Realist social theorising andthe emergence of state educational systems

Tone SkinningsrudInstitute of educationUniversity of Troms

Norway

Paper presented to the 2004 Annual Conference of the International Association for Critical Realism,

University of Cambridge, UK17-19 Aug 2004

2Realist social theorising andthe emergence of state educational systems

Tone SkinningsrudInstitute of educationUniversity of TromsNorway

Abstract: Recent historical-sociological studies of Scandinavian education emphasise theenduring tradition of state intervention in the Nordic countries. Using Archers multi-leveltheory of morphogenesis this paper argues that the enduring practice of state interventionis conditioned by the long lasting structural integration of education with the state. It putsforward the hypothesis that the Lutheran reformation in Denmark-Norway effected a dualintegration of education both with the state and the church. This means that inScandinavia, the transition from the Medieval mono-integration of education with thechurch to the modern multi-integrated educational system must have occurred through twomorphogenetic cycles instead of one. The hypothesis of dual integration is substantiatedby an analysis of the changing structural integration of secondary education in Norwegiansociety during the 19th century and the nature of the strategies that were deployed by self-assertive and dominant educational groups in their struggle for educational control. Theearly 19th century integration of secondary education with other social institutions besidethe church, and the employment of municipalization of educational control as the mainstrategy of the opposition support the contention that education was structurallyintegrated with the state prior to the emergence of the system.

Introduction

This paper will discuss the integration of education in Norwegian society prior to the

emergence of the state educational system. This may seem to be a theme that can only

interest Norwegians and perhaps only Norwegian educational historians who specialise in

this area of research. However, when the study of one country is approached through a

general theory, in this case Archers general theory on the emergence of state educational

systems (Archer 1979, 1984, 1995), the question about the institutional integration ofeducation in one country, during one specific period, is made relevant to the development

of the general theory.

3Archers general theory, on the social origins of educational systems, states that during

the phase prior to the emergence of state systems, education was mono-integrated with

and subordinated to the church. The church provided the material resources without which

education could not exist, and the schools produced services that were uniquely suited for

the church in terms of the kinds of knowledge and values they instilled in their pupils. In

other words, the institutional relationship between education and the church was necessary

and compatible. According to Archers theory, the emergence of state educational system

can be explained in terms of one morphogenetic cycle, which made the transition from

education being mono-integrated with the church to being multi-integrated with a plurality

of social institutions.

I will start from the theoretical assumption of mono-integration. But, since the historical

development of Norwegian education seems to deviate from the general account provided

by Archers theory, an alternative proposition is suggested, namely that education in

Norway, instead of being mono-integrated with the church, was integrated with the state

as well as the church, in a dual relationship. Undoubtedly, in Norway and in Scandinavia

as a whole, during the middle Ages, education was mono-integrated with the church.

However, the Lutheran reformation appears to have altered this.

If the reformation introduced a dual integration of education with both the state and the

church, the emergence of the Scandinavian state educational systems, must have occurred

through two morphogenetic cycles rather than one. This calls for an elaboration of

Archers general theory, which only deals with transitions through one cycle. In

accounting for the development from mono-integration to system emergence through two

morphogenetic cycles, the second cycle needs to be theorised, since its starting point in a

dual integration of education with the church and state represents a new type of structural

conditioning, which is not covered by Archers theory. In this paper I make a first attempt

to theorise the cycle that started with the dual integration of education with the state and

the church. My main emphasis, however, will be on substantiating the hypothesis of dual

integration between education and the church and state, where I will draw upon historical

data on the 19th century development of Norwegian education. In theorising about the

cycle that started with a dual integration of education I will use concepts from the second

cycle in Archers theory which follows the emergence of the state system - and meta-

4theoretical concepts from her general theory of social change. My attempt to elaborate her

domain theory of educational development demonstrates, among other things, how, in a

multi-level social theory, higher level (meta-) concepts may be used in the elaboration oftheories at a lower level pertaining to a specific domain (Cruickshank 2003).

In Norwegian educational history, the influence of the reformation has largely been

studied as the effect of ideas. There is a general agreement among educational historians

that Lutheran ideas have had an enduring influence on education in the Nordic countries as

a whole. Egalitarianism, in the sense of caring for the weak, traceable to Lutheran ideas,

has been seen as the distinguishing characteristic of the Nordic school model (Dokka1968, Rust 1989, Markussen 1997). In this paper, however, I will not focus on the socialeffect of ideas associated with the reformation, but instead on the institutional structures,

which were established, specifically the institutional integration of education with the

state.

Recent conceptions of state involvementIn Scandinavian education

Several studies have noted the early state involvement in Norwegian education, and in

Scandinavian education in general (Jarning 1994, Slagstad 1998, 2000, Wiborg 2004).This involvement has, however, been difficult to conceptualise. For example, in historical

accounts of educational change in Norwegian elementary education during the latter half

of the 19th century, the conjoint processes of increased state funding and secularisationhave been described as a paradox: a statification within the framework of the state

(Jarning 1993, ref in Slagstad 1998).

The role of the state in Norwegian education has also been described as a tradition of

state intervention in the sense of a practice rooted in an ideology of reformism (Slagstad2000: 25). After Norways independence from Denmark in 1814, the second generationpolitical elite, which dominated political life for the major part of the century, adhered to amovement conception of government and, despite their liberalist ideology, initiated top-

5down social reforms on a broad scale (Seip 1997, Slagstad 1998). In the practice of top-down reforms, the Norwegian political tradition resembles the German, but departs from

it, in that Norwegian political elites towards the turn of the century formed coalitions with

self-assertive new elites, and became advocates of both national and democratic values.

