This chapter explores the professional relationships that shape teachers’ experiences within their school communities. It begins by examining teacher collaborative practices and the conditions that support collegiality and shared responsibility. Then, the chapter looks at principal-teacher professional relationships and how school leadership can foster a collaborative school culture. Relationships with students are also explored. Finally, the chapter looks at how teachers engage with parents and guardians, including the frequency and mode of communication, the extent of parental involvement in school decisions, and how these factors relate to teachers’ sense of being valued. The analysis highlights how strong, supportive professional relationships with various school stakeholders are associated with teachers’ fulfilment of their lesson aims, their well-being and job satisfaction.
Results from TALIS 2024
Abstract
Teachers are spending more time working together compared to 2018. Full-time teachers report spending around 3 hours per week participating in teamwork and dialogue with colleagues on average across OECD education systems. This has increased in 28 education systems (and decreased in none) since 2018.
Teachers who report collaborating more tend to be more likely to fulfil their lesson aims. There are many ways that teachers collaborate, but only 9% of teachers observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback monthly or more, on average across OECD education systems. In contrast, more than 50% of teachers in Kazakhstan, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China, hereafter “China”), Uzbekistan and Viet Nam collaborate in this way.
Teachers who collaborate more frequently tend to be in the top quartile of self-efficacy in their country. This is particularly the case when teachers engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students (22 percentage points more for teachers with high self-efficacy) and exchange teaching material with colleagues (18 percentage points more for teachers with high self-efficacy).
Teachers who report good professional relationships with principals, other teachers, parents and guardians, and students tend to report higher well-being and job satisfaction.
In general, teachers report that they can rely on each other. On average across OECD education systems, 86% of teachers at their school “agree” or “strongly agree” that they can rely on each other. This collegiality has decreased since 2018 in ten education systems and increased over the same time period in five education systems.
Nearly nine out of ten teachers report that their principals have good professional relationships with staff, on average across OECD education systems. This is higher for teachers from rural schools or privately managed schools.
Over nine out of ten teachers report positive relationships between teachers and students in their schools across OECD education systems. Teachers say that students and teachers usually get on well with each other; most teachers believe that student well-being is important; most teachers are interested in what students have to say; and if a student needs extra assistance, the school provides it.
Around two out of three teachers say that teachers are valued by parents and guardians at their schools, on average across OECD education systems. This perception varies by education system, however. Although over 90% of teachers report high parental or guardian appreciation in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam, less than 50% of teachers in the French Community of Belgium, Croatia, France, and Japan report the same.
One of the most important resources that teachers have is their relationships. Teachers interact with a wide variety of people in their working lives, including students, colleagues, principals, parents and guardians, and members of the wider community. This diverse range of stakeholders comprises the school community, which has a profound impact on the work, experiences and outcomes of teachers. The quality and nature of these relationships can influence how supported teachers feel in their roles, how effectively they collaborate, and how well they are able to meet the needs of their students (Muckenthaler et al., 2020[1]; Kelly, Merry and Gonzalez, 2018[2]). Understanding the interactions that teachers have can help identify the types of school communities where teachers tend to thrive.
This chapter examines teachers’ professional relationships with other teachers, principals, their students and parents and guardians. It analyses whether different groups of teachers experience different types of relationships and how these relationships relate to teachers’ professional outcomes (fulfilment of lesson aims, well-being and job satisfaction).
Professional relationships between teachers are a key part of the school community. Teacher collaboration and cohesion can have positive effects on both students and teachers (Muckenthaler et al., 2020[1]). Effective professional relationships can help teachers to learn from each other (Akinyemi, Rembe and Nkonki, 2020[3]), collaborate to understand individual student needs (Devecchi and Rouse, 2010[4]) and in some research, could be linked to teacher well-being (Soini, Pyhältö and Pietarinen, 2010[5]).
Full-time teachers in Bahrain, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan report spending more than four and a half hours participating in teamwork and dialogue with colleagues during the most recent complete calendar week (Table 6.1).
Full-time teachers report spending more time in 2024 participating in teamwork and dialogue with colleagues, on average across OECD countries and territories with available data (hereafter, “on average”), 3.1 hours per week, compared to 2.7 hours in 2018 (Figure 6.1). There was an increase of 1 hour or more in Brazil (from 3.5 hours in 2018 to 5.0 hours in 2024), Slovenia (from 2.6 hours in 2018 to 4.1 hours in 2024) and South Africa (from 3.0 hours in 2018 to 4.1 hours in 2024) (see Chapter 2 for more details about teacher workload).
The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2024 aims to better understand how teachers are working together. TALIS asks two sets of questions about teachers' relationships with one another. The first is related to how teachers work together. The second is related to their collegiality, or teachers relying on each other.
Average number of hours per week that full-time lower secondary teachers spend participating in teamwork and dialogue with colleagues at their schools
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
The analysis is restricted to full-time teachers.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 6.2.
Working together
How teachers work together can take many forms, from occasional exchanges like sharing resources to sustained, goal-oriented work such as co-teaching (Vangrieken et al., 2015[6]). This kind of teamwork often involves shared decision making and reflection on practice, often aimed at improving teaching and learning at the student, class, or school level (Lomos, Hofman and Bosker, 2011[7]). When teachers work together with a focus on instructional improvement – such as reviewing evidence of student learning or giving feedback after classroom observations – it can foster collective learning. However, the benefits depend on the time invested and the clarity of goals (Levine and Marcus, 2010[8]). Effective joint work is often ongoing, grounded in shared values, and supported by active engagement from all participants (Griffiths et al., 2020[9]).
TALIS asks teachers about the activities that they engage in with colleagues and how frequently they do them per month. These forms of teachers working together can be categorised into two separate categories, namely:
1. professional collaboration (e.g. team teaching, providing feedback based on classroom observations, engaging in joint activities across different classes and participating in collaborative professional learning).
2. exchange and co-ordination for teaching (e.g. exchanging teaching materials, discussing the learning development of specific students, and working with other teachers to ensure common standards in evaluations for assessing student progress).
It is expected that more in-depth professional collaboration will be less commonly practised as these professional collaboration practices may be more time-consuming. Thus, these data should be interpreted with caution.
Regarding professional collaboration, 31% of teachers report teaching jointly as a team (Figure 6.2). Some 14% of teachers engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups monthly or more, and 9% of teachers observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback, on average. In contrast, more than 50% of teachers in Kazakhstan, Shanghai (China), Uzbekistan and Viet Nam collaborate by observing other teachers’ classes and providing feedback (Table 6.3).
Regarding simpler exchanges and co‑ordination for teaching, 60% of teachers, on average, engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students at least monthly (Figure 6.2). More than 80% of teachers in New Zealand*, Norway*, Poland and Sweden do so. About 45% of teachers, on average, exchange teaching materials with colleagues monthly or more. Over 70% of the teachers in Australia, New Zealand*, Norway*, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam do so. On average, 41% of teachers report working with other teachers to ensure common standards in evaluations for assessing student progress (Table 6.3).
Several factors, such as the size of the school and resource limitations, influence the frequency of teamwork. For example, more in-depth collaboration may be more time-consuming and require greater co‑ordination and are thus less frequently practised. However, examining whether teachers report having never engaged in certain collaborative practices can reflect how an education system facilitates teacher collaboration.
Looking at professional collaboration activities, in general, it is more likely that teachers never do the following activities (Table 6.4):
More than 60% of teachers in the French Community of Belgium, Croatia, Malta, Morocco and the Netherlands* report never teaching jointly as a team in the same class.
More than 75% of teachers in the French Community of Belgium and Costa Rica report never observing other teachers’ classes and providing feedback.
More than 35% of teachers in Costa Rica, Korea, Malta, Morocco, Spain, Sweden and the United States report never engaging in joint activities across different classes and age groups.
More than 40% of teachers in France and Morocco report never taking part in collaborative professional learning.
Focusing on the exchange and co-ordination for teaching activities, TALIS shows (Table 6.4) that:
More than 15% of teachers in Bahrain, Brazil, Costa Rica, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye report never exchanging teaching materials with colleagues.
More than 10% of teachers in Azerbaijan, Costa Rica, France, Morocco and Viet Nam report never engaging in discussions about the learning development of specific students.
More than 20% of teachers in Costa Rica, France and Morocco report never working with other teachers to ensure common standards for evaluation.
* For countries highlighted with an asterisk (*), estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias. See the Reader's Guide and Annex A for more detail.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who do the following activities at least once a month
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.3.
Looking across the data, there are some education systems where teachers report that they do most of all of the teamwork activities at least monthly and have a small percentage of teachers that say that they “never” do these activities (Table 6.4). These systems include Viet Nam, Shanghai (China), Norway* and the United Arab Emirates. On the other end of the spectrum, some education systems appear to have less frequent teamwork across all the activities listed. This includes Costa Rica, France and Morocco. See Box 6.1 for a discussion about how different education systems are supporting teaching as a team sport.
Who works together
TALIS 2018 data (OECD, 2020[10]) show that most of the variance in teachers’ professional collaboration is at the individual (teacher level) but that the share of variation at the school level is not negligible. Thus, TALIS 2018 results suggest that teachers tend to collaborate with only a few colleagues, while others in the same school may not collaborate at all – leading to high within-school variation.
For professional collaboration activities, male and female teachers have very similar levels of participation (Table 6.3). There are some notable exceptions. For team teaching, 10% more male teachers report team teaching in Bulgaria and Montenegro, compared to female teachers. The reverse is true in four education systems participating in TALIS with available data (hereafter, “education systems"), in Austria, Spain, Türkiye and Viet Nam. Female teachers are more likely to take part in collaborative professional learning (22% of female teachers, compared to 19% of male teachers, on average). In Denmark and Iceland, more male teachers are report doing so. On average, male and female teachers participate in joint activities across different classes and age groups at similar rates.
Male teachers are more likely than female teachers, on average, to observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback in 21 education systems (Table 6.3). However, female teachers are more likely than male teachers to report doing so in three education systems: in Uzbekistan (82% of female teachers report doing so, compared to 73% of male teachers), Kazakhstan (54% of female teachers report doing so, compared to 49% of male teachers), and Viet Nam (female teachers, 68%; male teachers, 63%).
In Shanghai (China), teaching is both considered and actively developed as a collaborative profession. Schools are organised to facilitate daily interaction among teachers, with collaboration seen not as an add-on but as an essential part of their work. One of the key enablers of this model is a limited teaching load: teachers typically spend just 12 hours per week in the classroom, leaving ample time for joint activities, such as lesson observation, co-planning, and mentoring. See Box 3.2 in Chapter 3 for further discussion on the use of teachers’ time across other TALIS participants.
This dedicated collaborative time allows teachers to learn from one another, support less experienced colleagues, and collectively refine their instructional practice. The sharing of best practices is not confined to formal workshops but is also embedded informally into everyday school life through peer observation and mentoring, activities where teachers engage in action research and experimentation, and more. In this way, Shanghai (China)’s approach reinforces the idea that teaching expertise is built collectively within schools – through sustained, structured professional collaboration.
The culture of collaborative professionalism among teachers has also contributed to the strength of school accountability in Shanghai (China), where all stakeholders share a sense of responsibility for school excellence and improvement.
Czechia increasingly recognises that teaching is not an isolated endeavour but a collective effort involving not only school stakeholders, but also families, and the community. In view of this, professional collaboration has been included as one of the six areas of Czechia’s new Competency Framework for Graduates of Teacher Education (2023). This means that teacher education programmes are expected to help teacher candidates acquire competencies in this area alongside other key areas of teachers’ professional competence, such as feedback and assessment.
Upon graduation, Czech teachers should be able to:
Collaborate with colleagues: Teachers invite colleagues (or fellow students during teacher training) to observe their teaching. This is reciprocal so they would then observe the others teaching. This means joint reflection, including feedback, and sharing experiences and resources to inspire.
Collaborate with families and the wider community: Teachers communicate appropriately about the progress of education, educational needs and development of students so that parents or guardians have enough information to effectively support their students’ education. They support positive relationships in the wider school community and participate in activities that involve the wider school community in the education of students.
Source: NCEE (2016[11]), “Shanghai: Culture, policy and practice”, https://ncee.org/empowered-educators-how-high-performing-systems-shape-teaching-quality-around-the-world/; OECD (2020[12]), Benchmarking the Performance of China’s Education System, https://doi.org/10.1787/4ab33702-en; Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (2023[13]), Kompetenční rámec absolventa a absolventky učitelství: Společné profesní competence, https://msmt.gov.cz/uploads/kompetencni_ramec_absolventa_2023_10.pdf.
Female teachers, on average, tend to report using exchange and co-ordination for teaching activities more than male teachers (Table 6.3). For example, they say that each month they engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students (12 percentage points more for female teachers), exchange teaching materials with colleagues (11 percentage points more for female teachers) and work with other teachers in their school to ensure common standards in evaluations for assessing student progress (8 percentage points more for female teachers).
Novice teachers are more likely than experienced teachers to report using professional collaboration methods at least once a month, on average (Table 6.5). In particular, novice teachers report working with other teachers to ensure common standards in evaluations for assessing student progress in 13 education systems. This is particularly evident in Colombia (49% novice teachers do so, compared to 35% of experienced teachers), Costa Rica (35% of novice teachers; 23% of experienced teachers), the Netherlands* (44% of novice teachers; 23% of experienced teachers) and Shanghai (China) (64% of novice teachers; 49% of experienced teachers). These findings might reflect systems allocating resources to upskill novice teachers via mentoring and collaboration.
Of note, teachers in the top quartile of self-efficacy in their country tend to collaborate more in all the collaborative practices listed, on average (Table 6.6). This is particularly the case when teachers engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students (22 percentage points more for teachers with high self-efficacy) (Figure 6.3) and exchange teaching material with colleagues (18 percentage points more for teachers with high self-efficacy).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers engaging in discussions about specific students' learning development at least once a month
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Teachers with low self-efficacy refer to those in the bottom quartile (T4SELF). Teachers with high self-efficacy refer to those in the top quartile of the scale of teacher self‐efficacy (T4SELF). Quartiles are calculated within each country/territory.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.6.
Evolution of working together
In general, teaching is becoming more team oriented. On average, there has been an increase in monthly activities of working together between 2018 and 2024 (Table 6.7).
In 23 education systems, there was an increase in teachers reporting that they participate in collaborative professional learning, with the largest increase being Viet Nam (a rise of 36 percentage points in 2024 compared to 2018) (Table 6.7). In seven education systems, teachers were less likely to report participating in collaborative professional learning at least monthly in their schools in 2024 compared to 2018. The largest decreases are seen in Saudi Arabia (15 percentage points less in 2024 compared to 2018), Singapore (12 percentage points less in 2024 compared to 2018), and Sweden (10 percentage points less in 2024).
Since 2018, 21 education systems have increased the practice of teaching jointly as a team (Figure 6.4). The largest increases were in Viet Nam (57 percentage-point increase since 2018) and Denmark (22 percentage-point increase). There has been a decrease in the number of teachers reporting that they teach jointly as a team in the same class at least once a month in seven education systems. The largest decrease is seen in the Slovak Republic (20 percentage points less in 2024).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who teach jointly as a team in the same class at least once a month
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 6.7.
Collegiality
Interpersonal relationships, including mutual support, trust and solidarity, are key foundations of a collaborative school culture – an essential condition for effective professional collaboration (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012[14]; Hargreaves and O’Connor, 2018[15]). The relationship between collegiality and collaboration is reciprocal. Frequent collaborative interactions among colleagues can help strengthen trust, build positive relationships and contribute to a more supportive school climate (Rutter and Maughan, 2002[16]). To measure collegiality, TALIS asks teachers whether the teachers at their school can rely on each other. If teachers “agree” or “strongly agree” with the statement, they are considered to be working in a collegial environment.
On average, 86% of teachers at their school “agree” or “strongly agree” that they can rely on each other (Table 6.8). Only 55% of teachers report this in Costa Rica. On the other end of the scale, over 95% of teachers report this in Albania, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Shanghai (China) and Viet Nam.
In 38 education systems, there was no significant difference in teacher collegiality between schools that take in less than 10% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes and those teaching in schools with 30% or more of these students (Table 6.8). Exceptions to this include Costa Rica, where 73% of teachers in socio‑economically advantaged schools report that they can rely on each other, compared to 52% of teachers at disadvantaged schools. In Denmark, teachers from advantaged schools report collegiality 12 percentage points more frequently. The United States shows a similar pattern, with a 9 percentage-point difference. Japan displays the opposite trend, with teachers from disadvantaged schools reporting that they can rely on each other 11 percentage points more frequently.
Teacher collegiality has decreased since 2018 in ten education systems, with the largest decrease in Japan (from 83% of teachers saying they can rely on each other in 2018 to 77% of teachers in 2024) (Table 6.9). On the other hand, teacher collegiality has increased over the same time period in five education systems, with a 12 percentage-point increase in Hungary (moving from 82% in 2018 to 94% in 2024).
Only three education systems – Alberta (Canada)*, Colombia and Italy – show a difference in teacher collegiality based on the proportion of students in the school with difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction (Table 6.8). In Alberta (Canada)* and Italy, more teachers from schools with no such students report higher levels of collegiality, state they can rely on each other. Conversely, in Colombia, teachers from schools with more than 10% of students having language difficulties report higher collegiality, with 5 percentage points more of these teachers saying they can rely on each other.
Teachers who report that they exchange teaching materials tend report that they are in collegial environments in 34 out of 54 education systems (Figure 6.5) and if they engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students they tend to report that they are in collegial environments in 29 out of 54 education systems (Table 6.10). These results hold while accounting for teacher and school characteristics as well as other forms of collaboration, such as team teaching, providing feedback based on class observation and engaging in joint activities across different classes.
Change in the likelihood of lower secondary teachers “agree[ing]” or “strongly agree[ing]” that teachers can rely on each other1 associated with teachers reporting that they exchange teaching materials with colleagues at least monthly2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 1 indicate a positive association between teachers reporting that they can rely on each other and that they exchange teaching materials with colleagues at least monthly, while those below 1 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “disagree” and “strongly disagree”.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to teachers reporting doing the following activities never or less than once a month.
3. Results based on binary logistic regression. An odds ratio indicates the degree to which an explanatory variable is associated with a categorical outcome variable. An odds ratio below one denotes a negative association; an odds ratio above one indicates a positive association; and an odds ratio of one means that there is no association. After controlling for teacher characteristics (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience), school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs), and other forms of collaboration.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.10.
Professional relationships with other teachers
In terms of a school’s collaborative culture, as a general trend, a larger share of female teachers collaborate with their peers. In 12 out of 15 education systems with available data for the primary education level, a larger share of female teachers exchange teaching materials with colleagues compared to their male counterparts (Table 6.3). The largest difference is observed in Korea (31 percentage points more). More female primary school teachers engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students, with the largest difference observed in Korea (24 percentage points more).
Professional relationships with principals
A larger share of primary school teachers believe that the principal encourages all staff to have a say in important decisions, compared to lower secondary teachers, in 10 out of 15 education systems with available data for both levels (Table 6.17). The largest difference is found in the Netherlands* (23 percentage points more). Similarly, more primary teachers report that the principal ensures that teachers’ performance is monitored effectively, with the largest difference also found in the Netherlands* (27 percentage points more).
Professional relationships with parents and guardians
A larger share of primary teachers report that they collaborate with parents and guardians to enrich students' learning activities in general at least once a month, compared to lower secondary teachers. The largest differences are observed in Korea (27 percentage points more) and Brazil (23 percentage points more) (Table 6.36). Compared to TALIS 2018, not many differences are observed in teacher-student relationships (Table 6.28). Notably, in a third of countries with available data for both surveys, a larger proportion of primary teachers report that their school provides students with extra assistance if needed, compared to the previous survey. The largest difference is found in Korea (7 percentage points).
Professional outcomes
Primary school teachers who report having good relationships with people in the school community tend to have high levels of job satisfaction, similar to their lower secondary school peers (Table 6.16). The strongest relationship is seen with teachers who report that their principal has good professional relationships with staff and teachers who say they are valued by parents and guardians in the school.
Teachers’ relations with other teachers and their professional outcomes
Regarding working together, teachers who report engaging in particular collaborative activities at least once a month tend to report higher levels of fulfilment of their lesson aims, even after accounting for teacher characteristics (e.g. teachers’ gender, age and teaching experience [hereafter “teacher characteristics”]), school characteristics (e.g. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs [hereafter “school characteristics”]) and other forms of collaboration (Table 6.11). In 32 out of 54 education systems, teachers who participate in collaborative professional learning, a form of professional collaboration tend to report higher levels of fulfilment of their lesson aims. The same association is seen in 36 out of 54 education systems for teachers who report working with colleagues to ensure common standards in student assessment, a form of exchange and co‑ordination for teaching. Similarly, engaging in joint activities across different classes and age groups (in 30 out of 54 education systems), another form of professional collaboration tends to have an association with fulfilment of lesson aims. These findings suggest that both structured, in-depth collaboration and more routine co‑ ordination may support teachers in achieving their instructional goals.
In 12 out of 54 education systems, teachers who take part in collaborative professional learning at least once a month tend to report high levels of well-being after accounting for teacher characteristics, school characteristics and other forms of collaboration (Table 6.12).
Teachers who engage in exchange and co-ordination for teaching collaborative activities tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction (Table 6.13). In 21 out of 54 education systems, teachers who engage in joint activities across different classes and ages at least once a month (a form of professional collaboration) also tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction after accounting for teacher characteristics, school characteristics and other forms of collaboration. Similarly, in 21 out of 54 education systems, teachers who take part in collaborative professional learning tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction controlling for all the same factors. There also tends to be a positive relationship in 19 out of 54 education systems between job satisfaction and exchanging teaching materials with colleagues and in 22 out of 54 education systems, working with other teachers to ensure common assessment standards after accounting for teacher characteristics, school characteristics and other forms of collaboration.
Regarding collegiality, there are very few education systems that have a statistically significant association with teacher collegiality and those who team teach, those who engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups and those who observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback, while accounting for teacher and school characteristics as well as other forms of collaboration (Table 6.10). Similarly, the number of hours they spend on teacher collaboration is not related to their reported collegiality, which suggests that the type of collaboration is more strongly related to collegiality than the amount of collaboration (Table 6.14).
Teachers who report that they can rely on each other tend to report higher levels of well-being in 37 out of 54 education systems (Table 6.15). Teachers who report that they can rely on each other tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction in all education systems (Table 6.16). These relationships hold even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics as well as collegiality and relationships with the principal, parents and guardians.
Principal-teacher professional relationships can have an impact on the individual teacher as well as the school community as a whole. TALIS 2024 sheds light on what teachers think about this professional relationship, whether those views change depending on teacher or school characteristics, whether principal characteristics impact those views, and what the relationship is between teacher-principal relations and outcomes for teachers, including job satisfaction, well-being, and fulfilment of their lesson aims.
TALIS asks teachers about their views of their principals, including their opinions on whether the principal has a vision for the school, whether they feel the principal offers opportunities for teachers to be involved in decisions, and whether the principal maintains good professional relationships with staff, parents, guardians and students. TALIS also asks principals about their leadership style and practices.
Teachers’ views of their principals are generally positive on average:
Some 86% of teachers agree that their principal has good professional relationships with staff, ranging from 77% to 98% of teachers within education systems (Figure 6.6). Similarly, 86% of teachers agree that their principal ensures that teachers feel responsible for their students’ learning outcomes, ranging from 71% to 98% of teachers within education systems (Table 6.17).
Some 78% of teachers agree that the principal ensures that teachers’ performance is monitored effectively, ranging from 44% to 98% of teachers within education systems (Table 6.17). Only 44% of teachers report this in Finland, 58% in Iceland and 59% in Denmark and the Netherlands*. This could indicate that principals are less involved in teacher performance monitoring within these education systems.
Some 77% of teachers also agree that their principal provides useful feedback to teachers and staff, ranging from 61% to 98% of teachers within education systems (Table 6.17). Education systems with less than 65% of teachers reporting this are the French Community of Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Iceland.
Some 92% of teachers agree that their principal has confidence in the expertise of the teachers at their school, ranging from 87% to 98% of teachers within education systems (Table 6.18).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” the following statements about their school
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Tables 6.17 and 6.18.
Teachers in rural schools tend to be more likely to agree that the principal has good professional relationships with staff by an average of 3 percentage points (Table 6.19). Around 89% of teachers in rural schools in Iceland reported this compared to 75% of teachers in urban schools (to note, many schools in Iceland that are classified as rural function as urban areas with full infrastructure and services). The reverse is true in three education systems and especially in France (89% in urban schools compared to 74% in rural areas).
Teachers in privately managed schools tend to be more likely to agree that their principal has good professional relationships with staff by an average of 2 percentage points (Table 6.19). This is particularly the case in Costa Rica (13 percentage points more in privately managed schools), Australia and Azerbaijan (both 6 percentage points more). The reverse is true in Malta (9 percentage points more in publicly managed schools compared to privately managed schools) and Spain (4 percentage points more).
In 12 out of 54 education systems, more novice teachers (i.e. those with up to five years of teaching experience) agree that their principal provides useful feedback to teachers and staff (79% of novice teachers compared to 77% of experienced teachers [i.e. those with more than ten years of teaching experience]) (Table 6.20). This represents a difference of more than 12 percentage points in the Flemish Community of Belgium, the French Community of Belgium, and Denmark. Czechia is the only education system where the reverse is true.
In 11 education systems, more younger teachers (aged 30 and below) believe that the principal has confidence in the expertise of the teachers than older teachers (aged 50 and above). Bahrain is the only system with the opposite trend (11 percentage points more) (Table 6.18). Novice teachers are more likely to agree that the principal has confidence in the expertise of teachers at their school in 13 education systems, particularly in Norway* (8 percentage points more than experienced teachers). The reverse is true in Bahrain, with experienced teachers agreeing with this statement by 6 percentage points more.
On average, there is no difference between female and male teachers in terms of agreeing that their principal has confidence in their expertise. However, six education systems show exceptions to this pattern (Table 6.18). In five education systems, female teachers are more likely than male teachers to agree that principals have confidence in their expertise. The United States is the only system where the opposite is observed: male teachers agree more than their female peers, by a margin of 5 percentage points.
Some characteristics of the principal also have an impact on whether teachers agree that their principal has confidence in the expertise of the school’s teachers. In eight education systems, if the teacher’s principal is male, more teachers agree with the statement compared to teachers who have a female principal (Table 6.21). There is more than a 5 percentage-point difference (favouring male principals) in Chile and Costa Rica. The reverse is true in Alberta (Canada)* (6 percentage points more for female principals) and Saudi Arabia (2 percentage points more for female principals). In most education systems, the age of the principal is weakly related to whether teachers agree that their principal has confidence in the teachers. However, in two education systems, teachers who have a principal who is younger than 40 are more likely to report this: Czechia and Latvia (4 percentage points more for younger principals). Finally, the number of years that the principal has been a principal shows a difference in just three systems – Australia, Kosovo and Uzbekistan – in favour of more experienced principals.
Leadership styles
A collaborative school environment, one that facilitates teacher collaboration, can be influenced by a principal’s leadership style. In TALIS, there are two particular leadership styles that are linked to school environments that help teachers work together. The first is: Instructional leadership that focuses mostly on high-quality instructional practices and developing a professional learning community where teachers learn with and from each other (Hallinger, 2003[17]).
TALIS asks principals how frequently they take actions to support co-operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices; if they take actions to ensure that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills; and if they take actions to ensure that teachers feel responsible for their students’ learning outcomes. Principals with high self-reported instructional leadership qualities report that they regularly do these things.
Teachers in Japan and Latvia who work with these principals are more likely to say that the principal provides useful feedback to teachers (there is no significant relationship in the other education systems) (Table 6.22). Teachers who have principals who report high instructional leadership qualities are more likely to agree that the principal encourages co‑operation among teachers to develop new teaching practices than those who have principals with lower instructional leadership qualities. This is the case in Denmark, Kazakhstan, Romania, Singapore and Slovenia. However, the reverse is true in Montenegro and North Macedonia. See Box 6.3 for more information about how education systems can strengthen instructional leadership.
The second leadership style is giving opportunities for teachers and other stakeholders to participate in school decisions. In this form of leadership, stakeholders like teachers and parents and guardians take part in decision making and are encouraged and enabled to have a meaningful say (Nadeem, 2024[18]). Therefore, interactions between the principal and teachers are a key priority (Harris, 2009[19]).
TALIS asks teachers whether their principal encourages all staff to have a say on important decisions. In 2024, 78% of teachers on average “agree” or “strongly agree” with this statement, ranging from 61% to 96% across education systems (Table 6.17).
This perception of principal support appears closely linked to broader school participation opportunities. Teachers who say that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions tend to be more likely to agree with a range of positive statements about their principal compared to those teachers who say their school does not provide such opportunities (Table 6.23). For example:
The principal encourages all staff to have a say in important decisions (90% of teachers who agree that their school offers participation opportunities also agree that the principal encourages all staff to actively participate in school decisions compared to 33% of those who disagree that their school provides such opportunities).
The principal provides useful feedback (86% of teachers who agree that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions also agree that the principal provides useful feedback compared to 44% of those who disagree).
Good professional relationships with staff (94% of teachers who agree that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions compared also agree that the principal has good professional relationships with staff, compared to 59% of teachers who disagree).
The principal encourages teacher co‑operation to develop new teaching practices (93% of teachers who agree that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions also agree that the principal encourages teacher co-operation to develop new teaching practices compared to 60% of teachers who disagree).
Principals have a clear vision for their school (93% of teachers who agree that their school provides staff with opportunities to actively participate in school decisions agree that principals have a clear vision for their school compared to 63% of teachers who disagree).
The OECD/UNICEF’s Education in the Eastern Partnership: Findings from PISA report (OECD/UNICEF, 2024[20]) underscored the need for Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries to further strengthen school leadership as a way to support learning.
One EaP country that has been investing in this area since 2013 is Azerbaijan, which has:
Re-oriented principals’ responsibilities: Azerbaijani principals are now expected to take on a more instructional role, supporting teachers, and ensuring the quality of the learning and teaching process.
Introduced a new recruitment model for principals that is merit- and competence-based, as well as transparent. The selection process involves four steps: 1) the candidates’ applications; 2) and 3) an exam which consists of a standardised multiple-choice test and a written essay focusing on labour and education legislation, school management and finance, and the application of quantitative analysis of school data; and 4) an interview administered by the Ministry of Education commission. School principal selection and appointments (and dismissals) are made by the Ministry of Education, with no role for regional or municipal educational authorities at any stage of the process.
Begun to offer specific training to school leaders (e.g. on education management, finance and law). The training is offered by universities and independent organisations, such as the Azerbaijan Teacher Development Centre.
A study by Kazimzade (2017[21]) found that, despite progress, some challenges remain. The training on offer is expensive and remains inaccessible to many, particularly those in remote regions. Even individuals who are able to participate in the training programmes and are selected receive little or no follow-up support afterwards.
Source: Kazimzade, E. (2017[21]), School Principalship Developments in Azerbaijan: Challenges of Professional Development of School Leaders vs. Managers; OECD/UNICEF (2024[22]), Education in the Eastern Partnership: Findings from PISA, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5d6f109-en.
Teachers’ relations with principals and their professional outcomes
In 21 out of 54 education systems, teachers who report that the principal provides useful feedback to teachers and staff tends to be positively associated with higher fulfilment of their lesson aims even after accounting for teacher characteristics, school characteristics and other principal-teacher factors (Table 6.24). In 17 out of 54 education systems, teachers who report that the principal ensures that teachers’ performance is monitored effectively tends to be positively associated with higher fulfilment of their lesson aims even after accounting for teacher characteristics, school characteristics and other principal-teacher factors.
The well-being and job satisfaction of teachers tends to be strongly related to having a supportive principal. In around half of education systems, teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that the principal has confidence in the expertise of teachers at their school, and those who agree that the principal has good professional relationships with staff tend to report higher well-being (Table 6.25). In most education systems, teachers who report that the principal has confidence in the expertise of teachers at their school, and those who agree that the principal has good professional relationships with staff tend to report higher job satisfaction (Table 6.26). Teacher well-being and job satisfaction also tends to be positively related to principals who provide useful feedback to staff and ensure that teachers’ performance is monitored effectively. Teachers also tend to report higher job satisfaction when principals provide useful feedback and ensure that teachers' performance is monitored effectively (Table 6.26). All these relationships hold even after accounting for teacher characteristics, school characteristics and other principal-teacher factors
Teachers who report that their principal has good professional relationships with staff tend to report that they are satisfied with their job even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics as well as collegiality and relationship with the principal, parents and guardians. This is the case in all education systems (Figure 6.7). Finally, in over eight out of ten education systems, teachers who report that their principal has good professional relationships with staff tend to report higher levels of well-being even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics as well as collegiality and relationship with the principal, parents and guardians (Table 6.15).
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers’ job satisfaction1 associated with teachers “agree[ing]” or “strongly agree[ing]” with the statement that “the principal has good professional relationships with staff”2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between teacher job satisfaction and good principal-staff professional relations, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and a mean of 10. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “disagree” or “strongly disagree”.
3. Results based on linear regression analysis, showing the change in the outcome variable associated with a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable. After controlling for teacher characteristics (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience), school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs), and relationships with the principal, other teachers, and parents and guardians.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.16.
Teacher-student relations is an important element of school community, as trusting interpersonal relationships between staff and students can improve student academic achievement (Li, Bergin and Olsen, 2022[23]) as well as improve outcomes for teachers, such as well-being (Spilt, Koomen and Thijs, 2011[24]). TALIS asks teachers if: 1) students and teachers usually get along well with each other; 2) most teachers believe that student well-being is important; 3) most teachers are interested in what students have to say; and 4) a student needs extra assistance, the school will provide it.
In general, teachers report good student-teacher relationships in their schools. Over nine out of ten teachers, on average, “agree” or “strongly agree” with all four statements. Approximately 97% of teachers report that most teachers believe student well-being is important, and 96% report that students and teachers usually get along well with each other (Table 6.27). Around nine out of ten teachers report that, if a student needs extra assistance, the school provides it, and that most teachers are interested in what students have to say. This result echoes reports from students in PISA 2022 (OECD, 2023[25]). Students were asked if their mathematics teacher gives extra help when students need it. On average, 8% of students reported that this never or hardly ever happened compared to 92% of students reporting that it happened in some, most or every lesson (Table II.B1.3.1, OECD PISA 2022).
TALIS 2024 shows a marginal increase in the number of teachers reporting good student-teacher relationships, on average, on all four statements, compared to TALIS 2018 (Table 6.28):
The percentage of teachers who agree that teachers and students usually get along well with each other increased in eight education systems between 2018 and 2024 and decreased in three education systems during the same time period.
The percentage of teachers who agree that most teachers believe that student well-being is important increased in eight education systems between 2018 and 2024, while it decreased in three education systems. The largest decrease was in Czechia (8 percentage points). This could be linked to the addition of social and emotional skills in many curricula (see Chapter 1 for a discussion about social and emotional learning).
The proportion of teachers who agree that most teachers are interested in what students have to say increased in 16 education systems between 2018 and 2024, while it decreased in 2 education systems.
The percentage of teachers who agree that if a student needs extra assistance, the school will provide it increased in 13 education systems and decreased in 5 education systems between 2018 and 2024.
TALIS also asks teachers if they agree that in their school, teachers are valued by students. Around seven in ten teachers, on average, agreed that teachers are valued by students (ranging from 53% to 96%) (Table 6.29). Around three quarters of teachers older than 50 report that they feel valued by students compared to 65% of teachers under the age of 30, on average. This was the case in 25 education systems. When looking at experience, 73% of experienced teachers feel valued by students compared to 66% of novice teachers, on average. Experienced teachers report feeling valued more than novice teachers in 24 education systems, with novice teachers reporting this more in one education system alone, Costa Rica.
A larger share of teachers who work in privately managed schools feel valued by students (12 percentage points more than teachers in publicly managed schools) (Figure 6.8) and teachers who work in socio‑economically advantaged schools (12 percentage points more than teachers who work in disadvantaged schools) (Table 6.30). Around three quarters of teachers who work in schools with fewer students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction report feeling valued by students (compared to 66% of those who work in schools with over 10% of these students).
More teachers who work in schools with over less than 10% of students with special education needs report that in their school, teachers are valued by students (4 percentage points more than those working in schools with more than 30% of these students) (Table 6.30). There were particularly large differences in the Slovak Republic (33 percentage points less for teachers working in schools with over 30% of students with special education needs). Nevertheless, this trend does not apply to every education system. In Colombia, more teachers in schools with a high intake of students with special needs report that they are valued by students (13 percentage points more than teachers in schools with no intake of students with special education needs).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that, in their school, teachers feel valued by students
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
A publicly managed school is a school whose principal reported that it is managed by a public education authority, government agency, municipality, or governing board appointed by government or elected by public franchise. A privately managed school is a school whose principal reported that it is managed by a non-governmental organisation (e.g. a church, trade union, business or other private institution). In the Principal Questionnaire, this question does not make any reference to the source of the school’s funding, which is reported in the preceding question.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.30.
Teachers who report having higher self-efficacy in classroom management tend to report good student-teacher relations even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics (Table 6.31). This is the case for almost all education systems.
In seven education systems, teachers who spend more time counselling students (one hour unit increase) are less likely to agree that teachers and students get along well together, after accounting for teacher and school characteristics (Table 6.32). This counselling includes student supervision, mentoring, virtual counselling, career guidance and behaviour guidance. There is no significant association between the time spent counselling students and the likelihood of teachers and students getting along well in the other 47 education systems.
Teachers’ relations with students and their professional outcomes
Positive student-teacher relationships tend to be associated with teachers feeling greater job satisfaction in 28 education systems (Figure 6.9). In 20 education systems, teachers’ well‑being is also positively associated with their agreement that teachers and students usually get along well with each other (Table 6.15). These relationships hold even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics as well as collegiality and relationship with the principal, parents and guardians.
Change in the scale of lower secondary teachers' job satisfaction1 associated with teachers “agree[ing]” or “strongly agree[ing]” with the statement that “teachers and students usually get on well with each other”2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 0 indicate a positive association between teacher job satisfaction and positive student-teacher relationships, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Standardised scale scores with a standard deviation of 2 and a mean of 10. For more information on the scales, see Annex B.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “disagree” or “strongly disagree”.
3. Results based on linear regression analysis, showing the change in the outcome variable associated with a one-unit increase in the explanatory variable. After controlling for teacher characteristics (i.e. gender, age and years of teaching experience), school characteristics (i.e. school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs), as well as relationships with the principal, other teachers, and parents and guardians.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.16.
Looking particularly at teachers’ belief that student well-being is important, there tends to be a strong positive relationship with teachers’ job satisfaction in 46 education systems (Table 6.33), a positive relationship with teacher well-being in 32 education systems (Table 6.34) and fulfilment of lesson aims in 28 education systems (Table 6.35) after accounting for teacher and school characteristics.
Parents and those who have parental roles play a crucial role in their children’s learning from birth and a child’s home life can influence a student’s academic achievement (Stroetinga, Leeman and Veugelers, 2018[26]). Collaborating with parents and guardians to support in-school learning has been linked to higher student achievement, skill building for parents and guardians, and stronger school‑community relationships (Castro et al., 2015[27]; Gordon and Cui, 2012[28]). Since children spend more time at home and in their communities than in school, connecting in-school learning with their broader environment is essential for their development (Darling-Hammond and Bransford, 2007[29]). This requires teachers to collaborate with families and other stakeholders beyond the school setting, which is an increasingly important professional practice for many teachers (Guerriero, 2017[30]).
Approximately 25% of teachers report collaborating with parents and guardians to enrich students’ learning activities at least once a month, on average (Figure 6.10). Over 50% of teachers in Albania, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam say that they collaborate with parents and guardians on a monthly basis. In contrast, less than 10% of teachers in the Flemish Community of Belgium, the French Community of Belgium, France, Malta and the Netherlands* report the same. See Box 6.4 to see how different education systems are rethinking how teachers collaborate with parents and guardians.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report collaborating with parents and guardians to enrich student learning, at least monthly
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.36.
Full-time teachers report that they spend 1.8 hours per week communicating and co‑operating with parents and guardians (Table 6.1). The highest amount of time spent is 3.6 hours in Azerbaijan, 3.4 hours in Kazakhstan, 3.3 hours in Uzbekistan and 3.1 hours in Costa Rica. The time spent communicating and co‑operating with parents has increased in 24 education systems since 2018 and decreased in just 2 (Table 6.2).
Chile
A specific initiative in Chile offered each participating parent the chance to receive a high frequency of information via SMS messages regarding the attendance, behaviour and mathematics test scores of their children. After four months, the students involved had higher math grades, improved attendance and a lower prevalence of bad behaviours, and they were less likely to fail the grade at the end of the year. This initiative was run by a private organisation with funding from competitive grants provided by the Ministry of Education.
New Zealand
The Education Review Office (ERO) found that Māori children tended to achieve higher outcomes in Kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium education pathways. This success is attributed, in part, to the strong engagement of families and communities in these schools. In these settings, teachers shared resources and strategies that parents and children could use together at home. At their best, these relationships were reciprocal – teachers and parents engaged in two-way learning, sharing insights and listening to each other’s perspectives.
The ERO’s study found that, with support from school leaders, teachers in Kaupapa Māori and Māori-medium schools:
involved parents in setting goals and identifying next learning steps with their children
prioritised frequent and meaningful conversations to better understand each student’s broader context at home and at school, helping to shape holistic and authentic learning goals
responded promptly to information on student progress
persisted in finding inclusive and effective ways to engage all parents
systematically worked to assess, strengthen and sustain relationships with students and their parents.
Poland
The Jerzy Regulski Foundation in Support of Local Democracy (FSLD), led by the Polish Ministry of National Education in partnership with the Foundation for the Development of Local Democracy, promoted stronger collaboration among teachers, parents and students. Its main goal was to modernise the way school communities work, encouraging joint responsibility in organising school life. To support this, the project provided workshops to build participants’ skills in initiating and sustaining meaningful co‑operation. In addition, each participating school or preschool received tailored support from expert consultants to help develop a customised collaboration plan adapted to their specific context. The programme, which ran between 2013 and 2015, was implemented in 1 034 schools from all over Poland, and was co-financed by the European Social Fund. An online platform has been created to share the programme’s outputs, including best practices, experiences and workshop materials.
