Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: social changes reflected in schooling

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=zedu20 Education Inquiry ISSN: (Print) 2000-4508 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/zedu20 Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: social changes reflected in schooling Marianne Dovemark, Sonja Kosunen, Jaakko Kauko, Berglind Magnúsdóttir, Petteri Hansen & Palle Rasmussen To cite this article: Marianne Dovemark, Sonja Kosunen, Jaakko Kauko, Berglind Magnúsdóttir, Petteri Hansen & Palle Rasmussen (2018) Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: social changes reflected in schooling, Education Inquiry, 9:1, 122-141, DOI: 10.1080/20004508.2018.1429768 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1429768 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. Published online: 30 Jan 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 277 View related articles View Crossmark data Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Deregulation, privatisation and marketisation of Nordic comprehensive education: social changes reflected in schooling Marianne Dovemark a , Sonja Kosunen b , Jaakko Kauko c , Berglind Magnúsdóttir d , Petteri Hansen b and Palle Rasmussen e a Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; b Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland; c Faculty of Education, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; d School of Education, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland; e Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark ABSTRACT The Nordic countries are often perceived as a coherent group representing the Nordic model of welfare states, with a strong emphasis on the public provision of universal welfare and a strong concern with social equality. But today we see a change in the Nordic model as part of a global knowledge economy. The aim of this article is to examine education in the five Nordic countries utilising three dimensions of political change: deregulation, marketisation and privatisation. We also analyse the parallel changes in relation to segregation and differentiation in education. The analysis shows that the themes related to deregulation seem to show fairly similar patterns and structures in all contexts. The emerging differences were discovered mainly in the themes of marketisation and privatisation. Institutional segregation emerges in all Nordic countries to different extents along the lines of these three processes, and we observe a simultaneous social segregation and differentiation with an ambiguous connection to them. Based on these findings, the question of what is left of the “Nordic model”could be raised. KEYWORDS comprehensive education; segregation and differentiation; deregulation; privatisation; marketisation Introduction The five Nordic countries –Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden –are often perceived as a coherent group representing the Nordic model of welfare states, which is usually understood as a social-democratic project of providing universal welfare, such as education, independent of individuals’backgrounds and resources (Esping-Andersen, 1996). The Nordic welfare states have a strong emphasis on public provision of universal welfare and a strong concern with social equality, but there are also many differences in the state welfare programmes. Recent global, economic and social changes have affected the conditions of national welfare policy, and during the past three decades the governments of the five Nordic countries have restructured their CONTACT Marianne Dovemark [email protected] Department of Education and Special Education, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden EDUCATION INQUIRY, 2018 VOL. 9, NO. 1, 122–141 https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2018.1429768 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. welfare policies to address this challenge. The key question we are addressing in this article is how welfare policies in the education sector have been reshaped under these conditions and how parallel and related societal changes such as segregation and differentiation have taken place. We view the change in the Nordic model as part of a global development wherein education is considered as a major contribution to national competitiveness and economic growth and the education sector is gradually adjusted to this role. The political idea of education as an integral part of economic growth is not new, but recently the concept of the knowledge economy (Svare & Dabic, 2017), whereby knowledge (and education as a producer of knowledge) is the main source of wealth and growth, has been widely adopted, for instance, in the European Union’s 10-year strategies, the Lisbon Strategy of 2000 and Europe 2020 (Soriano & Mulatero, 2010). In analysing the change in Nordic education, we discuss how questions of education have been debated more and more in economic terms and how this has reformed the provisions for education. However, our viewing angle aims to analyse this through the lenses of social justice in education in terms of segregation and differentiation, rather than by focusing solely on questions of economics. The debates on how neoliberal strategies (e.g. Olssen & Peters, 2005) or New Public Management (e.g. Ozga & Grek, 2012)affect education have been going on for decades. However, these concepts tend to be used too much and too vaguely, so we look instead at the reasoning behind them. In administrative sciences, it is pointed out how the public-sector reforms since the 1980s have roughly followed the ideas derived from the “Chicago school”of economics with an emphasis on deregulation, privatisation and marketisation (Lane, 1997, pp. 1–2). These are implemented with the help of measuring performance, supporting contractualism, or introducing market mechanisms and customer orientation to the public sector (Pollitt, 2009), and especially in the Nordic context with the help of decentralisation (Temmes, 1998, p. 450). We use these three concepts, deregulation, privatisation, and marketisation, in order to grasp the essence of education sector reforms that have consistently and simultanously emerged in all five Nordic countries. We see deregulation as a process of removing or reducing state regulations in the economy and elsewhere. In education deregulation may mean, for example, that state rules about the internal work of schools, such as the subjects taught, number of lessons, student behaviour and teacher salaries are abolished or delegated to lower administrative levels such as municipalities. Both privatisation and marketisation may forms of or consequences of deregulation. Privatisation means that public sector activities are outsourced to private firms or non-profit organisations. Different types of public service may be privatised, for instance law enforcement and education. The welfare state tradition of the Nordic countries means that many types of social service have historically been organised as public sector activities. Marketisation is a restructuring that enables public enterprises and institutions to operate more like market-oriented firms through adoption of private sector management practices and funding schemes emphasising market behaviour. We also find these three trends in attempts to reform Nordic educational systems, which can be described in two waves, at least for some of the countries. The most important instance of deregulation took place during the first wave in the 1990s, when EDUCATION INQUIRY 123 highly centralised systems were decentralised; this increased the role of municipal providers of education (e.g. Simola, Rinne, Varjo, & Kauko, 2013). The second wave focused on privatisation and marketisation during the 2000s, when there was an attempt to create a school market by profiling schools, using privatisation and creating intensified school choice (e.g. Beach & Dovemark, 2011; Lundahl, Erixon Arreman, Holm, & Lundström, 2013). The overall trend in both developments is a movement by the state from being mainly a provider of education to mainly being a regulator (Beach, 2010). However, the state retains the authority to design the overall system and to control many of its practices. Following the focus of this special issue, we analyse these three dimensions in the light of research in the Nordic countries and examine the empirical questions posed in each context. Methodologically, through conceptually focusing on articles concerning marketisation, privatisation and deregulation and questions of segregation and differentiation through education in the Nordic countries, we analyse the emergence and use of these concepts and the attached empirical fields of study. The material we draw on here includes articles written among the research community of Nordic Centre of Excellence Justice through Education (JustEd) with extensions to other relevant studies. This article could thus be seen as a summative work of different research projects focusing on the questions of equality and equity in education based on the work in JustEd (e.g. Beach & Dovemark, 2011; Dýrfjörð & Magnúsdóttir, 2016; Rasmussen, 2012; Simola, Kauko, Varjo, Kalalahti, & Sahlström, 2017). The authors have themselves contributed to the literature in this field and are familiar with the current debates on the topic in each country, and thereby also literature in national languages has been included in the analysis. The amount of research on the three dimensions varies from country to country, evident in the body of literature drawn on here. In this contribution our goal is to assemble the findings and investigate possible areas for future research in national and international contexts. The question of reconciliation between the longer trend of economy-driven reforms and justice through education is key. In this article, we look at both aspects. In the first and main part we focus on the changes in deregulation, marketisation and privatisation, which are found in all the Nordic countries, albeit in different forms, combinations and time frames. In the last section we try to track the changes in levels of segregation and differentiation in schooling. An era of market-driven reforms in different school systems Our focus is on the comprehensive school, which was introduced in the Nordic countries through different reforms (Blossing, Imsen, & Moos, 2014b) from the 1960s to the 1990s. In this period the parallel and dual school system, which included the educational end points of more academically-oriented and more vocationally-oriented schools, was abolished, and a comprehensive school at lower secondary or upper secondary level put in place all over the Nordic countries. The change took place because of major undercurrents that dated back centuries and coincided with demographic changes. At the end of the nineteenth century, industrialisation, population growth, nationalism and various other social movements created new grounds for compulsory education. The idea of compulsory folk education was first 124 M. DOVEMARK ET AL. realised in Nordic metropolitan areas, where, as in rural areas, children were still considered an important part of the labour force. In the early twentieth century the social democratic movement and its political co-operation with progressive and agrarian parties became an important driving force for expanding folk education all over the North. After the Second World War and as a continuation of the democratisation movement, the bipartisan grammar and folk school division was replaced by a unified and free-of-charge comprehensive school system for children between the ages of six/ seven and 16 (Blossing, Imsen, & Moos, 2014a). The welfare state systems relied on regulation and publicly-run educational provision (for the most part), as the implementation of the idea of equal education required a school system with unified structures and centralised control of resource allocation, curriculum and standards. However, in the early 1970s, centralisation was already being questioned (Lundahl, 2002). From the mid-1980s political discourse on social justice and equality were supplemented with values such as competition, freedom of choice and accountability (Dovemark, 2004; Englund, 1996; Telhaug & Tønnesen, 1992; Varjo, 2007). New forms of governance and discourse were introduced at the same time that the political discourse of competition on the global market was becoming commonplace. These educational policy changes can be described in the terms presented in the introduction: deregulation, privatisation and marketisation. These processes are traced in the following, drawing both on the empirical documentation and on theoretical discussions around these concepts. Deregulation: the changing role of the state In the Nordic comprehensive school policy setting, deregulation is entangled with the general change in the organisation of the political system and with how schools are run. Regarding their organisation, the different Nordic political systems went through a strong deregulation phase during the 1980s and 1990s, as a result of which they significantly reframed the power between the state and the municipalities in all five countries. The general international trend in educational governance has long emphasised evaluation-based directives (Smith, 1990). Even in seemingly uncontrolled environments, the strongest evaluation-based tools are inspections to monitor the organisation of schooling and standardised tests to control the content of teaching (Kauko & Salokangas, 2015). In the Nordic context, apart from Finland all countries are governed by a national curriculum and national tests and examinations, but there is a degree of organisational freedom in each country. Finland stands out as a separate case, as there is no standardised testing at the comprehensive school stage nor are there school inspections. Deregulation was supported by the argument that these changes were inevitable global phenomena and would improve performance and social justice in the school system (Jóhannesson, Lindblad, & Simola, 2002). The implementation was done by the centre-right and social democratic governments in all five countries. The change to decentralisation and also the new evaluation practices were catalysed by intensifying relations with international organisations. For instance, O.E.C.D. reports, which are ordered by the national governments, are used to legitimise economic and strict educational policy decisions (Kauko & Varjo, 2008; Rinne, Kallo, & Hokka, 2004); EDUCATION INQUIRY 125 sometimes these are followed closely; for instance, the O.E.C.D. considered Sweden as a model country of decentralisation in the mid-1990s (Aasen, 2003). As part of the general trend in the Nordic countries, Sweden went through a “municipalisation process”(kommunalisering in Swedish) in 1991, which meant that many of the responsibilities related to the governance and financing of education were shifted from the state to the municipalities and the local level. Gustafsson, Sörlin, and Vlachos (2016) argue that the “municipalisation process”can be described as “marketisation”per se, because the responsibility for education moved in effect from the state to the municipalities followed by various reforms in free school choice (Beach & Dovemark, 2007,2009,2011). In Finland the main changes to deregulation were seen in the increased funding and organisational autonomy of the municipalities, the main providers of education at the primary and secondary school levels (Law 707/1992, 365/1995). As a result, the state has few means of controlling the municipal education providers. An example is the role of the school inspection, which changed after the establishment of comprehensive schools and was gradually abolished during the 1980s and 1990s (Varjo, Rinne, & Simola, 2016). Instead, Finland’s National Board of Education used information governance to urge municipalities to introduce indicator-based quality assurance systems, with varying outcomes (Kauko & Varjo, 2008; Simola et al., 2013). The effect of decentralisation on autonomy at the local level in Finland has intensified, owing to the lack of central steering and accountability tools. In Denmark, schools have generally been funded and managed by the municipalities, but earlier their activities were controlled by detailed state regulations, which cover not only the curriculum, but also all aspects of school life. The gradual introduction of New Public Management principles from the 1980s eliminated many of these regulations and left it to the municipalities to manage resource allocation and local school structures under the changing conditions. At the same time, however, the state introduced procedures and institutions for ex post evaluation of the quality of schooling; for instance municipalities were obliged to publish yearly reports on school quality (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2009). The changes led gradually to marketisation, as municipalities allowed choice across school districts. The Danish “Quality Reform”of 2008 obliged municipalities to regulate quality assurance, including user surveys, for instance (Rasmussen, 2012). In Norway, there are similar patterns. Although the state of Norway has retained local representation in educational matters through county governors (fylkesmannen), the relation between the state and municipalities as well as between municipalities and schools began to change focus in the 1990s, from controlling the input to controlling the output, thereby effectively increasing the decentralisation of power (Borge & Rattsø, 1997; Wiborg, 2013). According to Imsen and Volckmar (2014), the principal reasons for introducing management by objectives were to update the schools to meet the requirements of a knowledge-based global economy. The same pattern appears in the structure of compulsory education in Iceland, which was decentralised by law in 1995 with the Basic School Act: the municipalities became responsible for compulsory schools (Sigurðardóttir, Guðjónsdóttir, & Karlsdóttir, 2014), yet with a strong focus on accountability and standardised tests, as well as internal and external evaluation frameworks. Standardised tests have been administered since 1977 for determining 126 M. DOVEMARK ET AL. access to upper-secondary education; in 1996 standardised tests in math and literacy for fourth and seventh grades were added (Hansen, 2013). In 2015 the control became even tighter when two institutions, one representing evaluation and the other representing curriculum materials, merged to become the New Directorate of Education (91/2015), which is in charge of national curriculum materials, educational consultancy and the production of national tests and standard evaluation instruments (Dýrfjörð & Magnúsdóttir, 2016). To sum up, currently the responsibility for comprehensive education in the Nordic countries is located at two levels: the municipalities, which build, finance and staffthe schools, and the state, which decides the structure of the general guidelines of the national curricula. These guidelines are then applied and adjusted at the local level in municipalities and schools. In Iceland, Finland and Sweden the main responsibility for education is at the municipality level, while in Denmark and Norway, the state still controls the local level. Privatisation: variance from alternative schools to profit-making corporate school chains Ball and Youdell (2008)describe two types of privatisation of public education. One type is exogenous privatisation, a process whereby private educational providers enter the public education sector. The other type is endogenous privatisation, in which public education adopts terminology and discourses from the private sector; that is what we describe as marketisation in this article. Exogenous privatisation is clearly evident in some Nordic countries: the mainly forprofit free school education in Sweden, a large sector of non-profit free schools in Denmark and an emerging sector of non-profit school chains in Iceland. In Finland and Norway the independent school sector consists mostly of alternative schools. While Sweden has been eager to incorporate neo-liberal ideas such as privatisation, Finland, Norway and Iceland still have little privatisation of education and few possibilities for profit-making from schools (Lundahl, 2017). Denmark, in contrast, historically has had a greater number of private, so-called “free schools”than the other Nordic countries, based on a long-pervading ideology emphasising parents’right to choose their children’s education. Legislation on private schooling was introduced as early as 1855 (Reeh, 2008) and represents a political tradition of limiting the power of the state over its citizens, especially in questions of religion and ideology. The idea is that parents and students should have the opportunity to choose schools based on different ideological platforms. Just as in Sweden, however, the private schools in Denmark are obliged to teach according to specifications in the national curriculum. Yet unlike the Swedish case, Danish legislation specifies that it is not possible for private school owners to profit from any financial surplus. While municipalities in Finland are allowed to provide choice opportunities in the public sector (Kosunen, 2016; Seppänen, 2003), Sweden has opened up such alternatives to the private sector, where the growth of the school market includes opening new free schools and private acquisition of public schools (Dovemark & Lundström, 2017; Lundahl, 2017; Lundahl et al., 2013). During the school year 2016/2017, 15% of comprehensive school students in Sweden attended a free school (Ekonomifakta, 2017). EDUCATION INQUIRY 127 Free schools, which are licensed by the Swedish National Schools Inspectorate, can be established by a broad variety of actors, including non-profit and for-profit organisations. All schools in Sweden are subject to inspections and financed by government grants to the municipalities combined with a system of vouchers. A sum equivalent to the “normal student’s cost”is paid to the student’s chosen school. Free schools have no right to charge fees. Initially, the free-school sector largely consisted of single schools run by parental and staffco-operatives, and faith-based and other interest organisations. This is similar to the idea in Denmark, where parents and pupils are supposed to have the opportunity to choose schools based on different ideological platforms as long as the school generally teaches according to the national curriculum. In Sweden however, has this idea been changing rapidly. In the early 2010s, the private-school market in Sweden has been dominated by large groups of limited companies (80%) and even equity firms (Erixon Arreman & Holm, 2011a,2011b). In 2016 the two largest Swedish education companies, AcadeMedia and the English school, were listed on the Stockholm stock exchange (Dovemark, 2017). In 2013 one of the biggest school chains in Sweden went bankrupt (Holm, 2017), overnight leaving thousands of students without schools. This arrangement differs significantly from the other Nordic countries. As mentioned above, since the nineteenth century, Denmark has had a private-school sector in primary and secondary education. These schools are economically independent institutions led by boards and subject to inspections and are not allowed to profit from the school. Nevertheless, the private schools in Denmark receive generous public economic support (the state covers around 75% of their costs), which is supplemented by tuition. The number of students attending private schools in Denmark has grown steadily for the last 15 years and is now at 17% of comprehensive school students (Ministeriet for Børn, Undervisning og Ligestilling, 2016). It should be noted that the role of private schooling is not the same all over Denmark. In the largest cities, especially Copenhagen, private schooling caters to a greater share of children and young people than in the country as a whole. The same pattern is repeated in Sweden, where the proportion of free schools is greatest (nearly 30%) in the three biggest cities, Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö (Lundahl et al., 2013; SNAE, 2014). In contrast to its neighbours Sweden and Denmark, Norway has relatively strict legislation on the privatisation of education. The Private Schools Act of 1985 specified that private schools could be established only for special ideological or pedagogical purposes. Once approved, a free school in Norway receives 85% of its funding from the state authority (Utdanningsdirektoratet). Unlike Sweden with its free-school act, Norway did not make any large changes to the 1985 Private Schools Act during the 1990s (Imsen & Volckmar, 2014; Volckmar, 2010). For various reasons the number of private schools as well as the number of pupils attending private schools has slowly grown. One reason is that in the sparsely-populated areas where schools have been closed down, parents have established educational institutions such as Montessori schools in order to have a local school (Sivesind, 2016; Wiborg, 2013) (having local schools was one of the arguments made in Sweden for opening free schools in the early 1990s). In contrast to Sweden, Norway has yet kept adhere to unitary school form (Sivesind & Saglie, 2017) and from the idea of school as a public space where “the whole nation should meet”(Aarseth, 2015). 128 M. DOVEMARK ET AL. In Finland the comprehensive education landscape consists almost exclusively of publicly-funded, locally-governed and locally-run public schools, where there are no tuition fees and where the private schools (3% of all schools) are fully state-subsidised without the right to collect fees, to profit or to make exceptions to municipal policies on school choice (Kosunen, 2016). Notably, during the very time Sweden was undertaking its free-school experiments, the Confederation of Finnish Industries (C.I.E.) increased its criticism of the mediocrity and ineffectiveness of the comprehensive school in Finland, beginning in the 1980s. The discussion did not lead to the enactment of any further legislation (Rinne & Simola, 2010; Simola et al., 2017). It appears that long-term historical trends support a strong comprehensive school, rather than changing its internal logic and operating environment (see Simola et al., 2017). In Iceland alternative schools have existed for a long time, but for decades served less than 1% of the student population (Kjartansson, 2008). Since the dawn of the millennium, enrolment in independent schools has increased, and in 2015 2.5% of students enrolled in privately-run schools. For the last decade, the school landscape has been changing in Iceland, as the emphasis on privatisation was an overarching theme in the 2008 Education Act for comprehensive school. In Iceland, companies may run schools, but in contrast to Sweden, the owners are not allowed to profit. The schools are taxfunded up to as much as 82% through a system of school vouchers (Dýrfjörð & Magnúsdóttir, 2016). Some of the single alternative schools have been transformed into a school chain by Hjallastefnan, a company which started as an alternative preschool emphasising gender equality. Hjallastefnan Ltd. is now the biggest company on both the preschool and elementary school levels in Iceland (Dýrfjörð & Magnúsdóttir, 2016). The company has even managed to make contracts with and monopolise small rural municipalities. In sum, privatisation of education is found one way or another in all five Nordic countries, but there are considerable differences in the amount of schooling being undertaken by private schools. Seventeen per cent of Danish students attend private schools, which are based on legislation originally introduced in 1855. Sweden, with its 15%, is not far behind, while the other Nordic countries as yet have only about 3% to 4% of their students in private schools. All private schools in the Nordic countries are primarily funded by the states (generally at the municipality level). In Denmark and Iceland, schools are allowed to supplement public funds with tuition fees; in Norway, Sweden and Finland this is not generally allowed. Schools are not allowed to make profits except in Sweden. Sweden has the strongest elements of private market forces: 80% of its private schools are limited companies, which are allowed to profit. These profits amount to such a sum that the two largest companies have been listed on the Stockholm stock exchange since 2016. Marketisation: choice policies and school segregation Marketisation in the public sector is based on the assumption that free choice of services and competition between providers will improve quality and efficiency in the use of public funds. Markets in education create competition between institutions and competition between pupils over study positions, as described by Van Zanten (2009)in the context of school choice. EDUCATION INQUIRY 129 Sweden and Denmark have adopted patterns of marketising and privatising parts of their educational systems with visible similarities to the policies and practices of other countries, such as the U.K., which are known for larger societal and social differences. Of course, the emerging patterns of social differentiation, even in these Nordic countries, are relatively subtle in relation to other societies, but in a national and even in a Nordic context they are highly relevant in describing what is happening and possibly what is changing within the framework of comprehensive education. Nordic research on education has provided a considerable amount of knowledge about the political and structural changes of deregulation, marketisation and privatisation. In addition, researchers have closely observed the diversifying developments in Nordic societies and schools, which for the moment, however, are not as dramatic as in some other countries. The problem and the future challenge for research is to combine these two streams of analysis. Although theoretically these political and societal trajectories can be easily connected, there is little empirical evidence combining the analyses in these two fields. But if education in the Nordic countries is going through more and more major reforms inclined towards mainstream practices of deregulating, marketising and privatising, the connections between the two fields can be expected to become more evident. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Notes on contributors Marianne Dovemark is Professor of Education at the Department of Education and Special Education at the university of Gothenburg. Her main research interest are in the framework of critical educational ethnography in the field of sociology of education. Sonja Kosunen, P.h.D., works as senior university lecturer at University of Helsinki, Finland. Her research interests include questions around social justice, distinction and reproduction in the fields of sociology of education and urban studies. Jaakko Kauko, P.h.D., M.Soc.Sc., is Associate Professor of Education at the Faculty of Education, University of Tampere. His research focuses on the fields of education policy and comparative education. Berglind Magnúsdóttir is Associate Professor at the University of Iceland, School of Education. Her research interest is on education policy and social justice in education with special focus on the intersections of social class, race, gender, and special needs. Petteri Hansen, P.h.D., works as a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Behavioural Sciences, and more particularly within the Research Unit focusing on the Sociology and Politics of Education, at the University of Helsinki. Palle Rasmussen is Professor of education in the Department of Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, where he directs the Centre for Education Policy and Evaluation Research. His research areas include education policy, lifelong learning and evaluation methodology and he has published extensively in these fields. He is a member of the Danish National Research Council for Communication and Culture. 136 M. DOVEMARK ET AL. ORCID Jaakko Kauko http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0538-6806 Petteri Hansen http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2209-3618 Palle Rasmussen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6923-7071 References Aarseth, H. (2015). A sound Foundation? Financial elite families and egalitarian schooling in Norway. In C. Maxwell & P. Aggleton (Eds.), Elite education: International perspectives (pp. 79–91). Abingdon: Routledge. Aasen, P. (2003). What happened to social democratic progressivism in Scandinavia? Restructuring Education in Sweden and Norway in the 1990s. In M. Apple & P. Aasen (Eds.), The state and the politics of knowledge (pp. 109–147).NewYork,NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Ball, S. (2003). Class strategies and the education market. London: Routledge. Ball, S., & Vincent, C. (2007). Education, class fractions and the local rules of spatial relations. UrbanStudies,44, 1175–1189. doi:10.1080/00420980701302312 Ball, S., & Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden privatisation in public education. Educational International. Retrieved June 1, 2017, from http://download.ei-ie.org/docs/irisdocuments/research%20web site%20documents/2009-00034-01-e.pdf Beach, D. (2010). Socialisation and commercialisation in the restructuring of education and health professions in Europe: Questions of global class and gender. Current Sociology,58, 551– 569. doi:10.1177/0011392110367998 Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2007). Education and the commodity problem: Ethnographic investigations of creativity and performativity in Swedish Schools. London: Tufnell Press. Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2009). Making ‘right’choices? An ethnographic account of creativity, performativity and personalised learning policy, concepts and practices. Oxford Review of Education,35, 689–704. doi:10.1080/03054980903122267 Beach, D., & Dovemark, M. (2011). Twelve years of upper-secondary education in Sweden: The beginnings of a neo-liberal policy hegemony. Educational Review,63, 313–327. doi:10.1080/ 00131911.2011.560249 Berends, M. (2014). The evolving landscape of school choice in the USA. In H. R. Milner IV & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 451–473). New York, NY: Routledge. Bjordal, I. (2016). Markedsretting i en urban norsk skolekontekst: Et sosialt rettferdighetsperspektiv [Market orientation in an urban Norwegian school context: A social justice perspective]. Trondheim: Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet. Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (2014a). Nordic schools in a time of change. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic educational model: “A School for All”encounters neoliberal policy (pp. 1–16). Dordrecht: Springer. Blossing, U., Imsen, G., & Moos, L. (2014b). Schools for all: A Nordic model. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic educational model. “A School for All”encounters neoliberal policy (pp. 231–239). Dordrecht: Springer. Böhlmark, A., Holmlund, H., & Lindahl, M. (2015). School choice and segregation: Evidence from Sweden (Working Paper No. 2015:8). IFAU - Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy. Retrieved May 23, 2017, from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/129385 Borge, L.-E., & Rattsø, J. (1997). Local government grants and income tax revenue: Redistributive politics in Norway 1900–1990. Public Choice,92, 181–197. Bunar, N., & Ambrose, A. (2013). Schools, choice and reputation: Local school markets and the distribution of Symbolic capital in segregated cities. Research in Comparative & International Education,11,34–51. doi:10.1177/1745499916631064 Cevea. (2013). Ekstrem ulighed mellem privatskolerne [Extreme inequality between private schools]. København: Author. EDUCATION INQUIRY 137 Christensen, V. T., & Ladenburg, J. (2012). Privatskolerne og det sociale ansvar [The private schools and the social responsibility]. København: AKF. Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut. (2009). Kommunernes arbejde med kvalitetsrapporter [The municipalities work with quality reports]. København: EVA. Dovemark, M. (2004). Ansvar, flexibilitet och valfrihet. En etnografisk studie om en skola I förändring [Responsibility, flexibility and freedom of choice. An Ethnographic study of a school in transision] (Dissertation). University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg. Dovemark, M. (2017). Utbildning till salu –Konkurrens differentiering och varumärke (Education for sale –Competition, differentiation and brands). Utbildning & Demokrati,26(1), 67–86. Dovemark, M., & Lundström, U. (2017). Skolan och marknaden [The school and the market]. Utbildning & Demokrati,26(1), 5–18. Dýrfjörð, K., & Magnúsdóttir, B. R. (2016). Privatization of the early childhood education in Iceland. Research in Comparative and International Education,11,80–97. doi:10.1177/1745499916631062 Ekonomifakta. (2017). Retrieved May 31, 2017, from http://www.ekonomifakta.se/Fakta/ Valfarden-i-privat-regi/Skolan-i-privat-regi/Elever-i-friskola/ Englund, T. (Ed.). (1996). Utbildningspolitiskt systemskifte? [Change of the education polity system?]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. Erixon Arreman, I., & Holm, A.-S. (2011a). Privatisation of Public Education? The emergence of independent upper secondary schools in Sweden. Journal of Education Policy,26, 225–242. doi:10.1080/02680939.2010.502701 Erixon Arreman, I., & Holm, A.-S. (2011b). School as “Edu-business”: Four “serious players”in the Swedish upper secondary school market. Education Inquiry,2, 637–664. Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fjellman, A.-M. (2017). Differentiering genom reglerad marknadsanpassning: Uppkomsten av en regional skolmarknad [Differentiation through regulated market adjustment: The emergence of a regional school market]. Utbildning & Demokrati,6(1), 107–132. Government Proposition. (1991/92:95). Om valfrihet och fristående skolor [About freedom of choice and free schools]. Stockholm: Department of Education. Government Proposition. (1992/93:230). Valfrihet i skolan [Freedom of choice in schools]. Stockholm: Department of Education. Gustafsson, J.-E., Sörlin, S., & Vlachos, J. (2016). Policyidéerför svensk skola [Policy ideas for Swedish school]. Stockholm: SNS Förlag. Hansen, B. (2013). Transnational influence and educational policy in Iceland. In L. Moos (Ed.), Transnational influences on values and practices in Nordic educational leadership: Is there a Nordic model? (pp. 49–60). Dordrecht: Springer. Hansen, B., & Lárusdottir, H. (2014). Instructional leadership in compulsory schools in Iceland and the role of school principals. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,59(5), 583– 603. doi:10.1080/00313831.2014.965788 Holm, A.