This paper empirically addresses the principals' and school supervising authorities' role and function within the implementation of test-based school reforms in the low-stakes testing environment of Germany. It explores how the relation of principals (representing the domain of the organization) and school supervising authority (representing the environment of schools) is affected by mandatory tests in the multilevel structured German school system. The analysis aims to identify particular patterns of conducive respectively obstructive actions regarding the usage of mandatory test-data on both levels.

The sobering German school performance in international student assessments was a critical juncture and led to a paradigm shift: national standards and mandatory tests in grades 3 and 8 were implemented. These instruments are meant to improve school quality and teacher instruction. They should foster accountability and school autonomy. Furthermore, the feedback information resulting from mandatory tests are intended to promote communication and cooperation between different actors at school.

The international school effectiveness research shows that principals are crucial for the success of an innovation at school level. In regard to mandatory test-data principals are deemed the key mechanism for data based decisions and for school improvement (May & Suppovitz 2010). They have a mediate impact on the effectiveness of schools (West et al. 2000). Their influence in case of the test usage is based upon their understanding of leadership and their comprehension of the "organisation school". It is distinguished between two concepts: The Autonomous Professional Organisation versus the Managed Professional Organisation (Thiel 2008). In a Managed Professional Organisation principals take joint actions with teachers and department heads. They act according to the distributed leadership (Harris 2008) and entrust responsibility to subordinated levels. As mandatory test-data serve a macro-approach by providing information for accountability and assuring school quality, the school supervising authority as well is confronted with this instrument (Lange 2003). It is meant to support schools to strengthen their autonomy and to improve their outcome on a test-data basis. Governance research shows that the handling of mandatory test-data on school supervising authority level is dependent on the authority’s managerial style and their organisational concept. Research differs between variable types (Conventional Bureaucracy, Distanced Management, New Management, Pedagogical Bureaucracy) of supervisory acting that all cause different usages of data (Brüsemeister/Newiadomsky 2008). For the analysis of these processes we refer to the theory of neo-institutionalism, too. From this perspective schools were seen as loosely coupled organisations which are difficult to change. There is evidence that test-based school reforms strengthen organisational coupling and thus eminently affect the relations organisation-interaction and school-environment (Rowan 2006, Verhaege et al. 2010).

This analysis was conducted to determine conducive and obstructive patterns of action regarding the usage of mandatory test-data on the level of principals and school supervising authorities. Two questions are of particular relevance:

1) How do principals address and coordinate school actors relating to the development of school and educational quality based on mandatory test-data?

2) What kind of relationship and cooperation regarding the usage of mandatory tests between these actors can be identified?

Brüsemeister, T./Newiadomsky, M. (2008): Schulverwaltung - Ein unbekannter Akteur? In: Langer, R. (Hrsg.): „Warum tun die das?“. Governanceanalysen zum Steuerungshandeln in der Schulentwicklung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 73-93. Cohen, J. (1960): A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. In: A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales 20, H. 1, S. 37-46. Harris, A. (2008): Distributed Leadership: According to the Evidence. In: Journal of Educational Administration 46, H. 2, S. 172-188. Lange, H. (2003): Schulaufsicht zwischen normativen Anforderungen und faktischen Wirkungsmöglichkeiten. In: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 49, Beiheft 47, S. 137-155. May, H./Suppovitz, J. A. (2010): The Scope of Principal Efforts to Improve Instruction. In: Educational Administration Quarterly 47, H. 2, S. 332–352. Mayring, P. (2010): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Mey, G./Mruck, K. (Hrsg.): Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, S. 601-613. Rowan, B. (2006): The New Institutionalism and the Study of educational Organizations: Changing Ideas for Changing Times, in: Meyer, H.-D.& Rowan, B. (Ed.): The new institutionalism in education, Albany, NY. Thiel, F. (2008): Die Organisation der Bildung – eine Zumutung für die Profession? In: Ehrenspeck u.a. (Hrsg.): Bildung: Angebot oder Zumutung? Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, S. 211ff. Verhaeghe, G., Vanhoof, J., Martin, V., van Petegem, P. (2010). Using school performance feedback: Perceptions of primary school principals. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21/2, 167-188. West, M./Jackson, D./Harris, A./Hopkins, D. (2000): Leadership for School Improvement. In: Riley, K./Seashore-Louis, K. (Hrsg.): Leadership for Change. London: Routledge, S. 33-41. Yin, R. K. (2009): Case Study Research. Design and methods. Los Angeles: Calif.