School autonomy with accountability (SAWA) has become a centerpiece of educational reforms in recent decades, promoted as a global policy model to increase effectiveness and equity in educational systems, and to encourage innovation (Verger et al., 2019). While numerous studies have analyzed SAWA reforms and effects, focusing mainly on sanction-driven accountability systems, research analyzing alternative approaches to SAWA is still scarce. Using the SAWA reform introduced in 2019 by the “Pact for Excellence in Teaching” in French-speaking Belgium (Wallonia-Brussels Federation, Fr-BE) as an empirical case, particularly because it promotes a reflexive approach to accountability and because of the specifics of the Fr-BE education system (decentralized, fragmented, and segregated), the general aim of this paper presentation is to understand the policy enactment process.  

In Fr-BE, the governance reform mandated by the Pact represents a clear turning point towards SAWA (Cattonar & Dupriez, 2019). Since 2019, every school in Fr-BE has been required to draw up a “steering plan” which, once approved by the educational authorities, becomes a “contract of objectives”. These plans and contracts define a set of objectives to be achieved by the schools and specify the means they will use to achieve them. The implementation of the contract, which covers a period of six years, is subject to two external evaluations conducted by the administration: the first after three years and the second at the end of the cycle. Throughout the process, from the development of plans based on a diagnosis to the implementation of actions to achieve the selected objectives, schools are expected to use their autonomy to develop collaborative dynamics in key areas such as teaching, pedagogical practices, and the management of material and human resources.  

Rooted in the principles of new public management (Hood, 1991), the SAWA-type educational policy (Verger et al. 2019), recently introduced into the Fr-BE education system, strongly promotes school autonomy while simultaneously introducing accountability measures through management tools. These tools rely heavily on data-intensive mechanisms, such as the use of large-scale external and standardized assessments and performance monitoring to hold schools (and teachers) accountable for achieving predefined outcomes (Tröhler et al., 2014). 

Recent studies on the enactment of SAWA in schools have underscored both the influence of contextual factors and the crucial role played by school teams, and particularly school leaders, in shaping how accountability pressures are perceived. Elements such as a school’s performance level or its relative position within the local education market significantly affect how actors interpret and respond to SAWA policy demands. 

Accountability pressures can lead to variable implementation processes and diverse responses to policy requirements (Barbana et al., 2020; Braun et al., 2011; Pagès et al., 2023; Verger and Skedsmo, 2021). For example, while some teachers align their practices with accountability expectations, others ignore or resist policy requirements (Maroy and Pons, 2019; Verger et al., 2021). Other studies have  emphasised the importance of stakeholder perceptions in shaping how policies are received and implemented (Coburn, 2005, Draelants, 2006; Braun et al., 2011; Verger et al., 2021). 

This study aims to examine how school leaders   perceive and interpret the SAWA reform in Fr-BE. More specifically, we will attempt to answer the following research question: How do school leaders perceive and interpret the SAWA reform in contexts characterized by varying levels of accountability pressure? 

Our study uses a multiple case-study approach as a research methodology. This allows for an in-depth understanding of a complex phenomenon in its real-life context, based on comparison of similarities and differences between the cases (Yin, 2009). We used a purposive sampling to select schools, aiming to ensure variability in key variables, while maintaining comparability in others (Braun et al., 2011). We selected eight schools, considering a combination of two contextual criteria: the networks and the pressure. The networks structure the organization of the education system in Fr-BE and generates diversity between schools (recruitment, staff status, (de)centralisation, management autonomy, etc.). Accountability pressure varies across schools due to differentiated accountability regimes (at risk/non-at-risk schools). Schools identified as underperforming are placed in a three‑year improvement programme (EDA) with administratively defined targets and intensified monitoring. Including these schools in our study is crucial, as such conditions are likely to heighten public accountability pressures and exacerbate tensions around school autonomy. Data collection combines multiple perspectives and a variety of retrospective and concurrent qualitative data. First, we collected documents developed by schools related to their steering plan, schools’ performance data, schools’ educational and pedagogical projects. Second, we conducted semi-structured interviews with school leaders and teachers involved in the school improvement process. Third, we conducted on-site observations of daily school organizational life, since policy enactment is an ongoing process occurring within schools. Data analysis will involve within-case and cross-case analysis and use content analysis for all qualitative data sources: reduce data, show data, draw conclusions, and verify (Creswell, 2007).

In this section, we present preliminary findings from an ongoing study based on interviews with school leaders of eight schools experiencing varying degrees of public accountability pressure (EDA and non-EDA schools). The analysis focuses on how school leaders perceive, interpret, and make sense of the political expectations directed at their schools, and how these interpretations shape their reaction to and engagement with the SAWA policy. In this comparative study, we present the results in three successive parts. First, we analyze school leaders' perceptions and sense-making processes in both EDA and non-EDA schools. This section explores how school leaders interpret the objectives, expectations, and implications of the SAWA framework. This analysis highlights how differences in interpretative frameworks inform leaders’ initial positioning towards the SAWA policy. Second, we analyse how school leaders understand their role in the implementation process: the place they assign to their function, how they define their responsibilities, and how they conceive their leadership actions in steering their schools in light of SAWA requirements. Third, we analyse how school leaders perceive the balance between school autonomy and accountability demands. More specifically, we analyze how they view their professional autonomy in relation to the SAWA policy, and how they interpret the autonomy granted to them given the significant role the reform assigns them in school governance.

Barbana, S., Dumay, X., & Dupriez, V. (2020). Local implementation of accountability instruments in the Frenchspeaking community of Belgium. European Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 94-108. Braun, A., Ball, S. J, Maguire, M. & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585-596. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational policy, 19(3), 476-509. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage. Draelants, H. (2006). Identités organisationnelles et établissements scolaires. Pertinence et conditions d’un transfert conceptuel », Communication et organisation [En ligne], 30 | 2006, mis en ligne le 21 juin 2012, consulté le 28 octobre 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/communicationorganisation/ 3471 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/communicationorganisation.3471 Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69, 3-19. Maroy, C., & Pons, X. (2019). Accountability policies in education. A comparative and multilevel analysis in France and Quebec. Springer. Pagès, M., Ferrer-Esteban, G., Verger A., & Prieto, M. (2023). At the crossroad of performativity and the market: Schools’ logics of action under a hybrid accountability regime. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2023.2175316 Tröhler, D., Meyer, H.-D., Labaree, D. F., & Hutt, E. L. (2014). Accountability: Antecedents, power, and processes. Teachers College Record, 116(9), 1-12. Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 248-270. Verger, A., Ferrer-Esteban, G., & Parcerisa, L. (2021). In and out of the ‘pressure cooker’: Schools’ varying responses to accountability and datafication. In S. Grek, C. Maroy, & A. Verger (Eds.), World yearbook of education 2021: Accountability and datafication in the governance of education (pp. 219-239). Routledge. Verger, A., & Skedsmo, G. (2021). Enacting accountabilities in education: Exploring new policy contexts and theoretical elaborations. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 33, 391-401. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage.