Education and Skills in Croatia

Report

Reviews of National Policies for Education

6 June 2025

4. Pursuing excellence for all in school education

Copy link to 4. Pursuing excellence for all in school education

Abstract

Croatia has built a strong foundation in school education, with most students completing upper secondary and comparatively good overall performance in international assessments. However, learning outcomes have stagnated, and concerns are growing that schools are not equipping students with the full range of competencies needed for further learning, work, and life. In response, Croatia is advancing an ambitious set of reforms, including a competence-based curriculum, national assessments, modular vocational programmes, and the progressive rollout of whole day schooling. This chapter explores how Croatia can build on these to improve learning outcomes and equity. It identifies ways to strengthen the instructional leadership of school leaders, use standards to enhance effective teaching, and better identify and respond to student learning needs, including reviewing policies related to selection and certification. The chapter also highlights how more effective data use and stronger institutional capacity can support implementation and sustain progress across the system.

Introduction

Copy link to Introduction

Croatia has established a strong schooling sector over the last three decades. Today, most of the country’s youth have completed upper secondary education and a large share progress to the tertiary level. Croatian 15-year-old students also perform at a similar level to their OECD peers in international assessments. However, learning outcomes in Croatia have been stagnating and there are growing concerns that schools do not equip students with the competencies needed for lifelong learning and success in today’s changing labour market. The Croatian government acknowledges these challenges and is undertaking ambitious reforms to improve the quality and relevance of school education. This includes introducing a competence-based national curriculum, a standardised national assessment of student outcomes, a modular vocational education and training (VET) structure at the upper secondary level and a major push to provide whole day schooling across the country.

This chapter explores how Croatia can build on these reforms to improve the quality of teaching and learning for all students. It draws on OECD experience to provide recommendations on how to strengthen the instructional role and capacity of teachers and school leaders, to ensure all students complete school with the foundational competencies needed for success in further education and work, and to use evidence to inform the work of policymakers and practitioners.

Chapter 4 at a Glance

Copy link to Chapter 4 at a Glance

Section I: Provides an overview of Croatia’s school sector, focusing on how policies compare internationally;
Section II: Compares the sector’s performance with OECD benchmarks on international indicators;
Section III: Provides recommendations on how Croatia can learn from OECD evidence and experience to further improve school education.

Figure 4.1. Recommendations on school education
Copy link to Figure 4.1. Recommendations on school education

Section I: Overview of schooling in Croatia

Copy link to Section I: Overview of schooling in Croatia

Governance and structure

The Ministry of Science, Education and Youth sets policy for the school sector and receives technical support from specialised agencies

Policy making related to school education in Croatia is centralised in Zagreb, under the management of the Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (hereafter, MSEY or the Ministry). The MSEY sets the national strategy, curriculum and learning standards. It also co-ordinates EU and international projects related to education and is the main source of funding for public schools (see below). As in most OECD countries, Croatia has several specialised national agencies that provide the MSEY with technical support in critical areas, such as assessment and examination, teacher training, and vocational education (see Chapter 2). These agencies are semi-autonomous, meaning they organise their work independently but report to the MSEY. At the time of drafting, many of Croatia’s national education agencies and units within the MSEY faced shortages of qualified staff, limiting their ability to fully carry out their mandates. For example, the Education and Teacher Training Agency (ETTA) and the Inspectorate lacked staff capacity, which prevented them from conducting regular monitoring and inspections of schools (and ECEC settings, see Chapter 3). A national salary increases for civil servants that was introduced in early 2024 is expected to help recruit and retain staff working in Croatia’s public agencies, including the education sector.

Operational responsibilities for schooling have been devolved to the sub-national level

Decentralisation reforms in the early 2000s devolved some responsibilities for schooling to sub-national authorities. While the central government remains responsible for managing instructional aspects of school education, including quality assurance and setting the national curriculum, sub-national authorities now co-finance schools (alongside the central government). Sub-national governments also oversee the infrastructure, capital investment and maintenance of schools in their territory and have the authority to open and close schools. In theory, regional authorities at the county level oversee the operations of secondary schools, while local authorities at the city or municipal level oversee primary schools. However, when local authorities lack capacity, Croatian law allows them to transfer certain tasks and responsibilities to the regional level (OECD, 2024[1]). All but 35 cities have transferred their responsibilities for primary schooling to county authorities (OECD, 2022[2]). This asymmetric governance arrangement helps compensate for the inadequate capacity of some local governments. However, there remain large differences in the administrative and financial capacity of both regional and local authorities (see Chapter 2), which contributes to disparities in schooling across the country.

Learning time in school is shorter than in most OECD countries and more than half of all students attend multi-shift schools

In Croatia, primary and lower-secondary schools (International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1 and 2) are integrated, meaning that students typically attend the same school from age 6 until age 15. This stage of education is compulsory and referred to as “primary school” in Croatia, whereas “secondary school” refers only to upper secondary school (ISCED 3), which is not compulsory (see Chapter 2). Under this arrangement, compulsory education in Croatia starts with the mandatory pre-school programme (see Chapter 3) and lasts 9 years, compared to the OECD average of 11 years (OECD, 2024[3]). While Croatia has a shorter duration of compulsory education, the total number of years a typical student spends in schooling is on par with peers in OECD countries because most Croatian students’ stay in school until they complete upper secondary education.

Nevertheless, Croatia offers relatively short school days and long holidays (see Figure 4.2). This translates to an average of only 4 541 hours of learning time in Croatian primary education, much less than across OECD countries (7 634 hours) (OECD, 2023[4]). Shorter amounts of in-school learning time are partly related to infrastructure challenges that prevent full-time schooling in many parts of the country. Estimates suggest that 40% of Croatian primary schools – enrolling 60% of students – operate in double-shifts (Eurydice, 2024[5]; Lecheval, Plavšić and Plavšić, 2021[6]). A small share, enrolling around 3% of students, operate in triple shifts (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). This approach can enable a more efficient use of school facilities, but risks lowering the quality of learning by limiting opportunities for remedial or enrichment support (OECD, 2018[8]). To compensate for shorter learning time in school, many students in Croatia take part in tutoring outside of school hours. Like many other countries in eastern Europe, tutoring is often provided by teachers at cost to families and aims to help students address learning gaps and prepare for exams.

Figure 4.2. The amount of in-school learning time for Croatian students is shorter than OECD peers
Copy link to Figure 4.2. The amount of in-school learning time for Croatian students is shorter than OECD peers

Demographic changes present a major challenge for Croatia’s school network

Croatia’s population is shrinking faster than most OECD countries (see Chapter 2). Population loss has been disproportionately affecting the central mainland and eastern regions of Croatia, but even Zagreb and the coastal areas are experiencing population decline (Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2023[9]). Like many OECD EU countries facing similar challenges, this trend has implications for Croatia’s school network. In 2022-23, there was a combined total of 1,331 primary and secondary schools for 450,234 students (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). The number of small schools, operating with fewer and fewer students, has increased over the last decade (see Figure 4.3).

The MSEY collects and shares data on the location and number of schools and students across the country and has issued guidelines to support sub-national authorities developing their school networks. However, the MSEY lacks incentives and other policy instruments to encourage regional and local governments to optimise their school networks. For example, no evidence of a clear strategy for reviewing the efficiency and effectiveness of small schools was found. Sub-national authorities therefore develop their own criteria, benchmarks, and methods of managing schools in their territory (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]).

Figure 4.3. Croatia has a growing number of small schools
Copy link to Figure 4.3. Croatia has a growing number of small schools

Croatian students can choose between three distinct upper secondary pathways

When students are around age 14, Croatia offers three main pathways for those who choose to advance to upper secondary education. Most upper secondary students (70%) attend vocational programmes; a much higher share than the OECD average and the largest share among Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (see Figure 4.4) (OECD, 2023[4]). Around 25% of students attend gymnasia (i.e. general programmes), and 3% attend arts programmes. Croatian schools typically provide only one programme, meaning that most students are separated into different schools depending on their upper secondary pathway. The most prestigious options are longer (4- or 5-year) VET and general programmes. Main features of each pathway are:

The general programme (gimnazijski obrazovni programi): a four-year academic programme that prepares students for tertiary education. Croatia offers modest choice to students within general upper secondary programmes: they can choose what foreign language(s) they study and can sometimes take more advanced content in certain subjects (e.g., chemistry). However, all students in these programmes must follow a wide core curriculum covering 13 subject areas. This is common among OECD countries that offer multiple upper secondary programmes, as students in these systems are usually offered choice across programmes rather than within them (Stronati, 2023[11]). However, such approaches also create a risk of curriculum overload, which could hinder student learning and engagement.
Vocational programmes (programi strukovnog obrazovanja): include 1–5-year programmes in specific fields (e.g. nursing or hairdressing) that prepare students for the labour market. The amount of practical training offered depends on the programme. Around three in four VET students in Croatia attend longer, 4- and 5-year VET programmes. These predominantly focus on general subjects and with some exceptions (e.g. nursing programmes) offer limited, and largely school-based, practical training that accounts for around 10% of the courseload. Croatia’s shorter, 1-3-year VET programmes provide a very large variation of practical training, which accounts for between 50-60% of the courseload and can take place in either work and/or school‑based settings. These shorter programmes are increasingly unpopular, likely because students cannot continue directly to tertiary education (see below) but also because they are perceived as low-quality. Factors that help explain this perception include the limited involvement of social partners in the design and implementation of school-based VET programmes, outdated training curriculum and the lack of regulated and systematic assessments of the contexts and quality of work-based training (OECD, Forthcoming[12]). Croatia is actively working to modernise upper secondary VET so that it aligns with the Croatian Qualifications Framework (CROQF), provides a better balance between general and practical learning components, and becomes more focused on outcomes.
Art programmes (umjetničko obrazovanje): a four-year programme in an artistic field (e.g., music).

Despite being stratified, Croatia’s upper secondary system is based on the principle of permeability. This policy approach, whereby students can transition into other tracks or combine content, is increasingly seen as a way to help improve student engagement, inclusion, and learning (Stronati, 2023[11]). Students in Croatia can usually move between similar types of programmes (horizontal permeability). Most (except for those in shorter 1-3 year VET) can also access universities or polytechnics at the tertiary education level, irrespective of what upper secondary programme they complete (vertical permeability). As part of Croatia’s reforms to modernise upper secondary VET, the government is currently designing a new modular model that aims to introduce even more flexibility into the system (see below).

Figure 4.4. Most Croatian upper secondary students enrol in vocational programmes
Copy link to Figure 4.4. Most Croatian upper secondary students enrol in vocational programmes

Selection into upper secondary school is mainly based on student grades from lower-secondary education

Croatia’s student selection policies are mainly based on academic records (see Figure 4.5) and have some distinct features from a comparative perspective. One is the narrow reliance on students’ final classroom grades across all subjects of lower-secondary education (the last two years carry more weight) and the lack of policies to moderate teacher grading. Around half of OECD countries also use classroom assessments to inform upper secondary placements (Perico e Santos, 2023[14]). However, they usually combine student grades from classroom assessments with other sources of information to provide a fuller perspective of student aptitudes and interests, such as discussions with students and parents. There is also considerable evidence on the importance of having policies to manage and moderate classroom assessment judgements when these inform placement decisions, both on grounds of fairness and to limit negative washback on teaching and learning. When students choose between distinct programme offers, as is the case of Croatia, some OECD systems also use information from standardised examination results to provide more objective input to decisions. At the time of drafting, the MSEY was considering plans to use the new Grade 8 national assessment to inform upper secondary placements (see below). However, there appears to be less attention on how to improve the reliability and overall quality of classroom assessments.

Another feature of Croatia’s student selection policies is the limited use of measures to mitigate inequities. Like many countries that offer separate general and vocational programmes, Croatia’s shorter (1-2 year) vocational programmes are considered less prestigious and often concentrate students from disadvantaged backgrounds (see Figure 4.12) (Stronati, 2023[11]). Croatia has a centralised online system to place students into upper secondary programmes. It considers specific criteria, such as if a student is from a Roma community or has a disability(ies). However, there are no criteria that consider socio-economic background. As performance is associated with student background, any system that selects students based solely on their academic achievement will likely mean that disadvantaged students are disproportionally directed towards VET programmes. Moreover, these students likely lack access to private tutoring that can help them improve their grades and access more prestigious pathways. International research suggests that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds risk being guided away from more prestigious, academic programmes based on stereotypes (European Commission, 2017[15]; Blossfeld et al., 2016[16]).

While the Croatian government offers public resources for academic and career guidance outside of schools, PISA data reveals that only 24% of students attend schools that employ dedicated counsellors or that have counsellors regularly visit the school (OECD average: 64%) (OECD, 2019[17]). Croatia’s Whole Day School reform aims to help all students improve their learning during school time, thus hopefully reducing the need for out-of-school tutoring. However, disadvantaged students currently appear less likely than their more advantaged peers to have access to academic supports and guidance on future educational and employment options.

Figure 4.5. Academic performance is the main criteria for upper secondary admissions in Croatia
Copy link to Figure 4.5. Academic performance is the main criteria for upper secondary admissions in Croatia

Percentage of students in schools where a student’s record of academic performance (including placement tests) is considered for admission to school, based on principals’ reports, 2022

The State Matura is well adapted to assess academic competencies, but VET students lack an externally validated credential

Currently, all students in general upper secondary programmes must take the State Matura to earn their qualification. The Matura is a standardised matriculation exam that is also used for selection into higher education (ISCED 6). While there is one core exam for Croatian language and elective subjects, students can choose to take A or B levels of the exam for mathematics and foreign languages. Graduates of arts schools and VET programmes gain qualifications through school-based final exams. However, students who complete arts programmes and longer (4-5 year) VET programmes are also eligible, but not required, to take the Matura if they wish to apply for higher education. Students in shorter (1-3 year) VET programmes must first take preparatory courses to sit the exam (Glavas, Matic and Prsa, 2021[19]). While the Matura exam is relatively well adapted to assess academic competencies (e.g. knowledge, understanding and skills in general subjects), (Ćurković, Korda and Fulgosi, 2019[20]), it does not appear to capture competencies developed in VET programmes (Baketa, Dedic and Jokic, 2020[21]; Glavas, Matic and Prsa, 2021[19]). As a result, Croatian VET students lack an externally validated vocational credential that signals they have met national learning standards. This context reinforces the strong preference for higher education (see Chapters 5 and 6).

Funding of school education

Overall spending on schooling has increased but per-student spending remains low

The Croatian government spent 2.6% of its total gross domestic product (GDP) on primary and secondary educational institutions in 2021 (OECD, 2024[22]). This is below the OECD average of 3.2% but similar to the OECD-CEE average of 2.8% (OECD, 2024[22]). Over the past decade, public spending on education as a percentage of GDP has been relatively stable, returning to previous levels following a 12% increase between 2019-20 (OECD, 2024[22]). Croatia’s declining student populations has helped raise per student public expenditure by more than 8% annually in the past five years (OECD, 2024[3]; OECD, 2024[23]). However, Croatia’s public spending per student in 2021 (USD 8 152) remains lower than the OECD average (USD 11 957) (see Figure 4.6). Government spending on education as a share of total public expenditure has remained relatively unchanged since 2016 and is one of the lowest across OECD countries (see Figure 4.6). New investments for Croatia’s ongoing school reforms draw largely from EU funding sources (see Chapter 2) (European Parliament, 2024[24]; Eurydice, 2024[5]).

Figure 4.6. Spending on school education remains lower than OECD average
Copy link to Figure 4.6. Spending on school education remains lower than OECD average

Sub-national governments co-finance schools but most depend on the state budget

In 2020, the central government provided most (85%) of the total funding for schools from the state budget (OECD, 2024[3]). This directly pays for teacher salaries, teacher in-service training, and special education programmes (e.g. for students with special needs, gifted, and those studying in minority languages) (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). Regional and local governments contributed around 15% of school education costs, covering operational expenses like building maintenance, equipment, teaching aids, and student transportation and meals (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]; OECD, 2024[3]). In some cases, Croatian schools may receive other sources of funding (e.g. donations or fees), but these are usually small amounts.

The ability to raise funds for school education varies across Croatia’s sub-national authorities (see Chapter 2). To help offset resource inequalities, the central government uses an equalisation fund to ensure that each sub-national government has a minimum standard of funding to cover their schooling expenses (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). The minimum standard is based on the number of students, classrooms, and school buildings. Most of Croatia’s sub-national governments are unable to raise enough resources to finance their school education costs and are therefore dependent on central transfers from the equalisation fund (OECD/UCLG, 2022[25]). However, some important services (e.g. support staff) that especially benefit more disadvantaged students - are not covered in central transfers and depend on local tax capacity, contributing to disparities in the provision of school education.

Croatia’s minimum standards for school funding and subsequent allocations to sub-national governments are determined centrally, sub-national governments have full autonomy in deciding how to allocate funding to the schools in their jurisdiction (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). Several OECD countries also give spending discretion to sub-national authorities, especially for costs related to school infrastructure and ancillary services, as this helps account for regional cost differences (OECD, 2018[8]). However, Croatia appears to lack incentives and other policy tools to help steer the school network in line with national education goals. As a result, it is difficult to manage the influence sub-national funding decisions have on the conditions for quality in teaching and learning throughout the school network. At a time when Croatia is undergoing significant demographic change and working to further decentralise financial and administrative responsibility for school education, the lack of central steering and planning mechanisms represents a missed opportunity to help regional and local governments raise the quality and equity of schooling.

Teachers and school leaders

Despite an overall surplus of teachers, Croatia faces persistent teacher shortages in STEM subjects and in remote parts of the country

Croatia currently has an overall surplus of school teachers, partly because the number of students is decreasing. As a result, the student-teacher ratio in Croatia is much smaller than that of OECD countries: there were around 12 students for every teacher at the primary level, and 8 at the lower-secondary level in 2022 (OECD averages: 14 and 13 respectively) (OECD, 2024[3]; OECD, 2024[26]). The teaching workforce is also relatively young. In 2022, 32% of Croatian teachers were over 50 years old, a lower share than the OECD (37%) average (OECD, 2024[3]; OECD, 2024[27]). To help address the general surplus, the Croatian government has been encouraging teachers to retrain and work in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings (see Chapter 3). At the same time, however, Croatia faces teacher shortages in STEM subject areas, such as information and communication technology (ICT), mathematics, physics, and chemistry. The government offers conditional scholarships for future teachers in these areas (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). Recruiting lower and upper secondary school teachers to work in remote and depopulated parts of the country is also a challenge (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]).

Teacher salaries have been increasing but remain below the OECD average

Teachers in Croatia have contract stability as civil servants and are paid directly by the MSEY. Over the past six years, the Croatian government cumulatively raised teacher pay by 60% (in absolute terms); future increases are expected as part of a broader civil service salary reform (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]) Today, the starting salaries of teachers in Croatia (USD 34 959 [PPP]) are lower than the OECD average (USD 42 060 [PPP]), but higher than those of most CEE countries (except Slovenia and Lithuania) (OECD, 2024[3]; OECD, 2024[28]). Within Croatia, national data reveals that the average salary of education workers with a tertiary degree was below the average net salary of all tertiary-educated workers (Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2023[29]). While teachers can receive salary increases for advancing along the career trajectory, salary progression is relatively flat and based primarily on seniority and participation in professional development activities (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). To complement their salaries, it was reported that some teachers in Croatia work as private tutors. Teachers will also be eligible for new performance bonuses under Croatia’s civil service reform. However, details on how these bonuses will apply to the existing teacher salary scale and career structure were not yet available at the time of drafting.

The teaching career structure offers opportunities for advancement, but appraisal criteria for promotions are not aligned with national teacher standards

Croatia’s teaching career structure offers three levels: mentor, advisor, and expert advisor. Advancement is based on appraisals conducted by the ETTA (or Agency for Vocational Education and Training and Adult Education (AVETAE) in the case of VET teachers). While the appraisal process for promotions is clearly defined, its design does not appear to incentivise and reward what matters most for good teaching. For example, none of the 73 criteria used for promotion appraisals cover classroom teaching practices and some risk narrowing teachers’ focus on supporting students in academic competitions and national exams, rather than the learning of all students (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, n.d.[30]). Most importantly, the promotion criteria are not clearly aligned with Croatia’s professional teacher standards.

Like many OECD countries, Croatia introduced a core set of teacher standards in 2016 to help clarify expectations of practice in line with changing expectations for student learning and growing evidence of what makes for effective teaching. Croatia’s teacher standards were developed by an expert team comprised of representatives from the MSEY, national education agencies and university professors (Školski Portal, 2016[31]). They set out competencies that broadly align with those found in many OECD countries, covering aspects like planning effective and engaging lessons and using formative assessments. However, standards are only impactful if they are used as a reference for key policies, such as career progression, which is not yet the case in Croatia. While Croatian teachers who apply for promotion are expected to meet the national teacher standards, these are not evaluated as part of the ETTA’s appraisal criteria. There are also no reference documents or tools that exemplify how a teacher might demonstrate the competencies.

Croatian teachers report not feeling valued by society or policymakers

Many Croatian teachers report being driven by the intellectual fulfilment of working in education. For example, Croatian lower-secondary teachers report some of the highest rates of reading professional literature (91.5%), compared to peers across the OECD (72.3%) and OECD-CEE (87.6%) on the OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (OECD, 2019[32]). They also report high rates of intrinsic motivation, with 95.3% believing that teaching allows them to influence the development of children and young people, surpassing the OECD (92.3%) and the OECD-CEE (91.4%) averages. Despite their declared personal drive, however, Croatian teachers are more likely to show dissatisfaction with their working conditions and status (see Figure 4.7). Only 9.2% of teachers in Croatia agree or strongly agree that the profession is valued in society and the share who believe their views are valued by policymakers (2.6%) is even lower (OECD, 2019[32]). This suggests a need for the Croatian government to consider policies – beyond salary increases - to help raise the status and attractiveness of teaching careers.

Figure 4.7. Croatian teachers report being less satisfied and less engaged in collaborative professional learning than countries across the OECD
Copy link to Figure 4.7. Croatian teachers report being less satisfied and less engaged in collaborative professional learning than countries across the OECD

Most teachers in Croatia have master’s degrees but there are some concerns with the quality of initial teacher education programmes

Croatian teachers are required to have a master’s degree. As a result, more than 90% of teachers in Croatia have attained this qualification, well above the OECD average (44%) (OECD, 2019[32]). There is more flexibility in the requirements for teachers of vocational subjects, who must also train in pedagogy but can have either a bachelor’s or an upper-secondary degree in VET in some cases. Like many OECD countries, graduates of initial teacher education programmes in Croatia must complete a one-year internship under a mentor’s supervision and pass an exam to become fully licensed teacher. While these are positive elements of Croatia’s initial teacher preparation policies, there are some concerns with the quality of initial teacher education programmes offered by tertiary institutions. Research shows that these are often theoretical and give little emphasis to practical pedagogical competences (Sablić, Škugor and Lesandrić, 2022[34]). Moreover, key pedagogical competences, such as teaching children with special needs and assessment literacy, are usually offered as elective subjects rather than mandatory topics (Burai and Kardum, 2021[35]). There are no estimates of how many teachers take different electives during their studies. It is also unclear how Croatia’s teacher standards inform the content of initial teacher education programmes.

Participation in professional development is widespread, but teachers receive limited support in reflecting on their practice and selecting trainings to help them improve

Teachers in Croatia are required to participate in professional development, which is offered primarily by ETTA and AVETAE (for teachers of VET subjects). Training is mainly organised as professional meetings either online or in person, at the state, region, or country levels (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). International training opportunities are also offered through EU programmes such as Erasmus+ and eTwinning. Expert councils working at the county level bring together practitioners and ETTA advisors to organise professional development for groups of around 50 teachers, who in turn scale trainings. This arrangement aims to better connect the learning needs of school staff with the national agencies who provide training and seems to be valued by teachers. Moreover, 85% of Croatian teachers who participated in TALIS 2018 reported that their professional development has a positive impact on their teaching practices, slightly higher than the OECD average (82%) (OECD, 2018[33]).

However, there is also recognition that Croatia’s professional development system for teachers could be improved in some areas. School leaders lack guidelines and tools on how to make consistent assessments of teachers’ competencies and give meaningful feedback. And data from TALIS reveals that Croatian teachers are relatively less likely than their peers in the OECD countries to report having participated in collaborative forms of professional learning and coaching (see Figure 4.7). Finally, ETTA advisors are responsible both for supporting teachers’ professional learning, but also evaluating schools and informing decisions on teacher promotions. As one stakeholder shared: the ETTA is “the supporter and the judge” of teaching practices, which undermines their objectivity. It was also reported that the ETTA had difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified staff, but the salary increases introduced by the civil service reform are expected to help address this challenge: there are only 90 ETTA advisors to support professional development for over 60,000 teachers across the country. As a result, some Croatian teachers (and school leaders) are left with little guidance on how to meaningfully reflect on their practice and professional development needs.

Expectations for school leaders are increasing but policies are lacking to ensure they have the professional competencies for the role

Croatian school leaders must carry out a range of responsibilities, including school management (e.g. hiring decisions, annual plans, self-evaluation etc.) and pedagogical leadership (e.g. teacher appraisal). Ongoing reforms to the curriculum and school day aim to give school leaders (and their staff) more flexibility over decisions related to instruction. This represents a shift, as principals in Croatia currently perceive decisions on course offer and content to be centrally prescribed (see Figure 4.8). There are several distinct features of the school leadership position in Croatia that stand out considering the increasing expectations for this role:

School leaders are appointed by school boards with limited external input. School leaders in Croatia are appointed and dismissed by a seven-member school board. Some OECD countries maintain similar policies (e.g. Lithuania, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia); however, more than three-fifths that have a standardised and/or framework-based selection process involve multiple authorities or groups in the process, including central or national education authorities (OECD, 2022[36]). While Croatia’s minister of education must approve the school board’s final decision, public service agencies (e.g. school inspection or external experts) are not involved. This represents a missed opportunity to incorporate external expertise in the selection of school leaders, which could contribute to fairness and transparency of the process.
Criteria for selecting school leaders are not based on a clear reference framework. The requirements to become a school leader in Croatia include having at least eight-years of experience (five of which should be in teaching), having at least a graduate degree, and knowledge of a foreign language, basic digital skills and experience working on projects (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). Leaders in Croatia must also submit a work programme for the school as part of their application process. However, Croatia’s professional standards for school leaders had not been rolled out at the time of drafting and there is no evidence of standardised job profiles. As a result, school boards do not have clear criteria to evaluate the pedagogical or leadership skills of applicants. An increasing number of OECD countries have developed such tools to provide a clear and transparent reference for selecting school leaders (OECD, 2019[37]).
School leaders have no job security. The school board appoints leaders in Croatia for five‑year mandates. Once appointed, school principals can keep their teaching status for up to two mandates but if they run for a third mandate and are not re-selected, they would not be able to return to their teaching job and must reapply for a new teaching position. This disincentivises some school leaders from remaining in the role for over 10 years. It also creates a situation whereby schools risk losing the leadership and management skills that school leaders have developed over time, while putting individuals - who have not worked as a teacher for several years - back in the classroom.
Initial training for school leaders is limited. TALIS data reveals that before taking up their position, only 5% of school leaders in Croatia completed a training programme in school administration, and 11% completed an instructional leadership programme before taking up their position (OECD, 2019[32]; 2020[38]). This is much lower than the OECD average (54% for both categories) and suggests that many school leaders in Croatia may be unprepared for their role. Once in the job, however, all Croatian school leaders take part in professional development. Like teachers, professional learning for principals mainly involves attending courses and seminars, participating in networks, and reading professional literature (OECD, 2020[38]). Leaders report that while these formal trainings are generally helpful, some are not geared to their specific needs.
Hands-on support for school leaders is limited both within and outside the school. School leaders in Croatia do not have support from deputies or broader leadership teams within their schools, which are often found in OECD systems with well-developed school leadership arrangements. Outside of schools, it was noted that some leaders get informal support through peer networks but school leaders working in other schools may have limited time to help colleagues on top of their regular work responsibilities. While ETTA advisors are also considered a helpful resource, the agency only has three advisors dedicated to working with school leaders across the country, significantly limiting the agency’s ability to provide regular and continuous hands-on support to school leaders. This context helps explain the high share of Croatian school leaders (83%) who report needing more support from authorities; a share that was well above the OECD average (66%) (OECD, 2020[38]; 2019[32]).

Figure 4.8. Croatian schools have lower levels of perceived decision-making responsibility for determining course offers and content compared to their peers in the OECD
Copy link to Figure 4.8. Croatian schools have lower levels of perceived decision-making responsibility for determining course offers and content compared to their peers in the OECD

Percentage of students in schools where principals report that their school has the main responsibility for 1) deciding which courses are offered and 2) determining course content, inclusion national/regional curricula

Curriculum framework

Croatia is rolling out a new competency-based curriculum

Over the past 15 years, the Croatian government has been working with stakeholders to develop a new competence-based curriculum that was adopted in 2019 and rolled out across all schools starting in 2022. Most OECD countries have introduced similar reforms, and in Croatia, the new curriculum marks an important shift away from the didactic tradition of transmitting knowledge, towards one that is based on standards and focused on developing students’ competencies for lifelong learning. The reform also gives Croatian teachers and school leaders more flexibility to adapt instruction to the learning needs of their students. To implement the reform, the MSEY and national agencies have developed several resources (e.g. defined learning outcomes and subject curricula) and training modules on various topics (e.g. lesson planning and assessment for learning). In general, teachers in Croatia appear to have welcomed the new competence-based and student-centred approach to teaching and learning; however, it was noted that changing assessment practices to evaluate students’ progress against standards - rather than recalling content – remains a major challenge. It is also difficult to determine the extent to which the new competence-based curriculum is being implemented as intended in Croatian classrooms, partly because there is no regular external monitoring of school practices (see below).

Inclusion policies exist but implementing them remains a challenge for teachers and schools

Croatia has longstanding policies to advance inclusive education. Students with special education needs attend mainstream schools and children from national minorities have the right to study in their own languages (e.g. Czechia, Hungarian). Nevertheless, it was reported that Croatian teachers struggle to manage inclusion in the classroom. Data from TALIS reflects this: a relatively large share of teachers in Croatia report needing professional development in working with children with special education needs and approaches to individualised learning, compared to the OECD averages (see Figure 4.9).

While many countries face challenges when implementing inclusive education policies, Croatia has a limited amount of school level supports. For example, state standards require all Croatian schools to have a pedagogical expert, but some schools lack specialised staff (e.g. teaching assistants, speech therapists). Moreover, existing infrastructure is unable to provide whole day schooling for all students, let alone spaces to support specific student needs (e.g. designated resource rooms or reorganisation of classroom spaces). Croatia’s current schooling reforms will grant teachers and school leaders greater flexibility over instruction and resource-use within their schools, creating an opportunity for them to adopt interventions that support equity and inclusion.

Figure 4.9. Croatian teachers report needing training in teaching students with special needs and individualised learning approaches
Copy link to Figure 4.9. Croatian teachers report needing training in teaching students with special needs and individualised learning approaches

Percentage of lower-secondary teachers reporting a high level of need for professional development in the following areas, 2018

Assessment and evaluation practices

Student assessments and examinations often have high stakes, making it difficult for teachers to adapt assessment practices

Croatia’s competence-based curriculum implies several changes for student assessments. First, teachers are expected to evaluate student progress in relation to national learning standards (i.e. criterion rather than norm-based assessment). They also need to evaluate cross-curricula topics but may not be familiar with designing assessments that capture competencies like lifelong learning or entrepreneurship. Finally, teachers are expected to use assessment formatively, breaking with an assessment culture that has been primarily focused on summative grading.

While the government has developed some resources to support teachers in adapting their assessment practices, support in this area remains relatively limited and some policies are misaligned with the new curriculum’s aims. One example is the lack of policies or practices to moderate classroom assessments, which makes it difficult for teachers to improve the quality of their judgements and provide reliable feedback on students’ progress. Some of Croatia’s current policies also reinforce a summative, norm‑based focus on assessments, such as teacher promotion decisions that consider student results in academic competitions and national exams rather than progress towards meeting national learning standards.

Croatia introduced a standardised assessment in 2022 for grades 4 and 8

In 2022, Croatia administered a new standardised assessment of student learning that covers a range of subjects to a sample of students in primary (grade 4) and all students in lower secondary (Grade 8) education Croatia recently extended the Grade 4 assessment to all students. The new assessment was developed by the National Centre for External Evaluation of Education (NCEEE) with EU support and provides valuable data on learning outcomes that are comparable across different groups of students within Croatia and over time, complementing information collected through participation in international surveys like the OECD Programme of International Student Assessment (PISA), and the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Such information has been notably absent in the Croatian school system since previous standardised assessments administered to students in primary and lower-secondary education were discontinued in 2014, partly due to a lack of funding and a decision to focus on strengthening the State Matura exam.

The new national assessment aligns Croatia’s policies more closely with OECD good practice in terms of providing reliable data on student achievement in relation to national learning standards (OECD, 2023[4]). However, while most OECD countries administer national assessments, their purpose and design vary significantly. At present, many details of Croatia’s national assessment are still to be defined, including its main purpose. At the time of drafting, it was reported that officials were discussing how best to use future results. However, many individuals within the school community already regard the Grade 8 assessment as an exam to select students into upper secondary pathways. When assessments have consequences for students (or for teachers or schools) then their value as an independent measure of learning diminishes, making it important to clarify their main purpose at the outset.

External evaluations of Croatian schools are infrequent but there are plans to strengthen the school evaluation framework

Like many OECD countries, Croatia has a school Inspectorate. However, its role focuses on compliance with rules and regulations, whereas over the last decade, many OECD countries have moved towards more comprehensive school evaluation frameworks that use inspections to reflect on ways of improving instructional practices (OECD, 2013[40]). In Croatia, other agencies - the ETTA and AVETAE (for VET schools) - have this mandate, not the Inspectorate. However, these agencies all face staff shortages, which means that external school evaluations only take place if there are reports of wrongdoing. To compensate, Croatian schools are expected to conduct regular self-evaluations to help improve their own policies and practices. However, it is unclear exactly how often school self-evaluations take place and many schools likely lack the resources and support to conduct self-evaluations effectively. Overall, this context results in limited information on school quality for government actors and a lack of feedback for schools.

The Croatian government is aware of the need to reform school evaluation policies to help schools develop their capacities to implement reforms like Whole Day School, the new competence-based curriculum, and modular upper secondary VET. In 2017-2019, Croatia piloted a new school evaluation framework that had a more developmental focus (Eurydice, 2024[5]). It provided supports for school self‑evaluation that are commonly available in many OECD countries, such as common evaluation forms and peer coaching. However, the new model is yet to be scaled up, with lack of staff capacity in national education agencies cited as the main obstacle.

Croatia has strong administrative data but national information on the quality of teaching and learning is limited compared to OECD countries

The Croatian government has a well-established Educational Management Information System (EMIS) platform (known as e-Rudnik) to collect administrative data about school education (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, 2023[7]). This data aligns with international standards, which has facilitated Croatia’s integration into European and OECD data collections. The Croatian EMIS also has different applications that collect, and store detailed administrative data related to schools, teachers, and students. The applications are part of a nested structure linked by unique identifiers (UNICEF, 2023[41]). However, the Croatian EMIS does not allow for student – teacher links and lacks data on the family composition and socio-economic background of students (UNICEF, 2023[41]). Moreover, it does not connect with human resource or financial management systems within the education sector, nor with other national databases (UNICEF, 2023[41]) – although there are reportedly plans to develop these connections. This limits the scope for more comprehensive analysis and use of Croatia’s education data, for example to design student support services or optimise the school network. Croatia’s sub-national governments request data on their own jurisdiction from the MSEY and in the absence of analytical functions, they either download data to conduct their own analysis or rely on analysis published by the MSEY to inform their planning and management decisions.

Despite Croatia’s strong capacity to collect administrative data, the availability of data related to the quality of education practices and learning outcomes, and the analysis of this data, appears limited compared to some OECD countries. Firstly, while it is positive that Croatia regularly participates in international surveys, there are no external evaluations or surveys of schools at the national level (see above). Secondly, prior to 2023, the only standardised assessment of learning outcomes at the national level was the State Matura. As students take this exam at the end of formal schooling, Croatia has had a relative void in national data on teaching and learning quality in primary and lower-secondary education. The newly introduced national assessment brings Croatia closer to the practices of OECD countries, which often collect information to monitor foundational skills in the first years of schooling. Finally, co‑operation among Croatian’s national agencies that collect data on education practices and outcomes (e.g., the NCEEE, the ETTA, and the Inspectorate) appears limited. As a result, the government reports on progress towards achieving EU-level targets, but regular national research on school policy topics seems limited and there is no comprehensive “State of Education” national monitoring report. This review recommends strengthening the MSEY’s internal analytical capacity (see Chapter 6), which could support system monitoring and provide feedback to help practitioners steer the school system towards excellence.

Use of digital education technology

Croatia has significantly invested in digital technology for education, but guidelines on its pedagogical use are limited

Croatia has invested considerably in digital technology for education over the past decade. Notably, the e-Schools project (2015-2023) enhanced ICT infrastructure in schools, equipped classrooms with digital devices, and provided digital teaching materials and ICT training programmes for educators (CARNET, 2023[42]). These investments proved crucial during COVID-19 school closures: PISA 2022 revealed that Croatian schools were better prepared for digital learning than the OECD average. For instance, 88.5% of students in Croatia attended schools where principals agreed or strongly agreed that an effective online learning platform was available, compared to the OECD average of 78.2% (OECD, 2023[43]). At the same time, some data suggests that Croatian teachers and schools may need additional support to effectively use digital technologies to support student learning. Data from TALIS 2018 revealed that only 36% of teachers in Croatia reported feeling well prepared to use ICT in teaching, compared to the OECD average of 43% (OECD, 2019[44]). Croatia’s CARNET agency is working to address this issue, notably it has developed a range of ICT training programmes and resources (e.g. manuals and presentations) to support teachers in using digital technologies in their practice (CARNET, 2023[42]).

Main reform priorities

Whole Day School aims to improve learning outcomes and support disadvantaged students

At the time of drafting, the MSEY’s Whole Day School reform was being piloted in 62 primary schools. In essence, the reform aims to improve learning outcomes and support disadvantaged students by offering longer instructional hours to reinforce learning in STEM and Croatian; providing homework support and remedial activities within the school setting, and offering extracurricular activities opportunities (e.g. coding, music, theatre, sports). This reform builds on Croatia’s previous efforts to modernise the culture of teaching and learning that was introduced through the national curriculum reform. The MSEY aims to fully roll out the Whole Day School to all primary schools by 2027. To prepare for this, the central government is currently working with sub-national governments to expand and renovate the school infrastructure across the country. Notably, EU funding from the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (RRP) is being used to help build new classrooms and school kitchens to accommodate whole day schooling for all students.

Introducing a modular model for the VET system is expected to increase the relevance, quality, and appeal of VET pathways

Improving the quality of VET programmes is another top priority. Since 2018, the government has undertaken several initiatives in this direction. Notably, Croatia adopted a new national curriculum for VET (and accompanying subject curricula), which strengthened work-based learning introduced occupational and qualification standards (see Chapter 6); and established Regional Centres of Competence, which provide vocational programmes and opportunities for practical learning. Current reforms aim to design a modular model for upper secondary VET that would further support curricula flexibility while improving the quality and labour market relevance of these programmes.

The MSEY plans to roll out the new VET system in 2025-26, which is expected to introduce core modules for all students during the first year of upper secondary school, then subsequently diversify specialisations that lead to different credits. Modularisation is increasingly seen by some OECD countries as a way to give students more choice in their learning and allow programmes to adapt more quickly to labour market demands (Stronati, 2023[11]). However, high levels of flexibility in upper secondary education must be carefully managed as it can be difficult for individual schools to deliver and for students to navigate (Stronati, 2023[11]). This will be especially important for Croatia as more rural parts of the country already struggle to provide a variety of vocational training options that align both with student interest and for which there is local labour demand (OECD, Forthcoming[12]).

Section II: Performance in schooling

Copy link to Section II: Performance in schooling

Access and participation

Most students complete upper secondary education and many pursue tertiary studies

Croatia has achieved universal participation in primary and lower-secondary education and has the lowest share of early school leavers in the EU (see Figure 4.10) (European Commission, 2021[45]). While upper-secondary education is not compulsory in Croatia, most (97.2%) of 20–24-year-olds had attained upper secondary qualifications or higher in 2022 (European Commission, 2023[46]). Of these upper secondary graduates, many pursue tertiary education. This includes virtually all students who attended general upper secondary programmes (97%), and around two-thirds of those from VET programmes (67%) (Glavas, Matic and Prsa, 2021[19]). In some ways, Croatia’s large share of VET students who pursue tertiary studies can be considered positive, as some OECD countries with strong VET systems (e.g. the Netherlands and Austria), also have many VET graduates that progress to tertiary education. However, Croatia stands out internationally for its relative lack of alternative post-secondary education opportunities, which leaves VET graduates who wish to pursue a higher qualification with few choices (see Chapter 6). Moreover, dropout rates from tertiary education in Croatia are high. It was reported that upper secondary VET graduates are more likely to drop out of tertiary education, although available data does not allow for this type of analysis.

Figure 4.10. Croatia has the lowest rate of early school-leaving among EU countries
Copy link to Figure 4.10. Croatia has the lowest rate of early school-leaving among EU countries

Share of early leavers from education and training (18–24-year-olds)

Quality, learning and well-being outcomes

Learning outcomes in Croatia are close to the OECD average but there has been little improvement in performance over time

The average learning outcomes of 15-year-old students in Croatia, as measured by PISA, are near the OECD average in reading and science, but lower in mathematics (by 9 score points). Within the OECD‑CEE region, Croatia performs similarly in reading, but lower in science (by 10 score points) and mathematics (by 20 score points). Croatia’s performance in the IEA Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), which students take in Grade 4, are around the average of participating countries (Mullis et al., 2020[48]; Mullis et al., 2023[49]). Together, these results suggest that most Croatian students are mastering foundational competencies while in school.

It is positive that despite upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, Croatia prevented a strong decline in PISA results as seen in other countries. In fact, Croatia’s performance in PISA science increased slightly between 2018 and 2022. However, longer term trends suggest that Croatia's overall PISA performance has generally stagnated: after small changes across PISA domains in earlier years, performance seems to have returned to levels seen during the country’s first participation in PISA 2006 (see Chapter 3) (OECD, 2023[50]). This is partly related to the fact Croatia has seen no statistically significant change in the shares of students who scored below the baseline level of proficiency (Level 2), considered the minimum level needed to participate fully in society. There has also been no significant change at the top of the proficiency scale (reaching level 5 or 6). Data from PISA reveals a strong correlation between a country’s share of low performers and its mean score, suggesting that reducing the share of low performers can be an effective way to improve system performance (see Figure 4.11) and equity, since low performers are disproportionately from socio-economically disadvantaged families.

Figure 4.11. The share of low performers in PISA is associated with a country’s mean score
Copy link to Figure 4.11. The share of low performers in PISA is associated with a country’s mean score

Relationship between the percentage of low performers and countries’/economies’ mean performance in mathematics

Students’ learning outcomes are associated with their social and emotional skills in Croatia

Social and emotional skills are important in their own right and can support students to learn independently. Data from PISA 2022 also suggests that these skills are related to higher learning outcomes (OECD, 2023[43]). In Croatia, the social and emotional skills most strongly associated with increases in students mathematics performance are curiosity (interest in intellectual exploration and learning), persistence (the ability to persevere until tasks are completed) and assertiveness (confidence in voicing opinions, needs, and feelings) (OECD, 2023[43]). For example, a one-unit increase in Croatia’s curiosity index is associated with an increase of 9 score points in mathematics performance, after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile. Cultivating these types of broader competencies are one of the aims of Croatia’s new curriculum and Whole Day School reform.

Equity

Disadvantaged students are more likely than advantaged students to enrol in VET

Croatia has one of the largest differences in VET enrolments between advantaged and disadvantaged students among PISA participating countries (see Figure 4.12). Croatian boys are also more likely to enrol in VET programmes than girls. These differences contribute to performance gaps between students in Croatian general and vocational pathways. As in most countries, including Croatia, PISA results reveal that students in general programmes tend to outperform their peers in vocational pathways (see Figure 4.12). The relatively lower performance of Croatian VET students is concerning since so many students enrol in this sector. National data also suggests that students in Croatia’s VET programmes may be more likely to disengage from school: around 17% of students in 1-3-year vocational programmes drop out, compared to only around 4-5% of students in general programmes (Matković, 2010[51]).

Figure 4.12. The majority of disadvantaged students pursue vocational programmes, which are associated with poorer performance
Copy link to Figure 4.12. The majority of disadvantaged students pursue vocational programmes, which are associated with poorer performance

Students in urban areas have higher learning outcomes and attainment rates

According to national exams and international assessment results, learning outcomes in Croatia vary according to where students live. Geographic disparities are evident in students’ Matura results. For example, the average grade across all compulsory subjects for the higher “level A” Matura in 2022/23 ranged from 3.48 (out of 5) in the City of Zagreb to 2.79 in Licko-Senjska, a mountainous county in the northern Adriatic region (Ministry of Science, Education and Youth, n.d.[52]). PISA 2022 also reveals geographic disparities: students in Croatia who attended schools in urban areas significantly outperformed those from schools located in villages or small towns (up to 15000 inhabitants) by 46 score points in maths (OECD, 2024[53]). This was a larger gap compared to the OECD average (28 score points) but decreased once socio-economic status was accounted for, aligning with the OECD average (9 score points). Small schools in Croatia, which tend to be in more rural and remote regions, reveal lower performance in PISA than larger schools. The difference in maths performance between students in large and small schools in Croatia (22 score points), even after accounting for the socio-economic background of students and schools, was double that of the OECD average (12 score points) (OECD, 2023[18]). These findings highlight the importance of ensuring school quality across the country.

Attainment of upper-secondary education also varies slightly (by two percentage points) according to degree of urbanisation, although these differences are very small since most students in Croatia complete upper secondary school (Eurostat, 2024[54]). At the same time, students in rural areas are much more likely to graduate from upper secondary VET programmes than their peers who live in Croatian cities (Eurostat, 2024[54]).

Section III: Analysis and recommendations

Copy link to Section III: Analysis and recommendations

Quality of programmes and outcomes: supporting teachers and school leaders to improve instruction and student outcomes

Croatia’s early school-leaving rates are the lowest in the EU, most students complete upper secondary education, and learning outcomes are near the OECD average in most domains measured by PISA. These are impressive achievements for a relatively young country. At the same time, the Croatian school system faces challenges that make it difficult to further improve learning outcomes and address the concerns identified by PISA in terms of reducing the share of students that do not master basic competences and raising the small share of high performers. Instruction times are short compared to the OECD average and many students attend school in shifts because of inadequate infrastructure. Adjusting teacher assessment practices to evaluate students’ progress against national learning standards remains an ongoing challenge, and many students, especially those who graduate from upper-secondary VET programmes, are seemingly unprepared to succeed in tertiary education or the job market (see Chapters 5 and 6).

Building on previous schooling reforms, the Croatian government is now focused on improving the relevance and quality of school education through Whole Day School and a new modular structure for VET. The success of these reforms will depend on Croatian teachers and school leaders, who are responsible for translating national policies into practice. Recognising this, Croatia has taken some steps to raise the status and attractiveness of these roles (e.g. increasing teacher pay). However, there is scope to use Croatia’s professional teacher standards as more of an underpinning reference for teacher policies and to strengthen school leadership. This section draws on OECD experience and evidence to provide insights on how the Croatian government can further develop the role and capacity of teachers and school leaders to achieve better outcomes for students. Such efforts will be important to help deliver the practitioner-led school system that Croatia is working to establish and help advance the country’s good schooling system to an excellent one.

Figure 4.13. Recommendations and actions on quality of programmes and outcomes in school education
Copy link to Figure 4.13. Recommendations and actions on quality of programmes and outcomes in school education

Recommendation 4.1. Use standards to advance effective teaching practices and help raise the status of the profession

Croatia’s teacher standards cover core aspects of teaching that matter for learning but do not appear to serve as a common reference point for teacher policies and practices. Ongoing reforms to the schooling sector give teachers new responsibilities and more flexibility to tailor instruction. This changing context provides an opportune moment to review Croatia’s professional teacher standards and strengthen their alignment with the new expectations of teachers and key teacher policies.

Reviewing professional teacher standards to clarify expectations for high-quality teaching

In reviewing its professional teacher standards, Croatia could draw on the experiences of an increasing number of OECD countries that have used their standards to define what “good” teaching is and how it can be demonstrated (OECD, 2013[40]). Some of the policies and tools Croatia might consider helping clarify expectations for teachers include:

Illustrating expected practices to complement teacher standards. This can help build understanding around new expectations for teachers under Croatia’s school reforms. For example, providing examples of how teachers should adapt instruction and base assessments on learning standards can support teachers to deliver the new competence-based curriculum. Some OECD countries have developed other tools to further exemplify teaching standards. For example, the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers provide clear descriptors of good practice for each standard, as well as a set of resources to help teachers visualise how they can concretely meet the standards (see Box 4.1).
Setting expectations for different career stages. Croatia’s current standards present the core competencies that all teachers are expected to have. However, a growing number of OECD countries use differentiated standards to set expectations for different career levels and roles (Guerriero, 2017[55]). This matters from a system transformation perspective (teachers in higher roles are expected to lead improvements in teaching practice) and from the perspective of motivating individual teachers to develop their skills and assume higher levels of responsibility. Croatia could consider differentiate its teacher standards to align with the existing career stages of mentor, advisor, and expert advisor roles. Estonia, for example, has developed professional standards specifying the skills, knowledge and attitudes teachers are expected to demonstrate at each career stage: teacher, senior teacher and master teacher (Estonian Qualifications Authority, 2023[56]) (Santiago et al, 2016[57]). This approach could help Croatia facilitate stronger links between its national teacher standards and procedures for appraisal and career advancement.

Box 4.1. Australia offers practical tools and resources to help teachers meet national standards

Copy link to Box 4.1. Australia offers practical tools and resources to help teachers meet national standards

The Australian Professional Standards for Teachers consist of seven standards that define the knowledge and skills teachers should possess. Each standard includes multiple focus areas with descriptors illustrating quality teaching at four career stages: Graduate, Proficient, Highly Accomplished and Lead. To progress through the career stages, teachers must obtain a certification awarded against the teacher standards.

The Australian Institute of Teaching and School Leadership also offers practical tools to support teachers in aligning with these standards. These include:

Illustrations of practice: Videos showcasing teachers implementing the standards in real classrooms, accompanied by discussion questions to prompt self-reflection.
Learning from Practice series: Workbooks designed to help teachers deeply engage with the standards and select appropriate evidence when seeking certification.
Documentary evidence for certification: Detailed examples of evidence that demonstrate achievement of each standard descriptor, aiding teachers in the certification process.
Teacher Self-Assessment Tool: An online questionnaire enabling teachers to reflect upon their practice in line with the teacher standards.

Source: AITSL (2022[58]), Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards (accessed on 7 June 2024).

Using teacher standards as the main reference for promotion and other teacher policies

Once Croatia reviews its professional teacher standards, these need to inform teacher policies more directly if they are to help drive improvements in instruction and raise the status and attractiveness of teaching careers. Replacing Croatia’s existing promotion appraisal criteria with evaluations based on the revised standards would be a positive step. For example, promotion appraisals could be designed in a way that encourages teachers to demonstrate their ability to differentiate instruction or use formative assessments to support student learning. However, taking valid, reliable, and trusted decisions on teacher promotions will require a pool of trained external evaluators. At present, Croatia’s ETTA (which manages teacher promotions) already faces staff shortages. This body may struggle to oversee a new national promotion process for teachers that requires evaluating evidence of teaching practices to determine whether standards have been met. Moreover, ETTA’s continued involvement in the promotion process risks undermining its mandate to support teachers and schools.

In addition to integrating the teacher standards more directly in promotion policies, Croatia could also review the extent to which other teacher policies have embedded the standards. For example, by reviewing the pay scale so it is more closely related to career progression. Croatia could also consider aligning the revised teacher standards with evaluation criteria for performance bonuses proposed under the new national civil service reform. Some OECD countries have used teacher standards to inform policies that shape the content of initial teacher education programmes, as well as school-based appraisals. At present, these policies appear to have limited consistency in Croatia and closer alignment with the standards could help better support future and practicing teachers to meet changing expectations. For example, the standards could serve as a basis for developing resources to support school leaders in conducting formative teacher appraisals within their school.

Providing teachers with opportunities to shape policies related to their profession

Policymakers across the OECD are increasingly interested in ways to recognise teaching as a profession, and support teachers’ professional learning and motivation (Korthagen, 2004[59]; Rots et al., 2010[60]; Agee, 2004[61]). Croatia has few independent bodies that recognise teachers’ professionalism and give them a voice in policy discussions, other than teacher unions. Notably, it is unclear if teachers were included in the team that developed Croatia’s teacher standards in 2016. One of the ways countries have ensured teachers provide input to policies related to teaching and national education goals is by establishing a professional teacher association. In Scotland (United Kingdom), for example, the General Teaching Council is an independent, teacher-led body that manages official teacher registration and sets standards for entering and remaining in the profession (see Box 4.2) (GTCS, n.d.[62]). Establishing this type of professional body in Croatia could help involve teachers more directly in determining policies related to their role. For example, the MSEY could task the national teacher association to review Croatia’s teacher standards, develop associated tools (e.g. descriptors) and even manage the new teacher promotion appraisals (see above), helping ensure these policies and tools are owned by the profession.

Box 4.2. How Scotland’s General Teaching Council supports teacher professionalism

Copy link to Box 4.2. How Scotland’s General Teaching Council supports teacher professionalism

The General Teaching Council (GTC) of Scotland was set up in 1965 to ensure professional teachers standards, but its remit has expanded over the decades. Today, it is responsible for:

Ensuring professional standards with and for Scotland’s teachers and college lecturers;
Outlining the conduct expected of teachers and college lecturers;
Registering teachers who have qualified within Scotland, as well as in the rest of the world, against its qualifications and suitability criteria;
Accrediting Initial Teacher Education programmes;
Investigating serious concerns about the conduct or professional competence of teachers;
Providing a voice for teaching by giving advice to Scottish Government Ministers
Encouraging the professional growth of teachers and college lecturers by recognising the high standards of the teaching profession in Scotland through awards and events; engaging with national and international partners; providing information, advice and support to teachers.

Source: GTCS (n.d.[62]), The General Teaching Council for Scotland - About us, https://www.gtcs.org.uk/about-us/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).

Recommendation 4.2. Professionalise the role of school leaders

Strong instructional leaders create the conditions for effective teaching and learning within the school. This includes setting clear expectations and standards, providing support, feedback and resources, and building a positive school culture that promotes professional growth and encourages innovation and improvement (OECD, 2019[63]; OECD, 2020[64]). School leaders are therefore key to the success of Croatia’s ongoing school reforms. Despite their increasing responsibilities, however, Croatian school leaders do not seem well prepared nor well supported for their expanding role. This partly relates to the way Croatia structures the school leadership position, which currently lacks a rigorous selection process and career path based on clear expectations for the role. It also relates to the limited initial training for school leaders and limited hands-on support from within and outside the school. Professionalising the school leadership role could be a powerful way for Croatia to develop capable and empowered leaders who can drive further improvements in teaching and learning from within their schools.

Putting in place a rigorous, transparent, and objective process to select school leaders

OECD countries have used a range of policies to professionalise school leadership. One such approach involves clarifying expectations for school leaders and increasingly, establishing a clear process for selecting individuals who enter the role. Some policy changes Croatia could consider in this area include:

Rolling out the occupational standards for principals. Croatia already has standards for school principals, but these were not in use at the time of drafting this report. The principal standards could be used as the basis for Croatia’s broader policies involving the school leader position.
Establishing rigorous recruitment processes and selection criteria. School leaders in many OECD countries are required to have strong pedagogical knowledge and leadership skills, as well as experience in management and leadership. While Croatia could use the principal standards mentioned above as the main criteria to select school leaders, other questions will need to be considered in terms of redesigning a recruitment process that is fair, transparent and ensures a good match between the leader and the community they serve. For example, Croatia’s school boards could add a selection of their own criterion to those provided by the principal standards. In Victoria (Australia), school councils or committees add these types of community criterion to a list of five central selection criteria when selecting school leaders. Some systems also combine input from the school community with public authorities, school Inspectorate or external experts, to add objectivity to decisions (OECD, 2019[63]). Adding more external expertise to the selection process could help Croatia further professionalise the school leadership role as a position whereby individuals are recruited by an independent merit-based process.
Providing greater contractual stability and career development. In some OECD countries, principals who perform well can continue in their current role or move into other roles. For example, they might become leaders in different schools, move between teaching and leadership roles; work in the Inspectorate or other education agencies; and/or mentor less experienced principals (see below). Croatia could consider introducing more stability and flexibility into the school leader career structure, which could help schools retain effective leaders, while also providing experienced principals with new challenges and experiences to deepen and broaden their knowledge and skills (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008[65]). At the start of the career ladder, Croatia might also consider ways to establish clear pathways for teachers to progress into school leadership roles.

Strengthening professional learning and support for school leaders

Croatian school leaders have very limited access to initial training, and the ETTA only has three advisors dedicated to working with leaders across the country. Within this context, there is considerable scope for Croatia to provide more support to school leaders. For example, the MSEY could develop a school leadership programme for future principals and those already working in the profession. This programme might start as a modular training offer, whereby individuals can take standalone modules on specialised topics, or combine and accumulate modules on different aspects of school leadership. Relevant training areas for Croatian school leaders might include supporting teachers in implementing student-centred, competency-based teaching approaches and leading school self-evaluation and improvement planning. The latter could be especially valuable since the Inspectorate and ETTA currently lack the capacity to monitor and evaluate schools on a regular basis (see Chapter 3). Over time, the MSEY, the ETTA and tertiary education institutions could design a full school leadership qualification (e.g. master’s programme). Slovenia provides training programmes for school leaders that could provide inspiration for Croatia in this area (see Box 4.3).

In addition to formal training, the MSEY could also consider expanding opportunities for school leaders to participate in more job-embedded professional learning. While some school leaders in Croatia already participate in peer networks, these generally seem to be unstructured activities that largely depend on the time and willingness of individuals. In addition to the career development options mentioned above, Croatia could draw on its experience of mentoring new teachers to develop a mentoring scheme for leaders. Such a scheme could provide benefits for new school leaders, as well as provide opportunities for more experienced leaders to gain deeper insights by serving as mentors and coaches (OECD, 2019[63]).

Box 4.3. Providing initial and in-service training for school leaders in Slovenia

Copy link to Box 4.3. Providing initial and in-service training for school leaders in Slovenia

Slovenia’s National School of Leadership in Education was established in 1995 and is dedicated to the initial and in-service training of principals. Its initial training equips participants with leadership and management skills. All Slovenian principals are required to participate in such training and receive a headship license. Participants in the one-year programme include recently appointed principals or aspiring candidates. The training is implemented in small groups and consists of six modules: i) introductory module; ii) organisational theory and leadership; iii) planning and decision-making; iv) principals’ skills; v) human resources; and vi) legislation. The school also provides a mentoring programme for principals in their first year.

Source: NSLE (n.d.[66]), The National School of Leadership in Education, http://en.solazaravnatelje.si/index.html (accessed on 7 June 2024).

Distribute some responsibilities of school leaders

To take on greater responsibilities over instruction, Croatian school leaders will need more time and support. One way to rebalance their workload is to formally establish the role of deputy school leader or school management teams (made up of teachers, counsellors, etc.) with clearly defined roles and tasks. Across the OECD, these types of middle leadership positions are often established by law, but schools often decide the structure of their leadership team and appoint members. This allows schools to distribute leadership responsibilities according to their needs. In Spain, for example, school principals present their ideas for their leadership team as part of their project proposal for the school when applying for their own position (OECD, 2019[37]). Croatia could consider distributing school leaders’ responsibilities, which would also offer teachers more opportunities to gain practical leadership experience. This can help identify promising candidates to become future leaders and start preparing them to take on leadership responsibilities. Participation in these roles should be rewarded, for example by reducing the teaching workload of staff who take on managerial responsibilities (OECD, 2019[63]).

Equality of opportunities and access: supporting all students to achieve their potential

Croatia’s school system allows nearly all students to complete upper secondary school and enables many to pursue higher education. However, these positive features conceal important equity challenges. Many upper secondary graduates, in particular those who attend VET programmes, leave school without sufficient skills and knowledge to succeed in further education or work. This is concerning since 70% of students in Croatia participate in upper secondary VET. Croatia has also struggled to reduce its share of low performing students over time, suggesting a need for policies that better identify and address learning gaps as students advance through schooling.

Several underlying factors contribute to these problems. First, selection into upper secondary programmes is based mainly on student grades and lacks a more balanced and reliable mix of information to help inform student placement decisions. As a result, there is a risk that some students may be sorted into different pathways based on their profile, rather than their capacities and interests. Another factor is the limited availability of school level supports, specialised staff and physical spaces to meet the learning needs of all students and help them progress towards national learning standards. Teachers also report a need for professional development to support students with special needs and to tailor instruction.

These factors risk setting some students – especially vulnerable ones – on a trajectory towards less prestigious upper secondary pathways, and ultimately narrowing their opportunities for success in further education and the labour market. Croatia is already taking steps to address these challenges. For example, the MSEY plans to use Whole Day School to provide more extracurricular activities and remediation support (among other things) to disadvantaged students. However some policy questions remain unanswered, such as student selection policies might change in relation to the modular VET system that is being designed, and whether the new Grade 8 national assessment should serve as a tool to improve the upper secondary selection process. This section provides policy recommendations based on OECD experience and research that can help Croatia make a success of these ongoing reforms and opportunities to establish a more equitable school system.

Figure 4.14. Recommendations and actions on equality of opportunities and access in school education
Copy link to Figure 4.14. Recommendations and actions on equality of opportunities and access in school education

Recommendation 4.3. Identify and support students who are falling behind in their learning

Teachers in Croatia are reportedly struggling to adjust their assessment practice to align with the new standards-based curriculum, face pressures to inflate grades and lack support on how to reliably identify and address the learning gaps of some students. These factors are likely to contribute to Croatia’s persistent share of low performers in PISA. To help ensure that all students complete school with strong foundational competencies, Croatia could consider policy examples from OECD countries on how to strengthen classroom assessments and better prepare teachers to use a range of teaching strategies.

Improving classroom assessments to identify and address learning gaps

Croatian schools and teachers need more support to use assessment diagnostically and formatively. This is partly because teacher assessments in Croatia lack moderation and prior to 2023, there were no national standardised assessments of learning outcomes until the end of schooling (i.e. the Matura exam). Croatian teachers also have few resources to help them align their assessment practice with the new competency-based curriculum. As the country works to raise learning outcomes as part of the Whole Day School reform, the MSEY could consider some of the following ways to help teachers and schools better identify students who are underperforming, and target interventions to help them improve:

Developing model rubrics and other exemplars to help teachers apply national learning standards in their practice. Many OECD countries help teachers apply learning standards by developing scoring rubrics. Rubrics contain descriptions of performance criteria and a scale of student performance levels to help ensure that teachers are judging student work against a common standard. Some countries also provide exemplars of student work that illustrate achievement at different levels. Such tools can help align classroom assessments with curriculum expectations (OECD, 2019[67]).
Encouraging moderation practices. Croatia could encourage teachers to peer-review or cross‑mark their classroom assessments. To support school-based moderation, the New Zealand Ministry of Education provides resources, such as guiding questions on how to establish moderation procedures in schools, case studies of effective practices, as well as online training modules (New Zealand Curriculum Centre, n.d.[68]). In addition to in-school moderation, Croatia could consider ways to use standardised assessment data to help teachers and schools calibrate their grading of students. Such moderation policies, which require census assessments, could provide students with more reliable feedback on where they are in their learning, while providing teachers with opportunities to reflect on and deepen their understanding of student assessment, learning goals and performance criteria (OECD, 2019[67]).
Providing centrally developed diagnostic assessments. Diagnostic assessments could provide teachers with information about where students are in their learning in relation to national standards. Having this information at the start of a school year, for example, could help inform future programme planning, design differentiated instruction and deliver remedial programmes for at-risk students (OECD, 2013[40]; 2023[69]). Croatia could also consider ways to support teachers in using such tools. For example, Estonia’s diagnostic assessment tools are accompanied by a series of e-tasks that enable teachers to easily individualise instruction and group students for different activities based on their performance in the tests (Harno, n.d.[70]).

Strengthening teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction

Students have different learning needs and styles and, as a result, can benefit from different teaching strategies (OECD, 2023[69]). In Croatia, however, teachers report a high need for training in adaptive instruction and teaching students with special needs (see Figure 4.9). Conducted interviews revealed a need to further develop teachers’ understanding of core principles and practices related to differentiation and inclusion. To support teachers in developing their competencies to create more equitable and inclusive learning environments, Croatia could consider the following approaches used by some OECD countries:

Make differentiated instruction an integrated part of initial teacher education. While countries can offer standalone courses on specific topics related to inclusive teaching, research suggests that embedding these as cross-cutting themes in initial teacher preparation can be more effective (Rouse and Florian, 2021[71]; UNESCO, 2020[72]). Croatia might consider ways to encourage tertiary education institutions to integrate these topics as mandatory parts of initial teacher education programmes, rather than just elective courses. This could help more teachers to use flexible, student-centred approaches that incorporate whole-class, group, and individual teaching formats.
Provide teachers with more direct support to accommodate diverse student needs. Allowing future and in-service teachers to work with diverse groups of students, experience inclusive learning environments, and connect pedagogical theories to classroom practices can help better prepare them to support diverse learners (Brussino, 2020[73]; OECD, 2023[69]). Croatia could build on its existing internship and mentoring schemes for new teachers to offer co-teaching and coaching programmes at the school or local level. This could simultaneously help diversity professional learning experiences for Croatian teachers, who at present report being relatively less engaged in collaborative forms of professional learning. For example, New Zealand’s Communities of Learning encourage schools to work together to develop educational environments’ that are responsive to students’ different learning paths and promote equitable education outcomes for all students, including those with special needs (OECD, 2023[69]).

Recommendation 4.4. Review policies related to selection and certification in upper secondary education

High-quality upper secondary education programmes, pathways, and certifications are essential to enhance students’ core skills and prepare them for tertiary education or the labour market (Perico e Santos, 2023[14]; Stronati, 2023[11]). Currently, Croatia’s upper secondary programmes differ in terms of the quality of provision and student learning outcomes. Some VET programmes also emphasise academic courses over practical components, which ultimately creates challenges for students’ who may not have the strong general competencies needed for success in further education but also lack sufficient practical skills that would be useful in employment. Croatia recognises that improving the design of upper secondary education is particularly important for equity and strengthening the labour market relevance of its education system. Building on plans to design a modular VET system, Croatia could consider the following policy approaches to improve guidance to students, as well as reviewing selection into and certification from upper secondary education.

Ensuring academic and career guidance informs students’ decisions about their futures

Croatian students can access free and personalised academic and career guidance in specialised centres called (Centar za informiranje i savjetovanje o karijeri), a digital e-Guidance portal created by the Croatian Employment Service, or through their school counsellors (CEDEFOP, 2020[74]). The Agency for Mobility and EU Programmes also provides annual training for school counsellors on guidance practices through the EU programme, Euroguidance. However, very few schools have dedicated counsellors, and it was reported that few students have the reflex to voluntarily seek help in planning their futures. As Croatia rolls out its new modular VET system, students will likely need even more support to understand and navigate the choices and demands of further education and employment. This is especially true for disadvantaged students, who tend to have lower expectations for their future even when they do well in school (Puzic, Odak and Sabic, 2019[75]). To address these challenges, Croatia could consider how New Brunswick (Canada) provides guidance to help mitigate the self-selection of students and support them in making more informed decisions about their futures (see Box 4.4).

Box 4.4. OECD systems take different approaches to providing student guidance

Copy link to Box 4.4. OECD systems take different approaches to providing student guidance

New Brunswick (Canada)

Recognising that every adult is a potential career influencer, New Brunswick aims to equip every staff member in the school - including administrators, guidance counsellors, and all teachers - with the ability to engage with students and their career thinking within the normal working day. Since career development is usually absent in teacher training curricula, New Brunswick provides a series of online asynchronous educator modules that walk teachers through various instructional strategies and ideas for how to engage students in career learning. These modules include training on social emotional, experiential, and financial wellness; making use of labour market information; and an online career planning tool for young people (myBlueprint). To ensure that all students can build career development skills, every student engages in a Personal Development and Career Planning course in Grade 9 or 10 (ages 14-15). Students can also take an optional course to do a deeper dive into career development. One example of this is the Co-Op course for grades 11-12 (ages 16-17) where students are matched with employers for a workplace learning opportunity.

Source: Perico e Santos, (2023[14]), Managing student transitions into upper secondary pathways, https://doi.org/10.1787/663d6f7b-en; OECD (2021[76]), Canada: Future Ready Learning K-12, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2021-03-19/582817-Example%20of%20Practice%20 Future%20Ready%20Learning%20K12.pdf.

Reviewing selection into upper secondary education

Croatia’s current policy of relying on student grades from lower-secondary education to inform upper secondary placements creates several challenges. Notably, it puts teachers in a position where they must both support students in their learning and hold responsibility for making high stakes decisions about their futures. OECD countries have explored a range of measures to establish more balanced and comprehensive systems for informing student progression. Some of these policies include:

Using a wider range of evidence. For example, France uses classroom assessments alongside other information, including on students’ interest, medical and social well-being to guide placement decisions (French Ministry of National Education and Youth, 2023[77]). These decisions are taken by class councils (conseils de classe), which includes the school principal, teaching staff, parent and student representatives, as well as guidance counsellors. Students and their families can appeal decisions made by the class council if they wish, and their request is examined by an appeal commission. A similar policy in Croatia could help mitigate inequities by drawing on a broader range of evidence and re-distributing decision-making responsibility.
Improving the use of classroom assessments. Supporting teachers to develop reliable assessment practices is key to using classroom assessments to inform student selection. Policies outlined in Recommendation 3.3 suggest how Croatia could support teachers’ assessment literacy. Other ways of improving the use of classroom assessments for student selection include limiting the number of subjects whose grades matter for admission. In Finland, for example, student placement into general upper secondary programmes only considers their grade point average for the subjects included on the basic education certificate (Perico e Santos, 2023[14]). At present, Croatia considers student grades in all subjects of lower-secondary education and might instead consider only a select number of subjects and/or the two final grades of lower-secondary education, which are already given more weight in the process.
Introducing some externality. Ireland and the Netherlands, for example, have experimented with several arrangements to introduce externality into student assessment policies (see Box 4.5). Slightly over a quarter of OECD countries use standardised exams for to inform student progression (Perico e Santos, 2023[14]). Croatia is already considering drawing on the new national assessment as one of the information sources for student selection. However, it will be important to carefully consider the limitations of this approach, as it will have implications on the role of assessment as a system monitoring tool. Moreover, standardised tests can have weak predictive validity and a negative backwash effect when attached to high stakes (Perico e Santos, 2023[14]). Clearly communicating how the Grade 8 assessment is being used will be important to avoid confusing stakeholders.

Reviewing certification from upper secondary VET programmes

To ensure that VET programmes do not become dead ends that limit students’ opportunities and instead enhance their long-term outcomes, certifications from these programmes should signal that students have met national learning standards and lead to valuable options for progressing to further education and training. As Croatia designs a more flexible, modular approach to VET, the MSEY will need to reflect on what this change means for the way VET students are examined and certified. At present, students in Croatia who graduate from upper secondary VET programmes gain their qualifications through school-based final exams and take the Matura only if they want to pursue tertiary education. This approach fails to encourage more diverse post-school education and training options, reinforcing the strong preference Croatian students have for pursuing higher education (see Chapter 6). The Matura is also academically focused and does not sufficiently value the specific skills of VET students (Baketa, Dedic and Jokic, 2020[21]; Glavas, Matic and Prsa, 2021[19]). While OECD countries have taken different approaches to upper secondary examinations, features of good practice for examination and certification that may be relevant for Croatia include:

Developing central school-leaving examinations adapted to each track. This can signal parity between Croatia’s upper secondary general and the range of available VET programmes. In France, for example, students at the age of 18 can take either the baccalauréat général, technique or professionnel. All qualifications are achieved at the same level in the country's National Qualifications Framework. However, the programme content (e.g. time spent learning on the job) and assessment are different. All three types of the French Baccalaureate provide access to tertiary education, but they are each a pathway to different specific options (OECD, 2023[78]). Introducing a central school-leaving exam for VET students in Croatia could provide these students with an externally validated credential that they have met national learning standards.
Defining a set of core, external examination subjects for all programmes: Many countries have established a common core of subjects for all students taking a given certificate, typically in mathematics and the national language, while allowing for some level of subject choice (Stronati, 2023[11]). Croatia’s Matura exam already offers some flexibility by levels and subject choice, but the exam is only required for students in general programmes. Making core subjects of the Matura a graduation requirement, at least for students in longer VET programmes could help raise the value of this pathway by signalling that these students have also achieved a strong educational foundation. However, the exams should reflect the different content of the upper secondary VET programmes.

Box 4.5. Countries have experimented with ways to determine student selection and measure student progression

Copy link to Box 4.5. Countries have experimented with ways to determine student selection and measure student progression

Ireland’s Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement

Ireland has undergone several iterations of policies for assessing the progression of its lower-secondary students. Historically, the system relied on a qualification examination, the Junior Certificate, which was criticised for encouraging teaching to the test. Attempts to shift the system towards continuous assessment met resistance from teachers who were concerned about their workload and the reliability of using only classroom-based assessments to inform student placement decisions. After years of deliberation, Ireland implemented an integrated approach in 2022. Students are now assessed through two Classroom-Based Assessments, one Assessment Task that is set in the classroom but marked by the State Examinations Commission, and a Final Examination that is both administered and marked by the State Examinations Commission. These three assessment components collectively form the new Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement (JCPA), replacing the former Junior Certificate. While the JCPA is not directly used for selection into upper secondary programmes, it provides students with reliable information about their abilities, in turn helping them make decisions about their future education pathways.

The Netherlands’ efforts to create a more equitable upper secondary selection process

The Netherlands has also experimented with selection policies for entry into upper secondary education. Traditionally, primary school leavers were assessed using the optional, standardised Cito test from 1970 to 2014. The exam was considered a valuable counterweight to teachers' judgements, especially benefiting students from ethnic minorities and lower socio-economic backgrounds who may outperform teacher expectations. However, the exam also risked exacerbating inequities, as advantaged students often had greater access to resources to help them achieve higher exam results. Considering these factors, the government replaced the Cito test in 2014 with the ‘compulsory primary school leavers attainment test’, taken by all Grade 8 students. In 2023-24, the exam was renamed the ‘transfer test’ and adjusted to reflect students’ readiness to transition to secondary education rather than merely evaluating current attainment. The test is complemented by school advice, which includes insights into students' continuous academic, social and emotional development. Secondary schools use both the test results and school advice in admissions decisions.

Source: Ireland Department of Education (2023[79]), Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement (JCPA), https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a26b9-junior-cycle-profile-of-achievement-jcpa/ (accessed on 7 June 2024); Government of the Netherlands, (n.d.[80]), Compulsory primary school leavers attainment test, https://www.government.nl/topics/primary-education/compulsory-primary-school-leavers-attainment-test (accessed on 7 June 2024).

Maintaining school-based exams as part of VET credentials. Not all subjects taught in Croatian VET programmes can be assessed through a central examination like the Matura. To capture the wider range of skills developed through these programmes, Croatia could consider maintaining the school-based exams as part of the school-leaving requirements (combined with the central examinations set out above). In the longer term, developing external exams for VET subjects that are quality assured by employers could help raise the esteem of VET programmes.

Good governance: sustaining and ensuring the success of Croatia’s school reforms

Complementing Croatia’s ongoing school reforms with the recommendations proposed above can help raise the quality of schooling and narrow inequalities in students’ learning opportunities. However, ensuring the long-term success of reforms and achieving excellence in school education will require addressing several challenges facing the sector, including demographic change, limited resources, and disparities in the fiscal and administrative capacities of sub-national governments to deliver schooling. This section draws on their experiences and OECD research to help Croatia address these challenges by strengthening the use of data and information to support effective policy and practice, as well as building capacity across levels of government to ensure the sustainability of school reforms.

Figure 4.15. Recommendations and actions on good governance in school education
Copy link to Figure 4.15. Recommendations and actions on good governance in school education

Recommendation 4.5. Use data and information to support effective policy and practice

Croatia collects a range of administrative data on the school sector and is working to fill important data gaps, like national data on learning outcomes in earlier years of schooling. Despite these efforts, there is scope to strengthen the availability of data related to the quality of school practices and outcomes to help steer improvements. Such information could help policymakers take decisions on resource allocation and school improvement efforts, especially as Croatia works to implement significant reforms and further decentralise responsibility for school education. Data on the quality of teaching and learning in schools could also provide practitioners with much needed feedback and new perspectives on their performance to help them improve their practices (OECD, 2013[40]). For Croatia’s data to serve these purposes, the MSEY could consider some of the ways OECD countries have strengthened the analysis and dissemination of evidence about school education to improve policy and practice.

Collecting information on the quality of school practices and outcomes

Countries use a variety of tools to collect information on the quality of school practices and outcomes. In general, most OECD countries either have an Inspectorate or other body that conducts comprehensive, external reviews of schools and/or national assessments that provide comparative measures to benchmark school performance in relation to other schools, particular districts, regions or national averages (OECD, 2013[40]). Chapter 2 of this report recommends Croatia’s Inspectorate make its evaluations more formative for institutions, as well as use a more strategic, risk-based approach to conducting qualitative evaluations of ECEC providers and schools. In a context where most schools will not undergo regular external evaluations, Croatia’s new national assessment would become the government’s main tool for monitoring the quality of teaching and learning in each school and providing reliable information on student performance in relation to national learning standards in key areas. While Croatia has already started administering its new national assessment, the purpose of this tool is not yet clearly defined. The following policy questions could help Croatia ensure its new assessment tool generates reliable national data to support accountability and improvement across the school system:

Should the assessment generate census data for primary education? At the time of drafting, only a sample of students took Croatia’s new national assessment in Grade 4. This generated sufficient information to support system monitoring and further develop national curriculum and instructional resources. However, this left Croatia without school level data on learning outcomes until the census-based assessment in Grade 8. Croatia subsequently administered the assessment to a full cohort of students in both grades. While census tests are more costly to implement, generating standardised census data on learning outcomes in primary education could provide several benefits, especially since Croatia does not have regular external school evaluations. For example, results could help identify and address potential learning gaps early on, inform how practitioners organise additional time under Whole Day School, and help government actors reflect on their school networks. Countries typically determine the target populations for their national assessments based on specific contexts and needs, and many co‑ordinate the design of their national assessment to complement international assessments (OECD, 2013[40]).
What is the desired balance between accountability and improvement? Census-based assessments risk being perceived as having high stakes, especially in contexts like Croatia’s where student grades and exam results have important implications on students’ futures. In clarifying the purpose of the new national assessment, the MSEY should consider how the results will be disseminated to mitigate the potential downsides of having a full-cohort assessment. For example, using results to measure individual schools and teachers can lead to an increased risk of test manipulation and curriculum narrowing because the assessment is perceived as having high stakes (Greaney and Kellaghan, 2008[81]). Countries can maximise potential gains while minimising risks of using census-based assessments by deciding whether results are published and in what format. Finland, for example chooses not to publish individual school results and only discloses schools’ own results to support their internal development (Eurydice, 2015[82]). In Colombia, on the other hand, school level results are published alongside other contextual data to avoid narrow rankings and provide a more balanced perspective on the quality of teaching and learning in schools (see Box 4.6).
Should the Grade 8 assessment inform selection into upper secondary education? If the MSEY decides to use the Grade 8 national assessment as part of its student selection policies, this purpose needs to be clearly communicated to school communities. It could also be helpful to clarify the difference between this assessment and the national assessment(s) administered in other years of schooling to avoid the latter becoming associated with high stakes for students. If Croatia’s national assessment in primary education becomes a census, as discussed above, this distinction will be even more important.
What contextual information should be collected? Connecting results from national assessments to EMIS data (e.g. on student demographic information), can provide insights into factors that influence learning outcomes at the national level and across specific groups. However, many countries also collect non-administrative data through their assessment’s background questionnaires. This approach can help capture information related to the practices and perceptions of teachers and schools, as well as the attitudes of students and parents. Such information can be valuable in understanding different educational contexts and developing pedagogical interventions. For example, Croatia could consider collecting information on family composition and socio-economic background of students, which its national EMIS currently lacks. Given the planned changes to upper secondary education, the MSEY could also consider administering a survey to teachers and schools at this level or participating in the TALIS ISCED Level 3 option and adding specific questions related to ongoing national reforms.

Box 4.6. Colombia provides a balanced way to evaluate school education quality

Copy link to Box 4.6. Colombia provides a balanced way to evaluate school education quality

Since 2015, Colombia’s Synthetic Index of Educational Quality (Índice Sintético de la Calidad Educativa, ISCE) provides a numerical indicator ranging from 1 to 10 (with 10 being the highest score). It consists of four components:

1. School performance (40%), based on students' learning results in the country’s annual national external assessment (known as Saber), in Language and Mathematics;

2. Progress (40%), based on changes in student learning compared to previous SABER tests;

3. Efficiency (10%), based on the schools’ approval rates; and

4. School environment (10%), based on the context questionnaire (known as Associated Factors) given to students during the Saber tests.

The ISCE balances quantitative performance metrics with qualitative factors like student perceptions to avoid narrow rankings. Schools can compare their scores online and track their individual progress over time. The Colombian government established annual minimum improvement goals (MMA) in 2015 for each school to achieve by 2025 that consider their unique contexts. This approach makes goals more attainable for schools compared to fixing a country-wide objective.

Source: Government of Colombia (2022[83]), Índice Sintético de la Calidad Educativa [Synthetic Index of Educational Quality], https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/portal/micrositios-preescolar-basica-y-media/Evaluacion/Evaluacion-de-estudiantes/397385:Indice-Sintetico-de-la-Calidad-Educativa-ISCE (accessed on 7 June 2024).

Improving how school data is analysed, used and communicated

When done effectively, disseminating information about the quality of school practices and learning outcomes promotes transparency and can apply positive pressure to drive improvements across the system. The Republic of Korea “Zero Plan” offers an example of how attaching some formal accountability measures to national assessment results can be a powerful way to incentivise and support system improvement (see Box 4.7). Countries can also use national assessments to investigate policy questions and set national goals. Croatia might, for example, investigate the relative influence of private tutoring and other home factors on student performance and/or set goals on reducing learning gaps between urban students and those living in rural and remote locations. The results of this information could be presented in thematic reports or a comprehensive State of Education Report. Many OECD countries have developed the latter to help monitor and communicate progress towards national education goals.

In addition to supporting system level improvements, national assessments can also help improve teaching and learning within schools. Communicating assessment data to school practitioners is important to help mitigate the potential downsides of how they perceive, prepare for and use the results of national assessments. Countries have done this effectively by creating materials and opportunities (e.g. workshops) to help school leaders and teachers better understand the assessment and the implications results have for their work. Countries can also offer detailed analysis of test items, providing concrete examples of what students should know and be able to do across the ability range. These materials can also serve as a basis for school leaders and teachers to collaboratively discuss results, adapt their own assessment practices and develop strategies to address areas of low performance.

Box 4.7. South Korea’s use of national assessment results to allocate additional support and improve system performance

Copy link to Box 4.7. South Korea’s use of national assessment results to allocate additional support and improve system performance

In the Republic of Korea, the government uses national assessment results to support underachieving students and improve performance. Since the establishment of the Zero Plan for Below-Basic Students in 2008, schools with large shares of students performing below the basic level are designated as “Schools for Improvement” and are eligible to receive administrative and financial support over a three-year period. This support is provided by the central Ministry of Education with mandatory matched funds from metropolitan or provincial level offices, who are responsible for allocating the subsidy based on school characteristics. Local education authorities are encouraged to deliver the subsidy as a lump sum to provide principals with the operational flexibility to use the resources to best meet their school’s needs. The subsidy may be used, among other things, to provide incentives for teachers, appoint assistant staff, or develop innovative education programmes. Linking national assessment results with school support has served as a powerful tool to incentivise improvements in system performance.

Source: Ra, Kim and Rhee (2019[84]), Developing National Student Assessment Systems for Quality Education: Lessons from the Republic of Korea, http://dx.doi.org/10.22617/TCS190597-2.

Recommendation 4.6. Build capacity to manage reforms across all levels of government

Croatia’s school system is undergoing major structural reforms at a time of demographic change and when public funding for education is already being stretched to expand access to ECEC and develop post-schooling education (see Chapters 3, 5, and 6). While much of the initial investments for Whole Day School are being supported by EU funding sources, the reform will have long-term financial implications for Croatia’s central and sub-national governments. For example, further investments will be needed to maintain single shift schooling and offer a wider range of activities, supports and courses to enrich the learning experience for students. These reforms are likely to add pressure onto Croatia’s school network, which already faces resource challenges. The growing number of small schools and a current surplus of teachers, for example, contribute to high operational costs for sub-national authorities, as well as high staff costs for the central government. As part of its work to manage the changing demands on school education, the Croatian government will need the capacities and tools to carefully review school funding policies across levels of government and ensure that resources are being allocated effectivity and equitably.

Integrating policy objectives into budget planning to ensure the financial sustainability of reforms

To ensure Croatia’s Whole Day School reform, and other education reforms, are backed by sustainable resource commitments, the government could consider ways to strengthen links between national policy goals and budget planning processes at regional and local levels. At present, most of Croatia’s sub‑national governments are highly dependent on central transfers from the state budget. This reliance risks undermining Croatia’s broader aims to strengthen sub-national authorities’ role in funding and delivering school education in the long term. Translating policy goals into concrete targets at the sub-national level has helped several OECD countries with decentralised budgeting systems to support system wide reforms and set a minimum standard of public services (OECD, 2017[85]). For example, Estonian law requires both national and local governments (and schools) to have Strategic Development Plans that align with priorities defined in the Estonian Lifelong learning Strategy and link to medium term expenditure frameworks (OECD, 2022[86]). These expenditure frameworks establish the parameters for annual budgets across levels of government and are subject to debate, as education authorities must work together to define and adjust their spending priorities within budget ceilings set by the Ministry of Finance. This process requires co-ordination across central ministries and different levels of administration, which has helped promote widespread awareness and understanding of the Estonia’s education goals and their effective integration into the budgeting process (OECD, 2022[86]).

Encouraging sub-national authorities to consider national policy goals when making decisions on how to spend school funding could be especially helpful in Croatia. Previous analysis suggests that while capacities have generally increased, some local and regional governments still struggle to carry out strategic planning tasks, manage investments, and attract EU funding for development projects (OECD, 2024[1]; World Bank, 2021[87]). To build the technical and strategic capacity of sub-national governments to manage the school sector, Croatia’s central government could consider providing training, guidelines and advisory services to assist them with school finance and management procedures, as well as provide feedback on progress towards education goals (see Recommendation 4.5) (OECD, 2017[85]).

Supporting smaller sub-national authorities to deliver quality schooling

Considering Croatia’s high level of fragmentation in public governance (see Chapter 2), many smaller sub-national authorities may struggle to develop the administrative and resource capacity required to manage their school network. Small sub-national authorities, especially those in remote and isolated areas, also face higher per-student costs of schooling and difficulty in attracting specialist teachers. In such situations, some OECD countries have used dedicated compensatory funding or targeted programmes to support teachers’ professional development or collaboration, as well as provide vital services like school transport (OECD, 2018[8]). Others have created clusters of schools to facilitate resource sharing without structurally changing the school network. In Spain, for example, Grouped Rural Schools (Colegios Rurales Agrupados) share peripatetic teachers and instruction materials, jointly offer extracurricular activities and support the professional community of teachers through regular co‑ordination meetings (Ares Abalde, 2014[88]). Such initiatives could help Croatia raise the quality of provision in small schools across the country, especially as they work with schools in their networks to implement the extracurricular and learning programmes associated with the Whole Day School and upper secondary VET reforms.

Croatia could also consider policies to strengthen the capacity of sub-national governments. In Finland, for example, which also struggles with demographic decline, the Association of Finnish Municipalities piloted a project to form structured networks of primary schools to ensure access to quality education in shrinking communities (OECD, 2023[89]). The project aims to better understand the challenges municipalities face in providing quality education and increase understanding among relevant national ministries and municipalities about opportunities for greater inter-municipal co-operation in the field of education (OECD, 2023[89]). In Germany, the federal government established regional transfer agencies (Transferinitiative Kommunales Bildungsmanagement) across the country as part of a broader effort to build capacity for local education management by bringing central support closer to regional and local actors (Federal Ministry of Education and Research, n.d.[90]). Among other things, the German transfer agencies support local authorities in using data to analyse their situation and offer advice about relevant tools, instruments and professional development opportunities to help them improve their school networks. Croatia’s new platform for monitoring sub-national authorities (see Chapter 2) could help co‑ordinate and encourage greater joint service provision in school education.

Figure 4.16. Summary of recommendations and actions in school education
Copy link to Figure 4.16. Summary of recommendations and actions in school education

References

[61] Agee, J. (2004), “Negotiating a teaching identity: An African American teacher’s struggle to teach in test driven contexts”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 106/4, pp. 747-774.

[58] AITSL (2022), Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/standards (accessed on 7 June 2024).

[88] Ares Abalde, M. (2014), School Size Policies: A Literature Review, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jxt472ddkjl-en.

[21] Baketa, N., Z. Dedic and B. Jokic (2020), All Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others: Secondary School Principals’ Perspectives on the State Matura Exams and Issues of Equity and Equality of Access to Tertiary Education for Pupils from Grammar Schools and VET in Croatia, pp. 223-251, https://doi.org/10.5613/rzs.50.2.4.

[16] Blossfeld, H. et al. (2016), Models of Secondary Education and Social Inequality, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367267.

[73] Brussino, O. (2020), “Mapping policy approaches and practices for the inclusion of students with special education needs”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 227, https://doi.org/10.1787/600fbad5-en.

[35] Burai, R. and R. Kardum (2021), “Lifelong Education programmes for the Acquisition of Pedagogical Competencies in the Republic of Croatia - An Analysis Workload in Compulsory Subjects”, Život i škola : časopis za teoriju i praksu odgoja i obrazovanja, Vol. LXVII/1, pp. 99-119, https://hrcak.srce.hr/clanak/383508.

[42] CARNET (2023), The “e-Schools” project successfully digitizes all schools in Croatia, https://www.carnet.hr/en/the-e-schools-project-successfully-digitizes-all-schools-in-croatia/.

[74] CEDEFOP (2020), Vocational education and training in Croatia: short description, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/121008.

[9] Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2023), Migration of population of Republic of Croatia, 2022, https://podaci.dzs.hr/2023/en/58062 (accessed on 20 July 2024).

[29] Croatian Bureau of Statistics (2023), Prosječne mjesečne isplaćene neto i bruto plaće prema stupnju stručne spreme i djelatnostima u 2021, https://podaci.dzs.hr/2022/hr/29070.

[20] Ćurković, N., M. Korda and S. Fulgosi (2019), “Analiza povezanosti ispita državne mature i nastave u srednjim školama”, https://www.croris.hr/crosbi/publikacija/knjiga/20252.

[56] Estonian Qualifications Authority (2023), “(Kutsekoda) Occupational Qualification Standards”, https://www.kutseregister.ee/en/standardid/viimati-kinnitatud-kutsestandardid/?.

[46] European Commission (2023), Education and Training Monitor 2023 - Croatia, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/775582.

[45] European Commission (2021), Education and Training Monitor 2021, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2021/downloads/2020-3429%20-%20Monitor%202021.pdf.

[15] European Commission (2017), Study on the impact of admission systems on higher education outcomes, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9cfdd9c1-98f9-11e7-b92d-01aa75ed71a1.

[24] European Parliament (2024), Croatia’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan: Latest state of play, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2022)733580.

[47] Eurostat (2024), Early leavers from education and training by sex and labour status, https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFSE_14 (accessed on 7 October 2024).

[54] Eurostat (2024), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913 (accessed on 7 October 2024).

[5] Eurydice (2024), Croatia, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/croatia/overview.

[82] Eurydice (2015), Assuring quality in education – Policies and approaches to school evaluation in Europe, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/678.

[90] Federal Ministry of Education and Research (n.d.), Federal Ministry of Education and Research, https://www.transferinitiative.de/Transferagenturen.php.

[77] French Ministry of National Education and Youth (2023), Le choix d’orientation d’un élève, https://www.education.gouv.fr/reussir-au-lycee/le-choix-d-orientation-d-un-eleve-7382#:~:text=Les%20demandes%20d%27orientation%20sont,%C3%A9met%20des%20propositions%20d%27orientation.

[19] Glavas, A., L. Matic and S. Prsa (2021), Upper-secondary teachers’ perceptions of the matura exam in mathematics, pp. 217-242, https://doi.org/10.21464/mo.28.1.12.

[83] Government of Colombia (2022), Índice Sintético de la Calidad Educativa [Synthetic Index of Educational Quality], https://www.mineducacion.gov.co/portal/micrositios-preescolar-basica-y-media/Evaluacion/Evaluacion-de-estudiantes/397385:Indice-Sintetico-de-la-Calidad-Educativa-ISCE (accessed on 7 June 2024).

[80] Government of the Netherlands (n.d.), Compulsory primary school leavers attainment test, https://www.government.nl/topics/primary-education/compulsory-primary-school-leavers-attainment-test (accessed on 7 June 2024).

[81] Greaney, V. and T. Kellaghan (2008), Assessing national achievement levels in education, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/393021468141552365/Assessing-national-achievement-levels-in-education.

[62] GTCS (n.d.), The General Teaching Council for Scotland - About us, https://www.gtcs.org.uk/about-us/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).

[55] Guerriero, S. (2017), Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264270695-en.

[70] Harno (n.d.), About The Education and Youth Board of Estonia, https://harno.ee/en/about-news-contacts/about/about-us-structure-activities.

[79] Ireland Department of Education (2023), Junior Cycle Profile of Achievement (JCPA), https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/a26b9-junior-cycle-profile-of-achievement-jcpa/ (accessed on 7 June 2024).

[59] Korthagen, F. (2004), “In search of the essence of a good teacher: towards a more holistic approach in teacher education”, Teaching and teacher education, Vol. 20/1, pp. 77-97, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.10.002.

[6] Lecheval, A., E. Plavšić and E. Plavšić (2021), Profile commissioned by EASNIE for the Global Education Monitoring Report 2021 - Central and Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia - Inclusion and education: All means all, https://gem-report-2020.unesco.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Croatia.pdf.

[51] Matković, T. (2010), Recent developments in the education system and school-to-work transitions in croatia, Arbeitspapiere – Working Papers No. 138, https://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/publications/wp/wp-138.pdf.

[7] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2023), Accession candidate country’s self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills: Guidelines and questionnaire Croatia.

[13] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (2022), Decision on enrollment of students in the first grade of secondary school in the school year 2022/2023, https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2022_05_57_820.html.

[30] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (n.d.), Ordinance on the Promotion of Teachers, Teachers, Expert Associates and Principals in Primary and Secondary Schools and Student Dormitories (nn.hr), Ministry of Science, Education and Youth.

[10] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (n.d.), ŠeR - Školski e-Rudnik (Vol. 2) [School e-Mine], https://app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZWE3YTE4OWQtOWJmNC00OTJmLWE2MjktYTQ5MWJlNDNlZDQ0IiwidCI6IjJjMTFjYmNjLWI3NjEtNDVkYi1hOWY1LTRhYzc3ZTk0ZTFkNCIsImMiOjh9 (accessed on 21 November 2024).

[52] Ministry of Science, Education and Youth (n.d.), ŠeR - Školski e-Rudnik (Vol. 3) [School e-Mine], https://mzom.gov.hr/istaknute-teme/ser-skolski-e-rudnik-3419/3419.

[48] Mullis, I. et al. (2020), TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science, https://timssandpirls.bc.edu/timss2019/international-results/.

[49] Mullis, I. et al. (2023), PIRLS 2021 International Results in Reading, https://doi.org/10.6017/lse.tpisc.tr2103.kb5342.

[68] New Zealand Curriculum Centre (n.d.), Moderation, https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/moderation/5637158830.p.

[66] NSLE (n.d.), The National School of Leadership in Education, http://en.solazaravnatelje.si/index.html (accessed on 7 June 2024).

[22] OECD (2024), Distribution of government, private and non-domestic expenditure on educational institutions, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/ey (accessed on 7 October 2024).

[3] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.

[23] OECD (2024), Expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/ez (accessed on 7 October 2024).

[26] OECD (2024), Ratio of students to teaching staff by type of institution, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/f2 (accessed on 7 October 2024).

[27] OECD (2024), Share of teachers by age range, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/f3 (accessed on 7 October 2024).

[28] OECD (2024), Teachers’ statutory salaries, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/f4 (accessed on 7 October 2024).

[53] OECD (2024), Towards Balanced Regional Development in Croatia: From Strategy Design to Implementation, https://doi.org/10.1787/3c0779cf-en.

[1] OECD (2024), Towards Balanced Regional Development in Croatia: From Strategy Design to Implementation, OECD Multi-level, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3c0779cf-en.

[4] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.

[69] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education - Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.

[50] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.

[43] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.

[18] OECD (2023), PISA database 2022, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/ (accessed on January 2024).

[78] OECD (2023), “Strengthening pathways in upper secondary education”, in Strengthening Upper Secondary Education in Lithuania, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6fd6bee9-en.

[89] OECD (2023), Workshop Summary Report - 3rd Knowledge Sharing Forum: Torwards Regional Resilisence to Demographic Change in Croatia, part of the “Enhanced Strategic Planning at Regional and Local Levels in Croatia” project.

[2] OECD (2022), Response to the project questionnaire “Enhanced Strategic Planning at the Regional and Local Levels in Croatia” addressed to the Ministry of Regional Development.

[36] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.

[86] OECD (2022), Value for Money in School Education: Smart Investments, Quality Outcomes, Equal Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6de8710-en.

[76] OECD (2021), Canada: Future Ready Learning K-12, https://web-archive.oecd.org/2021-03-19/582817-Example%20of%20Practice%20Future%20Ready%20Learning%20K12.pdf.

[39] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.

[38] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.

[64] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.

[67] OECD (2019), Education Policy Outlook 2019: Working Together to Help Students Achieve their Potential, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b8ad56e-en.

[17] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.

[32] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

[44] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.

[37] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together - Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.

[63] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.

[8] OECD (2018), Responsive School Systems: Connecting Facilities, Sectors and Programmes for Student Success, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306707-en.

[33] OECD (2018), TALIS database 2018, https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/talis-2018-data.htm (accessed on 6 July 2023).

[85] OECD (2017), The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en.

[40] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.

[12] OECD (Forthcoming), “OECD Reviews of Labour Market and Social Policies: Croatia 2025”.

[25] OECD/UCLG (2022), 2022 Country Profiles of the World Observatory on Subnational Government Finance and Investment - Croatia, https://dev.mediactive-studio.com/maquettes/OCDE/croatia.html.

[34] owalczuk-Walędziak, M. (ed.) (2022), Teacher Education in Croatia: Reforms and Challenges, Palgrave Macmillan, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09515-3_8.

[14] Perico e Santos, A. (2023), “Managing student transitions into upper secondary pathways”, Education Policy Perspectives, Vol. 289, https://doi.org/10.1787/663d6f7b-en.

[65] Pont, B., D. Nusche and H. Moorman (2008), Improving School Leadership - Volume 1: Policy and Practice, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/education/school/Improving-school-leadership.pdf.

[75] Puzic, S., I. Odak and J. Sabic (2019), “Educational outcomes and aspirations of upper secondary school students: The cultural capital and relative risk aversion perspectives”, Sociologija, Vol. 61/3, pp. 368-388, https://doi.org/10.2298/soc1903368p.

[84] Ra, S., S. Kim and K. Rhee (2019), Developing National Student Assessment Systems for Quality Education:, Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines, https://doi.org/10.22617/tcs190597-2.

[60] Rots, I. et al. (2010), “Teacher education and the choice to enter the teaching profession: A prospective study”, Teaching and teacher education, Vol. 26/8, pp. 1619-1629, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.013.

[71] Rouse, M. and L. Florian (2021), “The Inclusive Practice Project: Final Report”, University of Aberdeen, https://abdn.elsevierpure.com/en/impacts/the-inclusive-practice-project-ipp.

[57] Santiago et al (2016), “OECD Reviews of School Resources: Estonia 2016”, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251731-en;.

[31] Školski Portal (2016), Framework of the National Qualification Standard for Teachers in Primary and Secondary Schools, https://www.old.skolskiportal.hr/clanak/3943-okvir-nacionalnoga-standarda-kvalifikacija-za-ucitelje-u-osnovnim-i-srednjim-skolama/.

[11] Stronati, C. (2023), The design of upper secondary education across OECD countries - Managing choice, coherence and specialisation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/158101f0-en.

[72] UNESCO (2020), Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718.

[41] UNICEF (2023), Education management information system in Europe and Central Asia, https://www.unicef.org/eca/reports/education-management-information-system-europe-and-central-asia.

[87] World Bank (2021), Fiscal Decentralization in Croatia, World Bank Publishing.

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment

Governance

Health

Industry, business and entrepreneurship

Regional, rural and urban development

Science, technology and innovation

Society

Taxation

Trade

Energy

Nuclear energy

Transport

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Countries

Countries A - C

Countries D - I

Countries J - M

Countries N - R

Countries S - T

Countries U - Z

Regional and global engagement

Publications

Publications

Featured publications

Data

Data

Featured data

News & events

News & events

Featured events

About OECD

About

Engage with us

Work with us

Featured topics

Agriculture and fisheries

Climate change

Development

Digital

Economy

Education and skills

Employment

Environment

Finance and investment