One size fits all? Street Level Implementation of the National Program New Possibilities in Different School Contexts

Transcription

1 One size fits all? Street Level Implementation of the National Program New Possibilities in Different School Contexts Panel no 44 Street-Level policy Research: Expanding Boundaries Ingrid Helgøy, Uni Rokkan Centre, Bergen, Norway Anne Homme, Uni Rokkan Centre, Bergen, Norway Abstract In this paper, the national program for increasing successful completion in Upper Secondary Education and Training, New Possibilities, is addressed as a case of a top-down implementation strategy. Teachers at school level are expected to implement the nationally decided policy in collaboration with the school-leader and the school-owners (the municipalities and the counties). Thus, the teachers are to be viewed as street level bureaucrats performing on the basis of program instructions and national policy, school owners instructions and policies, the local school targets, teachers professional skills, and pupils demands. In this paper we ask how NP teachers in lower and upper secondary schools interpret the strategy s goals and how they impact the policy outcome by implementing intensive teaching to low-performing students. Furthermore, we ask whether conditions for street level discretion vary between school levels and how behavior is influenced by policy design, professional norms and organizational context. The analysis of street level behavior in this particular implementation process illustrates the potential for front line workers to promote, change or modify policy measures. NP teachers in lower and upper secondary schools interpret the strategy goals and impact the policy outcome by implementing intensive teaching differently. Thus, relying on the street level bureaucrats as the vital implementers works as an illustrative case on the significance of the different context variables when the same reform is to be implemented into two different organizational contexts. 1

2 Introduction Despite comparable education systems the dropout rate is relatively high in Norway compared to the other Scandinavian countries. For the last two decades approximately 30% of the students do not complete upper secondary education represent a high risk for labor market marginalization (Bäckman et al 2011). This is seen as a societal problem which has received increasingly political attention over the last years, resulting in different policy strategies. In this paper the implementation of one such Norwegian strategy, New Possibilities: The Transition Project (NP), is addressed. 1 The main objective is to strengthen the transition between lower and upper secondary education in order to reduce the dropout rate from upper secondary education, both general and vocational. The ten per cent lowest performing tenth grade students are to be followed up continuously during the transition to and throughout upper secondary school. The policy s main measure is intensive teaching of low-performing pupils in literacy and numeracy. While increased local responsibilities, governing at a distance (Rose & Miller 1992) and soft governance (Brandsen et al 2006), has characterized education governance in Norway the last two decades, the NP strategy stands out when it comes to both political decision making and policy design. Breaking with decentralization the NP strategy represents a highly political controlled decision making process outlining the goals, measures and tools as well as the implementation organization in detail. The policy design points to the selected NP teachers as the crucial entrepreneurs in implementing the program at school level. Because the strategy entails an expectation of changed teaching behavior as well as challenging teacher autonomy, this is an interesting case to study the potential of a top-down implementation strategy. In the paper we focus on street level behavior as the implementation output, i.e. the correspondence between policy goal and NP teacher s interpretations and behavior. On the one hand, NP teachers represent the governmental performance carrying out the specific strategy instructions; on the other hand the school owners instructions and policies, the local school targets, teachers professional skills and norms, and student demands represent important contexts that influence NP teachers behavior. Hence, policy design, the profession and the organizational context constitute important conditions for teacher practice. 1 In Norwegian the strategy is called Ny GIV Overgangsprosjektet. 2

3 This paper contributes with insights into various conditions for street level behavior by analyzing how a top-down policy program is spelled out in a multilevel setting, when the objective is a new common standard expecting to affect teacher autonomy, and when the policy area is strongly political attentive. The research question is how NP teachers in lower and upper secondary schools interpret the strategy aims and how they impact the policy outcome by implementing intensive teaching to low performing students. Furthermore, we ask whether conditions for street level discretion vary between school levels and how behavior is influenced by policy design, professional norms and organizational context. The paper reports findings from a research project on organizational consequences of the NP transition project at school level (Helgøy and Homme 2012). The research project is financed by the Ministry of Education and Research. The study is designed as comparative case studies based on policy documents and semi-structured interviews conducted in three counties and three municipalities and at twelve schools, six upper secondary and six lower secondary schools. Altogether we have conducted both individual and focus group interviews embracing a total of 72 informants in the period March to September The informants were project leaders at county and municipal levels (6), school leaders/principals (15), NP teachers (25), and class teachers (25). In addition we lean on a survey sent to principals and NP teachers in eight counties. A total of 241 schools were included in the sample. The response rate among principals is 53.9%, while one or more NP teachers from 41.5% of the sample schools responded to the survey. The survey was conducted in the spring of The paper starts by outlining the characteristics of the strategy and thereafter presents the theoretical approach. In order to grasp the street level behavior we then describe the experiences of the NP teachers within the two school levels on how they carry out the teaching of the target group. The last section contextualizes the street-level behavior by adding variables of policy design, professional norms and organization as explanatory factors. A conclusion finalizes the paper. The characteristics of the policy strategy In 2011 the Norwegian Ministry of Education launched the national strategy New Possibilities in order to increase successful completion of upper secondary education and training. 2 The strategy includes two sub-projects; the Transition project which is revealed in this paper, and a Follow-Up Project. Both are based on a report to the Norwegian Storting on reforming 2 See 3

4 lower secondary education (Meld. St. 22 ( ). While the Follow-up Project consists of targeting young people who are neither in school nor working, in order to motivate them to return to school, the Transition Project is targeted towards the ten per cent poorest performing pupils in 10 th grade and towards further support in upper secondary education. The responsibilities for primary and secondary education are divided between the municipalities and the counties. Year one to ten, primary and lower secondary education, is the responsibility of the municipalities, while the counties are responsible for the provision of upper secondary education, year eleven to thirteen. The strategy was introduced school year 2010/2011 in a small number of schools in the largest municipality in each county. The number of schools gradually increased in 2011/2012, and by 2012/2013 the strategy embraced all secondary schools on national basis. To accomplish the goal of securing completion of upper secondary schools, several measures are implemented: Intensified teaching of the target group the last semester of 10 th grade and following up the same pupils through upper secondary education and training. Courses are offered to two 10 th grade teachers and two teachers from upper secondary schools on teaching techniques on how to develop pupils basic skills in reading, writing and numeracy. Initiating networking among teachers and spreading of teaching techniques in order to improve teachers classroom practice in general. Close cooperation between the different levels of government, between school owners, as well as between teachers in each school, division of responsibilities is vital to the implementation. The project coordinators at the level of the school owners (the county and municipality) are responsible for the project at local level by supporting the schools in implementing the programme. A close and enhanced collaboration between the two school owners in each county is seen as vital to the program, making the school owner actors particularly important. The principals (or the principal deputies) are important in implementing the program at the school level, and they are expected to collaborate with both their school leader colleagues and the school owner. The crucial decisions of defining the schools target group are made here. A certain amount of discretion is given to the school level, which has to weigh pupils performance, motivation, and potential for improved learning in the selection process. The two teachers at each school who are trained as NP teachers are key actors in the implementation. They are given the responsibility of carrying out the intensive teaching. Even more, the recruitment of teachers relies on handpicking the 4

5 best suited teachers at each school to carry out the strategy at school level. This implies a kind of differentiation of teachers. The ambition of the strategy is to change the classroom and teaching practice by training NP teachers at specific teaching technique courses. The techniques are to be used more or less as standards in the intensive teaching courses at school level. The networks embracing the different NP teachers at the two school levels represent yet another actor influencing the implementation. The maintenance and development of the acquired teaching techniques, the practical issue of teaching low-performing students, as well as the role of advocating the program s teaching techniques within the schools are all factors that are strengthened by this network and thus indirectly impacting the implementation. The teachers who act as the targeted pupils main class teacher in their regular classes are also relevant for the implementation. There is a need for collaboration between the two different kinds of teachers in order to coordinate and adapt the educational arrangements between classes. The strategy is centrally outlined and planned by the Ministry of Education and Research, leaving no active role for the Directorate for Education and Training, which usually administrate and carry out national strategies. The organizational structure is hierarchic. The goals are precisely defined, by intending to increase the completion rate in upper secondary education by 5 per cent. Even more, the means are relatively precisely targeted towards the 10 per cent lowest performing tenth grade pupils and two teachers at each school. The teachers are to be trained to teach the pupils basic skills in literacy and numeracy by appointed bodies of expertise. Moreover, it involves a kind of differentiation of teachers as it relies on handpicking the best suited teachers to carry out the strategy at school level. Based on information about the strategy and intensive teaching course the targeted pupils and their parents voluntarily decide whether or not they wish to participate in the programme. If they decide to participate, a contract is signed stating responsibilities and rights for both parts. Theoretical approach By applying an implementation theory perspective, the ambition is to provide insights on how the national New Possibilities policy strategy that implies particular ideas, values, interests, and views on the relationship between means and goal achievement, can be implemented in established organizational structures, such as basic education (lower and upper secondary school). The strength of the implementation theory perspective is the opportunity to highlight the complexity of carrying policies into effect. Public policy is often ambiguous and conflicting, and although the policy goals are not conflicting per se, they are subject to 5

6 interpretations from different actors involved in the implementation process (Pressman and Wildawsky 1973, Schoefield 2001). Narrowing our scope to the exploration of the street-level implementation of the New Possibilities strategy implies acknowledging the impact of the implementers behavior instead of analyzing policy deficits (Hupe et al. 2011, Winter 2006, Winter and May 2007). Hupe et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of understanding public policy as multi-dimensional. They point to three key dimensions regarding the study of implementation: (i) The institutional dimension (ii) The political dimension (iii) The practical dimension The institutional dimension embraces the values and traditions that shape the policy. Vital to the institutional dimension in basic education is values and traditions of the national education policy and more specifically to the teacher profession or rather teacher professions that constitute the street-level bureaucracy in basic education. A traditional understanding of a profession is closely connected to an outcome of formal higher education, a code of ethics, certification, and monopoly over practice. To legitimize their control, professions attach their expertise to values with general cultural legitimacy (Abbott 1988). The political dimension points to the central interests and actors of the policy area. In the case of the New Possibilities strategy this includes politicians, different governmental levels, and actors at school level, such as teachers. The practical dimension concerns what is happening, meaning how the implementers interpret the policy. The teacher interpretations at the school level may imply different practices and thus different policy outcomes. The three key dimensions are not mutually exclusive: in addition to values and traditions, central actors interests may influence the policy, leading to reformulation. Moreover, the interpretation of the policy by implementers is influenced by values, traditions, and central interests. This may in turn lead to a reformulation of the policy design. An important argument for focusing on the practical level by analyzing street-level bureaucrat behavior is the recognition of the role street-level bureaucrats play at the interface between the citizens and the state. As frontline workers, teachers have significant opportunities to influence the delivery of public policies to students (Meyers and Lehmann Nielsen 2012). Street-level bureaucrats are embedded in complex implementation structures. To grasp the different dimensions of street-level implementation we comprise different categories of explanatory variables implying a continuous dynamic relationship between goals and means, and between policy and action, by recognizing the formulation of policies at different stages 6

7 of the policy process (cf. Ingraham 1987). Hence, we acknowledge that street level behavior depends on the context in which it is spelled out. Relying on Meyers and Lehmann Nielsen (2012) we sort out three sets of contextual conditions to be of special interest concerning teacher implementation of the New Possibilities strategy: firstly, the policy design framework, secondly, teacher professional norms, and, thirdly, organizational variables. Policy design variables emphasize the characteristics of and the continuous and dynamic relation between policy goals and means (cf. Ingraham 1987). A policy design includes decisions about relevant policy instruments to be used to reach the set policy goals, a designation of governmental or non-governmental entities to carry out the policy, available resources, and actions to be taken for accomplishing a public purpose (May 2012). Policy design is closely connected to the organizational structures it is being implemented through. Thus, in addition to identifying the goals and means of the policies, we need to be aware of how these factors are shaped by values and traditions, and how they are understood within the organizational context of policy implementation. According to Meyers and Lehmann Nielsen (ibid.), policy designs determine not only what will be done or provided to whom, but also the resources and authority that the implementing agencies will have at their disposal, the capacity of the organizational delivery system, the complexity of the organizational network that must cooperate to achieve policy objectives, the density and coherence of the existing policy framework, and other organizational factors. This implies that the interaction between organizational context and interpretation of policy objectives by street-level bureaucrats are essential. An important component in the NP strategy is that it is designed to affect the behavior of year old students, implying that the implementation context varies with the characteristics of the target population. Professional norms as explanatory implementation factors concern how the teachers construct meaning in their daily work routines (ibid.). Different studies have shown that frontline workers make use of professional norms and collective beliefs both when they are working together and isolated from their colleagues. Tummers (2011) highlights the significance of professionals willingness to implement the policy as a crucial factor. Furthermore, Maynard-Moody and Musheno s (2003) study shows that workers in different welfare agencies rely to a greater extent on their own moral judgments based on their personal knowledge and target groups rather than formal policy directives or regulations. A traditional way of understanding teacher professionalism is where an individual teacher has extensive autonomy in his or her own classroom. This form of professionalism has been realized through societal recognition of the knowledge and status of teachers as a collective group. 7

8 Thus, there has traditionally been a strong connection between the autonomy of the individual teacher and teacher status legitimated at the collective, societal level. However, this understanding of teacher professionalism has been challenged in Norway over the last few years (Helgøy & Homme 2007). It is prominent to differ between teachers at different levels in basic education. In lower secondary education most teachers are general teachers educated at teachers training colleges whilst in upper secondary education two different pathways are common depending on which subjects and programs teachers teach. Teachers in vocational programs are commonly first trained in a particular occupation before they attend practical pedagogical education to become vocational teachers. Teachers in programs preparing for further education are commonly educated at university level in one or few specific disciplines, like Norwegian/other languages, mathematics, science, or social sciences. However, most NP teachers in upper secondary schools are trained at university in mathematics and Norwegian. Organizational contextual factors include resources financial and technical -, in addition to internal organizational structure and inter-organizational cooperation and networks. In studies on prosperous school environments organizational factors are considered (Scheerens & Bosker 1997, Harris 2010, Pont et al. 2008, Reynolds et al. 2011, Höög & Johansson 2010, Lindberg 2010). Thus, in analyzing the implementation of the intensive education we include professional leadership, pedagogical methods, high ambitions, and collective engagement. Furthermore, the organizational context includes leadership, teaching, and teacher cooperation. Thus, we stress the relation between school leaders and teachers by exploring how the leaders interpret the policy assignment, how they organize the implementation and which views on the initiative they express (jf. Sannerstedt 2001). New possibilities and street level behavior How is the New Possibility strategy implemented by the NP teachers in lower and upper secondary schools? Do we find variation in street-level behavior between the two school levels? In this paper we are first and foremost concerned about how the NP teachers are interpreting the programs goals and how they practice the task of strengthening basic skills of the lowest performing pupils at the school. The interview inquiry revealed that in lower secondary education NP teachers are given a crucial role in the implementation of the program. The survey confirmed this finding as 75% of the teachers and 61% of the school leaders agreed in the statement that the school leaders have decentralized responsibility for implementing the strategy (Holen & Lødding 2012). Further, the strategy s most important goal was interpreted as to carry through teaching 8