-S. (2017). En skolkoncerns uppgång och fall [The rise and fall of a school company]. Utbildning & Demokrati,26(1), 87–106. Imsen, G., & Volckmar, N. (2014). The Norwegian school for all: Historical emergence and neoliberal confrontation. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic educational model. “A School for All”encounters neo-liberal policy (pp. 35–55). Dordrecht: Springer. Jóhannesson, I. A., Lindblad, S., & Simola, H. (2002). An inevitable progress? Educational restructuring in Finland, Iceland and Sweden at the turn of the millennium. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,46, 325−339. doi:10.1080/0031383022000005706 Kauko, J., & Salokangas, M. (2015). The evaluation and steering of English academy schools through inspection and examinations: National visions and local practices. British Educational Research Journal,41,1108–1124. doi:10.1002/berj.3184 Kauko, J., & Varjo, J. (2008). Age of indicators: Changes in the Finnish education policy agenda. European Educational Research Journal,7, 219–231. doi:10.2304/eerj.2008.7.2.219 Kjartansson, H. S. (2008). Einstaklingsog markaðshyggja í sókn [Advancement of individualism and marketization]. In L. Guttormsson (Ed.), Almenningsfræðals á Íslandi 1880-2007 [Basic education in Iceland 1880–2007] (Vol. II, pp. 237–250). Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press. 138 M. DOVEMARK ET AL. Kosunen, S. (2016). Families and the social space of school choice in Urban Finland (Dissertation). Institute of Behavioural Sciences, Studies in Educational Sciences 267, University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Kosunen, S., Bernelius, V., Seppänen, P., & Porkka, M. (2016). School choice to lower-secondary schools and mechanisms of segregation in urban Finland. Urban Education,1–28. doi:10.1177/ 0042085916666933 Kosunen, S., Seppänen, P., & Bernelius, V. (2016). Naapurustojen segregaatio ja kaupunkilaisperheiden eriytyvät kouluvalintastrategiat [Neighbourhood segregation and the differentiated school choice strategies of urban families]. Kasvatus (The Finnish Journal of Education),47,230–244. Lane, J. (1997). Public sector reform rationale, trends and problems. London: Sage. Lärarnas Tidning. (2016). Retrieved February 17, 2017, from http://lararnastidning.se/barn-tillhogutbildade-samlas-pa-friskolor/ Lundahl, L. (2002). Sweden: Decentralisation, deregulation, quasi-markets –And then what? Journal of Education Policy,17, 687–697. doi:10.1080/0268093022000032328 Lundahl, L. (2017). Marketization of the urban educational space. In W. T. Pink & G. W. Noblit (Eds.), Second international handbook of urban education (pp. 671–693). London: Springer. Lundahl, L., Erixon Arreman, I., Holm, A.-S., & Lundström, U. (2013). Educational marketization the Swedish way. Education Inquiry,4(3). doi:10.3402/edui.v4i3.22620 Machin, S., & Salvanes, K. G. (2016). Valuing school quality via a school choice reform. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics,118,3–24. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12133 Magnúsdóttir, B., & Auðardóttir, A. (forthcoming). Emerging class divide in the urban educational landscape of Iceland: Parental choices of residences and schools in Reykjavík. Scandinavian Journal of Research. Ministeriet for Børn, Undervisning og Ligestilling. (2016). Elever i grundskolen, 2015/16. København: Author. Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Modernising education: New Public Management reform in the Norwegian education system. Journal of Educational Administration and History,45, 336–353. doi:10.1080/00220620.2013.822353 Oberti, M. (2007). L’école dans la ville [School in the city]. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy,20(3), 313–345. Östh, J., Andersson, E., & Malmberg, B. (2013). School choice and increasing performance differences: A counterfactual approach. Urban Studies,50,407–425. doi:10.1177/0042098012452322 Ozga, J., & Grek, S. (2012). Governing through learning. school self-evaluation as a knowledgebased regulatory tool. Recherches Sociologiques Et Anthropologiques,43(2), 35–52. Pollitt, C. (2009). Bureaucracies remember, post-bureaucratic organisations forget? Public Administration,87, 198–218. Power, S., Whitty, G., Edwards, T., & Wigfall, V. (2010). Education and the Middle-class. Buckingham: Open University Press. Rambøll Management. (2007). Evaluering af mere frit skolevalg [Evaluation of free school choice]. København: Undervisningsministeriet. Rangvid, B. S. (2010). School Choice, universal vouchers and native flight out of local public schools. European Sociological Review,26, 319–335. Rasmussen, P. (2012). The politics of user satisfaction surveys in school policy. Suomen Kasvatustieteellinen Seura [The Finnish Educational Research Association]. Kasvatusalan Tutkimuksia,59, 105–120. Reay, D., & Lucey, H. (2004). Stigmatised choices: Social class, social exclusion and secondary school markets in the inner city. Pedagogy, Culture and Society,12,35–51. Reeh, N. (2008). Den danske stat og de frie skolers frihed –I 1855 og 2005 [The Danish state and the freedom of the free school –In 1855 and 2005] (pp. 82–98). Århus: Selskabet for Skoleog Uddannelseshistorie. Rinne, R., Kallo, J., & Hokka, S. (2004). Liian innokas mukautumaan? OECD: Nkoulutuspolitiikka ja Suomen vastauksia [Too eager to comply? Finnish answers to OECD’s education policy]. Kasvatus (Education),35,34–54. EDUCATION INQUIRY 139 Rinne, R., & Simola, H. (2010). Vasten valtavirtaa: Kontingenssi, polkuriippuvuus ja konvergenssi suomalaisen perusopetuksen laadunarviointimallin kehityskuluissa [Against the mainstream: Contingency, path dependency and convergency in the trajectories of the Finnish basic education evaluation model]. Hallinnon Tutkimus (Administration Research), 29, 318–334. Seppänen, P. (2003). Patterns of “public-school markets”in the Finnish comprehensive school from a comparative perspective. Journal of Education Policy,18, 513–531. Seppänen, P. (2006). Kouluvalintapolitiikka perusopetuksessa. Suomalaiskaupunkien koulumarkkinat kansainvälisessä valossa [School choice policy in comprehensive schooling. school markets of Finnish cities in the international perspective] (Research in Educational Sciences 26). Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association. Seppänen, P., Kalalahti, M., Rinne, R., & Simola, H. (Eds.). (2015). Lohkoutuva peruskoulu – Perheiden kouluvalinnat, yhteiskuntaluokat ja koulutuspolitiikka [Segmenting comprehensive school: School choices, social classes and education politics]. In Research in educational sciences 68. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University, Finnish Education Research Association. Seppänen, P., & Rinne, R. (2015). Suomalainen yhtenäiskoulu ylikansallisen koulupolitiikan paineissa [Finnish comprehensive school under pressures of supernational education policy]. In P. Seppänen, M. Kalalahti, R. Rinne, & H. Simola (Eds.), Lohkoutuva peruskoulu – Perheiden kouluvalinnat, yhteiskuntaluokat ja koulutuspolitiikka [Segmenting comprehensive school: School choices, social classes and education politics] (pp. 23–58). Research in Educational Sciences 68. Jyväskylä: Finnish Education Research Association. Seppänen, P., Rinne, R., & Sairanen, V. (2012). Suomalaisen yhtenäiskoulun eriytyvät koulutiet. Oppilasvalikointi perusopetuksessa, esimerkkinä Turun koulumarkkinat [Segregating routes in Finnish comprehensive schooling. Pupil selection in basic education, a case of local school markets in Turku]. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka (Social and Public Policy),77,16–33. Sigurðardóttir, A. K., Guðjónsdóttir, H., & Karlsdóttir, J. (2014). The development of a school for all in Iceland: Equality, threats and political conditions. In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic educational model: “A School for All”encounters neo-liberal policy (pp. 95– 116). Dordrecht: Springer. Simola, H., Kauko, J., Varjo, J., Kalalahti, M., & Sahlström, F. (2017). Dynamics in Education Politics. Understanding and explaining the Finnish case. London: Routledge. Simola, H., Rinne, R., Varjo, J., & Kauko, J. (2013). The Paradox of the Education Race: How to win the ranking game by sailing to headwind. Journal of Education Policy,28, 612–633. Sivesind, K. H. (Ed.). (2016). Mot en ny skandinavisk velferdsmodell? Konsekvenser av ideell, kommersiell og offentlig tjenesteyting for aktivt medborgerskap [Towards a new Scandinavian welfare model? Consequences of non-profit, commercial and public services for active citizenship]. Rapport 01:2016. Oslo: Institutt for samfunnsforskning. Sivesind, K. H., & Saglie, J. (Eds.). (2017). Promoting active citizenship. Markets and choice in Scandinavian welfare. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Smith, D. (1990). Assessment, technology and the quality revolution. In T. Schuler (Ed.), World yearbook of education 1990: Assessment and evaluation (pp. 41–55). London: Kogan Page. SNAE. (2014). Swedish national agency of education (Rapport 410). Retrieved March 20, 2017, from https://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/publikationer/visa-enskild-publikation? Soriano, F. H., & Mulatero, F. (2010). Knowledge policy in the EU: From the Lisbon Strategy to Europe 2020. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,1, 289–302. Svare, J., & Dabic, M. (2017). Evolution of the knowledge economy: A historical perspective with an application to the case of Europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy,8, 159–176. Telhaug, A. O., Aasen, P., & Mediås, O. A. (2004). From collectivism to individualism? Education as nation building in a Scandinavian perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,48, 141–158. doi:10.1080/0031383042000198558 Telhaug, A. O., & Mediås, O. A. (2003). Grunnskolen som nasjonsbygger: Fra statpietisme til nyliberalisme [Comprehensive school as nationbuilding: From state pietism to neoliberalism]. Oslo: Abstrakt forlag as. 140 M. DOVEMARK ET AL. Telhaug, A. O., MediåS, O. A., & Aasen, P. (2006). The Nordic Model in Education: Education as part of the political system in the last 50 years. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 245–283. doi:10.1080/00313830600743274 Telhaug, A. O., & Tønnesen, R. T. (1992). Dansk utdanningspolitikk under Bertel Haarder 1982–1992 [Danish education policy under Bertel Haarder 1982–1992]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Temmes, M. (1998). Finland and new public management. International Review of Administrative Sciences,64(3), 441–456. Undervisningsministeriet. (2014). Grundskoleelevernes sociale baggrund, 2012/2013 [Primary school students’social background]. København: Author. Undervisningsministeriet. (2017). Frit skolevalg. Hovedrapport. København: Epinion. Van Zanten, A. (2009). Choisir son école: Stratégies familiales et médiations locales [Choosing a school: Family strategies and local mediations]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Varjo, J. (2007). Kilpailukykyvaltion koululainsäädännön rakentuminen. Suomen eduskunta ja 1990-luvun koulutuspoliittinen käänne [Drafting education legislation for the competitive state. The Parliament of Finland and the 1990s change in education policy] (Dissertation). University of Helsinki, Helsinki. Department of Education. Research Report 209. Varjo, J., Rinne, R., & Simola, H. (2016). Arvioida ja hallita: Perään katsomisesta informaatioohjaukseen suomalaisessa koulupolitiikassa [To evaluate and rule: From looking after to information steering in Finnish education policy]. Turku: Finnish Educational Research Association. Volckmar, N. (2008). Knowledge and Solidarity: The Norwegian social-democratic school project in a period of change, 1945–2000. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,52,1–15. doi:10.1080/00313830701786560 Volckmar, N. (2010). En skole for alle”og privatisering - en analyse av de skandinaviske landenes privatiseringspolitikk [A School for all”and privatisation –An investigation of privatisation in Scandinavian education policy]. Uddannelseshistorie 2010. Fællesskab og elite: Skolen mellem det offentlige og private,44,33–49 (Århus: Selskabet for Skoleog Uddannelseshistorie). Volckmar, N., & Wiborg, S. (2014). A social democratic response to market-led education policies: Concession or rejection? In U. Blossing, G. Imsen, & L. Moos (Eds.), The Nordic educational model. “A School for All”encounters neo-liberal policy (pp. 117–131). Dordrecht: Springer. Welle-Strand, A., & Tjeldvoll, A. (2002). The Norwegian unified school –A paradise lost? Journal of Education Policy,17, 673–686. doi:10.1080/0268093022000032319 Wiborg, S. (2013). Neo-liberalism and universal state education: The cases of Denmark, Norway and Sweden 1980–2011. Comparative Education,49, 407–423. Yang Hansen, K., & Gustafsson, J.-E. (2016). Causes of educational segregation in Sweden – School choice or residential segregation. Educational Research and Evaluation,22,23–44. doi:10.1080/13803611.2016.1178589 EDUCATION INQUIRY 141