Umeå University's logo

Swedish school digitalisation policy- dualities in education governanceThe drive to integrate digital technology into education is evident in recent national policy initiatives across Europe. These initiatives have demonstrably influenced the landscape of education governance. Notably, Williamson et al. (2018) have cited instances where new and unconventional stakeholders were included in the national curriculum development process. Moreover, Williamson and Piattoeva (2019) have highlighted how the advent of data-driven technology in education has spurred the proliferation of 'evidence-based' policy and governance. This is achieved by claiming to enhance objectivity in measuring human qualities through the standardization and quantification of data.

In Sweden, the integration of digital technology in K-12 schools gained prominence in 2017 with the introduction of the inaugural National Digital Strategy for the School Sector by the Swedish government (Ministry of Education). This strategy articulated three key policy objectives: fostering digital competence for all in the school sector, ensuring equal access and utilization of digital technology, and enhancing research and follow-up on the possibilities of digitalization. 

The decentralized nature of the Swedish school system presents an intriguing case for the integration of digital technology through national policy initiatives. Since 1991, the 290 municipalities have had autonomy in organizing their K-12 education and managing its financing. The national strategy, however, pays limited attention to local conditions in Swedish municipalities (cf. Grönlund, 2023). Consequently, the policy process demanded significant translational efforts. This paper explores whether this policy process might have influenced Swedish national governance on school digitalization.

Given the decentralized setting, this paper draws support from van Dijk (2013) and his depiction of the networked society. He underscores the significance of establishing connections within networks to gain the privilege of recognition and influence. Van Dijk (2013) also discusses the core and periphery of networks, highlighting the advantages of being included in the network core. Additionally, the descriptions of collaborative governance and network governance by Pierre and Peters (2020) prove valuable. The former emphasizes the proximity to the nation-state in collaborative efforts, while the latter underscores the separation from the nation-state and the distance between what is nationally constituted and what is advocated and voiced through the network.

Following the recommendations of Lewis (2021) to employ research approaches facilitating the observation of the dynamics of educational policy, the data for this paper is derived from a research project comprising four distinct empirical studies. These studies investigate the actions that ensued after the introduction of the Swedish National Digital Strategy for the School Sector (Ministry of Education, 2017).

Following the trajectory of Swedish school digitalization policy (Yorke & Vidovich, 2016), the empirical studies delve into the actions taken by various stakeholders at different governing levels. Each empirical study, now published (with one currently in the publication process) in peer-reviewed academic journals, is tailored to its own specific focus and scope. In combination, they yield findings for an overarching analysis of Swedish education governance, providing a nuanced understanding of the ongoing policy process of school digitalization.

The studies can be outlined as follows. The first study involved conducting interviews with eight Swedish national policymakers actively engaged in formulating a national plan of action designed to complement the national strategy (Gustafsson, 2022). The second study adopted a comparative cross-case study approach examining four diverse Swedish municipalities (Gustafsson, 2022). This study focused on the municipal level, involving local politicians from the education committee and civil servants from the education office. The third study provided a comprehensive examination of 36 Swedish rural municipalities, wherein the individual identified locally as most knowledgeable about municipal efforts in school digitalization was interviewed (Gustafsson & Olofsson, 2023). The fourth and final study comprised a sample investigation involving thirteen ICT coordinators, often referred to as mid-level policy translators, operating in local Swedish schools. 

The study elucidates the tensions inherent in national school digitalization policy and the governance of K-12 within the decentralized Swedish school setting. It exemplifies how acts of collaborative governance and network governance shape the Swedish educational landscape. Furthermore, it underscores how these two distinct approaches to educational steering impact national school digitalization policy in the Swedish context. Moreover, the study delves into networks within the education governance of school digitalization. Networks, conceptualized following van Dijk (2013), possess both a core and a peripheral dimension, a facet explored through the lens of disadvantaged and privileged municipal contexts and their capacity to engage in this process.

Grönlund, Å. (2023). From national digital strategy to local practice. A leadership challenge. In Willermark, Olofsson, & Lindberg (Eds.), Digitalization and Digital Competence in Educational Contexts : A Nordic Perspective from Policy toPractice. Routledge. Gustafsson, U. (2022). Size matters: contextual factors in local policy translations of National School Digitalisation Policy. Education and Information Technologies, 27(8), 11741-11758. Gustafsson, U., & Olofsson, A. D. (2023). ‘This Is How We Do It!’ – rural resilience in local translation work on national school digitalization policy. In Willermark, Olofsson, & Lindberg (Eds.), Digitalization and Digital Competence in Educational Contexts (pp. 28-38). Routledge. Lewis, S. (2021). The turn towards policy mobilities and the theoretical-methodological implications for policy sociology. Critical studies in education, 62(3), 322-337. Ministry of Education. (2017). Nationelldigitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet [National Digital Strategy for the School Sector]Pierre, J., & Peters, B. G. (2020). Governance, politics and the state (2nd edition ed.). Red Globe Press. van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2013). Inequalities in the network society. In K. Orton-Johnson & N. Prior (Eds.), Digital sociology: Critical perspectives (pp. 105-124). Basingstoke. Williamson, B., Bergviken Rensfeldt, A., Player-Koro, C., & Selwyn, N. (2018). Education recoded: policy mobilities in the international ‘learning to code’ agenda. Journal Of Education Policy, 34(5), 705-725. Williamson, B., & Piattoeva, N. (2019). Objectivity as standardization in data-scientific education policy, technology and governance. Learning, media and technology, 44(1), 64-76. Yorke, J., & Vidovich, L. (2016). Theoretical Frameworks for Policy Analysis. In Yorke & Vidovich (Eds.), Learning Standards and the Assessment of Quality in Higher Education: Contested Policy Trajectories (Vol. 7, pp. 69-87). Springer Nature.