Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tedp20 ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedp20
‘Lack of quality’ in Swedish adult education: a
policy study
Johanna Mufic & Andreas Fejes
To cite this article: Johanna Mufic & Andreas Fejes (2020): ‘Lack of quality’ in Swedish adult education: a policy study, Journal of Education Policy, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2020.1817567 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2020.1817567
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
Published online: 04 Sep 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 208
View related articles
‘Lack of quality’ in Swedish adult education: a policy study
Johanna Mufic and Andreas Fejes
Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden ABSTRACT
This article focuses on how ‘problems’ regarding quality in adult education are constituted as particular sorts of ‘problems’. The ana-lysis takes its point of departure in a poststructural analytic strategy called ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’. The material analysed consists of various policy documents concerning contemporary Swedish adult education. The results indicate that the concept of quality is described as being deficient and failing to address per-ceived challenges in adult education, namely the ‘heterogenous student group’ and ‘varying pre-conditions for the organisation of education’. Thus, the concepts of flexibility and individualisation are introduced as a ‘solution’. But at the same time, it is suggested in policy that the implementation of them has failed. In effect, repre-sentatives of the municipal authority and principals are held respon-sible and the need for more strict regulations and increased accountability in order to implement flexibility and individualisation in the adult education system are stressed in policy. Finally, the analysis of the policy documents leads to questions about the con-sequences for both school personnel and the students enrolled in adult education as the quality of the education seems to be assessed in relation to goal attainment and throughflow of students.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 March 2020 Accepted 24 August 2020 KEYWORDS
Individualisation; flexibility; municipal adult education; quality in education; WPR-approach
Introduction
The demand for quality in education can be described as a grand narrative flourishing in transnational (Ball 2003; OECD 2018; UNESCO 2017; World Bank 2018) as well as in national education policy documents (Ministry of Education 2018; Swedish National agency for education 2017). Key to such narratives is the idea that improved quality in education is pivotal for individuals as well as society to prosper. The logic goes that quality in education leads to a better society, a line of argument that is hard, or almost impossible to question. However, even though there is high demand for quality in education, there are seldom any clear definitions of what quality in education is actually about from a policy perspective. Rather, these documents most often focus on describing what is lacking, or rather, quality is described through its opposite. For example, as ‘gaps in quality’ (UNESCO 2017, 1), ‘the poor quality of education’ (World Bank 2018, 91) or ‘quality deficiencies’ (The Swedish school inspecotrate [SSI] 2019, 10). Such definitions describe quality in terms of what it is not, and therefore questions of what quality
CONTACT Johanna Mufic johanna.mufic@liu.se Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
© 2020 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-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med-ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
remains. In this article, focus is directed at the way quality in adult education emerges as a problem representation in policy and the discursive effects of such representation.
In policy research, it has been noted that quality is often described in relation to specific policy targets and national political goals. Thus, the concept has acquired a ‘common-sense’ position (see e.g. Cottle and Alexander 2012). Additionally, Andersen, Dahler-Larsen, and Pedersen (2009) have emphasised that the increased focus on quality in education policy has led to a higher demand of reporting mechanisms, goal-setting and tests that affect schools and teachers in different ways. Such controls, audits and inspections that intend to enhance, maintain and increase quality in education might however not be as efficient and uncontested as they seem (Ball 2003; Ball et al. 2012; Dahler-Larsen 2014; Green 2011; Ozga et al. 2011; Perryman et al. 2018). Thus, policy representations of quality in education might then rather be seen as political tools with quite diverse and often unintended effects. Policy research that focuses on such effects have in a Swedish context focussed on compulsory and upper secondary education (Bergh 2015; Carlbaum et al. 2014; Lindgren, Hanberger, and Lundström 2016; Lundström 2017; Segerholm 2003) where it has been illustrated that the increased focus on measuring and evaluating activities in schools is complex and that the effects of it can be difficult to anticipate at both national and local levels. Some of these unintended effects concern increased administration and contradictory expectations on teachers.
There is less policy research on adult education, which in Sweden is a sector that engages more students than upper secondary education for youths (Fejes and Holmqvist
2018). However, Fejes (2006) for example, provides a critical reading of policy texts on adult education from the 1920s to the early 2000s. He illustrates how there has been a shift in discourse, from ideas about adult education disciplining the ‘dangerous’ masses, to a situation where adult education and lifelong learning targets the entire population. Such a shift brings with it a shift in understanding of citizens, to one which places direct responsibility on each person to keep updated constantly in order to be employable. Such responsibility is partly related to issues pertaining to quality in the context of a highly marketised adult education system. The introduction of a procurement system1 in adult education in the mid 1990s aimed to increase quality of adult education (Fejes and Holmqvist 2018). However, Fejes, Runesdotter, and Wärvik (2016) illustrate how the market-oriented system instead influenced the work of principals and teachers in ways that might have effects other than those intended (for elaboration on the highly marke-tised education system in Sweden see (Dahlstedt and Fejes 2019), where the teaching, rather than being individualised, becomes structured and standardised (see e.g. Henning Loeb and Lumsden Wass 2014). Thus, the professional autonomy of teachers is narrowed.
Closely linked to the market reforms in the 1990s was also a policy emphasise on flexibility and individualisation of teaching and learning, i.e. that adult education needs to be organised in ways that meet a heterogeneous student group, and students who might need to combine studies with work and family life. Even though the concepts of flexibility and individualisation are used in school education, foremost in relation to teaching, in adult education in Sweden they have since the 1990s become the key guiding terms of how municipalities must organise their MAE. Thus, as a part of the quality discourse, these concepts become central in policy and municipalities are construed as in
need of being audited in terms of fulfilling the ideas of flexibility and individualisation in their MAE (see e.g. Fejes and Holmqvist 2018; Ministry of Education 2018:71, 2019:06).
Thus, with a focus on quality in adult education, our analysis will provide insights in what the intended and unintended effects of policies, where flexibility and individualisa-tion are core ideas. Such focus will not only be of interest in relaindividualisa-tion to adult educaindividualisa-tion more generally, but also in relation to school education, a context in which ideas of flexibility and individualisation are not as strongly emphasised as in Swedish MAE. This might not the least be of importance in current times when the COVID-19 virus has forced governments around the globe to shift school education into a distance mode, i.e. a more flexible organisation of its education. What can be learnt from the Swedish MAE case?
What’s the ‘problem’ represented to be? A theoretical approach
To scrutinise how policy problematisations on quality in adult education emerge, and with what consequences, this study draws on Bacchi’s (2009; 2015, 2016) ‘What’s the “problem” represented to be?’ (WPR) approach which could be seen as a ‘Foucault- influenced poststructural perspective . . . ’ (Bacchi 2016, 8). This approach directs atten-tion to how problems are ‘represented’ in policy and thus suggests a shift of perspective when it comes to analysing how governing takes place (Bacchi 2009). Put differently, focus is not on how policy actors understand a ‘problem’, but rather ‘ . . . the ways in which “problems” are produced and represented [. . .] in governmental policies and practices.’ (Bacchi 2015, 1). In this context, the concept of governmentality is used as a way to think about forms of rule (Bacchi 2009; Foucault [1984] 1988). Forms of rule could, as an example, be liberalism and neoliberalism and are also called governmental or political rationalities (Dean 1999; Foucault [1978] 1990; Rose 2000). In other words, it is through identifying and analysing problematisations that different forms of rule can be recognised. From this perspective, governing is a problematising activity (Rose and Miller 1992), and in effect, the shift in focus in the WPR approach makes it possible to analyse critically how rule takes place as ‘we are governed through problematisations rather than through policy’ (Bacchi 2009, 31).
Policy according to Bacchi (2009) is a course of action that is often linked to a ‘problem’ that needs to be changed and ‘fixed’, which in itself assumes that there is a ‘problem’. From this point of view the question of ‘how’ policy operates becomes important to understand how governance is taking place and the consequences this will have for those involved. Thus, by scrutinising the ‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’ presented in policy, it becomes possible to problematise the problematisation. Furthermore, within the WPR-approach, policies are seen as creative as they constitute problems rather than react to them. This means that not only policies are active, but also that ‘governments are
active in their creation (or production) of ‘problems’ (Bacchi 2009, 1). Moreover, different patterns in the way in which ‘problems’ are construed in a range of different policies can be analysed. Another word for these patterns or ‘styles of problematisation’ is governmental or political rationalities (Bacchi 2009, 6; Dean 1999; Rose 2000).
Additionally, the WPR approach emphasises the ‘simultaneous coexistence of various forms of rule, which are often hybrid’ (Bacchi 2009, 6), as these rationalities are often categorised in different ways. One way of framing this is the assumption that policies are
‘elaborated in discourse’ (Bacchi 2009, 7). Here, a discourse is seen as a meaning system that is more than language as it comprehends a conceptual logic such as assumptions, pre-suppositions and values (Foucault 1972). To make something a ‘problem’ in policy, a lot of simplifications are usually made in order to frame an issue as a particular kind of issue and thus only tell one side of the story. In effect, it becomes important to ask questions about what is left out when the ‘problem’ is framed and described. As policy both influences contemporary modes of rule (Bacchi 2016), as well as the inner activity in organisations and schools, a poststructural analysis of policy contributes to the continued understanding of these practices. And as the problem representation is not always explicit in policy, it needs to be made visible through asking critical questions (Bacchi 2009).
In sum, the WPR approach rests on three key assumptions, firstly, that ‘we are governed through problematisation’, secondly, that we need to ‘study problematisations through analysing the problem representation they contain rather than ‘problems”. Thirdly, that ‘we need to problematise the problematisations through scrutinising the premises and effects of the problem representation they contain’ (Bacchi 2009, xxi). Questions of method
We began our analysis with the question ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’ (Bacchi
2009, 48) thus directing attention towards the question of how ‘problems’ regarding quality in adult education were formulated in policy and thus questioning their status as actual ‘problems’ due to the term ‘representation’. The second question ‘what presuppo-sitions or assumptions underlie this representation of the “problem”?’ (Bacchi 2009, xii) directed our focus towards binaries (e.g. quality/lack of quality) as they could signal a simplification of complex relationship and a hierarchy. Hence, as we scrutinised how they appeared in policy it became possible to reveal political rationalities. Additionally, the question highlighted what was not written or what was consciously or unconsciously omitted. The third and final question ‘what effects are produced by this representation of the problem?’ (Bacchi 2009, 48) directed our attention to discursive effects highlighting both expected and unexpected aspects of a problem representation in the policies. Discursive effects concern the identification of ‘ . . . deep-seated assumptions and pre-suppositions within problem representations, the discourses which give expression to these, and the silences these discourses contain’ (Bacchi 2009, 16).
Even though issues on quality, as well as flexibility and individualisation gained increased policy momentum as related to MAE in Sweden in the 1990s, continuing into the present (Fejes 2006), our focus here is on the present, i.e. how the problems emerge and are presented as per today. Thus, our empirical material consists of key contemporary policy documents on adult education in Sweden: firstly, documents that govern adult education such as the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) and the Curriculum for adult education (SNAE 2017); secondly, two of the most recent Official government reports on adult education (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 2019:06), a recent report from the Swedish School Inspectorate (SSI 2019) as well as a recent report from the Swedish Institute for Educational Research (Swedish Institute for Educational Research
2019). Together, these documents consist of approximately 1000 pages and give an overview of the contemporary Swedish adult education policy landscape. We use quota-tions from these selected policy documents throughout our analysis section to support
and illustrate the analysis. The quotations have been translated from Swedish to English by the authors.
Introducing municipal adult education
The focus of this article is on policies pertaining to Swedish municipal adult education (MAE). MAE was created in 1968 and has since then developed into one of the larger educational institutions in Sweden encompassing more students than upper secondary school. Today MAE targets those adults who are in need to complement their compul-sory and/or upper secondary school degree, or those who are in need of reskilling in order to get a job. MAE is part of the national education system and thus regulated by the Ordinance on Municipal Adult Education as well as the Education Act. It has a unified curriculum, it is free of charge, and is thus sometimes referred to as a ‘second chance’ in education policy (Bjursell 2016). MAE is organised by the municipalities, who are responsible for funding it. However, they can choose to outsource courses to private for- profit as well as non-profit providers. Such outsourcing is most commonly conducted through procurement. MAE consists of three parts: basic courses for adults (equivalent to compulsory school), courses on upper secondary level, and courses in Swedish for immigrants (Fejes and Holmqvist 2018).
The current organisation of MAE was to a large extent shaped in the 1990s. Then, there was a critique towards MAE that it was too much shaped in the same wah as upper secondary school. Policy makers stressed the importance the adult education needed to become more flexible and individualised in order to meet the needs of the adult popula-tion. Thus, the State initiated different funding policies in order to encourage the municipalities to reshape their MAE more adapted to the needs of adult students (Henning Loeb 2007). Organisational issues connected to this included: students select those courses they need in order to reach their goals (i.e. they do not engage in entire programs such as in upper secondary school); the intake to course is continuous, i.e. new students enter a course every week or every month; there are no summer breaks for MAE, it should be ongoing throughout the year; courses are offered as onsite teaching, as onsite teaching in combination with distance teaching, or as only as distance mode; courses might be offered as daytime and evening courses etc. The above changes in MAE connected up with the decentralisation of the entire education system in Sweden in the early 1990s when governing by objectives were introduced. The State formulated the goals, and municipalities had the freedom to reach these goals in the ways they saw fit. Thus, the State focus turned to following up if municipalities reached the set goals, and what the municipalities delivered (Berg 2010).
Despite the policy focus on quality, flexibility and individualisation, MAE has over the years, been criticised for its organisation and its inefficiency in satisfying indivi-duals’ needs for more skills, as well as its ability to fulfil labour demands (see for example, Bjursell et al. 2015). Thus, the importance of the increased need for inspec-tions and evaluainspec-tions has been stressed (Henning Loeb 2007). For MAE, such inspec-tion is conducted by the SSI, focusing on how the municipalities organise their MAE. The focus of the evaluation is the municipality, and not the specific schools. Something that differs as compared to the compulsory and upper secondary school system in Sweden, in which each school is being evaluated and assessed by the SSI. Thus, the
municipalities are, in relation to MAE, given enhanced responsibility to control their schools themselves, and that the State does not have the same detailed knowledge about the schools as they have in relation to the regular school system. Issues of quality are in such way partly handled differently by the State in relation to the different parts of the educational system.
Result
In this section, we introduce the analysis of the policy documents in three parts. The first part concerns the problem representation in adult education policy that is framed as ‘lack of quality’. The second part addresses the ‘solution’ to the ‘quality problems’ that is represented in policy in the form of an increased focus on flexibility and individualisa-tion. The third and final part focuses on the discursive effects in terms of an enhanced demand on school personnel’s accountability and responsibility-taking in policy.
‘Lack of quality’ and the ‘challenges’ of Swedish municipal adult education
The first part of the analysis focuses on the question: what’s the problem represented to be?’ (Bacchi 2009). Phrases such as the ‘quality deficiencies revealed in education . . . ’ (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 459) commonly emerge in the policy documents. Moreover, the lack of quality is a topic that is frequently brought up, especially in relation to the decreasing throughflow and goal attainment2 of students in the educational system (The Swedish School Inspectorate, 2019; Ministry of Education 2018:71, 2019:06). In an Official Government report, it is stated that the purpose of the report is to ‘scrutinise how support measures and other interventions can be used for students, both women and men, to reach educational goals . . . ’(Ministry of Education 2018:71, 122) as well as to analyse the conditions of adult education so that ‘ . . . students can be offered an education of good quality [. . .] and to improve the throughflow . . . ’(Ministry of Education 2018:71, 106). Hence, quality seems to be linked to the throughflow of students, and vice versa. This report probably gives focus to these topics as the overall goal of the MAE is:
. . . to enable students to develop their knowledge and skills in order to strengthen their position in working and community life and promote their personal development.’ (SFS
2010:800, chp. 20 §22)
In the policy documents, the decreasing throughflow and goal attainment of students is often mentioned in relation to the increasingly ‘heterogenous student group’ as well as the ‘organisation of the MAE’. Thus, these two aspects are construed as ‘challenges.’ The first ‘challenge’, namely the ‘heterogenous student group’, is described in relation to both the quality of the education and the throughflow of students in an Official government report:
It can also be assumed, with good reasons, that it is through application of a language and knowledge development approach in basic adult education where 95 percent of the students are foreign born and in upper secondary education and where 38 percent are foreign-born, there is a potential for increased quality and thus increased throughflow. (Ministry of Education 2019:06, 79)
Hence, it seems to be assumed ‘with good reasons’ that more quality will lead to an increased throughflow. Moreover, the student group is described as ‘heterogeneous and diverse’ in relation to their different backgrounds, economic circumstances, life situa-tions, and earlier study experiences and thus in need of certain development approaches (Swedish Institute for Educational Research 2019; Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE] 2017; Ministry of Education 2018:71, 2019:06). Or, as the Swedish School Inspectorate states:
the target group has [. . .] changed with a higher proportion of students who do not have Swedish as their first language, students who in many cases have several school failures behind them . . . (The Swedish school inspectorate 2019, 4)
In another report it is stated that ‘it was clear that adult education has major challenges with heterogenous student groups.’ (Swedish Institute for Educational Research 2019, 51). Thus, policy explicitly pinpointed the ‘diversity and heterogeneity’ of the students as a ‘challenge’ because it affects the throughflow and goal attainment of students. And by that, the need for quality is stressed as a way to increase the throughflow in many of the various quotes.
