Education systems worldwide have introduced governance reforms to address challenges in improving performance and equity amid demographic change and growing societal diversity (van Ackeren et al., 2016). These reforms are based on the expectation that more outcome-oriented and decentralized governance can improve the effectiveness and quality of education (UNESCO, 2000). As a consequence, steering responsibilities are progressively relocated from central authorities to intermediate and local levels, granting schools greater autonomy within defined frameworks of goals and expectations (Altrichter & Maag Merki, 2016). These developments reposition schools as key actors of reform, which places increasing demands on schools’ developmental and evaluative capacities. For this reason, many countries have complemented autonomy-oriented governance reforms with external support systems (Thomson, 2010) frequently institutionalized as forms of school development consultancy, though operating under different terminologies and models. These school development consultants emerge as critical mediators between system-level governance frameworks and school-level practices, supporting schools in interpreting policy expectations and translating them into development strategies (Altrichter et al., 2021).

In line with these international developments, many European countries, including Austria, have sought to modernize their education systems through the introduction of evidence-informed governance approaches (Altrichter & Gamsjäger, 2017). Introduced nationwide in September 2021, the Austrian Quality Management System for Schools (QMS) can be understood as part of this broader transformation. QMS provides instruments to support reflection, evaluation, and the consolidation of results in school-based teamwork, serving both internal developmental purposes and external accountability requirements (Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung, 2022), and thereby consistently aligns with the logic of evidence-based steering.

Within the Austrian education system, school development consultants are positioned as part of formal support structures. From an educational governance perspective, their role is to mediate between macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of the system and to contribute to system coordination primarily through supportive strategies such as consultation, the provision of tools, and the facilitation of school development processes, rather than through directive or control-oriented modes of steering (Altrichter et al., 2021).

During the first three-year quality development cycle defined by QMS, schools are required to formulate and implement shared pedagogical guiding principles. The empirical study presented in this paper examines, at a micro-analytical level, how these system-level reform impulses translate into changes in action coordination within schools with a particular focus on negotiation processes among different actors (Schimank, 2007).

From an educational governance perspective, the study conceptualizes pedagogical guiding principles as governance instruments that structure, but do not determine, action at the school level and therefore require processes of interpretation, negotiation, and coordination among actors (Arnold, 2000; Altrichter et al., 2022). The study aims to reconstruct these processes in order to better understand how system-level reform impulses are translated into school-level practices under conditions of increased autonomy and accountability.

Reform impulses introduced through QMS are understood as steering interventions that challenge existing rules and routines at the school level and give rise to negotiation processes, including resistance. Such resistance is analytically used as a lens to reconstruct shifts in coordination, as it reveals tensions between competing interests, contradictory demands, and established versus emerging practices.

The study addresses the following research question:

How is the structural framework of educational guiding principles taken up by different actors at the individual school level and negotiated in the school context?

The case was deliberately selected under the condition of the involvement of school development consultants.
This leads to a second research question:

What role do school development consultants play in shaping action coordination during school development processes under QMS?

Problem-centered interviews (Witzel, 2000) were conducted with different actors at a secondary school between the Months of June and February. The sample (n = 10) included the school leader, teachers, and school development consultants. The interviews focused on the ongoing process of revising pedagogical guiding principles in accordance with the QMS framework and explored how this process was interpreted and negotiated by the actors involved. Two interviews were conducted on the same day. They were then transcribed and analyzed. Following the logic of the hermeneutic circle, insights gained from earlier interviews were used to inform subsequent interviews, allowing for a deeper understanding of the school development process. All interviews were analyzed using a qualitative content analysis with a structuring approach (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022). The school was selected through purposive sampling, as it was engaged in school development counseling and was actively implementing a mission statement development process aligned with QMS requirements. The selection of interview participants followed a sequential and theoretically informed sampling strategy (Lamnek & Krell, 2016). In an initial step, individuals holding key intra-school positions relevant to school development were interviewed. At the end of each interview, participants were asked to identify additional actors who, in their view, could contribute to a more differentiated understanding of the school development process. This procedure enabled the inclusion of participants with diverse and contrasting perspectives, including individuals who were critical of the development process, teachers who had joined the school while the process was already underway, and teachers who positioned themselves more neutrally. In this way, the sampling strategy (Lamnek & Krell, 2016) aimed to capture a broad range of experiences and interpretations related to the school development process. In the analysis, the statements of the stakeholders were compared across participant groups and related to the QMS framework for pedagogical guiding principles. This comparative analytical perspective was intended to support a reconstruction of how predefined guidelines were taken up, reinterpreted, and negotiated within the specific school context, with particular attention to processes of meaning-making and local adaptation.

