Leadership and Policy in Schools

ISSN: 1570-0763 (Print) 1744-5043 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nlps20

Democratic Schooling in Norway: Implications for

Leadership in Practice

Jorunn M⊘ller

To cite this article: Jorunn M⊘ller (2006) Democratic Schooling in Norway: Implications
for Leadership in Practice, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5:1, 53-69, DOI:
10.1080/15700760500498779

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500498779

Published online: 18 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 317

Citing articles: 19 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nlps20
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5:53–69, 2006
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1570-0763 print/1744-5043 online
DOI: 10.1080/15700760500498779

Democratic Schooling in Norway: Implications

1744-5043 and Policy in Schools
1570-0763
NLPS
Leadership Schools, Vol. 05, No. 01, January 2005: pp. 0–0

for Leadership in Practice

JORUNN MØLLER
Democratic
Jorunn Møller
Schooling in Norway

University of Oslo, Norway

This article explores the meaning of an education based on demo-

cratic values and the implications for school leadership in prac-
tice. Based on findings from a case study in a Norwegian upper
secondary school, the study describes democratic school leadership
in practice, with particular attention to the distribution of power
and leadership in the school, student voice in the decision-making
process, their opportunities for open dialogues, and the conditions
that must be in place for students to develop as citizens.

INTRODUCTION

Norway has a strong ideological tradition of viewing schools as an expres-

sion of democratic political ideals and as a mechanism for preparing chil-
dren to play constructive roles in a democratic society. This tradition has
played a prominent role in both educational rhetoric as well as practice; the
primary aims of Norwegian education policy have been guided by the ide-
als of equality, community, and social justice. Educational policy has been
shaped to create both equal and equitable life conditions for all social
groups, regardless of economic background, gender, ethnicity, and geo-
graphical location. The Education Act stipulates that all activity should be
carried out in accordance with fundamental democratic values, and that
each and every one working in the school should encourage respect for the
intrinsic values of each person as well as for the environment we all share.
There is no streaming in compulsory schools, and more than 95% of the
cohort is placed in ordinary classes in public schools.

Address correspondence to Jorunn Møller, University of Oslo, Department of Teacher

Education and School Development, P. O. Box 1099, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway, Tel.:
(+47) 22 85 76 18, Fax: (+47) 22 85 48 71. E-mail: jorunn.moller@ils.uio.no

53
54 Jorunn Møller

However, the meaning of democracy in the wider society is ambigu-

ous, and recently Norwegian educational policy has been moving towards
what Giddens (1998) has called the “Third Way,” i.e. a combination of
neoliberal market reforms and neoconservative government regulations
(Moos & Møller, 2003). The municipal organization and governance of
schools has become framed within the discourse of New Public Manage-
ment (NPM) with a focus on accountability, effectiveness, and competition.
This move is different from the vision of collaboration and “lived demo-
cracy” inspired by John Dewey, who is referenced in the national curricu-
lum. Individual voucher systems designed to enable people to buy their
own schooling have been implemented in many municipalities. Advocates
of this practice argue that it enables individuals to choose for themselves
instead of accepting whatever the school bureaucracy offers (Møller, 2002).
It has also become more legitimate to talk about ranking and standards
based on test scores in education. “Consumer’s choice” is framed as a guar-
antor of democracy. In this way, democracy as a political concept is being
transformed into an economic strategy (Apple, 2000). The argument is that
vouchers and choice will give everyone, regardless of social class, gender,
and ethnicity, the right to choose the schools that will best serve their inter-
ests. Powerful interests and ideological concerns are working to promote
this market solution for educational provision and leadership.
My point of departure here is that one of the primary responsibilities of
education is to create democratic citizens rather than consumers (see, e.g.
Grace, 1995). This implies a conviction that a more democratic and egalitar-
ian organization of society is both possible and desirable, and that educa-
tion can have an important role to play in attaining this kind of society. In
this article I aim to explore the meaning of an education based on demo-
cratic values and to present an example of democratic leadership in prac-
tice. Akin to what Blase, Blase, Anderson & Dungan (1995) underscore in
their presentation of democratic principals in action, democratic leadership
can be framed differently, depending on the people involved and the con-
text. Here I pay particular attention to the distribution of power and leader-
ship in a medium-sized Norwegian upper secondary school, examine
students’ voice in decision-making processes and their opportunities for
open dialogues, and discuss the conditions that must be in place for stu-
dents to develop as citizens.

EDUCATION BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VALUES

Scholars have theorized extensively about issues of democracy. Dewey’s

writings about “lived democracy” and his vision of a “great community,”
Habermas’s (1987) theory of communicative rationality and Arendt’s (1958)
vision of a provisional community where the public space is identified with
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 55

plurality have all figured prominently in these views. In education, critical

theorists like Apple (2000) and Bates (1990) have analyzed the relationship
between society and education within the conception of a critical demo-
cracy, focusing on who is included within a community, and who is left out.
They underscore that a community is always constituted within specific his-
torical conditions and against a background of political interests.
For Dewey (1937), educational institutions have an important role to
play in helping the development of the individual’s character. His view of
democracy rests on a certain faith in the capacity of human nature. The
development of truly democratic communities is restricted by our inability
to critically examine currently held assumptions, and these habits are
learned in schools. Therefore, it is only through considerable political learn-
ing that students can recognize their potential and become citizens who are
capable of deliberating about what they are doing, set goals and priorities
for themselves, and work for the common good. The best way to teach and
learn democracy, Dewey says, is to practice it.
According to Beane and Apple (1999), the central concerns of demo-
cratic schools include the open flow of ideas that enables people to be as
fully informed as possible; a faith in the individual and collective capacity of
people for resolving problems; use of critical reflection to evaluate ideas,
problems, and policies; concern for the welfare of others and “the common
good”; and concern for the dignity and rights of individuals and minorities.
In a similar way, Maxcy (1995) has identified democratic values as a dedi-
cated belief in the worth of the individual and the importance of the indi-
vidual in participation and discussion regarding school life; a belief in
freedom, intelligence, and inquiry; and a persuasion that plans and solu-
tions should be the results of individuals pooling their intelligent efforts
within communities.
Furman and Starratt (2002) underscore that establishing a forum for
democratic participation is not sufficient. In addition, democracy “requires
the ability to listen, understand, empathize, negotiate, speak, debate and
resolve conflicts in a spirit of interdependence and working for the common
good” (p. 118). In other words, “education for democracy” implies engaging
the students in reasoned deliberations. They argue for a new understanding
of the idea of democratic community. This understanding should be based
on the acceptance and celebration of difference rather than the nostalgic
striving for homogeneity, and include key concepts like interdependence
and the common good. Moreover, they make a claim about a strong moral
sense as a basic component of a democratic community that values sociality
itself, a reverence for open inquiry and critique, a respect for individuals,
and the interdependence of all. They emphasize the need for a school cur-
riculum that is compatible with these moral dimensions.
In sum, the following themes are common to most definitions of “edu-
cation for democracy:” 1) recognizing the basic value and rights of each
56 Jorunn Møller

individual; 2) taking the standpoint of others into consideration; 3) delibera-

tion in making decisions; 4) embracing plurality and difference; and 5) pro-
moting equity and social justice.

CONCEPTUALIZING SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

Although educational leadership is situated in the field of education, much

of the leadership discourse in education has been influenced by manage-
ment discourses in other fields. Critical theorists like Anderson (1996),
Bates (1990), Blackmore (2001), Foster (1986; 1989), and others have
argued that the dominant traditions of theory and practice in educational
administration often serve to justify uncritical patterns of organizations
and control in schools that both mirror and reinforce the dominant pat-
terns of inequality in the wider society. For instance, Foster (1989) has
claimed that

the concept of leadership has been chewed up and swallowed down by

the needs of modern managerial theory. The idea of leadership as a
transforming practice, as an empowerment of followers, and as a vehicle
for social change has been taken, adapted and co-opted by managerial
writers so that now leadership appears as a way of improving organiza-
tions, not of transforming our world.” (p. 45)

The doctrine of “exceptionalism” continues as the dominant concep-

tion of leadership amongst policymakers and many researchers alike
(Gronn, 2003). Norwegian policy documents indicate that strong and vis-
ible leadership is needed in order to transform schools into learning orga-
nizations. The assumption is that leadership is the monopoly of
individual role holders or a few actors that are strategically positioned in
organizations.
I argue that leadership is a relational concept, and that leadership
practice takes place in the interactions of people and their situations. The
context determines these actions, but at the same time context may also
be influenced by actions. This implies that school leadership is not neces-
sarily synonymous with a particular position; it may come from school
principals, teachers, or others; in other words, it is distributed within the
organization. As Foster (1989) has framed it, “leadership can spring from
anywhere; it derives from the context and ideas of individuals who influ-
ence each other . . . Leadership is an act that enables others and allows
them, in turn, to become enablers” (p. 187). A collective made up of delib-
erative teachers, the school principal and deputies, and students is more
significant than a single, visionary, creative leader who directs the school
(Maxcy, 1991).
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 57

DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN NORWAY

The Nordic countries have exemplified a strong commitment to comprehen-

sive education and social justice, inspired by social democratic politics for
ensuring equality. The main justifications for democratic leadership in
schools are grounded in the ideological purposes of education with a focus
on promoting democracy as a fundamental social value and an ethical guide
to citizenship. The ideological social mandate for education in Norway
implies that one of the main responsibilities of the school principal, the
teachers and all who work in schools is to focus on promoting equity and
social justice in school as well as in the wider community. It necessitates a
concern for the welfare of others and the dignity and rights for minorities
and individuals, and forefronts critique of the organization. Key points of
reference for my discussion of democratic leadership are Dewey’s (1937)
writing about a “lived democracy” and Beane and Apple’s (1999) analysis of
the conditions upon which a democratic school depends.
In addition, our historical development as a nation has established a
way of understanding democracy in the workplace. It has been and contin-
ues to be important for everyone to have a sense of control over their work-
ing conditions, and to some degree there has been a similarity of lifestyle
between managers and workers. Resilient unions are important elements in
our way of framing legitimate leadership and management. The unions
have contributed to robust elements of negotiations in the workplace and a
form of institutionalized trust relations. A strong welfare state has simulta-
neously played a powerful role in shaping job security. Such conditions
have set up barriers against implementing “Taylorism” within a Norwegian
context (Sejersted, 1997).
Moreover, a focus on developing a democratic community entails
acknowledging that schools are sites of cultural and political struggles, and
it is important to support interactions and negotiations that are characterized
and distinguished by mutual trust and respect. Democratic thoughts and
attitudes must characterize the relationships between those who work in
schools and the local community. The idea of democracy must extend to
the many roles adults play in the schools, and it requires the creation of
specific structures that support educational leadership as a critical practice.
But transforming organizational and cultural structures requires a great deal
of time and effort over the long term.

LEADERSHIP BASED ON DEMOCRATIC VALUES:

OSPELIA UPPER SECONDARY SCHOOL

The example of democratic leadership that follows is based on findings

from one of the Norwegian schools that participated in the eight-country
58 Jorunn Møller

International Successful School Principal Project (ISSPP) which aims to

identify what counts as successful school leadership practices in schools
of varying size, from different geographical locations and socioeco-
nomic conditions. 1

Methodological Approach
Multisite case study methods were chosen as the methodological approach
for the project (Yin, 2003; Day et al., 2000), and each team developed case
studies in their own countries. The selection of twelve Norwegian schools
was based on two criteria. First, we included schools designated as “good
practice schools” or “beacon schools” by the Norwegian Ministry of Educa-
tion to ensure the international requirement that schools in the study should
have a good reputation. Schools selected as “beacon schools” in Norway
had to display continuous school improvement based on a number of pos-
sible criteria, including the creative use of learning and teaching strategies, a
safe and inclusive learning environment, a democratic approach to decision
making, and collaboration with internal as well as external stakeholders.2
The second strategy was to obtain a desired variation among the twelve
schools in the study based on different factors like school size, school struc-
ture, rural/urban, regional representation, and female/male principals.3
The Norwegian research team used a common interview protocol and
procedure (with some adaptations) that was developed for use in all eight
countries. This procedure involved interviewing a stratified random sam-
pling of teachers as well as students, parents, and school district officials to
capture their view of the school and the school’s leadership. Funding from
the National Research Council also allowed the Norwegian team to do field-
work at each school for two weeks. Field notes from observations of class-
room instruction, the principal’s activities, meetings in leadership teams,
and staff meetings were also included as part of our analysis. In particular,
observations led us to think about the extent to which seeing “practice” as a
narrative form can open up useful analytical approaches to explore the
complexities of leadership practice in schools.
We chose a combination of a distributed and micropolitical perspec-
tives on leadership as an overall theoretical framework because it offers a
grounded framework for studying day-to-day leadership practice, implies a
relational view on leadership, and focuses on the ongoing interaction

1
The project included teams of researchers from the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,
Canada, the United States, Australia, and Hong Kong.
2
These schools are part of the Ministry of Education’s system to reward schools that are systemati-
cally working to improve students’ educational outcomes and the learning environment. They receive
a grant to continue and develop their good work.
3
For a more detailed discussion of the theoretical and methodological approach, see Møller et al. (2005).
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 59

between people in the organization (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond,

2004; Gronn, 2002; Anderson, 1996; Bates, 1990; Foster, 1986). Both per-
spectives offer a foundation grounded in activity rather than in position or
formal role. Although we cannot present general claims about leadership
variation based on the data collected in our study, our analysis has illumi-
nated certain aspects of successful school leadership within a Norwegian
context.
One of the main findings across the Norwegian schools was that lead-
ership was almost entirely characterized by collaboration and team efforts,
but the way leadership was distributed within the organization had different
manifestations. The many faces of distributed leadership can best be inter-
preted in light of their historical, cultural, and social context (Møller &
Eggen, 2005). In addition, based on our data we could map out ongoing
discussions within the schools about what a worthwhile education based on
democratic principles should look like. In this article I will discuss Ospelia
Upper Secondary School as an example of leadership practice based on
democratic values.

THE SCHOOL

Ospelia Upper Secondary School is located in a semirural area an hour’s

drive from Oslo. It was appointed a beacon school for the period of 2002–
2004 based on its excellent work in improving the students’ learning envi-
ronment and in ensuring that students acquired real power in the school.
The school has 550 students (age 16–19) and approximately 100 staff mem-
bers, of which 75 are teachers. Within the Norwegian context it is consid-
ered a medium-sized upper secondary school.
From its very beginning in the early 1970s Ospelia was known as an
innovative school. It represented the first effort at changing the established
structure of upper secondary education in Norway to a comprehensive
school model that combined vocational and academic education. Ospelia
stressed the importance of providing equal access to upper secondary edu-
cation regardless of domicile, gender, social or cultural background, and
ability. Twenty years later this structure has become the norm of upper sec-
ondary education in Norway.
As an innovative school in the early 1970s, Ospelia became famous
throughout the country as well as abroad. Many visitors came to observe
and learn, and the school exerted a particular attraction for progressive
teachers. Many of these teachers are still working at the school and living in
the local community. For more than thirty years the school has demon-
strated a capacity to stimulate ongoing improvement on a broad scale. It
actually served as a “lighthouse” or “beacon” school long before the minis-
try established the new system of rewarding innovative schools. The school
60 Jorunn Møller

can therefore be labeled as an example of the “sustainability” of educational

change over time (Hargreaves & Fink, 2003).

THE PRINCIPAL

Ola, the principal of Ospelia, is in his late 50s, and he lives in the local com-
munity. He started working at the school as a teacher in the early 1970s and
became a deputy head in the early 1980s. Some years later he was
appointed Assistant Chief Executive in the municipality, but after less than
two years as a manager he was determined to go back to the school. “I
missed the students,” he said. The school was where his heart belonged. He
decided to apply for the principalship in 1994 after persistent and frequent
encouragement by his former colleagues. Hence, from the very beginning
of his tenure as a school leader he was trusted by the teachers at this
school.
Today the teachers, other staff members, and students all talk about
Ola with respect. The leadership structure has been debated and voted on
in staff meetings, and all express that they are satisfied with the school gov-
ernance given the conditions provided by the county government. Dis-
agreements amongst the faculty are more related to the central educational
policy. Both the school principal and the four deputy heads do some teach-
ing during the week, and all argue that this is important in order to gain
legitimacy within the school. Ola has received some criticism from his supe-
rior for this, but he holds firm on this decision because he believes that
teaching is the best way to acquire knowledge about, and understanding of,
the school. My interviews with the students confirmed that the school prin-
cipal has a reputation for being a good teacher.
Ola underscores again and again in the course of our interviews that
leading a school should be understood as a team effort. Leadership cannot
rest on the shoulders of a few, and he has faith in the collective capacity of
people to create possibilities for resolving problems. His leadership might
be understood as a “power-with” model in which leading and following are
part of a fluid, interactive and reciprocal process (Blase et al., 1995).

ELEMENTS OF DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IN PRACTICE

At Ospelia, democratic leadership in practice is expressed by creating

opportunities for critical reflection about student learning as well as adult
learning, balancing issues of power and trust, embracing plurality and dif-
ferences, engaging students and colleagues in reasoned deliberations, and
stimulating a learning environment where students can flourish and develop
as persons and citizens. Developing a democratic community implies
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 61

acknowledging that schools are sites of cultural and political struggles, and
it is important to support interactions and negotiations that are characterized
and distinguished by mutual trust and respect. The following account,
based on interviews and observations at the school, illustrate how specific
democratic values—such as establishing open communication between staff
and students; creating opportunities for student decision making and delib-
eration; holding a personal commitment to making a difference in students’
lives; and establishing an ethic of care for individuals as well as a concern
for the common good—are enacted through the leadership at the school.