When it comes to the second ‘challenge’, the organisation of the MAE, the policy texts highlight that different municipalities have different pre-requisites in the form of eco-nomical-, geographical- and structural circumstances that affect the students’ access to flexible and individualised education (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 2019:06; SSI 2019). One of the selected policy documents highlighted that ‘ . . . different municipalities also have different pre-conditions to provide education of equally high quality . . . ’ (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 112). The policy documents provide different explanations as to why the prerequisites differ between municipalities. As stated by the SSI: ‘One reason may be the different sizes of municipalities and the challenges this poses.’ (SSI 2019, 34). Or as stated in one of the governmental reports:
The economic conditions for municipal adult education vary greatly between the country’s municipalities and the distribution of resources to MAE is prioritized very differently locally. (Ministry of Education 2019:06, 100)
Moreover, another governmental report highlighted that ‘ . . . there are several surround-ing factors which cannot be influenced by central measures, such as geographical distance, history of collaboration [. . .] in the municipalities’. (Ministry of Education
2018:71, 438). The quotes above illustrate how the ‘varying pre-conditions of the muni-cipalities’ are construed as a ‘challenge’ as it affects the students’ opportunity to receive a high quality education.
In relation to the construed ‘challenge’ of the ‘organisation of adult education’, continuous enrolment is brought up in policy, as the ‘ . . . continuous high frequency of intake adversely affects teaching . . . ’ and ‘ . . . takes a lot of time . . . ’ (Ministry of Education 2019:06, 85). In other words, the continually changing study group, as part of the ‘organisation of MAE’, is frequently mentioned as ‘challenging’, especially for the teachers, as it becomes difficult for them to adapt the educational programme to fit the need of the individual (Swedish Institute for Educational Research 2019; SSI 2019). Thus, continuous enrolment influences the quality of education, as it is established in policy, that the throughflow of students decreases if the intake is too frequent.
In the policy documents, the ‘problem’ of decreasing throughflow and goal attainment of students is described in relation to the ‘challenges’ of the ‘heterogenous student group’ and the ‘organisation of the MAE’. Due to these ‘quality deficiencies’, the goal of adult education, namely the strengthening of the individual’s position in the community and in working life, is construed as being compromised. Thus, through the reading of Swedish adult education policy, we get a picture of what is perceived as ‘not quality’ in terms of deficiencies and what needs to be improved to obtain quality.
Flexibility and individualisation as ‘problem solvers’
We now turn to our second question, namely ‘what presuppositions or assumptions underlie the representation of the “problem”?’ (Bacchi 2009). Even though increased accountability in adult education is positioned as the overall ‘solution’, it is the concepts of flexibility and individualisation that is in focus in the selected documents. Thus, in policy, ‘solutions’ to the ‘quality problem’ mentioned above are presented in the form of increased flexibility and individualisation of adult education (SSI 2019; SNAE 2017; Ministry of Education 2018:71, 2019:06). Hence, the increased focus on auditing becomes a way to make sure that the concepts are implemented in practices, as they are assumed to increase educational quality. As established in the national curriculum for adult education:
‘ . . . education must [. . .] be adapted to the individual’s needs and pre-requisites and it can vary both in length and in content.’ (SNAE 2017, 5)
One of the government reports specifies that the ‘heterogenous student group’ ‘ . . . demands flexibility and individualisation . . . ’ (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 122). But at the same time, it is also, in one of the governmental reports, stated that:
’ . . . there is a great consensus that there is a need for flexibility [. . .] and individualisation. At the same time, there are overlapping interpretations of what these [. . .] concepts mean’ (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 379)
As the quote indicates, the definitions of flexibility and individualisation sometimes vary. But in general, flexibility is construed in policy as the way that MAE is organised in terms of, e.g. course access in the form of continuous enrolment during the year, courses in the day and evening-time, as well as distance- and school-based education (SSI 2019). The main point here is that education should be flexible enough to be adaptable to the different life situations of students, as it, e.g. should be possible for them to combine work and family life with education. A common use of individualisation that emerges in policy texts concerns the didactic and pedagogic implications of education as it should be adjusted to meet the needs of each and every student (Swedish Institute for Educational Research 2019). Hence, the education should be adaptable with the students’ different backgrounds and life circumstances.
Based on the reading of the policy documents it could be argued that the concepts of flexibility and individualisation are introduced as a ‘solution’ to the problem representa-tion of quality. More specifically, they are construed as ‘solurepresenta-tions’ to the ‘challenges’ of adult education, namely the ‘heterogenous target group’ as well as the ‘organisation of the adult education system’. However, in one of the governmental reports it is stated that:
‘ . . . the present regulations are comprehensive enough when it comes to the concepts of flexibility and individualisation, however, the implementation has not been successful enough due to weak compliance and responsibility-taking in the ‘chain of command” (Ministry of Education 2019:06, 107).
This presents a way to increase the quality in adult education through implementing flexibility and individualisation in the organisation. Namely by focusing on compliance and responsibility-taking in the chain of command (e.g. The relationships in the ‘leader-ship team’ comprising representatives of the municipal authority, principals and tea-chers). Hence, the use of concepts like ‘weak compliance’ and ‘weak responsibility taking’ signals that someone is accountable for these, so-called, ‘failures’. Another quote that highlights the same issue in a similar, but yet different way, is a report from the SSI.
