One of many challenges that teachers face on a daily basis is related to problems with degrading treatment. Teachers work in order to establish a working environment where children can learn; both knowledge and norms and values, i.e how to live together and to understand, care for and respect each other in line with the “fundamental values” in the curriculum (The Swedish National Agency for Education, 2011). All schools are regulated by a policy of zero tolerance towards degrading treatment (The Child and School Student Representative, 2017). The challenge, however, is immense, if not abysmal: hundreds of children obligated to spend year after year in a cramped facility without ever troubling each other with derogatoriness, rumours, ridicule or shoving. Teachers take on this difficult challenge with a broad repertoire of pedagogical tools based on research, theory, experience and tacit knowledge. They deal with chaos and unpredictability in contexts where no single method, plan or manual apply (Cardell, 2017: 226).In this paper we draw attention to how this challenge has been transformed by recent legal regulation of teachers’ work. The School Act has expanded the regulations on degrading treatment and teachers and school staff are today responsible to report any degrading treatment to the principal who in turn has an obligation to report it further to the governing body. This regulation is added to the obligation to quickly investigate and take necessary measures to counteract such treatment (Prop. 2009/10:165; SFS 2010:800).Based on 35 interviews with municipal officials, school directors, school leaders, teachers and other school staff (n 60) in seven schools in two municipalities we describe and analyse how teachers handle issues related to degrading treatment as the pedagogical challenge has been converted into, or complemented by, a judicial challenge primarily oriented towards objective representation of past events. For instance, teachers have to determine, at every incident occurring during the school day, if it should be reported as degrading treatment or not. Reporting has certain consequences, for example time consuming activities of documentation including administration of evolving digital reporting systems, discussions with colleagues and students and communication with parents demanding careful balance and precision. Not reporting has other consequences, e.g. it involves risk taking in terms of accountability since every incident has the potential to later become part of a complaint on degrading treatment issued to The Swedish Schools Inspectorate or The Child and School Student Representative. Thus, to see or not to see incidents is not only a question of teachers’ attention and immediate subsequential action or mindful awaiting – it is a choice that involves a range of strategic and defensive considerations that in a profound way alters teachers’ professional gaze, understanding and practice.The paper is theoretically informed by ideas on policy enactment (Ball, Maguire & Braun, 2012) that provide an overall understanding of issues of policy implementation in times of juridification. In order to qualify the analysis of teachers’ challenges and conflicts between different logics we draw on theories on teacher professionalism (e.g. Englund & Solbrekke, 2015; Solbrekke & Englund, 2011).

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test of 15-year-olds’ reading skills is used to assess and benchmark the quality of national education systems, and PISA is a key pillar in the production of knowledge used to shape policy for steering educational systems (Carvalho, 2012; OECD, 2009). Although the validity of PISA for measuring quality in education systems has been questioned (Hanberger, 2014; Mangez & Hilgers, 2012), it is frequently used by policymakers for this purpose and OECD/PISA has a great influence on how quality in education systems is conceived. National education discourses and policies are significantly influenced by PISA tests and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD’s) recommendations (Breakspear, 2012; Grek, 2010; 2012; Lawn, 2011). Sweden has a decade of declining PISA results and OECD has suggested that Sweden should take action to reform its education system to improve quality and equity (OECD, 2015). One example of the influence OECD and PISA have on Swedish education policy is a recently launched teacher training programme. The programme, initiated by the Swedish government in 2013 with explicit reference to the country’s failings in PISA, is supposed to enhance teachers’ collegial learning in literacy and aimed to improve teaching and student literacy, and Sweden’s performance in coming PISA tests (Ministry of Education, 2013).

The programme, the Literacy Lift, is currently implemented on a full scale and evaluated during its course to fine-tune the implementation of the programme. On commission by the National Agency for Education (NAE) to evaluate the programme, the authors of this paper along with our colleagues have published two interim reports on the material used for collegial learning and the effects of the programme after the first year of implementation.  In this paper we will analyse this programme with a purpose to unfold and probe the assumptions underpinning the Literacy Lift, a Swedish teacher training programme to enhance collegial learning in order to develop teaching that promotes literacy, in this case language-, reading- and writing-skills among the students. The paper will also explore what effects and consequences the programme has had so far.

The paper integrates knowledge from evaluation and education research. Programme theory (PT) evaluation (Leeuw 2003) unfolds how programme makers (the government and NAE) intend to improve the quality in the Swedish education system with this programme, and probes the consistence of the programme’s PT. The PT refers to the assumptions as to how the intended effects can be achieved. Stakeholder evaluation assesses how the main target groups (school owners, principals, supervisors and teachers) perceive effects, intended and other effects, and consequences of the programme.

