This chapter examines evaluation and assessment within Catalonia’s education system, in Spain. It reviews the institutional landscape, including recent reforms and the establishment of the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency. The chapter analyses how evaluation and assessment operate across key components of the system, including system-level evaluation, student assessment and school evaluation. It identifies major strengths and challenges in the current framework, with attention to coherence, use of evidence and the capacity of evaluation processes to support improvement in teaching and learning. The chapter concludes with recommendations to support the work of the Agency.
Improving Learning Outcomes in Catalonia, Spain
Abstract
Evaluation and assessment
Spain’s Autonomous Community of Catalonia has made a significant institutional investment by establishing the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency (Agència d'Avaluació i Prospectiva de l'Educació), creating an important opportunity to strengthen evaluation, evidence use and strategic capacity across the education system. This reform builds on several existing strengths, including relatively strong data availability, an emerging culture of school evaluation, expanding institutional capacity for analysis and increasing stakeholder interest in more formative and improvement-oriented approaches to evaluation and assessment.
At the same time, while important foundations are already in place, fragmentation and limited coherence across the evaluation ecosystem weaken connections between student assessment, school evaluation, system monitoring and foresight activities. Evaluation and assessment1 processes are not yet consistently experienced as tools for learning and improvement, while limited capacity in the generation, interpretation and use of evidence continue to constrain their contribution to policy and practice. Foresight remains at an early stage of development. Across these areas, stakeholders referred to the importance of further developing trust and improvement-oriented approaches. Against this background, the chapter identifies four recommendations to strengthen evaluation and assessment in Catalonia:
Build a coherent evaluation and assessment system by developing a shared, system-wide vision and common understanding of the purposes of evaluation and assessment, and by clarifying roles within the evaluation ecosystem so that the Agency, the Department of Education and Vocational Training and the Inspectorate, each contribute in complementary and well-defined ways to generating, interpreting and using evidence.
Prioritise a focussed set of immediate actions for the Agency to drive system-wide impact, including setting clear expectations for evaluation and promoting an improvement-oriented culture; articulating a high-level vision for student assessment; aligning student assessment, teacher appraisal and school evaluation within a coherent framework; and embedding foresight as a structured function connected to strategic planning.
Build on the Agency’s emerging capacity for independence, quality and system reach by sequencing development deliberately, preserving analytical focus, embedding structured partnerships with higher education institutions, research organisations and school networks, and treating knowledge mobilisation as a deliberate, shared function across key actors.
Safeguard the Agency’s independence and sustainability over the long term by ensuring resourcing commensurate with its mandate, maintaining a strong mandate, anchoring its work in a coherent long-term strategy with early milestones, measuring and demonstrating its value and impact, and establishing safeguards to protect stability and continuity across political cycles.
These priorities aim to support the development of a more coherent, improvement-oriented and forward-looking evaluation ecosystem across Catalonia’s education system. While all four areas are important, particular attention may be warranted during the Agency’s early years to sequencing responsibilities realistically, strengthening institutional relationships and ensuring that evaluation processes increasingly support implementation, evidence-informed decision-making, learning and sustained educational improvement across the system.
1. This report differentiates between the terms “assessment”, “appraisal” and “evaluation”. The term “assessment” is used to refer to judgements on individual student performance and achievement of learning goals. It covers classroom-based assessments as well as large-scale, external tests and examinations. The term “appraisal” is used to refer to judgements on the performance of school-level professionals, e.g. teachers and school leaders. Finally, the term “evaluation” is used to refer to judgements on the effectiveness of schools, school systems and policies. The term “review” is also used in the context of school evaluation.
Evaluation and assessment are increasingly important components of education governance, planning and system improvement. Effective evaluation systems can help education authorities, schools and teachers better understand whether policies and practices are contributing to improved student learning and well-being, while foresight functions can help systems anticipate emerging challenges and adapting to changing social, demographic and technological conditions. International evidence suggests that evaluation contributes most effectively to improvement when it forms part of a coherent ecosystem characterised by clarity of purpose, trust, appropriate use of evidence and alignment across different levels of the system.
Catalonia has recently undertaken an important institutional reform through the activation of the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency (Agència d'Avaluació i Prospectiva de l'Educació, APE). This development creates an opportunity to strengthen the coherence, quality and strategic use of evaluation across the education system, while also embedding longer-term analytical and foresight capacity within the institutional architecture. The Agency builds on existing strengths within the system, including relatively strong data availability, an emerging culture of school evaluation and increasing stakeholder interest in more formative and improvement-oriented approaches to evaluation.
However, the evaluation ecosystem continues to face important challenges. Responsibilities for evaluation and assessment remain distributed across multiple actors, the use of evidence in policy and practice is uneven, and evaluation processes are not always experienced consistently as tools for learning and improvement. Historically, evaluation responsibilities have been distributed across multiple actors, which may have limited opportunities for developing more coherent approaches connecting student assessment, school evaluation, system monitoring and professional feedback processes across the system.
These issues are particularly significant in a context where Catalonia is undertaking substantial investments and reforms relating to workforce conditions, inclusive education and system capacity, while seeking to improve educational outcomes over time (see Chapter 2 and Chapter 6). Evaluation systems influence not only how performance is measured, but also how priorities are communicated, how improvement is supported, and how trust is built between institutions and education actors. Strengthening coherence across evaluation processes is therefore closely connected to broader objectives relating to quality, equity and system improvement.
Against this background, the chapter analyses the current architecture of evaluation and assessment in Catalonia and the extent to which its different components operate as a coherent ecosystem. As part of the broader OECD-Catalonia multi-year collaboration launched in 2025 to support improvements in learning outcomes and overall system performance, it first reviews the institutional landscape and recent reforms, including the establishment of the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency and the role of the Inspectorate. It then analyses strengths and challenges relating to system evaluation, student assessment and school evaluation before presenting recommendations aimed at strengthening coherence, capacity and long-term sustainability across the evaluation framework.
This section outlines the institutional architecture underpinning evaluation and assessment in Catalonia’s education system. It examines the main actors, governance arrangements and recent reforms shaping evaluation practices across the system, with particular attention to the establishment of the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency and its relationship with existing evaluation structures. These developments provide the institutional context for understanding how evaluation and assessment operate across different levels of the education system.
Establishment of the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency
The reactivation of the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency marks a significant institutional development in Catalonia’s evaluation landscape. Although initially foreseen in Law 12/2009, its activities formally commenced under Decree 65/2025 of 8 April (CIDO, 2025[1]). The Decree positions the Agency as a dedicated public body to strengthen independent evaluation and educational foresight within the Catalan education system. The Agency’s organisational structure and operating arrangements are governed by statutes originally approved through Decree 177/2010, which established its internal governance, work areas and accountability arrangements. A public consultation process to review and update the statutes was initiated in March 2026, with the aim of strengthening the independence and expertise of the Agency’s governing bodies and redefining its work areas.
The Agency is mandated to promote independent evaluation and the analysis of future scenarios to anticipate needs, challenges and opportunities facing the education system. Its mission is to contribute to the improvement, excellence and equity of educational policies by providing rigorous evidence and technical criteria to support decision-making.
Within the legal framework of Law 12/2009, the Agency’s mandate focusses on strengthening evaluation and foresight (DOGC, 2009[2]). Its core functions include (APE, n.d.[3]):
Fostering evaluation in general and self-assessment of the Education Authority, schools, teachers, students, services, programmes and activities that constitute the education system.
Defining principles and standardising criteria and methods for evaluation and foresight in the field of education.
Determining, in conjunction with the Education Inspectorate:
relevant models and protocols for evaluating schools and overseeing results
models and protocols for evaluating the teaching and management functions
Conducting research and foresight activities on trends and policies that may influence innovation in educational activity. These activities are conducted taking into consideration social, economic, demographic, technological, legislative and organisational changes affecting the field of education in general and the sphere of evaluation in particular.
