This paper presents a framework for critically analysing professional learning (PL) policies, providing a structured, multi-level approach that accounts for complex, context-sensitive influences on PL. The central research question guiding this paper, and for the development of the analytical framework more broadly, is whether PL policies provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate diverse teaching and school contexts or whether they impose rigid frameworks that prioritise efficiency and scalability over relevance and depth. PL has long been regarded as a critical mechanism for improving education systems, supporting teacher growth, and ultimately enhancing student learning outcomes (Harris et al.,  2017). However, PL does not occur in isolation; it is often embedded within broader policy frameworks that shape its purpose, structure, and implementation (Mockler, 2021). PL policies also often reflect political, economic, and ideological imperatives that influence how teacher learning is conceptualised, often prioritising particular models of PL while marginalising others (Kennedy, 2014a; Mockler, 2021; Sachs, 2015). Given the increasing global emphasis on PL as a lever for educational reform, it is essential to critically analyse how these policies define teacher agency, professional autonomy, and collaboration, elements that are central to transformative professional learning (Kennedy, 2014b; King et al., 2023). Policy analysis is particularly important in PL because policies are not neutral; they actively shape teachers’ working conditions, professional identities, and opportunities for growth (Ball et al., 2011).  PL policy has a role in shaping teacher professionalism (Boylan et al., 2023; Goodwin, 2020; Kennedy, 2014a; Sachs, 2015). Some PL policies frame teacher professionalism as a continuous, enquiry-driven process that evolves through collaborative reflection and engagement with research. Others construct professionalism as compliance with externally mandated benchmarks, positioning teachers as implementers of prescribed standards rather than as autonomous knowledge producers (Darling-Hammond, 2020, 2021). These policy discourses shape not only how PL is structured but also how teachers perceive their own roles within the system (Sachs, 2015). Finally, policies can adopt a universalist approach, assuming that all teachers require the same forms of PL (Mockler, 2020). However, research has demonstrated that effective PL must be context-sensitive, responsive to teachers’ specific needs, and sustained over time (King, Poekert, & Pierre, 2023).

This paper is grounded in two key theoretical perspectives: King et al.’s (2023) pragmatic meta-model for PL and critical policy sociology. King et al.’s model conceptualise PL across three interconnected levels: the macro-level (national and international policy influences, the meso-level (institutional and school-based enactment), and the micro-level (individual teacher agency and engagement). This meta-model provides a critical framework for analysing how PL is positioned within education systems. It highlights the systemic interactions between policy and practice, illustrating that policy mandates do not merely dictate PL but are actively shaped by institutional mediation and teacher interpretation. By applying this framework, the study investigates how PL policies define the roles of different actors in the education system- whether teachers are positioned as autonomous professionals, passive recipients of training, or subjects of regulatory oversight. Complementing this, the paper also draws on critical policy sociology, which examines how PL policies reflect broader ideological shifts in education governance (Ball, 2016; Ozga, 2019). The increasing alignment of PL with discourses of accountability, evidence-based practice, and performance management mirrors wider neoliberal trends in education, where PL is increasingly viewed through the lens of efficiency and measurable impact (Ball, 2016; Mockler, 2022). This paper investigates whether PL policies reinforce these discourses, framing PL as a means of improving system-wide performance or whether they support a more transformative, teacher-led vision of professional growth (Boylan et al., 2023).

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) provides the primary methodological foundation for this paper. CDA is a powerful analytical tool that enables the examination of language as a site of power, ideology, and contestation (Fairclough, 2003). By applying CDA to PL policy texts, this paper investigates how language constructs the roles and responsibilities of teachers, legitimises particular forms of PL, and reinforces broader policy agendas, such as accountability, standardisation, and marketisation. The framework integrates key linguistic devices, such as modality, nominalisation, passive voice, intertextuality, and presupposition, that are particularly relevant for examining policy texts. The framework is structured around a series of guiding questions developed from the conceptual framework underpinning this paper (King et al., 2023). These serve as analytical focal points for interrogating PL policies. These questions allow for a multi-layered analysis that situates policy within broader educational, political, and ideological contexts. The questions are applied across macro (national/societal), meso (institutional), and micro (individual/teacher) levels to provide a comprehensive examination of policy discourse. 1. How does the policy construct power relations between different stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, school leaders, teachers) within the framework of PL? 2. In what ways does the policy reproduce or challenge dominant ideologies, such as neoliberalism, accountability, and standardisation, in shaping PL? 3. How does the policy balance the tension between individual teacher agency and external accountability measures? 4. What assumptions does the policy make about the purpose of PL, and how are these assumptions framed across different levels? 5. To what extent does the policy acknowledge and address the complexities and contextual realities (e.g., economic, cultural, political) that influence PL? This framework is applied to Cosán: Framework for Teachers’ Learning (Teaching Council, 2016), which represents the national approach to continuous PL in the Republic of Ireland. This framework is particularly significant as it is the first national policy in Ireland dedicated to defining and structuring PL pathways for teachers. To situate Cosán within a broader policy landscape, the paper conducts a comparative analysis with European and international policy texts, including European Commission reports on PL (2021) and OECD frameworks (2019). These comparisons allow the paper to identify commonalities and divergences in how PL is conceptualised across different policy contexts.

Through applying this framework to the analysis of Cosán, this paper provides evidence that PL policies that assume a one-size-fits-all model do not sufficiently account for the diverse needs of teachers working in different educational contexts. Cosán, like many international PL policies, assumes an implicit universality in PL needs and delivery mechanisms. However, this paper finds that without explicit recognition of contextual variations, PL policies risk being disconnected from the lived realities of teachers. This aligns with critiques of policy standardisation in education, which argue that universal frameworks often fail to accommodate the complexities of localised educational practices (Braun et al., 2011). The application of the analytical framework reveals how PL is framed through particular discursive choices that reflect broader political priorities. The recurrent emphasis on accountability, performance, and evidence-based practice within PL policies is indicative of a wider shift towards managerialist approaches to teacher learning. The findings suggest that policymakers should adopt a more reflexive approach when developing PL frameworks, ensuring that policies do not merely align with global policy trends but also reflect the specific needs and realities of schools. This paper’s framework provides a tool for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners to investigate PL policies critically. By applying structured guiding questions to analyse policy texts, this framework moves beyond surface-level analysis to uncover the deeper ideological and political dimensions of PL discourse. This paper highlights the importance of critically engaging with PL policies for practitioners. Teachers and school leaders should be equipped with the analytical tools necessary to navigate policy discourses and advocate for PL opportunities that align with their professional goals and the needs of their students (Yeatman, 1998).

Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. https://doi-org.dcu.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565 Ball, S. J. (2016). Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046-1059. Boylan, M., Adams, G., Perry, E., & Booth, J. (2023). Re-imagining transformative professional learning for critical teacher professionalism: a conceptual review. Professional Development in Education, 49(4), 651–669. Braun, A., Ball, S.J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 32(4), 585–596. Darling-Hammond, L. (2020). Accountability in Teacher Education. Action in Teacher Education, 42(1), 60–71. Darling-Hammond, L. (2021). Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(3), 295–308. European Commission. (2021). Teachers in Europe Careers, Development and Well-being. European Commission. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Routledge. Goodwin, A. L. (2020). Teaching standards, globalisation, and conceptions of teacher professionalism. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 5–19. Harris, A., Jones, M., & Huffman, J. (2017). Teachers leading educational reform: The power and potential of professional learning communities. Routledge. Kennedy, A. (2014a). ‘Useful’ professional learning … useful for whom? Professional Development in Education, 41(1), 1–4. Kennedy, A. (2014b). Understanding continuing professional development: the need for theory to impact on policy and practice. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 688–697. King, F., Poekert, P. E., & Pierre, T. (2023). A pragmatic meta-model for planning and evaluating professional learning: Addressing complexity across macro, meso, and micro levels. Professional Development in Education, 49(1), 21-40. Mockler, N. (2020). Teacher professional learning under audit: reconfiguring practice in an age of standards. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 166–180. OECD (2019). Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualising teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407. Ozga, J. (2019). Problematising policy: the development of (critical) policy sociology. Critical Studies in Education, 62(3), 290–305. Sachs, J. (2015). Teacher professionalism: why are we still talking about it? Teachers and Teaching, 22(4), 413–425. Teaching Council. (2016). Cosán: Framework for teachers' learning. Teaching Council of Ireland. Timperley, H. (2007). Teacher professional learning and development. International Academy of Education and International Bureau of Education, 18, 1-30 Yeatman, A. (1998). Activism and the policy process. Routledge.