School inspections in Germany evaluate the quality of schools. To do so, they use evaluation metrics that represent their understanding of what a “good” school is. When they are developing these metrics, school inspections consider policy guidelines. For example, they translate the demands on schools, which are named in the guidelines, into metrics. For this reason, it is part of their job to make sense of policy guidelines: They need to understand what a policy means and how to implement the policy within the metrics. In my research, I am interested in how school inspectors make sense of policy guidelines relating to inclusive education and how the concept is integrated within the metrics.

The study brings together sense-making theory (Weick 1995; Spillane et al. 2002) and the sociology of worth (Boltanski & Thévenot 2007; Espeland & Sauder 2007). Research drawing on sense-making theory suggests that local actors actively construct their understanding of policy guidelines. Their understanding is shaped by their situative context and their pre-existing beliefs and knowledge. Therefore, it might vary how actors interpret policy guidelines. Their understanding of policy guidelines is highly relevant as it has an impact on how they enact policy. In this regard, I argue that how school inspectors interpret the concept of inclusive education has an impact on how they implement the concept within their metrics.

Relating to the sociology of worth, I argue that evaluation metrics are not objective. The metrics represent certain normative understandings of what a “good” school is and omit others. When they are making sense of inclusive education, school inspectors must deal with their pre-existing understandings of what a “good” school is and relate it to the value-laden concept of inclusive education. I argue, that their understanding of what a “good” school is has an impact on their sense-making of inclusive education. In some cases, it might be the other way around: their understanding of what a “good” school might change when they make sense of inclusive education.

School inspections are a key means of accountability in many countries, e.g. England, Netherlands. Nevertheless, there is almost no research on the production of metrics. Therefore, the study contributes to the theoretical discourse on the production of metrics. Furthermore, it contributes to the research on the implementation of policy guidelines in the accountability system.

Ainscow M, Booth T, Dyson A. 2006. Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. Abingdon: Routledge Boltanski L, Thévenot L. 2007. Über die Rechtfertigung. Eine Soziologie der kritischen Urteilskraft. Hamburg: Hamburger Edition. 1. Aufl. Espeland WN, Sauder M. 2007. Rankings and Reactivity. How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds. American Journal of Sociology 113 (1):1–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1086/517897.pdf?acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true Gläser J, Laudel G. 2009. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 3rd ed. Moser V. 2012. Inklusion: Standards und Perspektiven. Sonderpädagogik in Berlin (2):23–27 Spillane J, Reiser B, Reimer T. 2002. Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research 72 (387-431) Weick KE. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications