The school benches are crossed by a transposition of new measures of a managerial nature, with a progression of new modes of governance focused on accountability and results evaluation (Maroy & Pons, 2019; Taylor, 2007). Our contribution will highlight how the vocabularies and approach have subtly shifted from "quality control" to an incentive for "quality development" in a logic of collective action (Ozga et al., 2011). Launched in "project mode" and with action principles such as initiative and accountability, quality management systems encourage a logic of enrolment of everyone, at all levels of the organization.
In Switzerland, the institutionalization of quality management systems (QMS) has been brought into the regulatory basis (Vocational Education and Training Law, 2002) and has been integrated into Swiss secondary vocational schools, with certificates recommended at the cantonal level. In a context that has called for reforms and increasing complexity, it can be assumed that the introduction of quality certifications responds to a challenge of valorization and incorporation of quality and excellence standards. In the management of institutions, these systems represent the development of a tool for action and a culture of quality monitoring (quantified, comparative and cyclical information). In this context, these standardization systems are deployed as "soft constraints" and are based on mobilization principles. They are aligned with the rise of so-called "soft" governance and intended to be suggestive (Duru-Bellat, 2019). Self-evaluation and self-regulation (of institutions, actors; etc.) has become unavoidable and is combined with regulatory action through external mechanisms.

In this contribution, we will highlight how the deployment of QMS leads to a shift from endogenous professionalism (from within) to exogenous professionalism (from above), with repercussions on the definition of work and on activity (Boussard et al., 2010; Evetts, 2009). Organizational professionalism is clearly expanding in educational institutions (Tardif, 1999). It introduces forms of regulation, which no longer rely on the basis of "trust" or discretionary power of professionals (Evetts, 2009) and involves increased standardization of work procedures and practices. The use of new types of external experts (auditors who certify SQM) or the internal emergence of new roles within the intermediate professions, such as "delegate" or "quality manager", is part of the workings of these steering and regulation mechanisms.
This leads us to ask several research questions: what are the perceived impacts of these management mechanisms (understanding of meaning and relationship)? How does the deployment of a QMS affect the work and practices of different groups of school actors?

The choice of this field introduces the hypothesis of a particular resonance in the context of the implementation of vocational training, which is composed of a wide range of partners, actors and mechanisms. The specificities of vocational and post-compulsory training would constitute a favourable context for the development of quality management systems. In order to understand the impact of this deployment, our method focuses on the actors who make, translate and interpret the meaning of the systems. By questioning the configurations "manufactured" by the instruments (Lascoumes & Le Galès, 2005), we will consider from the outset the emergence of effects of our own, which go beyond the initial intentions of the decision-makers and generate an appropriation and unexpected detour. This contribution will present the results of an ongoing doctoral research project that began with an analysis of various documents and sources (official and legal documents; repositories of various standards; commission reports; charters; documents from professional unions; etc.). This qualitative research is based on nearly forty interviews conducted with members of the school management, quality delegates, deans, and teachers in 11 schools in one canton, as well as interviews with the general department. The purpose of these interviews was to review the history of the development of the quality system (at the school level or at the cantonal level) and to uncover the experience of this monitoring over the years. The questions concerned the biographical accounts of the people involved, the layout and relationship to the certification process, the choice of the quality label, the impact on professional activity, the collaborators and associated roles, etc. We also conducted audit observations and interviews with auditors, seeking to understand the point of view of professionals who specialize in this external certification process for several quality standards (such as ISO, QSC, etc.). We will present the impacts perceived by groups of actors and we will describe the meaning of and relationship with the process and the different associated socio-technical processes.

Our results explore how intermediary actors collectively take hold of these devices, the logics of (re)negotiation at work (paradoxes; arbitrations made; logics of mediation; compromises) and emerging reconfigurations of work (impacts on their room for maneuver and discretionary power). At this point, the analysis of the different discourses, allows us to accentuate the intensification of a multi-regulation of education (Barroso, 2016; Carvalho, 2015), conceiving the quality certification of schools as a supplementary and complementary device to many other "political commands", which seek to ensure a remote control and the development of a tool managerial action. Acting at the interface of the managerial and professional spheres (Resenterra et al., 2013), we will emphasize the extent to which actors are confronted with contradictory injunctions. In our results, particular attention will be paid to intermediary actors as "permanent passers" (Nay & Smith, 2002) between different regimes. Several interviewees clearly express this position of interface between different "worlds", in a quest for balance and a concern to preserve their teams. At this point, a few preliminary findings should be noted: the 11 schools cover a variety of domains and we note different discourses according to professional cultures and previous career paths (we are faced with teachers who often have a "second career", who bring other expertise and expectations into the school world); the development of the QMS is coupled with new computer tools in everyday school life; we observe mimetic and normative processes and mechanisms between schools (institutional isomorphism; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983); pedagogical autonomy seems to be little affected by the QMS, but other complementary instruments contribute to changes at the pedagogical level; auditing spaces reinforce the logic of reflective accountability (soft accountability).

Barroso, J. (2016). La régulation locale de l’éducation et la direction des établissements scolaires au Portugal. Recherche & formation, 78, 81‑94. Boussard, V., Demazière, D., & Milburn, P. (2010). Introduction. Qu’est-ce qu’être professionel? In V. Boussard, D. Demazière, & P. Milburn, L’injonction au professionnalisme : Analyses d’une dynamique plurielle (p. 13‑22). Presses universitaires de Rennes. Carvalho, L. M. (2015). As políticas públicas de educação sob o prisma da ação pública : Esboço de uma perspetiva de análise e inventário de estudos. Curriculo sem Fronteiras, 15, 314‑333. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited : Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147. Duru-Bellat, M. (2019). Évaluations, mesures ou classements ? A propos des enquêtes PISA. Revue francaise de linguistique appliquée, Vol. XXIV(1), 7‑19. Evetts, J. (2009). The Management of Professionalism : A contemporary paradox. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I. Hextall, & A. Cribb (Éds.), Changing Teacher Professionalism : International Trends, Challenges and Ways Forward (p. 19‑30). Routledge, Taylor & Francis. Lascoumes, P., & Le Galès, P. (2005). Introduction : L’action publique saisie par ses instruments. In P. Lascoumes & P. Le Galès (Éds.), Gouverner par les instruments (p. 11‑44). Presses de Sciences Po (P.F.N.S.P.). Maroy, C., & Pons, X. (2019). Accountability Policies in Education : A Comparative and Multilevel Analysis in France and Quebec. Springer. Nay, O., & Smith, A. (2002). Les intermédiaires en politique. Médiation et jeux d’institutions. In O. Nay & A. Smith (Éds.), Le gouvernement du compromis : Courtiers et généralistes dans l’action politique (p. 1‑21). Economica. Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C., & Simola, H. (2011). Introduction. In J. Ozga, P. Dahler-Larsen, C. Segerholm, & H. Simola, Fabricating Quality in Education : Data and Governance in Europe (p. 1‑8). Routledge. Resenterra, F., Siggen, M., & Giauque, D. (2013). Les cadres intermédiaires entre contraintes managériales et défense des identités professionnelles : L’exemple des hôpitaux de Suisse romande. Humanisme et Entreprise, 315, 1‑24. Taylor, I. (2007). Discretion and Control in Education : The Teacher as Street-level Bureaucrat. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 35(4), 555‑572.