School Management: Norwegian Legacies
Bowing to New Public Management
Arild Tjeldvoll
The purpose of the study was to investigate the relevance of school
management training programmes to current Norwegian education
policies and strategies. A specific question was asked: How relevant is
the teaching professors' understanding of school management compe-
tence? The findings indicate a split understanding of policy relevant
understanding of school management. A majority of respondents had
an understanding of school management coherent with the national
policies and strategies. A minority did not. They saw the headmas-
ter primarily as a communicative facilitator for teachers' work, and an
'administrative caretaker'. In an international perspective the findings
represent a Norwegian particularity. There is a collision between Nor-
wegian anti-management legacies of running schools and the Govern-
ment's need for effective and accountable management. This may imply
a slower speed of implementing educational reforms in Norway.
Key Words: school, management, training, education, reform policies,
pedagogy
jEL Classification: i, o
Introduction
head1 is a Norwegian four years' comparative research project focus-
ing on the quality of school management training in Norway, Finland,
France, uk and us. The objective is to produce new knowledge about
school manager training of quality internationally, which can be relevant
for quality improvement in Norway. This objective will be accomplished
by country reports taking stock of relevant knowledge in the five coun-
tries. In this report the focus is Norway. More specifically, the case of
Norway will be studied by identifying how the function of school man-
agement is actually understood by those responsible for training school
managers.
The rationale of the head study is that the school manager is a par-
ticularly important link in what has been labelled 'the education value
Dr Arild Tjeldvoll is a Professor in the Unit of Comparative
and International Education, University of Oslo, Norway.
Managing Global Transitions 6 (2): 177-205
chain'. The chain's starting point is the goals of the current national edu-
cation policies, and the end point is satisfaction among key stakeholders
and Norway's ranking in international comparisons of school achieve-
ments.
THE CHAIN
1.	National education policies,
2.	university trainers' understanding of school management,
3.	the professional quality of the school manager,
4.	the quality of teaching and learning activities, and
5.	the quality of students' learning achievements on the one hand
and, on the other:
6.	stakeholders' satisfaction (parents, higher education institutions
and working life representatives) and
7.	Norway's ranking in international comparisons of learning achieve-
ments as indications of the country's competitive edge in the global
knowledge economy.
This study focuses on point (2.) in the Chain above, that is, the un-
derstanding of the school management function among the training staffs
at three main Norwegian providers, The Norwegian University of Science
(ntnu), University of Oslo (uio) and Norwegian School of Manage-
ment (bi). Although these three institutions are responsible for the bulk
of training in the country, there are several other providers (colleges).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
The overall research question is: How relevant is Norwegian school man-
agement trainers' understanding of school management in relation to the
goals and strategies of present national education policies? Before respond-
ing to this question, two others have to be answered:
1.	How is 'school management' understood by the trainers at ntnu,
uio and bi?
2.	What are the similarities and differences in understanding school
management at the three institutions?
Hence, the 'research object' of this study is delimited to the trainers'
understanding of the school management function. One assumption made
is that a particular Norwegian legacy of understanding the school man-
agement function as primarily an auxiliary for the teachers may now
be challenged by influence from corporate life, expressed in the prin-
ciples of New Public Management (Pollitt 1995). These principles from
market-based corporations (goal-orientation, client-centred, competi-
tion, assessment and accountability) are increasingly seen by mandators
and clients as more valid for implementing current policies in the pub-
lic sector. From this line of reasoning it is, moreover, assumed that there
may be found differing understandings, and perhaps tensions, among
Norwegian trainers of school manager trainees, which may be dysfunc-
tional for policy goals.
KEY TERMS
Staff understanding of school management is the core element of a key
link in the education value chain. For the effectiveness of the training
programme's organisation it is paramount what sort of understanding
the trainers transfer to the trainees. Two terms applied are school man-
agement/manager and school leadership/leader. Although their concep-
tual content is frequently debated, in this study 'management' is seen as a
neutral, overarching term, comprising decision-making, leadership and
administration tasks. These terms are used interchangeably in the litera-
ture and in policy documents. That is also the case in this report. School
management is operationalised into three dimensions: Management of
learning, personnel management and organisation management.
Norwegian National Education Policies from 2001
The national policy document Competence for Development2 suggests
directions in which the new reforms should be implemented, as well as
describing the areas of responsibility for their realisation. Whilst recog-
nizing that a network of providers who offer further education is already
in place, the report suggests that there should also be: 'further develop-
ment of the programmes, so that they cover both the competence re-
quired for leading knowledge organizations in a process of change and
development, and the more reform specific requirements' (ufd 2004,
7). These developments are to be enacted in conjunction with a wider
group of stakeholders than merely the programme providers embodied
in higher education institutions. Moreover, this is described as a priority.
THE QUALITY REFORM OF TEACHER TRAINING:
'diverse, challenging and relevant'
The white paper on teacher training reform (udf 2002) reported impor-
tant changes in educational policy directions, which have been further
applied and built upon in the 2004 white paper (ufd 2004). Chapter 15
of this official document outlines the purpose, character and practice of
capacity building3 for both teachers and leaders. From this document it
is clear that it is the overall responsibility of the employer4 to provide
for, and encourage capacity development by mapping needs, assuring
the availability of programmes and setting up opportunities for employ-
ees. The employers, in this instance, are the individual local and regional
authorities. It is the declared responsibility of the higher education in-
stitutions to respond to these demands by offering programmes comple-
mentary to the owners' needs.
From the amended Education Act from 2005 (Lov om grunnskolen
og den vidaregaande oppl^ringa) it is even more clearly noted that the
responsibility for in-service provision lies with just the local authority.5
Whilst the State continues to control the direction of education poli-
cies, the greater freedom for local government ensures the development
of an interesting education map of Norway. With greater demands for
increased competence, institutions begin to compete for course partic-
ipants, while at the same time many are involved in collaborative net-
works of providers. This is also now developing into competition for
providing localized programmes for local and regional authority manda-
tors.
A speech given by the Norwegian Minister of Education in June 2005,6
suggested that there would be a continued divergence from the tradi-
tional educational orthodoxy of Norway, at least as long as the Conser-
vative Party was in power. Despite the introduction and development of
more Master's degrees, and locally based programmes, the Minister re-
ferred to a continued dissatisfaction with the narrow recruitment base,
constricted development of schools as knowledge forming, learning or-
ganizations, and concern over weak evaluation and limited capacity for
observation. This led the Minister to hint at more focus upon developing
the Norwegian national quality assurance systems. At the same time, the
Minister implied that there would be no centrally steered plan for school
leadership training, despite the suggestions to the contrary, outlined in
Culture for Learning (ufd 2004).
