The Power of Time: Teachers' Working Day — Negotiating Autonomy and Control

Abstract

This article focuses on teachers' repeated complaints of lack of time. The theme is explored within data material collected in a research and development project in a Norwegian primary school (2006-09), including observations from development work together with a teacher team, and interviews with their principal, a representative of the teacher union and a representative of the local education authority. The aim of the article is to study in what way teachers' autonomy and utilisation of time is debated when teachers experience that new reforms exert more demands and external control on their professional work. The material is analysed within the framework of critical discourse analysis with a focus on how social practice and power relations are constructed, maintained and negotiated in the education arena. The findings indicate that the teachers' working day is an arena for constant political and discursive negotiations, and two discourses — professional and economic — contribute to conflicting views regarding teachers' autonomy and utilisation of time.

Full text

European Educational Research Journal
Volume 9 Number 2 2010
www.wwwords.eu/EERJ
284
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2010.9.2.284
The Power of Time: teachers’ working day –
negotiating autonomy and control
TOVE STEEN-OLSEN & ASTRID GRUDE EIKSETH
Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway
ABSTRACT This article focuses on teachers’ repeated complaints of lack of time. The theme is
explored within data material collected in a research and development project in a Norwegian primary
school (2006-09), including observations from development work together with a teacher team, and
interviews with their principal, a representative of the teacher union and a representative of the local
education authority. The aim of the article is to study in what way teachers’ autonomy and utilisation
of time is debated when teachers experience that new reforms exert more demands and external
control on their professional work. The material is analysed within the framework of critical discourse
analysis with a focus on how social practice and power relations are constructed, maintained and
negotiated in the education arena. The findings indicate that the teachers’ working day is an arena for
constant political and discursive negotiations, and two discourses – professional and economic –
contribute to conflicting views regarding teachers’ autonomy and utilisation of time.
Introduction
In Norway, there has been a clear tendency towards an administrative colonisation of teachers’
autonomous time and space since the 1980s. This can partly be related to new management
ideologies where it is seen as important to regulate, control and divide time into productive units
(Karlsen, 2006). These tendencies are also reported throughout Europe in the extensive control and
standardisations of educational services (Ball, 1994). Hargreaves (2003) reports that administrative
and bureaucratic surveillance has led to the result that time previously used for self-directed and
autonomous activities, such as individual preparation and gathering together one’s thoughts and
reflections, now is not only controlled, but to a greater extent subjected to demands of reporting
and documentation. Factors like these have resulted in an increased workload for teachers. Many
teachers have a feeling that the administration is insensitive to teachers’ experience of increased
workload and time constraints (Hargreaves, 1994, 2003; Jordfald et al, 2009).
The aim of this article is to discuss in what ways influence from political ideas in new
educational reforms affects teachers’ experiences of their working day and professional autonomy.
In this work, autonomy is viewed as the self-regulated freedom to act based on professionally
acquired knowledge, responsibility and authority (Burrage & Torstendahl, 1990; Sachs, 2001).
Nevertheless, teachers’ autonomy will always be relative to and balanced by demands at different
levels. Teachers’ actions cannot depart from the ethical standards of their profession or from the
contracts with their employer (Dale, 1989; Helgøy & Homme, 2007).
With the expression ‘power of time’, we do not assert that time has power, instead we are
referring to the power to decide over the utilisation of time. The aim is not to study time per se, but
to examine how the utilisation of time in relation to the teachers’ workload is negotiated across
different parties in the education arena. It should be noted that much of what follows in this article
hinges upon differing understandings of freedom related to teachers’ work assignments, i.e.
‘freedom from’ versus ‘freedom to’. Teachers in Norway have the freedom to develop a local
curriculum, but they do not have the freedom to control the content of their working day.

Teachers’ Working Day
285
After the presentation of the material and method, we proceed by looking at education in a
Norwegian political context, followed by teachers’ experiences of time and professional autonomy.
The underlying theoretical framework is based on Giddens’ (1984) view of social practice, agency
and strategic action, alongside critical discourse analysis, which serves as an analysing method as
well as a theoretical framework for the study. In the data analysis, we study strategies and
challenges connected to teacher autonomy and utilisation of time. Identified conflicts, negotiations
and discourses are summed up before the article ends with some concluding remarks on the power
of time.
Material and Method
The data material was collected within a three-year research and development (R & D) project
(2006-09) where two researchers worked together with a team of 17 teachers in a single school for
two years.[1] The data material consists of interviews, observations, and video and audiotape
recordings from classrooms, teacher reflection meetings, team meetings and staff meetings. The
frequency of our visits to the school varied, but on average we spent four to five weeks together
with the teachers each half year throughout a two-year period. The aim of the development work
was to improve the teachers’ practice by developing new methods of portfolio assessment in the
lower grades (Eikseth & Steen-Olsen, 2009; Steen-Olsen & Eikseth, 2009). The data material in this
article includes ongoing observations in first- to fifth-grade classrooms during the R & D work, and
participation in teacher reflection meetings during autumn 2006 and winter 2007. After discovering
the teachers’ concerns about time (Steen-Olsen & Eikseth, 2007), we conducted a follow-up study
by interviewing the teachers’ principal, a representative of the local school authority and a teacher
union representative at the municipal level (autumn 2007). The follow-up interviews provide the
most essential data material in this article.
The research design of the study is a single case study. In this work, the case is regarded as an
object of study where qualitative research methods were applied (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Stake,
2000). The data are analysed within the framework of critical discourse analysis. In order to
understand how conflicting demands, interests and values are involved when teachers’ autonomy
and utilisation of time is discussed, the study explores how different parties negotiate and express
their opinions and powers discursively (Fairclough, 1995, 2001; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).
The political, administrative and professional function of the informants differs. The education
officer at the local authority office is responsible for, inter alia, introducing and supporting innovations
and developmental work in schools. At the same time, the central school authorities mandate her
and, as such, she is perceived as ‘the school owner’ and a controller, securing that schools are acting
in accordance with demands of the new reform. The principal acts as an extension of the local
school authorities. It is her responsibility to follow up political requirements as well as to ensure
that the teachers are following the demands of the new reform. At the same time, she is a teaching
professional herself, and therefore considerate to the teachers’ needs. Her position is a difficult
position, with an urge to listen to the teachers as well as to the local school authorities. The teacher
union representative is mandated to take care of the teachers’ rights and interests. The teacher union
in Norway has a strong influence in the education arena (Rovde, 2004; Helgøy & Homme, 2007).
The teachers are in many ways in the ‘eye of the storm’, feeling pressured from many angles – from
central school authorities, students and parents, the principal, and the representative of the local
education authority. The discussions presented in this material should be viewed against this
background. Before proceeding, however, we first need to contextualise this study within recent
educational reforms in Norway.
New Reforms, New Demands and Less Autonomy
The Context of Education Policy in Norway
The principal political and educational ideas in Norwegian school reforms changed direction in the
late 1980s (Telhaug, 1999). In the neo-liberal period of the early 1990s, the need for more basic
knowledge was put on the political agenda (NOU, 1988: 28). Education and knowledge
development came to be regarded as important factors for future economic growth, thereby

Tove Steen-Olsen & Astrid Grude Eikseth
286
initiating a new education policy in Norway. Whereas the national curriculum of 1987 had given
teachers freedom to define subject content and methods through local plans, the new reform of
1997 constituted detailed canons in order to raise the knowledge level. The intention was to
increase the national human capital in the name of democracy (Telhaug, 1997). Teachers were
given neither freedom of methods nor of content. A new radical shift was introduced by the
Knowledge Promotion Reform of 2006, where teachers and schools were given freedom to choose
content and methods, but within strong definitions of goals and achievements, and a national
assessment system measuring pupils’ learning (White Paper No. 31, 2007-08).
Traditionally in Norway, working conditions and salary, as well as other work-related
interests, have been themes for negotiation between the state and the labour organisations (Olsen,
1988). In the sector of education policy, the strong ties between (1) the teacher union, (2) the school
politicians in the Parliament and (3) the Ministry of Education were called the ‘Iron Triangle’
(Rovde, 2004). This indicates the powerful position the teacher organisations had in the 1970s and
1980s. From the 1990s, the teacher organisations’ formal influence on national educational issues
declined. Furthermore, in 2004, they lost their rights to negotiate with governmental authorities. A
20-year debate had come to an end and, against the will of the teacher union, the teachers’
counterparts in negotiations were transferred to the municipal level and to the Kommunenes
Sentralforbund (National Association of Local Authorities) (Rovde, 2004).
The work contract of Norwegian teachers is based on a complicated, detailed and systematic
calculation of hours during the working year. Contract negotiations concerning working hours
have caused tensions between the national and local levels. According to the general agreement
between the employer (represented by the National Association of Local Authorities) and the
teacher union, teachers’ work consists of three elements: (1) teaching a certain number of
instructional hours per week; (2) time spent at school doing planning, preparation and assessment
work; and (3) individual time for preparation, reading, updating, etc. (White Paper No. 30,
2003-04). It is especially within the amount of hours for individual preparation that the core of the
battle is found.
Teachers’ Experiences of Time and Professional Autonomy
The problem of intensification as well as the insufficiency of time does not only seem to be a
problem for teachers in Norway – it is an international trend. Several studies point to the same
tendency (Hargreaves, 1994; Collinson & Cook, 2000; Troman, 2000; Simola et al, 2002; Ballett et
al, 2006). According to a Norwegian survey, the most stressing factors for teachers are heavy
workloads, time constraints and intensified work tempo (Jordfald et al, 2009).
Time has always been a central element in the structuring of teachers’ work. Time resources
mirror prevailing power and status within the school system, and have therefore micropolitical
importance. The central point here is whether teachers perceive time as a resource they can control
themselves, or whether they feel that their working day is externally controlled. Studies show that
teachers’ time, to an increasing extent, is used for administrative purposes (Johannesson et al, 2002;
Hargreaves, 2003; Karlsen, 2006). When looking at schools in general, it has been noticed that
teachers in the early grades spend practically the entire day near the children, while teachers at
higher levels can leave the classroom for pauses (Hargreaves, 1994). This is in accordance with our
findings.
In Norway, teachers’ public complaints of lack of time due to their ever changing workload
have led to actions at the government level. In December 2009, a committee (the Time Utilisation
Committee), mandated by the Norwegian government, gave a report on teachers’ use of their
working day (Grøndahl, 2009). After having analysed the results, among which was a survey of
5000 teachers and 800 school leaders, it was concluded that teachers wanted to spend more time on
tasks related to teaching – tasks that were underestimated because of a lack of time. The committee
recommended fewer reforms, less changes and lower documentation rates.
The fact that teachers’ autonomy today is under attack has been taken as a sign of de-
professionalising and restructuring in the education sector (Sachs, 2001; Karlsen, 2006). Hargreaves
has put it this way:

Teachers’ Working Day
287
More than this, in standardized reform, teachers are treated and developed not as high-skill, high-
capacity knowledge workers, but as compliant and closely monitored producers of standardized
performances. Teachers with over examined professional lives complain of eroded autonomy,
lost creativity, restricted flexibility and constrained capacity to exercise their professional
judgement. (Hargreaves, 2003, p. xx)
In the following paragraphs, different views on social practice, strategic actions and power relations
are discussed.
Social Practice, Agency and Power Relations
Social Practice and Strategic Action
Some forms of social practice are frequently altered while others seem so ‘natural’ that no one
questions them. Fixed social practice has a tendency to be reproduced and is thus difficult to change
(Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). An example of fixed social practice is indicated in a statement
from our field notes: ‘It is so hectic we do not have time to reflect.’ We noticed that even though
present practice did not always function, teachers did not have time to sit down and reflect in order
to change it. In this way, customary routines may act as barriers to change and, according to
Giddens (1984), the unreflected, taken-for-granted character of routines often serves as a safeguard
in people’s social lives.
In his theory of structuration, Giddens (1984) regards social practice as a set of rules and
resources constructed in the meeting between individuals and structural properties. His notions of
structuring rules and resources contribute to an understanding of how action is produced
contextually, and how it, in turn, can reproduce contextual conditions. This is what constitutes the
duality of structures. In social situations, rules lie in tacit knowledge and in common experiences.
This provides a non-verbalised, but implicit agreement on what is to be considered as acceptable
behaviour. Strategic action is a result of how the agents use available resources, and how they
interpret structural rules. By altering routines and social practice, agents can overcome structural
restrictions. In the analysis of strategic actions, Giddens (1984, p. 288) places the focus upon ‘modes
in which actors draw upon structural properties [rules and resources] in the constitution of social
relations’. Autonomous action (agency) presupposes strategic action. Strategic action is to make use of
available rules and resources to overcome structural hindrances, thus influencing the possibility to
act autonomously. In this way, agency and strategic action can be seen as the means to establish
autonomous professional practice. What Giddens wants to show us is that the agent has power to
alter the structures, and to act in other ways than expected. The properties of the structures do not
restrict the agent’s action alternatives. Furthermore, Giddens refers to how social and cultural
structures can maintain social practice, even though it does not function, and that practice can be
altered through discursive and reflexive action. Social changes affect patterns of interactions and
behaviour, indicating that reflexivity, or systematic self-observation, is needed. In late modernity,
increased reflexivity is a result of uncertainty and instability, knowing that everything will change,
and of constant revision of knowledge based on new information. On these grounds, agents modify
and adjust their actions. By using strategic actions, people can act in new and surprising ways, thus
avoiding being victims of the systems (Giddens, 1984).
Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Practice
Critical discourse analysis is viewed as a theory as well as a method designed for critical research of
social practices. Within this tradition, discourses are seen as a dialectic form of social practice, which
produce, and in turn are reproduced by, social practice. Discursive practice can be seen as a function
of ‘invisible’ rules of power distribution, controlling what is to be considered as ‘correct’ meanings,
values and policies (Fairclough, 1995, 2001; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).
When a given discursive practice creates hegemony, others might be suppressed or excluded.
This kind of power is productive because it reproduces social practice. Hegemonies are seldom
stable, and change will occur when social practices are articulated in new ways. In this view,
hegemony is not exclusively seen as a dominant position, but also as a platform for negotiations.

