KJEP 9:2 (2012), pp.

323-347

A conceptual framework for comparison of

educational policies*

Arnošt Veselý
Charles University, The Czech Republic

Abstract

This article deals with the formulation of a conceptual framework for comparing
educational policies and assessing their impact upon educational outcomes. The
conceptual framework includes six basic components: (1) educational policy-making,
(2) educational policy-making inputs, (3) processes, (4) outcomes, (5) effects and (6)
context. The framework focuses upon educational policy-making inputs, i.e. actions at
the disposal of the government for influencing educational processes. Three general
types of possible government actions are distinguished: (a) formulation of goals and
problems, (b) policy instruments, (c) institutional setting. A general overview of the
whole framework is provided before three types of educational policy-making inputs
are discussed and classified in more detail. The article concludes with identifying
potential uses and limitations of the framework.

Keywords: c onceptual framework, educational policy, educational policy instruments,

comparative analysis, educational outcomes

* This article was supported by the Programme for the Development of Fields of Study at Faculty of Social Sciences,
Charles University, Prague (PRVOUK, No. 17).

   KEDI Journal of Educational Policy— ISSN 1739— 4341—

© Korean Educational Development Institute 2012, Electronic version: [Link]
Arnošt Veselý

Introduction

The results of international evaluations of student achievement such as the

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) lead to two essential questions:
Why do some countries consistently perform better and improve significantly faster
than others? How should educational policies be redesigned to produce better
educational results? In the last decade, the literature that addresses these questions has
been growing rapidly1). These studies have demonstrated that educational outcomes
are determined by a vast array of interrelated factors that are difficult to disentangle.
There is no simple and straightforward recipe for a successful educational policy.
To find out the basic features of successful educational polices, we need to capture
educational reality in its complexity. Such methods of organizing complex thinking
go by different names like conceptual framework, model and some others. Whatever
term is used, the goal is to be able to examine reality by representing it in a complex but
simplified and structured manner. As part of this process, classifications are established
in order to work with terms at a higher level of abstraction.
Although comparative education is a field with a long tradition, surprisingly we
still lack complex conceptual frameworks for comparing different educational policies
and analyzing their effects. Of course, there are numerous theories of what happens
in education policy processes. However, they almost always focus on a few particular
elements and overlook the intricate web of interactions of different components. The
consequence is that in comparative empirical analysis of educational outcomes, various
policy-related factors are put into one undifferentiated pile regardless of their nature
and role in educational processes. Another consequence is an excessive simplification
of explanations of variation in educational outcomes when only factors that are easily
measurable are taken into account.
Attempts to classify the numerous and diverse factors influencing educational
outcomes have started only very recently. For instance, the last McKinsey report How
the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better (Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber,
2010) is based upon 575 interventions that were categorized into ten broad areas (e.g.
professional development, accountability, learning model). Although it is certainly
the way forward, the report does not provide any discussion of the relationship and
links among these factors, which severely hinders development of theories on how
these factors actually work. Similarly, many particular explanations of international
variance in educational outcomes have been proposed, for example, culture, politics
or geography (Rindermann & Ceci, 2010).
At present, the immense number of specific empirical findings somewhat
hinders more general thinking about how the myriad of factors are linked together
and how they are influenced by educational policies. The main goal of this article is to
fill the gap in the literature and propose a conceptual framework (hereinafter referred
to as “CF”) to enable the organization of information on the effects of educational

324
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

policies (hereinafter referred to as “EP”) on educational outcomes and upon which

more concrete theories explaining international variation in students’ performance
can be built. The CF presented here builds upon similar conceptual frameworks by
other authors. I draw in particular upon Scheerens (1990), Cheng and Cheung (1995),
Ballantine (2001), Hutmacher et al. (2001), and Cheng et al. (2002). However, in
contrast to those works, the “black box” of EP is opened and the components of EP are
specified and classified. Particular emphasis is placed on the role of educational policy
instruments, an aspect so far not integrated into CFs. The specific added value of this
contribution lies in its comprehensiveness (i.e., the number of components included in
the CF and their classification) as well as their new structuring.
I will proceed as follows. First, I will define the term conceptual framework and
briefly review the available CFs that have been proposed so far. Second, I will specify
the term educational policy. Then I will describe and analyze the proposed CF itself.
Since all the elements of the CF except the EP have already been detailed in other
works, I will then focus upon the EP. I will conclude by analyzing the proposed CF’s
possible uses and limitations.
The goal of this article is to propose a CF that can be used in different contexts and
in the analysis of different educational systems and educational policies. Therefore,
I intend to formulate it on a more general level. Given the space limitation, it is not
the goal of this article to apply the proposed CF to concrete data from international
surveys. Nevertheless, for illustration, I will sometimes use concrete examples and
empirical findings to show the possibilities and limitations of this CF.

Brief overview of conceptual frameworks of educational

policies

A conceptual framework can be defined as a set of key terms and relations between
them that is organized to reflect different aspects of a process or system and guides
the choice of methods and research design (Botha, 1989; Shields, 1998). Conceptual
frameworks direct research by organizing our thinking about how to approach social
phenomena. Even when social scientists do not define CFs explicitly, they usually
build on an implicit CF that shapes their view of which variables are worth studying.
CFs provide the most general set of variables that can be used in any theory. Thus, CFs
are a kind of metatheory, an instrument for formulating, interpreting and comparing
different theories: “Frameworks provide a metatheoretic language that is necessary to
talk about theories and that can be used to compare theories. They attempt to identify
the universal elements that any relevant theory would need to include... the elements
contained in a framework help the analyst generate the questions that need to be
addressed when first conducting an analysis” (Ostrom, 2005, p. 28). In other words,
the CF consists of the building blocks for theory formulation. The aim of CFs is not to

