Research on successful schools and the implementation of policies has in general focused on school leaders’[1] keeping the key role (e.g. Anderson, Leithwood, & Strauss, 2010; Robinson, 2011; Timperley, 2011). In parallel, studies on the concept of policy implementation, has normally seen this either as a ‘top down’ or ‘bottom up’ process of making policy work (Cuban, 2001; Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Honig, 2006). Hence, additional insight to theories of policy implementation is offered by the concept of policy enactment and the focus on how schools ‘do’ policy and how policies become ‘live’ (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012). In this study, the concept of policy enactment is linked to theory of sensemaking (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005) by focusing on teachers’ and leaders’ interaction with colleagues, and how they interpret and respond to policy messages (Coburn, 2001; J. P. Spillane, 1999).  The study aims to explore the ways in which school leaders and teachers enact policy demands exemplified by how they interpret and respond to requirements to make use of national test results to enhance school quality and student learning.

Research in an American context has shown that teachers and school leaders translate and transform new policy ideas through the lens of their pre-existing knowledge and practices. They interpret and adapt policy messages while putting them in place (Coburn, 2001; Guthrie, Parker, & Shand, 1990; J. Spillane & Jennings, 1997; J. P. Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Still, we know little about the enactment of policy in practice, and how policies become ‘live’ (Ball et al., 2012). Although research on national tests seems to have been directed towards the teacher accountability-level (Afflerbach, 2005; Mausethagen, 2013) the role of the principal is important because the principal becomes a mediator between external demands and internal local initiatives (Møller, 2012; Coburn 2005).

Thus, this paper will add to relevant research by reporting on a study conducted in a Norwegian context, which is not characterized by high-stakes testing. Even so, policy-makers push for increased test scores and argue that large-scale test data are useful for guiding school improvement (Møller & Skedsmo, 2013). The following research questions guide the study:

 (a) How do the school leaders and teachers interpret and respond to national test results in reading and numeracy? and (b) How do the school leaders’ and teachers’ interpretations and responses of national test results direct attention to increasing student learning?

 Discursive Sensemaking Strategies

One way in which to study how teachers and leaders make sense of policy initiatives is by analyzing micro level processes in teachers’ and school leaders’ talk about how to make use of national test results. However, this idea of translation and negotiation of policy also needs to be critically investigated: what issues are discussed and howare the issues being discussed. Mostly, teachers are seen as the main actors locally, drawing on professional discourses and normative belief systems (Evetts, 2003; Van Dijk, 2006). Nevertheless, school leaders influence teachers’ sensemaking indirectly as they participate with teachers in these discourses and social construction of the meaning of policy ideas (Coburn, 2005). In line with this, policy is seen as processes that are enacted by diverse actors locally in schools. Policies are not just texts and “things” such as local plans and student tests, but also discursive processes (Braun, Maguire, & Ball, 2010). In this study, a discourse analytical approach is used to make apparent processes of sensemaking through the use of language (Howarth, 2010; Winther Jørgensen & Phillips, 1999).

 In this study, the concept of school leadership means all formal leadership positions in schools (e.g., principal, deputies, teacher team-leader, head of department).

Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 292-327. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Policy Enactment in Secondary Schools. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: Examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 547-560. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 23(2), 145-170. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational policy, 19(3), 476-509. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Reforming schools through technology, 1980-2000. Harvard University, Cambridge. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. G. (1992). Understanding teacher development. New York: ERIC. Honig, M. (2006). Building policy from practice: Implementation as organizational learning. New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity, 125-147. Howarth, D. (2010). Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies. Critical policy studies, 3(3-4), 309-335. Møller, J., & Skedsmo, G. (2013). Norway: Centralisation and decentralisation as twin reform strategies Transnational Influences on Values and Practices in Nordic Educational Leadership (pp. 61-72): Springer. Robinson, V. (2011). Student-centered leadership (Vol. 15): John Wiley & Sons. Spillane, J., & Jennings, N. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. The Teachers College Record, 98(3), 449-481. Spillane, J. P. (1999). State and local government relations in the era of standards-based reform: Standards, state policy instruments, and local instructional policy making. Educational policy, 13(4), 546-572. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research, 72(3), 387-431. Timperley, H. (2011). Knowledge and the leadership of learning. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10(2), 145-170. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization science, 16(4), 409-421. Winther Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (1999). Diskursanalyse som teori og metode. Frederiksberg, : Roskilde Universitetsforlag Samfundslitteratur.