School Autonomy with Accountability (SAWA) reforms, inspired by New Public Management, grant schools autonomy in exchange for centralized performance monitoring (Tröhler et al., 2014). While sharing common principles, these reforms display significant variations in their institutional design, policy instruments, and modes of legitimation. The literature distinguishes “high-stakes” accountability models, found mainly but not exclusively in Anglo-Saxon contexts, from “soft accountability” or “low-stakes” approaches relying on negotiated instruments, procedural regulation, and discursive alignment rather than direct sanctions (Maroy & Voisin, 2014; Verger et al., 2019).

Historically characterized by a “quasi-market” and “freedom of education” (Maroy & Dupriez, 2000; Maroy, 2004), the education system in French-speaking Belgium is undergoing a major shift. Initiated by the 2017 the “Pacte pour un Enseignement d’excellence”, a new governance model introduces a suite of instruments rooted in accountability, notably the steering plan (plan de pilotage) (Renard & Demeuse, 2017). Since 2019, every school is required to design a six-year strategic plan, translating central system-level goals, “Objectifs d'Amélioration du Système Éducatif” (OASE), into local actions adapted to their specific context. Once validated by administrative officials known as “Délégués aux contrats d'objectifs”, these plans become objectives contracts (contracts d’objectifs). Fundamentally, this framework creates a dual dynamic : schools are expected to use their autonomy to make their own diagnosis, choose strategies and actions to be implemented to contribute to the system improvement goals set at the central level, while the central authority exercises greater control over the achievement of results (Renard & Demeuse, 2017; Souto Lopez, 2022).

This new accountability policy places the steering plan at its core, marking a shift in the governance of the educational system that merits close examination. This contribution specifically investigates the narratives surrounding the instrument, aiming to deconstruct its political formulation and the justifications that underpinned its acceptance.

Guided by a specific set of inquiries, we examine:

1. How was the steering plan introduced and promoted? What potentialities and/or limits were identified by key stakeholders involved in the policy process leading to the adoption of this policy?
2. Did this instrument generate tensions or negotiations? How was a consensus ultimately achieved, and what specific compromises regarding the nature of the "contract" were required to secure its adoption?
3. Were there other instruments defended and discarded, and why?

To address these questions, we mobilized a sociology of policy instrumentation (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2004, 2007) combined with a policy narratives analysis (Radaelli, 2000; Stone, 2012). Following Lascoumes and Le Galès (2004, 2007), we consider instruments as socio-technical arrangements that materialize specific representations of public problems and organize power relations between governing authorities and policy recipients. This instrumental perspective is articulated with a policy narratives analysis. Drawing on Stone’s (2012) concept of “causal stories”, we argue that policy narratives participate in the construction of the “policy problem”, its causes and legitimising specifics solutions such as the steering plan.

In this contribution, we stress the policy narratives that have been produced during the policy process leading to the adoption of the steering plan. We highlight how a consensus emerged around this instrument that can be seen as instrumental for regulating the functioning of schools and as a key feature of the new accountability policy promoted in French-speaking Belgium. We examine the properties, limits, and potentialities attributed to it by different stakeholders during the policy process.We thus show that the consensus built around this instrument relies on its interpretive flexibility. We stress that the plasticity of the instrument enabled it to be framed simultaneously as a tool for “soft accountability” and a lever for “professional empowerment” thereby helping to build a consensus among stakeholders that enabled its adoption.