Tove Steen-Olsen & Astrid Grude Eikseth
288
Competing elements are interpreted as resistance, and resistance challenges dominating and
hegemonic positions. In daily life, discourses can be so fixed or taken for granted that they are no
longer questioned. However, when social practice becomes fixed, it becomes non-discursive and
reproductive. Dominant political ideas will often function as ideals for ‘correct’ social behaviour –
for instance, the need for employees to work more efficiently, followed by the need to control that
they do so.
In analytic work, it is important to study texts in contexts, and to study discursive practices as
well as the role these practices have had in promoting the interests of different social groups
(Fairclough, 1995). The methodical and analytical framework for identifying traits and patterns in
the data material is related to:
1. the text (analysis of statements in conversations, interviews, written texts);
2. discursive practice (the production of texts related to group interests); and
3. social practice (discourse order, hegemonies, political interests).
In short, this is the way we have used critical discourse analysis in our data material. All texts were
analysed in relation to the natural context and knowledge generated from two years of field work.
First, we analysed statements in written interview texts. Second, we looked for group interests
related to the different positions expressed in discursive practices, and third we looked for conflicts
and negotiations related to the different social practices and interests of the parties, as expressed
through means of discursive order. As a support, we had the written field notes from the R & D
work.
Within critical discourse analysis, the central methodological aim is to map the connection
between language and social practice. Another central point is to recognise power relations and
changes taking place in the different positions. Fairclough (2007) claims that the implementation of
new reforms in the education sector often involves tension and contradictions through the process
of recontextualising an external strategy within an existing field of strategic struggle. Furthermore,
he points to the tendency to extend and ‘normalise’ the language of market economy in new areas,
like, for instance, in public services such as care professions and education. In summary, through
our data analysis we focus on the interview texts, look for discursive practices related to group
interests, and look for signs indicating that the teachers’ social practices have changed as a result of
management ideas induced by the new reform.
Discourses on Autonomy and Utilisation of Time
Our data, which represent the perspectives of different parties in the education arena, demonstrate
ongoing struggles and conflicting views regarding teachers’ autonomy and their utilisation of time.
In the following paragraphs, we present the themes which have emerged from the data material,
mainly from the follow-up interviews, but also from field observations during two years of R & D
work.
Experiences of Change in the Working Day and Autonomy
The development project in the school interfered with teachers’ everyday work. Even though the
teachers in our project were positive about joining, they constantly seemed to be under pressure
due to time constraints. Hence, participation in the R & D project provoked statements of worry
concerning lack of time: ‘It is so hectic. We struggle, and there is always a lack of time.’ Further: ‘We
have so many other things to do, and the project steals time from our collaborative planning time. We
do not have that time and we get stressed.’ Hearing utterances like these, we soon became aware of
the teachers’ constant worries about lack of time.
We observed that teachers think of time as ‘ours’ or ‘mine’, but we also noticed that teachers
gladly used their entire lunch break as planning time, but only if they had decided to do so
themselves, and it was not dictated by others. The principal, who was close to the teachers during
the working day, said:
It is a reality that teachers are busy, and in lower classes they have few breaks. Earlier they could
leave after teaching, now they feel that their time is dictated by a lot of new regulations. The

Teachers’ Working Day
289
more dictation, the more stress. I think the feeling of stress due to time constraints can be
attributed to more bound time at the school.
Teachers have in their work contract both free and bound time. Interestingly, the principal
expressed that teachers had ‘great autonomy’ within the curriculum guidelines, and she continued
with a statement that corresponded with the opinion of the representative of the local education
authority:
But the teachers are trapped in their traditions, and can’t overcome this. They don’t see it [the
autonomy] because of their routines. And some of them do not even want to see it.
The principal said that changes came too quickly, and that schools did not have time to internalise
old reforms before new ones arrived. In addition, teachers took part in development projects, so
she understood that teachers became stressed. Teachers often had to reorganise their work without
having the needed competences. But having said this, she added that teachers complained too
much, and that they were unwilling to change their routines. She thought that teachers were
carrying a burden from the past, and that they were preoccupied with doing things in ways which
they had always been done. One of her conclusions was that the more the teachers’ time is
externally controlled by politicians, the local education authority and principals, the more stressed
teachers would become. She regarded control and lack of autonomy as the main reasons for the
teachers’ experiences of time-related stress due to time constraints.
The representative of the local education authority said that she heard about the problem of
time shortage whenever she met with teachers. She admitted, however, that due to new policy
based on decentralisation and goal management, more tasks had been sent down the system, and
placed upon the teachers. She also pointed to the fact that earlier entrance into teacher education
required high marks, which in turn gave teachers high social status. Earlier, teachers had
professional autonomy – they were not dictated to and their work agreement was simple. She
continued that today, they have a complicated work agreement, and teachers have to do what they
are instructed to do. On the other hand, she thought that the newly given freedom to choose
content and method in the Knowledge Promotion Reform of 2006 was not recognised by teachers:
‘They don’t use their freedom of action, and I don’t think they realise that they have it.’ She did not
mention that ‘the freedom’ to plan everything from scratch could be time-consuming in itself.
Also, the teacher union leader confirmed that teachers today were very much concerned
about their working hours. Even though the work contract is intended to protect teachers, there
was great attention to details. ‘The reason is,’ she said, ‘time-related stress. When you feel that you
don’t get enough time to do things, you get even more preoccupied with time.’ The teacher union
leader emphasised the change in the utilisation of time. Even though teachers now are obliged to
spend more of their time at school, they do not experience the benefit of having more time. She
stated: ‘The school puts more and more tasks into their schedules. The solution is to reduce the
amount of instructional hours and increase the number of teachers.’ In her opinion, the authorities
want to put more children in the classrooms and extend the school day. In addition, they require
that teachers participate in school development work, as in this case by taking part in the R & D
work. In order to achieve this, the authorities govern through goal management and a detailed
report based on control systems. Teachers are now acting more like civil servants for the
authorities, instead of being autonomous professionals. Due to the new reform, extra tasks are
passed down the system and placed upon teachers, without increasing their time resources. She
mentioned tasks such as developing local curricula and syllabi, new assessment criteria,
administrating national tests, as well as the abundance of new paperwork to be completed. In order
to help teachers meet new demands, the teacher union leader tried to negotiate with the local and
central authorities for more time resources.
Strategies for Dealing with Time Shortage and New Demands
The teachers told us that they planned in detail their daily schedule, weekly schedule, tasks,
homework, and so on. They had done this the same way for years. Furthermore, they said that
they never had time for reflection during planning time. Reflection mainly took place during the
lunch break, which explains why this free half hour was so valuable for teachers. The teachers’