Unlike nationalism in other parts of Europe, Norwegian nationalism was coupled with

democratic ideals. The role of the state in post-independent Norway is by Slagstad (2000)explained as the result of an enduring ideology of state interventionism, put into practice

by successive political elites, regardless of their other ideological leanings.

Similarly, in a recent historical-sociological study of comprehensive schooling in the

Scandinavian countries, the role of the state is conceptualised as the practice of state

interventionism (Wiborg 2004). Wiborg sees early state involvement both in primary andsecondary education as one of the preconditions for the early development of

comprehensive schooling in the Northern part of Europe. She points out that [i]nScandinavia the public elementary school and secondary school was a result of stateintervention and, referring to the situation during the late 19th century, both elementary

and secondary schools were almost entirely public. (op.cit.: 85). She locates the origin ofstate interventionism in Danish-Norwegian education in the period of reforming

absolutism, during the late 19th century, and sees the monarchs need for civil servants as

the impetus to reforms and financial support from the state to secondary education.

Wiborg characterises state intervention in Scandinavian education as a long process

(op.cit: 86).

Thus, recent studies on educational development in Scandinavia as a whole, and

educational development in Norwegian in particular, have noted the important role of the

state and the long process of state intervention. However, state intervention in

education in Denmark-Norway can be traced even further back than to absolutism.

Lausten (1987: 164) remarks in his study of the reformation bishop Palladius, that thereformation established a relationship of dependency between education and the state

[] which had not existed previously. This conclusion, based on historical studies of thereformation and early post-reformation period in Denmark-Norway, is a strong statement

about the relationship between education and the state by suggesting their structural

integration in a necessary relationship.

6Multi-level theorising in comparative education

The comparative study of education has traditionally been split in two research traditions,

the positivists whose aim has been to establish universal laws of educational development,

and the idiographic tradition, which emphasises the uniqueness of national educational

traditions and systems. Margaret Archer (1979) was the first to introduce a theoreticalapproach, which transcended this divide between generalising and particularising

comparative studies. Guided by a general meta-theoretical framework, she studied

educational development in four countries, from which she developed a domain theory of

the social origins of educational systems as well as theories on the development in each

individual country.

Since Archers study in 1979, Boli (1989) and Green (1990) have launched alternatives toher theory. Green shares Archers ambition of encompassing the unique development of

education in individual countries within the framework of a general theory of educational

development. Inspired by Gramsci, he explains the uneven development of education in

Western countries by the class basis of different state formations and the corresponding

hegemony of ideas. Boli, on the other hand considers the development of educational

systems and mass schooling as a result of the institutionalisation of a general set of ideas,

which characterise modernity. The uneven development of schooling must therefore be

explained by variations in the diffusion of ideas.

Although both Boli and Green claim to have surpassed Archers theory by the greater

explanatory power of their theories, it is hard to see how the notion of diffusion of ideas

can contribute to the explanation of the emergence of educational systems in individual

countries, since it begs the question of why there is uneven development. With regard to

Greens theory on the class formation of the state and the legitimating effect of hegemonic

ideas, the counter argument is that, as Archer presupposes in her theory, the ideas

advocated by the opposition or by self assertive groups seem as important, if not more

important, for educational development, than the ideas of the ruling class.

7Consequently, more recent efforts to surpass Archers theory have not succeeded in

establishing a convincing alternative theory on the emergence of educational systems.

However, taking her domain theory of education as the point of departure for further

investigations of educational development does not imply that it is unfallible. The theory

may be further elaborated, based on the falsification of certain propositions that it

contains. A major contribution of her theorising is to situate the domain theory ofeducational development within a more general theory of social change, so that the

elaboration of her theory within a domain may be guided by the general theory, and,

consequently, contribute to the development of theory rather than the wholesale rejectionof theory.

How do theories on educational development in individual countries relate to general

theories of educational development? Obviously, findings about individual countries must

be accommodated by the general theory. Moreover, as the conception of unilinear

development, where the same trajectory is repeated in every country, is clearlycontradicted by historical facts, the general theory must allow for divergent paths among

individual countries. Thus, it is important to distinguish between levels of theorising.

Domain theories on the emergence of state educational systems belong to a different

theoretical level than theories about the emergence of such systems in individual countries.

Furthermore, the theory levels of specific national case studies and that of domains are

distinct from the level of general social theories. We have here three theoretical levels:

general theories of social change, domain theories of educational change and specific

theories of educational change in individual countries.

A domain theory of educational development must capture the general characteristics of

development and its conceptions must allow divergent courses of development in

individual countries. An example of the type of conceptualisations, which are required, is

Archers definition of state educational systems, which brings out common characteristics

of such systems, but is sufficiently general to allow for different types of educational

systems in individual countries. She defines a state educational system as:

8a nation wide and differentiated collection of institutions devoted to formal education,whose overall control and supervision is at least partly governmental, and whosecomponent parts and processes are related to one another. (Archer 1995:328).

The two main common characteristics in this definition are the integration of the system

with the state as the political centre and the interconnectedness of the elements in the form

of a system. This definition is sufficiently general to accommodate educational systems

that are both centralised and decentralised and based on positive (linear) as well asnegative (non-linar) hierarchical principles.

