Education systems in the Nordic countries are to an increasing degree subject to new forms of legal and regulative processes (Arneback & Bergh, 2016; Hult & Segerholm, 2016; Karseth & Møller, 2018; Runesdotter, 2016). Following Novak (2018), a starting point for this study is that the changes in legislation regarding the mission and mandate of the Swedish Schools Inspectorate (SSI) can be seen as an empirical manifestation of such process. Since 2015, the SSI is commissioned by law to issue injunctions with a penalty fine when a school’s “…deficiencies seriously limit the student’s opportunities to reach the educational goals” (SFS 2010:800, Chap. 26, § 27). The SSI is also to inspect and, if found nessecary, demand from the responsible school authority to redistribute teacher resources at the school (SFS 2010:800, Chap. 26, § 2 and § 10).

The aim of the study is to critically analyse “the representation of the problem” and the underlying assumptions that led to the strengthening of inspection in 2015 and to discuss the consequences that have occurred for school leaders and principal organizers (huvudmän) in Sweden.

The study has its theoretical ground in the scholarly work on “juridification” (Blichner & Molander, 2008) – specifically, the juridification of education governance (Novak, 2018). Further, it makes use of Carol Bacchi’s WPR approach to policy analysis (Bacchi, 2009). Different policy documents such as Governmental White Papers and Bills leading up to the strenthened inspection model of 2015 are examined in depth. 

The results make visible both the “problem representations” pushing for the new mandate of the SSI as well as their underlying assumptions. The study shows that the intents of the legally strenghtened inspection model, as expressed in the policy documents, hold several paradoxes about the division of responsibilities and distribution of power in the school system. These findings are crucial to make visible and to discuss in order to seriously attend to the challenges and opportunities that school leaders in Sweden are currently facing when they need to handle a rather fragile situation after being sanctioned by the SSI.  

Referenser

Arneback, E., & Bergh, A. (2016). Redaktionellt U&D 25: 1. Tema: Juridifieringen av skolan. Utbildning och Demokrati, 25(1), 3-9. 

Bacchi, C. L. (2009). Analysing policy: what's the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson.

Blichner, L. C., & Molander, A. (2008). Mapping juridification. European Law Journal, 14(1), 36-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00405.x

Hult, A., & Segerholm, C. (2016). The process of juridification of school inspection in Sweden. Utbildning & Demokrati: Tidskrift för Didaktik och Utbildningspolitik, 25(2), 95-118. 

Karseth, B., & Møller, J. (2018). Legal Regulation and Professional Discretion in Schools. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2018.1531918

Novak, J. (2018). Juridification of Educational Spheres: The Case of Swedish School Inspection. (PhD Sammanläggning), Uppsala universitet, Uppsala.   

Runesdotter, C. (2016). Avregleringens pris? Om juridifieringen av svensk skola ur skolaktörers perspektiv. Utbildning & Demokrati: Tidskrift för Didaktik och Utbildningspolitik, 25(1), 95-112. 

SFS 2010:800. Skollag Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.