POLICIES SUMMARISED
Since 2001, increasing developments in policy have changed the map of
the educational field in Norway. The system is now characterized by a
greater freedom for local school leaders, whilst simultaneously demand-
ing greater accountability. There is a greater focus upon the content
and achievements of schooling. The ministry has highlighted curriculum
knowledge, national testing, competition and privatization, as the key
areas of change. The ensuing demands upon school leaders have been
outlined in recent government white papers, particularly in the above-
mentioned Culture for Learning. With the suggested requirements for
greater competence within these areas, the Government has supported
the development of Master programmes in the field of school leadership,
with overall responsibility for the capacity building in the hands of the
employer; the local and regional authorities. This has led to an increase
in Master level programmes, which has in turn led to increased compe-
tition both at the home institution, and in locally based qualifications
mandated by the local government.
Theoretical Framework
It has proved particulary difficult to find research directly focusing on
the training provider (curriculum and organisation/staff). This fact is,
however, highly stimulating for the head programme. It is filling in on
a knowledge gap. As proxy for such knowledge, existing studies about
school management as such have had to serve. Findings from the head
Pilot Study (Tjeldvoll and Welle-Strand 2003) indicate that the bulk of
research internationally on school management and management train-
ing is done from 'within', that is - by education researchers seeing the
school from within and related to education sector specific conditions.
The head research initiative has, partly, been motivated by observed
limitations of such an 'inside' approach, e. g. not taking much into ac-
count effects of globalisation and experiences from knowledge manage-
ment in corporate life.
education 'inside' research
According to reports from the head Preparation Project (Tjeldvoll and
Welle-Strand 2003; Tjeldvoll, Welle-Strand, and Bento 2003) research on
education management is scarce in three of the five countries involved.
In Finland, France and Norway not much systematic research has taken
place. Among the few publications found, typical foci are case reports,
technical evaluations and handbooks, and next to none published in En-
glish. For uk and us the situation is different. A considerable amount of
publications have been identified.
In Norway between 1998 and 2003 39 publications were traced. Among
these 15 were evaluation reports and project case descriptions and ten
were master theses (Paulsen 1998). Most of the remaining 14 were of
the department/institute series-type, practical guides and working doc-
uments (Paulsen 1999). Only a few were ordinary research publications
(e. g. Lillejordet 2003; Grotterud and Nilsen 2001). No articles in referee
journals were found. A careful assessment the of status quo in Norway is
that hardly much systematic research has been going on. All of the works
found applied an 'inside' and practical approach, and most of them have
an unreflected normative approach, aiming at improvement of the ex-
isting system and 'unified school-thinking'. These understandings to a
fair degree run contrary to the new public management thinking of the
government in 2004 (ufd 2004).
As far as Finland is concerned, from online databases only two articles
of interest were identified (Eratuuli and Nylen 1995; Leino 1984). Eratu-
uli and Nylen (1995) made a comparative study of school managers in
Russia, Sweden and Finland. They found that Swedish and Finnish prin-
cipals were more general and practical-oriented while the Russians were
more concerned about the principles of leadership.
French studies are frequently concerned about the centralisation-
decentralisation problems (Simon 2000; Louis 1994; Bonnet, Dupont,
and Godin 1995), and the efficiency of leadership, sometimes in a com-
parative perspective (Jumentier 1995). French research has also focused
on theories, methodology and practices in order to improve school com-
munication. Head teachers are regarded as the main link of the commu-
nication chain and they are required to improve their skills continuously
(Etienne and Amiel 1995). The French studies indirectly reflect an un-
derstanding of the school manager as 'an extended administrative arm
of the Republic', not including much room of action for decentralised
action by the school leader.
In uk there has been much written about the development educa-
tional leadership and management. Brundrett (2001) points out that
unlike us, with uk it was only in the 1960s that programmes offer-
ing systematic training and development opportunities for senior staff
in schools began to appear. The United Kingdom, like usa, has wit-
nessed a period of intense concern about the quality of school manage-
ment. Brundrett's recent research has revealed a patchwork of provisions
including certificate, diploma, ma, mba, MEd, msc and EdD courses
which provides a comparatively structured provision of progressive aca-
demic qualifications grounded in both theory and practice. Slowly the
purely academic basis was being changed. The concepts of 'leadership'
and 'management' are being rethought.
According to MacBeath (2003) leadership is a term full of ambiguity
and with a range of interpretations. It is a humpty - dumpty word that
can mean just what we want it to mean. His essay goes on to discuss 20
different definitions of leadership, of which many are similar and over-
lapping. He discusses the trend in education over the last few years to
shift from notions of management to re-brand movements, projects and
organisations under the leadership banner. This is to create a distance
between leadership and 'management', the latter seen as a more limited
concept and too closely associated with managerialism, a somewhat dis-
credited approach based on rational, 'scientific' principles (ibid.).
In the us, Studies of leadership have a long history. The first publica-
tions about educational leadership appeared by the 1950s. One important
discussion throughout the years has been about the possibility of the im-
plementation of management theory in education. While some authors
have argued that schools should be administered like any other organi-
zation, others believe that the management of educational institutions is
intrinsically different from other branches since their purposes are more
difficult to conceptualize than the purposes of industrial organizations
(Wagner 2001; Murphy 2001).
The last decade witnessed profound changes in how educational lead-
ership has been regarded in the United States, with the establishment of
the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (isllc) Standards
for School Leaders,7 developed by the National Policy Board for Educa-
tional Administration and by representatives of 23 state departments of
education. This document is composed of six standards, all beginning
with the sentence 'a school administrator is an educational leader who
promotes the success of all students by:
standard 1 Facilitating the development, implementation, and stew-
ardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by the
community
standard 2 Advocating, nurturing and sustaining a school culture
and instructional program conductive to student learning and staff
professional growth.
standard 3 Ensuring management of the organization, operations,
and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environ-
ment.
standard 4 Collaborating with families and community members,
responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobiliz-
ing community resources.
standard 5 Acting with integrity, with fairness, and in an ethical
manner.
standard 6 Understanding, responding to, and influencing the
larger political, social, economic, legal and cultural contexts.'
These six standards can be seen as education policy quality criteria for
much of the research on education management training programmes
taking place in the us, as well as influencing the rest of the world.
The 'Inside-Research' Summarised
The very scarce Norwegian proper research identified tended to be non-
reflective, normative and practical in approach, aiming at an improve-
ment of the existing 'unified school model'. The relation between teaching
staff and manager was a key dimension. The international research field
is dominated by studies from England and the us. The former is char-
acterised by a centralised-decentralised strategy for effective implemen-
tation of national policies at school level. Effective school managers are
seen as crucial. In the us a strong stress on a manager leading processes
for improving local culture for learning and care in an ethical perspective
is replacing a former more administrative model. International research
has a focus on the strengthened manager, while the (scarce) Norwegian
research is focused on improving the existing model.
change leadership, knowledge management
and innovation
At the end of the education value chain is now found the global, market-
based knowledge economy with its users and customers. It requires the
optimal growth of human capital from kindergarten to universities. Pol-
icy makers increasingly see knowledge as the core resource and dynamic
of modern economies, and prerequisite of global competitiveness. The
main source of productivity and competitiveness in modern economies
is knowledge, both as input, but increasingly as production process itself
(Castells 1996; Stehr 1994). Knowledge is seen as both scientific knowl-
edge as well as know-how, or competence vested in nations' and firms'
human capital (Gibbons et al. 1994; Fosstenlokken 2003). The quality of
learning in kindergarten, primary and secondary schooling (K-12) is the
foundation for what a nation can harvest later in its higher education.
In order to become learning and knowledge societies, the competence of
managers of schools as organisations for learning become vital.
head draws upon concepts of leadership developed in other orga-
nizational contexts, particularly situational/contingency, and transfor-
mational leadership (Yukl 2002; Bass 1996; Busch, Johnsen, and Vanebo
1999; Burke 2002), whilst discussing how the Norwegian school context
functions as a setting for constructive and creative decision making. Ac-
cording to Bess and Goldman (2001) research on leadership in educa-
tional organization is often rhetorical, even moralistic, and empirically
immature. Hence, they see the need for more empirical work, and par-
ticularly research that attempts to test common assumptions or myths of
leadership in education organisations.
HEAD also draws upon theories of knowledge management and change
leadership based on empirical studies of corporations, in order to estab-
lish their relevance for understanding what is happening to schools as or-
ganisations under globalization. One of the largest challenges in today's
global competitive environment is to create innovations and changes for
organisations to stay ahead in the competition, or to be able to cope with
new demands from their stakeholders. According to Barney (1997) re-
sources must be valuable, rare, imitable and organizational to create sus-
tainable competitive advantage.
Only a few years ago there was almost no competition in some mar-
kets, while hyper-competition is now dominating (D'Aveni 1997). Decen-
tralized organisations, networks and virtual organisations have been an-
swers to recent competitive pressures. Especially Lowendahl and Revang
(1998) have focused on increased complexity internally and externally,
because of competitive pressure and societal changes in the post-modern
society.
The head Project intends to keep attention directed to the interface
between new organizational forms, innovation and knowledge manage-
ment, and relate these processes to the K-12 education sector. Especially
important is the network form, as many organisations tend to change
their view on organization towards network, as a more collaborative
form has been recognized
Today there are two research areas of particular interest, first the
knowledge orientation towards the enterprise, and second insights into
change management. By combining these two it is possible to extend our
insights into how knowledge management can be performed in innova-
Innovation/change manageme
Knowledge management
Organizational forms
Students' learning
achievements?
figure 1 Knowledge management, change management
and organizational forms
tion contexts (Choo 1998; Nonaka, Ichijo, and von Krogh 2000; Wagner
2002). Burgelman (1980) has studied the relationship between strategy
and innovations as the innovation system follows its own type of action
rationality that is separate from the management system. It is on the
border between these two systems that innovations are seen. To create
changes involves exploring something new and unknown and not ex-
isting (Berg, Martinsen, and Thompson 1998). This requires analyses of
knowledge management, change leadership and innovations (Friedman
and Olaisen 1997, Araujo and Harrison 2002; Lorange 2002).
Summary of'Corporate Way of Thinking Learning Management'
The focus is on relations between 'change leadership', 'knowledge man-
agement' and innovation. Typical for successful enterprises in the market
is that the management is able to make and implement decisions and re-
structure in a way that produces learning/new knowledge among staff,
as a foundation for being innovative. Learning new knowledge and be-
ing innovative are preconditions for survival in a competitive context.
Knowledge management means leading by making staff learn - to see
themselves what has to be done - to survive.
Literature Review Summarised - Assumptions Revised
While the 'inside' research over and above reflects what governments,
communities and educational researchers think about how schools sho-
uld be run to be goal-effective, the knowledge management view is
roughly concerned about what are necessary conditions for encouraging
staff to learn in order not 'to burn'. There are indications that especially
the English public policies are beginning to be influenced by knowledge
management thinking. This tendency is reflected in strong efforts to em-
power the school leader, e. g. by establishing the National College for
School Leadership.
The overall research question of this study seeks response to the degree
of coherence between national education policy goals/needs for school
leader competence on the one side, and, on the other, university trainers'
understanding of 'school management'. One assumption is that the Nor-
wegian trainers have a bias towards an 'inside-education sector-thinking'
reflecting a particular Norwegian legacy of seeing the school manager
primarily as 'administrative care taker'. This implies an understanding
of 'school management' as being a tool for teachers' work, more than the
teachers being a tool for the management's efforts to implement national
policy ambitions. However, there is also assumed to be found indications
of a movement towards NpM-thinking (new public management), re-
flecting an influence from corporate thinking about knowledge manage-
ment. Moreover, the Norwegian Legacy of understanding school man-
agement as a service for the teachers is assumed to be still very strong.
Trainers' Understanding - Assumptions Operationalised
Figure 2 is an attempt to visualize head's framework of thinking about
the links of the Education Value Chain, from national policies to the
school managers as change agents at school level. The new national poli-
cies require reforms of the education system, e. g. the universities tak-
ing responsibility for training the school managers. Their training pro-
grammes (organisation, staff, curriculum/evaluation, training methods,
use of ict and stakeholder relations are expected to change. Within this
framework the present study concerns two areas: a) Understanding of
school management among the trainers at the university, and b) the con-
tent of the school management function, or the competence that is ex-
pected to be achieved in the training programme, and to be applied at
school level.
operationalisation
The overall research question is: How relevant is Norwegian school man-
agement trainers' understanding of school management in relation to the
goals and strategies of present national education policies? The Govern-
ment has stated the following specific strategies in order to reach reform
goals:
•	Legal room of action - the leaders' autonomy, for implementing
quality schooling taking local conditions into consideration.
•	Understanding of national goals.
•	Understanding of 'quality'.
figure 2 Framework for understanding school management
in the education value chain
•	Use of ict.
•	Competence for 'didactical effectiveness'.
•	Competence for 'organisational efficiency' - effective use of re-
sources.
•	Practical skills to restructure the school to meet new national policy
goals in the local school's context.
•	Competence to develop schools as 'knowledge organisations' be-
coming 'learning organisations' and the leaders becoming 'learning
managers'.
•	Competence in 'evaluation of staff and achievements'.
Understanding of the content of three sub-functions of the school
management function is assumed to illuminate a trainer's understanding
of the nine Government strategies. The three sub functions are learn-
ing management, personnel management and organisation management.
They are operationalised by certain issues substantiating each sub func-
tion. The issues are:
1. Management of learning
•	Research-based knowledge
•	Education policy goals
•	The national curriculum
•	Planning skills
•	Implementation skills
•	Assessment skills
2.	Personnel management
•	Care
•	Personal crisis
•	Personal and academic development
•	Improve own competence
•	Health
3.	Organisation management
•	Financial resources
•	School context
•	Organisational restructuring
•	Stakeholders' involvement in key organisation processes
•	Appointments and dismissals of teachers
•	Legality and accountability
•	The superior administrative level
•	Interactive communication with stakeholders
•	Network relations
•	icT and Internet
Methodology
This study is rooted in two sociological paradigms (Burrell and Mor-
gan 1979). Its rationale is anchored in a functionalist paradigm, because
national education policy goals and strategies are a frame of reference
for investigating how consistent university school management train-
ers' understanding is with policy goals and strategies. This is the logic
of goals and means. Simultaneously, the study is rooted in an interpre-
tative/humanist paradigm, when it comes to methodology. The overall
research strategy is qualitative. A research 'object' like 'understanding
of school management' is not seen as convenient to be measured and
counted. It has to be interpreted.
In addition to 'trainers' understanding of school management', an-
other research object is 'policy documents'. These are not measured
quantitatively, but interpreted qualitatively.
The data collection technique is on line with interpretative think-
ing. The interviewing of the trainers was based on a semi-structured
interview. For each of the issues operationalising the school manage-
ment function, the interviewee was asked an introductory question
about knowledge and/or skills needed for a school manager in relation
to the specific issue. Following, the respondent was free to give all the
comments he/she found necessary. After the interview, there were tran-
scribed, and returned to the interviewee to be corrected or supplemented
with more opinions, if they thought it necessary. Among the 22 respon-
dents only two had comments on their interview and were given the
opportunity of supplementing more information.
Internal validity in a qualitative study normally has limitations. The
specification of the management function into three sub functions is
based both on 'grounded experiences' from management practice, as
well as from traditional organisation logics. In terms of interviewees' re-
sponses, interpretations by their own nature vary. However, the way the
22 interviewees responded to the sub function issues was mainly quite
similar, indicating a common understanding of the contents. That said,
there was a tendency towards more direct 'communication validity' by
interviewees who had themselves served in a school management po-
sition. In terms of external validity it is claimed that the information
collected is valid for the staffs of the three institutions, only, not for the
whole country. Moreover, in terms of reliability, there is fair reason to
think that the same questions given to the same respondents once more
in the near future would have given roughly the same answers.
Findings
NTNU's UNDERSTANDING
Summarized, a rough dichotomy is found in the understanding of
school management competence amongst respondents. In terms of
seeing the leader as a learning manager, the majority of respondents
stressed competence based in research on learning. They favoured a
functionalist-rationalist consistency between curriculum and school
organisation/management. Moreover, they saw the present policies as
subject-oriented and with strong emphasis on quality and assessment.
These policy orientations expressed in the national curriculum were
taken as a positive challenge for societal interests. They wished to have
rational planning, long-term strategies and systematic goal-relevant as-
sessments. The minority group stressed the school leader's learning from
the practice of the teachers. He or she ought to be critical towards the
new policies, applying a social-constructivist theoretical frame of refer-
ence. The new policies might be threatening to democracy in schools.
The national curriculum implied more decentralisation than schools
could yet cope with. The leader ought not to be a 'manager', but a facil-
itator in teachers' work. Evaluations ought to be based on a 'goal-free'
model, and primarily based on reflexive discussions between manager
and staff.
For views upon the school leader as a personnel manager there was
also found a dichotomy. A minority group was clearly more teacher-
centred than the others. One person put very high priority on the care
dimension in its own right, compared to all other tasks. This priority
was even stronger if a staff member was in a personal crisis. In terms of
personal and academic development the minority group saw this as an
effect from an inspired collective, left to be decided upon by the single
teacher, and without any feeling of competition. Most important for the
leader's health was the inspired strength following from work with chil-
dren and from social communication processes. The majority group saw
the staff's need for care in relation to professional demands, and a task
that could be delegated to other persons in the leadership team. When
a staff member experienced a personal crisis, and the leader was trying
to solve this problem, the leader also had to take into account effects for
the rest of the staff. In terms of the staff's personal and academic devel-
opment the group saw this as a policy issue for the school leader. He/she
ought to have a policy for in-service training, anchored in the school's
rationale and ambition for quality results among students. In terms of
protecting the leader's health, those who had themselves been in a lead-
ership position expressed that they enjoyed the position, and found this
joy as a main condition for staying healthy.
The dichotomy in understandings of the school manager continued
when asking about the function of organisation management, except for
the issue of financing, where there was total agreement about its impor-
tance. The divide within the group came to the surface in views upon
the school context. A minority was most concerned about the actor-
level; communication ought to be directly between the actors in the
school (teachers) and actors outside, e. g. parents. This group was reluc-
tant or apprehensive towards school restructuring. In terms of involving
external stakeholders this ought to be done by the teachers, more than
the leader. While there was considerable agreement about being care-
ful and having well prepared procedures for appointing teachers, this
group was reluctant to consider sacking a teacher, even if the person
was professionally weak. For these respondents the superior level (mu-
nicipality/superintendent) was felt as somewhat 'a danger from above'.
it-based professional networks might have some merit, but could eas-
ily have dehumanising effects. The majority group of respondents had a
system rational approach and were clearly concerned about accountabil-
ity towards external stakeholders, also those other than parents. They
were open to school restructuring, if this would make the school a better
instrument to become more goal-effective and accountable. It was seen
as a leader's responsibility to involve external stakeholders. In terms of
appointments/dismissals of teachers, this group expressed a more man-
agerial attitude. In order to better serve students and other stakeholders
it ought to be easier to dismiss a professionally poor teacher. A positive
attitude was expressed to the level above, considered important to de-
velop creative links with e. g. the municipality education office. There
was a generally positive attitude to applying icT, given that the use was
goal-effective for either learning or administrative purposes.
uio's understanding
Among the nine respondents there was agreement about several aspects
of school leadership, but the group splits into two subgroups on several
issues.
Common Understanding of School Management
There is shared understanding of the present national education poli-
cies as focusing knowledge, testing and accountability, and about the
national curriculum as mainly concerned about knowledge-based com-
petence, basic skills and individualised learning. Moreover, there is full
agreement about the need for further education for school leaders, for
their participation in professional networks and for setting boundaries
and for creating free spaces off job. All respondents see externally funded
projects as a main extra source of funding. There is agreement about the
necessity of organisational restructuring and about involving stakehold-
ers into the school's work in order to create a school culture. Further
there is agreement about the main steps to take when appointing or dis-
missing a teacher. The unions are normally no problem. There is agree-
ment about the problems of communication with the school's owner,
due to lack of understanding at this level of specificities of the school's
mission, organisation and curriculum. Implied here is agreement about
the need for the school 'to educate' the school owner. Networking activ-
ities are important, but the leader should not be too much absent from
school. ict is an advantage, but there should be awareness of the darker
side of the technology.
Differences in Understanding of School Management
In terms of research-based knowledge about learning, a majority is fo-
cusing on the classroom level, and some of them see socio-cultural learn-
ing theory as the primary research knowledge foundation for under-
standing learning in schools. Others include learning in the school as
an organisation, and it is stated that a sociological/system perspective is
necessary for understanding learning. In terms of how the recent edu-
cational policies are assessed, some fear negative effects from underly-
ing ideological tensions as well as from system rigidity. The majority of
respondents express a constructive attitude to the new policies and the
curriculum, and one favours npm as the relevant leadership thinking.
When it comes to planning, implementation and assessment there are
two principally different opinions in terms of placing either the teachers
or the school leader as key actor in these processes.
In terms of personnel management, there are distinct differences in
the group when it comes to care, crisis situations and teachers' personal
and academic development. One sub group stresses the stronger role of
the leader and necessity to take the school's goals as frame of reference
for actions, while the other stresses the role of the staff and the needs of
the individual teacher.
There are different views in terms of getting extra funding. Some state
clearly that all public education should be publicly funded. Others are
open to sponsoring and cooperation with different external agents in a
way that would provide extra revenues for the school. In terms of con-
text some are mostly concerned about the parents, while others take a
wider view. There are different views about conditions for organisational
restructuring, and which role external stakeholders should play. Some
are reluctant towards external influences, while others express a market-
oriented thinking. Several are in favour of trial lesson for new teachers,
but one is strictly against. Some are thinking that too much care for the
individual teacher may harm the school as a collective. The relation to
the superior level (the school owner) is also seen differently. Some are
reluctant, advising scepticism, while others are suggesting active means
to make this relation productive.
bi's understanding
Among the five respondents there is much agreement about how to un-
derstand school management. However, certain aspects are emphasised.
Common Understanding of School Management
There is overall agreement in the group about the necessity of solid
research-based knowledge about learning for school leaders. And, they
all think that current national education policies are focusing on knowl-
edge, personalised learning, accountability and the economical dimen-
sion of education. There is agreement that curriculum consequences are
decentralisation, local adaptations, individualised learning and more ef-
fective assessment/measurement of achievements. Teachers should have
great freedom in implementing goal-effective policies.
There is general agreement about the personnel management issues. It
is a leader's responsibility to be visible, accessible and be demonstrating
concern for what teachers are challenged to. Concrete actions could be
appraisals, regular visits to the class room and follow-up meetings with
the team - or 'management by walking around'.
The leader should be aware of existing staff competence. Each teacher
should have a career plan. Teachers' professional development is cheaper
than changing personnel. Teachers' development plans should be aligned
to the goals of the school. Teachers are often moderately interested. The
big challenge is teacher motivation, and the connection between teacher
motivation and the needs of the school. There is agreement about be-
ing active in increasing funding for the school, about behaving proac-
tive to the school's context, and about getting parents as active partners
to achieve learning goals for individual students. Restructuring of the
school is important in order to make the school a more effective instru-
ment for national policies and for parents/students interests. Academic
achievements or 'classical school tasks' are seen as the core of the school's
work. There is agreement about procedures for appointing new teachers
and for sacking them. Accountability to the school's owner is accepted
as a fact. Simultaneously, it is seen as a problem that the school owner,
in many cases, does not really understand 'the school business'. There is
agreement about academic life - long learning for school leaders. The
Internet and ict has considerable potentials for increasing learning and
for being a useful administrative tool. However, it is warned against over-
belief in the new technology.
Certain Emphases
Within the group's broad agreement about what constitutes relevant
knowledge and skills (competence) for school leaders, there are also
some interesting different emphases among the respondents. There are
some who take the school as an organisation, as a frame of reference for
their understanding, and, simultaneously stress the importance of gen-
eral leadership thinking. Some express scepticism about the relevance of
pedagogy as a knowledge base for understanding school leadership. One
points to classroom discipline as an important area for improvement.
Some see the new policies as primarily rhetoric. pisa taught Norwegian
politicians about the need for a knowledge orientation. This need had
been presented by researchers in 1990, but due to 'democratic dysfunc-
tions' it took more than a decade to be acknowledged.
Some state that development must be based in the staff as a collective,
aiming at team teaching. The leader's responsibility and ability to moti-
vate teachers are underlined more strongly by some respondents. Twined
to the motivation strategy, the leader has to assess and monitor 'the chain
of effects in the classroom'. It is held that many Norwegian teachers are
not necessarily interested in such attention from the leader. Many want to
have freedom without control. The leader monitors by goal-dependent
incentives. Norway has been poor at using incentives. To motivate teach-
ers is difficult in Norway, because education does not have such a high
value. This is partly a dysfunction of the successful Welfare State. Testing
should be effective, but not 'clumsy'. From the test results there should be
back tracking to the learning processes in the school. The leader should
check staff's plans and basic structure of work, but avoid 'micromanage-
ment', although visits in classroom should be normal.
For improving the leader's own competence, one group stresses higher
academic learning and continued participation in discussions among
professionals in the field. The other group is rather critical towards the
present competence level of Norwegian school leaders, claiming that
Norway has the wrong focus on knowledge production. More training
will not have so great an impact if the candidates have academically weak
backgrounds. The better training for school leaders would be involve-
ment in empirical research themselves, as well as in continuous evalua-
tion and experimentation with their own school.
similarities and differences
among the three institutions
What are the similarities and differences in understanding school man-
agement at the three institutions?
For the three staffs as a whole, respondents' opinions illuminate a
rough split between two different frames of reference, when consider-
ing what relevant school management competence is. One group is, mo-
rover, applying a humanist approach, where teachers and their well-being
is centre stage for all other considerations. If teachers are motivated,
students will be motivated, and experience a positive learning process.
Hence, national policies for more goal-effectiveness, competitiveness, ef-
fective management and accountability towards external stakeholders
become dubious, and even threatening for the situation of the teachers,
and, by implication, for the students. Such policies and their implemen-
tation ought to be viewed critically, and even be resisted. The other group
is mainly applying a structuralist-economic frame of reference. National
policies are seen as a mission presented by the Ministry as Mandator - on
behalf of a democratic society. These policies ought to be implemented as
effectively as possible, for the good of the students, for other stakehold-
ers and for country. The management position is seen as crucial. Poor
teachers are an obstacle. A possible effect of these two different frames
of reference is that the 'humanists' in their teaching in the programme
will be steered by primary attention to the teacher-student relation, and
the effects on it from the new policies. The 'structuralists', on the other
hand, are likely to focus more on the manager, as an instrument to make
teachers apply goal-effective learning strategies for the students.
Discussion
The purpose of the empirical investigation of three Norwegian providers
was to find information to answer the question: How relevant is Norwe-
gian school management trainers' understanding of school management
in relation to the goals and strategies of present national education poli-
cies? The findings have indicated that the Norwegian Legacy has had to
bow to New Public Management. Why?
THREE institutions - THREE profiles of UNDERsTANDING
In terms of understanding school management the three institutions
show three somewhat different profiles. The minority group of the
NTNU-dichotomy is the most distinct critique of the present policies,
curriculum and emphasis on school management. Teachers, not man-
agement, are the key to school development. At the other end of an en-
visaged scale, there is bi, who is completely in line with the new national
policies, and has the whole programme tailored to meet the implemen-
tation needs of these policies. In between, there is uio. In common with
bi, there is a majority group with a clear-cut management orientation
and distinctively positive attention to the surroundings. There is willing-
ness to restructure the school, in order to meet both national policies and
local stakeholder needs. In common with ntnu there is at uio a minor-
ity group apprehensive towards the new knowledge and accountability-
policies and towards NpM-like management thinking. Moreover, similar
to ntnu, a minority group strongly expresses that socio-cultural theory
for learning is the preferred knowledge foundation. The teachers should
be the driving force in development, the leader principally in the role of
a facilitator of staff relations.
While all bi staff have a keen policy-relevant understanding of school
management, ntnu and uio are inclined towards ambiguity. The mi-
nority groups at the two institutions are resistant to or reluctant to accept
national policies and strategies, reflecting an alternative understanding
of the purpose of schooling and of how schools should be led. This un-
derstanding is in line with traditional Norwegian ways of viewing school
development, characterised by being critical to 'management of teachers'.
These trainers do not really enjoy the idea of a manager. A school leader
ought primarily to be a coordinator of relationship building among the
teaching staff. This view is contrasted with those clearly seeing the neces-
sity of a manager, accountable to stakeholders at local and central levels
of the education system. Theoretically, the minority group's understand-
ing of schooling is founded in 'scientific pedagogy' based, mostly on an
'education sector inside' understanding of the purpose of education. In
terms of understanding how learning takes place, socio-cultural learning
theory is dominant. For ntnu and uio, as programme providers, this
cognitive split (between majority and minority groups) presents the tar-
get group (the trainees) with a blurred message of what school manage-
ment is. It may have problematic effects for the trainees to handle being
taught and tutored from two different understandings. Without taking
a stand as to what is ultimately the 'true' understanding of school man-
agement, or to what are 'correct' education policies, it is fair to assume
that the identified split-situation may have dysfunctional effects for the
trainees.
increased relevance - and resistance
Compared to assumptions made before the study started, the relevance
of trainers' understanding of school management (competence) in rela-
tion to national strategies is higher than expected. The group expressing
either resistance or reluctance towards present policies is small. The great
majority accepts the policies, has a rather clear understanding of learn-
ing being the focus, of present policy goals as they are expressed in the
curriculum, and of the need for relevant planning and assessment skills.
Also on personnel policies most respondents favour a manager who si-
multaneously takes care of personnel, of the school and of him/herself. In
terms of organisation management, the great majority envisages a man-
ager that aims at leading the school effectively in order to simultaneously
reach national policy goals and meet local stakeholders' needs. Evalua-
tion is seen as crucial both for making the school organisation effective,
and for being able to report (accountably) to stakeholders about student
achievements.
However, the resistance is still there, in the understanding of minority
groups at ntnu and uio. There is reluctance to place too much focus
on knowledge, at the cost of the school's wider socialisation responsi-
bility. In essence, there is disagreement about what is really the quality
of schooling. Moreover, there is resistance to 'managerialism'. Distinct
leadership is seen as counterproductive to professional teacher and staff
independence. Too strong a stress on management may be threatening
to democracy in schools. The resistance group is more concerned about
school improvement in the way teachers would address it, than about
school effectiveness processes led by a distinct manager. Implied is much
reluctance to strict assessment procedures. Negative effects of the evalu-
ation's control function are feared. The resistance of the minority groups
is seen as rooted in what can be termed a particular Norwegian legacy
of 'teacher power' in terms of understanding school development and
school administration.
the norwegian legacy challenged
by pisa and globalisation
Why did the 'Norwegian Legacy' come into existence? A glance at the his-
tory of school development and school management in Norway may help
understanding. Until recently, Norway was primarily a rural country,
with small schools run by a few teachers. Administrative tasks at school
level were taken care of by one of the teachers, formally titled (literally)
an 'Over-Teacher', an administrative 'care taker'. Historically, the curricu-
lum tradition was encyclopaedic - subject-centred, with many subjects.
Good education was an important means for social mobility. Motiva-
tion for education was high. Until ca 1970 students finished compulsory
schooling at the age of 14.
Around 1970 a curriculum philosophical paradigm shift occurred.
Compulsory schooling age was raised to 16. A principle of non-streaming
was gradually introduced. Curriculum tradition changed from ency-
clopaedism/subject centred to student-centred progressivism. Due to an
increased number of students in general, and the merging of schools'
catchments areas, school size increased significantly. Broader study pro-
grammes, a more diverse student body, non-streaming, increased school
size required more administrative capacity at schools. Regular school
management positions appeared. However, the old teacher-dominant
culture stayed on, heavily guarded by a strong union. Parallel to this, a
recruitment policy for teacher training accepted students with quite low
academic standards from secondary school. A reduced academic stan-
dard for recruitment as well as an adaptation of Progressivist pedagogy
also in the teacher training colleges, affected gradually a lower academic
standard among Norwegian teachers at large. An embedded effect of
this development was reduced teacher authority, and a contribution to a
lowered social status for teachers in Norwegian society.
Into the 1980s problems of students' motivation increased. Simultane-
ously, there was a growing awareness of the nation's need to stay compet-
itive in the increasingly more global knowledge society. A traditionally
strong concern about the value of equality in all aspects of life, also in
education, was confronted with the need for quality of education, in or-
der to be internationally competitive. During the 1990s, the Labour Party
Minister of Education, Sociology Professor Gudmund Hernes, radically
restructured the whole education system of Norway - in order to create
more 'quality of equality - and competitiveness' (Tjeldvoll 1998). Hernes'
legacy is especially connected to two issues. He re-established as Labour-
policy, 'a knowledge school' as something valuable, implying a slight re-
turn to more encyclopaedic curriculum thinking. Secondly, he simulta-
neously reduced the power of the teacher trade unions, and changed the
function of the school leader from just being an 'administrative care-
taker' - the first among equals - to a manager as part of the municipality
or county governance structure, accountable to the school owner.
Right after the turn of the last century, an oEcD-comparative study
of skills in reading, maths and science, as well as of classroom behaviour
(pisa) - sent shockwaves throughout Norwegian society - because of
Norway's relative poor ranking - in relation to the country's high finan-
cial investments in education (Welle-Strand and Tjeldvoll 2002). A con-
scious national policy to improve the quality of Norwegian education
followed from 2002, symbolised later in the telling label - The Knowledge
Promotion. Essential ambitions of this reform were subject knowledge,
individualised teaching, assessment and accountability. These ambitions
were to be achieved with reform strategies delivering improved quality
of teachers and school managers.
The empirical findings from ntnu and uio of how school manage-
ment is understood indicate a clash between the former teacher-ruled,
student-centred pedagogy, without particular attention to efficiency/
learning achievements - and a managed, subject-centred, efficiency-
oriented school. An effect of the traditional understanding of school
management has been that the programme has focused more on teach-
ers and relations between teachers and leader, than on management
professionalism. This is reflected in the syllabus of the NTNu-led prog-
ramme.
The present 'split' in understanding of school management found at
ntnu and uio may be seen as affected by the global trends ofthe knowl-
edge economy (Dimmock and Walker 2005). These trends may now be
colliding with Norwegian legacies of teacher-led schools. The global trends
of education policies are today most clearly seen implemented by the British
labour government (Tjeldvoll 2005). Especially, the NTNu-study simulta-
neously illustrates the strength of the Norwegian legacy, and the fact that
international efficiency trends have reached Norwegian shores forcefully.
The prevailing strength of the Norwegian legacy is likely to reduce the
training programmes' relevance to policies.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to investigate policy relevance of school
management training programmes in Norway. More specifically, the
question asked was: How relevant is the teaching professors' under-
standing of the school management function to national policies and
strategies? The staff of three major providers was interviewed. The main
assumption had been that because of particular Norwegian traditions in
school development and school administration there would be consid-
erable resistance to a policy and strategy that implied a more clear-cut
management thinking in schools. This assumption was soon afterwards
refused by the pilot study at ntnu, since only a minority of staff ex-
pressed resistance to new policies. At ntnu the programme syllabus was
also analysed, and the syllabus had an overload of texts expressing a crit-
ical and reluctant view of the new policies. Hence, the ntnu syllabus
confirmed the resistance assumption to a considerable degree. For uio
and bi the syllabi were not analysed. Only the staff's understanding of
the school management function was investigated.
When opinions from all respondents at the three institutions are seen
as a whole the resistance assumption is in the mayor part refused. The
majority of staff at ntnu and uio and all the staff at bi express agree-
ment with the new policies. There is a high level of relevance between
the goals of national policies and strategies and the understanding as
to which competence school management should have. Key issues are
subject knowledge, individualised learning, effective assessment and ac-
countability to school stakeholders. There is keen awareness of being
ready to restructure the school organisation at the balancing point be-
tween national policies and local stakeholders' needs. A professional
school leadership is seen as paramount for successful policy implemen-
tation. A common concern of the majority is, however, the lack of'school
competence' at the school mandator level.
Minority groups at ntnu and uio express resistance or reluctance to
the policies. They are concerned about the mission of the school under
these new policies. Will the mission change from being an agent for so-
cialisation of all Norwegians into a democratic society to becoming a
'competence machine' for economical needs of the national and global
economy? Parallel concern for the minority groups are the position and
role of teachers as individuals and as a professional collective. Will their
traditionally strong and independent position in Norway now become
overruled by business style managers? Moreover, there is a reluctance to
other stakeholders becoming too deeply involved in the school sphere. If
external agents are to be involved, this ought to be via teachers. In terms
of identifying the real strength of the minority group at uio it would be
interesting to carry out the analysis of the programme syllabus. Would
the analysis reflect a similar resistance, as it was the case with ntnu? Or,
would its ethos match the policy and management understanding of the
majority at uio?
Over and above the 'Resistance Assumption' has been refused. The
major Norwegian providers of school management training are on line
with international trends. But, the 'Minority Resistance Group' identi-
fied may slow down reform implementations.
Notes
1	The head project on international school leadership training (2003-
2008) is conducted at Norwegian School of Management bi, under
the leadership of Professor Anne Welle-Strand, in cooperation with
Professor Arild Tjeldvoll, University of Oslo. The project is financed
by the Norwegian research Council.
2	See http://www.kunnskapsloeftet.no/filer/
strategiforkompetanseutvikling.pdf.
3	Etterutdanning is equated with inset provision in the English trans-
lation of this Act (see www.lovdata.no) and later described as updated
competence rather than formal education (videreutdanning).
4	Although there also appears that the State has or will, on occasions,
prioritise areas and ring fence funding for these.
5	Or the County in the case of upper secondary schools.
6	At the University of Oslo, June 20, 2005.
7	See http://www.sru.edu/depts/educatio/National%20Standards
%20Principalship.doc.
Abbreviations
b i Norwegian School of Management
hist S0r-Tr0ndelag University College
ict Information, Communication and Technology
ILS Department of Teacher Education and School Development, Univer-
sity of Oslo
ISLLLC Interstate School Leaders' Licensure Consortium Standards for
School Leaders
KS Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities
nfr Norwegian Research Council
npm New Public Management
ntnu Norwegian University of Science and Technology
oecd Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Pisa Programme for International Student Assessment
ufd Ministry of Education and Research
uio Ministry of Education
References
Araujo, L., and D. Harrison. 2002. Evolutionary processes and path depen-
dence in industrial networks. Technology Analysis and Strategic Man-
agement 14:143-153.
Barney, J. B. 1997. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading,
ma: Addison-Wesley.
Bass, B. M. 1996. A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transfor-
mational leadership. Alexandria, va : us Army Research Institute of the
Behavioural and Social Sciences.