325
Arnošt Veselý

explain social phenomena but to provide useful ground on which meaningful research
questions and their explanations can be built. Given the high amounts of information
(i.e. number of elements and links between them), CFs are often expressed in the form
of figures, diagrams or schemes.
According to Rumberger and Palardy (2004), two basic types of conceptual
frameworks exist in the field of education. While the first type is based on a
sociological approach, the other one has evolved from economics. The sociological
approach (Barr & Dreeben, 1983; Willms, 1992) distinguishes several levels of the
educational process and assumes that processes at one level (e.g. student) affect
processes at another one (e.g. class). The economic approach is based on the production
function and distinguishes between inputs, processes and outputs (Hanushek, 1986).
Attempts at combining these two approaches into one framework have also been
made (Rumberger & Palardy, 2000; Scheerens, 1990). In fact, the distinction between
“sociological”and “economic” approaches is often unclear. For instance, one of the
most utilized frameworks in sociology is the CF developed by Ballantine (2001). It
distinguishes between input, educational organization, output and environment and
closely resembles frameworks developed by economists. Moreover, most CFs come
from research on school effectiveness rather than from sociology or economics.
Almost all the CFs found in the literature have focused entirely on the levels
of student, class and school and excluded the level of the educational system as a
whole. As a result, educational policy is considered an external factor that does not
have to be specified because such “inputs” appear constant and unchangeable to the
school (Hanushek, 1989). EP and other components of educational processes such as
educational effects and the context of education have also usually been excluded from
the frameworks. For example, Scheerens’s (1990) otherwise very useful framework2)
only includes inputs, processes, outputs and context. Given the focus upon measuring
school outputs (e.g. students’ skills, knowledge and attitudes), rather than the social
and economic consequences of those outputs (i.e. educational effects), this narrowing
appears justified. However, such effects (e.g. unemployment level) appear highly
relevant for comparing the success of educational policies. In the proposed framework
I thus build upon what has been published so far and like some other authors
(Rumberger & Palardy, 2000; Scheerens, 1990), I combine different approaches into
one. In addition, however, I specify the role of educational policy and add context
and educational effects into the framework. Thus while the fabric of the CF presented
here is formed by an economic approach (inputs, processes and outputs) it goes well
beyond narrow economic and economics-oriented approaches by including political
and contextual factors as well as the most important educational actors and their
interaction.
To sum up, the basic goal of the CF presented below is to delimit the basic
components of the educational process and core links among these components that
should be taken into account when trying to explain variation in educational outcomes.
Of particular interest here are educational policy instruments. The concrete models

326
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

and theories built upon this CF do not have to include all these parts. On the contrary,
it is assumed that different, and even conflicting, theories can be proposed and that
different theories can highlight (and ignore) the different aspects of the CF. The CF
should ensure that the reservoir of building blocks for theory formulation is complete.

Educational policies as what governments can do

Educational policy is a complicated, ambiguous term that is rarely defined with

precision. The discussions about what educational policy is are analogical to those
about the meaning of policy in general. The policy is often defined as the “course
of action or inaction chosen by public authorities to address a given problem or
interrelated set of problems” (Pal, 2006, p. 2), or as was famously stated by Dye (2008)
“public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (p. 1). However,
the notion of policy as an objective or a stable outcome has been challenged by many.
It has been argued that policy should be understood as an ongoing and interactional
process (Ball, 2008). Indeed in a certain sense, policy is simply a process; policies are
made and remade in many locations and they are constantly interpreted, resisted and
misunderstood. According to Ball, educational policy can be understood as “both text
and action, words and deeds, it is what is enacted as well as what is intended” (as cited
in Taylor, Rizvi, Lingard, & Henry, 1997, p. 25).
It is not the aim of the paper to review all the intricacies of the notion of policy.3)
However, for the purpose of the CF presented here, it is necessary to make two basic
clarifications. The first concerns the actors who design policies. If we call public policies
constructed within governments big-P policy (i.e. “formal” and usually legislated
policy), there are many little-p policies that are formed and enacted within localities
and institutions (Ball, 2008). For instance, in this sense, schools form their policies and
even teachers have their policies for given classrooms. The CF suggested here focuses
upon the big-P policy, that is the government policy in its broadest sense (including
government, public administration and parliament). The reason for this simplification
is that the basic aim of the CF is to compare and analyze educational policies at the
country level. This CF does assume the existence and importance of little-p policies
and the fact that they can actually bolster or hinder the big-P policies (sometimes even
to the point that the little-p policies are quite the opposite of the big-P policies). In a
similar vain, if we describe various types of EP instruments, it must be born in mind
that these usually work indirectly through everyday practices in the classrooms. The
situation is further complicated by the fact that in many countries educational policies
exist at two levels: the central or national level and the sub-national or regional or
district levels.
The second clarification is the distinction between (1) the process of educational
policy-making and (2) the outputs of this process (cf. Birkland, 2001, pp. 151-152; Kraft

327
Arnošt Veselý

& Furlong, 2007, p. 5). The process of educational policy-making goes on continuously
at different levels and in different arenas (e.g. government, public administration,
mass media, etc.).
A wide range of policy actors take part in the educational policy-making process.
They include elected politicians, educational administration, teachers and their
organizations, parents and their associations, students, churches, employers, and
education experts (Kalous, 2007).
Educational policy actors have a different level of resources from which they can
draw (finance and information), as well as a different scope of influence and power. In
general, it has been shown that institutional position turns to be the most important
determinant of participation and influence in the policy process (Thomas, 1975). In
most countries one of the most powerful actors represents teachers’ unions (Fowler,
2004). Very influential are often also interest groups that represent business, such as
trade associations, chambers of commerce or manufacturing associations. In many
countries religious-based or ideological interest groups are quite influential, too.
Generally speaking, the list of actors that strongly influence the policy-making process
is rising compared to several decades ago. The list of actors should include also mass
media, private school foundations, educational enterprises for profit, think tanks, etc.
While the process of policy-making is difficult to follow empirically, which makes
it difficult to compare between countries, every policy process has its outputs that
can be analyzed empirically with less difficulty. Outputs are the concrete intended
(planned) or realized actions by governments to influence educational processes
and educational outcomes. They include laws and regulations adopted, financial
resources allocated, strategic documents adopted, actors’ responsibilities defined, etc.
Depending on the purpose of the analysis, the outputs of policy-making can either be
limited to those that are officially adopted by some state authority (e.g., the legislature,
the government, ministries) or also include unofficial manifestations of a given policy.
The CF proposed here focuses upon the comparison of educational policy outputs.
This is not to deny the complexity and importance of the policy-making process itself.
Surely, policy outputs form only a part of the policy-making process. Nevertheless, it
is the most visible, accessible and thus comparable part. Moreover, the aim of the CF
is not to compare education policy-making processes among different countries (e.g.
how teachers are involved in the process of setting educational standards), but to help
to find out what actions (or inactions) of governments lead to particular educational
outcomes.
When we define educational policy as the intended or realized actions of
governments, we need a classification of these possible actions. In other words, we
need to know what governments (and their organizational units) can do to influence
educational process outcomes. In general, governments can do many things: regulate
behaviour, extract taxes, organize bureaucracies and allocate funds. The possibilities
of governments, however, differ among countries depending upon the political
system. For comparison purposes, it is necessary to be sure that none of the possible

328
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

government actions is missing.

