Conference Agenda

In international academic discourse, school development has increasingly attracted attention in response to growing demands for educational quality and, consequently, for systematic school quality management. In recent years, the concept of external school development counselling (SDC) has gained prominence, particularly in German-speaking countries (e.g., Kemethofer, Altrichter, & Brauckmann-Sajkiewicz, 2024; Dedering, Kamarianakis, & Racherbäumer, 2022; Jesacher-Rößler, 2022; Altrichter et al., 2021). This development is also reflected in Austria’s strategic objectives outlined in the development plan of the Universities of Teacher Education (UTE) for the period 2021–2026, as well as in the White Paper on the future orientation of SDC in Austria, which emphasises the substantial strengthening of SDC in the coming years (Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research, 2019, 2021).

The National Education Report Austria 2021 (NERA, 2021) summarises the development and current practice of school development counselling (SDC) within the Austrian school system, formulates recommendations for action based on national and international research, and identifies key desiderata and starting points for further (Austrian) research. SDC is described as support for school development processes provided by actors external to the school, with the aim of enabling schools to engage independently and sustainably in their further development and to strengthen their capacity for self-regulation. Accordingly, SDC is conceptualised as an advisory service for school quality management, supporting both quality assurance and continuous school improvement (Altrichter et al., 2021).

The National Education Report Austria 2021 (NERA, 2021) further emphasises that, with “a few exceptions”, there is a lack of empirical studies on school development counselling (SDC) in Austria. In particular, it is noted that a descriptive mapping of the SDC landscape—such as those conducted in Germany (e.g., Dedering, Tillmann, Goecke, & Rauh, 2013; Adenstedt, 2016)—is still missing for the Austrian context. Moreover, several research desiderata are identified, including schools’ support needs as well as their attitudes towards and experiences with SDC, the methods applied within counselling processes, the modes of action and underlying processes of SDC, and the qualifications of counsellors (Altrichter et al., 2021).

The present contribution builds on the research desiderata identified in the National Education Report Austria 2021 (NERA, 2021). The study examines how key characteristics of school development counselling (SDC) are designed and how their quality is perceived in practice. In this context, the following research questions are addressed:

1. How is school development counselling organised across different types of Austrian schools?
2. What challenges and support needs emerge in the implementation of SDC in diverse school contexts?
3. How are the process quality, outcome quality, framework conditions, and success factors of SDC perceived from the perspectives of teachers, school development counsellors, and school principals?

Based on semi-structured interviews with teachers, school development counsellors, and school principals, this study examines the practical implementation and perceived effectiveness of school development counselling (SDC) in Austrian schools. The findings contribute to European and international debates on school quality management and the professional cooperation between school leadership, teaching staff, and external counsellors. In doing so, the study highlights how SDC can support schools in developing sustainable, self-regulated improvement processes while accounting for diverse school contexts. Furthermore, the results provide insights into conditions for successful SDC, such as the alignment of framework conditions, process design, and participants’ perspectives, offering lessons relevant for comparable educational systems internationally (Altrichter et al., 2021; Dedering et al., 2013).

Educational organisations are expected to adapt the opportunities and the challenges of a rapidly changing world (Newton and Tarrant, 1992). Therefore, change is an inherent and vital aspect of the school improvement process. Change during school improvement encompass a wide range of transformations, including curriculum updates, shifts in pedagogical approaches, instructional methodologies, the incorporation of emerging technologies and the evolving needs of students and society. Thus, school improvement is a complex process that unfolds at the school level (Feldhoff, Radisch and Bischof, 2016). This dynamism can be daunting, yet it presents opportunities to enhance the quality of education and better prepare students for the challenges they will face as they enter wider society more independently. It is driven by a commitment to enhance the quality of education, improve student outcomes, meet the diverse needs of students, foster a positive learning environment, and remain responsive to the expectations of parents, communities, and society at large (Hallinger and Heck 2011, Murphy 2013).

Schools try to enhance student outcomes and strengthen the schools’ capacities for managing change through school improvement (Feldhoff et al., 2016; Hopkins 2001; Sammons et al. 2014). School principals together with teachers are expected to lead to change and enhance planning practices, build trust within the school, have autonomy and restructure the school during change process (Alsharija and Watters 2021). However, this journey in schools can be met with a mix of enthusiasm and resistance because of being complex and multifaceted. Different countries might face various change forces, adopt distinct approaches to implementing change, thereby encountering different challenges throughout this process. In our study, we will discuss two countries, England and Türkiye that have decentralised and centralised education systems respectively. Through exploring the forces for change and the challenges faced in both England and Türkiye, we argue that there are differences and also similarities between two apparently different contexts.

