Ever since the decentralization of decision-making responsibilities to schools in the 1980s, schools have an increasing amount a policy freedom for the arrangement of school practice (OECD, 2013b; Pont, Nusche, & Moorman, 2008; Woessmann, Luedemann, Schuetz, & West, 2009). From previous research we know that schools (can) make a difference in student achievement (Reynolds et al., 2014). Despite this knowledge, an earlier focus on individual schools in improvement research has gradually shifted to a system level focus (Hopkins, Stringfield, Harris, Stoll, & Mackay, 2014). Currently, a need to better understand the impact of school policy on student learning has been identified (Kyriakides, Creemers, Antoniou, Demetriou, & Charalambous, 2015). In order to study the impact of school policy in the full scope of school autonomy, a classification scheme to identify school policy practice is a first essential step. A scheme that both allows for analysis from the diversity and locality of individual school policy practice and enables analysis on a comparative, international, and more abstract level at the same time.

In this study, the construction and validation of an empirically-based classification scheme for school policy practice is presented. Building upon valuable previous research on adjoining themes from various research traditions  – including studies on decision-making areas in education, school functions, leadership practices (roles and behaviour), leadership time use, innovations, and educational improvements/innovations (full list of references available from the author) – the construction of the classification scheme starts from a comprehensive stocktaking of school policy interventions as contributed by school leaders via a survey (N=196). In order to potentially cover the diverse thematic scope of school autonomy, school policy interventions are defined rather broadly as ‘a planned action that causes change in the school’. This change can both be an adjustment to a current policy practice as well as the start of a new one. The applied definition is not confined to innovative interventions, it includes all school policy areas and it encloses interventions that are seriously considered, but not necessarily initiated. For the high level of school autonomy in Dutch secondary education (OECD, 2012, 2013a, 2014; Pont et al., 2008), the study was carried out among Dutch secondary education school leaders. School leaders being regarded as the executives of school autonomy (Earley & Bubb, 2013; Pont et al., 2008; Spillane & Lee, 2014; Wildy, Forster, Louden, & Wallace, 2004).

For the practical – face and content – validation (Babbie, 2004) of the classification scheme, the active involvement of educational practitioners was pursued in all stages of the approach. A classification instrument that is to identify school policy practice should ideally be based on consultations with representatives of that same school policy practice during the entire construction phase. Similar lines of reasoning apply to the study’s mixed method approach and the open-response design of the questionnaire. From the ambition to grasp the full potential of  school policy practice, it was deemed essential to not predefine or limit the likely diverse and/or unexpected input beforehand.

The broad definition of the unit of analysis, the research context of high school autonomy, and the extensive practical validation of the instrument make the classification scheme suitable for international use within and across different research traditions and education systems. Such use enables knowledge accumulation for a better understanding of school policy practice and school autonomy. This understanding could, in turn, be beneficial to identifying potential levers of school improvement, school effectiveness and educational change.

Babbie, E. R. (2004). The practice of social research (10 ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Bartlett, S., & Burton, D. (2012). Introduction to education studies (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE. Earley, P., & Bubb, S. (2013). A day in the life of new headteachers: Learning from observation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(6), 782–799. Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research (fourth ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE Publications. Hopkins, D., Stringfield, S., Harris, A., Stoll, L., & Mackay, T. (2014). School and system improvement: a narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257-281. doi:10.1080/09243453.2014.885452 Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., Antoniou, P., Demetriou, D., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2015). The impact of school policy and stakeholders' actions on student learning: A longitudinal study. Learning and Instruction, 36, 113-124. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. OECD. (2012). Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators: OECD Publishing. OECD. (2013a). Netherlands – Country note – Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. Retrieved from Paris: http://www.oecd.org/edu/Netherlands_EAG2013%20Country%20Note.pdf OECD. (2013b). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume IV): OECD Publishing. OECD. (2014). Education policy outlook: Netherlands. Paris: OECD Publishing. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375-387. Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership. Volume 1: Policy and practice. Paris: OECD Publishing. Reynolds, D., Sammons, P., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Townsend, T., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (2014). Educational effectiveness research (EER): a state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 197-230. Spillane, J. P., & Lee, L. C. (2014). Novice school principals' sense of ultimate responsibility: Problems of practice in transitioning to the principal's office. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(3), 431-465. Wildy, H., Forster, P., Louden, W., & Wallace, J. (2004). The international study of leadership in education: Monitoring decision making by school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 416-430. Woessmann, L., Luedemann, E., Schuetz, G., & West, M. R. (2009). School accountability, autonomy and choice around the world. Cheltenham, UK & Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.