Opportunities for Open Dialogues Among Staff

The principal is in charge as the school’s manager, but he works closely
with his four deputies. They meet formally three times a week, but they col-
laborate on daily basis; they walk in and out of each other’s offices during
the day, discussing concrete matters or sharing ideas about the school’s
long-term development. Ola always leaves his office door open unless there
are formal meetings going on. He feels it helps to sustain the informal atmo-
sphere and guarantees an open flow of information and ideas. He related
that he has learned a lot about leadership by working with others. Theoret-
ical education in leadership may be valuable, but the most important educa-
tion takes place at the job, according to Ola.
There are clear examples of informal coprincipalship at the school that
has been discussed elsewhere as a form of distributed leadership practice
(Gronn & Hamilton, 2004). The formal leadership team at Ospelia has intui-
tive working relationships, because they are well aware of themselves as
coleaders and they trust each other. This intuitive understanding has devel-
oped as part of close working relationships within the team. Observations
during the fieldwork confirmed how they synchronize their actions by hav-
ing a regard for their own plans and those of their peers. Mutual trust seems
crucial in their relationship. Similarly, our observations confirmed both
spontaneous collaboration and intuitive and trustful working relations
among teachers. At Ospelia they seem to have developed what Etienne
Wenger (1998) would call “a community of practice,” and I observed how
Ola worked closely with his four deputies as a leadership team and with the
teachers.

Giving Students a Voice in Decision Making

The Student Council at Ospelia plays a key role in the decision-making pro-
cesses in the school. This was one of the ministry’s reasons for selecting
Ospelia as a “beacon school.” During the fieldwork I interviewed some of
the students and had a chance to see for myself that including students in
the decision-making processes at this school was not “window dressing” for
62 Jorunn Møller

an outside world. The students told me that they play an active role in pro-
filing the school for the outside world. They had worked particularly hard
to develop a sophisticated and informative website. I observed active and
conscious students who both wanted and succeeded in having a decisive
influence in decision-making processes. However, there was a time when
the conditions were different, and the chair of the Student Council recalled
how they had decided to initiate an “uprising” in order to transform the
decision-making structures at the school. In his words:

There were five very competent students who decided to make a

change. One of them argued before he was elected that he knew how
to transform this school into a more democratic place where students
could have a real say in decision making. He managed to mobilize other
students to action and collaboration. Immediately after the election, the
work on developing the statutory for Student Council started, and little
by little the students gained respect, trust and legitimacy. Nowadays our
dialogue with the principal and the leadership team is a lot better. It
does not mean that the dialogue was bad before, because initiative from
the Student Council has always been welcomed, but I have a feeling we
have become more attuned. I pop into the principal’s office almost
every day for a chat, and we collaborate very well. We also work very
hard to involve the rest of the students at the school in democratic deci-
sion-making processes, and I think we have made progress. We have
improved both our ways of informing the students about what is going
on and involving them in important cases.

In earlier times the Student Council had only been engaged in deciding
what kind of food should be offered in the cafeteria or if the school should
allow soft drink machines and things like that. They created a vision of how
they might be involved in more vital matters, and it was hard work to make
the leadership team and the teachers understand that they were serious. In
the beginning they had to use all the formal channels for decision making,
but after a while it became easier to make informal decisions. The school
principal trusted them, so they just needed to keep him informed. The stu-
dents underlined how important the attitude of the school principal has
been in this process. He was the gate opener, and they collaborated very
well with him.
My interviews with other students only partly confirmed this sense of a
vivid student democracy. They underscored that student democracy was
less vibrant than the Student Council wanted it to be. However, as one of
them expressed:

Well, it depends a lot on the representative we elect for the Student

Council. Some are a lot more active compared to others. We must our-
selves take responsibility for developing a democracy.
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 63

Establishing Arenas for Collaboration and Negotiations

Representative democracy might be enacted through the Student Council at
a school, but a more important element of democratic schooling is associ-
ated with the inner life in classrooms. It is ironic that schools, which have
an explicit purpose of preparing students for democracy, often operate in
ways that demonstrate a lack of belief in such collective participation, par-
ticularly when it comes to the control of classroom activities. Though the
main business of the school is shaping students’ lives, the substance of this
influence can be disputed. How much control should students have in
scheduling their own time in school? How much control should they have
in designing the curriculum and the activities? A distinction may also be
made between who sets and who monitors standards (Berlak & Berlak,
1981).
The students at Ospelia maintained that their participation in deciding
classroom activities varies from teacher to teacher, but most teachers
involve them in planning and also in establishing criteria for evaluating their
schoolwork. During the fieldwork we observed how the approach to
engaging the students differed from teacher to teacher; some were success-
ful, others were less successful, but they were all committed to the task. In
addition they were willing to critique and analyze their approaches with
colleagues they trusted.
Extending democracy into classrooms involves a risk that teachers may
lose control (Maxcy, 1995; Cohen & Barnes, 1993b). Instruction is much less
predictable when students discuss and debate their interpretations of a text,
or are invited into the planning process. When teachers construct classroom
work that depends on extensive student participation, they are more vulner-
able to students’ opinions than when they teach in a more closed and tradi-
tional manner. Nevertheless, as an observer I became convinced that this
was a school with faith in the individual and collective capacity to create
possibilities for resolving problems.

Equity and Social Justice as Personal Commitment

In our data there were many accounts that speak to the teachers’ strong
emotional commitment to their profession. For instance, the leadership
team underscored again and again that the main aim was to provide good
learning opportunities so that students could become good citizens in the
future, and they were very concerned about the students’ well-being. Grow-
ing up in a society that focuses more and more on individualism raises new
challenges. Many students have significant problems at home, and for them
the school has a potential to make a difference. According to the principal,
a successful school is a school that succeeds in taking care of all children,
regardless of socioeconomic or cultural background and abilities:
64 Jorunn Møller

To me, a successful school is able to motivate students, and to provide a

safe and sound learning environment. It is important to create this foun-
dation for learning. The school should not be evaluated based on marks
or test scores only, because it will create a misleading picture. The most
important aim is to develop active citizens, to develop a collaborative
attitude, tolerance and creativity, and that is not easily measured by tests
in basic subjects.

Fulfilling such a mission was a continuous team effort, and both the
leaders and the teachers believed they could make a difference in their
students’ lives. But they have to deal with a society that has become
more dominated by market accountability. The talk about the “democ-
racy of consumers” has also entered the national discourse of education
and the discourse of democratic leadership in Norway. For instance, the
principal narrated how he has tried to be proactive by inviting in the
press to educate them about the effects of publicly ranking schools
based on exam marks. He noted that the local newspaper was not too
interested in being taught, but he did not stop trying. In his narrations,
as well as in stories told by teachers and other staff members, we recog-
nized a passionate commitment as they struggled to find space for
agency. They wanted to “make a difference” despite relentless demands.
The principal’s leadership is oppositional to what currently dominates
Norwegian educational policy. According to him, fulfilling a vision of
democracy through an ethic of caring and promoting equity and social
justice should guide our education policy. He thinks such ideas are
worth fighting for as a school principal (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998). So
do many of the teachers at this school.

An Ethic of Care and a Concern for the Common Good

Many students interviewed mentioned good relationships with their teach-
ers. They felt that the teachers respected and trusted them, and expressed a
caring attitude towards them. In their view, Ospelia was a good school. The
teachers were competent, they learned a lot, and they felt safe. Two quotes
from group interviews with students illustrate this:

The atmosphere is very informal. We can talk with the teachers about
almost everything. They show authentic interest in how I am doing at
school. They care, and the students care for each other.
The tone between students and between students and teachers is
very good. We have no ranking; everyone is accepted based on who he
or she is. We have chosen (to attend) Ospelia because of its good repu-
tation and because the school has competent teachers with an ethic of
caring. They are pushing and motivating; they often give positive
appraisal and encouragement.
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 65

By listening to the students’ stories and observing them in the classroom, I

became convinced that this was a school with faith in the individual and a
concern for the welfare of others, which are important conditions in a criti-
cal democracy (Beane & Apple, 1999). The students felt they had real
opportunities to take responsibility for their own lives and at the same time
they had developed a concern for “the common good.” Power and leader-
ship were negotiated and shared.
Often both the teachers and the leadership team had to deal with moral
dilemmas, and the negotiation processes were seldom straightforward and
easy. I frequently observed events and situations where the teachers and the
leadership team devoted their time to discussing problems with, and strate-
gies for, including students with problems at school. My interview with a
group of parents supported this view. Two of them had children with dis-
abilities, and they told stories about how the staff at Ospelia actually “lived”
the vision of an inclusive school. They confirmed that they were always met
with respect and taken seriously.
The school principal also cares for his staff members and believes it is
important to organize social events to develop a shared feeling for the
school. However, he knows that some of the teachers are struggling, and he
wishes he had more options for taking better care of them. He does not want
anyone to quit their job with bitterness, but he understands that could be the
case because of the intensification of work. The government has put “inclu-
sive employment” as an important goal for managers and employers, schools
included, but according to the principal this is simply rhetoric. He often finds
himself in a situation with few tools for coping with staff members who want
to quit their jobs, but cannot do so for economic reasons. In his words:

I have a couple of people at this school who want to retire tomorrow, but
alone I cannot help them. They haven’t done anything wrong; they just
feel burned-out, and I notice they are unhappy. I guess they will leave the
school in a couple of years with their head bent (down), but what can I
do? Their education is too limited to get another job, and there is little
flexibility concerning offering them another job. They are around 60 and
cannot retire4 before due time because of economic reasons. I am strug-
gling to find a way of helping them. Just think of the situation they face.

We can recognize a passionate commitment in his struggles. He wants to

“make a difference” despite relentless demands. When I asked him what he
would like his epitaph to say, he answered:

4
In Norway teachers retire at the age of 67. It is also possible to apply for retirement at the age of
64, on special conditions. However, one would not receive full retirement benefits until the age of 67.
66 Jorunn Møller

I (hope) they will say that I always treated people with respect. It is not
so important if they characterize me as a change agent or not, but I do
want people to say I treated them honestly, with justice and respect, that
I showed empathy and compassion for people in different situations;
that I showed human considerations whenever needed. That is what I
wish my epitaph to say.

My interviews and talks with the cleaners, the caretaker, and the clerical
staff confirmed a picture of a school principal who “lived” his ethic of
caring. Everyone felt they were valued and respected. To quote one of
them:

We are so proud of this school. Here you will find no one who follows
his or her own path. It is a small community, and we care for each
other. We respect the leadership team, and we feel appreciated by them.
If we hadn’t developed such good interactions with them, we would not
have stayed for so many years. This is a place where our voices are lis-
tened to. It isn’t like that at many other schools.

CONCLUSION

Recently the municipal governance of schools in Norway has been framed

within the discourse of New Public Management (NPM), with a focus on
managerial accountability. As shown in this article, the discourse and lead-
ership practice at Ospelia Upper Secondary School appears to be of a differ-
ent kind. Practice is not dominated by an instrumental rationality, which is
so often closely linked to NPM. This case study of Ospelia demonstrates that
schools can still support activist professionals who counteract the tendency
towards an audit society, but it requires a critical mass of its members who
are willing to mobilize their skills in the interests of a just society (Ground-
water-Smith & Sachs, 2002). At Ospelia the leadership team and the teachers
have managed to sustain their progressive visions from the early 1970s, and
they have also collaborated closely with the local community. Their success
should be seen in its historical, cultural, and social context.
Leadership at this school can be understood as a network of relation-
ships among people, structures, and cultures, not just as a role-based func-
tion assigned to one person. But leadership is also about power, and school
principals are vested with formal powers that include a range of means of
compulsion and reward, including economic and structural sanctions. The
power of the principal has its source outside the school because it is dele-
gated by the state. Our study observed how the principal, in collaboration
with his staff, continually worked to mediate government policy and exter-
nal changes so that they could be integrated with the school’s values (see,
e.g. Hatcher, 2005).
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 67

We should be cautious about drawing implications for leadership prac-

tices in the service of developing democratic schools. It often leads to state-
ments about what principals must do to enhance democracy, without much
consideration of the possibilities of acting within the current school context
(Furman & Gruenewald, 2004). Despite the democratic rhetoric in policy
documents, Norwegian society is in many ways undemocratic. Competition
and individualism are on the rise and valued over cooperation and interde-
pendence. Our mindset is changing, and often it seems difficult to make our
democratic dreams into reality. Though policymakers have developed
extraordinarily rich ambitions for schools, educational policies and pro-
grams have not been richly educative for policy enactors. They have
focused more on broadcasting their message and covering the material than
on figuring out what learners make of it and framing instruction accord-
ingly. Little effort has been made to help teachers make these instructional
changes. As Cohen and Barnes (1993a) note, “education policy has been an
inconsistent teacher” (p. 213). There is a need for understanding that what
is happening at the school level is embedded and subsumed in wider social
structures of power.
In conclusion, I underscore the possibility that principals, teachers, and
community members can commit themselves to working together with stu-
dents to shape a school culture and a critical pedagogy aimed at social jus-
tice. Living in a democracy should cause all of us to deliberate about our
choices. As university educators we have a responsibility to engage in a crit-
ical analysis of the present system in order to reveal the conditions that cre-
ate social inequalities in schools. This includes a consideration of the ways
in which external social structures are reproduced through the administra-
tion of schooling. The task ahead is not just about modeling and developing
democratic practices within the school. It is also about challenging the
wider power structures in which the school is embedded, and committing
ourselves to work for social change.

