ABSTRACT The study is an analysis of the politic debate about the decentralising of the public school between the years 1946 and 1990. The problem that the essay is about to study is which reason made the decentralising take place. The texts that have been read, interpreted and reconstructed are propositions, motions and written debates in the parliament. The purpose of the study is to examine the discussion about the schools decentralising in 1946-1990. The aim is also to examine what kind of pro- and contra arguments that are shown in the debate and who the interveners are and why they made a statement. The result is divided into three parts where education, organisation and financial questions categorize the arguments.   An analysis model, performed by setting pro arguments and contra argument for themselves as Arne Naess model, carries out the model of the analysis.  The results that the study has come up with is that the Government and the Education Committee was the proposal to municipalize school, while the other parties were not in complete agreement. No party clearly said no to the proposal but felt that the proportion was sloppily done and very ambiguous. The reasons that existed for the decentralization was financial, educational and organizational.

<h1>ABSTRACT</h1><p>The study is an analysis of the politic debate about the decentralising of the public school between the years 1946 and 1990. The problem that the essay is about to study is which reason made the decentralising take place. The texts that have been read, interpreted and reconstructed are propositions, motions and written debates in the parliament. The purpose of the study is to examine the discussion about the schools decentralising in 1946-1990. The aim is also to examine what kind of pro- and contra arguments that are shown in the debate and who the interveners are and why they made a statement. The result is divided into three parts where education, organisation and financial questions categorize the arguments.   An analysis model, performed by setting pro arguments and contra argument for themselves as Arne Naess model, carries out the model of the analysis. </p><p>The results that the study has come up with is that the Government and the Education Committee was the proposal to municipalize school, while the other parties were not in complete agreement. No party clearly said no to the proposal but felt that the proportion was sloppily done and very ambiguous. The reasons that existed for the decentralization was financial, educational and organizational.</p>