Providing support and guidance to the Department of Education and Vocational Training and other entities on issues related to the evaluation and improvement of the education system.
Conducting the various forms of evaluation set out in Article 186 (see following section).
As the body responsible for evaluation, the Agency is also tasked with promoting research aimed at improving assessment methods and generating information on the elements that define the operation and performance of the education system. In addition, the Agency is responsible for providing practice guidance to stakeholders, specifying for each evaluation action whether participation is optional or obligatory and reporting on how the information obtained will be used. This contributes to greater clarity and transparency in evaluation processes.
Co-operation is an explicit feature of the Agency’s mandate. The Decree establishes that this involves collaboration with the Education Authority, local administrations where applicable, governing and teaching bodies of schools and, where relevant, students’ families. The Education Inspectorate is identified as the body through which the Education Authority establishes co-operation in the exercise of the Agency’s evaluation functions. The Agency may also establish co-operation agreements with universities and specialised organisations or entities.
In parallel, the legal framework specifies that the Department of Education and Vocational Training, with the participation, where applicable, of other education authorities, determines the evaluation procedures – including those regarding the self-assessment of education agents and education institutions – as well as the indicators and criteria for standardising information and data. These procedures, indicators and criteria are made publicly available to reinforce transparency in how evaluation is conducted and used.
However, before the recent activation of the Agency, Catalonia’s education evaluation architecture operated with more limited institutional capacity than originally envisaged under the 2009 Education Act, potentially constraining the system’s ability to generate integrated, longitudinal and policy-oriented evidence. The reactivation of the Agency brings together evaluation, methodological standard-setting and foresight within a single institutional structure. Its governance framework and defined mandate establish the formal conditions for strengthening independence, coherence and strategic capacity within Catalonia’s evaluation and assessment framework. How far these ambitions are realised in practice is examined in the sections that follow.
Governance
Strong governance arrangements are a central pillar of effective evaluation and assessment systems: the clarity of roles and responsibilities, balanced accountability and autonomy, and well-defined co-ordination mechanisms across actors are essential for ensuring coherent evaluation practices (OECD, 2013[4]). In Catalonia, these responsibilities are distributed across multiple actors. This section outlines the governance arrangements underpinning the evaluation system, with particular attention to the Agency’s statutory framework and its relationship with the Education Inspectorate, which plays a central role in undertaking external school evaluation and contributes to supporting evaluation at the system-level.
Governance structure of the Agency
The Catalan Government approves the Agency’s by-laws, which regulate its structure, operation and legal, financial and budgetary arrangements. The Agency’s governing and administrative bodies are defined in legislation and include the Governing Board and the President (DOGC, 2009[2]). The Government appoints the President and the Director, while the Minister appoints members of the Governing Board from among individuals of recognised prestige in education, educational foresight, or with experience in evaluation, inspection and school management. Amendments to the by-laws must be proposed by the Governing Board and approved by the Government, reinforcing both institutional oversight and formal autonomy.
On 7 July 2025, the Governing Council (Consell Rector) was formally constituted within the three-month period stipulated by the Decree. As the Agency’s highest governing body, it is responsible for setting strategic priorities and overseeing their implementation. Its composition reflects an effort to balance system representation with technical expertise.
To reinforce scientific rigour, the Agency’s governance structure also includes a Scientific Committee. This technical advisory body provides specialised support to the Directorate in matters of evaluation, research and foresight. Its members are experts of recognised standing from Catalonia, Spain and internationally, strengthening the Agency’s methodological foundations and external credibility.
In addition, a Monitoring Committee (Control Commission) has been established within four months of the Agency becoming operational. Composed of members of the Governing Board who do not hold management responsibilities, this body oversees the Agency’s internal functioning and accountability arrangements, including monitoring the implementation of activities and reviewing management processes. These governance arrangements are designed to support strategic direction, scientific robustness and internal accountability, while reinforcing the Agency’s autonomy and credibility within the Catalan education system.
The Education Inspectorate
A key actor within the governance of Catalonia’s evaluation system is the Education Inspectorate (Inspecció d'Educació, the Inspectorate), which connects evaluation at the system and classroom levels, holding responsibility for external school evaluation and contributing to system-level monitoring. As established in Article 177 of Law 12/2009, the objective of the Inspectorate is to ensure the application of current regulations and to guarantee the exercise of rights and the fulfilment of the duties that derive from them (DOGC, 2009[2]). In addition, Decree 12/2021 and Order EDU/46/2024 specify that its purpose is to contribute to educational quality and success, as well as to equity and inclusion in the education system (Department of Education and Vocational Training, 2025[5]).
The Inspectorate combines compliance-oriented functions with an improvement-oriented role, including supporting the professional development of teachers and educational care staff and promoting continuous improvement through collaborative working environments (Department of Education and Vocational Training, 2025[5]). This dual role is particularly relevant in a context where schools exercise broad autonomy and school leaders hold significant organisational and pedagogical responsibilities.
In practice, the Inspectorate oversees and evaluates schools and education services, including monitoring the achievement of objectives set out in education and action plans. This includes oversight of teaching and management functions. It also participates in initiatives to improve educational practices, the organisation and operation of schools, and broader innovation and reform processes. In addition, the Inspectorate develops evaluation procedures at the school level and conducts external evaluations of schools in accordance with the relevant legislative framework.
To fulfil these functions, education inspectors are granted statutory powers, including access to schools and services; the ability to obtain information and directly observe activities; the authority to review academic, pedagogical and administrative documentation; and the ability to request information and require compliance with current legislation. The legislation is flexible regarding how often, and how this occurs, in line with the autonomous system of schools and the responsibilities assigned to school principals. The Inspectorate’s work is implemented through multi-year overall and territorial action plans, which define objectives aimed at improving teaching processes, learning outcomes and school organisation and operation. This strategic orientation is reflected in the Inspectorate’s Master Plan for 2025–2029, which identifies as a priority its role in supporting and advising schools in their improvement processes and in developing an evaluative culture through comprehensive evaluation for improvement (Department of Education and Vocational Training, 2025[5]).
Overall, the Inspectorate plays a vital role in connecting system-level evaluation priorities with school-level practice. The extent to which this connection supports consistent improvement across contexts is examined in later sections.
The Department of Education and Vocational Training
The Department of Education and Vocational Training plays a central role in the governance of evaluation, assessment and foresight in Catalonia. As the authority responsible for the education system, it establishes the regulatory framework, policy priorities and accountability arrangements that underpin evaluation activities across schools and the wider system. The Education Act (Law 12/2009) assigns the Generalitat responsibility for inspection, internal evaluation of the education system, innovation, research and quality assurance, while also requiring the establishment of mechanisms for monitoring processes, evaluating results and promoting transparency (DOGC, 2009[2]).
The recent activation of the Agency does not replace these responsibilities. Rather, Catalonia’s evaluation architecture is evolving towards a distributed governance model in which the Department, the Agency and the Education Inspectorate perform complementary roles. In this context, the Department retains responsibility for policy stewardship and the overall governance of evaluation and assessment, while the Agency is expected to strengthen independent evaluation, methodological development and foresight capacity. Ensuring clear articulation of responsibilities and effective co-ordination among these actors will therefore be important for promoting coherence across the evaluation ecosystem.
Building on the overview of the institutional landscape and recent reforms, this section examines how evaluation operates at system level, with particular attention to the respective roles of key actors. It focusses on how responsibilities are defined, how information flows across levels, and how system-level monitoring interacts with student assessment and policy development. The analysis below concentrates specifically on the system-level architecture and the extent to which it enables evaluation to function as an integrated ecosystem rather than as a set of parallel activities. Other important components of the evaluation and assessment framework, including teacher appraisal and school self-evaluation, are set out in Chapter 4.
Forms of evaluation
The Education Act specifies a broad range of evaluation activities across the system, as determined by the Education Authority. These include evaluation of the education system and the Education Authority, student learning outcomes, teaching and management functions, schools and education services, and educational activities conducted outside of school hours. More specifically, these forms of evaluation include:
The education system and the Education Authority
Educational performance, which comprises diagnostic assessments of the core competencies acquired by students. The results are taken into consideration to determine whether students have achieved the objectives of each stage of education
Teaching, which supports the certification of teachers’ merits for professional promotion
The school management function and the inspection function
Schools and education services
Educational activities conducted outside of school hours
In addition, publicly funded schools carry out self-assessments leading to the identification of improvement actions, which are recorded in accordance with provisions established by regulation.
The law further specifies planning and reporting responsibilities accompanying these forms of evaluation. The Department plans overall evaluations, and the Government submits a report to Parliament on the results of these processes and on the state of the education system. The Department also makes available to the public evaluation results that are of general interest.
These provisions establish a comprehensive formal framework for evaluation across the system. The extent to which these different forms of evaluation operate in a coherent and mutually reinforcing way in practice is examined below.
Strengthening integration across evaluation practices
Ensuring that different evaluation components are effectively interrelated, so as to generate synergies, avoid duplication and prevent inconsistencies in objectives, is a central feature of effective evaluation and assessment frameworks. Like other OECD education systems, Catalonia has a range of instruments and information sources operating at different levels of the framework, including student assessment, teacher appraisal, school evaluation, school leader appraisal and system evaluation.
Its legislation defines evaluation as encompassing the education system and the Education Authority as a whole, student learning outcomes, teaching and management functions, schools and services, and educational activities conducted beyond the school day. This supports a system-wide perspective: system-level evaluations can inform strategic decision-making and policy direction; student assessments can provide evidence on learning outcomes and equity; evaluations of teaching, management and inspection functions can support professional standards and accountability; and school evaluation and self-evaluation can drive improvement at the point of delivery (OECD, 2013[4]).
However, across the OECD, these various evaluation practices are often not explicitly integrated, and systems do not always have a clear strategy to ensure that different components of the framework mutually reinforce one another. Previous OECD work suggests that a strategic approach to developing the evaluation and assessment framework provides an opportunity to reflect on the articulations between different components (Figure 5.1). This includes considering how effectively information flows between them, how consistently expectations are understood across levels of the system, and the extent to which evaluation results are used to inform professional practice and decision-making.
Catalonia’s evaluation framework provides a solid formal structure. However, the way its components interact in practice, and the degree to which they collectively support learning, improvement and accountability varies across areas (see following sections). Understanding how these elements interact in practice, and where gaps or disconnects emerge, is central to assessing the effectiveness of the evaluation ecosystem.
A recent diagnosis conducted by the Agency further identified challenges in distinguishing between evaluation functions of a different nature. It found that assessments serving distinct purposes were often treated in an undifferentiated way, including those primarily intended to inform system-level monitoring and those designed to inform families and schools (APE, unpublished[6]). This lack of differentiation can limit clarity of expectations and weaken the effective use of evaluation results across different levels of the system.
Within this framework, student assessment occupies a central position. It constitutes a primary source of evidence on learning outcomes, equity and system performance and can provide credible information to inform policy, guide resource allocation, and support improvements in teaching and learning. At the same time, its contribution depends on how well it is integrated with other components of the evaluation framework and how effectively its results are used across levels of the system.
The following section therefore examines student assessment in more detail, in line with the Agency’s mandate to strengthen methodological standards and ensure coherence across the system.
Source: OECD (2013[4]), 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.
Student learning outcomes are the central objective of education systems, and student assessment is the primary mechanism through which those outcomes are made visible. Within a system-wide quality assurance framework, student assessment is one of several interrelated evaluation policies – alongside teacher appraisal, school evaluation and system evaluation – that together aim to improve school practices and outcomes. A clear strategy for student assessment is therefore essential for improving learning and monitoring progress over time.
At the same time, student assessment does not operate in isolation. It forms part of a broader evaluation and assessment framework in which different components interact through shared data sources, accountability mechanisms and improvement processes. How well these elements are articulated has important implications for the coherence, credibility and impact of assessment policies.
Student assessments can serve formative purposes (assessment for learning, including diagnostic use) and summative purposes (assessment of learning). Balancing these purposes, as well as balancing external assessments with teacher-led classroom assessment, remains a shared challenge internationally (OECD, 2013[4]).
How Catalonia compares internationally
This section summarises how Catalonia’s student assessment model aligns with, and differs from, international trends in standardised student assessment trends. Overall, the number of OECD and partner economies implementing standardised student assessments has increased over the past decade (OECD, 2023[7]). Most systems that had national or central assessments in 2015 continued to do so in 2023, and seven additional countries have introduced them, reflecting a broader trend towards monitoring standards and collecting diagnostic information to support student achievement. At the same time, some jurisdictions have abolished or significantly reformed their approaches (for example, the French Community of Belgium discontinued national/central assessments at lower secondary level, and New Zealand abolished them at both primary and secondary levels).
Despite this general trend, OECD and partner economies differ widely in how often, when, and for which grades students are assessed. These design choices reflect different balances between accountability, system monitoring and pedagogical support, as well as differences in system structure.
Most OECD and partner economies conducted at least one annual national standardised assessment in both primary and lower secondary education in 2023 (OECD, 2023[7]). These student assessments were generally mandatory for public schools in almost all systems, with some exceptions (Scotland (United Kingdom) and Japan, where participation is de facto near-universal), and for government-dependent private schools in most countries except Denmark and Germany.
In most systems with available data, national standardised student assessments cluster around key transition points, typically: roughly six and nine years after the start of primary education. That is, near the end of primary and lower secondary education (OECD, 2023[7]). In addition, in 2023, seven of 32 OECD and partner economies with available data administered sample-based national assessments every two to five years, primarily for system monitoring purposes. These sample-based instruments are often designed to provide system-level trend data while limiting burden on schools and students.
Within this landscape, Catalonia’s approach has historically stood out for the relatively high frequency of its assessments and their compulsory nature, although this is evolving with recent reforms. In addition to assessments at key transition points, Catalonia has implemented diagnostic evaluations in earlier grades, resulting in more frequent assessment points within each stage. A review by the Agency identified concerns related to assessment burden, noting that annual census-based assessments can place pressure on schools and teachers (APE, unpublished[6]).
Regional evaluation framework
Student assessment in Catalonia operates within a multi-layered evaluation architecture that combines Catalan-specific assessments, national general system evaluations, and international studies. The Agency develops and maintains its own evaluation frameworks for diagnostic assessments, oral expression assessments and end-of-stage evaluations. These instruments are designed to align with Catalonia’s curriculum priorities and policy objectives.
The broader foundation for this architecture is set out in Article 182 of the Decree, which defines education system evaluation as an internal, overall process aimed at describing, analysing, judging and interpreting educational policies, institutions and practices in order to maintain, develop or amend them. The stated purposes of evaluation are to:
Contribute to improving the quality, efficiency and equity of the education system
Co-operate in ensuring the transparency of the education system
Analyse and provide information on the degree of achievement of the educational objectives
Account for, and provide information on, the educational process, its agents and its results
Conduct foresight analyses of the education system
Guide and draw up recommendations on educational practices and policies
Promote equal opportunities and educational possibilities
These provisions establish a broad mandate that extends beyond student assessment to encompass system monitoring, policy learning and foresight.