‘While flexibility and individualisation are central to adult education, reports, investigations and supervision show that quality deficiencies in these areas are common’ (SSI 2019, 10).
Mainly, the implementation of the concepts of individualisation and flexibility are still described as a failure. However, this time the lack of good study results and the risk of students’ dropping out of their studies are explicitly mentioned as consequences. Moreover, representatives of the municipal authority and principals are held responsible for raising the quality through increased flexibility, individualisation, audits, follow up and analyses. Hence, as the SSI explicitly points out that there is a quality deficiency in adult education, the need for a quality audit on the concepts of flexibility and individua-lization is stressed. Hence, the rationality in this quote seems to be than audits can lead to a quality improvement in these areas.
At this point in time, we have a ‘quality problem’ in Swedish adult education that prevents citizens’ ability to strengthen their position in their working and community life. To improve the ‘quality deficiencies’, the concepts of flexibility and individualisation are introduced in policy. Hence, this type of organisational effort is believed to contribute to better quality. But since compliance and responsibility-taking is weak in the chain of command, implementation has not been successful. In policy, one way to ensure that compliance and responsibility-taking are improved is by stressing the need and impor-tance of accountability through systematic quality work and increased auditing. Thus, the lack of flexibility and individualisation in MAE is assumed to be both a ‘solution’ to, and a part of the ‘quality problem’.
Increased focus on accountability and responsibility-taking
In the third and final part of the analysis, we focus on the question of ‘what effects are produced by this representation of the problem?’ to scrutinise the discursive effects of problem representations (Bacchi 2009). As stated before, flexibility and individualisation have been present in the adult education as ‘solutions’ to the ‘quality problem’ related to decreasing goal attainment and throughflow of students. However, the demand for increased flexibility and individualisation could have both anticipated and unanticipated effects at various degrees.
As highlighted before, the implementation of flexibility and individualisation has not been successful according to the policy documents. In effect, the need for systematic quality work,3 more strict rules (e.g. as a way to enhance the accountability of
representatives of municipal authorities and principals) and increased supervision and evaluations are continually stressed. One example is a quote from one of the government reports, where the increased demand for auditing is stressed in relation to quality. Namely that:
‘ . . . more stringent rules [. . .] and supervision will lead to increased quality, equality and legal certainty, which in turn, according to the investigation, will positively affect the attractiveness of this form of education’ (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 287).
Another example of the increased demand for audits and evaluations is a quote from the national curriculum for adult education where it is stated that the organisation must be ‘ . . . constantly tested, that the results are followed up and audited and that new methods are tested, developed and evaluated . . . ’ (SNAE 2017, 8) for the school to develop qualitatively. It is also highlighted that the daily educational leadership of the school are responsible for conducting these audits. In other words, the importance of leadership and the accountability of it is stressed in relation to educational quality. Additionally, as the quotes indicate, it seems to require constant tests, follow-up, and evaluations to be validated and developed.
In an official government report, it is highlighted that:
. . . there are problems today linked to management and responsibility distribution in adult education that make well-functioning systematic quality work difficult as well as the implementation of various reforms. (Ministry of Education 2019:06, 12).
In addition, accountability is mentioned in relation to systematic quality work, which is described as a ‘necessity in order to create and maintain good quality in the organisation’ (Ministry of Education 2019:06, 12). In other words, systematic quality work is framed as a way to ensure quality in education and it is carried out through the chain of command, hence, at different levels within the organisation. According to the quote, it requires follow up, evaluations and tests of statistics and methods. Although in adult education policy, it is mainly the responsibility of the representative of the municipal authority and principal that is stressed.
The increased focus on the accountability and responsibility-taking of representatives of the municipal authorities and principals could be seen as an effect of the ‘quality problem’ as it is described in relation to the failing implementation of flexibility and individualisation. Another effect of this, is that flexibility and individualisation become questionable in terms of what they are supposed to ‘solve’, as the concepts are described as a way to fulfil students’ needs in order to increase the throughflow and goal attainment of students. By strengthening students’ positions in working and community life, ques-tions arise regarding the didactic and pedagogic implicaques-tions. Nonetheless, it is explicitly stipulated in policy that flexibility and individualisation:
‘ . . . constitute a pre-requisite for the student’s ability to participate in their studies and reach the goal effectively. Thus, there is not one, in the first instance, educational assessment that this is a better way to learn than through the methods that can be used in primary and secondary schools.’ (Ministry of Education 2018:71, 380).
As the quote illustrates above, policies on flexibility and individualisation are not fore-most something based on pedagogical or didactical values and ideas. Instead, flexibility and individualisation are seen as necessary to make it possible for adults to engage in
studies and, by that, strengthen their position in working and community life. Thus, the implementation of these ideas might affect teachers, representatives of the municipal authority and principals in different and sometimes unanticipated ways. Hence, a tension is revealed between the goal of increased throughflow of students facilitated by flexibility on the one hand and the didactical consequences of the flexible system on the other hand. It is also explicitly stipulated in policy that it is the efficiency of the educational system, in other words goal attainment and throughflow of students, that is emphasised at the expense of educational assessments. As a consequence, focus should, according to the policy documents, be directed at the development of educational methods. Hence, this suggests a need for increased individualisation of education, rather than a need to change the system.
