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.

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.

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.

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.