in educational
reforms, less attention is given to how reforms affect teacher autonomy. Local autonomy is one of
the recent trends in reforms of compulsory education. Parallel trends including individual
accountability, performance and visibility challenge professional autonomy. There is no doubt that
the conditions for the professional autonomy of teachers in both Norway and Sweden have
changed during the past two decades. These changes, which include employer responsibilities and
work time regulations, as well as implementing teaching by objectives, influence to a greater or
lesser extent teachers’ daily work and hence their autonomy. On the one hand, teachers are
exposed to a new set of responsibilities; while on the other hand, they are given certain autonomy
in regard to organizing their work. Even though teachers in both countries meet changed
conditions in their daily work, the Norwegian and Swedish education systems diverge.
Norway and Sweden are characterized as social democratic welfare states (Esping-Andersen,
1990, 2002) with similar political economies that structure the interplay of government, labour,
professions, employers and trade associations (Wilensky, 2002). This makes us expect similarities in
education policy between the two countries, but a comparison of education policy in Norway and
Sweden (Helgøy & Homme, 2006) concluded that the two countries diverge more today than they

232 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.232
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

did two decades ago. The favourable economic stability in Norway has meant neither an acute
need for restructuring the public sector nor for education reforms. Norway has reluctantly
decentralized education responsibility, and, to a limited degree, implemented market mechanisms
in education. In Sweden, high debt and a deep recession in the early 1990s were followed by
dictated fiscal austerity and restructuring of several welfare state programmes. The break with
centralism was important in restructuring the education system because it devolved responsibility
to the local level in addition to implementing market mechanisms in education. This article
compares the school-level practices in Norway and Sweden related to the national contexts. Our
main concern is to elaborate on the relationships between accountability and transparency reforms
and teacher autonomy.
In order to analyse the degree to which differences in professional autonomy are related to
education reforms, we start by defining the concepts of professional autonomy, professionalism,
transparency and accountability. We argue that it is important to view professional autonomy as a
non-static and relative concept. The concept of autonomy needs both a theoretical clarification and
empirical explorations from different perspectives. Devolved autonomy at the teacher level does
not mean that teachers are capable of making use of the autonomy. Nor does it necessarily
correspond to a strengthening of teachers’ status and authority at the collective level. Accordingly,
teacher autonomy must be related to characteristics of the teaching profession and professional
practice. We argue that decentralization encourages a new form of professional practice which in
turn challenges our understanding of professionalism. According to Svensson (2006), we need to
redefine the concept of professionalism by shifting reliance on formal education, occupation and
licensing to actual knowledge, competence and performance as properties of the individual. In the
article we ask: what characterizes teacher professionalism in the two countries? Do different forms
of professional autonomy represent different relations between politics and profession in the two
countries?
Changes in professionalism may reflect teachers’ changed influences on national education
policy formulation. Thus, we argue that both individual teacher autonomy in the local workplace
and autonomy at the national level embracing teachers as a collective group are important in
analysing teachers’ professional autonomy.
This article relies on an analysis of official documents and policy texts, and on an interview
inquiry. In the empirical analysis, we show how teachers’ professional autonomy and identity are
expressed by teachers in the workplace in Norway and Sweden. In the comparison, we concentrate
on three main indicators of teachers’ professional autonomy: (1) teachers’ control of tasks (criteria
for practice and performance), (2) workplace organization and relations, and (3) teachers’ external
relations (to clients, employer and government).

The Key Concepts: professional autonomy and

professionalism – transparency and accountability
This article focuses on the professional autonomy of teachers after recent reforms relating to
transparency and accountability. A common definition of autonomy is freedom and capacity to act
(Lundqvist, 1987). This concept has to be further elaborated for our purpose, which is empirical
analysis of teachers’ professional autonomy. Professional autonomy cannot be seen as a static
mode, but as being sensible to external and internal pressures. As Rönnberg points out (2007),
authorities’ lack of effort to increase schools’ capacity in making use of local autonomy may
illustrate the symbolic character of reforms which has to be taken into consideration in analysis of
how the school level makes use of local autonomy.
To analyse professional autonomy as a dynamic concept, we choose to relate it to the concept
of professionalism. Usually, professionalism is widely defined to cover practices among employees
in general, not only among members of professions. In this article we limit the concept of
professionalism to the practise of the teacher profession. By focusing on teacher professionalism we
intend to emphasize the level of practice where autonomy is spelled out. We also question the
connection between the characteristics of the teaching profession and the political collective level.

233
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

A traditional understanding of the teaching profession is closely connected to an outcome of

formal higher education, a code of ethics, certification, and practice monopoly. To legitimate their
control, professions attach their expertise to values with general cultural legitimacy (Abbott, 1988).
Teacher professionalism is traditionally understood as individual teachers having extensive
autonomy in the classroom. This form of professionalism has been realized through societal
recognition of the knowledge and status of teachers as a collective group. Thus, there has
traditionally been a strong connection between the autonomy of the individual teacher and teacher
status legitimated at the collective, societal level. This understanding of teacher professionalism is
currently challenged.
As a result of public sector reforms, accountability and transparency processes seem to change
the conditions for professional legitimacy. By accountability, we refer to a requirement to
demonstrate responsible actions to some external constituencies. Ranson states that in education
we can talk about an era of accountability where ‘the curriculum would no longer be the “secret garden”
of an autonomous professional community detached from public scrutiny’ (Ranson, 2003, p. 459, emphasis
added). It can be argued that teachers as an autonomous professional community detached from
public scrutiny have become publicly accountable mostly through a loss of trust. Teachers are
accountable to a large number of sources and standards that include parents, contractors, local
authorities and national guidelines. This implies that trust has dissolved and public dependence on
professional, authoritative judgement is replaced by trust in mechanisms of explicit, transparent,
systematic public accountability designed to secure the standardization and quality of professional
practice. The relevance of professional work has to be continually made visible and translated into
a generic form understandable to the management and the public (Ranson, 2003; Brennan et al,
2006).
According to Finkelstein, transparency describes policies
that are easily understood, where information about the policy is available, where accountability
is clear and where citizens know what role they play in the implementation of the policy.
(2000, p. 1)
This definition includes numerous aspects, of which we here emphasize the role of teachers as vital
professionals necessary to promote transparency, but also as the most vulnerable group in the
accountability and transparency processes. In both Norway and Sweden, education policy is
increasingly exposed to demands for transparency. There has been a change in policy making
(Hudson, 2007), shifting from emphasizing input regulations (legislation, organization and funding)
to accountability tools such as systems of evaluation and accounting reports (Helgøy & Homme,
2006). This indicates a struggle for openness in order to facilitate knowledge transfer and enhanced
quality in education, but also an assurance of efficiency.
What expectations of professionalism can be drawn from this discussion? Demands for
transparency can be met differently in different professions and countries. Relying on Blomgren
(2007), teachers might use openness as an opportunity to demonstrate the value and quality of their
work. Accordingly, transparency reforms placing importance on teacher accountability strengthen
professional autonomy. An opposite expectation is that teachers experience demands for
transparency as a threat to professionalism, due to the loss of control in defining criteria of quality
in education. In this view, a regime of transparency implies that teachers’ professional autonomy is
weakened. Moreover, external criteria for practice and performance are replacing the criteria of the
profession. Even professional authority is questioned by customers’ enhanced freedom of choice
(Fournier, 2000; Svensson, 2006).
In order to connect autonomy to teacher professionalism we introduce two ideal types of
professionalism. By old professionalism we mean professional practice relying on formal education
and occupation, monopoly and licensing. According to Musselin (2006) there is a current drift in
academic work from qualifications related to specific degrees and credentials to competencies that
are linked to the individual. This underlines a decreased significance of formal education, pointing
to a new type of professionalism. In defining new professionalism we rely on Svensson (2006), who
claims that professional competence is becoming ‘more personal, implicit, individual, and
connected with the contexts of positions, tasks and actual performance’ (p. 580). In addition, the

234
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

concept includes the capability of each professional to increase his or her autonomy and
responsibility. Moreover, the two versions of professionalism indicate different recipients of
responsibility. According to the old professionalism, the actual object to be held responsible is the
collective level, while the individual level is held responsible according to the new professionalism.
Individualism occurs in both new and old professionalism, although the meaning of
individualism differs. While individualism within old professionalism is covering the teachers’
prospects, and trust, based on formal education and qualification, to teach individually in the
classroom, individualism in new professionalism means teachers’ ability to perform and act
strategically, more or less disconnected from formal education and qualification, in order to meet
demands for personalized competence and actual performance. According to new professionalism
the individual teacher has extended responsibilities in addition to the classroom arena and is
accountable to the individual student, the parents and the school management. This is in line with
Berg (1999), who points to extended expectations of the changed teacher role due to the reforms
implemented in recent decades. He claims that the reforms focus on the school at an organizational
level, and on flexibility and collaboration. The practice is to a greater extent based on personal
competencies and defined by formal negotiated agreements between individual teachers and
different actors. According to old professionalism the individual teacher’s main responsibility is
teaching in the classroom. The teacher is not held individually accountable toward the individual
student, the parents and the school management. The practice is to a great extent based on formal
qualifications defined by national curriculum. This is comparable to Berg’s (1999) characteristic of
limited professionalism of the traditional individual teacher.
Collectivism has traditionally been connected to teachers’ identity as a profession. This implies
a common code of ethics, formal teacher education and wages defined by formal qualifications. In
addition, traditionally, collectivism has included one or more unions acting on behalf of their
members. Different from this, new professionalism is characterized by a different type of
professional identity not necessarily related to formal education and a code of ethics. Rather, new
professionalism is a response to increased individual accountability. The prominent motive is to
secure individual interests by collective actions. Thus, new forms of collectivism are based more or
less on stable teacher alliances working to resolve present and shifting issues.
Further, the division between individual and collective strategies of professionalism refers to
the arenas where teachers act autonomously, as individual teachers or as a professional group.
Teachers may strategically act individually or collectively in the classroom, in relation to parents or
in wage negotiations, and in decision making at the school level or at the national policy-making
level.
In order to explore teachers’ professional autonomy in the workplace, we conducted a
comparative interview study at the teacher level in two Swedish and two Norwegian cities. While
both Norway and Sweden have decentralized and devolved school governance to the local level,
Sweden has done so to a larger degree than Norway. National decentralization implies that we can
expect local variations in school governance (Arnesen & Lundahl, 2006). Theoretically, this means
that it is possible to find greater similarities between one Swedish school and one Norwegian
school than internally in schools of either nation. The expectation of highly diverging local
practices is underlined by the variation in the municipalities’ education expenses, which is
considerable in both countries (see, for instance, Skolverket, 2004; Falch et al, 2005, Statistics
Norway). In Norway, the main agreements between the teachers and the municipalities (local
school government) are negotiated at the national level by the teacher unions and the Norwegian
Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS). In Sweden, the agreements are to a larger
extent negotiated at the local level. In addition, wages are negotiated individually in Sweden. Thus,
we expect even more variation in Sweden than in Norway. The starting point of our study on
teacher autonomy is to explore teachers in different settings, both at national and local levels. From
this approach, we expect to find considerable local differences in teacher autonomy in each
country.
Given the expected variations in school governance and teacher autonomy, we designed our
interview inquiry by choosing informants from the two countries based on a set of common

235
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

indicators. The common indicators which were chosen included: the teachers and heads work at
inner-city schools in one of the two larger cities in each country, capitals excluded, i.e. Gothenburg
and Malmo in Sweden, and Bergen and Kristiansand in Norway. Altogether, approximately 70
teachers and heads at seven schools were interviewed over a one-year period from spring 2005 to
spring 2006. To ensure representativeness, the teachers interviewed at each school had different
qualifications and experiences. Based on transcribed interviews, we have carried out a systematic
comparison of teacher experiences of professional autonomy in the four cities. In spite of expected
intra-national variations, the analysis indicates a distinct national difference between Swedish and
Norwegian teacher professionals. Accordingly, in this article, we stress the national rather than
intra-national differences. Based on our understanding of conditions for professionalism, we have
concentrated on three main indicators of teachers’ professional autonomy: (1) control of tasks and
criteria for performance, (2) intra-organizational relations, and (3) external relations.

Norway
Control of Tasks and Criteria for Performance
Teachers’ views on their control of tasks are closely related to their experiences with the national
curriculum and teaching methods. Although the national curriculum until August 2006 [1] has been
mandatory, which to a certain degree has taken both syllabuses and teaching methods out of
teachers’ hands, the most important experience for teachers is that the content of the curriculum
works to support their professionalism. According to the Norwegian informants, the curriculum as
an authoritative document reflects both serious professional advice and teaching methods that are
valuable to fulfil. The following quote is a typical statement on the functioning of the curriculum:
I find it important, and we always bring it with us when we make annual plans and other plans;
we take the curriculum aims into consideration … I don’t think the curriculum is too detailed;
rather, it opens up for a certain degree of freedom. I find a lot of valuable aims in the curriculum,
so if we manage to fulfil them we have done a great job. (N18, teacher, lower secondary school)
However, some of the experienced teachers perceive the curriculum’s detailed instructions as
limiting their individual freedom in teaching. In Norway, even the teaching methods (until 2006)
were nationally standardized and determined. Teachers found restricted teaching methods as more
limiting than the curriculum aims and syllabuses and some teachers reported a lack of trust in their
ability to teach. Nevertheless, the overall finding is that the curriculum is a statutory professional
standard worth striving toward and which makes the professional competence visible.
Interestingly, the so-called ‘classroom studies’ in Norway during the 1990s concluded with several
observable changes in teaching methods. In accordance with the curriculum, the teachers’
professional role was changed towards monitoring and management whereas their active
engagement within the subject matter was increasingly diminished (Carlgren et al, 2006).
Combined with the trend of more actively occupying students with individual seatwork (Klette,
2003), this indicated a changed, but not necessarily a deprofessionalized teacher role. Rather, the
curriculum indicates a demand for professionalism. Solstad (2004) finds that both national policy,
e.g. the curriculum, and teacher practices point in the direction of increased teacher discretion.
Through increased demands for planning and documentation, bureaucratization is perceived
as an important change in teachers’ work tasks. Even though this makes teachers influential in
organizing their own work, they experienced the administrative tasks as time demanding and
undermining their core tasks of teaching. Another element related to the extended tasks and
responsibilities implied in the bureaucratization of teachers was the emphasizing of teachers’
documentation of students’ performances. The demand for written documentation of educational
practices and performances is linked to securing students’ rights to an individually adapted
education. The threat of being taken to court for providing insufficient education has been made
current. Therefore, the teachers conducted different types of accounts to describe and explain the
activities undertaken. From our inquiry, we learned, firstly, that teachers disliked the planning
activities that were increasingly imposed on them, and, secondly, that teachers did not really accept
their role as individually accountable for students’ performances.

236
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

By criteria for performance we understand output control, which includes audits, inspections,
reviews, assessments, evaluations and accounting reports, to describe and explain the school
activities defined as relevant to school quality (Helgøy & Homme, 2006). In Norway, national tests
at different grades are currently in place, although there is a discussion on which grades to include.
So far there is no system for national inspections where teaching is measured. Concerning student
evaluation, the Norwegian teachers reported that to a great extent they used their professional
discretion. Thus, most teachers did not welcome the introduction of measuring pupils’
knowledge/skills by national, standardized tests. They found the tests, measuring unacceptably
‘narrow’ skills, unable to measure students’ knowledge, understanding and maturity. In addition,
according to the teachers, technical problems when administering the tests led to different
conditions for testing between schools. Another main reason for teachers opposing national testing
was the publication of test results:
We are worried about how the results are being used for other purposes, like ranking by the
media. The media wishes to compare and sort out well performing and badly performing
schools. The consequence is the marking of schools as As and Bs. Each school might act
strategically by excluding weak students from taking the tests in order to obtain better results for
the school. (N37, teacher, lower secondary school and union representative at school level)
These responses reflect very well the policy of the largest and most important teacher union,
Utdanningsforbundet.[2] At the national congress in 2006, a main theme was ‘the fight against the
measuring school’. The union leader warned against the narrowing, technical and instrumentalist
view expressed by politicians and bureaucrats, which was threatening the teaching profession in
general and specifically their professional discretion, by diminishing teachers’ experienced-based
knowledge, loss of freedom in choice of teaching methods and reducing the teachers’ professional
authority.

Intra-organizational Relations
Different forms of teacher collaboration at the school level are essential to professionalism. In
Norway teachers were ordered to organize and collaborate in work teams. In addition to
administrative tasks, the intention was that teachers should collaborate on thematically organized
project work teaching.
The traditional way of teaching – one teacher, one class, in one classroom – was more or less
abandoned in the Norwegian schools. Planning in teams was highlighted as being important in the
modernized way of working as a teacher. All teachers in a team usually taught the same classes
and/or year. The teams often had responsibilities for organizing teaching, including making time
schedules and choice of possible methods of teaching. Teachers found that increased
responsibilities to teams had enhanced team autonomy, but the teachers underlined that working
in teams only functioned if the teachers agreed on pedagogical issues and if personal chemistries
worked. Accordingly, teachers working in teams that concentrated on teaching collaboration
experienced it as challenging their way of teaching in a positive way and strengthening the teaching
staff as a group. Exchange of teaching ideas leads to improved and more similar teaching methods:
I plan my teaching methods mostly on my own, but I am influenced by my colleagues in the
team, because we talk about what teaching aid we might use, we share ideas … I believe our
teaching methods are more similar than we usually think. (N13, teacher, lower secondary school,
union representative at school level)
A minority group of teachers experiencing the teams as first and foremost an administrative body,
saw it as obstructing professionalism. A team leader described her responsibilities as highly
administrative:
Organization … to organize teamwork, reorganize lessons, which classes and teachers are to be
there and when, who are responsible to this and that … it has to do with organizing the logistics.
And I have to look ahead and plan what to do … which topics can be taught across subjects …
how many subjects can be included in the topics … All the teachers in the team are responsible,
but I have to take greater responsibility. (N33, teacher, lower secondary school, team leader)

237
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

In this way, collaboration in teams was first and foremost seen as a solution to relieve the school
leadership management from administrative tasks.
Currently, Norwegian teachers seem to have formed a broad front against the processes of
individualization. Norwegian teachers, when speaking about their work, referred to the profession
(‘we’, ‘teachers’) both when referring to responses to national education policies and to issues
concerning their school. Also, when referring to the school level, the teachers spoke of their
profession in terms of ‘we’. For instance, when one of the schools was renovated, teachers
expressed it as
… we, the teachers, wanted blackboards in the classrooms, but the management was against it
because it was old fashioned. (N15, teacher, lower secondary school)
The collective orientation among teachers is also found at the teacher union level. At the national
2006 conference, the tension between the individual and the community in general was discussed.
The individualization promoted by marketization in education was presented as a threat against
the key value in the teacher union movement, namely, solidarity.[3] The same collective value is
expressed through the Norwegian teachers’ view on the pay policy:
Individual increase of salary is not welcomed by my union. We call it personal appearance as a
factor in a salary decision. We don’t like the new way of doing things. We were satisfied the way
it used to be. (N13, teacher, lower secondary school, union representative at school level)
In accordance with the national union pay policy, almost all the Norwegian teachers in the inquiry
were not in favour of the individual pay policy. Local agreements and performance pay were still
not accepted.
Concerning the teachers’ view on school management, several of the Norwegian teacher
informants criticized their head for being too busy sitting in his or her office doing administrative
tasks without having any pedagogic development ambitions. However, when asked if they wanted
more directions about teaching from the school head, teachers often said that the work team they
belonged to took care of this and that the team did not want any intervention in their work. This
finding is in accordance with Imsen (2004), who found that the relationship between teachers and
heads is characterized by the invisible contract: if you do your job, I do mine (Berg, 1999). In our
study, there are signs challenging this due to teachers criticizing the head for killing any initiative
coming from the teaching staff. As noted by Møller (2004), heads consider it problematic to be
simultaneously engaging in creating confident relationships, and directing teachers. To a certain
extent, our findings also fit with conclusions from another Norwegian case study that demonstrates
that school leadership is still able to support activist professionals who counteract the tendency
towards an audit society (Møller, 2006). What we see is that the tradition of democratic leadership
is challenged by the managerial leadership characterized by instrumental rationality and individual
accountability. For example, some teachers made a rather critical characterization of the
expectations of extensive involvement by the whole teaching staff in implementing education
reforms. Moreover, although the three schools represented in our Norwegian case study were
characterized by democratic values, they also had elements of heads taking decisions, such as the
rebuilding of two of the schools, that were at odds with the opinions of teacher colleagues.
Nevertheless, the traditional democratic processes of decision making in school are still strong.
Heads are often involved in securing quality and establishing routines for following up
inexperienced teachers or teachers who have problems in their teaching (Møller, 2006). Together
with the increased collaboration in working teams, the heads’ routines for following up teachers
may strengthen the teachers acting as a professional collective group.

External Relations
Parents have been paid more attention in education policies since the 1990s. First of all, they have
been formally included in the school organization, and secondly, their rights as users of public
services have been stressed. In a new trend, municipalities tend to conduct user surveys to map the
degree of parent satisfaction with schools.[4] There is no doubt that the Norwegian teachers were

238
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

taking parents’ demands into consideration. The relationship was, however, characterized by
teachers acting as a ‘pressure group’ more than as a collaborative partner, as the relationship
between the school and parents was intended to be. Most of the teachers we interviewed described
the relation to parents as important, but not frequent. The parents were increasingly viewed as
customers whose experiences could be used to correct teachers’ performance:
I do get some responses, but parents do not often directly express their experiences. Some
parents do for example express satisfaction, which I appreciate very much. And I have instructed
the head: if you receive any complaints, you have to inform me immediately! Don’t hide the
parents’ responses; I want to know about them. (N 33, teacher lower secondary school and team
leader)
All the heads we interviewed reported that parents’ satisfaction was an important source for
assessing their teachers’ performance. A representative impression is that parents expected too
much from the teachers and the school. At the same time, the teachers gave the impression that
parents did not engage sufficiently in their children’s learning. Studies on the relations between
school and parents conclude that the relationship is distinguished by little and coincidental
collaboration, lack of dialogue, and that parents and teachers concur only to a limited degree in
school matters (Nordahl, 2003, 2004). Parents have been given stronger rights concerning the
individual education of their children. This has forced teachers to be conscious of their teaching to
assure the students’ rights. To avoid possible confrontations and trials, the teachers used to
document daily routines, both concerning their own and the students’ performances.
In Norway, the 2003 decision to move negotiations on wages and working time conditions
from the state to the municipalities caused teacher resistance. The employer responsibility, in
addition to the transferred responsibility for allocating educational resources, has strengthened the
municipalities’ position. The teachers we interviewed expressed mistrust toward the municipalities
as employers. The teachers feared several negative consequences, including: increased wage
differentiation, decreased income level, more regulated working time and fewer teaching
resources:
They [the municipality] don’t respect your negotiated rights in the same way [as the state]. I feel
the municipality is going to trick us. For example, concerning the working time we had a
negotiated agreement when we were moved from the state to the local negotiation system. No
longer than fourteen days ago they tried to put something new in the agreement. They were
sitting in their offices wondering how they could really squeeze us. This time they suggested we
should not get paid for acting as a substitute. (N24, teacher, primary and lower secondary school)
Compared to their earlier loyalty toward national policy, the Norwegian teachers showed an
increased criticism towards state educational reforms. The teachers expressed discontent with the
conservative coalition government (2001-05) because of the reform content and the way the
reforms were carried through. The Government continued the Norwegian traditional arrangement
of teachers’ participation in policy making but, according to the teachers, their suggestions were
not approved. Accordingly, during the recent reform period since 2001, teachers referred to
instances in which their profession had been degraded. In response to the reforms, teachers
reported more engagement in education policy. An example of the teacher resistance against the
central authorities is their response to the content in the reforms. In Norway, the 2004
implementation of national tests was met by massive protests from the students, and, as pointed
out earlier, a more silent opposition from the teachers. While the teachers’ opposition was passive,
the students mobilized a nationwide boycott carried out in the biggest cities. To some degree, the
teachers supported the students’ boycott passively. As one of the teachers said, ‘I didn’t say
anything, but I was very satisfied with them’ (N16, teacher, lower secondary school). To date,
Norwegian teachers do not seem to be willing to respond to increased external pressure for
transparency. Although they are prepared to be held individually accountable by routine
documenting, they opposed this kind of individualization of teacher responsibility. A to-the-point-
formulation is that they wanted to strengthen some external relations, but not to be held
individually responsible.

239
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

Sweden
Control of Tasks and Criteria for Performance
Swedish teachers, who were implementing a less decisive national curriculum than their
Norwegian counterparts, partly appreciated the individual freedom to interpret and concretize the
set of national objectives, and partly missed prescribed tools to achieve the goals. A typical view
was:
The schools are free to choose how to do things. I think the government requests a lot without
giving us tools to achieve what is required. (S47)
We did not find a parallel to the Norwegian way of valuing the curriculum as a common basis of an
old professional status for the teacher group; rather, Swedish teachers found the choice of teaching
methods one of the most important influences on individual freedom.
I decide what to do in the lessons. That’s what’s splendid about the job. But we do have a time
schedule which we should adhere to … but if you read the curriculum and plans for the different
subjects … they are quite vague, they say what you will teach, which are the main goals … but
you can achieve the goals in your own way: what’s important is to reach the goal. That’s good
because then I can consider and decide how to reach the goal. I like the flexibility. (S27, teacher,
primary school)
Teachers worked to achieve the goals by using different methodological tools. The teachers in our
inquiry were aware of being held accountable to the degree of goal achievement, not to the
teaching methods. According to Carlgren et al (2006), ‘own work’, where students work in line
with their own individual plans, fits very well with the Swedish goal-steering system. Wahlström
(2002) emphasizes a link between the managing by objectives steering model and the aims of
knowledge in education; the implied motivations are that knowledge is specified and attained at the
lowest (teacher’s) level. By focusing on objectives and educational goals there is a danger of
neglecting the methods for reaching the goals.
In Sweden, bureaucratization of teachers’ work and the demands for planning and
documenting activities were strong, due to the individual plans for all the students. Teachers
reported that they were supposed to participate in a wide range of tasks in developing the school.
Teachers viewed administrative tasks and planning activities as time demanding and as a shift of
focus in their daily tasks:
Earlier we concentrated on the pupils and teaching; this is not at all the case today. Teaching has
almost become a sideline. … This is a twofold development: the expectations to participate in
everything versus the lack of time to do the most important thing, namely, to educate and to
establish good learning environments. (S25, teacher, primary school)
Swedish teachers were forced to include planning activities as a relevant part of their job, especially
those concerning the individual student. Lundahl (2006) refers to a survey where almost 60% of the
members of the largest teachers’ union report their work situation as being unsatisfactory as well as
experiencing a lack of power over working conditions. Further, Lindblad et al (2002) found a huge
gap between the educational authorities’ characterization of professional teachers’ increased
freedom and responsibilities to promote learning and growth, and teachers’ characterizations of
lost autonomy and power. Still, the Swedish teachers interviewed in our inquiry did present
themselves as more familiar with individual accountability than their Norwegian colleagues. The
Swedish teachers viewed themselves as autonomous and appreciated the flexibility in reaching
locally and/or individually set performance goals.
Concerning performance measuring, Sweden has introduced national tests at grades 2 and 5
(voluntary) and grade 9 (compulsory) in addition to a national system for school inspections.
School performances are published. In addition, free choice of school and an increasing
independent school sector might strengthen the marketization effects of publishing performance.
Although the inspections include classroom observations, teachers did not find the inspections as
threatening to professional practice. This finding is in line with Waks & Blomgren’s (2007) study of
teachers’ response to the national education inspection system in Sweden. Furthermore, Swedish

240
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

teachers evaluated pupils according to more specific schemes of criteria due to the interpreted aims
in each subject. The grades were related to the student–teacher contracts specifying and informing
the student how he/she has to perform to achieve the various grades. Still, there was a continuing
discussion on grading criteria. Teachers’ grading was questioned and monitored by parents, local
school authorities and the central educational agencies. The Swedish teachers welcomed the
national tests:
Most of the teachers appreciate the tests because they provide an opportunity to control how we
perform compared to others. We need some kind of conformity in education and between
schools, a standard everybody has to reach. (S15, teacher, lower secondary school)
Teachers viewed national tests as an important tool in assessing and grading. Thus, teachers saw it
as supporting their professionalism, but not their individual autonomy.

Intra-organisational Relations
In Sweden, the significance of teacher collaboration is highlighted in the national education policies
from 1980 onwards (Ministry of Education and Science, 2003). An agreement between the
municipalities and the teacher unions on school development and change focuses on extending the
teachers’ professional role to being responsible for their own and the school’s development. One of
the schools in our inquiry engaged the teachers to participate in a process of cutbacks:
Last spring we had a huge cutback. The whole spring we discussed economy. That was not fun.
We had to think of, and assess everything that could reduce the costs. And when we had done
this we had to go ahead for another round. This was really a tough process which made us sweat
blood. (S25, teacher, primary school)
In addition to administrative tasks, the team collaboration seemed to concentrate on supporting
the teachers’ social tasks towards students in need of extended care. The Swedish teachers reported
only limited collaboration on subject matters. This is not a surprising finding according to other
studies on teachers’ collaboration. Ahlstrand (1995) concluded that teachers positively collaborated
on care for students, whereas the reported extent of collaboration on subject matters varied
between teachers. Due to our respondents reporting a lack of collaboration on subject matters,
they did not find the teams professionally relevant.
The Swedish teachers presented themselves as more individualized in their work and as a
profession. Swedish teachers referred to themselves as an individual teacher (‘I’, ‘my colleague and
I’). One important indicator of this individualization is that teachers accepted performance pay.
Even a union representative supported the individual pay system:
Yes, one needs individual wages. If not, nothing happens. Maybe I shouldn’t say this as a union
representative, but I think it is the right way to do it. Those who are doing a good job deserve
rewards. (S16, teacher, lower secondary school and union representative at school level)
Although Swedish teachers in general found their wages to be too low, they thought that
individual pay motivated them to do a good job, and asked for even more possibilities for heads to
reward teachers who worked hard. The Swedish teachers further expressed the opinion that they
were aware of how to behave in order to receive higher pay. They found that the criteria were well
recognized and connected to the amount of work pressure, task performance, personal
engagement and enthusiasm. They also knew how to act and present themselves in negotiation
with the union and the head. While some expressed the view that ‘there is virtue in modesty’ and
found that heads did not appreciate teachers who directly expressed their advantages, others
presupposed the importance of informing the head of their quality as teachers. An exception to this
view was held by some of the older teachers, who had experienced the former state-negotiated and
strictly regulated wage system, and hence did not support the individual pay system. The old
system was predictable. Based on education and teacher experience everyone knew the exact
amount of the salary. The present system is market based. Some young male teachers claimed that
their salaries were high because they were men in a female-dominated workplace. Another
indicator of individualism is that although the teachers were encouraged to collaborate on

241
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

teaching, we found that they persisted with the traditional individual classroom teaching and
individually decided which methods to be used. In addition, our informants pointed to students’
individualization in their own learning. As claimed by Carlgren et al (2006), the national curriculum
of 1994 is based on the individual student’s goals leading to increasing responsibility for his/her
own learning, as well as the individualization of teaching. The amount of class teaching is
diminishing and so is the amount of student group work. The teachers are thereby strongly
expected to direct the teaching to assure students’ attainment of the agreement on individual
development. Avoiding student failures seemed to be the most important goal in the schools we
visited.
The teachers’ relation to the schools’ management indicated that teachers were very supportive of
their heads. The general opinion was that heads supported their teaching staff, but were anxious to
try new ideas. Teachers seem to accept that their heads were required to follow directions from the
local government. As Berg (1999) points out, the teachers have realized that heads are oriented
toward administration and are not occupied by the content of the teaching activities. As a
consequence of changes in responsibilities for heads, their leadership has been considerably more
visible and explicitly expressed in the last decade. Accordingly, the teachers found that the head
acted as an important link in a goal-oriented chain of directions:
The municipality gives a lot of directives to our head, that we have to fulfil and attain. For
example, they have norms on how many students will have to pass the exams each year. These
norms are strict, and I feel pressure from the head: ‘The students have to pass! This is an
important goal you have to reach!’ And this is because she got the instructions from her superior
in the municipality. (S42, teacher, lower secondary school)
The Swedish teachers’ incorporation of the management-by-objectives way of thinking also
seemed engraved on internal relations at school. Teams were directed to collaborate on issues the
school leadership found crucial according to the management model, i.e. specifying goals, cost-
cutting, timetables, etc. The way to reach goals was individualized, first and foremost as a result of
the individual teacher’s relationship to the individual student.

External Relations
Swedish teachers reported that parents, to a different degree, showed interest in their children’s life
at school. Moving to secure individual adapted teaching through introducing individual education
development plans, or contracts, between each teacher and their students appears to be a new
trend in Swedish schools. The plans were connected to the 1990s pedagogy of ‘own work’,
meaning that the pupils were responsible for individual work plans (Carlgren et al, 2006). The
individual education development plan gave the individual goals for each pupil to be reached each
year and aimed to engage parents in participating in their children’s learning and school activities.
The Swedish teachers reported that they met with each student and their parents at conferences
(twice a year) for the so-called individual development conversation. Inner-city school teachers said
that it could be difficult to make contact with parents and that language and cultural differences
might complicate the relationship between teachers and parents. However, teachers found it
important to seek solutions to this problem, which was regarded as a mere communication
problem:
Often it is based on a misunderstanding or that there is lack of contact and communication
between us and the parents. The parents complain because they really want to help their child,
which is very good. If we succeed in communicating a solution will soon emerge. It may sound
naive, but my experience is that if we talk it over and start planning, we find a solution which
will even satisfy the parents. (S45, teacher, lower secondary school)
At one of the Swedish schools, the head and teachers together had written a so-called expectation
document including what the school expected from the pupils and their parents and what the
parents and the pupils should expect from the school – for example, that the children must arrive at
school on time, and eat breakfast before coming to school. The teachers were satisfied with the