Consistent with the notion of different levels of theorising, and the constraining role that

higher level theory exert on lower level theory, Archers domain theory of educational

development must be understood within the framework of her general morphogenetic

approach to social change. The morphogenetic approach conceives of structural

transformation as occurring in a succession of cycles, each of which consists of three

phases:

structural conditioning social interaction structural change (morphogenesis)(phase i) (phase ii) (phase iii)

This meta-theoretical framework indicates that structural change in society, or parts of it,

can be studied as sequences of morphogenetic cycles, where the last phase in one cycle

constitutes the first phase in the next cycle. The model incorporates historical time as a

variable, and the different phases in a cycle extends over different but overlapping time

tracts. Structure exists prior to interaction and structural change is the (often unintended)result of interaction. Thus, structural change takes time. Guided by this model, the study

of structural change will entail the identification of morphogenetic cycles and their three

phases: structural conditioning, social interaction and morphogenesis.

In Archers domain theory of educational development, the emergence of state educational

systems is seen as the final phase of a morphogenetic cycle that started with education

having a necessary, compatible and subordinate relationship with the church.

9The theoretical conception of mono-integration:implications for educational development

A basic insight contained in the morphogenetic model of structural change is that social

structures condition interaction, and therefore contribute in a significant way to shape the

processes that produce structural transformation. In order to explain development and

change, the identification of the conditioning structures in the first phase of the

morphogenetic cycle is therefore essential. The study of the emergence of state

educational systems must entail the identification of the institutional structure, which

conditioned the interaction that produced morphogenesis.

The proposition of mono-integration between education and the church implies that

education was integrated with the church in a necessary relationship. A necessary

relationship means that education could not exist without the church, because the church

provided the basic material, economic and personnel resources for educational activities,

and also provided the content of instruction. Since no other providers of resources were

available, education was subordinated in its relationship with the church. The church

monopoly in education implied that provisions were tailored to the requirements of the

church, and due to the subordination of education, all changes had to be negotiated with

the church. Subordination entailed a lack of autonomy in educational activities and

operations, and, consequently, lack of resources to initiate change from within schools.

Since the church was the sole provider of necessary resources, external demands for

change were unlikely to succeed. Thus, when institutional operations in other institutions

of society, such as trade, industry, forestry and agriculture created demands for other

types of qualifications than those provided by the church schools, such demands were

asserted in a competitive conflict with the defenders of the educational status quo. Thedemand for alternative provisions could also be initiated by ideational movements, which

were more indirectly related to new operational requirements, such as the folk high school

movement in Scandinavia.1

1 This movement could also be interpreted as related to a demand for qualifications for active citizenship

among previously uneducated and disenfranchised groups.

10

Mono-integration conditioned competitive conflicts, where the dominant and assertivegroup struggled to obtain control over education with the intent of mutual elimination. In

this interaction the various other institutions, which were either adventitious beneficiaries

or neutral as regards their stakes in education, were potential allies with either party in the

struggle. Adventitious beneficiaries, who benefited from the education of the church

schools without contributing resources to it, could achieve this advantage in virtue of their

power over the church. As an example of adventitious beneficiaries Archer mentions the

Danish state in the 1730s, when the interest of the absolute monarchy was served by

educational reforms that were administered and implemented by the church.

The Case of (Denmark-) NorwaySome general introductory remarks on Norwegian history will provide a context for the

following discussion on Norwegian education. Norway was a province of Denmark from

1475 until 1814, when it was handed over to Sweden as part of the peace treaty in Kiel,

after Napoleon had lost the war, where Denmark had been the ally of France. However,

during the brief interlude, after independence from Denmark and before the union with

Sweden, a Norwegian Constitution was set up and passed by an assembly of prominent

men called by the Danish prince, who hoped to become the king of an independent

Norway, a hope, which did not materialise. In the union with Sweden, Norway had an

independent role and its own government and Parliament, regulated by the new

Constitution, which was among the most progressive in Europe, inspired by French and

American constitutionalism. Among other things, it prohibited aristocratic rank, but the

state church was retained. The second clause in the Constitution declared that the

religion of the state remains evangelical-Lutheran, and all members of the state

bureaucracy, which were also the political elite of the new Norwegian state, had to be

members of the state church. Freedom of religion was not included among the basic

human rights guaranteed by the 1814 Norwegian Constitution.

After 1814, during the union with Sweden, the Swedish king was also the king of Norway

and all foreign affairs were handled by Sweden. However, the administration of education

at the national level was handled by the Norwegian Church Ministry. Legislative authority

11

in educational matters was in the hands of the Parliament, and until 1884, majoritydecisions in the Parliament were subjected to final approval by the government and theking. The union with Sweden was dissolved in a peaceful way in 1905, but not without

political struggle, kindled by strong nationalist ideas and sentiments among Norwegians.

Norwegian educational history, therefore, is part of Danish educational history up until

1814. Danish national legislation also included Norway, although in some instances

adaptations were made, for example in that the Danish Church Ordinance of 1539 was

adapted for Norway, which got its own ordinance in 1607, and the Education Act of 1740,

was adapted for Norway in 1741. These adaptation, however, were of minor consequence.

The Norwegian educational system emerged as a fully developed educational system in the

mid 1930s as a linar (hierarchical) system, where elementary, secondary and highereducation dovetailed each other. In the European context, the non-selective elementary

school was unusually long, seven years, and classical studies were, by the mid-1930s, in

effect removed from the curriculum of secondary education. The fully developed

Norwegian educational system was exceptionally modern and progressive compared

to the rest of Europe.

Evidence against institutional mono-integration betweeneducation and the church

In the following I will present some aspects of Norwegian educational history that seem to

contradict the general proposition of mono-integration. The focus will be on the

development of secondary education and the grundtvigian folk high school movement2,

and I will discuss: 1) the structural changes in secondary education which obtained priorto the emergence of the system in the mid-1930s, and 2) the strategies that were employed

2 N.F.S. Grundtvig (1783-1872) was a Danish theologian, historian, poet and politician whose prolific

writings and active participation in public life inspired a following in all the Scandinavian countries. Hisintellectual contribution was, inter alia, to amalgamate Christianity with nationalism, by seeing theuniqueness of folk mythology and traditions as God-given, and therefore deserving to be cultivated andstrengthened. On this basis he rejected the dominant classical tradition in secondary education andadvocated its substitution by schools, which emphasised the indigenous language and the study ofnational (Norse) history and mythology (Skrondal 1929).

12

by the contestants in the political struggle over state assisted secondary education and the

folk high schools during the interaction phase leading up to the emergence of the system.

Structural change in secondary educationprior to the emergence of the state system

The assumption of mono-integration theoretically entails that, given this institutional

structure, only minor changes in educational provisions could be obtained, and the

demands for change were of major magnitude, due to the necessary and compatiblerelationship between education and the church. Given the mono-integration of education

with the church, substantial educational change could only be obtained by a destruction of

the church monopoly in education.

However, in Denmark-Norway, the 1809 Secondary Education Act and the subsequent

reforms of Norwegian secondary education during the remainder of the 19th century, seem

to contradict the assumption that only minor changes in education could be obtained, and

that the removal of a church monopoly was necessary to obtain substantial educational

change. The development of secondary education and its separation from the church

therefore casts doubts on the assumption that the institutional structure that conditioned

interaction was mono-integration of education with the church. More than a hundred years

before the emergence of the state educational system, secondary education, changed

through the 1809 education Act, was clearly secularised and the control of the church was

dramatically reduced.

The weakening of institutional integration between secondary education and the church

was manifested in many ways: secondary school teachers were no longer classified as

ecclesiastical personnel by the Ministry; the administration of secondary education and the

universities was organised in a new collegial unit in the Ministry, Directionen foruniversitetet og de lrde skoler, which consisted of professional educators; in the new

local diocese school boards, ephorats, which were established as intermediate

administrative units between the Ministry and each secondary school, the local state

13

representative and the bishop were members ex officio; pupils and teachers from the Latinschools were relieved of their traditional daily church duties; the educational content was

broadened by to some degree incorporating modern languages and natural science; the

intake of pupils was broadened to include non-students, that is pupils who did not aim

for the university, but were allowed to participate in all subjects in the lower grades and inmodern language and science classes in the higher grades, though the intake of non-

students was restricted to a ratio of maximum 1/3 in each class (Sirevg 1988).

Although secondary education was still required for the study of theology at the university

and consequently still integrated with the church, all the mentioned changes created

greater autonomy for secondary education in relation to the church, in terms of

supervisory authority and the content of instruction. Secondary education became more

distinctly integrated with the state bureaucracy as a whole. There was also an incipient

integration with other, lower level, secular occupational spheres through the admission of

non-students.

The weakening of the integration between secondary education and the church was also

produced by changes in the funding of the schools. Participation in church services,

especially in the Cathedral schools, had been a major source of income. The 1809 Act,however, eliminated this source of income and instead allowed the introduction of school

fees, which from now on, until the end of the century, became a major source of income tothe cathedral schools. (Steen 1953).

The 1809 Act was initiated and implemented by the Danish Crown Prince Regent during

the reform period of the absolute monarchy in Denmark-Norway and was promoted by

prominent members of the Danish aristocratic political elite.

Further reforms of Norwegian secondary education, during the 19th century, contributed

to broaden the intake of pupils in secondary education, changed its content by further

modernisation of the curriculum and increased emphasis on the study of natural science

and modern languages, and by removing the barrier to university studies for students who

had not studied Latin. These changes effected the integration of education with an even

broader range of social institutions, especially the growing bourgeoisie.

14

The first of these reforms, a decision made by the Norwegian Parliament in 1848, was an

even clearer acknowledgement than the 1809 Act, of the obligation of the state to provide

Real education in addition to classical studies in secondary education. The inclusion of

Real - subjects, including natural science and modern languages, had been demandedboth by fractions of the political elite, i.e. the state bureaucrats, and the bourgeoisie. At

the beginning of the 19th century the bourgeoisie has established their own independent

borgerskoler in the major Norwegian towns. During the 1830s, the debate on theeducational merits of classical versus Real education became a strongly contested issue,

which created a split in the political elite between the defenders of the classical curriculum

and the advocates of science and modern languages. In 1839, the criticism of the

traditional Latin school curriculum in secondary education was one of the reasons behind

the government appointment of a national committee to look into all aspects of Norwegian

education, including secondary education. This work of committee, which addressed the

totality of educational provisions, could have resulted in the formation of a national

educational system, but its recommendations were not well received by the government

and in the Parliament. However, one thing that resulted from its work was the decision, in

1848, to give the Real curriculum a more prominent place in state controlled secondary

education.

The 1848 Parliamentary decision entailed the establishment of combined Latin and

Real schools at the secondary level and ensured their economic assistance from the

state, on the condition of joint funding with the local municipalities. The Cathedral schoolswere exempted from the arrangement, since they were financed by their own funds. State

assisted secondary education from now on consisted of combined Latin and Real schools,

where the first two grades made no distinctions between pupils and German was the only

foreign language. The higher grades were differentiated in Latin and Real classes, which

were taught partly separately and partly together (Sirevg 1988). Thus, a distinction wasestablished between state assisted secondary education and the Cathedral schools, where

Latin was taught from the first grade.