Discussion
To scrutinise how ‘problems’ regarding quality in MAE are constituted as particular sorts of ‘problems’, we analysed adult education policy. Firstly, the analysis illustrates that decreasing throughflow and goal achievement of students is described as a ‘quality problem’ in MAE. In policy, the problem representation is framed in terms of ‘quality deficiencies’ and ‘lack of quality’. Secondly, the analysis highlights that the concepts of flexibility and individualisation are introduced in policy as a way to improve quality, and thus become a ‘solution’ to the ‘quality problem’. But, the implementation of these concepts is construed as not yet being as successful as anticipated. Thirdly, the respon-sibility of representatives of municipal authorities and principals to carry out systematic quality work is stressed in policy. It could be argued that the increased demand of accountability becomes a way to ensure compliance and, by that, also the implementation of a flexible and individualised educational system. As illustrated in this article, problem representations do relate to issues of governing. By construing certain problems, there are both certain measures taken which in turn govern and have effects. These effects might not be intentional, but nevertheless, they are effects. One example of this is the tension between the policy goal of increased throughflow of students through flexibility on the one hand, and the didactical consequences of the flexible system for both students and teachers on the other hand.
In the analysis, underlying assumptions and presuppositions in the policy documents are highlighted. As an example, the binaries of ‘quality’ and ‘quality deficiencies’ imply a hierarchy where quality is representing what is desirable and ‘good’ in policy and ‘quality deficiencies’ represent what is ‘bad’ and undesirable. Another example of binaries are the key concepts of flexibility and individualisation. These concepts are also infused with meaning as they are raised in policy documents in order to be implemented to target specific ‘challenges’. These concepts are described as ‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’ of ‘quality deficiencies’ and as a way to counter the ‘challenges’ of adult education, namely the ‘heterogenous student group’ and the ‘varying pre-conditions for the organisation of adult education’. Thus, it becomes interesting to question if there are any other possible ‘solutions’ to the problem representation.
In this context, the ‘solution’ to the ‘quality problem’ becomes a multifaceted follow- up as a central mechanism for construing quality. The intermediate aspect is thus focused on organisation, as it is emphasised in policy that flexibility and individualisation are
a ‘solution’ to these ‘problems’. In effect, as the implementation of the concepts has failed, they also become a part of the ‘quality problem’. As flexibility and individualisation underpin how MAE is organised, it becomes interesting to see how the concepts are construed in such a context. Here, the analysis illustrated that concepts are shaped and used as mechanisms to achieve higher quality, just by getting more flexibility and individualisation into the system.
Moreover, the analysis illustrates that the concepts of flexibility and individualisation are brought up in policy as a way to maximise the effectiveness of adult education and not because they are perceived to be more didactical or pedagogical compared to the methods that are used in primary and secondary school. One example of the consequences of this is provided by Henning Loeb and Lumsden Wass (2014) in their study about how policies of individualisation and flexibility have been reinforced in adult education. Here, they contend that the implementation of the concepts in practice lead to a paradox of strictly conditioned teaching, namely the opposite of what they are intended to, and that the individualised perspective often overlooks the life circumstances of many students.
Another question that is related to students is how the ‘heterogenous student group’ explicitly is framed as a ‘challenge’. This theme also relates to the last of Bacchi’s (2009) three questions that concerned what effects were produced in the policy as the voices of ‘heterogenous students’ were left out in policy. At this point, it is unknown what this group of people want and think that they need. As they are described in policy in relation to what they need, namely a strengthened position in working and community life, it is easy to get the impression that they are lacking something. Additionally, the concepts of flexibility and individualisation are introduced here to make the educa-tional system run smoothly, thus, it is not the system and society that is perceived as a ‘challenge’ but rather the people that do not fit in and need a more flexible and individualised education in order to ‘strengthen their position’. Here, it becomes important to question the underlying assumption that the adult education system should focus on maximisation of effectivity at the cost of pedagogical and didactical issues, and in relation, the effect of framing the student group as a ‘challenge’ and not the education system itself.
By returning to the concepts of flexibility and individualisation, it becomes possible to question whether these concepts automatically lead to improved quality in terms of increased throughflow and goal attainment of students. Also, it prompts the question of whether the increased focus on accountability, follow up and inspections automatically leads to the implementation of the concepts of flexibility and individualisation, and in extension, to improved quality. Additionally, it raises the question: what will the con-sequences be? In his study about quality work at schools, Bergh (2015) stresses that the increased focus on control leads to paradoxical expectations at a local level. In relation to our study, this begs the question of how such a focus on responsibility-taking and accountability will affect the representatives of the municipal authorities and principals. Bjursell (2016) provides yet another example of this. Based on her study of MAE, she highlights that school leaders in adult education mainly talk about education in meta-phors of administration, market and learning, thus illustrating the decreased use of democratic concepts and increased use of economic theories (see also Fejes, Runesdotter, and Wärvik 2016).
Our study also illustrates how policy construes the representatives of the municipal authorities and principals as those whom have ‘failed’ to implement the regulation. This is concordant with what Rönnberg (2019, 57) refers to as the ‘politics of blame’ in relation to how problem-solving responsibilities are placed on school personnel as they are expected to use specific methods and approaches in order to ‘solve’ the framed ‘pro-blems’. Hence, the silence concerns the bigger context of why the implementation has failed or not been as successful as anticipated. It also highlights questions about how the blame should be distributed among different parts of the adult education system. As focus is directed to the leadership and systematic quality work in the chain of command, we lose sight of how the organisation of the educational system facilitates or obstructs different kinds of behaviours (Ball et al. 2012).
In relation to how the educational system facilitates or obstructs behaviour, the contextualised aspects of adult education become interesting. In this context, quality seems to be linked to goal achievement and something that needs to be evaluated, audited and controlled in order to exist within the goal-and-result oriented adult education system. As stipulated in the Education Act: ‘The audit shall refer to the quality of education in relation to objectives and other guidelines’ (SFS 2010:800, chap. 20 §20). If quality is defined in relation to goals and results, it becomes some-thing that is easy to quantify and measure. But, as Biesta (2009) states: ‘the question [is] whether we are indeed measuring what we value, or whether we are just measur-ing what we can easily measure and thus end up valumeasur-ing what we (can) measure.’ (35). Here, future research could provide more in depth insights into what happens when the policy of quality is enacted in different settings of adult education and how it affects persons whom are involved in adult education, namely students, teachers, educational and career advisers, principals and representatives of the municipal authority.
Concluding remarks
The analysis presented in this article could provide some grounds for critical reflection among policy makers, not the least in times of the COVID-19. In Sweden, e.g. the entire upper secondary school system has gone into distance mode, as well as is the case for some compulsory schools. In such situation, several problems with students learning and parti-cipation has been reported. But despite these problems, calls are made, mainly from representatives of private companies that run independent schools, that they should in the future, be allowed to decide if they want to continue in distance mode, even after the COVID-19 situation, i.e. calls are made for the possibilities to create a more flexible organisation in the school system in general. In such situation policy makers has much to learn from adult education. Based on our analysis here, as well as previous research on adult education (see e.g. Dahlstedt and Fejes 2019; Fejes, Runesdotter, and Wärvik 2016) we thus want to point out the need for policy makers, that before making any drastic policy changes in the matter, to actually work on understanding what the unintentional consequences are of policies could be that combine a focus on flexibility and individualisation, with a strong market orientation of the education system. Here, we have pointed out, amongst other things, how a focus on such concepts becomes a means for chasing the holy grail of quality
rather than focusing on the actual pedagogical work with students, where the blame of failing finally is put on teachers and principals rather than on the education system itself. Notes
1. A procurement system through which private for-profit companies as well as other actors are invited to put in tenders in order to run public-funded adult education courses on behalf of municipalities (Deleted for anonymity).
2. In this context, throughflow refers to the number of students who complete their education. Goal attainment is linked to the course’s steering documents and how well the student practice the skills set by the National Agency of Education.
3. According to the NAE (2020): ‘The purpose of systematic quality work is to make visible quality and equality, what we [the school] do, why and what it leads to. By planning, following up, analysing, documenting and developing the education, we can create and share knowledge about what leads to success.’
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Song Ee Ahn for her important comments and suggestions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Johanna Mufic is a doctoral student in education specialising in adult learning at Linköping University, Sweden. Her doctoral work concerns issues of quality in relation to Swedish adult education and school inspection.
Andreas Fejes is professor and chair of adult education research at Linköping University in Sweden. His current research interests includes the consequences of marketization of adult education and the role of adult and popular education for the social inclusion of migrants. Fejes is one of the founding editors of the European journal for research on the education and learning of adults.
ORCID
Johanna Mufic http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1835-8505
Andreas Fejes http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9916-8705 References
Andersen, V. N., P. Dahler-Larsen, and C. S. Pedersen. 2009. “Quality Assurance and Evaluation in Denmark.” Journal of Education Policy 24 (2): 135–147. doi:10.1080/02680930902733071. Bacchi, C. 2015. “The Turn to Problematization: Political Implications of Contrasting Interpretive
and Poststructural Adaptations.” Open Journal of Political Science 5 (1): 1–12. doi:10.4236/ ojps.2015.51001.
Bacchi, C. L. 2016. “Problematizations in Health Policy: Questioning How ”Problems” are Constituted in Policies.” SAGE Open 6 (2): 1–16. doi:10.1177/2158244016653986.
Ball, S. 2003. “The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Perfomativity.” Journal of Education Policy 18 (2): 215–228. doi:10.1080/0268093022000043065.
Ball, S., M. Maguire, A. Braun, J. Perryman, and K. Hoskins. 2012. “Assessment Technologies in Schools: ‘Deliverology’ and the ‘Play of Dominations’.” Research Papers in Education 27 (5): 513–533. doi:10.1080/02671522.2010.550012.
Berg, A. 2010. “Vad Gör Kvalitet Med Utbildning? Om Kvalitetsbegreppets Skilda Innebörder Och Dess Konsekvenser För Utbildning.” PhD diss., University of Örebro.
Bergh, A. 2015. “Local Quality Work in an Age of Accountability: Between Autonomy and Control.” Journal of Education Policy 30 (4): 590–607. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1017612. Biesta, G. 2009. “Good Education in an Age of Measurement: On the Need to Reconnect with the
Question of Purpose in Education.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 21 (1): 33–46. doi:10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9.
Bjursell, C. 2016. “When Theories Become Practice - a Metaphorical Analysis of Adult-education School-leaders’ Talk.” European Journal for Research on the Education and Learning of Adults 7 (2): 191–205. doi:10.3384/rela.2000-7426.rela9084.
Bjursell, C., C. Chaib, C. Falkner, and A. Ludvigsson. 2015. Kvalitetsarbete I Vuxenutbildning. (Encell rapport, 2015:1). Visby: Nomen.
Carlbaum, S., A. Hult, J. Lindgren, J. Novak, L. Rönnberg, and C. Segerholm. 2014. “Skolinspektion Som Styrning.” Utbildning Och Demokrat 23 (1): 5–20.
Cottle, M., and E. Alexander. 2012. “Quality in Early Years Settings: Government, Research and Practitioners’ Perspectives.” British Educational Research Journal 38 (4): 635–654. doi:10.1080/ 01411926.2011.571661.
Dahler-Larsen, P. 2014. “Constitutive Effects of Performance Indicators: Getting beyond Unintented Consequences.” Public Management Review 16 (7): 969–986. doi:10.1080/ 14719037.2013.770058.
Dahlstedt, M., and A. Fejes, eds. 2019. Neoliberalism and Market Forces in Education: Lessons from
Sweden. London: Routledge.
Dean, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage.
Fejes, A. 2006. “The Planetspeak Discourse of Lifelong Learning in Sweden: What Is an Educable Adult?” Journal of Education Policy 21 (6): 697–716. doi:10.1080/02680930600969266.