Tove Steen-Olsen & Astrid Grude Eikseth
290
strategy for coping with the time-related stress was to ignore demands from the administration by
temporarily replacing time for individual student development dialogues with time for project
activities. One of the teachers expressed it thus: ‘We have to find a compromise between, on the
one side, what is motivating us, and what it is possible to accomplish, with the other side – that
which makes us feel discouraged.’
The strategy of the representative of the local education authority was to focus on the
teachers’ competence development. She cooperated with the principal to find relevant development
areas, and to finance economic incentives (scholarships) to free teachers from work. However, she
was disappointed in the fact that teachers tended to choose additional payment instead of
scholarships. This only led to an increased level of stress. In her view, the teachers did not realise
that they had great freedom to plan content and methods. She did not seem to realise that this was
a different kind of freedom from having the freedom to control the content of the working day. In
her opinion, the teachers failed to use their working hours efficiently, and she said that the dilemma
of teacher exhaustion was related to their lack of time for competence development. According to
her, an extended school year would solve this problem, but the teachers would not give up their
long vacations.
The principal’s strategy was to cooperate with the teachers in the implementation of new
plans and development projects, but in her experience, the teacher union was negative towards
development work and influenced the teachers to be of the same opinion. Also, she used economic
incentives by giving extra resources when the teachers needed more time. In order to overcome
conflicts, her strategy was to be a decisive leader:
The teachers are always invited to say what they mean, but I decide! I simply say that it will be
like this, enough of it! Yes, you see, sometimes you just have to do it like that.
The teacher union leader’s strategy was to try to reduce the amount of compulsory instruction
hours in the teachers’ work agreement. This was an economic issue that implied a need for more
teachers. Furthermore, as a result of many new responsibilities put on the teachers, she also
wanted to examine what could be removed from the teachers’ workload. She made it clear that the
teachers did not want to extend the school year and shorten their holidays. On behalf of the
teachers, the teacher union representative worked at several levels to develop an understanding of
the teachers’ workload. On the local political level, the union had developed a document called
‘The Teacher’s Role’ to make the teachers’ work situation more visible. Before the paper was
discussed in the municipal council, the teacher union leader gave qualified input in different
forums. What was important for the teacher union leader was that the teachers received freedom
to be professionals.
We soon discovered that interview questions about the teacher union’s position revealed
discontent from the representative of the local education authority and the principal. The
representative of the local education authority stated very clearly that: ‘The teacher union ruins
and boycotts the development work in schools. They refuse to go into anything new. They only
have the teachers’ working hours as a focus.’ She contended that the teacher union would not
accept changes and new demands. She felt that the union was more preoccupied with the teachers’
rights than with the development of the profession, and said that the negotiated work agreement
was ‘awful’ because ‘it leads to a tracking of time that is not good, and it makes the teachers always
think of time’. When she admitted that the status and salary of teachers had been reduced, she
complained that the teacher union was against individually based salaries.
The principal said that the teacher union had enormous influence on teachers’ opinions
regarding time: ‘They set a standard and say that this you are allowed to do, but that is not
allowed.’ An example was the discussion of using more of the summer vacation for planning work,
but in her school the teacher union said ‘no’, and then everybody was loyal to this. As a former
teacher, she understood that the teacher union fought to maintain and protect the employee’s
rights, but she did not understand its lack of cooperation. In her opinion, increased salaries for
teachers would eliminate the deadlocked situation and promote professional development.

Teachers’ Working Day
291
Discourses on Teachers’ Autonomy and Utilisation of Time
We discovered that most of the discourses in our data material have both an economic and a
professional value, but that these appear in slightly different forms. The economic discourse shows
that both the representative of the local education authority and the principal are influenced by the
new public management ideology in wanting more efficient teachers and an extended school year
to get more out of the teachers’ working day (Hargreaves, 2003; Karlsen, 2006; Fairclough, 2007).
The professional discourse shows that the parties agree that competence development will contribute
to solving the problems. The teacher union leader is defending the teachers’ rights, as well as the
power to define what teacher professionalism is. Definition of this kind is important where it leads
to a conception of teacher autonomy, thereby giving teachers the possibility to decide the content
of their working day. According to Giddens (1984), the power to define the rules is productive
because it has the ability to change social practice and to establish hegemonies.
Also, the discourse between the representative of the local education authority and the
teacher union leader has an economic and a professional value tied to the understanding of the
teachers’ utilisation of time and autonomy. While the representative of the local education
authority wants to extend and get more out of the teachers’ working year, the teacher union leader
is guarding the teachers’ professional rights. She says: ‘If you can get the teachers to teach another
hour more, then you can save even more money.’ Here, she is indicating that teachers are
exploited, and she wants to reduce instructional hours and to increase the number of teachers. In
her view, the conflict exists because the nature of the teaching profession has changed, and because
the teachers are given too little time to be professionals and to take care of primary tasks, i.e.
teaching (cf. Grøndahl, 2009).
The discourse between the teachers and the principal also has an economic and a professional
value, but here the importance is placed on the professional value as opposed to the economic
value. The principal wants the teachers to concentrate more on professional and developmental
tasks, but also to change their routines and be more efficient when necessary. At the same time, she
realises that the teachers’ working day is more controlled and that the teachers have lost much of
their autonomy. She views this as being the core of the problem. Her conclusion is that the teachers
are counting the minutes because they are more externally controlled. Discourses are working
ideologically (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999), and the ideology of the Knowledge Promotion
Reform of 2006 is that of new public management, emphasising economic ideas of regulations,
control and efficiency (Karlsen, 2006; Fairclough, 2007). The principal realises the problem of being
externally controlled, but at the same time, in order to achieve her goals, she has to manage her
staff and make them work efficiently and economically.
Summing Up: conflicts and negotiations
First, there was a conflict between the principal and the teachers. The principal felt that she was in
the crossfire between the representative of the local education authority and the teachers. Initially,
she admitted that the teachers were worn out, and she could see that they often lacked the
competences needed. Next, she said that the teachers complained too much, with no roots in
reality, and that they did this even when they had received extra resources. In her view, the
teachers were more loyal to their union than to their workplace, and she said that the teachers
were stuck in their routines and seldom willing to change their practices.
Second, there was a conflict between the teacher union leader and the principal. The teacher
union leader admitted that it was quite exhausting to count every five minutes of the teachers’
working day, but at the same time it was important to protect the teachers’ time. She did not feel
welcome in the principal’s assembled meetings, and she felt that the principal considered the
teachers’ work agreement as a hindrance to school development. In her view, the principal was
more preoccupied with what she could gain from the teachers outside the work agreement, rather
than within it. She therefore had to watch carefully that the teachers did not work more than what
had been agreed upon. The teacher union leader said that the principal, interestingly enough, had
left the teacher union, and so had more than half of the principals. This seems to be a new
tendency in the biggest towns in Norway.

Tove Steen-Olsen & Astrid Grude Eikseth
292
Third, there was an open conflict between the representative of the local education authority
and the teacher union leader. While the teacher union leader wanted to reduce the teachers’
compulsory instructional hours, the representative of the local education authority’s solution was
to extend the school year. The representative of the local education authority, who thought the
teachers’ work agreement was too rigid, said that there would be no solution until the teachers’
vacation was shortened: ‘Six weeks of vacation is enough.’ However, the teacher union leader did
not want any changes in the school year which could reduce the teachers’ traditional privileges.
In an era of rapidly shifting educational reforms, the representative of the local education
authority and the principal agreed that today’s curriculum gave teachers great autonomy in
choosing content and methods for their teaching. The pity, in their view, was that the teachers
were caught up in traditions and could not, or would not, recognise the freedom they have. The
core of the discourse between the representative of the local education authority, the principal and
the teacher union leader rested upon the political power of the teachers’ work agreement. While
the teacher union had negotiated the agreement with the employer in order to protect the
teachers’ workload, and to maintain former privileges, the representative of the local education
authority said that the teacher union had destroyed the possibility to develop the school and the
teaching profession. The principal said that the teacher union had too much impact on the
teachers’ conception of time. Here, we noticed that teachers’ interests, represented by the teacher
union, were in conflict with the lines of power, from the municipality level to the school level. The
strength of the Norwegian teacher union is delaying the processes of the marketisation of
education compared to, for instance, Sweden (Helgøy & Homme, 2007).
Concluding Remarks: the power of time
In this article, we have focused on how discursive and social practices are distributed and
maintained in the education arena, as in our example of a Norwegian elementary school, and how
conflicts and power relations are negotiated concerning teachers’ autonomy and utilisation of time.
When we started our research project we noticed how hectic and stressed the teachers were. As we
gathered our data, and took a closer look, we found that the teachers were able to find their own
solutions for coping with new demands and assignments in their daily work, and that they thereby,
to some degree, were able to overcome the stress of increasingly intensified workloads. During the
fieldwork, we observed that the teachers helped each other by planning together, and that they
thought of team time as planning time, not reflection time. Hargreaves (1994) has pointed to the fact
that collective preparation time helps teachers to address diversification and changes in their job,
and that this eases tension.
At first glance, it looked as if the teachers did not act strategically because they were stuck in
their routines, thereby reducing their possibilities to change their practices (Giddens, 1984). When
social practice becomes routine or fixed, it becomes non-discursive (Fairclough, 1995, 2001;
Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999). Upon closer examination, we realised that this was the teachers’
way of acting strategically and coping with new demands. By making the best of their situation,
they executed a silent resistance by autonomously adapting their tasks to the time available to avoid
potentially exhausting and time-consuming negotiations with their boss. By ignoring demands from
the administration, they acted strategically and unexpectedly (Giddens, 1984). They continued to
govern their time as they used to do, which was their way of expressing their autonomy.
The aim of this article was to explore and analyse the way teachers’ time is perceived and
negotiated between stakeholders. The rhetoric of the Knowledge Promotion Reform of 2006 fits
into the rhetoric of new public management. The decentralisation of the reform provides for more
external control that corrodes teachers’ experiences of professional autonomy, and collides with
their perception of how they can best use their time during the working day (Hargreaves, 2003;
Karlsen, 2006; Grøndahl, 2009).
A central question in this study has been to explore the way teachers’ utilisation of time and
professional autonomy have been debated in the education arena, and who has the power to decide
the rules. The data show how ongoing struggles and conflicting views create an arena for
negotiations between the teacher union together with the teachers on the one side and the
representative of the local education authority on the other. In between these positions, we find

Teachers’ Working Day
293
the principal, who sympathises with both parties. In this scenario, the teacher union leader is trying
to define the discourse by defining the rules and controlling the resources in order to protect the
teachers. When the teacher union leader says ‘no’, the teachers also say ‘no’. On behalf of the
teachers, she is the negotiating link between the national authorities (control of the rules/work
agreement), the representative of the local education authority (control of resources/the economy)
and the principal (control of work assignments/individual workload). She is the one working most
eagerly to define the rules and to act strategically by trying to define what teacher professionalism is
(Giddens, 1984; Fairclough, 1995, 2001, 2007; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).
The principal provides the most ambivalent arguments. She acknowledges that a lot of new
assignments are placed upon the teachers, but she also accuses them of complaining with no roots
in reality. She invites the teachers to provide input about development work but, at the same time,
she overrules them. Furthermore, she is critical of the teachers for their unwillingness to change
their routines. The reason for this ambivalence might be her feeling of being caught in the middle.
She sympathises with the teachers but, at the same time, she has to fulfil her obligations to lead an
efficient school. Norwegian principals are no longer academic primus inter pares like they used to be;
they are now representatives of municipalities and their employer in order to lead efficient schools
and get things done according to prevailing reforms and educational policies.
In order to solve the time problem and the demands of the new reform, the teachers’ solution
is to continue to act according to their professional standards, caring for the children, helping each
other by planning together and using their lunch breaks to resume their planning. In this way, they
are acting strategically and they use their cooperative power in ways that protect them from
becoming too directed and too stressed (Giddens, 1984; Hargreaves, 1994).
The question that remains to be answered is whether the statements of the representative of
the local education authority and the principal are true in that teachers do not see the freedom
within their work agreement. On this point, our data do not provide sufficient information. But
from what we have observed, we doubt it. In our view, a teacher’s working day is extremely busy,
and teachers are using the freedom they have to give priority to what they find most important: the
teaching profession.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Norwegian Research Council for funding the project, A Learning
Organisation for Students’ Learning (2006-09), within the Programme of Research and
Development in Schools and Teacher Education. We are grateful to Anne-Lise Arnesen, Marit
Dahl and Gustav Karlsen for their contribution of valuable discussions and comments with regard
to this article.
Note
[1] The school is a city school for Grades 1-10, with 40 teachers and 450 pupils. The project was funded
by the Norwegian Research Council.
References
Ball, S.J. (1994) Education Reform: a critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Ballett, K., Kelchtermans, G. & Loughran, J. (2006) Beyond Intensification towards a Scholarship of Practice:
analysing changes in teachers’ work lives, Teachers and Teaching, 12(2), 209-229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13450600500467415
Burrage, M. & Torstendahl, R. (Eds) (1990) Professions in Theory and History: rethinking the study of the
professions. London: Sage.
Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: rethinking critical discourse analysis.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Collinson, V. & Cook, T. (2000) ‘I Don’t Have Enough Time’: teachers’ interpretations of time as a key to
learning and school change. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, 24-28 April.