Preliminary results indicate that the guiding educational principles are perceived by those responsible for school development as important for promoting the teaching of and identification with school values. While several interviewees reported that the mission statement has little impact on daily school life, they emphasized the significance of its content. The mission statement appears to carry primarily symbolic and normative weight, making its wording a subject of negotiation. However, efforts were undertaken to translate the mission statement into practice, particularly with regard to sustainability (e.g., the proposed abolition of air travel for language trips) as well as the general understanding of performance and performance assessment in particular. While the discontinuation of air travel was deemed unfeasible, the issues surrounding performance remained a major concern. It is unclear what measures will be decided upon and what impact they will have on daily practice. All interviewees critically noted that the increasing importance of school development is accompanied by rising responsibilities and accountability, often without sufficient time or resources. Much of the work related to school development was reported to be carried out in teachers’ free time and typically by a small, consistent group of individuals. Consequently, there is a widespread perception that school development relies heavily on the commitment and idealism of a few, rather than being systematically supported across the institution. The perceived relevance of school development consultants varied depending on the internal positions of the teachers interviewed; overall, they were considered a valuable source of support. These results suggest that while mission statements and school development initiatives carry symbolic and normative significance, their practical implementation is constrained by structural and resource-related limitations. Furthermore, differences in beliefs about what schools can and should achieve play a central role in school development processes, as the organizational self-understanding is continuously negotiated and debated.

Arnold, E., Bastian, J., & Reh, S. (2000). Spannungsfelder der Schulprogrammarbeit. Erfahrungen bei der Einführung eines neuen Instruments der Schulentwicklung. Die Deutsche Schule, 92(4), 414-429. Altrichter, H., & Maag Merki, K. (2016). Steuerung der Entwicklung des Schulwesens. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (S. 1–27). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Altrichter, H., & Gamsjäger, M. (2017). A conceptual model for research in performance standard policies. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1316180 Altrichter, H., Krainz, U., Kemethofer, D., Jesacher-Rößler, L., Hautz, H., & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, S. (2021). Schulentwicklungsberatung und Schulentwicklungsberatungsforschung. In Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung (Eds.), Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2021 (S. 375–421). https://doi.org/10.17888/nbb2021 Altrichter, H., Gamsjäger, M., Plaimauer, C., Prammer-Semmler, E., Steiner, R., Zuber, J., & Handschuh, L. (2022). Making sense of evidence-based governance reforms: An exploratory analysis of teachers coping with the Austrian performance standard policy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(3), 501–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1791906 Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung. (2022). QMS im Überblick: Die Gesamtdarstellung des Qualitätsmanagementsystems für Schulen (Version 1.1). https://www.qms.at/images/QMS-im-Ueberblick.pdf Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung (5. Aufl.). Beltz Juventa. Lamnek, S., & Krell, C. (2016). Qualitative Sozialforschung (6., vollständig überarbeitete Auflage). Beltz. Schimank, U. (2007). Elementare Mechanismen. In A. Benz, S. Lütz, U. Schimank & G. Simonis (Eds.), Handbuch Governance: Theoretische Grundlagen und empirische Anwendungsfelder (S. 29–45). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Thomson, P. (2010). Whole school change: A literature review. Creativity, Culture & Education. UNESCO. (2000). Dakar framework for action: Education for all: Meeting our collective commitments. Van Ackeren, I., Brauckmann, S., & Klein, E. D. (2016). Internationale Diskussions-, Forschungs- und Theorieansätze zur Governance im Schulwesen. In H. Altrichter & K. Maag Merki (Eds.), Handbuch neue Steuerung im Schulsystem (S. 29–51). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Witzel, A. (2000). Das problemzentrierte Interview. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(1), Artikel 22.