Fejes, A., and D. Holmqvist. 2018. “Marknadiseringen Av Skolan.” In Skolan, Marknaden Och
Framtiden, edited by M. Dahlstedt and A. Fejes, 71–90. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Fejes, A., C. Runesdotter, and G.-B. Wärvik. 2016. “Marketisation of Adult Education: Principals as Business Leaders, Standardised Teachers and Responsibilised Students.” International
Journal of Lifelong Education 35 (6): 664–681. doi:10.1080/02601370.2016.1204366.
Foucault, M. [1978] 1990. The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage books.
Foucault, M. [1984] 1988. “The Concern for Truth.” In Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy,
Culture. Interviews and Other Writings, 1977–1984, edited by L. D. Kritzman Trans and
A. Sheridan, 255–267. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Harper.
Green, J. 2011. Education, Professionalism and the Quest for Accountability. Hitting the Target but
Missing the Point. New York & Oxford: Routledge.
Henning Loeb, I. 2007. “Development and Change in Swedish Municipal Adult Education: Occupational Life History Studies and Four Genealogies of Context.” Policy Futures in
Education 5 (4): 468–477. doi:10.2304/pfie.2007.5.4.468.
Henning Loeb, I., and K. Lumsden Wass. 2014. “A Policy of Individualization and Flexibility Ignoring the Situation of Non-self-Reliant Individuals: The Example of Swedish Basic Adult Education.” The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 12 (2): 399–422.
Lindgren, L., A. Hanberger, and U. Lundström. 2016. “Evaluation Systems in a Crowded Policy Space: Implications for Local School Governance.” Education Inquiry 7 (3): 237–258. doi:10.3402/edui.v7.30202.
Lundström, U. 2017. “Att Mäta Det Vi Värderar Eller Värdera Det Vi Kan Mäta?” Utbildning &
Demokrati 26 (1): 43–66.
Ministry of Education. 2018:71. “En Andra Och En Annan Chans - Ett Komvux I Tiden.” Accessed 1 7 F e b r u a r y 2 0 2 0 . h t t p s : / / w w w . r e g e r i n g e n . s e / 4 a d a 7 e / c o n t e n t a s s e t s / 825db34545104965a8c06fd3d7a03b11/pa-vag–mot-starkt-kvalitet-och-likvardighet-inom- komvux-for-elever-med-svenska-som-andrasprak
Ministry of Education. 2018. “Förskolans Läroplan Ses Över.” Accessed 17 February 2020. www. regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2017/04/forskolans-laroplanses-over/
Ministry of Education. 2019:06. “På Väg - Mot Stärkt Kvalitet Och Likvärdighet Inom Komvux För Elever Med Svenska Som Andraspråk.” Accessed 17 February 2020. https://www.regeringen.se/ 4ada7e/contentassets/825db34545104965a8c06fd3d7a03b11/pa-vag–mot-starkt-kvalitet-och- likvardighet-inom-komvux-for-elever-med-svenska-som-andrasprak
OECD. 2018. “Education Policy Outlook 2018: Putting Student Learning at the Centre” (978-92- 64-30151-1978-92-64-30152-892-64-30151-892-64-30152-6). Accessed 17 February 2020.
https://login.e.bibl.liu.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct= true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=edsoec&AN=edsoec.9789264301528.en&lang=sv&site=eds- live&scope=site
Ozga, J., P. Dahler-Larsen, C. Segerholm, and H. Simola. 2011. Fabricating Quality in Education:
Data and Governance in Europe. London: Routledge.
Perryman, J., M. Maguire, A. Braun, and S. Ball. 2018. “Surveillance, Governmentality and Moving the Goalposts: The Influence of Ofsted on the Work of Schools in a Post-panoptic Era.” British
Journal of Educational Studies 66 (2): 145–163. doi:10.1080/00071005.2017.1372560.
Rönnberg, L. 2019. “Att Göra Styrning Och Styra Görande: Skolinspektionens Aktiviteter För Ökad Genomströmning Från Gymnasieskolan.” Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier 21 (1): 34–57. Rose, N. S. 2000. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rose, N. S., and P. Miller. 1992. “Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government.”
The British Journal of Sociology 43 (2): 173–205. doi:10.2307/591464.
Segerholm, C. 2003. “Researching Evaluation in National (State) Politics and Administration: A Critical Approach.” American Journal of Evaluation 24 (3): 353–372. doi:10.1177/ 109821400302400305.
SFS. 2010:800. Skollag [Education Act]. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet [Ministry of Education].
Swedish Institute for Educational Research. 2019. “Individanpassad Vuxenutbildning - Med Fokus På Digitala Verktyg.” Accessed 17 February 2020. https://www.skolfi.se/wp-content/uploads/ 2019/07/Individanpassad-vuxenutbildning_pdf-i-fulltext-20190905.pdf
Swedish National Agency for Education [SNAE]. 2017. “Läroplan För Vuxenutbildningen.” Accessed 17 February 2020. https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.45c3a0221623365b28e33c8/ 1524143990406/Laroplan%20vuxenutbildning.pdf
Swedish School Inspectorare [SSI]. 2019. “Kommunal Vuxenutbildning På Gymnasial Nivå - Granskning Av Huvudmäns Och Rektorers Arbete För Flexibilitet Och Individanpassning.” Accessed 17 February 2020. https://www.skolinspektionen.se/globalassets/publikationssok/gran skningsrapporter/kvalitetsgranskningar/2019/komvux/kommunal-vuxenutbildning-pa- gymnasial-niva_kvalitetsgranskning-skolinspektionen2019.pdf
UNESCO. 2017. “Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments.” Accessed 17 February 2020. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259338.locale=en
World Bank. 2018. “World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise.” Accessed 17 February 2020. https://login.e.bibl.liu.se/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.4ADBC75D&lang= sv&site=eds-live&scope=site