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. (1996). The cultural politics of schools: Implications for leader-

ship. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Eds.),
International handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp.
947–966). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Apple, M. (2000). Between neoliberalism and neoconservatism: Education and con-
servatism in a global context. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Global-
ization and education: Critical perspectives (pp. 57–79). New York: Routledge.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: The University Press.
Bates, R. (1990). Educational administration and the management of knowledge.
Victoria: Deakin University Press.
68 Jorunn Møller

Bates, R. (1989). Leadership and the rationalization of society. In J. Smyth (Ed.),

Critical perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 131–157). London: The
Falmer Press.
Beane, J. A., & Apple, M. W. (1999). The case for democratic schools. In M. W.
Apple & J. A. Beane (Eds.), Democratic schools: Lessons from the chalk face
(pp. 1–26). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Berlak, A., & Berlak, H. (1981). Dilemmas of schooling: Teaching and social
change. New York: Methuen.
Blackmore, J. (2001). The implications of school governance and the new educa-
tional accountability for student learning and teacher professional identity:
Australian reform as an example of an international problematic. Unpublished
paper, Geelong, Deakin University.
Blase, J., Blase, J., Anderson, G., & Dungan, S. (1995). Democratic principal in
action: Eight pioneers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Cohen, D., & Barnes, C. (1993a). Pedagogy and policy. In D. Cohen, M. W.
McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for
policy and practice (pp. 207–240). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, D., & Barnes, C. (1993b). Conclusion: A New pedagogy for policy? In D.
Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding:
Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 240–276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Day, C., Harris, A., Hadfield, M., Tolley, H., & Beresford, J. (2000). Leading schools
in times of change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Dewey, J. (1937). Democracy and educational administration. School and Society,
45, 457–467.
Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational admin-
istration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.
Foster, W. (1989). Toward a critical practice of leadership. In J. Smyth (Ed.), Critical
perspectives on educational leadership (pp. 39–63). London: The Falmer Press.
Furman, G., & Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A
critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 47–76.
Furman, G., & Starratt, R. J. (2002). Leadership for democratic community in
schools. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining
leadership for the 21st century (pp. 105–134). National Society for the Study of
Education, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Giddens, A. (1998). The Third Way: The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond education management: An essay in
policy scholarship. London: Falmer Press.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quar-
terly, 13, 423–451.
Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? School Leadership & Management,
23(3), 267–290.
Gronn, P., & Hamilton, A. (2004). “A bit more life in the leadership”: Co-principalship
as distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 3–35.
Groundwater-Smith, S., & Sachs, J. (2002). An activist professional and the reinstate-
ment of trust. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3), 341–358.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
 Democratic Schooling in Norway 69

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2003). Sustaining leadership. In L. Moos (Ed.), Educa-
tional leadership—understanding and developing practice (pp. 9–33). Copen-
hagen: The Danish University of Education.
Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British
Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 253–67.
Maxcy, S. J. (1991). Educational leadership: A critical pragmatic perspective. New
York: Bergin & Garvey.
Maxcy, S. J. (1995). Democracy, chaos, and the new school order. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Møller, J. (2002). Democratic leadership in an age of managerial accountability.
Improving Schools, 5(2), 11–21.
Møller, J., & Eggen, A. (2005). Team leadership in upper secondary education.
School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 331–347.
Møller, J., Eggen, A., Fuglestad, O. L., Langfeldt, G., Presthus, A. M., Skrøvset, S.,
Stjernstrøm, E., & Vedøy, G. (2005). Successful school leadership — the
Norwegian case. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 584–595.
Moos, L., & Møller, J. (2003). Schools and leadership in transition: The case of Scan-
dinavia. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 353–371.
Sejersted, F. (1997). Lederskap og demokratisk kapitalisme (Leadership and demo-
cratic capitalism). In H. Byrkjeflot (Ed.), Fra styring til ledelse (From manage-
ment to leadership) (pp. 33–53). Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leader-
ship practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1),
3–34.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. (3rd edition). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.