242
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

document, not least because it lightened the burden of being held individually responsible for the
school’s activities.
Even though it seemed like the Swedish teachers accepted individual wages and the working
conditions, they were critical of some issues related to the local government as the employer.
Recently, the teachers ceased to be paid for substituting, but were expected to substitute whenever
needed if not busy teaching their own classes. In addition, the teachers noted that decentralization
had led to increased differences in the Swedish school system and they requested state intervention
due to increased local variation and inequality in education. Many teachers were concerned about
the increased workload they had experienced since decentralization. A typical expression was
related to the demand to discharge additional tasks:
All the time there is a new device … things to do. They never take away any responsibility. (S15,
teacher, lower secondary school)
After decentralization, teachers were required to handle a lot of information and demands from the
employer, who expected them to engage in developing the employers’ aims and to report on the
degree to which the aims have been fulfilled
Swedish teachers’ attitudes towards national education policies were rather positive. Instead
of being critical towards transparency processes in schools, teachers asked for more state
interference in education to compensate for the consequences of the municipalities’ and school
leaderships’ increased control of education. National testing and inspections were viewed as
important and necessary to establish national standards. The intention is to inspect each school
every three years on the basis of documents, interviews with teachers, heads, students and parents,
and by observing the teaching activities. Even though the teachers accepted inspections and
evaluations by the Skolverket, some teachers were critical about the agency’s ability to get the real
picture on what is going on in the school. The overall impression is that external relations were
quite formalized in Sweden. Because of the individual education plans, the relationship between
teacher, pupil and parents is formalized through a contract. This contract made both individual
teachers and pupils accountable for the pupils’ performance. The teachers’ relation to their
employer, the municipality, seemed ambivalent. The teachers interpreted local government school
governance as having increased differences between municipalities and even between different
parts of the municipalities in the cities. Local work time agreements and individual wages were
appreciated by most teachers. Most teachers were surprisingly in favour of national testing and
inspections and demanded even greater state influence on school governance.

Discussion
The empirical analysis of teacher autonomy outlined in this article indicates national patterns of
teacher professional identity and strategies. There are several challenges in exploring national
patterns of teacher autonomy based on analyses of individual experiences. Knowing that most of
the reforms discussed in this article have been implemented earlier in Sweden than in Norway, it is
possible that the language of the reforms to a larger extent is used by the Swedish teachers than the
Norwegian. When asked about what they do as teachers they adjust their rhetoric, as, for example,
one head who claimed that reaching goals was not difficult, and mainly it was just to sum up what
they had been doing during the previous year. The point has also been identified in a cross-national
study of school leadership accountability (see Møller, 2004, 2006). Nevertheless, we argue that the
two national education systems encourage different conditions for teacher professionalism. Finding
differences between apparently ‘similar’ countries is in line with Arnott & Menter’s (2007, this
issue) comparison between England and Scotland pointing out that the impact of market forces and
competition on schools and local authorities is much more explicit in England than has been the
case in Scotland. To further explore national patterns we will return to our conceptual framework.
In order to conclude on national forms of teacher professionalism and autonomy, we organize the
discussion according to the dimensions of individualism and collectivism. Moreover, the analysis
signifies the need to differentiate between different forms of individualism and collectivism.

243
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

The Dimension of Individualism

The analysis points to several differences between the two countries on the dimension of
individualism. The empirical analysis reflects several findings pointing to a new form of
individualism in Sweden. The introduction of a strong and consistent regime of transparency
producing measurable outcomes to be compared with national educational objectives indirectly
decides the content of teaching. However, teachers are engaged in complementing the objectives
set in the curriculum, individually or in teacher teams. Teachers are supposed to individually
interpret education aims, develop local syllabuses and decide on which methods are to be used to
achieve the stated aims. This justifies teacher autonomy in the classroom. The mix of freedom and
obligations in defining the content of teaching is an effective instrument in promoting individual
accountability. Although teachers have been encouraged for a long time to collaborate on teaching,
the planning and implementing of the curriculum is conducted individually. The collaboration is
not on subject matter. However, what classified this as a new form of individualism, and distinctive
from the traditional individual teacher with classroom autonomy, is mostly connected to related
processes. First, the teaching has been individualized. There is a shift from teaching by interaction
with classes to the individual-based teaching by formulating aims for every single student. Students
are given considerable responsibility for their own teaching and learning. Second, and partly as a
consequence, the relationship between the teacher and student/parents has been formalized by the
introduction of contracts pointing out the obligations and individual rights of teachers, students and
parents. The pedagogic methods emphasizing that the student monitor his/her own learning and
the teacher’s responsibility for each student to reach his/her contract-based individual plan fit
hand-in-glove with the system of management by objectives and results, and, in a reciprocal,
dynamic way, this has even strengthened the focus on educational aims. Further, the individual pay
system in Sweden is strengthening a new form of individualism. Again, we realize that individually
based agreements define teachers’ performance. This leads to demands for a certain kind of
personal-based competence. As we have seen, teachers act individually and strategically to attract
positive characteristics from the heads. This is in accordance with, and even strengthens, the new
form of professionalism based on individual, actual performance. This is supported by Englund
(1993) who holds that schooling is being part of a private and individualistic project rather than a
public project. Because of the performance measuring system, teachers are being held accountable
for education results to a great extent. Further, in accordance with new professionalism, our study
indicates that both teacher responsibility and what he/she can be held accountable for are being
extended.
Taking into consideration that accountability is a key element in new professionalism, the
observations from Norway are at first sight contrary to this characterization. The Norwegian
teachers are to a large extent protected against external criticism and avoided being held
individually accountable, which supports teacher autonomy in the classroom. An effect of the
Norwegian standardized input regulations is that the central government has to be held
accountable, not the teachers. The strong input regulations in Norway represented by the
mandatory and detailed curriculum, including teaching methods, however, limit the individual
autonomy of the teacher. Our findings indicate that the teachers have changed their way of
teaching in line with the curriculum demands and recommendations. The individual student is the
focus of teaching and is given responsibility for their own learning. This is supported by Klette
(2003), who has observed classroom activities after implementation of the 1997 curriculum.
Even though the curriculum dictates the teachers’ work, the general impression is that the
teachers use the document to demonstrate their professionalism and professional identity.
Teachers use the curriculum to substantiate and support their teaching and performance. Thus, it
functions as a demonstration and documentation of professional knowledge in accordance with our
definition of old professionalism. Furthermore, the lack of individual accountability produces
certain conditions for teachers’ external relations. The main external actor that individual teachers
relate to is the parent. The relationship is characterized by the individual teacher informing parents
without entering into a contract defining his/her responsibilities. In the sense of adapting to an
individual identity by, for instance, accepting individual pay, is not at all the case in Norway.

244
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

Although individual pay is increasingly used, teachers have influenced the criteria by turning them
in directions of functions more than individual performances.
The implementation of national tests in 2004 indicates that teachers lost some of their
influence in defining educational policy and quality assessment criteria, especially concerning their
working conditions and professional discretion. Together with the fact that teaching methods are
individualized and individual student rights are strengthened, this points towards new
professionalism. Nevertheless, the relation to students is not so strongly regulated by individual
contracts, as in Sweden. Hence, the Norwegian case includes characteristics from both new and old
professionalism.

The Dimension of Collectivism

In addition to differences of individualism between the Norwegian and Swedish teachers, our
analysis demonstrates differences in teacher collectivism. Our findings indicate that Norwegian
teachers to a large extent were characterised by collectivism. First of all, they are not
individualized, as were Swedish teachers. Norwegian teachers actively defended what was
perceived as threatening collective democratic professional values. The Norwegian teachers
displayed a strong professional identity when they talked about implementing the curriculum. The
Norwegian teachers’ relationship to their heads gave the overall impression of being based on
democratic collectivism, supporting the invisible contract of not interfering with one another’s
work. However, the analysis also gave evidence of change in the relationship toward a more
management-oriented leadership that may influence the teacher–head relationship.
Teachers in Norway opposed the emerging transparency policies, which they interpreted as a
breach of trust and as degrading their professional status. An example is that the teachers supported
a student boycott of national tests. The teachers’ informal support appears as a collective strategy
to indirectly resist the implementation of transparency. Furthermore, the Norwegian teachers were
strongly against a policy that individualized the teachers’ responsibilities through, for example, the
introduction of performance pay. Altogether, Norwegian teachers still seem to manage to supply
conditions for a national education policy in line with old professionalism.
Although we have characterised the Swedish teacher as individualised, the interview material
gave examples of collectivism as well. Swedish teachers realized the value of using one another’s
experiences and support when taking care of students who for some reason need extended help for
their social functioning and learning problems. However, Swedish teachers tended to emphasize
their personal competencies as vital to achieving national curriculum goals. Opposing the national
tests was not questioned by the Swedish teachers, who experienced the test results as a positive
way of getting feedback from their individual teaching. Neither was there collective opposition to
individual pay. Even a union representative at one of the schools was in favour of individual pay to
improve school quality.
Pointing to the fact that professions per se are supposed to include a collective dimension, our
study signals that even the collective teacher dimension is turning towards a new form of
collectivism. Further, the collective strategies are changed because of extended tasks and
responsibilities. As Lundahl (2006) states, today teachers ‘are supposed to be responsible,
autonomous professionals, not only teaching and promoting the development of young people but
also actively participating in the development of the school and education as such’ (p. 63). This
challenges the Swedish teachers’ collective strategies because they can rely to a lesser degree on a
common knowledge basis and identity. The new and extended tasks demand new skills and a
changed focus of attention. This was reflected in the collaboration arenas where teachers
collaborated on administration and technical tasks, rather than subject matters. For the Swedish
teacher informants, the collegial community seemed to be the work team level, not teachers at the
school or national level. While Swedish teachers avoided the Norwegian teachers’ practice of using
the work team as an arena for teaching collaboration on subject matters at schools, they rarely
shared a common voice about teacher professional issues. However, we observed some new
collective strategies in Sweden that can be seen as a collective strategy to protect the teachers from

245
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

being individually responsible. A so-called expectation document was formulated on behalf of the
school by the teachers and used to clarify to parents and students the boundaries about what the
community could expect from the school. As a consequence, this serves as the re-introduction of a
collective level limiting individual accountability. While this strategy might empower the teachers
on a day-to-day basis, this new form of collectivism does not necessarily empower professional
teachers in creating conditions for policy making at the national level. Instead, the new forms of
legitimating activities, such as the expectation documents, are examples that must be seen as a
consequence of the lack of professional influence at other decision-making levels in the education
political system. As a consequence of individual contracts regulating a single teacher’s relations to
the parent/student, we register the emergence of formal contracts at the collective level, which
have been promoted to protect the teacher group against individual accountability.
Altogether, our discussion leads to the conclusion that the Swedish teachers’ identities have
been penetrated by the demands of individualism. The Swedish teachers in general seem to have
adjusted to the rhetoric of transparency and individual performance. Correspondingly, as a strategy
towards the demands for individual accountability, Swedish teachers adopt to a new form of
collectivism. The Norwegian teachers are characterized by both old and new forms of
individualism. They accept input regulations such as the detailed and mandatory curriculum, but
they resist accountability and transparency reforms, and have vetoed attempts to introduce
inspections and performance measuring reforms. The strong resistance seems to have strengthened
the traditional form of collectivism by revitalizing the core professional values such as stressing the
significance of professional knowledge, ethics and identity. Teachers in Norway oppose the
emerging transparency policies which they interpret as a breach of trust and as degrading their
professional status.
Relating these findings to the question of whether we can identify national patterns of teacher
professionalism, we find several indicators of new professionalism in Sweden. Although challenged
by external demands for teacher accountability, the Norwegian pattern is still characterized by old
professionalism.

Conclusion
In elaborating the relationship between accountability and transparency reforms and teacher
autonomy, there is need to introduce an analytical concept capable of linking subjective
experiences of professional practice both to characteristics of the professions and reforms. Bringing
in the concept of new professionalism has provided an analytical tool with which to understand
different forms and practices of teacher autonomy. On the one hand, the concept of new
professionalism implies increased individual classroom autonomy. On the other hand, because of
increased individual responsibilities, individual teachers are more dependent on locally based,
external relations limiting individual autonomy. To protect individual autonomy, the teachers used
individual, personal strategies and collective strategies at the workplace. The consequences for the
professions on a societal level are given less attention in the approach of new professionalism. Due
to our understanding of teacher autonomy embracing both individual and collective levels, we ask
if the adaptation to new professionalism in Sweden affects relations between profession and
politics. There is not necessarily a correspondence between individual and collective autonomy.
While the Swedish teachers experience a high degree of individual autonomy, their influence on
national policy processes seems weakened. This leads to the assumption that professional
autonomy as a result of transparency and accountability reforms, even if the teachers report
individual professional autonomy, reduces the authority of the profession at the national policy-
making level.
Our analysis indicates that Norwegian teachers are characterized by old professionalism. The
strong input regulations in Norway limit individual teacher autonomy. Even with weakened
individual autonomy, teachers still manage to supply conditions for national education policy
making. This means that teachers still are autonomous at the collective level. Moreover, our
findings indicate that national standards and control in education are accepted as tools for securing

246
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

professional knowledge and status. Thus, it supports Cribb & Gewirtz’s (2007, this issue) argument
that autonomy is not necessarily good and control is bad. Moreover, control is sometimes a
presupposition for teacher autonomy.
In answering the question of how education reforms and teacher autonomy are connected,
the most obvious finding is that reforms redefine limits for the teacher autonomy. This in turn
points to the individual, the workplace, and the local level or the central decision-making level.
However, how teachers respond to the reforms and how the reforms affect teacher autonomy
within the present limitations all depend on characteristics of the teacher profession and their
professionalism. Analysing different arenas and levels of teacher autonomy provides the foundation
for linking teacher strategies and subjective experiences to professional status and authority, which
is essential to further analyses of teacher autonomy.

Notes
[1] An overview of recent reforms in Norway and Sweden is given in Appendix 1.
[2] http://www.utdanning.ws
[3] See http://www.utdanning.ws
[4] See footnote above.

