The Digital Agenda for Europe is an interesting case study of the system of European governance  in the field of education. It is both central and transversal to all others because it combines the twin goals of integrating and deploying digital skills in working life and in everyday social life. Moreover, since ICTs are now viewed as a set of useful devices for reforming education, digital devices in particular are considered to be the best way to build this new “magic” learning environment where it would be possible to establish “disembodied” relationships between school actors. Breaking down the traditional dynamics and structure within all social determinations (i.e. gender, social class, institutional hierarchies, corporal qualities) it would facilitate horizontal (i.e. non-hierarchical) interaction and the co-construction of pedagogical practices that would revolutionise the traditional order inside and outside the school classroom (Jonassen, 1994). 

Drawing on mixed method research(direct observation, discourse analyses, in-depth  interviews, focus groups), our contribution will be focused on the application of teaching and technological innovation policies in the field of education, focusing on the implementation of the "Digital Agenda" in Sardinian schools from 2012 to 2015.  Following Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory (1984, 1989) and S. Ball’s micro-political perspectives on the analyses of social processes within schools (Ball, 2003; Maguire et alii, 2015; Ball et alii, 2011), this paper aims to analyse the process of transformation of the pedagogical credooutlined in European guidelines, starting from the epistemic sphere and moving down towards its realisation at the national, regional and local levels.. 

Our focus is on the putting into practice of a comprehensive teacher-training program in Sardinia (as explained in the following sections) undertaken within in the framework of European recommendations and funding (ESF)[1]..

Our goal is thus to analyse the development of an education policy at a micro-level, emphasizing the conflicting nature of the policy process itself. It is important to bear in mind that all policies are constructed and pursued against a backdrop of diverse but intermeshing fields (bureaucratic, political, educational), where every field is governed by its own autonomous logic and characterized by different kinds of rewards and interests. The actual policy content is modified during the very process of its implementation, mainly in its passage from one field to another. The policy’s iteris affected at every step by the intervention of actors who negotiate their position within the policy framework, imposing and constructing new shared meanings that are consistent with the logic of each one’s specific field. Finally, we will show that the real aim of policies is not to be found in their stated goals, but in the simple logic of actions that induce the mobilization of actors. However, these ‘mobilized’ actors tend to transform and translate the policy details into the logic of the field to which they belong, redefining them within their own specific sector jargons, thereby constructing new-shared meanings. 

Throughout the phase of mobilization itself, the political significance of the policy is reaffirmed and disseminated, somehow merging social and political space

From a methodological standpoint, this research draws on a wide range of research methods and data. First of all, we have observed different kinds of events, in particular meetings and conferences, dedicated to teachers training. At a later stage, when the e-training was launched, we undertook a content analysis of the training modules and forums present on digital platform (see par. 3.1). Third, we interviewed schoolteachers involved in training course.

From a micro-political perspective, teacher training is a decidedly interesting object of policy-making in the educational field. Provided that policy actions can connect and draw the political-administrative fields together at European, National and Regional levels, they will consolidate connections between the three fields thus enabling all the school actors (principals, administrative staffs, students and their families), to become directly involved in a project that creates a tangible connection with the European Union, the State and the Region. Thus, policy implementation engenders and sparks the development of political commitment (e.g. either adhesion or opposition to a political action). Furthermore, the European Union itself becomes more concrete and “real” as a result of engagement, consensus to and reception of its vocabulary, goals and bureaucratic practices. Teachers act as policy actors. We have used the notion of a policy actor to define those groups or individuals who contribute by their actions to the realization of a policy. In other words, they help to convey and disseminate the meanings and concepts that define the policy and its moral and political objectives. However, as long as the training project eventually challenges the prevailing academic and professional cultures (in different levels of education and subject areas), it will not be without effect. At least, it secures the mobilization of the actors, the engagement of activists in view of upcoming mobilizations and co-opts them into the administrative apparatus. Finally, it is not the transformative effect of the policy with respect to the "educational" objectives that is crucial, but the effect of mobilization around policies, and its ability to create consensus and recruit activists. In this way, political and institutional actors (at European, national and regional levels) gain consensus as legitimate policy makers and actors.

Ball, S. J. (2003), Politics and Policymaking in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology. Routledge / Normal University Press: London Ball, S. J., Maguire M., Braun A., Hoskins K. (2011), Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: some necessary but insufficient analyses, Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,. 32. 3, 611-624. Bengtsson, A. (2011), “European Policy of Career Guidance: The Interrelationship between Career Self-Management and Production of Human Capital in the Knowledge Economy. Policy Futures” in Education, 9(5), 616–627 Bourdieu, P., 1984, Homo Academicus, Paris, Ed. du Seuil. Bourdieu, P., 1989, La Noblesse d’état, Paris, Ed. du Seuil. Donzelot, J. (1991). The Mobilization of Society. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller, The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality: with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault, (169-180). The University of Chicago Press. Dutercq, T, Van Zanten, A. (2001), Présentation: l’évolution des modes de régulations de l’action publique en éducation, in «Education et sociétés», 2, pp. 5-10. Evetts J. (2011), “A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities”, in Current Sociology 59(4) 406–422. Jonassen, D.H. (1994), “Thinking technology, toward a constructivist design model”, in Educational technology, 34, pp. 34-37. Lawn M., Normand R. (2015), dir., Shaping of European Education: Interdisciplinary approaches. London and New York: Routledge. Lascoumes, P., Le Galès, P. (2007). « Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation”, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 20:1, 1-21. Normand, R. (2012) Sciences du gouvernement de l’éducation et réseaux transnationaux d’experts : la fabrication d’une politique européenne, École et société: 29.1: 103-124. Ozga, J. (2012), Gouverner la connaissance: données, inspection et politique éducative en Europe, École et société: 29.1: 11-26. Ozga J., Lindgard B. (2007) Globalisation, Education, Policy and Politics, in Bob Lingard, Jenny Ozga (dir.), The RoutledgeFalmer Reader in Education Policy and Politics, London-N.Y. : Routlegde : 65-80. Pitzalis M., (2016), “The technological turn: Policies of innovation, Politics and Mobilisation. Introductory notes”. Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, n. 2, pp. 11-27 Robert, C. (2012), Les dispositifs d’expertise dans la construction européenne des politiques publiques : quels enseignements, École et société: 29.1: 57-70. Van Zanten, A. (2004), Les politiques d’éducation, Paris, PUF.