Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
Please note that all times are shown in the time zone of the conference. The current conference time is: 19th Aug 2026, 21:30:09 EET
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
23 SES 14 C: Teachers and the politics of education
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper ****WITHDRAWN*** The Trajectories of Agenda-setting in Professional Organizations in Education 1: OsloMet, Norway; 2: University of South-Eastern Norway; 3: NIFU Presenting Author:In this paper, we explore the agenda-setting processes in the largest professional organization in the field of education in Norway. Professional organizations are key actors within their respective fields as they provide expertise and information to policy makers (Greenwood et al., 2002). However, they do not only aspire to provide expertise and information but also aspire to have actual influence on political decisions. To influence policy outputs, organizations’ need high levels of policy capacity (Wu et al., 2018). Policy capacity refers to the political, analytical and operational, relational and communicate skills and resources that are necessary for performing various policy functions (Eisning, 2007). However, such capacity cannot be measured only in terms of external relations but is dependent on internal relations and capacity (Lorentzen et al., 2026), which can influence the direction and also the possible impact: there could be a (mis)match between what is focused internally and what external actors value, with implications for the trust and status for the organization, both internally and externally. Such processes are understudied, and in this paper, we examine the trajectories of agenda-setting in professional organizations. We do this by zooming into the processes of internal and external agenda-setting in the largest Norwegian professional organization organizing teachers and other professionals in the field of education and investigate key moments in the trajectories of agenda-setting. Norway is an interesting case for investigating such processes due to the Nordic tripartite system, where professional organizations are provided legitimacy and access to policymaking arenas, thus potentially being highly influential actors in policy processes in education. Previous research has to a limited extent investigated agenda-setting in professional organizations in the field of education, and moreover, very few studies if any have investigated agenda-setting in a processual perspective. We ask the following research question in this paper: What characterizes the trajectories of agenda-setting in professional organizations? What are the identified outcomes in terms of policy influence, and in what ways does such outcomes reflect the policy capacity of the professional organization? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In this analysis, we draw on extensive data from documents, observations and interviews from the largest professional organization organizing teachers in Norway, Union of Education (UoE), using analytical perspectives on logic of membership and logic of influence, in combination with perspectives on agenda-setting. Documents were collected from the organizations’ websites, or they were internal provided by contact persons in the organization. Additionally, documents from UoE and the media were collected in 2024 og 2025, after performing searches in order to investigate potential external agenda-setting process following the internal. We performed observations of three meetings, consisting of a total of approximately 70 hours. We observed two days of regional assembly meetings in two regions, four days in total. We also observed four days at the national general assembly. These meetings are held every fourth year and are key events in terms of shaping the policy of the organization for the next four years. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to capture more informal interactions and personal processes in political processes. The sampling of informants was based on their roles and positions, including leaders of the organization (elected and administrative), and six interviews were conducted in 2023 and 2024. In all interviews the researchers used an interview guide that included questions of, for instance, the informants’ perceptions of the political position of their respective organization, the organizations’ various strategic choices and dilemmas, and the relationships with state actors. The interviews were audio recorded and initially transcribed by AI functions on the platforms Nettskjema and Autotekst. All transcripts were quality checked through a second round of listening and correcting. All informants were informed about the purposes of the study and asked for consent to participate in accordance with the guidelines from Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The analysis finds that the period of internal agenda-setting is characterized by top-down framing of the topics, in terms of starting off with a palate of issues UoE is interested in, inviting the local and regional branches to work sequentially to reduce them to a smaller set of issues that will be prioritized by the organization. a quite voluminous and well-planned internal apparatus was developed – primarily from the national level - to identify the issue terrain, to set priorities, and to take positions. The discussion notes in themselves have important implications in terms of the content of the policy agenda of UoE as these notes also create some kind of path dependence. The discussions that took place at the regional meetings were by no doubt important for laying the groundwork undertaken in order to remain informed of ongoing and future policy developments. This groundwork was important in a two-way perspective, for local data accumulation and anchoring from the perspective of the national executive committee and the secretariat, and for venting and involvement from the local and regional perspective. The process can, however, be characterized as quite arranged from above. The analysis of continued internal and external agenda- setting is ongoing, but indicate,among other things, that the capacities that organizations build is also what constrains them. For example, if the organization builds capacity on resisting testing in education, it is also difficult to identify nuances and other perspectives in the debate - and thus, external agenda-setting becomes more difficult for the organization. Thus, the logic of membership and the logic of influence are intertwined in ways that to a limited extent have been empirically studied. References Eising, R. (2007). Institutional context, organizational resources and strategic choices: Explaining interest group access in the European Union. European Union Politics, 8(3), 329-362. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of management journal, 45(1), 58-80. Lorentzen, M., Tirill S. Finnanger, Mausethagen, S. & Prøitz, T.S. (2026). Powerful and particular: Mapping the Policy Capacity of Professional Organisations in the Norwegian Education Sector. In press in Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research Wu, X., Ramesh, M., and Howlett, M. (2018). "Policy Capacity: Conceptual Framework and Essential Components", in X. Wu, M. Howlett, and M. Ramesh, (eds.), Policy Capacity and Governance: Assessing Governmental Competences and Capabilities in Theory and Practice. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 1-25. 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper Teachers’ Indirect Complaints as a Mode of Everyday Resistance: Mechanisms and Rationales. East China Normal University Presenting Author:Educational reform must garner the support of teachers to achieve success (UNESCO, 1996). In reality, however, many educational measures fail or are never implemented due to a lack of active teacher participation (Jackson, 1992). This necessitates a focus on teacher resistance (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992). Causally, teacher resistance may stem from isolated school cultures (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996), threats to their existing professional sense of fulfillment (Oliver, 1977), or the exploitation of their already scarce time (Collinson & Cook, 2001). Furthermore, related causes include a lack of ownership, a lack of benefits, and increased burdens (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2017). Regarding its form, such resistance is not always overt; it can manifest as indirect and symbolic resistance against those in power (Janas, 1998), echoing Scott’s (1985) concept of "everyday resistance." Everyday resistance refers to a mode in which the weak utilize tacit understandings and informal networks to indirectly and symbolically confront authority through silent, invisible means. This form of resistance possesses multiple dimensions, including repertoires, time, space, and relationships (Johansson & Vinthagen, 2014; Vinthagen & Johansson, 2013). While teachers certainly employ overt forms of resistance at times (Apple, 2012), it is undeniable that everyday resistance may be the form more frequently adopted by teachers, particularly within the strictly hierarchical power contexts of East Asia, such as Korea (Choi, 2017) and China (Wang & Zhao, 2019). Specifically, methods of everyday resistance may include foot-dragging, the creation of satirical songs, and informal narratives (Scott, 1990). Among these methods, it is evident that certain forms operate primarily through discourse. Since the last century, discourse has been recognized as a practice mutually constructed by power, institutions, and knowledge (Foucault, 1981). Within this framework, both humor and complaint can serve as forms of resistance (Collinson, 1994). In the context of complaining, grievances expressed by participants regarding a party not present at the moment are termed "indirect complaints" (Boxer, 1993; D'Amico-Reisner, 1985). Evidently, indirect complaints occur frequently in teachers' daily work. However, from a micro-perspective, how exactly do teachers construct indirect complaints as a form of everyday resistance? Why do indirect complaints, as a form of everyday resistance, manifest in such specific configurations among teachers? This constitutes the central inquiry of the present study. Ultimately, by examining a minute fragment from a teacher meeting, this paper reveals the potential operation of humor and indirect complaints as forms of teachers' everyday resistance. In the response (laughter) to and correction of a joking "slip of the tongue," the "complaining teacher" conveyed dissatisfaction with superior authority via this "slip," thereby realizing an indirect complaint. Meanwhile, other teachers confirmed this dissatisfaction through laughter, constructing it as resistance, while simultaneously ensuring the covert nature of this resistance by correcting the "slip." This process achieved the leap from indirect complaint to resistance, and finally to everyday resistance. Furthermore, the continuous decline in China’s birth rate and the cultural mindset of teachers pursuing job stability compel them to place extreme importance on the safety of resistance; yet, the "complaining teacher's" deep embeddedness among the faculty emboldened him to initiate the complaint. These factors collectively influenced the morphology of this everyday resistance. This study explains how teachers' indirect complaints occur as everyday resistance within the classroom and emphasizes the need to combine the analysis of resistance processes with the social and interpersonal contexts of resistance. This provides a new supplement to the relevant research, which remains insufficient relative to the prevalence of everyday resistance phenomena in teacher groups (Choi, 2017; Vinthagen & Johansson, 2013). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The data supporting this paper were collected in May 2023 at the K1 level of a public demonstration kindergarten in Shanghai, China ("demonstration" denotes the highest rank under the official evaluation system). This data forms a focal part of a broader study on the everyday resistance practices of three kindergarten teachers, rooted in qualitative ethnographic work. The data collection methods primarily relied on participant observation and semi-structured interviews. As an intern, the author was immersed in the environment, conducting face-to-face participant observation and recording field notes in written form. Finally, semi-structured interviews with relevant teachers were conducted to enhance the understanding of the observational results. This specific study focuses on a single critical incident: the opening of a teacher meeting. The central figure is Teacher Y, a male teacher with five years of teaching experience. Although his tenure is relatively short, as the head of the Physical Education group, he holds significant influence in K1, giving him considerable discourse power regarding the design of PE curriculum and activities. In this meeting, Teacher Y served the key role of meeting moderator. The author participated in the entire meeting, took notes during the proceedings, and interviewed Teacher Y afterward. Regarding data analysis methods, given that everyday resistance and indirect complaints are closely related to discourse and power, this study adopted the analytical framework and theory of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). Influenced by M. Foucault, K. Marx, and A. Gramsci, CDA views discourse as a social practice that is shaped by—and simultaneously shapes—power, institutions, and knowledge. Therefore, its focus lies in examining how language participates in constructing, maintaining, and reproducing power relations and social inequality, attempting to unravel the intricate relationships between discourse, ideology, and inequality. To this end, CDA advocates analyzing discursive events from three dimensions: text, discursive practice, and social practice. It also encourages deep inquiry into the "hidden context"—the unstated backgrounds or presuppositions that profoundly shape discourse—to reveal underlying ideologies or discursive power relations (Fairclough, 2001; Fairclough, 2010). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Through an instance of indirect complaint in the form of a joke, this paper examines how teachers utilized individual and collective interaction to construct it as everyday resistance. Specifically, Teacher Y referred to coping with inspections from superiors as "going through the motions," establishing his role as the "complainer." Meanwhile, other teachers, while confirming the complaint with laughter, also maximized the safety of this indirect complaint by "correcting" Teacher Y's "slip of the tongue." In this interactive process, the indirect complaint was transformed from an individual teacher's resistance into the collective teachers' everyday resistance. While symbolically subverting the realistic power structure, this interaction ensured collective safety and reinforced the tacit bond between teachers. From a macro-social perspective, due to the decline in newborns, many kindergarten teachers face the risk of job loss; furthermore, due to cultural psychological inertia, many kindergarten teachers prefer "stable" employment in public institutions. Consequently, teachers place extreme emphasis on the safety of their resistance. This explains why they actively "corrected" Teacher Y's "slip of the tongue" rather than merely laughing. From a micro-interpersonal perspective, the initiator of this everyday resistance, Teacher Y, had worked in the kindergarten for five years and was well-acquainted with the attitudes and emotional tendencies of the other teachers, which gave him sufficient security to initiate this act of everyday resistance. The findings above demonstrate how teachers utilize humor and indirect complaints to engage in everyday resistance, highlighting that it is the interaction between the individual and the collective that makes everyday resistance possible. Simultaneously, this study emphasizes that to achieve a specific and nuanced understanding of teacher resistance, it is essential to combine the analysis of resistance processes with the social and interpersonal contexts of resistance. References Apple, M. W. (2013). Critical Education, Speaking the Truth, and Acting Back. In Can Education Change Society? (1st ed., pp. 138–150). Routledge. Boxer, D. (1993). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 103–125. Choi, T.-H. (2017). Hidden transcripts of teacher resistance: a case from South Korea. Journal of Education Policy, 32(4), 480–502. Collinson, D. (1994). Strategies of Resistance: power, knowledge and subjectivity in the workplace. In Resistance and power in organizations. (pp. 25–68). Taylor & Frances/Routledge. Collinson, V., & Cook, T. (2001). “I don’t have enough time” - Teachers’ interpretations of time as a key to learning and school change. Journal of Educational Administration, 39, 266–281. D'Amico-Reisner, L. (1985). An Ethnolinguistic Study of Disapproval Exchanges (Publication Number 979-8-205-76350-9) [Dissertation/Thesis, University of Pennsylvania]. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (2nd ed.). Routledge. Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In R. Young (Ed.), Untying the Text. Routledge & Kegan Paul. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher development and educational change. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change. The Falmer Press. Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's Worth Fighting for in Your School? Teachers College Press. Jackson, P. W. (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. Macmillan Publishing Company. Janas, M. (1998). Shhhhh, the dragon is asleep and its name is resistance. Journal of Staff Development Spring, 19. Johansson, A., & Vinthagen, S. (2014). Dimensions of Everyday Resistance: An Analytical Framework. Critical Sociology, 42. Oliver, A. I. (1977). Curriculum improvement: a guide to problems, principles, and process. In. New York: Harper & Row. Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2017). Curriculum Implementation. In A. C. Ornstein & F. P. Hunkins (Eds.), Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, and Issues (7th ed., pp. 268). Pearson Education. Scott, J. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. Yale University Press. Scott, J. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale University Press. UNESCO. (1996). Learning: the treasure within; report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century (highlights). Vinthagen, S., & Johansson, A. (2013). Everyday Resistance': exploration of a concept & its theories. Resistance Studies Magazine, 1, 1–46. Wang, & Zhao. (2019). Teachers' Everyday Resistance and Its Responses. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 37(6), 123–130. 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** Trade Union Responses to the Implementation of AI Systems in Education Goldsmiths, Univeristy of London, United Kingdom Presenting Author:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is radically impacting the world in which we live and work. This is a time in which the forces of production are changing in ways that are difficult to anticipate (e.g., Pozzi et al, 2025; The Guardian, 2025). The education sector, both schools and higher education, is at the epicentre of AI and its effects, as private EdTech (educational technology) companies and BigTech (the global cross-national technology companies) seize (and create) the opportunity to make decisive commercial breakthroughs into the ‘education market’. The World Economic Forum (2024) claims AI is “ushering in a new era in education” and predicts a vast global increase in AI in Education (AIED) by 2028. A combination of austerity and automation is likely to drive the increased adoption of AIED within, and indeed beyond, traditional educational institutions. While some argue that the adoption of AIED in some contexts can provide benefits (UK Government 2025) there are obvious risks that relate to the quality of provision for students, the working conditions of employees in educational institutions and indeed to the wider role and purposes of public education in democratic societies (Holmes 2023; Hillman, 2025; Stevenson et al., 2025; Traianou et al., 2025)). These have long been issues of fundamental concern to educational trade unions, but with the emergence of the AI they take on a new character and indeed a new urgency. The challenge for education trade unionists is to be able to effectively represent their members’ interests in a context of rapid change in policy and practice. Their deliberations and strategies have both a particular and a general interest for researchers: particular, in what they reveal about the ways in which trade unions organise to face a new and significant challenge; general, in that they throw light on key issues in the emergence of AI in educational practice. These issues include the approaches taken by public authorities and educational leaders, the business plans of Edtech companies, new instruments of regulation and forms of governance, and the ways in which the introduction of AI is negotiated and contested. This paper relates to the issues set out above, via exploration of the action of trade unions. It presents findings from a research project, funded by Education International, on the impact of AI on education trade unions’ collective bargaining strategies. Collective bargaining is an important forum in which different perspectives relating to the introduction of AI within education systems encounter each other in a process of ‘social dialogue’ (Education International 2022). ‘Social dialogue’ represents an ideal, in which all participants meet as equals around the table. In reality, it is an encounter shaped by the relative strength of the ‘partners’ involved but it nevertheless provides a key opportunity for education trade unions to engage in worker participation relating to the regulation of AI in an employment context. The processes and outcomes of ‘social dialogue’ remain significant. The project is guided by the following questions which explore the extent of social dialogue around AI and thus the capacity of educational trade unions to influence emergent AI systems: − How, and to what extent, are trade unions engaged in social dialogue relating to AI? − What forms of social dialogue are most commonly used when considering AI – information sharing, consultation and/or collective bargaining? − At what level does social dialogue [define] relating to AI take place (national, regional, employer/workplace) and who are the actors in the process? − Is there evidence of AI generating workplace disputes? If so, how are these being resolved? Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Data acquisition involves four kinds of data collection a) a review of published research by researchers and educators, as well as policy, legislation, regulation and protocols around AI, produced mostly by public actors but in some cases by EdTech corporations; and union-generated documentation (collective agreements, toolkits, bargaining guides, organising documents from Public Services International, European Trade Union Committee for Education and individual unions) relating to AI. b) A survey of EI’s 384 constituent unions across its three regions of East Asia, Europe and the Americas. The survey will helps refine and expand upon issues raised by the literature review. It elicits information about trade unions’ engagement in collective bargaining related to AI and asks participants to signpost union policies, advice, guidelines, surveys (e.g., American Association of University Professors 2024; National Education Union 2025) or agreements relating to AI. This documentation is then analysed by the research team. c) The survey is complemented by a workshop involving representatives of some of EI’s member unions, intended to drill down on issues raised by the survey and to refine outcomes and by d) semi-structured interviews with union organizers and negotiators specifically involved in AI and union work, from across EI regions. The workshop format is intended to facilitate debate among participants and thus to draw out different experiences, capabilities and perspectives. Interviews will enable further exploration of these perspectives and better understanding of specific contexts of AI system implementation. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings A mapping of education trade union involvement in the implementation of AI systems, across global regions. Understanding of: education trade union perspectives and insights on the strategies of governments and educational leaders and of the business strategies of EdTech companies. the experience of educators faced with and responding to AI-driven system innovation. Concrete harms, risks and power asymmetries caused, or anticipated to be caused by AI in education. the capabilities, resources and influence of education trade unions, as demonstrated by the account of leading trade unionists of their engagement with AI. the scope of trade union bargaining over AI - is it limited mainly to issues of working conditions, or does it extend into political and ethical questions of surveillance and transparency? how educational stakeholders are negotiating conflicts of opinion around the introduction of AI systems. Specifically, the research outcome will take the form of an advisory briefing for Education International members, the reception of which will inform further publications by the research team. The briefing will help member organisations decide which issues to prioritize based on urgency, member experience, legal opportunities, political context (any context) and organizational capacity. References Educational International (2022) Education International Affirms the Crucial Role of Social Dialogue for Quality Education Systems. https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/26575:education-international-reaffirms-the-crucial-role-of-social-dialogue-for-quality-education-systems. Hillman, V., & Couldry, N. (2025). Infantilising education through risk-averse educational technologies of calculability. British Journal of Sociology of Education https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2025.2519485 Holmes, W. (2023). The Unintended Consequences of Artificial Intelligence and Education. Education International Research. https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/28115:the-unintended-consequences-of-artificial-intelligence-and-education Pozzi, F. Valetto, P. and Kuiper, E. (2025) AI’s impact on Europe’s Job Market: A Call for a Social Compact. Social Europe. https://www.socialeurope.eu/ais-impact-on-europes-job-market-a-call-for-a-social-compact Stevenson, H., Vega Castillo, M., Bend, M. and Selechopoulou, V. (2025) In the Eye of the Storm: Higher Education in an Age of Crises. Education International. https://www.ei-ie.org/en/item/30087:in-the-eye-of-the-storm-higher-education-in-an-age-of-crises The Guardian (2025) US and UK refuse to sign Paris Summit declaration on ‘inclusive’ AI. 11 February. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/11/us-uk-paris-ai-summit-artificial-intelligence-declaration Traianou, A.; Stevenson H., Pearce, S. & Brady, J. (2025) “Are you on slide 8 yet?” The impact of standardised curricula on teacher professionalism Report for the National Education Union (NEU), NEU UK Government (2025) Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/generative-artificial-intelligence-in-education/generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-education ) UK Government (2025) Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Education https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/generative-artificial-intelligence-in-education/generative-artificial-intelligence-ai-in-education ) 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper Governing the Future of Education: Politics of Teacher Education and Curriculum Reform in Sweden Stockholm University, Sweden Presenting Author:Anticipated futures have become central to educational discourse within governmental and international organisations (OECD, 2020; UNESCO, 2018). Future-making is now embedded in national education reforms, which are justified not only by labour market demands but also by broader uncertainties related to social change, technological innovation, and events yet to unfold (Delanty, 2024). Forecasting and foresight mobilise anticipation as a strategic form of knowledge through which particular subjectivities are produced and certain concerns are rendered intelligible, legitimate, and actionable. As a form of governance, anticipation seeks to shape, control, and coordinate potential and preferred futures within organisations (Flyverbom & Garsten, 2021). It encompasses diverse technical devices and visions (Robertson, 2022) that mobilise resources and action, and shape subjectivities (Facer, 2022).
