The process of policy implementation continues to challenge policy scholars as no grand theory has been developed to explain the complexities of the “journey” from the production of the policy “text” to the outcomes of the policy implementation process (Ball, 1993). In education, translating national policies into practice requires policy enactment across the schools within the education system, if aggregate results are to be achieved. Research has shown, however, that there are significant differences between schools in regard to the articulation of school-level responses to national policies—leading to uneven policy implementation outcomes.

This study was motivated by the lack of understanding about the “micro level of policy enactment” (Priestley, Biesta & Robinson, 2015), with the main goal of exploring, analyzing and advancing the understanding of school leadership practices in the schools successfully implementing nationally-set policies. More specifically, this research focused on the role of school leaders, as micro-level actors, in influencing different implementation factors leading to the successful implementation of the education policy.

The study was guided by a set of research questions (RQ):
RQ 1: How does the process of enactment of the observed national education policies at school level look like and how it relates the prescribed policy objectives to the specific school “constituency”, i.e. a unique mix of students with their individual(ized) learning and developmental needs?
RQ 2: What capacity to influence different factors affecting education policy implementation do school leaders have?
RQ 3: How does the “influence outcomes” resulting from the school leaders’ agency affect specific policy objectives?
RQ 4: What strategies and resources do school leaders use in addressing the implementation of a specific policy in their roles as instructional leaders, school administrators and – in managing the change at school level?
RQ 5: What policy implications can be drawn from the observed school leadership practices?

Our research model postulated that successful school leaders will necessarily have “policy capacity”, found at the intersection of skills and competences (analytical, operational and political) and resources and capabilities (at the individual, organizational and system levels), as defined by Wu and colleagues (2018). It was our expectation that the policy capacity would be mobilized only in cases where the school leader also has the capacity to influence different factors affecting implementation that results in specific “influence outcomes” (Yukl, 2013). However, even then, the capacity to exercise influence, in our conceptual framework, does not automatically translate into action. Having the power to do something, we argued, cannot be equated with the action itself. The “intentionality” subsumed by the notion of “agency” represents the final condition for a (successful) action—the school leader’s orientation toward achieving policy objectives is a precondition of policy enactment.

Furthermore, we assumed that the influence of the school leader on the final policy outcome is not direct nor directly observable but that it is “moderated” by their influence over specific policy implementation factors, found at different levels: policy level, education system level, school level, level of professional identities of school staff, as well as various external actors. To this group of factors, we have added the factor of external shocks in order to reflect the broader research context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A multiple/comparative case study of school leadership practices in primary schools in Serbia was carried out on an example of the national inclusive education policy implementation. The entire inclusive spectrum was covered by a selection of schools and school leaders successfully supporting children with learning difficulties, disabilities or depravation (DDD children), on the one hand, and gifted/highly motivated or children with exceptional academic abilities, on the other. Based on the rigorous two-step selection procedure, a total of six cases were selected (six school leaders, heading primary schools in the cities of Belgrade, Niš, Kragujevac, and Kikinda) as well as two additional cases of unique educational establishments with a significant contribution to supporting gifted children (based in the cities of Belgrade and Pančevo). At the selection stage, a total of 28 educational advisors from five regional school administrations were involved in expert consultations. In-depth interviews with the six school leaders were carried out, as well as two more with the heads of additional educational institutions; and a total of 41 school staff members (teachers, pedagogists, and psychologists) took part in the work of eight focus groups. This study used a hybrid approach in the thematic analysis and interpretation of data collected from multiple sources. Data analysis relied on (i) secondary data, which covered a variety of official documents (legal, strategic), statistical data and school documents, as well as (ii) primary data, which covered the narratives, i.e., transcripts of the individual in-depth interviews with school leaders, findings of the focus groups with school staff, as well as expert group interviews.

As findings have shown, the legislator’s ambition went ahead of its capacity to secure a rounded set of policy solutions, on the one hand, and a sufficient level of resources, on the other. This has effectively put pressure on both primary and secondary schools in Serbia to “deliver” on the expectations despite the lack of system support. One of the key weaknesses of the education system is reflected in the lack of capacity to monitor and provide timely support to schools and their staff in enacting inclusive education across the school system. Various policy instruments are envisioned but not present in practice; similarly, data are still missing for a number of basic indicators. Over the years, the less than perfect policy framework has been gradually improving. However, numerous barriers to its implementation are yet to be removed, because ten years into the implementation of the inclusive education policy, a majority of primary schools of Serbia struggle with supporting students requiring additional educational support. The comparative case study findings have confirmed that, unlike the majority of Serbia’s schools, the schools and school leaders at the focus of this study have been more successful in enacting inclusive education policies. Evidence has confirmed the expectation that the school leaders observed in this study have the capacity to influence a set of factors that are critical for successful policy implementation and are located at all observed levels—ranging from the policy and system levels, the school level and the level of professional staff identities, to the mix of external factors—as postulated by the proposed nested research model.

Angelle, P. and Torrance, D. (Eds.). (2019). Cultures of Social Justice Leadership, Intercultural Studies in Education. Palgrave Macmillan. Baucal, A., Pavlović Babić, D. (Eds.) (2016) Prepoznaj, promoviši i proširi: Priče o–uspešnim školama (3P - Recognize, Promote and Network: stories about good schools). ZVKOV, UNICEF, MPNTR & Institut za psihologiju. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, pp. 77–101. Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: what do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34:5, pp. 553–571. Felder, F. (2019). Inclusive education, the dilemma of identity and the common good. Theory and Research in Education. 17(2). pp. 213–228. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), pp. 329–352. McLaughlin, M. (1991). Learning from Experience: Lessons from Policy Implementation. In: Odden, A. (Ed.). Education Policy Implementation. SUNY Press. Priestley, M., Biesta, G. and Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher Agency, an Ecological approach. Bloomsbury. van Schaik, P., Volman, M., Admiraal, W. and Schenke, W. (2020). Fostering collaborative teacher learning: A typology of school leadership. European Journal of Education. 55(2), pp. 217–232. Ševkušić, S., Malinić, D., Teodorović, J. (Eds.) (2019). Leadership in Education, Initiatives and Trends in Selected European Countries. Institute for Educational Research. Wu, X., Ramesh, M. and Howlett, M. (2015). Policy Capacity: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Policy Competences and Capabilities. Policy and Society. 34 (2015), pp. 165–171. Young, T. and Lewis, W. (2015). Educational Policy Implementation Revisited. Educational Policy. 29(1), pp. 3–17. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in Organizations. (8th ed.). Pearson.