The international comparative student assessment programs (in particular, PISA 2000) have changed the educational discourse in the German-speaking school systems of central Europe. Their results were not up to the self-concept and to the relative wealth of these societies. Like in many other European jurisdictions, the Austrian authorities have gradually introduced various elements of a policy of ’evidence-based governance and improvement’ (Altrichter, 2020), e.g. performance standards (Klieme et al., 2003), nation-wide comparative testing (Altrichter, Moosbrugger, & Zuber, 2016), new school inspections (Ehren et al., 2013).

Only recently, the Austrian authorities started a new program titled ‘Securing Basic Competencies (SBC)’: Based on performance standard data 150 primary and non-academic secondary schools (out of the total number of 4352 schools in 2016/17; see Statistik Austria, 2018) have been identified as having a comparatively high number of low-performing students (value-added data). The number of schools subject to special treatment is to be increased to 500 during the next years). Their names are not officially published, but they receive additional support by in-service training institutions and by so-called ‘multi-professional teams’ (consisting of a consultant for organizational development, of a professional development expert for subject-matter teaching methodology, and of a school psychologist). Because of this initiative, at least 50% of all selected schools are expected to significantly boost student performance (BMB, 2017, 1).

Theoretical Approach: An innovatory program such as SBC, devised by educational politicians, and the administrative top levels, is a ‘structural offer’ – a set of partially new rules and resources which are inserted into the transactions of a school system. They have to be taken up by actors on various levels of the system; and they have to be translated and re-designed for the specific context, in order to acquire social relevance. The process of “taking up” these structural offers is more than ‘implementation’ of prescribed action programs, but necessarily entails constructive and productive features. It has been conceptualized by different authors as ‘sense making’, ‘enactment’, or ‘re-contextualization’ (Fend, 2006; Coburn & Jones, 2011; Ball et al., 2012; Spillane, 2012). 

Research questions: In the proposed paper we will reconstruct the official ‘program theory’ (Leeuw, 2003) of the SBC program. A ‘program theory’ aims to spell out the logics of action of innovation program by analysing what goals (to be achieved by the program) and what processes (considered to be necessary for goal achievement) are made explicit or are implied in the official program documents (=RQ1). By reconstructing the general features of this policy, it will be possible to see and evaluate similarities and differences between 'failing school'-policies in other European countries (Manitius & Dobbelstein, 2017). In a second step, we will chart how the intentions and elements of this program are interpreted, ‘refined’, and adjusted by the processes of ‘sense making’ and ‘recontextualization’ taking place on various levels of the education system (central ministry, regional administration, local support persons, and school leaders) in the course of program implementation (= RQ2 & RQ 3). RQ1: What is the official ‘program theory’ (logic of action) underlying the program ‘Securing Basic Competences’? RQ2: In what way is the program ‘Securing Basic Competences’ recontextualized and enacted by different levels of the school system? RQ3: Are there differences in recontextualization of the program ‘Securing Basic Competences’ between Austrian provinces? Methodology: For RQ 1, we are using a ‘policy scientific’ procedure proposed by Leeuw (2003). In this procedure, legal and implementation documents, and policy-relevant expert opinions are subjected to a content analysis to reconstruct the ‘official image of goals, elements, and functional processes of the program’. For RQ 2 and RQ3, data was collected by open interviews (organised by a short interview guideline) and analysed by qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2014). The sampling strategy included the following criteria: Provinces: 3 of the 9 Austrian provinces. System levels: representatives of different levels for each province: • Regional administration: top officer for educational affairs in the regional administration • Support systems: regional coordinator of the group of school development consultants, representative of the school psychology services, representative of the subject matter teaching experts • Schools: 3 head persons of SBC schools • Ministry: Additionally, a civil servant responsible for the implementation of the programme at the central ministry

The proposed paper aspires to provide a theory-driven micro-analysis of processes of perception, appropriation, re-contextualization, and enactment of reforms on various levels of the school system. In doing so, it aims to add to recent research on the recontextualization of evidence-based governance instruments (e.g. Spillane, 2012; Ehren et al. 2013; Gamsjäger et al., 2019). In the first step, the paper reconstructs the official ‘program theory’ (Leeuw, 2003) of the SBC program (= RQ1). The analysis unearths eight processes considered crucial for the program’s success. Among them, there are processes which may be quite ‘novel’ for Austrian school system actors, e.g. evidence-based selection of schools for the program, obligatory special treatment by multi-professional teams, fixed quantifiable success indicators. (Altrichter, Kemethofer & Soukup-Altrichter, 2021) In a second step we chart how the program’s intentions and processes are interpreted, ‘refined’, and adjusted by processes of ‘sense making’ and ‘recontextualization’ on various levels of the education system (central ministry, regional administration, local support persons, and school leaders) in the course of program implementation (= RQ2 & RQ3). Results show that changes are made to central elements of the program on the provincial level and on the level of support systems. E.g. the ‘evidence-based selection of schools’ is redefined on a provincial level to adjust it to both special provincial conditions and to provincial priorities. E.g., the different professions in the ‘multi-professional teams’ are not equally active in work with schools: actual activity patterns of MPTs may be associated with different ways of work organisation.

Altrichter, H. (2020). The Emergence of Evidence-based Governance Models in the State-Based Education Systems of Austria and Germany. In J. Allan, V. Harwood & C. Rübner Jørgensen (eds.), World Yearbook in Education 2020: Schooling, Governance and Inequalities (pp. 72-95). London: Routledge. Altrichter, H., Kemethofer, D. & Soukup-Altrichter, K. (2021). Grundkompetenzen absichern. Hintergrund und Programmlogik eines evidenzbasierten Entwicklungsprogramms. In D. Kemethofer, J. Reitinger & K. Soukup-Altrichter (Hrsg.), Vermessen? Zum Verhältnis von Bildungsforschung, Bildungspolitik und Bildungspraxis. Münster: Waxmann (accepted). Ball, S.J., Maguire, N., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on Data Use: A Framework and Analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9(4), 173-206. Ehren, M.C.M., Altrichter, H., McNamara, G., & O’Hara, J. (2013). Impact of school inspections on improvement of schools – describing assumptions on causal mechanisms in six European countries. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(1), 3-43. Fend, H. (2006). Neue Theorie der Schule. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Gamsjäger, M., Altrichter, H. & Steiner, R. (2019). Wirkungen und Wirkungswege einer Bildungsstandards-Reform: Die Sichtweise von Lehrpersonen und Schulleitungen in österreichischen Primarschulen. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung 9(2), 139–158. Leeuw, F.L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 5-20. Manitius, V. & Dobbelstein, P. (2017). Schulentwicklungsarbeit in herausfordernden Lagen. Münster: Waxmann. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative Content Analysis. Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures and Software Solution. Retrieved from https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/39517/ssoar-2014-mayring-Qualitative_content_analysis_theoretical_foundation.pdf Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118, 113–141.