Berg, M. E., 0. Martinsen, and G. Thompson. 1998. Ledelse, kompetanse og
omstilling. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Bess, J. L., and P. Goldman. 2001. Leadership ambiguity in universities and
K-12 schools and the limits of contemporary leadership theory. Lead-
ership Quarterly 12:419-50.
Bonnet, F., P. Dupont, and A. Godin. 1995. L'ecole et le management: Pour
une gestion strategique des etablissements de formation. Bruxelles: De
Boeck.
Brundrett, M. 2001 The development of school leadership preparation
programmes in England and the usa: A comparative analysis. School
Leadership and Management 29 (2): 93-106.
Burgelman, R. A. 1980. Managing innovating systems: A study of the process
of internal corporate venturing. Ann Arbor, mi: University of Michigan
Research Press.
Burke, W. W. 2002. Organization change. Thousand Oaks, ca: Sage.
Burrell, G., and G. Morgan. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organisational
analysis. London: Heineman.
Busch, T., E. Johnsen, and J. O. Vanebo. 1999. Endringsledelse i det of-
fentlige. Oslo: Tano.
Castells, M. 1996. The rise ofthe network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
Choo, C. W. 1998. The knowing organization. New York: Oxford University
Press.
D'Aveni, R. 1994. Hypercompetition: The dynamics of strategic maneuver-
ing. New York: Basic Books.
Dimmock, C., and A. Walker. 2005. Educational leadership: Culture and
diversity. London: Sage.
Eratuuli, M., and C. Nylen. 1995. The improvement of school leadership: Co-
operation between Russian, Swedish, and Finnish Principals. Helsinki:
Helsinki University, Department of Teacher Education.
Etienne, R., and M. Amiel. 1995. La communication dans l'etablissement
scolaire. Paris: Hachette.
Fosstenl0kken, S. 2003. Gaining and maintaining competence-in-working:
A comparison of individual perceptions of competence development
in four professional service firms. phD diss., Norwegian School of
Management.
Friedman, K., and J. Olaisen. 1997. Underveis til fremtiden: Kunnskap-
sledelse i teori ogpraksis. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M.
Trow 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science
and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Gr0tterud, M., and B. Nilsen. 2001. Ledelse av skoler i utvikling. Oslo:
Gyldendal Akademisk.
Jumentier, J. 2000. Demain, l'etablissement scolaire: Seminaire, novembre
1994-avril 1995, Lyon. Lyon: Centre regional de documentation peda-
gogique de l'Academie de Lyon.
Krogh, G., K. Ichijo, and I. Nonaka. 2000. Enabling knowledge creation:
How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of
innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leino, J. 1984. Some characteristics of school principals: A pilot investigation
into cognitive styles and leadership conception of Finnish school princi-
pals. Tampere: Tampere University, Department of Education.
Lillejordet, S. 2003. Ledelse i en lxrende skole. Oslo: University Press.
Lorange, P. 2002. New vision for management education: Leadership chal-
lenges. Oxford: Pergamon.
Louis, F. 1994. Decentralisation et autonomie des etablissements. Paris: Ha-
chette.
L0vendahl, B., and 0. Revang. 1998. Challenges to existing strategy theory
in a post industrial society. Strategic Management Journal 19 (8): 755-
73.
MacBeath, J. 2003. The alphabet soup of leadership. Inform, no. 2; Univer-
sity of Cambridge.
March, J. G., and J. P. Olsen. 1976. Ambiguity and choice in organizations.
Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
M0ller, J., and J. M. Paulsen. 2001. Skolelederes arbeidsforhold i grunnsko-
len: En unders0kelse blant skoleledere som er organisert i Norsk lxrerlag.
Oslo: University of Oslo, Department for Teacher Training and School
Development.
Murphy, J. 2001. The changing face of leadership preparation. School Ad-
ministrator 58 (10): 14-18.
Paulsen, J. M. 1998. Rektors handlingsrom for ledelse: Status og endringer
i lys av forvaltningsreform og grunnskolereform - tolket i institusjon-
sperspektiv versus organisasjonsperspektiv. ma thesis, Buskerud Uni-
versity College.
-. 1999. Organisasjonsutvikling og ledelse i de videregäende skoler i
Hedmark. Working Paper 32, Buskerud University College.
Simon, J. 2000. Organisation et gestion de l'Education Nationale. Paris:
Berger-Levrault.
Stehr, N. 1994. Knowledge societies. London: Sage.
Tjeldvoll, A., and K. Johansen. 1989. Milieu and leadership in the school:
A Norwegian inset-programme without goal attainment. In The effec-
tiveness of in-service training of teachers and school leaders, ed. J. Wil-
son, 121-32. Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Tjeldvoll, A. 1998. Education and the Scandinavian welfare state in the year
2000: Equality, policy, and reform. New York: Taylor and Francis.
-. När globaliseringens eliteskoler m0ter norsk enhetsskole, fore-
drag pä nasjonal oppl^ringskonferanse: Kultur for Lrering i et inter-
nasjonalt perspektiv. Presentation at the national education confer-
ence Culture for Learning in an International persepective, Hedmark.
Tjeldvoll, A., and A. Welle-Strand. 2003. School manager training research:
An annotated bibliography. head Report 1. Sandvika: cem nsm bi.
Tjeldvoll, A., A. Welle-Strand, and F. Bento. 2003. School management
training: An overview of institutions and training programmes in Fin-
land, France, uk and us. head Report 2. Sandvika: cem nsm bi.
ufd. 2002. Kvalitetsreformen: Om ny lxrerutdanning; mangfoldig-kreven-
de - relevant. Oslo: Ministry of Education.
ufd. 2004. Kultur for lxring. Oslo: Ministry of Education.
Wagner, T. 2001. Making the grade: Reinventing America's schools. New
York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Wales, C. D. 2004. Same problems, different solutions? Developments in
school leadership training in Wales and Norway. Master thesis, Uni-
versity of Oslo.
Wales, C. D., and A. Welle-Strand. 2005. School management training.
Country report: Norway. Oslo: Norwegian School of Management.
Welle-Strand, A. 1998. Skoleleiing mot är 2000: Kartlegging av aktiviteter ved
universiteter ogh0yskoler i Norge. Oslo: University of Oslo, Department
of School Development and Teacher Training.
Welle-Strand, A., J. M. Paulsen, and H. Kobbenes. 2003. Skoledelse i
Norge: En kartlegging av forskning og utdanning i perioden 1998-
2003. Sandvika: Handelsh0yskolen bi.
Welle-Strand, A., and A. Tjeldvoll. 2002. The Norwegian unified school: A
paradise lost? Journal of Education Policy 17 (6): 653-86.
Yukl, G. 2002. Leadership in organizations. 5th Edition. New York: Prentice-
Hall.