There is also a question of whether governments can act directly or only indirectly.
For instance, in some countries it is possible to reduce or increase class size directly by
government command, while in other more autonomous systems, it can be influenced
only indirectly (mostly by the method of funding). Since decreasing or increasing the
level of autonomy is a possible government action in itself, it should be included in
the classification too. On the other hand, there are some variables, sometimes included
in empirical research on educational policies, that cannot be directly influenced by
governments. Among these are, for example, the school climate or instruction
methods used in schools. These are crucial factors for educational outcomes, which
are, nevertheless, beyond the direct reach of governments. No government can simply
command schools to improve the school climate. It may be a goal to achieve by other
policy means, but not an action of government itself.4)
In general, governments have three basic types of actions at their disposal:
(a) formulation of goals and problems, (b) policy instruments, and (c) institutional
setting. The first type pertains to the contents of educational policy (what is the aim of
a given policy and why). The second type is related to how (by what means) the given
goals are fulfilled. The third type refers to who fulfils them, where and under what
conditions. All three elements and parts thereof are summarized in Table 1. These
elements are described in more detail below, after the structure of the CF is outlined.

Table 1. Basic types of possible government actions

Basic type Subtypes Examples
Problems and Goal formulation Goal formulation in strategic documents
goals Problem formulation Problem formulation in strategic documents
Instruments Regulatory instruments Laws, regulations, decisions
Economic instruments Grants, taxes, vouchers
(see also Table 2)
Information instruments Campaigns, school rankings, training programs
Monitoring and evaluation Nation-wide tests
Curriculum Nation-wide standards, curriculum framework
Institutional Educational system structure System stratification, system standardisation
setting Educational system governance Centralization or decentralization, autonomy

Overview of the conceptual framework

The conceptual framework proposed in this article is depicted in Figure 1. Six areas
are distinguished within the framework: (1) educational policy-making, (2) educational
policy-making inputs (actions by government), (3) processes, (4) outcomes, (5) effects
and (6) context. The CF overview starts in the center of the conceptual framework

329
Arnošt Veselý

with a description of educational processes. By that I mean “what really goes on” at
schools in a given country’s educational system. An educational system is understood
as a system of schools, school facilities and supportive structures providing education.
Educational processes include teaching and learning as well as other processes at the
levels of student, class, and school, including the process of school management,
communication between students, parents, and teachers, etc. Educational processes
can be analyzed on several different levels. While the individual student is the subject
of education, education mostly takes place in the broader context of a social group,
typically a school class. Classes are, in turn, parts of schools or other educational
institutions.

Formulation of Teachers and

goals and principals
problems

Educational processes Outcomes Effects

Educational
policy- (Students3) (Students4)
Policy instruments School
making Class
process
Students2

Institutional
setting
Parents Students1

Interest Groups

Political, social, economic and cultural context

Figure 1. A conceptual framework for analyzing the effects of educational policies

Educational processes are affected by three types of factors5): (1) students,

(2) teachers, and principals and (3) three types of educational policy outputs. As
EP outputs have been defined above and are analyzed in more detail in a separate
discussion below, I will briefly describe the first two factors. The effect of students’
characteristics such as social background on educational processes is well studied.
One should also bear in mind that the student does not enter the educational process
as a tabula rasa, but carries experience and attitudes from the family and prior courses
of education. Therefore, I use number 1 to label the “input” student, 2 for the student at
the educational institution, 3 for the “output” student and 4 as far as educational effects
are concerned. Especially at the beginning of the educational career, the student’s
characteristics and skills are strongly determined by his/her family background,
which is captured by the label “parents” in the CF.

330
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

Teachers and principals represent another type of “inputs.” Empirical evidence

clearly demonstrates the fundamental effect of teachers on educational outcomes
(Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005). There is also evidence of a strong influence of
principals on school effectiveness and educational outcomes, even if the mechanism
of their influence continues to be the subject of extensive debate (Hallinger & Heck,
1996).6)
The educational processes taking place at school should not be confused with
the educational outputs “produced” by the educational system. These include
student knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, social networks, etc. that are observed
and measured immediately after leaving the school or after finishing some particular
transition point in school. In line with the multi-level model, educational outputs can
be observed at the level of student, class, school or the system as a whole. Educational
system outputs are always confronted with external social contexts. The result of the
interaction between educational outputs and context are educational effects (both
individual and societal). Effects are often measured by variables such as income or
employment of people with different educational achievement.
Though it is often ignored, educational processes are largely influenced by the
broader social, economic and cultural context.7) This includes for example the values
in a given society, the economic situation, demographic trends or technological
development. Until recently, these contextual factors have been highly neglected.
However, research on the “Finnish miracle” in PISA clearly showed that many
reasons for the country’s success stem from factors related to the cultural, societal, and
political features of Finland such as high levels of trust and shared values of justice
and equity (Simola, 2005).
The framework also suggests some basic links between the CF elements. While
the CF is not a causal model, the elements are primarily ordered from left to right
suggesting temporal successiveness of the different components. The process of
policy-making is placed on the far left, determining the educational policy outputs.
This, along with the characteristics of students, teachers, and parents, influences
educational processes. The output of educational processes lies primarily in students’
competences and skills. In turn, educational effects arise in interaction with the context
(especially the economic one). Information about educational processes, outputs, and
effects influences the process of educational policy-making via feedback (see the grey
dotted arrow).
It should be noted that reality is much more complex and full of other links,
including feedback paths. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind that a detailed
and empirically precise description of reality is not the basic goal of the conceptual
framework; the goal is to create a general map for more concrete and specific models
and theories.

331
Arnošt Veselý

Formulating goals and problems

The first way by which governments can influence educational processes is the
formulation of problems and goals, especially in various strategic policy documents,
reports, and public speeches. A problem can be understood as “an unacceptable gap
between normative ideals or aspiration levels and the present and future conditions”
(Hoppe, 2002, p. 308). Problems are social constructs. The same empirical data can be
the basis for formulation of quite different or even opposite policy problems. Often
there are several competing definitions of a problem (Veselý, 2007). The way the
problems are framed by a government has important implications for the proposed
and realized educational policies.
Goals can be defined as future states an organization or an individual strives
to attain (Goals, 2009). In general, countries do not differ much in the general
formulations of their educational goals. All of them somehow combine four basic
goals: quality, effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Nevertheless, emphasis on those
four goals varies greatly across states and changes significantly over time. Moreover,
states vary in the precision, breadth, consistency, and stability of the educational goals
that are formulated. One can expect that such characteristics are highly important for
educational processes because they provide orientation for the work of principals
and teachers. However, to the best of my knowledge, the effects of educational goal
formulation (e.g. their precision or consistency) upon educational outcomes at the
country level of educational policy have not been quantitatively verified to date.
Nevertheless, according to some authors, formulation of goals is one of the
factors that can explain some variance in educational outcomes. For example, Bishop
(2010) argues that while countries like The Netherlands or France rely on a single
(and practically only one) goal of secondary education to attain excellent academic
outcomes, schools in the US are expected to facilitate the development of self-esteem,
provide counselling services, supervise extracurricular activities and health services,
contribute to community development, etc. Such multi-functionality of US schools
requires “... additional staff and different kinds of staff. They may not be served
by hiring teachers with a strong background in calculus or chemistry, so resources
are diverted from paying the high salaries necessary to recruit excellent chemistry
teachers.” (Bishop, 2010, p. 9).

Educational policy instruments

Educational policy instruments8) can be defined as a “set of techniques by which

governmental authorities wield their power in attempting to ensure support and
effect or prevent social change” (Vedung, 1998, p. 21). Through these instruments,

332
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

the governmental institutions responsible for educational policy attempt to meet

defined goals and solve the formulated problems, usually by affecting the actions of
participating actors (i.e. students, teachers, principals or other actors taking part in
educational processes). In other words, instruments usually involve “making people
do things or stopping them from doing some other things” (Pal, 2006, p. 144).
There are many typologies of public policy instruments (see Hood 2007 for a
review). Each typology is based on a slightly different classification principle, which
makes their comparison difficult. Some typologies (Hood, 1983) are based on the
resources governments have at their disposal for fulfilling their goals such as the
authority to enforce regulations, financial resources, and information resources. Other
typologies (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003) are based on the level of state intervention, with
market instruments at one side of the continuum, and direct government regulation
or nationalization at the other side. Other authors build their typologies on “the
conditions under which these instruments are most likely to produce their intended
effects” (McDonnell & Elmore, 1987, p. 133). Many authors (Salamon & Elliot, 2002;
Pal, 2006) combine the above dimensions. The most frequent typology of instruments
used in educational policy is that of McDonnell and Elmore (1987). They distinguish
five basic types of instruments: mandate, inducement, capacity building, system
change, and hortatory policy or persuasion.
The classification proposed here follows the work of Vedung (1998). He
distinguished three basic types of instruments: regulations (“sticks”), economic means
(“carrots”), and information (“sermons”). These instruments are often combined,
and create “complex hybrids”(Hood, 2007, p. 129) that are difficult to decompose
into one of the three basis types. In educational policy, I will argue that there are
two main types of these complex instruments: curriculum and evaluation/monitoring
instruments. Though they are certainly a combination of financial, informational, and
regulatory instruments, they have historically evolved as more or less independent
types of instruments, and to classify them in one of the individual types would be
misleading for our thinking.

Regulations
Regulatory instruments are based on the key resource every functioning
state has: the legitimacy to formulate rules and norms, especially prohibitions and
authorizations, and to enforce compliance with them. This type differs from the other
types in that compliance can be enforced by the state authority. Non-compliance is
followed by some form of punishment: “Regulatory instruments are used to define
norms, acceptable behaviour, or to limit activities in a given society. The law, backed
up with the threat of sanction, represents the ‘stick’ used to prescribe or prevent certain
types of human behaviour” (Lemaire, 1998, p. 59).
The state has several types of regulatory instruments at its disposal. They include
(1) laws and other legal norms, (2) decisions, and (3) quasi-legislative rules (adapted

333
Arnošt Veselý

from Keyes, 1996; Pal, 2005). Laws, regulations, and other legal norms differ from
other instruments because of their level of generality (i.e., they affect large numbers of
people) and enforceability. Decisions represent the application and implementation of
laws, as opposed to the making of laws. Quasi-legislative rules, Ganz argues, represent
“a wide spectrum of rules whose only common factor is that they are not directly
enforceable through criminal or civil proceedings” (as cited in Pal, 2005, p. 155). They
include a divergent spectrum of documents: guidelines, codices of practice, circulars,
codices of ethics, etc. According to Baldwin, Quasi-legislative rules are mostly popular
because of their flexibility and low level of formality (as cited in Pal, 2005, p. 155). The
reason for including quasi-legislative rules among regulatory instruments lies in the
fact that the boundary between legislation and quasi-legislation is sometimes blurred.
For example, while ministerial guidelines do not represent generally applicable rules,
they are binding for staff falling under the department in question. At the same time,
they shape the so-called administrative practice—something an administrative body
cannot deviate from in individual cases because such a deviation would equal to
excessive use of discretion. As a result, some quasi-legislative rules actually have a
direct regulative effect.
Regulations are the base of most other instruments; they provide a binding
framework in which all educational actors operate (e.g. their possible options and
responsibilities) and many other instruments are backed up by legal regulations. In
fact, in some cases the distinction between regulatory and other instruments may be
blurred. For instance, while taxes or vouchers are usually understood as economic
instruments, without legal regulations and enforcement based upon these regulations,
they would be ineffective.
Compared to some other public policies such as environment or transportation,
regulatory instruments seem to be less useful as a mechanism for direct manipulation
of educational policy actors. This is primarily because education has a non-routine
and non-recurring nature (Rowan, Raudenbush, & Cheong, 1993). The most important
processes, such as teaching and learning, cannot be simply dictated by norms from
above. Consequently, politicians are increasingly looking for the potentials of other
instruments (Hannaway & Woodroffe, 2003).

Economic instruments
By economic instruments I mean the transfer of financial and material resources
between the state, on one hand, and educational institutions, students, and parents,
on the other hand9). As is clear from Table 2, economic instruments vary according to
the positive-negative dimension and the in cash versus in kind dichotomy. Following
Vedung (1998) and Pal (2005), positive and negative economic instruments in cash
are distinguished. Positive instruments (also called incentives) involve handing
out material resources from the government to schools and students/parents (e.g.
grants, contributions and loans from the state to educational institutions, parents

334
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

and students). Negative instruments (also called disincentives) refer to taking away
material resources from schools and students/parents such as taxes, charges and
penalties. In addition, there are economic instruments in kind, such as the direct
provision of goods and services (e.g. textbooks, computers, teaching aids, etc.).
Transfers from the state to schools, parents, and students can be divided into two
subtypes: inducement and capacity building (McDonnel & Elmore, 1987). While the
inducement instruments are short-term transfers of money in return for the production
of services, the capacity building tools are transfers of money “for the purpose of
investment in material, intellectual, or human services” (McDonnel & Elmore, 1987, p.
134). Examples of inducement are payroll costs of teachers and other educational staff,
expenses for prescribed educational aids, rent, heating, electricity, etc. In contrast,
the goal of capacity building instruments is to support positive long-term change in
the functioning of specific educational institutions. Examples of such instruments
include development programs for further professional training of teachers, or the
introduction and testing of new teaching methods.

Table 2. Typology of financial and material instruments in educational policy

In Positive From state to schools Inducement
cash instruments Capacity building
From state to students and families Individual stipends and grants
Student loans
Service vouchers
Negative From schools to state Taxes
instruments Insurance contributions
Charges
From students and families to state or Tuition
provider (educational institution) Tuition cost sharing
Penalties
In Positive From state to schools Equipment, computers, teaching aids
kind instruments
From state to students and families Textbooks

The state can also allocate financial and material resources directly to students/
families. Many countries have elaborate systems of student aid, which include in
particular (1) nonreturnable financial and material support, (2) student loans, and (3)
service vouchers. The first category encompasses, inter alia, stipends, grants, awards,
travel grants or student status-related social welfare. Student loans are another
possibility that aims at increasing access to education for students in difficult social
situations (see Baum, McPherson, & Steele, 2008 for a review). Finally, vouchers for
educational services are another option. They are in fact certificates of certain monetary
value that can be used to pay for educational services. Such vouchers cover a part of
or the entire tuition and can be used at a school of one’s own choice (see Witte, 2009
for a review).
The state shapes educational processes by applying negative financial instruments

335
Arnošt Veselý

as well. For example, teachers’ salaries are subject to income taxes, educational
institutions must, as a rule, pay income taxes from any profits and sometimes also
charges for government certification and authorization of their programs. Cost
sharing—where students co-pay for their studies—is a hot topic today, especially at
the tertiary level. Many countries have also introduced some form of tuition or study
charges as well as raised charges for additional services such as accommodation and
dining. Specific ways of cost sharing may vary substantially (Johnstone, 2004), just like
the forms and consequences of tuition (Barr, 2004).
Last but not least, governments can also provide economic incentives directly
in-kind. This can include providing schools with physical facilities (free housing),
equipment for vocational preparation, teaching aids or computers. It can also provide
support for families such as free textbooks or free meals.

Information instruments
Information instruments is a short label for tools based upon transfer of
knowledge or information, communication of reasoned arguments, persuasion, moral
appeals, and so on (Vedung, 1998). The main assumption of these instruments is that
the actions of actors (i.e., teachers, principals, students, parents, etc.) are based on
their knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and values, and that if we manage to change those
characteristics, we will also change the actors’ actions. This type of instrument exerts
the least amount of pressure. Instead of applying sanctions or external motivation such
as financial rewards to make actors pursue some kind of action, we want them to act
differently as a result of reassessing their actions. We strive to influence actors through
ideas, information, and learning (i.e. “the provision of information, the persuasiveness
of argument, the heightening of attention, the arousal of emotion and values attached
to policy, the framing of issues and solutions”) (Weiss & Tschirhart, 1994, p. 83).
A relatively diverse set of instruments might fall within this category. While
awareness raising campaigns are a classic example, they are used less frequently
in education compared to other public policy domains such as health promotion or
environment protection. The basic characteristic of awareness raising campaigns is
that they target a large number of people through the mass media. Campaigns may
differ in their urgency. On one side of the continuum, there are campaigns providing
basic information (e.g. on the possibilities of education stipends), while value-based
and emotionally loaded campaigns trying to persuade are on the other end.
School rankings are a specific subtype of information instruments. While used
primarily in tertiary education, they are used more and more at lower education levels
as well. Like all instruments, school rankings have their potential benefits and risks
(Salmi & Saroyan, 2007). Last but not least, another subtype of information instrument
is education and training of the key actors, particularly teachers and principals. This
can take different forms, including seminars, workshops and trainings, or coaching
(OECD, 2009).

336
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

Evaluation and monitoring

The fourth type of instruments is the system of evaluation and monitoring.
Evaluation is a multidimensional term and includes many different activities and
operations that cannot be analyzed in detail here. The different systems of evaluation
in individual countries and the comparison thereof are quite complicated as well (see
Eurydice, 2004, 2009). For the purposes of the CF presented, the basic dimensions
for distinguishing the different evaluation systems’ elements should be mentioned.
The three basic dimensions that in combination create useful classifications are as
follows: the evaluation subject (what is evaluated), the evaluation goal/purpose, and
the evaluation method (Scheerens, Glas, & Thomas, 2003).
The first dimension is the level at which evaluation takes place (individual
student, class, school or system as a whole). Closely related is the question of the
evaluation object (Nevo, 2006). Students, teachers, curriculum and teaching materials,
education programs, schools or the education system as a whole can become the
objects of evaluation10). The second dimension concerns the purpose of evaluation.
Evaluation can have five basic functions (adapted from Nevo, 2006). First, it can aim at
further improvement of the individual, the school or the system as a whole (formative
function). It is part of this goal to motivate individuals (e.g., schools or teachers) to try
and improve their activity based on the lessons learned. The second general function
lies in decision making at all possible levels. The primary goal here is to provide
information to those making decisions: students and parents choosing schools,
politicians and officials assessing the success of particular measures, etc. The third
function lies in accountability (i.e. examining education institutions’ responsibility
towards the demands of founders, sponsors, school boards, parents and other
stakeholders). Traditionally, the fourth function of evaluation consists of certification,
especially at the levels of student and teacher, and accreditation at the levels of
school or program. Both certification and accreditation are based on guaranteeing
a minimum level of quality in the performance of a given activity. Finally, teacher
professionalization represents the last goal of evaluation mentioned by Nevo (2006).
While schools primarily serve students, they are also places where teachers spend
most of their working time, and teachers have their professional needs as well.
The third dimension of evaluation lies in the evaluation method. There is a
traditional distinction between internal and external evaluation. While external
evaluation is carried out by someone who is not an employee or a part of the
organization evaluated, internal evaluation is done or participated in by those
affected by it. Data collection methods are closely related to this dimension. In
principle, three types of data are useful for evaluation (Scheerens, Glas, & Thomas,
2003): (1) administrative data and descriptive statistics at the level of the system as
a whole; (2) student examination and test results whether for the purpose of student
assessment and certification or for the purpose of monitoring the system’s outcomes;
and (3) data from expert evaluations and systematic research (inspection reports,

337
Arnošt Veselý

audit reports, etc.).

When the dimensions outlined above are connected, dozens of combinations are
possible. This reflects the variety of evaluation/monitoring systems different countries
have developed. In empirical research, however, often just two types of models are
distinguished: low-stakes, which are usually school controlled, and high-stakes, which
are usually externally controlled. As for the empirical investigation of the effects
of different evaluation systems, the effect of curriculum-based external exit exam
systems on student achievement has been analyzed most frequently (Bishop, 2000).
The data suggests that in general students from countries with medium- and high-
stakes exit exam systems outperform students from other countries at a comparable
level of economic development. However, the positive effect of high-stakes exit exam
systems is conditioned by other factors such as a clear definition of educational goals
and standards. “... if the educational goals and standards of the school system are not
clearly specified, regular standardized testing can backfire and lead to weaker student
performance” (Fuchs & Wößmann, 2007, p. 452).

Curriculum
Governments can also influence educational processes by curriculum that is an
official, mandatory statement of what is to be taught to students. The curriculum is
expressed in different ways, such as subject matter knowledge, educational standards,
what students know and should be able to do or teaching guidelines. Curricular
documents include teaching plans, guidelines, textbooks, didactical texts for students,
etc. In many countries a two or three-level participative model of curriculum policy
is often applied. At the central level, the national curriculum is adopted through
consensus and in some countries legislated by the parliament. The national curriculum
is a strategic document and defines the general goals of education, the basic parts
of educational content, and the guidelines for their implementation. It prescribes the
educational content, educational standards, and the establishment and functioning
of the institutions and instruments for implementing the educational content. At
the school level, each institution elaborates its own school curriculum based on the
national curriculum and the educational program. The school curriculum is adapted
to local conditions and the institution’s individual strategy.
During the last two decades there has been an evident trend in most countries to
develop explicit educational standards. This term refers to official, written guidelines
that define what a country expects its state school students to know and be able to do
as a result of their schooling (Crighton, 2003, p. 2533). Although these standards have
often been tacitly aligned with international expectations, they vary substantially across
countries. Again, to the best of my knowledge there is no research that comparatively
analyzes the effects of different models on educational processes and outcomes.

338
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

Institutional setting

Educational policies strongly differ in the institutional settings they create or

promote. By this I mean two basic things: (1) structure of an educational system and
(2) education system governance.

Structure of educational systems

The comparison of educational systems is a traditional research endeavour. The
primary questions are what types of educational institutions are acknowledged by the
state as legitimate parts of the educational system (and what proportion between the
different types is preferred), what is expected of a given type of institution, and how
the different types of schools relate to one another. Following Allmendinger (1989)
and Kerckhoff (2000, 2001) we can distinguish three main dimensions for classifying
educational systems11): stratification, vocational specificity, and standardization.
Stratification refers to “the degree to which systems have clearly differentiated
kinds of schools whose curricula are defined as ‘higher’ and ‘lower’” (Kerckhoff, 2001,
p. 4). Education system stratification is thus related to selectivity – when students are
grouped into different streams and what consequences such grouping has for their
educational careers. The consequences of ability grouping for educational attainment
are the subject of extensive research. While most analyses focus on the levels of
class and school, recently there have been attempts to determine the effects of early
selection at the level of educational systems as a whole,(i.e. by comparing different
educational systems) (Hanushek & Wößmann, 2006). While the effect of early external
differentiation on the overall level of educational attainment is ambivalent depending
on the methodology applied and data analyzed, there is a consensus among studies
on the fact that a high level of stratification increases differences between students.
The level of vocational specificity refers to the proportion between general and
vocational education. In most educational systems, a distinction between “general”
and “vocational or technical” education exists at the higher secondary level and up.
The types and specifics of such schools differ from country to country, yet there is one
common feature-- while general study programs prepare students for further study,
vocational education primarily prepares them for entering the job market (Shavit &
Müller, 2000). Countries differ substantially in the proportion between general and
vocational education. English-speaking countries (US, Canada, Great Britain and
Ireland) traditionally prefer general education, while Central European countries
prefer vocational education. In most countries, general secondary education continues
to be considered as more prestigious and providing better perspectives for further
education and future success in the job market (Kerckhoff, 2000). Empirical evidence
shows that as a rule, vocational education does lower the odds of proceeding to
tertiary-level education but, at the same time, it decreases the risk of unemployment
and increases the chances of obtaining a qualified manual job (Arum & Shavit, 1995).

339
Arnošt Veselý

By standardization Allmendinger (1989) understood the level of uniformity

of education in a given education system (i.e. the extent to which it is regulated by
centrally defined standards and expectations). She primarily meant geographic
standardization (i.e. to what extent aspects like teacher education, curriculum, school-
leaving certificates or financing differ between and within the regions in a given
country, and to what extent they are determined by individual schools).

Education system governance

Educational system governance refers to the division of competences and
responsibilities among the different actors. This primarily concerns the level of
centralization/decentralization and the level of school, principal and teacher autonomy
in areas like funding, curriculum, teaching methods and examinations. Countries
differ widely in the level of centralization. For example, the French Ministry of
Education is responsible for teacher education, student assessment, teacher appraisal
and the details of the national curriculum (Kerckhoff, 2001). In contrast, the different
administrative districts in Great Britain possess important powers and autonomy,
while financing and certification are rather standardized across the country.
Decentralization has been one of the main features of transformation in education
system governance over the past decades (Daun, 2007; McGinn & Welsh, 1999). The
main argument for decentralization is based on the idea that decision making that is
closer to people has lower transaction costs and is more effective. On the other hand,
centralization along with some level of standardization helps ensure at least a basic
level of quality for all. Galiani, Gertler and Schargrodsky (2008) found that while
decentralization has positive effects on overall (average) educational attainment, it
affects poorly-equipped schools in poor areas negatively.
The effects of different forms of governance can be difficult to prove empirically.
This is, among other things, because governance is not only determined by formal
competences as prescribed by legal norms, but also by the real power and authority of
the actors involved in the system. For example, a very important role in the system of
governance can be played by different organizations that are managed directly by the
state (e.g. various information-gathering and advisory institutions). While the legal
system may prescribe no decision making competencies for such organizations, they
may in fact exert substantial influence on schools’ actions by asserting their informal
authority upon schools.
In sum, the structure of rules and norms, which determines who may participate
in policy-making processes, who is granted formal authority to choose among
proposals, who holds authority over resource allocation, the rules by which those
resources are allocated, etc. can have a strong, although indirect effect on student
learning (McDonell, 2009). However, empirical comparative research on how various
institutional arrangements influence educational outcomes is quite limited with a few
exceptions (OECD, 2010).

340
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

Conclusions: Uses and limitations of the framework

Recently we have witnessed heightening discussion on how to design educational

policies more effectively. This analysis has often been based upon comparing
“successful” and “unsuccessful” systems with the aim of uncovering particular factors
that correlate with the success. However, these factors usually have been considered
in isolation without discussing how they interact and condition one another. In other
words, empirical research has been lacking complex conceptual foundations. As a
result, “guaranteed” educational policies have often been proposed without providing
convincing explanations of why and how the mechanisms should work.
As is clear from the suggested CF, educational outcomes are determined by
the interaction of many factors. Without a complex CF, both empirical analysis
and theory-building can be misleading and possible spurious correlation cannot be
eliminated. For instance, regarding the evidence of higher educational performance in
countries with high-stakes evaluation systems, it can be argued that high performance
is affected more by long-term consistency and clearness of educational goals that
provide guidance for teachers and students than by the existence of high-stakes exit
exams themselves.
For effective educational policy, it is important that goals, objectives, instruments,
and their implementation work like a well-tuned machine and with respect to context.
One affects the other. For example, precise formulation of standards and its high-stakes
evaluation probably will not lead to successful educational policy if implemented in
isolation. As the case of Finland demonstrates, it is the intersection and integration of
contextual and learning-based aspects within a unitary whole that define and explain
the nation’s success (Hargreaves, Halász, & Beatriz, 2008).
This CF may serve as a heuristic in searching for the complicated mechanisms
behind the impact of educational policies upon educational outcomes. It may also
serve as a “terrain map” and show which topics and links have been omitted. It can
also provide a basis for identifying new research topics and “blank spots” in empirical
research and is a necessary tool for theory development. For instance, it reveals a
lack of knowledge about the ways educational policy goals and priorities should be
formulated and about the effects of goal formulation on educational outcomes. The
CF may also play a role in the classification of educational indicators that are often
presented selectively without clear justification for their selection.
Although the presented framework is the result of long-standing work, it clearly
has its limits12). First, it includes the most substantial elements only. Many elements
are not mentioned explicitly, and in particular, the links between the elements are
much more complex in reality. Second, the CF simplifies the process of educational
policy-making and the nature of governance. It ignores different forms of governance
and management in many countries where educational policy-making takes place at
several levels (national and regional). Also, for the sake of parsimony, some important

341
Arnošt Veselý

actors and stakeholders such as employers, interest groups, etc. are missing from
the CF. It also does not depict the institutional connections and links between the
individual actors. Contextual factors have only been suggested and will need to be
elaborated in more detail in the future. Last but least, I am quite aware that the review
of the components is inevitably often too general and should be specified.
One simply should not expect too much from any CF. It is just the beginning of
long-term and arduous work. Yet, it is, in my opinion, a necessary first step if we are
to create a solid base for comparative research on the factors influencing educational
outcomes. The main purpose of this CF is to stimulate and structure thinking. It must
be repeated that CFs lay a foundation for building specific theories and models and
do not aim to provide causal explanations of social phenomena. Instead they aim to
structure thinking so that such an explanation becomes possible. However, it is just a
starting point. For empirical research, the respective CF components will have to be
operationalized. For instance, nowadays most of the instruments mentioned in the CF
are used by almost all countries. The outcome differences thus cannot be explained
by the presence or absence of the given instrument but by its particular setting
and its link to other components of the CF. Such specification will not be an easy
task (e.g. operationalization of different types of financing or evaluation systems).
During empirical analysis, it could also be revealed that the list of factors influencing
educational outcomes must be extended.
I do not mean to suggest that everything is and can be operationalized and tested
in statistical models. Clearly, this is not the case. Many of the factors described in the
CF are of a qualitative nature (e.g. coherence of goals). Nevertheless, even qualitative
inquiry should be systematic and anchored in explicit statements of assumptions.
Without this, our understanding of why some educational policies fail or succeed will
be haphazard, ungrounded, and unacceptably simplified.

1) See for example Shorrocks-Taylor & Jenkins (2000), Döbert & Sroka (2004), OECD (2004, 2010a, 2010b), Fuchs
&Wößmann (2007), Barber & Mourshed (2007), Rindermann and Ceci (2009), Whelan (2009), and Bishop (2010).
2) For the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that Scheerens refers to his approach as a “model”.
3) See, for instance, Hill (2005) and Hogwood and Gunn (1984) for a discussion of how to define the term policy.
4) I acknowledge that the boundaries between possible and impossible direct government actions are blurred. There
are some theoretically possible actions of government, that are, however, clearly impossible in practice. For example,
theoretically speaking, government could command teachers to teach in a specific way, for instance, to ask students
in all public schools to do homework every day. Nevertheless, it would clearly be very inefficient, let alone impossible
to monitor all teachers to ensure that they fulfill this requirement.
5) These factors are called “inputs” in other frameworks (cf. Scheerens, 1990).
6) Principals perhaps deserve an independent category in the conceptual framework. I have not given them one for a
purely pragmatic reason – in order to make the CF clearer.
7) The context itself might be divided into several levels at which an individual or a school exists: (1) immediate
geographical context, (2) town, community or region, (3) country, or (4) supranational context. For clarity, I have
subsumed all those levels under one element of the conceptual framework.
8) The term “instruments” is used synonymously with the term “tools” here.

342
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

9) In spite of extensive research of the scholarly literature, I was unable to find a sufficiently complex and at the same
time comprehensible and detailed classification of financial instruments in the field of education. For example,
McDonnell and Elmore’s (1987) typology is highly abstract. Clearly, even the typology proposed here shows some
degree of simplification. In practice, educational system funding is highly decentralized and resources are allocated
to schools through other institutions of regional governments. Here a funding mechanism (transfer of resources from a
central government institution) should be distinguished from a provider payment (transfer of resources from regional
government institutions to educational institutions) (Smith, 2007, pp. 2-3).
Student evaluation is often referred to as assessment, teacher evaluation as appraisal and educational system
10) 
evaluation as monitoring. Therefore, the term evaluation is sometimes used explicitly for educational programs and
schools only (Scheerens et al., 2003).
11) In his latest article on the topic, Kerckhoff (2001) added a fourth dimension of “student choice.” He defined it as the
level of decision flexibility the educational system allows. However, this aspect is strongly associated with system
stratification, and therefore, I do not find any special reason for treating it separately.
12) I have been using – in research, policy analysis and teaching – this framework for about ten years, and have
“experimented” with different versions of it.

Address for correspondence

Arnošt Veselý
Associate Professor
Center for Social and Economic Strategies
Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University
Smetanovo nábřeží 6, 110 00, Prague 1
The Czech Republic
Tel: 420 224 491 496
E-mail: veselya@[Link]

References

Allmendinger, J. (1989). Educational systems and labor market outcomes. European

Sociological Review, 5(3), 231-250.
Arum, R., & Shavit, Y. (1995). Secondary vocational education and the transition from
school to work. Sociology of Education, 68(3), 187-204.
Baldwin, R. (1995). Rules and government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate: Policy and politics in the twenty-first century. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Ballantine, J. H. (2001). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world‘s best-performing school systems come
out on top. London: McKinsey & Company.

343
Arnošt Veselý

Barr, N. (2004). Higher education runding. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 20(2), 264-
283.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Baum, S., McPherson, M., & Steele, P. (2008). The effectiveness of student aid policies: What
the research tells us. New York: The College Board.
Birkland, T., A. (2001). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models
of public policy-making. Armonk , NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Bishop, J. H. (2000). Curriculum-based external exit exam systems: Do students learn
more? How? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(1), 199-215.
Bishop, J. H. (2010). Which secondary education systems work best? The United States or
Northern Europe. Retrieved November 17, 2012, from [Link]
[Link]/workingpapers/105
Botha, E. M. (1989). Theory development in perspective: The role of conceptual
frameworks and models in theory development. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
14(1), 49-55.
Cheng, Y. C., & Cheung, W. M. (1995). A framework for the analysis of educational
policies. The International Journal of Educational Management, 9(6), 10.
Cheng, Y. C., Ng, K. H., & Mok, M. M. C. (2002). Economic considerations in education
policy-making: A simplified framework. The International Journal of Educational
Management, 16(1), 18.
Crighton, J. V. (2003). Testing. In J. W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (pp.
2530-2533). New York: Macmillan.
Daun, H. (2007). School decentralization in the context of globalizing governance: International
comparison of grassroots responses. Dordrecht: Springer.
Döbert, Hans, & Sroka, W. (Eds.). (2004). Features of successful school systems: A
comparison of schooling in six countries. Munster: Waxmann.
Eurydice. (2004). Evaluation of schools providing compulsory education in Europe. Brussels:
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Eurydice. (2007). School autonomy in Europe policies and measures. Brussels: Education,
Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Eurydice. (2009). National testing of pupils in Europe: Objectives, organisation and use of
results. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Fowler, F. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Fuchs, T., & Wößmann, L. (2007). What accounts for international differences in
student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. Empirical Economics,
32(2), 433-464.
Galiani, S., Gertler, P., & Schargrodsky, E. (2008). School decentralization: Helping the
good get better, but leaving the poor behind. Journal of Public Economics, 92(10-
11), 2106-2120.
Ganz, G. (1987). Quasi-legislation: Recent developments in secondary legislation. London:
Sweet & Maxwell.

344
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal‘s role in school
effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
Hannaway, J., & Woodroffe, N. (2003). Policy instruments in education. Review of
Research in Education, 27(1), 1-24.
Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in
public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141-1177.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student
performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141-164.
Hanushek, E. A., & W ößmann, L. (2006). Does educational tracking affect performance
and inequality? Differences-in-differences evidence across countries. The Economic
Journal, 116(510), C63-C76.
Hargreaves, A., Halász, G., & Beatriz, P. (2008). The Finnish approach to system
leadership. In B. Pont, D. Nusche, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Improving school leadership,
volume 2: Case studies on system leadership (pp. 69-109). Paris: OECD.
Hill, M. (2005). The public policy process. Harlow: Pearson.
Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. London: Oxford
University Press.
Hood, C. (1983). The tools of government. London: Macmillan.
Hood, C. (2007). Intellectual obsolescence and intellectual makeovers: Reflections on
the tools of government after two decades. Governance, 20(1), 127-144.
Hoppe, R. (2002). Cultures of public policy problems. Journal of Comparative Policy
Analysis, 4(3), 305-326.
Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy
subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Hutmacher, W., Cochrane, D., & Bottani, N. (Eds.). (2001). In pursuit of equity in education:
Using international indicators to compare equity policies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education:
Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403-410.
Kalous, J. (2007). Actors of educational policy. In J. Kalous, J. Štoček, & A. Veselý
(Eds.), Educational policy as scientific discipline (pp. 41-54). Plzeň, Czech Republic:
Aleš Čeněk.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (2000). Transition from school to work in comparative perspective. In
M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 453-474). New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (2001). Education and social stratification processes in comparative
perspective. Sociology of Education, 74(Extra Issue), 3-18.
Keyes, J. M. (1996). Power tools: The form and function of legal instruments for
government action. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice, 10, 133-
174.
Lemaire, D. (1998). The stick: Regulation as a tool of government. In M. L. Bemelmans-
Vide, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments

345
Arnošt Veselý

and their evaluation (pp. 59-76). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
McDonnell, L. M., & Elmore, R. F. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy
instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
McDonell, L. M. (2009). A political science perspective on education policy analysis.
In G. Sykes, D. N. Plank, & B. L. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook of education policy
research (pp. 57-70). New York: Routledge.
McGinn, N. F., & Welsh, T. (1999). Decentralization of education: Why, when, what and
how? Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school
systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey & Company.
Nevo, D. (2006). Evaluation in education. In I. F. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp. 442-458). London: SAGE.
OECD. (2004). What makes school systems perform. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from
TALIS. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What makes a school successful. Paris: Author.
OECD. (2010). Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA
for the United States. Paris: Author.
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Pal, L. A. (2006). Beyond policy analysis: Public issue management in turbulent times (3rd
ed.). Toronto: Thomson Nelson.
Rindermann, H., & Ceci, S. J. (2009). Educational policy and country outcomes in
international cognitive competence studies. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
4(6), 551-568.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S. W., & Cheong, Y. F. (1993). Teaching as a non-routine task:
Implications for the organizational design of schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 29(4), 479-500.
Rumberger, R. W., & Palardy, G. J. (2004). Multilevel models for school effectiveness
research. In D. Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook on quantitative methodology for the social
sciences (pp. 235-258). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Salamon, L. M. (Ed.). (2002). The tools of government: A guide to the new governance.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2007). League Tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses.
Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 31-68.
Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M.
Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally.
Shavit, Y., & Müller, W. (2000). Vocational secondary education, tracking, and social
stratification. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp.

346
 A conceptual framework for comparison of educational policies

437-452). New York: Kluwer Academic.

Shields, P. M. (1998). Pragmatism as a philosophy of science: A tool for public
administration. Research in Public Administration, 4, 195-225.
Shorrocks-Taylor, D., & Jenkins, E. W. (Eds.). (2000). Learning from others. International
comparison in education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process
indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An
International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 1(1), 61-80.
Scheerens, J., Glas, C., & Thomas, S. (2003). Educational evaluation, assessment, and
monitoring: A systemic approach. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Simola, H. (2005). The Finnish miracle of PISA: Historical and sociological remarks on
teaching and teacher education. Comparative Education, 41(4), 455-470.
Taylor, S., Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Henry, M. (1997). Educational policy and the politics of
change. London: Routledge.
Thomas, N. C. (1975). Education in national politics. New York: David McKay.
Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M. L. Bemelmans-
Vide, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments
and their evaluation (pp. 21-58). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Veselý, A. (2007). Problem delimitation in public policy analysis. Central European
Journal of Public Policy, 1(1), 80-100.
Weiss, J. A., & Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public information campaigns as policy
instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(1), 82-119.
Whelan, F. (2009). Lessons learned: How good policies produce better schools. London:
Fenton Whelan.
Willms, D. J. (1992). Monitoring school performance: A guide for educators. Washington,
DC: Falmer.
Witte, J. F. (2009). Vouchers. In G. Sykes, D. N. Plank, & B. L. Schneider (Eds.), Handbook
of education policy research (pp. 491-501). New York: Routledge.

347