References
Abbot, A. (1988) The System of Professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ahlstrand, E. (1995) Lärares samarbete – en verksamhet på två arenor : studier av fyra arbetslag på
grundskolans högstadium. Linköping Studies in Education and Psychology, 43.
Arnesen, A-L & Lundahl, L. (2006) Still Social and Democratic? Inclusive Education Policies in the Nordic
Welfare States, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50(3), 285-300.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743316
Arnott, M. & Menter, I. (2007) The Same but Different? Post-devolution Regulation and Control in
Education in Scotland and England, European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 250-265.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.250
Berg, G. (1999) Skolekultur. Nøkkelen til skolens utvikling. Oslo: adNotam Gyldendal
Blomgren, M. (2007) The Drive for Transparency: organizational field transformations in Swedish healthcare,
Public Administration, 85(1), 67-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00634.x
Brennan, J., Locke, W. & Naidoo, R. (2006) The Changing Academic Profession in the United Kingdom.
Paper presented at the Unesco meeting, Kassel, September.
Carlgren, I., Klette, K., Myrdal, S., Schnack, K. & Simola, H. (2006) Changes in Nordic Teaching Practices:
from individualised teaching to the teaching of individuals, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
50(3), 301-326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830600743357
Englund T. (1993) Utbildning som ‘public good’ eller ‘private good’? Uppsala: Pedagogisk Institutionen, Uppsala
Universitet.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2002) Why We Need a New Welfare State. New York: Oxford University Press.
Falch, T, Rønning, M. & Strøm, B. (2005) Forhold som påvirker kommunenes utgiftsbehov i skolesektoren,
SØF-rapport nr 04/05. Trondheim: Senter for økonomisk forskning AS.
Finkelstein, N.D. (2000) Transparency in Education Policy, in N.D. Finkelstein (Ed.) Transparency in Public
Policy: Great Britain and the United States. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Fournier, V. (2000) Boundary Work and the (Un)Making of the Professions, in N. Malin (Ed.) Professions,
Boundaries and the Workplace, 67-87. London: Routledge.
Helgøy, I & Homme, A. (2006) Policy Tools and Institutional Change: comparing education policies in
Norway, Sweden and England, Journal of Public Policy, 26(2), 141-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X0600050X

247
Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme

Hudson, C. (2007) Governing the Governance of Education: the state strikes back?, European Educational
Research Journal, 6(3), 266-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.266
Imsen, G. (2004) Skolens ledelse, skolens kultur og praksis I klasserommet: er det noen sammenheng?, in I.G.
Imsen (Ed.) Det ustyrlige klasserommet. Om styring, samarbeid og læringsmiljø i grunnskolen. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Klette, K. (2003) (Ed.) Klasserommets praksisformer etter reform 97. Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt,
Universitetet i Oslo, Unipub.
Lindblad, S., Lundahl, L., Lindgren, J. & Zackari, G. (2002) Educating for the New Sweden?, Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 283-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383022000005689
Lundahl, L. (2006) Education Politics and Teachers: Sweden and some comparisons with Great Britain,
Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies, 38, 63-78 (Hitotsubashi: Hitotsubashi University).
Lundqvist, L. (1987) Implementation Steering: an actor-structure approach. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Ministry of Education and Science (2003) Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers: background
report prepared for the OECD Thematic Review of Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers.
Stockholm: Ministry of Education and Science.
Møller, J. (2004) Lederidentiteter i skolen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Møller, J. (2006) Old Metaphors, New Meanings: being a woman principal, in C. Sugrue (Ed.) Passionate
Principalship: learning from the life histories of school leaders. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Musselin, C. (2006) What We Already Know about the Academic Profession, What We Still Do Not Know,
and What We Would Like to Know, paper written for the second meeting on The Future of Public
Universities, organized by the SSRC, New York, May.
Nordahl, T. (2003) Makt og avmakt i samarbeidet mellom hjem og skole. Oslo: NOVA Rapport 13/03.
Nordahl, T. (2004) Makt og avmakt i samarbeidet mellom hjem og skole, in G. Imsen (Ed.) Det utstyrlige
klasserommet. Om styring, samarbeid og læringsmiljø i grunnskolen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget
Ranson, S. (2003) Public Accountability in the Age of Neo-liberal Governance, Journal of Education Policy,
18(5), 459-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0268093032000124848
Rönnberg R. (2007) A Recent Swedish Attempt to Weaken State Control and Strengthen School Autonomy:
the experiment with local time schedules, European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 214-231.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.214
Skolverket (2004) Stora skillnader i kommunernas satsning på utbildning, Pressmeddelande 2004-09-16.
http://www.skolverket.se
Solstad, A.G (2004) Lærere under press, in K.J. Solstad & T.O. Engen (Eds) En likeverdig skole for alle. Om enhet
og mangfold i grunnskolen. Universitetsforlaget.
Statistics Norway, KOSTRA, Kommune-stat-rapportering. http://www.ssb.no/kostra
Svensson, L.G. (2006) New Professionalism, Trust and Competence: some conceptual remarks and empirical
data, Current Sociology, 54(4), 579-593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011392106065089
Wahlström, N. (2002) Om det förändrade ansvaret för skolan. Vägen till mål- och resultatstyrning och några av dess
konsekvenser (Örebro Studies in Education 3). Örebro: Örebro Universitet.
Waks, C. & Blomgren, M. (2007) Changing Institutional Conditions for Swedish Schools: the role of the
teaching profession. Paper presented at Eleventh International Research Conference ‘Dilemmas for
Human Services’: Dilemmas of Identity, New Public Management and Governance. Luleå: August 31-
September 1.
Wilensky, H.L. (2002) Rich Democracies. Political Economy, Public Policy and Performance. Berkeley: University of
California Press.

INGRID HELGØY and ANNE HOMME work on the project Governance and Professional Autonomy
in Primary and Lower secondary education. Comparing Norway, Sweden and England. Their research
concentrates on comparing education reforms, explaining similarities and differences in the
reforms, the relation between policy and practice and the changed conditions for professional
autonomy in education. Correspondence: Ingrid Helgøy & Anne Homme, Stein Rokkan Centre for

248
Towards a New Professionalism in School?

Social Studies, Nygaardsgaten 5, N-5015 Bergen, Norway (ingrid.helgoy@rokkan.uib.no;

anne.homme@rokkan.uib.no).

APPENDIX

Selected education reforms 1986 -> Norway Sweden

From earmarked to block grant funding 1986 1990/91
Decentralisation to local government – 1992 1989/90
school organisational issues
Decentralisation of negotiation 2004 1990/91
responsibilities from state to
municipalities
National curriculum 1997 1994
content and method oriented goal oriented
(2006 goal oriented)

National inspections introduced - 1998

Systematically from 2003
National tests introduced (obligatory) 2004 1997
Independent school act 2003 1992
(funded by the state and (funded by the municipalities)
school fee) (restricted in 2005)
Open enrolment Preliminary introduced in 1992
some municipalities since
2003

Table A1. Selected education reforms in Norway and Sweden.

249