9 in accordance with the specific teaching methodology offered. At this level the teaching of the target group was most commonly organized in smaller groups of approximately pupils who were separated from their ordinary classes to be taught in line with the NP teaching methodology in reading, writing and numeracy. The teachers experienced this way of organizing the teaching to be in line with the central authorities recommendations.the amount of segregated teaching is summed up to between 60 and 70 hours, during a three to four months period, as recommended by the central authorities. Stigmatising pupils was not experienced as worrying by the NP teachers. On the contrary, NP teachers found it attractive to participate in the segregated NP groups. The NP teachers expressed that their tasks were relatively clear, they showed a positive attitude towards the strategy, and their engagement was strong. In addition, the recruitment of NP teachers had been smooth. The overall assessment from the intensive teacher training course is that it had been relevant and useful. There was a unanimous consideration that the methodology was of great help in the teachers implementation of a practical way of teaching weaker pupils. Moreover, the NP teachers experienced that the pupil attendance was stable, and even more stable than in ordinary classes. In addition, they experienced the regional NP teacher networks as supportive in developing and maintaining teaching instruments. There were some challenges experienced by the NP teachers. To a certain degree, the teachers reported that they missed criteria to measure the teaching towards. In general, NP teachers did not perceive their task to be raising pupils marks, but rather to raise their basic skills, motivation and self-confidence and to prepare for upper secondary education and training. NP teachers were concerned with progression along what they called basic skills and pupils learning strategies, which they expected to improve the marks in the long run, as well as increase the completion rate at upper secondary level. This view was not easy to legitimize among their colleagues and the lack of visible criteria on how NP teachers performed the intensive teaching as well as the pupils outcomes were subject for debate at school level. As the other teachers had limited insights on what was happening in the intensive teaching groups, they tended to take on a critical attitude to the teaching. This attitude was strengthened by the fact that segregation of NP pupils from ordinary class teaching meant that they lost the ordinary teaching. Some pupils got lower marks in some subjects and some even failed in some subjects due to the degree of absence from the classes. There was an experienced need for closer coordination between the NP classes and the other classes. NP 9

10 teachers experienced challenges in coordinating the teaching with the class teaching and the collaboration between class teachers and NP teachers was experienced as weak. The practices of the NP teachers at upper secondary schools were quite different from the lower secondary schools. The recruitment of teachers was characterised by more reluctance from the teachers than in lower secondary school. Additionally, the recruitment of the pupils was different, as lower secondary schools were responsible to undertake the NP pupils selected at lower secondary schools. As a consequence, the first year the group of NP pupils was not perceived as the weakest pupils the first year of implementation. On the contrary, at some schools with mainly vocational programs, some of the NP pupils were perceived to be among the highest-performing pupils. This has partly to do with a stepwise introduction of the strategy, the fact that NP pupils constituted only a few per cent of the pupils and that the first year NP pupils tended to exceed the recommended mark limit at lower secondary school. Contrary to their colleagues at lower secondary school, NP teachers at upper secondary school had more mixed opinions of what their teaching tasks consisted of. They referred to a relatively high degree of discretion in choosing how to raise pupils basic skills. Thus, some teachers described their tasks as counselling and supporting the NP pupils in their ordinary classes, while the minority taught in smaller groups, although not as regularly as NP teachers in the 10 th grade. This reflects quite a different way of offering the NP teaching at upper compared to lower secondary school. Segregated teaching in groups of NP pupils was not the preferred way in upper secondary school. However, teachers who taught regularly in smaller groups assessed the impact of the methodology as being more effective than NP teachers who most commonly used the methodology in their ordinary classes. In general, upper secondary school teachers found the teaching conditions difficult and unpredictable due to the way the teaching is organized, as well as unstable attendance from students. Most often, NP students were offered the same NP measures within the established structure of how to handle potential dropout pupils with special needs in upper secondary schools. This means that the attention to and identification with the policy program were weaker among the NP teachers at upper secondary school. The strategy stands out as one of several within a broader range of social-pedagogic measures. Accordingly, in upper secondary schools the NP target group was more or less invisible, as they were integrated among the relatively large group of pupils in need of extra support. Common to upper secondary education was the experiences of organisational chaos, logistic problems, and difficulties in implementing follow-up of the NP pupils. 10

11 Hence, the interpretations and practises of NP teachers at lower and upper secondary schools divide along several dimensions. NP teachers at lower secondary schools have a clear opinion about their tasks and how to perform them, are dedicated, and identify strongly with the program, are loyal to the specific measure of changed teaching methods as well as viewing teaching methods to be a fruitful tool in preparing pupils to fulfil upper secondary school. A crucial challenge is the lack of measuring outcomes and legitimation of taking pupils out of the classes. NP teachers at upper secondary school were dedicated to the new teaching methods, but identified less to the program as such. They were not fully aware of what their tasks were and more sceptical to teaching methods as a relevant measure to reduce dropout. Common among the NP teachers was lack of collaboration with the class teachers, although this was experienced as more crucial at lower secondary school due to demands following from the segregation of pupils from ordinary classes. Also, the experience of being given extensive responsibility for the implementation of the strategy at school level was common to all NP teachers, although the teachers at lower secondary were experiencing the practical conditions to implement the teaching as better than NP teachers at upper secondary school. Contextualising the street level behaviour Why do NP teachers divide in viewing the measures and behave differently according to the program? By acknowledging that street level behavior depends on the context in which it is spelled out we turn to the contextual set of variables we expect to be of specific importance concerning teacher implementation of the New Possibilities strategy: the policy design framework, teacher professional norms, and, lastly the organizational variables. Policy design explanations Do we find that policy characteristics like goals and means, relying on certain norm and values, and how they are understood and accepted at street level influence on the behaviour? How can we connect street level behavior to design characteristics of the implementation organisation itself, including division of tasks and responsibilities within the governing levels? The NP strategy is a result of the policy aim of reducing drop outs from upper secondary school which is highly politically recognized and thus initiated by the minister for education. Signifying the political importance of the NP program, it is undertaken not only 11

12 strong political control, but the program represents a strong administrative centralization as well. The establishment of the implementation organization as well as recruitment of project leaders and teachers to the training proceeded very fast. The organisation of a limited set of key actors at the different governing levels interact relatively frequently as they meet at national conferences as well as having easy access to the ministerial secretary/national project. The education minister herself is quite often present at the conferences. Another characteristic of the strategy is its congruence with the widespread trend of super teachers among others presented by the media as well as in reality television programs which points to the teachers/classroom leaders as the most important factor to pupils learning. The program is designed in accordance to the researched knowledge of the significance of teachers competence and teaching ability, the organization of the teaching, the teacher pupil relations as well as the schools organization and leadership (Hattie 2009). These variables seem easier to implement within the structure, and are more in accordance to the traditions at lower compared to upper secondary education.. On this background we may, firstly, understand the findings of NP teachers dedication to the program in general, although even stronger at lower secondary level, a finding concurrent to other research findings from this program (Holen and Lødding 2012, Sletten et al 2011). Furthermore, although the program to some extent breaks with the policy of comprehensive education we do not identify opposition at school level to differentiate pupils on the basis of subject levels. It turns out that schools are used to differentiation and segregation of pupils, and find this a useful instrument and even want to extend this practice. As such, the program contributes to legitimize the established practice of differentiation. Second, design characteristics as the pattern of regular contact, meeting, training and exchange of experiences within the implementation organization works towards constructing an experience of being part of an important project among the participants, included the NP teachers. This expression is even stronger at lower than at upper secondary school, which might connect to the fact that secondary schools are engaged in dropout challenges already. Strengthening this, the programs accommodation by early and targeted contribution in order to prevent dropout represents a new perspective in lower secondary education and has a stronger appeal and relevance at this level compared to upper secondary. Due to the established tradition of carrying through dropout measures, the NP program is one of several dropout measures at upper secondary schools. This makes the program less relevant and may be one of several policy design explanations of why we find a stronger loyalty among NP teachers at lower compared to upper secondary school. 12

13 Third, as the school ownership is stronger at the municipality compared to the county this means that lower secondary level may be easier to direct than upper secondary education. In accordance to this we find that the municipal project leader acts closer to the schools and especially to the NP teachers than the county project leaders. Further, the program s design matches the organizational structure better in lower than upper secondary education. The conditions of organising NG pupils in smaller groups and teach them in accordance to NG methodology is more in accordance with the simpler organizational structure at lower levels, than the complex structure and range of different teaching programs in upper secondary education. Lower secondary schools are encouraged to apply for relief from educational regulations, (Education law 8-2) so that they can organize the NG intensive teaching in a proper way. This concurs with the policy initiative, which to a great extent points to achievements at lower secondary level, and at the transition phase from lower to upper secondary education. Accordingly, the program mandate seems to be clearer in the lower secondary than in upper secondary education. While a relatively precise provision is given on how to select pupils to the target group, as well as on the amount of hours and organization of NG teaching, the expectations and tasks description pointing to upper secondary education are quite vague. According to our outline of street level behaviour there is some vagueness affecting the NP teachers at lower secondary education as well. The program does not direct how the NP teaching should be evaluated and there are no included control mechanisms to assess how the teachers achieve the goal of raising pupils basic skills. Moreover, as the aim is to raise basic skills and prepare for upper secondary education, the effect will not be clear before the pupils are supposed to finish upper secondary education. The blurred expectations of the teaching results may influence the content of the teaching, as showed in our interviewed inquiry and other research findings from observation of NP teaching. The effective teachings hugely vary and contain a mix of disciplinary, motivational, well-being, and teaching elements (Helgøy and Homme 2012, Hodgson et al 2012). Fourth, the strong belief in changing teaching methods as a main tool to strengthen basic skills and indirectly prevent dropout among NP teachers at lower secondary school compared to upper secondary education we connect to the fact that teaching methods are less concerned in upper secondary education. A mismatch between the program design and the teaching and following up traditions at upper secondary level may explain this difference. In the opinion of the upper secondary school, the dropout problem definition contains a range of issues like absence from school, unacceptable behaviour, drug abuse, emotional problems, 13

14 etc. Instead of focusing on basic skills, a broader set of tools has to be applied in order to increase completion. Lastly, the policy design of how the target group is selected may have influenced the opinion reflecting the reluctance to implement targeted NP teaching at upper secondary education. At the beginning of the project upper secondary education was not involved in defining NP pupils but should take over the pupils requited at lower secondary school. We find that the arrangement of taking over a predefined group of pupils weaken the ownership by the NP teachers as well as insight in what the pupils really need of support, which may be an element in explaining a relatively low degree of NP specific measures set in by the NP teachers at this level. On the contrary, at the lower secondary school the control of defining the target group is an important factor leading to coherence between aims and means. The belief in teaching as a tool targeted towards pupils who will benefit from such teaching promotes meaning for NP teachers in their daily work. Professional norms How can professional norms explain street-level behavior of the NP teachers? One of the central strategy measures is the introduction of specific teaching techniques. This can be interpreted as a mean for the central government to control classroom teaching and limit teacher autonomy. On the other hand, offering teaching courses and implementing new ways of teaching may be seen as an attempt to empower the teacher profession in order to strengthen their position and classroom control. Our study indicates that the point of empowerment may be the case at lower secondary school level as we find a stronger commitment to the strategy here compared to upper secondary education. Can this be connected to different professional norms? We have already stated that teachers in lower and upper secondary education to a certain extent differ when it comes to both professional practice and educational background. Regarding the NP teachers we find that lower secondary teachers most often are trained as general teachers while upper secondary teachers most commonly have specialized in one or two university disciplines adding a course in pedagogics before they have been qualified as teachers. Educational background may influence the professional norms relating to how NP teachers teach and which aspects they pursue when teaching low performing students. This coincides with how the teachers relate to teaching. In general, teachers in theoretical subjects in upper secondary school tend to be more focused on the subject while teachers in lower secondary school relate more to teaching methods. This is confirmed by our teacher 14

15 interviews and may partly explain why NP teachers in lower secondary school are less occupied with the aim of enhancing student grades but rather focus on strengthening pupils motivation and basic skills. Upper secondary teachers stress the importance of pupil performance and stress the efforts to prevent them from failing. In addition to the NP teachers educational background, the division of labor at the two school levels is part of the street-level behavior context. Lower secondary education teachers are, to a great extent, general teachers. They constitute a quite equal and homogenous professional group. In upper secondary education two different pathways are common to the teacher positions dependent on which subjects and programs teachers teach vocational education and training added practical pedagogical education, and academic university education. This mixture of teacher educational backgrounds forms a less homogenous professional staff in upper than in lower secondary schools. We find that the different teacher categories not only decide what subjects and programs to teach but also the understanding of which subjects are the most important and the conditions for cooperation between subjects and educational programs. This connects to a lack of collaboration between NP teachers and class teachers, which is even more obvious in upper secondary education. In addition, at upper secondary schools, teacher autonomy seems to be more prominent than in lower secondary school. This implies that the professional norms for implementing intensive teaching seem to be less eminent in upper secondary compared to lower secondary school. Intensive teaching implementation in upper secondary school seems to a greater extent dependent on the teachers moral judgments on pedagogical but also social aspects relevant to prevent the pupils from either failing or dropout. These judgments are based on their professional or personal knowledge rather than by the formal policy directives. However, as mentioned above, the regulation of the intensive teaching measures in upper secondary school is weak compared to the regulation for lower secondary school. Moreover, the NP teachers in lower and upper secondary schools seem to define the students and their needs somewhat different. While NP teachers in lower secondary schools stress the students well-being and self-esteem as important goals in addition to achieving basic skills, the NP teachers in upper secondary schools to a greater extent focus on student performance defined as better grades and preventing students failing subjects and dropping out. This is in line with Maynard- Moody and Musheno s (2003) findings that personal experience and knowledge is more important than formal policy directives and regulation in professional practice. In both lower and upper secondary school the acceptance for hierarchical structures at the work place is generally low. There is an attitude of mutual respect and non-interference 15

16 between teacher colleagues with no acceptance for an internal teacher hierarchy. But in lower secondary school the tradition of teacher collaboration in both planning and teaching is rather long. This adds another explanation on collaboration between NP teachers and class teachers. Teacher collaboration seems to be a lot easier to accomplish at lower compared to upper secondary level. In addition, NP teachers in lower secondary schools seem to benefit more from participation in networking with other NP teachers than teachers at upper secondary level. This may strengthen the commitment to the NP strategy at lower secondary level and affect the street-level implementation. Organizational explanations The third cluster of contextual factors is related to organizational factors understood as both internal organizational factors, including financial and technical resources and interorganizational cooperation and networks. To which extent do we find that organizational factors impacts the actions taken by NP teachers at the two levels? Are the various actions connected to different organizational factors in lower and upper secondary school? When it comes to resources we find that both types of schools have sent at least two teachers to NP national teacher courses. The courses were financed by the Ministry of Education and implied no financial expenses to the schools. This implicates equal access to the continuing education course for the selected NP teachers and similar amount of teacher resources to be included in the intensive teaching. However, because the NP teacher-training course included two teachers from each school independent of the number of students, the relative amount of recourses becomes uneven. Schools with a large number of students, usually upper secondary schools, had relatively less teacher resources in implementing the program. NP teachers at upper secondary schools also had fewer resources in terms of release from other teaching duties to maintain the responsibilities for the intensive teaching. In all the lower secondary schools the NP teachers were released, either by the municipality or financed by the schools themselves. In upper secondary school intensive teaching was, for the most part, integrated in ordinary class teaching or in special education. Financing the intensive teaching in its own budget, some schools released teachers from ordinary teaching, but to a smaller extent than in lower secondary school. This implies that more resources are used for intensive teaching at lower level than upper level, which gives the teachers different potential to implement NP teaching in accordance with the program s intention. 16

17 The different correspondence between the policy design and the organization structure at the two school levels means that the two schools represent two quite different types of organizations. The relatively homogenous structure at lower secondary school where the pupils attend the same education gives advantages compared to the complex structure at upper secondary where the pupils are spread among different education programs. The different organization and logistic challenges partly explain the identified differences in the organizing of intensive education between the two types of schools. Intensive education in school year 10 was given in small groups and only for the selected NP students. In upper secondary school, the most common way to practice intensive teaching was to integrate it in either ordinary classes or in special education classes, although one of the schools partly practiced intensive education in a separate group for NP students. The implementation of NP to some degree follows the traditions of taking care of low-performing students. In general, lower secondary schools tend to differentiate students more or less temporarily in groups based on their performance in order to adapt the education to the students abilities and aptitudes, in accordance with the national education act. This implies that the implementation of intensive education follows a well-used organizational pattern placing the measure outside the ordinary organizational structure. By including the intensive education in the established system of special education measures upper secondary schools easier may include students that will benefit from the education without being defined as NP students in lower secondary schools. This different way of organizing NP teaching, one that highlights the NP program, and one that integrates it in existing measures, seems to represent two quite different motivational sources for the teachers. By giving a formal organization, a defined target group of pupils, resources, and an own teaching room signify that the school gives attention and priority to the program at lower secondary school. The opposite may be the case at upper secondary schools where there is a lack of structures that support the NP teachers in making use of their new teaching techniques. This represents more than an organizational factor as it may work as different forms of motivational support and shaping of NP teachers support to the program as a whole. In addition, NP teachers in lower secondary schools seem to profit more from the NP teacher networks consisting of NP teachers in the region than the teachers in upper secondary schools, according to their expressed experiences. The networks are supportive and build identification and loyalty to the program. The two school categories hold different traditions for school leadership. Due to the different purpose of the schools they differ when it comes to the characteristics of leadership. Pedagogical leadership is more common at lower secondary schools, while upper secondary 17

18 schools are characterized by administrative leadership. This may imply that the upper secondary school leaders involve to a lesser degree in the practical organization of education compared to their colleagues in lower secondary school, which is supported in our study. While research findings indicate that important features of school leaders in prosperous schools are that they are concerned by social and academic goals, oriented towards relations, assignment, change, and values in executing their leadership, we find this to be more prominent at lower than at upper secondary school. Although NP teachers at both school levels to a great extent are responsible for implementing the intensive teaching, we find a stronger involvement from school leaders at the lower level. At upper secondary level the conditions for pedagogic leadership as well as for concerning teacher pupil relations are different. By leading complex and large schools consisting of both subject oriented teachers and teachers with vocational background, which is the case in our study, the conditions for insights and following up classroom activities are limited. Conclusion This paper contributes with insights into various forms of street-level impact in a case where the policy outcomes rely on changed practices affecting teachers autonomy. The analysis of street-level behavior in this particular implementation process illustrates the potential for front line workers to promote, change, or modify policy measures. Important in advancing our understanding of the impact of street level behavior in implementation processes is the necessity of taking the context into consideration. The implementation of the New Possibility program works as an illustrative case on the significance of the different context variables due to the intention of implementing the same reform into two different organizational contexts. NP teachers in lower and upper secondary schools interpret the strategy aims and impact on the policy outcome by implementing intensive teaching differently. However, the possibility for teacher impact varies between school levels and the practice is influenced by policy design, professional norms, and organizational context. Both NP teachers in lower and upper secondary schools influence the policy outcome, but in different ways. In the context of lower secondary school, the street-level bureaucrats are both promoting the policy program and make efforts to change their behavior in accordance to the programs aims and tools. In the context of upper secondary school the street level bureaucrats are modifying and redirecting the policy program in accordance to the schools established routines and traditions of supporting low performing pupils. The analysis reveals that dynamics between context variables can explain differences in street level behavior and thus 18

19 policy outcome. In lower secondary schools, the policy design of NP is in accordance with the practices and characteristics of professional norms, and with organizational structures and routines. This can explain both teacher engagement and changed teacher behavior. In upper secondary schools, the lack of correspondence between policy designs, professional norms, organizational structure and routines constitute a quite different context. The teachers behavior is rather dominated by reluctance and modification of the policy program. This signifies the importance of taking context variables into consideration when designing policy programs relying on the street level bureaucrats as the vital implementers. References Abbot, A. (1988). The System of Professions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Bäckman, T., V. Jakobsen, T. Lorentzen, E. Österbacka & E. Dahl (2011). Dropping out in Scandinavia. Social Exclusion and Labour Market Attachment among Upper Secondary School Dropouts in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, Institutet för Framtidsstudier 2011:8 Arbetsrapport 2011:8. Bennich-Björkman, L. (2003). Skoleffekter och skoleffektivitet: Exemplet Navestadsskolan. s i Persson, A. (red) Skolkulturer. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Brandsen, T., M. Boogers and P. Tops (2006). Soft Governance, Hard Consequences: The Ambiguous Status of Unofficial Guidelines. Public Administration Review, July/August Harris, A (2010). Distributed School Leadership. Evidence, Issues and Future Directions. Penrith BC,Australia: ICSEI. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, Routledge. Helgøy, I. and A. Homme (2007). Towards a New Professionalism in School? A Comparative Study of Teacher Autonomy in Norway and Sweden, European Educational Research Journal, Volume 6, Number 3, Helgøy I. and A. Homme (2012) Ny GIV I skolen: Heftig begeistring organisatorisk begrensning. Evaluerinmg av Ny GIV Overgangsprosjektet. Uni Rokkansenteret Rapport Hill, P. W. & K.J. Rowe (1996). Multilevel Modelling in School Effectiveness, s 1-34 i Research, School effectiveness and School Improvement. vol.7, nr. 1. Hodgson J., W. Rønning, C.L. Strømsvik and P. Tomlinson (2012). Klasseromsobservasjoner av intensivopplæringen i Ny Giv, Nordlandsforskning, NF-rapport nr. 15/2012. Holen, S. & Lødding, B. (2012). Intensivopplæringen i Ny GIV for elever i 10. trinn våren Kartlegging av deltakelse, organisering og opplevelse. Oslo, NIFU rapport 42/

20 Hupe, P., Nangia, M. and Hill, M (2011). Studying the Implementation of a Policy Beyond Deficit Analysis. Paper presented at the EGPA conference 7-10 September 2011, Bucharest. Höög, J. & O. Johansson (2010). Struktur, kultur, ledarskap förutsättningar för framgångsrika skolor. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Ingraham, P. (1987). Toward a more systematic consideration of policy design, Policy Studies Journal, vol. 15, no Lindberg, L. (2010). Ethos och skolframgång, s i Höög, J. & O. Johansson (red) Struktur, kultur, ledarskap förutsättningar för framgångsrika skolor. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lipsky, M. (1982). Street Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Maynard-Moody, S. and M. Musheno (2003). Cops, Teachers, Counselors: Narratives of Street-Level Judgment. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. May, P. J. (2012). Policy Design and Implementation pp in B. Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. New York/London: Sage Publications. Meld.St. 22 ( ). Motivasjon- Mestring-Muligheter. Meyers, M.K. and Nielsen V. L. (2012). Street-Level Bureaucrats and the Implementation of Public Policy pp , in B. Guy Peters and J. Pierre (eds.), Handbook of Public Administration. New York/London: Sage Publications. Pont, B., Nusche, D. & D. Hopkins (red) (2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 2: case studies on systematic leadership. OECD. Pressman, J. L. and A. Wildawsky (1973). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. University of California Press. Reynolds. D., Sammons P., De Fraine, B., Townsend, T. & J. Van Damme (2011). Educational effectiveness research (EER): A state of the art review. Paper presentert på konferanse arrangert av the International Congress for school effectiveness and improvement. Rose, N. and Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: problematics of government, British Journal of Sociology, vol.43, no.2, pp Sannerstedt, A. (2001). «Implementering - hur politiska beslut genomförs i praktiken», i B. Rothstein: Politik som organisation - Förvaltningspolitikens grundproblem Angered: SNS Förlag. Scheerens, J. & R. J. Bosker (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford: Pergamon. Schofield, J. (2001). Time for a revival? Public policy implementation: a review of the literature and an agenda for future research, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 3, No. 3: Sletten, M. Aa, Bakken, A. og Haakestad, H. (2011). Ny start med Ny GIV? Kartlegging av intensivopplæringen i regi av Ny GIV-prosjektet skoleåret 2010/11. NOVA-rapport 23/2011. Tummers, l. (2011). Explaining the willingness of public professionals to implement new policies: a policy alienation framework, International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(3)