Education research is used to analyse the programme’s contribution to improve quality in the education system and to probe the programme’s PT. Some education research used to inform policy underscores the importance of teaching quality in improving student learning and performance (Hattie 2009) and of holding schools accountable for learning outcomes (Atkinson et al. 2009; Hamilton, Stecher, Russell, Marsh & Miles 2008; Musset, 2012). School improvement research focuses on “change and problem-solving in educational practice” (Creemers & Reezigt 1997). School improvement does not occur if the “school culture” is not “favourable”, that is, schools “must have shared goals and feel responsible for success”. In addition, there must be a culture of “collegiality”, “risk taking”, “mutual respect and support”, and “openness” (Creemers & Reezigt 2005, 363).

Methods

A programme theory analysis unfolds the programme theory and probes the assumptions. Programme theory is a well-established concept used in evaluation research referring to the assumptions as to how a programme achieves its intended effects. There are various approaches to reconstructing and articulating a PT. This paper adopts a policy-scientific approach (Leeuw, 2003). The PT analysis presented includes three main steps: reconstructing the programme’s PT; analysing the PT’s internal validity (i.e. the consistency of its assumptions); and analysing the PT’s external validity (i.e. whether it is supported by relevant research and provides feasible knowledge for resolving the problems it is intended to resolve). The stakeholder evaluation (Hanberger, 2001) collects data from target groups and assesses programme effects and consequences from the perspective of school owners, principals, supervisors and teachers. The assessment focuses on achievement of objectives, other effects and consequences of the program, as experienced by these target groups.

A variety of data is used. Policy documents and interviews with senior administrators is used

to reconstruct the programme’s PT. The analysis of the stakeholder evaluation is based mainly on questionnaires to the four target groups with additional supplemental interviews with school owners and supervisors.

Expected outcomes/results

Since the programme is continuing, being expanded and slightly revised during its course this paper can only present preliminary results. The paper demonstrates the programme’s PT and probes its consistency. The assumption that the training programme can enhance collegial learning can be expected to gain support, but the contribution to improve student’s performance in upcoming PISA cannot. The effects on collegial learning and literacy didactics improvement will vary between different groups of teachers and related to factors such teachers’ motivation and support from principals and supervisors. How teaching is affected and students’ literacy improved will vary according to a number of factors and conditions, e.g. what teachers have learned and how much of this is translated into teaching. The persistence of effects will depend on such as ongoing support from school owners and principals in providing time for collegial learning and applying the content of the programme in the classroom.

Since 2009, the Swedish Government uses an ‘audit’ agency – the Swedish Schools Inspectorate – to monitor and assess the accuracy with which teachers grade student responses on national tests. This study explores the introduction and subsequent establishment of the Inspectorate’s regrading programme as an example of political management of the tensions between competition and equity inherent in neoliberal regulatory regimes. The programme is considered a case for examining contemporary policies and discourses on fairness and government actions undertaken to resolve issues of unfair assessment and safeguard students’ rights. Work of Carol Bacchi forms part of the theoretical background for the investigation of problem representations around and within the programme. The article demonstrates how discursive practices in the fields of government, audit and media have worked to frame teachers’ assessments as incorrect, unfair and as jeopardizing the credibility of the grading system, thus justifying increased central control and authority over teacher assessments. As such, the regrading programme contributed to increased mistrust in teacher professionalism. A legal discourse is identified, and we argue the examination system is being juridified where the abundance of control over knowledge risks turning into a deficit of that same knowledge.

This paper explores how evaluation, which has expanded at all levels of school governance throughout Europe, shapes parental roles by studying how local school governors and schools in Sweden represent evaluation to parents on their websites. Websites are prime locations for public communications and are useful for exploring the functions of evaluations intended for parental use. In recent decades, parental influence over school has increased through “choice and voice” options, while the role of evaluations has continued to expand in school governance. Evaluations construct social roles, identities, and relations and as such are constitutive of the social world and our place in it. By drawing on Dahler-Larsen’s concept of “constitutive effects”, the discursive implications of evaluation are discussed. The dominant type of evaluation represented on websites is performance data used for accountability and informed school choice purposes. Parents are primarily positioned as customers who exert influence through choice and exit options, reinforcing the almost unquestioned norm of parental right to educational authority. Representations of evaluation differ depending on local political majority, school performance, and public versus independent provider; as such, they are not hegemonic but tend to strengthen the position of parents as individual rights-holders, marginalising forms of collective action.