Source: Berlinski, S. et al. (2021[31]), “Reducing parent‑school information gaps and improving education outcomes: Evidence from high‑frequency text messages,” https://www.povertyactionlab.org/evaluation/reducing-parent-school-information-gaps-and-improving-education-outcomes-evidence-high; Education Review Office (2015[32]), Educationally Powerful Connections with Parents and Whanau, https://ero.govt.nz/our-research/educationally-powerful-connections-with-parents-and-whanau; FRDL (n.d.[33]), Jerzy Regulski Foundation in Support of Local Democracy, https://frdl.org.pl/jerzy-regulski-foundation-in-support-of-local-democracy-fsld; OECD (2024[34]), OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2024, https://doi.org/10.1787/603809f2-en; Schleicher, A. (2018[35]), Valuing our Teachers and Raising their Status: How Communities Can Help, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264292697-en.
Certain teacher characteristics, such as gender and age, relate to the frequency with which teachers collaborate with parents and guardians. On average, 27% of female teachers report collaborating with parents and guardians to enrich students’ learning compared to 20% of male teachers (Table 6.36). While this pattern varies across education systems, there are no education system where male teachers report contacting parents on a monthly basis more than female teachers. The share of younger teachers who collaborate with parents regularly (i.e. at least once a month) is 5 percentage points higher compared to older teachers, on average. This is true in 20 education systems. However, Czechia, Morocco, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Uzbekistan show the reverse pattern.
School-level characteristics are weakly related to how many teachers collaborate with parents and guardians monthly (Table 6.37). Some exceptions to this include Brazil and Hungary, where teachers in rural schools report at least 9 percentage points more that they collaborate with parents and guardians compared to urban schools. In contrast, teachers in urban schools in Morocco, Serbia and the United States are report 10 percentage points more that they collaborate compared to those in rural schools. Around 10 percentage point more teachers in privately managed schools in Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye report that they collaborate compared to teachers in publicly managed schools. The reverse is true in Finland (10 percentage points more for publicly managed schools) and Denmark and Korea (both 8 percentage points more for publicly managed schools).
Teachers’ perception of being valued by parents and guardians
Perception of being valued by different stakeholders within the school community and the broader community can have an impact on teachers’ commitment and success in the classroom (Price and Weatherby, 2017[36]). This can link to perceptions of job status and job satisfaction (see Chapter 7). TALIS asks teachers about whether they feel valued by parents and guardians in their schools.
Some 65% of teachers report that in their school, teachers are valued by parents and guardians, on average (Table 6.38). Over 90% of teachers report this in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam. On the other end of the scale, less than 50% of teachers say they are valued by parents and guardians in the French Community of Belgium, Croatia, France and Japan.
System-level analysis shows a moderate correlation between the percentage of teachers who report collaborating with parents and guardians at least monthly and the share who feel valued by them (the linear correlation coefficient between these two variables is r=.45) (Figure 6.11). Yet, this association is less evident in some education systems. For instance, teachers in Hungary, Serbia and Türkiye are above average in reporting that they collaborate with parents and guardians at least monthly, and are below average in reporting that they feel valued. On the other hand, teachers in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Morocco the Netherlands*, Saudi Arabia and Singapore, among other education systems, are below average in reporting monthly collaboration with parents and guardians, but report feeling valued at above-average levels.
Percentages of lower secondary teachers who report collaborating with parents and guardians to enrich student learning at least monthly, and those who report that they feel valued by parents and guardians
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
The system-level linear correlation coefficient (r) between collaborating monthly with parents and how valued teachers feel by parents can be calculated by taking the square root of the R-Squared (R2) highlighted on the figure.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.36 and 6.39.
School factors seem to have an effect on the perception of being valued by parents and guardians (Table 6.38):
76% of teachers at privately managed schools agree that parents and guardians value them compared to 63% of teachers at publicly managed schools. This difference exceeds 20 percentage points in Costa Rica, France, Japan, Malta, Portugal and the United States.
A 9 percentage‑point difference is observed between teachers teaching in socio‑economically advantaged schools and those teaching over 30% of students from socio‑economically disadvantaged schools (Figure 6.12).
On average, 62% of teachers who teach at schools with over 10% of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction report that they feel valued compared to 70% of teachers who teach at schools that have none of these students.
On average, 62% of teachers at schools with over 30% of the student body with special education needs report that they feel valued by parents and guardians compared to 67% of teachers in schools with none of these students.
However, some education systems do not follow these general trends (Table 6.38):
In Kosovo, 84% of teachers in more socio-economically disadvantaged schools report feeling valued by parents compared to 73% of teachers in more socio-economically advantaged schools (Figure 6.12).
In Bahrain and North Macedonia, teachers who teach more students who have difficulties understanding the language are report more often that they feel valued by parents than those who teach none of those students.
Finally, in Colombia, 92% of teachers who teach in schools with student intake of over 30% with special education needs report feeling valued by parents compared to 79% of teachers in schools with 10% or less of these students.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that teachers at their school feel valued by parents and guardians
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Advantaged schools refer to those with 10% or fewer students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes. Disadvantaged schools refer to those with more than 30% of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 6.38.
In 25 out of 54 education systems, teachers who report collaborating with parents and guardians at least monthly tend to be more likely to agree that they are valued by parents and guardians (Table 6.40). This relationship holds after controlling for teacher and school characteristics. In 47 out of 54 education systems, teachers who agree that parents and guardians have active opportunities to participate in school decisions also tend to report they are valued by parents and guardians, even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics (Table 6.42).
Around seven in ten teachers say they communicate with parents using digital resources and tools “quite a bit” or “a lot”, on average (Table 6.43). This is 3 percentage points more common for female teachers and 5 percentage points more common for teachers under 30 years of age. Years of teaching experience has no significant association with teacher communication with parents on average.
Teachers’ relations with parents and guardians and their professional outcomes
Teachers who collaborate with parents and guardians at least once a month tend to report higher levels of fulfilment of their lesson aims, even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics. This is the case in 51 out of 54 education systems (Table 6.44). Similarly, teachers who collaborate with parents on a monthly basis tend to report higher job satisfaction (Table 6.45). There is a less strong relationship between teachers who collaborate with parents and those who tend to report higher levels of well-being, with a relationship shown in 15 out of 54 education systems (Table 6.46).
In all education systems, teachers who report that they are valued by parents and guardians tend to report higher well-being (Table 6.15) and higher job satisfaction (Table 6.16). These relationships hold even after accounting for teacher and school characteristics as well as collegiality and relationship with the principal and students.
Professional relationships with other teachers
Since 2018, upper secondary teachers in five out of the six education systems with available data have increased the number of hours they spend on teamwork and dialogue with colleagues (Table 6.2). The largest increase was observed in Slovenia, where teachers reported spending 2.5 hours on this task in 2018, compared to 4.0 hours in 2024. This was a similar amount of time to their lower secondary colleagues.
In terms of the number of hours communicating and co-operating with parents, Croatia, Slovenia and the United Arab Emirates have shown an increase since 2018 (Table 6.2). The Flemish Community of Belgium and Denmark spend less time communicating with parents than their lower secondary colleagues (Table 6.1).
Compared to 2018, a larger proportion of upper secondary teachers are interested in what students have to say and get along with their students (Table 6.28). The largest differences are found in Croatia (5 percentage points more in 2024 compared to 2018 of teachers agreeing that they are interested in what students have to say, and 4 percentage points more in 2024 compared to 2018 of teachers agreeing that students and teachers get on well with each other).
Regarding the school’s collaborative culture, a larger proportion of female teachers engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students, with the largest difference found in Croatia (16 percentage points more for female teachers) (Table 6.3). More female teachers also exchange materials with colleagues; the largest difference is observed in Portugal (14 percentage points more). In terms of working with teachers to ensure common standards for assessing student progress, the largest difference is again observed in Portugal (14 percentage points more for female teachers).
Professional relationships with principals
Teachers who report that the principal has good professional relationships with staff tend to have higher job satisfaction (Table 6.16). In a similar way, for six out of the seven upper secondary systems, teachers who report that they can rely on each other tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction and teachers who feel valued by parents and guardians in the school have higher job satisfaction.
In nearly half of education systems with available data for upper secondary education, teachers whose principals report instructional leadership qualities are more likely to agree that the principal ensures that teachers take responsibility for improving their teaching skills (Table 6.22). The largest difference is found in Slovenia, where this agreement is 16 percentage points higher among teachers with highly instructionally focused principals. The same pattern applies to views on whether the principal provides useful feedback to teachers and staff, with Slovenia again showing the largest difference (16 percentage points higher). Croatia is the only exception to this trend: there, teachers whose principals report lower instructional leadership qualities are more likely to believe the principal has good professional relationships with staff.
References
[3] Akinyemi, A., S. Rembe and V. Nkonki (2020), “Trust and positive working relationships among teachers in communities of practice as an avenue for professional development”, Education Sciences, Vol. 10/5, p. 136, https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10050136.
[31] Berlinski, S. et al. (2021), “Reducing parent‑school information gaps and improving education outcomes: Evidence from high‑frequency text messages”, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), March 2021, Cambridge, MA, No. 28581, https://doi.org/10.3386/w28581.
[27] Castro, M. et al. (2015), “Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 14, pp. 33-46, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.01.002.
[29] Darling-Hammond, L. and J. Bransford (2007), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able to Do, John Wiley & Sons.
[4] Devecchi, C. and M. Rouse (2010), “An exploration of the features of effective collaboration between teachers and teaching assistants in secondary schools”, Support for Learning, Vol. 25/2, pp. 91-99, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01445.x.
[32] Education Review Office (2015), Educationally Powerful Connections with Parents and Whanau, ERO, Wellington, https://ero.govt.nz/our-research/educationally-powerful-connections-with-parents-and-whanau.
[33] FRDL (n.d.), Jerzy Regulski Foundation in Support of Local Democracy, https://frdl.org.pl/jerzy-regulski-foundation-in-support-of-local-democracy-fsld (accessed on 16 May 2025).
[28] Gordon, M. and M. Cui (2012), “The effect of school‐specific parenting processes on academic achievement in adolescence and young adulthood”, Family Relations, Vol. 61/5, pp. 728-741, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00733.x.
[9] Griffiths, A. et al. (2020), “Together we can do so much: A systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools”, Canadian Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 36/1, pp. 59-85, https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573520915368.
[30] Guerriero, S. (ed.) (2017), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en.
[17] Hallinger, P. (2003), “Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 33/3, pp. 329-352, https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764032000122005.
[14] Hargreaves, A. and M. Fullan (2012), Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
[15] Hargreaves, A. and M. O’Connor (2018), “Solidarity with solidity”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 100/1, pp. 20-24, https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721718797116.
[19] Harris, A. (2009), “Distributed Leadership: What We Know”, in Distributed Leadership, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_2.
[21] Kazimzade, E. (2017), School Principalship Developments in Azerbaijan: Challenges of Professional Development of School Leaders vs. Managers, Network of Education Policy Centers, Zagreb.
[2] Kelly, K., J. Merry and M. Gonzalez (2018), “Trust, collaboration and well-being: Lessons learned from Finland”, SRATE Journal, Vol. 27/2, pp. 34-39.
[8] Levine, T. and A. Marcus (2010), “How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26/3, pp. 389-398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.001.
[23] Li, X., C. Bergin and A. Olsen (2022), “Positive teacher-student relationships may lead to better teaching”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 80, p. 101581, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101581.
[7] Lomos, C., R. Hofman and R. Bosker (2011), “Professional communities and student achievement – a meta-analysis”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 22/2, pp. 121-148, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.550467.
[13] Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (2023), Kompetenční rámec absolventa a absolventky učitelství: Společné profesní kompetence, https://msmt.gov.cz/uploads/kompetencni_ramec_absolventa_2023_10.pdf.
[1] Muckenthaler, M. et al. (2020), “Teacher collaboration as a core objective of school development”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 31/3, pp. 486-504, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1747501.
[18] Nadeem, M. (2024), “Distributed leadership in educational contexts: A catalyst for school improvement”, Social Sciences &Humanities Open, Vol. 9, p. 100835, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.100835.
[11] NCEE (2016), “Shanghai: Culture, policy and practice”, Empowered Educators: How High-Performing Systems Shape Teaching Quality Around the World, Country Brief, https://ncee.org/empowered-educators-how-high-performing-systems-shape-teaching-quality-around-the-world/.
[34] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/603809f2-en.
[25] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[12] OECD (2020), Benchmarking the Performance of China’s Education System, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4ab33702-en.
[10] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[22] OECD/UNICEF (2024), Education in the Eastern Partnership: Findings from PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5d6f109-en.
[20] OECD/UNICEF (2024), Education in the Eastern Partnership: Findings from PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d5d6f109-en.
[36] Price, H. and K. Weatherby (2017), “The global teaching profession: How treating teachers as knowledge workers improves the esteem of the teaching profession”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 29/1, pp. 113-149, https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1394882.
[16] Rutter, M. and B. Maughan (2002), “School effectiveness findings 1979–2002”, Journal of School Psychology, Vol. 40/6, pp. 451-475, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-4405(02)00124-3.
[35] Schleicher, A. (2018), Valuing our Teachers and Raising their Status: How Communities Can Help, International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264292697-en.
[5] Soini, T., K. Pyhältö and J. Pietarinen (2010), “Pedagogical well‐being: Reflecting learning and well‐being in teachers’ work”, Teachers and Teaching, Vol. 16/6, pp. 735-751, https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2010.517690.
[24] Spilt, J., H. Koomen and J. Thijs (2011), “Teacher wellbeing: The importance of teacher–student relationships”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 23/4, pp. 457-477, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y.
[26] Stroetinga, M., Y. Leeman and W. Veugelers (2018), “Primary school teachers’ collaboration with parents on upbringing: A review of the empirical literature”, Educational Review, Vol. 71/5, pp. 650-667, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1459478.
[6] Vangrieken, K. et al. (2015), “Teacher collaboration: A systematic review”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 15, pp. 17-40, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002.