Article 24 of UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006) (CRPD) obliges its signatory states to establish inclusive school systems. Germany ratified the document in 2008. This international steering impulse triggered a real "inclusion shock" (Heinrich, 2015, p. 235) when it came into force, because hardly any other country in Europe has worse conditions for implementing the convention than Germany (Erdsiek-Rave, 2010). The school structure with up to nine special schools, which has evolved over a long period of time, was called upon to fundamentally changes or adaptations by the CRPD. Therefore, the development of an inclusive school has been one of the greatest challenges for this industrial nation since 1945 (Heimlich, 2011, p. 53).

Since 2008, it has been observed that the various federal states in Germany - a country with a strong federal system - react very differently to this impulse according to their own development. From an empirical point of view, this raises the question of the concrete 'steering' of these inclusion-oriented transformations (Dietrich & Heinrich, 2014). In Germany in particular, there is a persistence of national disparities despite (inter)national goals, norms and international treaties, which needs to be examined further (Powell, 2017).

The study examines the question of how the actors in the school system of the federal state Schleswig-Holstein react to this challenge between 2008 and 2014. The focus of the research interest is above all on the collective coordination of action by state and non-state actors in the multi-level system, the intentions of regulatory impulses and the effects of steering efforts in the process of implementing the CRPD.

The study is using the theoretical framework of educational governance: Steering in the context of education is essentially a history of failure. This constancy and stability of the school system towards reforms results from the 'grammar of schooling', which has not changed for decades (Tyack & Tobin, 1994). In addition, the loose coupling of (semi-)autonomous subsystems merely creates the illusion of steering (Cuban, 1990; Weick, 1995).

Therefore, the modern scientific discourse regarding the steering of school systems modifies its view: thus, state control assumes a new - a different - role and new actors at the international and national level as well as of economic or civil society origin attempt to influence (educational) policy or are explicitly called upon by state actors to assume this role. The relatively new 'Governance'-approach serves as an analytical perspective for this study. Thanks to this approach, it is possible to capture the increased complexity described above. It provides a view of the reality of complex government and collective action in societies in which the borders of the state have long since dissolved, both with respect to society and the international environment (Benz, Lütz, Schimank, & Simonis, 2010). With regard to the implementation of Art. 24 of the CRPD, the 'Governance-perspective' makes it possible to conceive state activities and hierarchical forms of coordination as an integrative component of political regulatory processes, so that the complex mechanisms of influence, the intention to change, steering decisions and steering effects can be examined from an overarching perspective (Bosche & Lehmann 2014, p. 231).

The chosen theoretical approach of 'Governance-research' allows a great deal of flexibility in the choice of the methodological approach. The present study is an individual case study (Yin, 2009), which is pursued with a triangulative research design (Denzin, 1970). It was constructed with the aim of developing an in-depth understanding of the case, which is limited in terms of space, time and content, as well as of presenting it as comprehensive as possible in its complexity (Hering & Schmidt, 2014). 21 expert interviews with representatives from politics, education administration and civil society were conducted on the basis of manuals. They serve to gain explicit operational and contextual knowledge and are designed to be both systematic and explorative. In addition, a large number of public and non-public documents were collected. Both data sources - interviews and documents - were evaluated using Qualitative Content Analysis (Mayring, 2015) and the MaxQDA software. They are interrelated: the documents do not only provide research-relevant information but also relevant actors who, in turn, can be document producers. In addition to references to other relevant actors, the interviews also reveal references to other documents that have not yet been considered. Furthermore information is mutually validated.

During the period under study, the state of Schleswig-Holstein was led by three different governments. These show very different social regulations with regard to the obligation to implement inclusive education systems. This circumstance, in turn, leads to completely changed interdependencies between the other actors in the school system, resulting into specific social regulations and three very different governance regimes: 1. The first government in the period under study had a Minister of Education who took a justifying stance at a 2008 UNESCO conference on inclusive education, where international actors explicitly criticized the situation in Germany in 'blame and shame' mode. This experience leads to her personal realization that she has to change this circumstance. Thus, during this period, many state impulses for the implementation of inclusive education can be observed. These impulses first surprise other actors and then force them to coordinate actively their actions. 2. For a long time, the minister of the second government does not see the focus of his work in the implementation of inclusive education, but primarily in the promotion of the highly gifted. Only the influence of other political actors forces the Minister of Education to cautiously coordinated actions with regard to inclusive education. During this time, civil society has reacted by waiting and seeing and has then increasingly given impulses. 3. In the third government the minister of Education pursues a very participatory and transparent approach to education policy and wants to promote inclusive education based on personal motives. Non-state actors as well as her own ministry are overburdened by her style of government, which in some cases tends towards actionism. And for this reason, increasing resistance can be observed at various levels during the course of time.

Benz, A., Lütz, S., Schimank, U., & Simonis, G. (2010). Vorwort. In A. Benz & N. Dose (Eds.), Governance—Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung (2nd ed., p. 11–12). Wiesbaden: VS. Bosche, A., & Lehmann, L. (2014). Governance und die Suche nach Regelungsmechanismen. Methodologische Implikationen eines Forschungsansatzes. In K. Maag Merki, R. Langer, & H. Altrichter (Eds.), Educational Governance als Forschungsperspektive. Strategien, Methoden, Ansätze (p. 229–248). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming Again, Again, and Again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 3–13 Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act. A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. London: Butterworths. Dietrich, F., & Heinrich, M. (2014). Kann man Inklusion steuern? Perspektiven einer rekonstruktiven Governanceforschung. In M. Lichtblau, D. Blömer, A.-K. Jüttner, K. Koch, & M. Krüger (Eds.), Forschung zu inklusiver Bildung. Gemeinsam anders lehren und lernen. (p. 26–46). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Erdsiek-Rave, U. (2010). Ein System unter Druck. Aufgaben für die Politik. In A. Hinz, I. Körner, & U. Niehoff (Eds.), Auf dem Weg zur Schule für alle: Barrieren überwinden—Inklusive Pädagogik entwickeln (p. 311–318). Marburg: Lebenshilfe-Verlag. Heimlich, U. (2011). Inklusion und Sonderpädagogik. Die Bedeutung der Behindertenrechtskonvention (BRK) für die Modernisierung sonderpädagogischer Förderung. Zeitschrift für Heilpädagogik, 62(2), 44–53 Heinrich, M. (2015). Inklusion oder Allokationsgerechtigkeit? Zur Entgrenzung von Gerechtigkeit im Bildungssystem im Zeitalter der semantischen Verkürzung von Bildungsgerechtigkeit auf Leistungsgerechtigkeit. In V. Manitius, B. Hermstein, N. Berkemeyer, & W. Bos (Eds.), Zur Gerechtigkeit von Schule. Theorien, Konzepte, Analysen (S. 235–255). Münster: Waxmann. Hering, L., & Schmidt, R. J. (2014). Einzelfallanalyse. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Eds.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (p. 529–541). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Mayring, P. (2015). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken (12th ed.). Weinheim Basel: Beltz. Powell, J. W. (2017). Räumliche Vielfalt der Inklusiven Bildung und sonderpädagogische Fördersysteme im Vergleich. In M. Gercke, S. Opalinski, & T. Thonagel (Eds.), Inklusive Bildung und gesellschaftliche Exklusion: Zusammenhänge – Widersprüche – Konsequenzen (p. 25–38). Wiesbaden: SpringerVS Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1994). The „grammar“ of schooling. Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31(3), 453–479 UN. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research. Design and Methods (4th ed). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage.