Is critical scholarship being reflected in policy? A critical response to ‘Looking at Our School 2022: a quality framework’

Figures & data

Table 1. Distinction between professional responsibility and professional accountability (Solbrekke and Englund 2011, 855).

Professional responsbility	Professional accountability
Based In professional mandate Situated judgement Trust Moral rationale Internal evaluation Negotiated standards Implicit langauge Framed by professions Relative autonomy and personally inescapable Proactive	Defined by current governance Standardised by contract Control Economic/legal rationale External auditing Predetermined indicators Transparent language Framed by political goals Compliance with employers’/politicians’ decisions Reactive

Figure 1. An overview of the LAOS quality framework (DoE 2022a, 12).

Figure 2. Balancing school and system requirements (DoE 2022b, 6).

Figure 3. Example of statements of practice (DoE 2022a, 33).

Figure 4. Example of statements of practice (DoE 2022a, 40).

Solbrekke, Tone Dyrdal, and Tomas Englund. 2011. “Bringing Professional Responsibility Back In.” Studies in Higher Education 36 (7): 847–861. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.482205

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Department of Education. 2022a. Looking at Our School 2022: A Quality Framework for Post-Primary Schools. Dublin: Department of Education.

 Google Scholar

Department of Education. 2022b. School Self-Evaluation: Next Steps September 2022–June 2026. Dublin: Department of Education.

 Google Scholar