It is a common practice to look at different systems and other countries in search for inspiration or potential solutions in order to address problems or initiate change as part of policy learning (Li & Pilz, 2021). Still- and despite of long established practices of different types of policy transfer- it remains contested- specifically in education (Ozga, 2001). In research on policy learning in education, it is generally emphasised that a direct transfer of policies from one context to another is questionable (Phillips & Ochs, 2003). Steiner-Khamsi (2012) states context is the main factor for successful implementation. In addition, policy learning is described as a selective process, which mirrors the “‘socio-logic’ or context-specific reasons for receptiveness” (Steiner-Khamsi, 2014, p. 156). Ochs & Phillips (2002) define forces of context and their impact on cross-national attraction of externalising potentials. These may affect motives of cross-national attraction, initiate search for foreign policies and decisions to borrow, influence the determination of stages of policy development, and affect the actual development process and the capacity for a successful implementation of a policy in the home country (Phillips & Ochs, 2003). Particularly a countries´ or regions´ culture, as part of the policy context, and highly-interrelated with a variety of framing conditions, is of relevance but often neglected in transfer research (Bertram, 2020).
This paper presentation addresses the role of transnational policy learning in school improvement, based on the example of transferring practices of self-steered quality development to Indian educational institutions. It centers on an approach to measuring institutional quality, which, as a diagnostic tool, establishes a basis for quality development and thus as a change model (Li & Pilz, 2019) enables possible innovation processes for Indian (vocational) school management. This quality approach exemplifies the example of a possible "voluntary transfer" (Phillips & Ochs, 2003), or policy learning as a deliberate transfer process (Li & Pilz, 2019). It is developed in a German-Indian cooperation project and addresses, among other things, initial efforts by the Indian government to establish more holistic quality management processes in vocational education institutions (DGT, 2018). Based on a design-based research paradigm , the development of the quality framework involves several cycles of evaluation and revision, based on evaluation results (McKenney & Reeves, 2012).
In line with strong hierarchical structures and top-down steering, quality management as part of school development, in the sense of a self-directed, systematic, and diagnosis-based process (Mok et al., 2003), is currently not formally embedded in the Indian vocational education system and seldom established in the general education system. In existing quality assurance and management approaches, aspects of learning and teaching are neglected in general education (Alexander, 2001) as well as vocational education (Regel et al., 2022).
School development is primarily considered worldwide a social process at the level of the institution itself (Feldhoff et al., 2016). Factors that promote or restrain improvement build upon comprehensive systematic quality management procedures may be located within the individual institution´s “capacity” to engage in change and development processes (Stoll, 2009). These factors involve the organisational structure of schools, shared commitment and collaborative activity, knowledge and skills, leadership, feedback and accountability, teacher empowerment as well as exchange with the school environment (Ehren & Baxter 2020; Stoll, 2009). Thus, this paper centers on the following research questions: How can an approach primarily derived from international contexts be shaped to meet national and local stakeholders´ needs and capacities? How can policy learning be enabled with regard to school quality development and improvement in India? Which factors facilitate or restrain policy learning in school development in India?

To answer the research questions and to identify facilitating and restraining factors for policy learning in school improvement within significantly differing contexts, the approach was evaluated in a prospective evaluation in vocational educational institutions in India. International approaches to school development as well as German experience in quality development in the vocational education system served as a basis for transfer. In particular the valuation criteria were derived from the model of school capacity for managing change (Ehren & Baxter 2020; Stoll, 2009). This allowed focusing on and bundling conditions specifically relevant for school development, out of a vast quantity of possible varying context factors. The sample consisted of two types of vocational institutions located in the secondary (ITIs) and tertiary sector (Polytechs). Data were collected in a participative qualitative evaluation of the approach in 20 institutions in Delhi and 10 institutions in Bangalore. Evaluation methods consisted primarily of problem-centred interviews in the form of group discussions and further expert interviews to explore the institutional context. The recording and transcription of all interactions build the base for the following qualitative analysis of the material.

Relevant aspects have been identified that relate to the research focus on facilitating and restraining factors for quality improvement processes at the level of the individual vocational education and training institute´s capacity for improvement. These relate to factors at the micro-level of individual actors and interactions, at the meso-level of institutions as well as different factors at the system level. Nevertheless, results acknowledged the role of individual actors as well as local context conditions formulated by past school improvement research. These findings are of specific interest in the context of a highly structured and hierarchized system like the Indian one, which differs considerably from typical contexts where school improvement policies evolved. Here, further research concerning policy learning in general will be needed to clarify impact factors, potentials and boundaries of self-driven quality improvement in detail in India and also more broadly for other countries in need of school quality development.

Alexander, R. J. (2008). Education for all, the quality imperative and the problem of pedagogy. (Create pathways to access, research monograph 20). London: Institute of Education-University of London. Bertram, D. (2020). Accounting for culture in policy transfer: A blueprint for research and practice. Political Studies Review, 20(1). 83–100. Ehren, M. & Baxter, J. (2020). Governance of Education Systems: Trust, accountability and capacity in hierarchies, markets and networks. In: Ehren, M. & Baxter, J. (Eds.), Trust, Accountability and Capacity in Education System Reform: Global Perspectives in Comparative Education. London: Routledge, 30-54. Feldhoff, T., Radisch, F., & Bischof, L. M. (2016). Designs and methods in school improvement research: a systematic review. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(2), 209–240. Li, J., & Pilz, M. (2019). Transferring German evaluation policy to China: A prospective evaluation of peer review in TVET. Comparative Education review, 63(4), 613–632. Li, J., & Pilz, M. (2021). International transfer of vocational education and training: A literature review. Journal of Vocational Education & Training. Online first: https://doi.org/10.1080/13636820.2020.1847566 McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting educational design research. London: Routledge. Ozga, J. (2001). Policy Research in Educational Settings: Contested Terrain. Open University Press. Regel, J., Ramasamy, M., & Pilz, M. (2022). Ownership in international vocational education and training transfer: The example of quality development in India. International Journal of Training and Development, 26(4), 664–685. Stoll, L. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement or creating capacity for learning? A changing landscape. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 115–127.