However, major problems remained in the new combined Latin and Real state assistedsecondary schools, from the point of view of the opposition, which had demanded the full

15

recognition of modern school subjects. The students enrolled in the Real stream werenot admitted to the university and pupils who left school after completing the lower grades

had no official recognition of their qualifications. The opposition was not satisfied with the

changes that were obtained through the 1848 Parliamentary decision. The state assisted

secondary schools, let alone the Cathedral schools, were still too traditional and burdened

by classical studies.

In 1865, the conservative minister of church and education appointed a new commission

to address the problems in secondary education to prepare another secondary education

Act, which was passed in 1869. This act entailed two major changes. Firstly, it allowedadmission to the university for students from the Real-stream in secondary schools. The

study of Latin was no longer required for admission to the university. Secondly, it

introduced an intermediate exam, after the first six years of secondary education, the new

middle school. Thus, it sectioned secondary education into two distinct stages, where the

first stage, the 6-year middle school provided education without classical studies and the

second stage, the 3-year gymnasium, consisted of a modern stream and a classical stream.

The two top streams were equivalent in terms of preparing for the university, and the

middle school, in practice, incorporated the previously independent borgerskole in state

assisted secondary education.

This reform has been described as a victory for the champions of a modernised curriculum

and a decisive breach in the Latin wall barring university entrance. Besides, it established a

middle school with national exams and recognised official diplomas, where the study of

classical languages was not required. Wiborg (2004) sees the establishment of the middleschool as a decisive turning point, which enabled the early development of comprehensive

schooling in Norway. She also points out that the act was the achievement of liberal

politics, supported by the peasant movement.

However, at the time, from the point of view of the opposition, the act was regarded

differently. The leader of the incipient liberal Venstre-movement and member of

Parliament, Johan Sverdrup, and other opponents of the Latin schools, voted against the

1869 Act as a whole, which they criticised for not being radical enough. A fully worked

out alternative to the government proposition, authored by two principals of a private

16

secondary school in the capital, and presented to the Parliament by Sverdrup demanded

that secondary schools should be autonomous private institutions and removed from state

control. In the parliamentary debate the liberals, grundtvigians and peasant representatives

argued against the government proposal on the grounds that it gave too little autonomy

and democratic control of education, besides, the content of the new middle school was

inadequate as an education for the bourgeois class, because it was too much of a

preparatory school for the gymnasium (Sunnan 1957).

During the 1870s, the political opposition intensified its attacks on the 1869 Act. The

grundtvigians claimed that secondary education was still too much dominated by Latin.

The peasant opposition in the Parliament was also critical. Their major concern was thatstate expenditure on secondary education was too high. Both arguments were advanced to

support the idea that secondary education should be organised as independent and private

schools removed from the control of the state. Privatisation of secondary education would

relieve the state of a financial burden, which satisfied the peasants, and private secondary

schools would probably develop a freer and more nationally oriented secondary education,

which satisfied the grundtvigians (Sunnan 1957). In 1871, the opposition in theParliament, consisting of grundtvigians, the peasant opposition and their aspiring liberal

leader Sverdrup, succeeded in obtaining a majority vote supporting an address to thegovernment asking it to consider discontinuing state funding of secondary education,

leaving secondary education to the initiative of private individuals and municipal

authorities, and suggesting alternative uses of public funds.3 Again, during the 1873

budget debate in the Parliament, the opposition raised the question of withdrawing state

funding from secondary schools. However, the ministry argued that the elimination of

state funding of secondary schools would make secondary education even more selective

and a privilege for the few, and the it succeeded in obtaining a majority vote supportingcontinued state assistance to all secondary school in the municipalities. (Sunnan op.cit.).

3 Interestingly, during the same year, similar requests were made in the Danish and Swedish Parliament.

In the Danish Folketing, publicly funded secondary education, which was seen as too dominated byclassical studies, was criticised as the wrong education for state officials, who might be better preparedfor their duties by independent schools with a different curriculum. This could be seen as an expressionof liberalism, but was also clearly inspired by Grundtvigs criticism of the content of the classical Latinschools, the black school. (Bjrndal 1957). In the context of Archers theory it could be seen as anaborted or tempered strategy of restriction, with the aim of eliminating the secondary education providedby the dominant group. It was, however, an unrealistic strategy, because the majority in the Parliamentwould not grant its support. Moreover, it was not likely to be approved by the government.

17

The expansion of secondary education after the 1869 Act, with the establishment of an

increasing number of state assisted secondary schools, confirms its successful integration

with a wider range of social institutions. In some places, middle schools were established

as separate provisions without the gymnasium on top. The middle schools clearly met a

demand. Towards the end of the 19th century, secondary education consisted in a mix of

state assisted, municipal and private secondary schools of various lengths. Some were only

middle schools, some were full length middle schools and gymnasiums.

During the 1870s, the opposition in the Parliament emerged as an alliance between the

grundtvigians, who had an educational programme, the peasant opposition, who wanted to

reduce state expenditures and decentralise political power, and the liberal leader,

Sverdrup, whose major concern was to fortify the political alliance among these groups tobring down the ruling elite. This brings us to the theoretical issue of choice of strategies

by assertive groups, in the struggle for educational change.

The structurally conditioned strategies of assertive groups

Archers theory implies that different types of structural conditioning generate different

patterns of interaction. Specifically, the institutional structure of mono-integration induces

interaction in the form of competitive conflict. The guiding principle of competitiveconflict is mutual elimination, that is, each party trying to eliminate the others control

over education. The main strategies available to the parties in such competitive struggles,

conditioned by mono-integration, were restriction and substitution. The choice of strategy

depended on the type of resources, which were available to assertive groups. The strategy

of restriction, which implied that church controlled schools were abolished and closed

down and replaced by new provisions more in line with the requirements of assertive

groups, presupposed the political resources to do so. Substitution, which implied the

establishment of alternative and competing educational provisions by assertive groups, on

the other hand, presupposed economic resources to establish new alternative schools.

18

Hence, assertive groups that were dissatisfied with the church monopoly in education,

tended to choose their strategy in accordance with their relative command of economic

and political resources.

In England, in the competitive conflict between dominant and assertive groups, the

assertive groups used the strategy of substitution. Private denominational schools were

established in competition with the established Anglican school network. State funding of

schools increased during the latter half of the 19th century as a result of each of the

contenders, the two school networks, demanding state funding for their own network,

which they succeeded in obtaining through alliances with political parties. The increasingly

wide spread acceptance of the idea that the state should take economic responsibility for

education also contributed to the resulting state involvement in education.

In Norway, however, no dominant pattern of either restriction or substitution can be

observed. Instead it seems that several strategies were employed, and the dominant

strategy was neither restriction nor substitution, but municipalization in the sense of

trying to remove educational control from the government and government bureaucracy to

local politically elected bodies. During the early 1870s, the opposition went through a

phase of total rejection of state funding, both for the established state secondary schoolsand for the alternative folk high schools. Their demand was for private and autonomous

secondary schools, and their symbolically expressed strategy of restriction was

nedleggelse (the closing down) of state secondary schools. This seems to have been morepsychological warfare than real action, because the closing down of state assisted

secondary schools was never put to the vote. However, it reflected a wish for the

elimination of state funded and state controlled schools that served the educational

interests of the political elite.

During the 1870s, state funding meant state control, favouring the educational interests of

the political elite. This is most clearly expressed in the struggle over the folk high schools.

The first Grundtvigian folk high school was established in Norway in 1864, and such

schools proliferated during the 1870s. In 1875, there were altogether 20 such schools in

Norway and they were dispersed around the country, mostly located in rural areas

(Bjrndal 1959). During a three days long public meeting in the capital in 1871, when

19

supporters and critics of the folk high school movement gathered to discuss the new

educational ideas, the issue was raised concerning public funding of the new schools,

which until then had been sustained by private individuals relying on private funds. There

was a strong sentiment against public funding among the members of the movement.

However, as the economy of the schools, which mainly recruited among the peasant

population got more difficult over the years, this attitude was reversed, and several of the

folk high schools applied for state funding, but on the condition that they would not have

to submit their educational programme for approval to state authorities.

The struggle over the folk high schools also provides another example of how in Norway,

the strategies of the parties in the competitive conflict, differed from the strategies in

England. The strategy of substitution, where the self-assertive groups challenged the

established Anglican schools by establishing schools competing in the same market had its

alternative version in the battle over the Norwegian folk high schools, where the state

entered as a competitor against private schools.

The folk high schools were recruiting from a specific segment of the population, the adult

male youth of peasant origin, who had not attended secondary education. This was a

group that at the time had very few educational options. The folk high schools clearly met

a demand for further education among those who had attended the common school. Thus,

the folk high schools were not competing for recruitment in the same market as the Latin

and Real schools, although their educational philosophy was a challenge to them, since it

was based on widely publicised opposite educational principles. The teaching method was

focused on oral presentations through the living word and few textbooks, as opposed to

the disciplined learning of a fixed curriculum; the content was secular subjects with astrong emphasis on Norwegian history, literature and contemporary social issues; and

religion was not taught as dogmas, instead the Christian spirit was to permeate all school

activities. Grundtvigian Christendom was in opposition to both Lutheran orthodoxy and

the lay pietist movement, which during the latter half of the 19th century had formed an

alliance in Norwegian church life. The grundtvigians had strong adversaries in the

established state church who prevented them from getting positions in the church, and in

the university, where the professors ensured that grundtvigians were singled out among

theology students through the type of exam questions that were given. Presenting a

20

grundtvigian interpretation on an exam in theology, guaranteed a low grade, regardless of

the brilliance of the essay (Molland 1979).

The folk high schools could have become a competitor to the established secondary

schools if the idea of creating folk high schools in every municipality of the country, as

was suggested in an address to the Parliament in a private letter, had been followed up.

However, this idea did not gain a following. Instead, the move from the political elite, and

the established church, to ward off the threat of the folk high school movement, was the

establishment of a new type of schools, the state approved and economically assisted

county schools (amtskoler). The county schools and the folk high schools were recruitingfrom the same segment of adult youths, whose only educational background was the

common school. In Norway, the strategy of substitution was not initiated by self-assertive

groups, but by the political elite, in the form of a new type of state controlled schools,

which would compete with the independent folk high schools. However, the folk high

schools and the county schools never became part of the main educational structure, and

the few independent elementary schools, which were established in conjunction with thefolk high schools, were in lack of funds and of short duration (Skrondal 1929). Thus, thestrategy of substitution, which was used in the conflict between the folk high schools and

the amtskoler could not be considered the prevailing pattern of interaction, instrumental to

the emergence of the educational system. Still, the folk high schools played an important

role in fortifying the political opposition as a recruiting ground for future politicians of

national and democratic leanings, the national, democratic and liberal Venstre movement.

The folk high school movement was also important to the development of elementary

education through its stronghold in teacher education institutions.

The major strategy, municipalisation, was signalled by the opposition, both in theParliamentary debate on the 1869 secondary education act, and later, during the 1970s in

the suggestions to close down state funded secondary schools. This was intended to avoid

the educational control of the political elite, administered by the state bureaucracy.4 The

demand for autonomous private and municipal schools, which were controlled by locally

4 This strategy was even clearer in the struggle for the 1889 acts on elementary education (folkeskolen),

which is not dealt with here.

21

elected politically bodies rather than the state administration, cannot be explained as a

strategy conditioned by mono-integration between education and the church.

The conditioning institutional structure

What can we infer about the institutional structure, which conditioned the structural

changes in secondary education and the strategy of municipalisation, which has been

described here? Clearly, the assumption of mono-integration between education and the

church does not hold, considering the changes in secondary education: first the increased

differentiation between secondary education and the church through the 1809 Act, and

secondly, the integration between secondary education and the growing bourgeoisie and

new middle class, consisting of lower level officials in the public and private sector, after

the 1869 act. The political strategies that were employed were also different from the ones

that are described in Archers theory, namely substitution and restriction, which both only

played a minor role in the Norwegian context. The prevailing strategy of municipalisation,

which meant the transfer of educational control to politically elected local bodies must be

conditioned by another structure than mono-integration between education and the

church.

In identifying the institutional structure that condition interaction, Archer suggests the

procedure of investigating structural conditions prior to the first efforts to change the

educational status quo. If we look at the situation prior to the 1809 secondary education

act, secondary education was closely integrated with the church. The cathedral schools,

although supported by their own funds, which had been given to them at the order of the

Monarch after the reformation, had obtained a major part of their income fromparticipating in church services; they were under the supervision of the bishop and the

Kings Chancellery and taught a classical curriculum. The 1809 Secondary education Act

was initiated, during Monarchic absolutism, from the political centre by politically

influential noblemen close to the Crown Prince. Thus, the situational logic of the political

elite cannot have been protection of the educational status quo, but readiness to organise

reforms in view of the broader considerations of state interests. The state, so to speak,

22

reformed its own institution, secondary education, by reducing the educational control of

another state institution, the church.

Thus, I will suggest that education was doubly integrated with the church and the state,

prior to the 1809 reform. Secondary education had supplied the state with personnel

before the 1809 act, in educating clergy and also other state officials. Secondary education

had also been subjected to state legislation, since the time of the reformation, and it hadreceived funding, mainly through the transfer of landed property, partly directly from the

Crown, but also from the Cathedral Chapters, the Monasteries and from the town

authorities, at the orders of the Monarch. Since education was integrated with the state,

the absolute Monarchy could change secondary education in accordance with its changing

needs for qualified personnel, even though it meant a dramatic reduction in church control

of education.

In the 1870s, in applying the strategy of municipalization, the emerging self assertive

liberal Venstre alliance clearly intended to avoid the control of the state bureaucracy, This

further strengthens the hypothesis that education was integrated with the state. The folk

high schools, which were supported by the radical educational opposition, the

grundtvigians, had as their main goal to remain independent and avoid having their

educational programme dictated by the state. They even, at an early stage of the

movement, despite their weak economic position, rejected economic support from thestate, in order to maintain their independence.

Substitution was unlikely to succeed because the dominant educational group was the

political elite, who controlled the state and its economic resources. The political elite was

split between those who wanted to protect the status quo and those who wanted moderate

reforms. The 1869 secondary education act was a moderate reform, which met the

demands of the bourgeoisie by incorporating the programme of their independent schools,

borgerskoler, as the new middle schools in secondary education. The strategy of moderate

reforms, to the satisfaction of the bourgeoisie, was coupled with government offers of

economic assistance to the folk high schools, on the condition of curricular control.

Restriction required a Parliamentary majority to close down schools, which wasunrealistic, and, furthermore, it required the approval of the government, which would not

23

be forthcoming under the existing Constitutional arrangements.5 Municipalization was the

only option available to circumvent the dominance of the political elite controlling to the

government. Beside, the strategy of municipalization, decentralisation and local autonomy

in general, was legitimated by the ideas of liberalism, ideas that enjoyed general support insociety at the time. Needless to say, the strategy of municipalisation required political

rather than economic resources, which suited the generally poor and idealistic

grundtvigians and the peasant opposition alike, which were both among the less affluent

groups in society.

In conclusion, the competitive conflict between dominant and assertive educational

groups, which in England and France, was conditioned by an institutional structure of

mono-integration between education and the church, in Norway was tempered by the

integration between educational institutions and the state. The state was both the provider

of economic support and the centre of national decision making on educational issues.

Elaboration of the domain theory onthe emergence of educational systems

If, as I have suggested, Norwegian education, prior to the emergence of the educational

system, was integrated both with the church and the state in a dual relationship, the course

of development from mono-integration of education with the Catholic church during the

Middle Ages, must have occurred through two morphogenetic cycles, where the Lutheran

reformation represented the first morphogenesis. Furthermore, the different structural

conditioning provided by dual integration between education and the church and state

compared with the mono-integration between education and the church, calls for new

theorising of the processes in the morphogenetic cycle which resulted in the state

educational system. Here I have only provided a tentative outline of such a theory, which

can be further elaborated by using some of the conceptualisations from Archers theory on

5 Here I am referring to the 1870s, prior to the 1884 political crisis, which resulted in the introduction of

cabinet responsibility to the Parliamentary majority, and which obliterated the dominance of thebureaucratic political elite, which occupied government offices and refused to comply with majoritydecisions in the Parliament.

24

the cycle following system formation. The integration of education with the state suggests

that this theory will have to incorporate the notions of structure of the polity and degree

of consensus among political elites in order to account for the processes leading to the

emergence of the educational system.

During the period, which has been covered in this presentation, the structure of the polity

changed from absolutism to constitutionalism, and the political processes, which have been

described, were leading up to the introduction, in the early 1880s, of Parliamentarianism,

i.e. cabinet responsibility to the Parliamentary majority, and universal suffrage. This periodsaw major changes in the accessibility of political power, which seems to fit with thetypology of political centres in Archers theory of the second cycle of development. The

theory makes a distinction between impenetrable, semi-penetrable and accessible political

centres. In the present context absolutism is an example of the impenetrable political

centre (the 1809 secondary education act). The political centre in Norway after the 1814Constitution, with a strictly limited suffrage, is an example of a semi-penetrable political

centre (the 1869 secondary education act), and the political centre after 1884 and theintroduction of cabinet responsibility is an example of the accessible political centre. The

hypotheses put forward by Archer (1984: 133) on the basis of this typology, seems to beconfirmed by the historical material which has been presented here: 1) With animpenetrable political centre, only subsections of the governing elite will be able tonegotiate educational demands by political manipulation. In Denmark-Norway, the

1809 secondary education act was negotiated by the aristocratic political elite close to the

Crown Prince; 2) With a semi-permeable political centre, sub-sections of the governingelite, together with government supporters, will be able to negotiate educational demands

by political manipulation. The 1869 Norwegian secondary education act was supported

by a sub-section of the governing elite, i.e. those who supported a modern curriculum, and

by the bourgeoisie, which were political allies of the governing elite; and 3) With anaccessible political centre, governmental opponents, too, will be able to negotiate

educational demands by political manipulation. In Norway, the political centre became

accessible after the introduction in 1884 of cabinet responsibility. The educational reform

processes which followed this political reform has not been described here, but in general

terms it can fit the description that governmental opponents were able to negotiate

educational demands.

25

The integration of education with the state remained through these major changes in thenational political framework, although the nature of the integration may have changed

with the ebbs and flows of direct state funding of education. It seems that the competitive

conflict guided by the principle of mutual elimination, which prevailed both in France and

England prior to the emergence of the state system, in Norway was tempered by the

integration of education with the state, which allowed processes of negotiation from an

early stage.

References:Archer, Margaret S. (1979) Social Origins of Educational Systems, London & Beverly Hills: SagePublications

Archer, Margaret S. (1984) Social Origins of Educational Systems, London: Sage Publications (collegeedition)

Archer, M. S. (1995) Realist social theory. The morphogenetic approach, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Bjrndal, Bjarne (1959) P. Voss og hans samtid. Pedagogiske brytningar 1869- 1896, Oslo:Universitetsforlaget

Boli, John (1989) New Citizens for a new society. The institutional origins of mass schooling in Sweden,Oxford: Pergamon Press

Cruickshank, Justin (2003) Realism and Sociology, London: Routledge

Dokka, Hans-Jrgen (1967) Fra almueskole til folkeskole, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Green, Andy (1990) Education and State Formation. The Rise of Educational Systems in England,France and the USA, London: The MacMillan Press

Jarning, Harald (1993) Mellom statsmakt og sosialiseringsmakt. Skolen 1993-94. rbok for norskutdanningshistorie, Oslo

Lausten, Martin Schwarz (1987) Biskop Peder Palladius og kirken (1537-1560), Copenhagen:Akademisk Forlag

Markussen, I. (1997) Den nordiske skolemodell, i Tveit, K. (red.) Streiftog i historisk og komparativpedagogikk, Universitetet i Oslo: Pedagogisk forskningsinstitutt, Rapport nr. 2

Molland, Einar (1979) Norges kirkehistorie i det 19.rhundre, Bind I, Oslo: Gyldendal Norsk Forlag

26

Rust, Val D. (1989) The Democratic Tradition and the Evolution of Schooling in Norway, N. Y.Greenwood Press

Seip, Jens A. (1997) Utsyn over norsk historie, Oslo: Gyldendal

Sirevg, Tnnes (1988) Utsyn over norsk hgre skole, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Skrondal, Anders (1929) Grundtvig og Norge. Kyrkje og skule 1812-1875, Bibliotheca NorwegicaeSacrae 1929B, Bergen: A. S. Lunde & Cos Forlag

Slagstad, Rune (1998) De nasjonale strateger, Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S

Slagstad, Rune (2000) Kunnskapens hus I det norske system; Mjs-utvalgets rapport. Vedlegg nr.1 (NOU2000: 14 Frihet under ansvar. Om hgre utdanning og forskning i Norge)

Steen, Johan (1953) Skolens konomiske kr gjennom tidene, in Johan Steen et al (ed.) Bergens eldsteskole: Katedralskolen 800 r, Bergen: Bergen Katedralskole

Sunnan, Olav (1957) Johannes Steen. Skulemannen, Oslo: Det norske samlaget

Wiborg, Susanne (2004) Education and Social Integration: a comparative study of the comprehensiveschool system in Scandinavia, London Review of Education, Vol 2, No 2