The aim of this study is to explore and compare the forces and challenges influencing school improvement processes in two contrasting education systems, namely England and Türkiye, which operate within decentralised and centralised governance structures respectively. Guided by Lewin’s force-field analysis (Lewin, 1951), the study seeks to identify the driving and restraining forces shaping change at the school level and to examine how these forces influence schools’ capacities to manage and sustain improvement initiatives. By analysing similarities and differences across these two national contexts, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of how systemic structures and policy environments shape school improvement processes and responses to change.

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?

Across contemporary education systems, pedagogical support has become a central strategy for school improvement and quality assurance, particularly through the strengthening of middle-tier governance. While the literature does not offer a fully standardised terminology, pedagogical support can be understood as a set of actions external to the school aimed at strengthening, in sustained and contextualised ways, the professional and institutional capacities of school leaders and teachers through guidance, advice, and evidence-informed feedback (Rodríguez Espinoza, 2023; Vermeir & Kelchtermans, 2022; Thessin, 2019). Recent scholarship emphasises its continuous and situated character: rather than isolated interventions, support is enacted through systematic processes that accompany schools’ work cycles and adapt to organisational cultures and local conditions (Edwards-Groves et al., 2025).

This evolution reflects broader shifts in improvement research away from linear knowledge-transfer models towards collaborative professional learning and capacity-building approaches, where the aim is to develop sustainable internal conditions for improvement within organisations (Harris & Hopkins, 2001; Stosich, 2020). From this perspective, the effectiveness of support depends less on the mechanical application of protocols and more on the relational quality of interactions, professional trust, and the relevance of strategies mobilised in practice (Thessin, 2019; Vermeir & Kelchtermans, 2022). Accordingly, the professionalisation of those who provide support becomes critical, as these roles require pedagogical expertise, sensitivity to organisational change processes, and the capacity to foster reflective dialogue and professional learning (Goldring et al., 2020a).

Middle-tier organisations and actors have therefore gained prominence as key sites of mediation between policy and practice. Support work is increasingly conceptualised as a form of intermediary or boundary-spanning practice, in which support agents navigate insider–outsider dynamics, connect system levels, translate policy expectations into situated practice, and coordinate across overlapping mandates (Coburn et al., 2008; Vermeir & Kelchtermans, 2020). At the same time, this work is frequently shaped by structural tensions between accountability and improvement, collaboration and control, and evaluation and developmental support—often resulting in hybrid roles and ambiguous expectations for those providing support (Honig & Rainey, 2014; Meyers et al., 2024; Rogers, 2022). These tensions highlight that pedagogical support is not merely a technical function but an inherently interpretive form of professional work requiring judgement and negotiation in context (Kelchtermans, 2009).

Against this background, the paper examines Chile’s national pedagogical support system as a particularly instructive case for international audiences. Ongoing reforms have expanded and professionalised the middle tier through the creation of Local Education Services, while maintaining parallel support and quality-assurance functions within ministerial and oversight bodies. This configuration has produced a densely regulated “ecology of improvement” characterised by multiple actors, overlapping mandates, and tightly sequenced annual improvement cycles (Tournier et al., 2023). The study is guided by two questions: How is pedagogical support conceived and enacted within a multi-level governance system? How do structural conditions interact to shape the enactment of support in such systems?

The paper’s conceptual contribution lies in advancing a layered and relational lens for analysing pedagogical support systems. Rather than treating support as a linear chain from policy design to implementation, the paper conceptualises support as the outcome of multiple, intertwined layers operating simultaneously: national improvement rationales and policy designs; institutional roles and coordination across quality assurance bodies; local organisational capacities and resource conditions; and the professional judgement exercised by support actors in their everyday work with schools (Stosich, 2020; Thessin, 2019). These layers are woven together in practice, shaping how schools experience support and whether it is perceived as formative, fragmented, or compliance-oriented. This framing contributes to international debates on educational improvement by highlighting how coherence, professional judgement, and institutional architecture are co-constructed in systems where accountability, improvement, and innovation agendas intersect.