Tove Steen-Olsen & Astrid Grude Eikseth
294
Dale, E.L. (1989) Pedagogisk profesjonalitet: om pedagogikkens identitet og anvendelse [Pedagogic professionalism:
on pedagogy’s identity and application]. Oslo: Gyldendal.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000) The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research, in N.K. Denzin &
Y.S. Lincoln (Eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 1-28. London: Sage.
Eikseth, A.G. & Steen-Olsen, T. (2009) Mappevurdering på barnetrinnet: forskere, lærere og elever i et
læringsfellesskap [Portfolio assessment for elementary students: researchers, teachers and students in
learning interplay], in T. Steen-Olsen & M.B. Postholm (Eds.) Å utvikle en lærende skole: aksjonsforskning og
aksjonslæring i praksis [On developing a learning school: action research and action learning in practice],
37-55. Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.
Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001) The Discourse of New Labour: critical discourse analysis, in M. Wetherell, S. Taylor &
S.J. Yates (Eds) Discourse as Data: a guide for data analysis, 229-267. London: Sage.
Fairclough, N. (2007) The Contribution of Discourse Analysis to Research and Social Change, in
N. Fairclough, G. Cortese & P. Ardizzone (Eds) Discourse and Contemporary Social Change, 25-48. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Grøndahl, K.K. (2009) Tidsbrukutvalgets innstilling av 13.12.09 [The Time Utilisation Committee of 13
December 2009]. Oslo: Ministry of Science.
Hargreaves, A. (1994) Changing Teachers, Changing Time. London: Cassell.
Hargreaves, A. (2003) Teaching in the Knowledge Society: education in the age of insecurity. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Helgøy, I. & Homme, A. (2007) Towards a New Professionalism in School? A Comparative Study of Teacher
Autonomy in Norway and Sweden, European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 232-249.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.232
Johannesson, I.A., Lindblad, S. & Simola, H. (2002) An Inevitable Progress? Educational Restructuring in
Finland, Iceland and Sweden at the Turn of the Millennium, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
46(3), 325-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383022000005706
Jordfald, B., Nyen, T. & Seip, Å.A. (2009) Tidstyvene: en beskrivelse av lærernes arbeidssituasjon [The time
thieves: a description of teachers’ working situation]. FAFO Report 2009: 23. Oslo: FAFO.
Karlsen, G.E. (2006) Utdanning, styring og marked: Norsk utdanningspolitikk i et internasjonalt perspektiv
[Education, governance and market: Norwegian education policy from an international perspective].
Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
NOU [Norwegian official report] (1988: 28) Med viten og vilje [On knowledge and intention]. Oslo: Ministry of
Culture and Science.
Olsen, J.P. (1988) Statsstyre og institusjonsutforming [State governance and the framing of institutions]. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Rovde, O. (2004) Vegar til samling: Norsk lærarlags historie 1966-2001 [Roads towards consolidation: the history
of the Norwegian Teacher Union, 1966-2001]. Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget.
Sachs, J. (2001) Teacher Professional Identity: competing discourses, competing outcomes, Journal of
Educational Policy, 16(2), 149-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930116819
Simola, H., Rinne, R. & Kivirauma, J. (2002) Abdication of the Education State or Just Shifting
Responsibilities? The Appearance of a New System of Reason in Constructing Educational Governance
and Social Exclusion/Inclusion in Finland,
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(3), 247-264.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0031383022000005661
Stake, T. (2000) The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry, in R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (Eds)
Case Study Method, 19-26. London: Sage.
Steen-Olsen, T. & Eikseth, A.G. (2007) Changing Teachers in a Changing Time: teachers struggling with time
in a school that learns. Paper presented at 35th Annual Congress of the Nordic Educational Research
Association (NERA), Åbo, Finland, 14-18 March.
Steen-Olsen, T. & Eikseth, A.G. (2009) Aksjonsforskning og aksjonslæring: læringssamspill i et
læringsfellesskap [Action research and action learning: a learning interplay in a learning community], in
T. Steen-Olsen & M.B. Postholm (Eds) Å utvikle en lærende skole: aksjonsforskning og aksjonslæring i praksis
[On developing a learning school: action research and action learning in practice], 17-34. Kristiansand:
Høyskoleforlaget.
Telhaug, A.O. (1997) Utdanningsreformene: oversikt og analyse [The education reforms: overview and analysis].
Oslo: Didakta Norsk.

Teachers’ Working Day
295
Telhaug, A.O. (1999) Norsk skolehistorisk forskning: fire generasjoner [Norwegian research of school history:
four generations], in A.O. Telhaug & P. Aasen (Eds) Både – og: 90-tallets utdanningsreformer i historisk
perspektiv [As well as: the education reforms of the 1990s in a historical perspective], 177-207. Oslo:
Cappelen Akademisk.
The Knowledge Promotion Reform [Læreplanverket for kunnskapsløftet ] (2006). Oslo: Ministry of Science
and Education & Directorate of Education.
Troman, G. (2000) Teacher Stress in the Low-Trust Society, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(3),
331-353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713655357
White Paper No. 30 (2003-04) Kultur for læring [Culture for learning]. Oslo: Ministry of Science.
White Paper No. 31 (2007-08) Kvalitet i skolen [Quality in the school]. Oslo: Ministry of Science.
TOVE STEEN-OLSEN is Associate Professor at the University College of Sør-Trøndelag. Her
current research interests include school development, knowledge construction and lifelong
learning. She has been involved in projects concerning educational research, workplace
development, competence development and lifelong learning. Correspondence: Tove Steen-Olsen,
Faculty of Teacher and Interpreter Education, University College of Sør-Trøndelag, N-7004
Trondheim, Norway (tove.steen-olsen@hist.no).
ASTRID GRUDE EIKSETH is Associate Professor at the University College of Sør-Trøndelag. Her
research interests are school development, teacher education and teachers’ professional knowledge.
Her latest projects include action research and teachers’ ethics in teaching as well as in supervision.
Correspondence: Astrid Grude Eikseth, Faculty of Teacher and Interpreter Education, University
College of Sør-Trøndelag, N-7004 Trondheim, Norway (astrid.eikseth@hist.no).