School inspection in the Republic of Ireland has had different trajectories in the primary and post-primary sectors. (J. Coolahan, 2017; J. Coolahan, with O'  Donnovan, P. F., 2009; O' Donovan, 2017). In the former, it predated the foundation of the national education system (1831), while in the post-primary sector for most of the 20^th century it was, at most light touch. However, during the past three decades in particular, influences by international ‘social movements’ (Castells, 2012/2015), the national dynamics have shifted considerably (Sugrue, 2015).

This shift in emphasis has subsequently gone through several transmogrifications (Sugrue, 1999, 2006). From a policy perspective, perhaps most significant among them have been the  publication of ‘Looking at Our Schools’ (Inspectorate., 2016c, 2016d), published as part of a cluster of revised policy statements regarding school ‘self-evaluation’ (Inspectorate., 2016e, 2016f) in addition to specific guidelines regarding school  inspection (Inspectorate., 2016a, 2016b). Such policy considerations are situated within a legislative context whereby the Educational legislation (Ireland, 1998) states that the school principal has responsibility for the  ‘instruction provided’, while the Teaching Council (Ireland, 2001), established in 2006, has responsibility for promoting the interests of the profession and  upholding professional standards. This is the background, legislative and policy context in which the theoretical framework for analysis is generated.

In this regard, the paper draws on the language and logics of accountability and professional responsibility (Englund & Solbrekke, 2011; Solbrekke & Englund, 2011) and combines such  perspectives with the concept  of ‘formation’ (Sutphen & de Lange, 2015), as a means  of positioning as well as identifying the  field of force created within the  tensions between accountability and responsibility as they influence and shape the lived experience of teachers and principals alike during the  periods of school inspection. While considerable work has been published previously on emotions in  teaching (Hargreaves, 1998, 2000b), on the impact on inspection on teachers (de Wolf & Janssens, 2007; Perryman, 2007), in addition to the framing indicated here the purpose of the paper is to interrogate the  dynamics of inspection through an analytical lens that combines the logics framework with a ‘distributed’ leadership lens (Gronn, 2003; Spillane, Camburn, & Pareja, 2009; Spillane & Diamond, 2007), the dominant  leadership discourse in the setting (DES, 2018a, 2018b).

Through this multi-focal lens the following questions are addressed:

• How do teachers talk about their experience of inspection process?
• How do they talk about the ‘legacy’ of inspection months after the event?
• What evidence does teachers’ and principals’ testimony provide regarding the impact of inspection on leadership?
• What tentative conclusions may be drawn regarding the extent to which inspection has a positive or negative impact school leaders and leadership?

By focusing on these empirical questions, the intention is to analyse through a leadership lens the extent to which such emotionally heightened encounters, such ‘critical moments’ have a temporary or lasting impact on professional formation and  leadership within the school and whether or not such ‘incidents’ are perceived as something to be endured or seminal moments, with generative potential for leadership momentum (Tripp, 1993).

First, the paper articulates a robust theoretical framework that draws on the various threads identified above to situate the inspection process in its policy context. Second, it simultaneously crafts an analytical framework that permits close critical scrutiny of the inspection process, its impact on the school community, and the extent to which leadership lessons may be extracted from the ‘bricolage’ of the encounter (Bauman, 2000/2006, 2017). The first element of the methodology therefore is a selective literature review combining materials identified above as well as other sources. In terms of empirical data, I was fortunate in 2017 to have access to a school in the days immediately following the completion of a Whole School Evaluation (WSE). The principal and teachers were willing to be interviewed—the principal informally. The ‘case study’ (Stake, 1995) school is a primary school in a socially disadvantaged context. Two focus groups among the staff were created—those teachers in the school who were visited by members of the inspector team, and those that were not. These encounters were recorded, lasted approximately one hour, consisted of five teachers in each group. In the year 2018-’19, two further case studies, both post-primary schools, have been completed, thus the data base has been extended, enabling comparison to be made between the primary and post-primary sectors, while simultaneously seeking to build a more comprehensive picture regarding the dynamics of school inspection and its consequences for leaders and leadership within the school community. The same pattern of data collection was followed in each case study site- interview with principal and focus groups with teachers. These interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim, and were read repeatedly and coded abductively as the theoretical lens was being developed (Alvesson & Skolberg, 2000). Several months later, and having undertaken considerable coding and interpretation of the data from transcripts, the schools were revisited, the two groups were again interviewed, on this occasion with a series of questions that emerged from the earlier analysis in dialogue with the literature. It was at this point that the focus was on legacy issues, and whether learning was temporary, or lasting, with a particular focus on possible leadership lessons. Here too, the interviews were recorded, transcribed and subsequently coded, while there were also conversations with the principals and a member of staff to gain further contextual insights and understanding.

Three chronological themes are documented. WSE Rehearsal: mastering and manufacturing the script Formal notification of the WSE precipitates a flurry of ‘Spring Cleaning,’ to be ready for the event, while it unites staff against an external ‘threat’, thus creating a heightened sense of anticipation, activity and anxiety, and this energy is harnessed as various forms of rehearsal are enacted with the intention of ensuring a powerful production when there is an ‘external’ audience. This theme is critically scrutinised for its insights into teacher collaboration and leadership. Across the three cases, and the two school sectors, such improvisation of scripts plays out differently. WSE Live: Performing the script Some staff members play a more prominent role in the performance, since not everyone’s classroom is visited when the inspectors are present in the school. There is considerable anxiety induced by uncertainty, the roles played by the performers. These distinctions are carefully documented, and critically analysed for insights into the ‘coping’ strategies crafted and the possible leadership lessons learned. WSE: Immediate Wake and subsequent post mortem Oral feedback is provided on the day the WSE is completed, largely accepted without comment. A written report is received a few months later. This theme compares and contrasts the intensity felt during the ‘wake’ and the anti-climactic consideration of the written report after the anxiety high has abated. It is in the interstices between these two events, separated by time, that a comprehensive discussion and conclusion viewed through the analytical framework identifies possible leadership lessons learned, while more tentatively determining if the effort involved in creating the ‘performance’ yields commensurate leadership and learning dividends. Particular emphasis will be placed on cross-case analysis—seeking out leadership lessons; the strategies deployed to cope and subsequently harness the intensity created by the ‘event’ in a generative manner.

Castells, M. (2012/2015). Networks of Outrage and Hope Social Movements In The Internet Age (second edition). Cambridge: Polity Press Coolahan, J. (2017). Towards The Era of Lifelong Learning A History of Irish Education 1800-2016. Dublin: IPA. Coolahan, J., with O' Donnovan, P. F. (2009). A History of Ireland's School Inspectorate 1831-2008. Dublin: Four Courts Press. de Wolf, I. F., & Janssens, F. J. G. (2007). Effects and side effects of inspections and accountability in education: an overv iew of empirical studies. Oxford Review of Education, 33(3), 379-396. doi:10.1080/03054980701366207 DES. (2018a). Leadership and Management in Primary Schools (Circular 0070/2018. Dublin: DES. DES. (2018b). Leadership and Management in Post-Primary Schools. Dublin: DES. Hargreaves, A. (1998). The emotional politics of teaching and teacher development: with implications for educational headship. International Journal of Leadership in Education Theory and Practice, 1(4), 315-336. Hargreaves, A. (2000b). Mixed emotions: teachers' perceptions of their interactions with students. Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 16, pp.811-826. Inspectorate. (2016b). A Guide To Inspection In The Post-Primary School Retrieved from Dublin Inspectorate. (2016c). Looking At Our Schools 2016 A Quality Framework for Post-Primary Schools Retrieved from Dublin Inspectorate. (2016e). School Self-Evaluation Guidelines 2016-2020 Post Primary. Retrieved from Dublin Education (No. 2) Bill, (1998). O' Donovan, P. F. (2017). Stanley's Letter The National School System and Inspectors in Ireland 1831-1922. Galway: Galway Education Centre. Perryman, J. (2007). Inspection and Emotion Cambridge Journal of Economics, 37(2), 173-190. Solbrekke, T. D., & Englund, T. (2011). Bringing professional responsibility back in. Studies in Higher Education, 36(7), 847-861. Spillane, J., Camburn, E. M., & Pareja, A. S. (2009). School Principals at Work A Distributed Perspective. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence (pp. 87-110). London & New York: Routledge. Spillane, J., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed Leadership in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Sugrue, C. (1999). Primary Principals' Perspectives on Whole-School Evaluation. Irish Journal of Education, xxx, 39-76. Sugrue, C. (2006). A Critical Appraisal of the Impact of International Agencies on Educational Reforms and Teachers' Lives and Work: The Case of Ireland? European Educational Research Journal, 5(3 & 4), 181-195. Sutphen, M., & de Lange, T. (2015). What is Formation? A Conceptual Discussion. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(2), 411-419. Tripp, D. (1993). Critical Incidents in Teaching: Developing Professional Judgement. London: Routledge. York: Routledge Falmer.