This contribution employs a qualitative and interpretive methodology, beginning with a targeted literature review (n ≈ 31). This initial phase focused on the scientific literature analysing the evolution of education policies in French-speaking Belgium over the last 35 years. This literature review allowed us to situate the new accountability policy under study and the steering plan it introduced within the web of education policies in French-speaking Belgium. Our core empirical data is also derived from a documentary analysis (n ≈ 45). The corpus includes institutional documents produced between 2014 and 2018, such as parliamentary debates, legislative texts, and preparatory reports. We paid a particular attention to sections defining the functions, objectives, and modalities of the steering plan / objectives contract. To complement this documentary evidence, semi-structured interviews (n ≈ 30) were conducted with key stakeholders directly involved in the design of the reform. The interview panel includes political decision-makers, high-level civil servants, academic experts, consultants, and representatives of organizing power federations (Fédérations de pouvoirs organisateurs / FPO), teaching unions, parent-teacher association federations and educative associations. Part of the interview was specifically designed to examine stakeholders' perceptions of the strengths, potential and limitations of the instrument under study. Interviewees were indeed asked to explain their positions regarding the steering plan, identify the points of tension encountered during the reform process, and describe any other instruments that could have been considered. Data analysis is based on thematic content analysis (Paillé & Mucchielli, 2016) and proceeds in three stages: organizing the empirical material, systematically coding thematic patterns across both interviews and documents, and interpreting how various actors justify, support, or challenge the instrument. In this framework, themes are treated not as mere labels but as analytical categories that capture the complex meanings and values attributed to the policy instrument. Particular attention was paid to both converging justifications and the underlying differences that characterize stakeholders' perspectives.

Our preliminary findings suggest that the adoption of the steering plan was made possible the plasticity of the instrument itself. A consensus was built upon a shared diagnosis of the educational system’s lack of efficiency and equity, and the seven strategic improvement goals (OASE) set at the central level, providing the necessary normative framework. However, the adoption of the steering plan relied on the instrument's interpretative flexibility. It allowed diverse stakeholders to identify properties aligned with the values they defend and with strategic stakes such as the distribution of power and room for manoeuvre in regulating the education system. For instance, for the Administration, the instrument was framed as a tool for systemic regulation and “soft accountability” (Verger et al., 2019), enabling the central authority (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles) to reassert control over educational outcomes. Organizing power federations (FPO), have seen their position as legitimate “intermediate bodies” (corps intermédiaires) reaffirmed, in particular by playing an important role in providing guidance and support to schools. By contrast, teachers’ unions narrated the instrument as a lever for “professional emancipation,” involving school-teams in the management of their institutions. By reconstructing the policy narratives constructed around the steering plan during the policy process, this study delves into the specific discourses of various stakeholders and helps to understand how a policy consensus was reached around this specific instrument. In doing so, we also show how this specific policy instruments ultimately stabilizes a new regulatory framework within the French-speaking Belgian education system, based very centrally on school’s accountability and performance-based management.

Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2004). Gouverner par les instruments. Presses de Sciences Po. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments. Governance, 20(1), 1–21. Maroy,C., & Dupriez, V. (2000). La régulation dans les systèmes scolaires : proposition théorique et analyse du cadre structurel en belgique francophone. Revue française de pédagogie, 130(1), 7387. Https://doi.Org/10.3406/rfp.2000.1054  Maroy,C. (2004). L’impact du décret « Missions » sur les modes de régulation du système d’enseignement : discours et évolutions effectives. In M. Frenay & C. Maroy (éds.), L’école, six ans après le décret « Missions » (1 ). Presses universitaires de louvain. Https://books.Openedition.Org/pucl/10272 Paillé, P., & Mucchielli, A. (2016). L’analyse qualitative (4e éd.). Armand Colin. Radaelli, C. M., Logiques de pouvoirs et récits dans les politiques publiques de l'union européenne. Revue française de science politique, 255-275. Renard, F., & Demeuse, M. (2017). Du Contrat stratégique pour l’école au Pacte pour un Enseignement d’Excellence. Les nouveaux modes de gouvernance préconisés par le Pacte à travers le plan de pilotage. Institut d’administration scolaire de l’Université de Mons. En ligne: bit.ly/pactegouvernance Souto Lopez, M. (2022). Nouvelle gouvernance du Pacte d’excellence: Gage d’équité, de qualité et d’efficacité?. La Revue nouvelle, 21(9), 33-42. Stone, D. A. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton. 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. Voisin, A., & Maroy, C. (2018). La sociologie de l’éducation au croisement de la sociologie de l’action publique: apports des cadres pour une typologie des systèmes d’accountability. Cahiers de recherche sociologique, (64), 173-202.