Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
11 SES 01 A: Quality of Education Systems: School Inspection Models
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper Why School Inspection? A Cross-National Case Study on Institutional Logics in Education Oversight University of Bergen, Norway Presenting Author:Research on institutional logics in the field of education oversight is modest. This study offers an exploration of the usefulness of “institutional logics” by looking more closely at a selection of cases. Exploring this usefulness is particularly relevant because of ongoing changes in European collaboration regarding education oversight through, for example, big initiatives like the OECD but also smaller ones like the international network for education inspectorates, SICI (see, for example, Grek et al, 2013). Education oversight is no longer “just” a national affair but requires a nuanced way of thinking which both enables cross-national comparison while also doing justice to specific historical and cultural circumstances. This study aims to contribute to developing this way of thinking by describing and discussing the combination of institutional logics in different education oversight systems in Europe. To achieve interesting variation, systems were picked from distinct political-administrative traditions: the Nordic (Norway), Continental-European (the Netherlands), and Anglo-Saxon tradition (England). Institutional logic research is a well-established field. Already in 1991, Friedland & Alford emphasized how useful the concept of institutional logics can be to address contradictory practices and procedures in institutions. Since then, scholars have embarked on theoretical reflections on how the concept can be best understood (see, for example, Meyer et al, 2021; Ocasio et al, 2017; Scott, 2014). Many studies aim to refine the concept by taking a closer look at core convictions and beliefs in policy development, which can concern, for example, leadership decisions in specific organizations but also government decisions for a particular policy field (see, for example, Michel et al, 2021; Pache & Santos, 2013; Greenwood et al, 2011). Some studies explicitly discuss institutional logics in the context of oversight systems, which are the government policies that are designed for evaluating practices (see, for example, Maroy & Pons, 2019; Hall & Sivesind, 2015; Lodge & Wegrich, 2011). In this latter strand of literature, institutional logics concern core regulatory beliefs about what oversight is for and what drives regulatee practice. However, the concept has been scarcely used in gaining a better understanding of intrinsic tensions in systems for school inspection. Some studies use phrases like “inspection models” or “governance styles” to articulate distinctions between systems; however, these studies most often have an instrumental approach to education oversight, and, for example, direct attention to the potential effectiveness of a particular model or style (see, for example, Ehren et al, 2017; Ehren, 2016). The research question for this study is three-fold: Which combinations of institutional logics are reflected in the formal arrangements for school inspection in Norway, the Netherlands, and England; what might explain the main differences and similarities; and how might the logic constellations lead to tensions in policy implementation? This question directs the gaze towards core convictions of oversight of education and their potential origins, while also looking into possible tensions resulting from particular combinations of logics. By doing so, this study moves beyond school inspection as a tool for evaluation with straightforward technical or idealistic aims and instead addresses underlying beliefs and convictions which may or may not be reconciled in how inspection is formally designed. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used To answer the research question, a cross-national comparison is being done. The selected cases are education oversight systems in Norway, the Netherlands, and England. These systems consist of all the formal policies and laws for school inspection. All three countries have a long history with school inspection, while their systems have undergone changes as a result of New Public Management-inspired reforms of education policies in the last decades. At the same time, the countries are seen as representatives of different political-administrative traditions (Painter & Guy Peters, 2010). These cases have a shared European context but different backgrounds, and can thereby possibly contribute to interesting variation. For the comparison, a thematic analysis of formal documents is being done. The documents consist of inspection frameworks, education laws, and core policy reports. Similar types of documents were selected as much as possible. However, because of cultural and legal differences it was at times necessary to include additional documents to acquire all relevant information. A particular challenge in this study is the operationalization of the core concept. To be able to recognize reflections of institutional logics in the documents, a categorization is being made abductively (that is, in interaction with both the literature and the data). A general distinction is used between logics following an instrumental approach and logics that follow a cultural/value-driven approach. Part of the first category are, for example, the bureaucratic or state (classic Weberian) logic, and a pure market logics (including variants, like self-regulation and network regulation), while the second category, for example, includes a democratic logic, professional logic, and pedagogical logic. The coding scheme is still under development and will be further refined throughout the coding process. The data analysis is expected to be finished in June 2026. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The study aims to clarify whether it is possible to expose intrinsic tensions in formal arrangements for school inspection with the help of the concept of institutional logics. In addition, the study aims to contribute to a better historical understanding of origins of the individual systems by contrasting the cases with each other. References Ehren, M.C.M. (2016), Emerging models of school inspections. Shifting roles and responsibilities. Ehren, M.C.M. (ed.) (2016), Methods and modalities of effective school inspections. New York: Springer. Ehren, M.C.M., Janssens, F.J.G., Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., & Shevlin, P. (2017), Evaluation and decentralized governance: Examples of inspections in polycentric education systems. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 365-383. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E.R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011), Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Managements Annals, 5(1), 317-371. Grek, S., Lawn, M., Ozga, J., & Segerholm, C. (2013), Governing by inspection? European inspectorates and the creation of a European education policy space. Comparative Education, 49(4), 486-502. Hall, J.B., & Sivesind, K. (2015), State school inspection policy in Norway and Sweden (2002-2012): a reconfiguration of governing modes? Journal of Education Policy, 30(3), 429-458. Lodge, M., & Wegrich, K. (2011), Governance as contested logics of control: Europeanized meat inspection regimes in Denmark and Germany. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(1), 90-105. Maroy, C., & Pons, X. (2019), Accountability policies in education. A comparative and multilevel analysis in France and Quebec. Cham: Springer. Meyer, R.E., Jancsary, D., & Höller, M.A. (2021), Zones of meaning, Leitideen, institutional logics – and practices: A phenomenological institutional perspective n shared meaning structures. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 70, 161-186. Michel, C.L., Meza, O.D., & Cejudo, G.M. (2022), Interacting institutional logics in policy implementation. Governance, 35, 403-420. Ocasio, W., Thornton, P.H., & Lounsbury, M. (2017), Advances to the institutional logics perspective. In: Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B., & Meyer, R.E. (eds.) (2017), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. London: Sage Publications. Pache, A.C., & Santos, F. (2013), Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. The Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972-1001. Painter, M., & Guy Peters, B. (eds.) (2010), Tradition and public administration. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Scott, W.R. (2014), Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities. London: Sage Publications. 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper School Self-Evaluation Purposes in Türkiye and Ireland: A Comparative Analysis of Administrators’ Views Through MacBeath’s Frameworks 1: Gaziantep University, Turkey (Türkiye); 2: Dublin City University, Ireland Presenting Author:Interest in school self-evaluation (SSE) within the last few decades, where schools evaluate themselves to enhance quality, has increased significantly (Vanhoof & Van Petegem, 2012). However, the purposes of evaluation often overlap, and ambiguity remains regarding their primary focus in different national contexts (Ottesen & Stephens, 2018). To address this ambiguity, the theoretical framework of this study is grounded in MacBeath’s (2005) three fundamental logics: improvement, economics, and accountability. According to this framework, the improvement logic focuses on future planning and performance enhancement; the accountability logic obliges schools to answer to stakeholders; and the economic logic views SSE as a cost-effective form of quality assurance. This research focuses specifically on the "purpose" dimension of SSE by comparing two distinct national contexts. It examines Türkiye, a country still adapting to the SSE process with initiatives like ADES (Ankara School Self Evaluation System), and Ireland, which has mandated SSE since 2012 and developed a comprehensive, evidence-based approach (Irish Department of Education and Skills, 2016). The primary objective is to provide a comparative analysis of which of MacBeath’s three logic approaches—improvement, economics, or accountability—is prioritized by school administrators in both countries. To achieve this, the study investigates the following research questions: - What does school self-evaluation mean in Türkiye and Ireland? - What are the similarities and differences in the purpose of SSE processes? - What suggestions do school administrators have regarding the purpose dimension of the SSE process? It is significant as one of the first studies to comprehensively and comparatively examine the purpose dimension of SSE in Türkiye and Ireland. By analyzing the tension between bureaucratic compliance (accountability) and genuine educational development (improvement), the study sheds light on how global evaluation policies are reinterpreted in local school contexts. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employs a qualitative case study design to provide an in-depth exploration of real-world situations (Aytaçlı, 2012). Given that the school self-evaluation (SSE) process is a complex procedure involving interactions and specific contexts, a case study approach was deemed appropriate to compare the diverse views of administrators in Türkiye and Ireland (Doğru & Sağlam, 2024). The study group consisted of 20 school administrators who served during the 2022-2023 academic year. Participants were selected using the snowball sampling method. The sample included: Türkiye: 10 administrators from secondary schools in the central districts of Ankara. Ireland: 10 administrators from secondary schools in Dublin. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to obtain subjective views and comprehensive information (Patton, 2002). The interview form was developed with great care; opinions were sought from three field experts in Türkiye and two in Ireland. Notably, feedback was obtained directly from John MacBeath, the proponent of the theoretical framework used in this study, ensuring the construct validity of the questions. A pilot study was conducted with eight participants (four from each country) to refine the instrument. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in Ankara and Dublin. The data were analysed using descriptive analysis to identify patterns (Loeb et al., 2017). A deductive analysis approach was applied, categorising the data into themes based on MacBeath’s (2005) three logic approaches: improvement, economics, and accountability. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The comparative analysis reveals distinct differences in how SSE is perceived in the two countries. Irish school administrators view the process as systematically focused on educational development and improvement, aligning with the "improvement logic" (Boud & Donovan, 1982). In contrast, Turkish administrators, while acknowledging improvement goals, primarily perceive the process as a bureaucratic workload driven by "accountability logic," focusing on compliance with standards and official paperwork. A significant finding is that the "economic logic" was seen as ineffective or irrelevant in both countries, though for different reasons. Turkish administrators highlighted financial constraints and the inadequacy of resources, often viewing evaluation as a way to seek external support. Irish administrators viewed the economic aspect as a government-level concern with little relevance to the school's internal processes (McNamara et al., 2022). The findings suggest that national policies heavily influence implementation. To bridge the gap between "bureaucratic compliance" and "genuine improvement," the study recommends: Training: Providing comprehensive training for administrators on data analysis and the improvement-oriented purpose of SSE (Brown et al., 2021). Process Management: Developing practical digital tools to reduce paperwork and "evaluation fatigue" (Reynolds, 2020). Stakeholder Engagement: Moving beyond top-down mandates to a collaborative process involving teachers, students, and parents. References Aytaçlı, B. (2012). Durum çalışmasına ayrıntılı bir bakış. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 3(1), 1-9. Boud, D. J., & Donovan, W. F. (1982). The facilitation of school‐based evaluation: a case study. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 14(4), 359-370. Brown, M., Gardezi, S., del Castillo Blanco, L., Simeonova, R., Parvanova, Y., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., & Kechri, Z. (2021). School Self Evaluation an International or Country Specific Imperative for School Improvement. Doğru, Ç., & Sağlam, İ. (2024). Din Kültürü Ve Ahlak Bilgisi Öğretmenlerinin Din Eğitimi Faaliyetlerinde Karşılaştıkları Sorunlar Üzerine Nitel Bir Araştırma. Dicle İlahiyat Dergisi, 26(2), 268-291. Irish Department of Education and Skills. (2016). Looking at our School 2016: A Quality Framework for Post-Primary Schools. Loeb, S., Dynarski, S., McFarland, D., Morris, P., Reardon, S., & Reber, S. (2017). Descriptive Analysis in Education: A Guide for Researchers. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. MacBeath, J. (2005). Schools must speak for themselves: The case for school self evaluation. Routledge. McNamara, G., Skerritt, C., O’Hara, J., O’Brien, S., & Brown, M. (2022). For improvement, accountability, or the economy? Reflecting on the purpose(s) of school self evaluation in Ireland. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 54(2), 158-173. Ottesen, E., & Stephens, F. (Eds.). (2018). School Evaluation with a Purpose: Challenges and Alternatives. Routledge. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Sage Publications. Reynolds, R. (2020). Exploring Primary School Principals’ Attitudes and Experiences of School Self Evaluation [Master's dissertation]. Letterkenny Institute of Technology. Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). The Process And Results Of School Self Evaluation Through The Eyes of Experts: A Delphi Study. International Studies In Educational Administration, 40(1), 47-61. 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** School Self-Evaluation and External Inspection in Tension: Evidence from the Serbian Education System 1: Singidunum University, Faculty of Media and Communications, Serbia; 2: University of Belgrade, Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Psychology Presenting Author:Historically, the assessment of educational quality has been primarily conducted by external bodies. External evaluation was designed to generate information about school functioning that could justify and inform improvement-oriented interventions initiated from outside the school. It was also assumed that the mere presence of external evaluators would motivate schools to engage in internal improvement processes (Nevo, 2001), and the idea of “improvement through inspection” is somewhat empirically supported (West, 2000). Over time, however, the effectiveness of external evaluation as a mechanism for sustainable school improvement has increasingly been questioned (Gray & Wilcox, 1996). Research suggests that improvements associated with inspection are often short-term and concentrated in the preparatory phase before inspection visits (Gray & Wilcox, 1996; Matthews & Smith, 1995). Moreover, inspection has frequently been linked to stress, fear, and emotional strain among school actors, while offering limited follow-up support for sustained development (Ferguson et al., 2000). At the same time, education systems have been shaped by two parallel developments: growing investment in education and increasing demands for high-quality outcomes of the educational process itself (MacBeath & McGlynn, 2004; Nevo, 2001; OECD, 2025). Within this context, greater responsibility for educational quality has been transferred to schools (Leithwood et al., 1999; Saunders, 1999). Contemporary perspectives emphasise that schools should attend to quality not merely in response to external pressure, but because quality improvement is intrinsically meaningful to the school community. School self-evaluation (SSE) has therefore been promoted as a key mechanism for monitoring and improving school practice from within (MacBeath et al., 2000; Nevo, 2001). Nevertheless, SSE has also been subject to significant critique. One line of criticism focuses on methodological concerns related to validity and objectivity. Since schools evaluate their own work, they are not neutral observers but actors with a vested interest in positive outcomes (MacBeath & McGlynn, 2004). This raises justified concerns regarding the credibility of self-evaluation data and processes (Kyriakides & Campbell, 2004). Another line of critique addresses the conditions of everyday school life. School activity is characterised by intensity, constant demands, and the need for immediate responses, which substantially limits opportunities for reflective practice (Sizer, 1984). As a result, schools may invest considerable effort in data collection while lacking the time and capacity to transform data into meaningful insights, becoming “data rich but information poor” (Highet, 1996, as cited in MacBeath et al., 2000). In response to these concerns, external evaluation has been retained as a complementary mechanism intended to provide an objective “reality check” on schools’ internal judgments (Chapman, 2001; Nevo, 2001). Despite the global expansion of SSE, most education systems have preserved external inspection as part of their quality assurance arrangements (European Commission, 2015). Regarding the context of Serbia, recent amendments to the Law on the Foundations of the Education System (2017) further emphasise quality assurance by formally integrating standard setting, evaluation, and quality improvement, combining self-evaluation and external evaluation within a unified legislative framework. However, the ways in which these mechanisms interact in practice, and their implications for school development, remain insufficiently explored. The aim of this study is to examine how school self-evaluation and external inspection are conceptualised and enacted within the Serbian education system, and how their relationship shapes schools’ engagement with quality assurance. The study is guided by the following research questions:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used The study employs a qualitative research design combining policy analysis and ethnographic case study. First, relevant legal and policy documents regulating quality assurance, self-evaluation, and external inspection in Serbia were analysed in order to identify the formal positioning and intended relationship between these mechanisms (i.e., whether they are obligatory or not, how complementary they are etc.). Second, an empirical study was conducted as part of a broader ethnographic research project carried out during the spring semester of the 2023/2024 school year. The case study focused on one public primary school in Belgrade. The researcher was present in the school for the duration of the entire semester, four days per week, typically from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., with additional attendance at meetings and events held in the afternoon when relevant. In the ethnographic component of the study, data collection included ethnographic field notes, school documentation, and 20 semi-structured interviews with key school actors. For the purposes of this paper, analysis draws on field notes and six interviews conducted with the school psychologist, pedagogue, principal, self-evaluation team coordinator, and two additional teachers. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019), supported by MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software. The analysis focused on how school actors interpret, enact, and negotiate self-evaluation practices in relation to external inspection demands (defined by both policy framework and on-cite external evaluation practices), as well as on the meanings they attribute to quality, accountability, and development. Particular attention was paid to alignment, but also to moments of tension and contradiction between internal and external evaluation processes. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The policy analysis indicates contradictory positioning of the self-evaluation and external evaluation processes. On the one hand, the legal framework points to the formal commitment to decentralisation and school autonomy through the promotion of self-evaluation. However, findings also suggest a strong prioritisation of external evaluation and almost complete disregard for the self-evaluation processes in practice. School self-evaluation does not have the determining influence on school ratings, or the frequency and format of inspection, nor are self-evaluation findings in any meaningful way integrated into external evaluation procedures. Instead, self-evaluation appears primarily as a sub-indicator within inspection frameworks, which is universal, predetermined and fixed. This procedural misalignment between internal and external evaluation processes, evident in the legal framework and relevant subordinate legislation, is reflected in school actors’ perspectives on the role and scope of self-evaluation in schools. Empirical findings reveal that, at the school level, self-evaluation is largely experienced as an administrative obligation rather than as a developmental tool. Due to its legal mandate and prescribed cycles, self-evaluation is often conducted in a “pro forma” manner aimed at compliance with external requirements, rather than at fostering collective reflection or organisational learning. Taken together, these findings indicate that in the Serbian education system the potential of self-evaluation remains underutilized, reproducing challenges already identified in other systems (MacBeath et al., 2000). This dynamic reinforces perceptions of inspection as a controlling mechanism, while limiting the transformative potential of self-evaluation. Overall, the study highlights how an imbalanced relationship between external inspection and self-evaluation contributes to a culture of compliance rather than development. The paper argues for the establishment of strategies (e.g “earned autonomy" (Blok et al., 2008)) that reposition external inspection as a supportive mechanism that validates and builds upon schools’ self-evaluative practices, thereby enabling a more constructive and development-oriented quality assurance system. References Blok, H., Sleegers, P., & Karsten, S. (2008). Looking for a balance between internal and external evaluation of school quality: Evaluation of the SVI model. Journal of Education Policy, 23(4), 379–395. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. Braun, V., & V. Clarke (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(4), 589–97. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806. Chapman, C. (2001). Unlocking the potential: Inspection as a mechanism for school improvement. Improving Schools, 4(3), 41–50. European Commission: European Education and Culture Executive Agency. (2015). Assuring quality in education: Policies and approaches to school evaluation in Europe (A. Delhaxhe, Ed.). Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/678 Ferguson, N., Earley, P., Fidler, B., & Ouston, J. (2000). Improving schools and inspection: The self-inspecting school. Chapman. Gray, J., & Wilcox, B. (1996). Good School, Bad School: Evaluating performance and encouraging improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press. Kyriakides, L., & Campbell, R. J. (2004). School self-evaluation and school improvement: A critique of values and procedures. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(1), 23–36. Leithwood, K., Edge, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). Educational accountability: The state of the art. Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers. MacBeath, J., & McGlynn, A. (2004). Self-evaluation: What’s in it for schools? Routledge. MacBeath, J., Schratz, M., Meuret, D., & Jakobsen, L. (2000). Self-evaluation in European schools: A story of change. Routledge. Matthews, P., & Smith, G. (1995). OFSTED: Inspecting schools and improvement through inspection. Cambridge Journal of Education, 25(1), 23–34. Nevo, D. (2001). School evaluation: Internal or external? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 95–106. OECD (2025). Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. Saunders, L. (1999). Who or what is school ‘self’-evaluation for? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 414–429. Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. West, M. (2000). Supporting school improvement: Observations on the inside, reflections from the outside. School Leadership & Management, 20(1), 43–60. Zakon o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vaspitanja [Law on the Foundations of the Education System] (2017). Službeni glasnik Republike Srbije, br. 88/2017, 27/2018 - dr. zakon, 10/2019, 27/2018 - dr. zakon, 6/2020, 129/2021, 92/2023 i 19/2025. West, M. (2000). Supporting school improvement: Observations on the inside, reflections from the outside. School Leadership & Management, 20(1), 43-60. 11. Educational Improvement and Quality Assurance
Paper ***WITHDRAWN*** School Inspection Systems in Global Perspective: Comparative Models and Their Impact on School Improvement 1: Sharjah Education Academy, United Arab Emirates; 2: United Arab Emirates University Presenting Author:Topic and Rationale This study examines school inspection systems in a global and comparative perspective, focusing on how different inspection models influence school improvement, accountability, and educational quality across diverse governance contexts. Although inspection frameworks are widely adopted worldwide, there remains limited consensus on their effectiveness and long-term impact, particularly when transferred across political, cultural, and institutional settings. European education systems have played a central role in shaping inspection discourse—ranging from high-stakes accountability models in England to trust-based self-evaluation approaches in Nordic countries—yet these models are increasingly adapted in non-European systems, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The UAE represents a strategically important comparative case, combining international benchmarking with localized inspection frameworks (e.g., KHDA, ADEK, SPEA). By positioning European inspection models alongside Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, and hybrid governance approaches, this study contributes to international debates on policy transfer, accountability, and sustainable school improvement. Research Questions The study is guided by the following research questions:
Research Objectives The main objectives of this study are to:
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework The study is anchored in an international comparative governance framework, drawing on three interrelated theoretical perspectives. First, accountability and quality assurance theory provides a foundation for understanding inspection as a governance mechanism that regulates educational performance through standards, evaluation, and feedback. This perspective is strongly represented in Anglo-Saxon and centralised European systems, where inspection functions as an external lever for improvement and public assurance. Second, the study is informed by Fullan’s concept of “intelligent accountability”, which reframes inspection as a learning-oriented process rather than a punitive mechanism. This theory is particularly influential in European and Nordic contexts, where inspection is integrated with self-evaluation, professional dialogue, and capacity building. Intelligent accountability offers a conceptual bridge between high-stakes inspection and trust-based improvement. Third, the analysis draws on global education governance theory, particularly the role of international policy actors such as the OECD, UNESCO, and the World Bank. These organisations promote comparative indicators, benchmarking tools, and policy diffusion mechanisms that shape national inspection systems across Europe and beyond. Their influence helps explain patterns of convergence, hybridisation, and selective policy borrowing observed in systems such as the UAE. By integrating these perspectives, the study conceptualises inspection systems as multi-level governance instruments shaped by national traditions, European policy norms, and global accountability agendas. This framework enables a systematic comparison of how inspection models operate across contexts and how they can be adapted to support sustainable, equitable, and improvement-oriented education systems. International and European Contribution
Overall, this research positions school inspection as a critical site of international policy learning, extending European-dominated inspection scholarship by incorporating hybrid and non-European cases. It contributes to comparative education research by clarifying how inspection models can be designed to balance accountability, trust, and professional learning in diverse education systems.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Research Design This study adopts a qualitative comparative research design, combining a systematic document review with comparative thematic analysis to examine school inspection systems across different national and governance contexts. This design is appropriate for addressing cross-national policy questions and is widely used in European comparative education research to explore how governance instruments operate across diverse institutional settings. The study focuses on inspection models representing high-stakes accountability, trust-based self-evaluation, centralised, decentralised, and hybrid systems, enabling analytical comparison rather than statistical generalisation. Data Sources The study draws on multiple internationally recognised data sources, ensuring both empirical robustness and policy relevance. These include: • Peer-reviewed journal articles in educational leadership, governance, and inspection research; • Official policy documents and inspection frameworks published by national inspectorates (e.g., Ofsted in England, Finnish National Agency for Education, French inspectorates, KHDA and ADEK in the UAE); • Reports and comparative indicators from international organisations, including the OECD, UNESCO, and the World Bank. Sources were selected to ensure representation of European, international, and hybrid inspection systems, reflecting different accountability traditions and reform trajectories Case Selection and Scope Cases were purposively selected to represent contrasting inspection logics: • England (Anglo-Saxon, high-stakes accountability), • Finland (Nordic, trust-based self-evaluation), • France (centralised state inspection), • United States (decentralised, state-led accountability), • United Arab Emirates (hybrid, internationally benchmarked inspection). This selection enables structured comparison between European systems and non-European contexts influenced by global policy diffusion. Analytical Framework and Research Instruments The primary research instrument was thematic content analysis, supported by a comparative analytical matrix. Data were coded inductively and deductively to identify recurring themes related to: • accountability mechanisms, • professional autonomy and trust, • inspection consequences, • school improvement processes, and • unintended effects such as performativity or professional stress. Cross-case synthesis was then applied to compare how these themes manifested across systems, highlighting convergences and divergences. Trustworthiness and Rigor Methodological rigor was ensured through source triangulation, use of internationally validated conceptual frameworks (e.g., intelligent accountability, global education governance), and transparent documentation of case selection and analytical procedures. By relying on authoritative peer-reviewed literature and policy sources, the study ensures credibility, transferability, and relevance for European and international audiences. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Conclusions and Expected Outcomes / Findings This study is expected to generate comparative and internationally relevant insights into how different school inspection systems shape educational quality, accountability, and school improvement across diverse governance contexts. By examining inspection models from Europe and beyond, the findings aim to clarify how inspection functions not merely as a control mechanism, but as a key policy instrument influencing professional practice and system-level reform. First, the findings are expected to demonstrate that inspection models vary significantly in their underlying logic and impact. High-stakes accountability systems, such as the Anglo-Saxon model, are likely to show stronger short-term compliance effects and clearer performance signalling, but also higher levels of performativity, professional stress, and narrow responses to inspection criteria. In contrast, trust-based Nordic models are expected to foster professional autonomy, collaboration, and sustainable improvement, although they may respond more slowly to persistent underperformance. Second, the study is expected to reveal that school improvement outcomes are strongest in systems that balance accountability with developmental support. Inspection frameworks that integrate external evaluation with self-evaluation, professional dialogue, and follow-up support are more likely to promote meaningful instructional improvement rather than superficial compliance. This supports international evidence highlighting the limitations of purely punitive inspection regimes. Third, the comparative analysis is expected to show that hybrid inspection systems, such as those operating in the UAE, reflect selective policy borrowing from European and global models. While international benchmarking enhances transparency and global credibility, its effectiveness depends on contextual adaptation, cultural alignment, and the degree of professional trust embedded within the system. References Abdallah, A.K. and Musah, M.B., (2021). Effects of teacher licensing on educators’ professionalism: UAE case in local perception. Heliyon, 7(11). Aburizaizah, S. J. (2022). The role of quality assurance in Saudi higher education institutions. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 100127. Alhosani, S. A. (2021). The influence of irtiqa’a inspectorate program on school leaders’professional identity and their operational practices in Abu Dhabi Schools. Andonıou, C. (2021). Faculty academic performance assessment (FAPA) model. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, 20, 42-49. Arizmendi, C. J., Bernacki, M. L., Raković, M., Plumley, R. D., Urban, C. J., Panter, A. T., ... & Gates, K. M. (2023). Predicting student outcomes using digital logs of learning behaviors: Review, current standards, and suggestions for future work. Behavior research methods, 55(6), 3026-3054. Banihashem, S.K., Noroozi, O., Khosravi, H., Schunn, C.D. and Drachsler, H., 2025. Pedagogical framework for hybrid intelligent feedback. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, pp.1-17. Bellibaş, M. Ş. (2023). Empowering principals to conduct classroom observations in a centralized education system: does it make a difference for teacher self-efficacy and instructional practices?. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(1), 85-102. Ben Jaafar, S., Alzouebi, K. & Bodolica, V., 2022. Accountability and quality assurance for leadership and governance in Dubai-based educational marketplace. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(5), pp.641-660. Bokhove, C., Jerrim, J., & Sims, S. (2024). Do schools that employ an inspector get better inspection grades?. British Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 2383-2406. Buchholtz, N., Stuart, A., & Frønes, T. S. (2021). Equity, equality and diversity—Putting educational justice in the Nordic model to a test. In Equity, equality and diversity in the Nordic model of education (pp. 13-41). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Carraquico, T. (2024). Tailoring quality: designing a customized quality assurance system for isec lisboa and its interaction with the accreditation agency. In EDULEARN24 Proceedings (pp. 6942-6942). IATED. Colman, A. (2021). School leadership, school inspection and the micropolitics of compliance and resistance: Examining the hyper-enactment of policy in an area of deprivation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 268-283. Cushing, I., & Snell, J. (2023). The (white) ears of Ofsted: A raciolinguistic perspective on the listening practices of the schools inspectorate. Language in society, 52(3), 363-386. DellaVigna, S., & Kim, W. (2025). Policy diffusion and polarization across US states. Review of Economic Studies, rdaf070. | ||