Imaginations of the future as a knowledge society constitute an underlying metanarrative in higher education and research policy discourse (Geschwind & Gustafsson, 2025; see also Bernotaite & Karseth, 2025). Within this narrative, the past is mobilised to govern the present through notions of ‘risk’, ‘deficiency’, and ‘competition’ (Loudoun & Van Ruyskensvelde, 2025). Anticipated futures are also central to precision education, which targets “the organisation and articulation of what should be taught and learned, how this should be done and why, ideas about what knowledge is most worthwhile, and how teaching and learning should be organised” (Brunila & Nehring, 2023, p. 733). Future-oriented education policy is then often approached instrumentally. For example, teacher education policy and curriculum reform attempt to predict educational needs and shape the conduct of teachers and pupils accordingly. Curricula are designed to produce and legitimise preferred futures—such as the production of human capital—and pedagogies are aligned with these aims. Imagined futures are thus assumed to rationalise educational policies and agendas in the present, for example in visions for higher education or the reorganisation of universities (Amsler & Facer, 2017). In their study of the future governance of Finnish higher education, Kallo and Välimaa (2025) show how visions and roadmaps underpin strategic choices regarding resource allocation, serving managerialist purposes that may conflict with academic collegial decision-making.
The Swedish government has decided to reform teacher education. This paper examines future‑oriented governance and the policy instruments embedded in two linked initiatives: a teacher education reform and a curriculum reform for compulsory schooling, scheduled for implementation in autumn 2027 and 2028. Swedish teacher education is delivered through university‑led certification programmes, including routes for candidates with prior academic or vocational qualifications. The curriculum integrates core values, social mission, goals and guidelines into a unified framework. Using the reforms as a starting point, the analysis explores how arguments for change are constructed and justified. Referral responses are also examined to identify key tensions, disagreements and forms of critique. The study is guided by two research questions:
The theoretical framework highlights the intertwinement of anticipation and governance, and the production of knowledge about what is considered valuable in education. Drawing on the concept of governmentality (Foucault, 1991), the study explores how education is rendered a problem requiring intervention, how conduct is governed, and how particular subjectivities are produced. It also engages with literature on the logic of anticipation as a means of reducing and managing uncertainty (Anderson, 2010), as well as work on anticipatory governance (Flyverbom & Garsten, 2021). This is achieved by analysing claims about how the future is rendered knowable and the devices through which it is shaped. Overall, the study offers a conceptual contribution to research on educational policy. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This empirical study examines documents commissioned by the Swedish government concerning the reform of teacher education and the curriculum for compulsory schooling, as well as responses to the reform proposals from referral bodies. The empirical material consists of two Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU), including their committee directives: Ämneskunskaper och lärarskicklighet – en reformerad lärarutbildning [Subject knowledge and teaching skills – a reformed teacher education] (SOU 2024:81) and Kunskap för alla – nya läroplaner med fokus på undervisning och lärande [Knowledge for all – new curricula with a focus on teaching and learning] (SOU 2025:19). Both investigations were politically prioritised and conducted under a tight timeline. The reform proposals are guided by government directives identifying specific policy problems. The teacher education inquiry addresses perceived deficiencies in quality and the low status of the teaching profession, proposing measures to improve teacher education. The curriculum inquiry proposes changes to strengthen the school’s focus on knowledge and to adapt teaching to students’ cognitive development and differing conditions. To examine tensions between competing problem representations, the study analyses referral responses to these reports, comprising 80 responses to the teacher education reform and 58 to the curriculum reform. The study employs problem-driven discourse analysis, using the concept of problematisation to examine how teacher education and curriculum arrangements are constructed as problematic. The guiding analytical questions are: What forms of knowledge and assumptions are mobilised to justify teacher education reform and a new curriculum? What governing practices render certain actions appropriate and necessary? The analysis centres on the network of symbolic and material relationships through which “things said” acquire legitimacy and meaning (Bacchi & Bonham, 2014). It is operationalised by tracing articulations of reform in relation to what is constructed as valuable in education, such as equity, quality, and professionalism. Referral responses largely engage with the proposed reforms rather than advancing alternative reform models. Consequently, the analysis focuses on disagreements and tensions articulated by different actors. This is done by identifying arguments for and against the teacher education reform and the new curriculum, and by examining the assumptions underpinning these positions. In a final step, discursive practices are coded using an analytical template structured around three themes: resources for knowledge production, temporal orientation, and forms of governance (Flyverbom & Garsten, 2021). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings This paper presents work in progress examining recent policy reforms in teacher education and the compulsory school curriculum. Overall, the reforms signal an increased politicisation of curricula and teacher education policy, reflecting broader shifts in educational governance. Preliminary findings from the analysis indicate a mode of anticipatory governance aimed at reducing uncertainty by rendering the future governable through proactive intervention. This temporal orientation mobilises the past to govern the present through the assemblage of statistics and narratives from teachers, school leaders, and pupils’ parents. These materials function as governing resources that legitimise intervention. Knowledge production is dominated by quantitative data and scientific research, assembled into a policy narrative that defines present challenges and articulates a particular imagination of ‘good’ educational futures. In contrast, referral responses express a critique of this anticipatory rationality, particularly the prescriptive use of scientific knowledge to pre-empt future educational needs. These critiques are framed in terms of risk, with reforms perceived as overly technocratic and insufficiently attentive to the complexity of learning and the teaching profession. The tensions point to competing anticipatory logics and invite a broader analytical lens that extends beyond teacher education and curriculum reform to the governance of higher education. While this paper centres on Sweden, anticipatory governance is transnational. The study contributes new perspectives on education policy analysis by examining the complexity of regimes of educational future-making. This approach enables critical reflection on the discourses, procedures, and devices through which value is produced, while opening space for alternative educational futures to be imagined (Facer & Sprague, 2024; Facer & Newsfield, 2022; Loudoun & Van Ruyskensvelde, 2025). This paper is part of a planned research project The next phase of the project will examine how these reforms are interpreted, negotiated, and enacted in practice. References Amsler, S., & Facer, K. (2017). Contesting anticipatory regimes in education: Exploring alternative educational orientations to the future. Futures, 94, 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.01.001 Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 777-798. https://doi-org.ezp.sub.su.se/10.1177/0309132510362600 Bernotaite, S., & Karseth, B. (2025). The OECD’s construction of future imaginaries for curriculum reform. Critical Studies in Education, 66(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2024.2419875 Brunila, K., & Nehring, D. (2023). Precision education governance and the high risks of fabrication of future-oriented learning humankinds. Research Papers in Education, 38(5), 727–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2023.2212688 Delanty, G. (2021). Imagining the future: Social struggles, the post-national domain and major contemporary social transformations. Journal of Sociology, 57(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783320969860 Facer, K., & Sprague, T. (2024). Education’s futures and futures in education. In Handbook of futures studies (pp. 157–169). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035301607.00018 Flyverbom, M., & Garsten, C. (2021). Anticipation and organization: Seeing, knowing and governing futures. Organization Theory, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877211020325 Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). University of Chicago Press. Geschwind, L., & Gustafsson, H. Ö. (2025). Knowledge for the unknown? A history of the future in Swedish higher education and research policy, 1970–2020. Higher Education, 89, 349–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01210-4 Kallo, J., & Välimaa, J. (2025). Anticipatory governance in government: The case of Finnish higher education. Higher Education, 89, 367–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01211-3 Loudoun, A., & Van Ruyskensvelde, S. (2025). A politics of temporality? Anticipatory governance and regimes of historicity in future-oriented education policy. European Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041251366704 Mertanen, K., Vainio, S., & Brunila, K. (2021). Educating for the future? Mapping the emerging lines of precision education governance. Policy Futures in Education, 20(6), 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210321104991 OECD. (2020). Back to the future of education: Four OECD scenarios for schooling. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/178ef527-en Robertson, S. L. (2022). Guardians of the future: International organisations, anticipatory governance and education. Global Society, 36(2), 188–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600826.2021.2021151 Statens offentliga utredningar. (2024). Ämneskunskaper och lärarskicklighet – en reformerad lärarutbildning (SOU 2024:81) [Subject knowledge and teaching skills – A reformed teacher education]. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2024/12/sou-202481/ Statens offentliga utredningar. (2025). Kunskap för alla – nya läroplaner med fokus på undervisning och lärande (SOU 2025:19) [Knowledge for all – New curricula with a focus on teaching and learning]. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/statens-offentliga-utredningar/2025/02/sou-202519/ UNESCO. (2018). Preparing teachers for global citizenship education: A template. UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education. | ||