National evaluation framework
The national evaluation framework for Spain's non-university education system is co-ordinated by the National Institute for Educational Evaluation (INEE), which sits within the Ministry of Education, Vocational Training and Sports (MEFD). The INEE is the body responsible for the co-ordination of the general evaluation of the education system, working in collaboration with the regional education authorities of the autonomous communities. Its functions include the development of multi-annual evaluation plans, the establishment of methodological and scientific standards to guarantee the quality, validity and reliability of educational assessments, and the co-ordination of Spain's participation in international evaluations (MEFPD, 2024[8]). INEE develops frameworks that guide general system evaluations in Spain, which assess key competencies including linguistic, multilingual, STEM/STEAM and digital competencies.
The legislative basis for national system evaluation is set out in the Organic Law 3/2020 (LOMLOE). The purposes of system evaluation under this framework include contributing to the quality and equity of education, providing information on the degree of achievement of Spanish and European educational objectives, and supporting compliance with educational commitments in the broader European context. Results from system evaluations – whether at state or regional level – may not be used for individual pupil assessment or to establish school rankings.
Following legislative changes under the Spanish education reform law (Organic Law 3/2020, of 29 December, amending the Organic Law on Education (LOMLOE)), general system evaluations (GSE) will be implemented from 2025-2026 across all autonomous communities in Spain (MEFPD, n.d.[9]). These assessments are sample-based and administered using a common framework, with results reported at both autonomous community and national levels. They are conducted at two key stages of compulsory schooling – the 6th year of primary education and the 4th year of compulsory secondary education (4th ESO) – and cover four key competences: linguistic communication, STEM/STEAM, multilingual competence and digital competence. The roll-out has followed a phased development and piloting process: a first pilot covering linguistic and STEM competences at primary level was conducted in 2023, followed by a second pilot on multilingual and digital competences in May-June 2025. The first administration of the primary-level GSE began in 2025-26, with the secondary-level edition planned for 2026-27 (both as sample assessments).
The introduction of the GSE establishes a common national framework for monitoring educational outcomes across Spain. While autonomous communities retain responsibility for their own evaluation systems, the GSE provides a shared reference point for analysing educational performance and competence development across regions. The aim is that regional evaluation systems can increasingly operate within a multi-level assessment environment in which national and regional evidence can be used in a complementary manner for system monitoring and policy development. This could create more opportunities for co-ordination and alignment, while also preserving the capacity of autonomous communities to generate more granular, contextualised analysis for decision-making. At the same time, the existence of this common framework creates opportunities to reconsider the overall architecture of system-level assessment. Discussions with the Agency suggest an emerging view that generating robust scientific evidence for policy does not necessarily require duplicating external student assessments, but rather ensuring that different assessment instruments have clearly defined and complementary purposes. Such an approach could improve both efficiency and methodological coherence while reducing unnecessary overlap between assessment exercises.
Balancing census-based and sample-based assessments in Catalonia
Census-based and sample-based assessments fulfil distinct functions and operate at different levels of the education system. Census-based assessments are typically most appropriate where school-level accountability or student-level diagnostic information is required, provided that results are delivered in a timely and pedagogically meaningful way. Sample-based assessments, by contrast, are better suited to system-level monitoring and policy analysis. They allow for broader curriculum coverage, are generally more resource-efficient, and can reduce the burden and potential distortions associated with high-stakes testing, particularly when participation is mandatory to ensure representativeness (Morris, 2011[10]).
Catalonia administers a combination of census-based and sample-based student assessments across primary and compulsory secondary education. These serve distinct purposes, including diagnostic monitoring of learning, assessment of specific competencies such as oral expression, and end-of-stage evaluations.
An early priority for the Agency has been to review existing end-of-stage student assessment in primary and compulsory secondary education (4th ESO), transitioning from a historically census-based model to a sample-based model from 2026. The review concluded that a sample-based approach would allow stronger methodological designs, greater use of contextual information, more robust longitudinal analysis and reduced assessment burden on schools and students (APE, unpublished[6]).
In parallel, the Agency established a general criterion for alternating between Catalan end-of-stage assessments and the national GSE, given that both assessments are administered at the same educational stage. Wherever the latter is administered at a given grade level in a given academic year, the equivalent Catalan end-of-stage assessment will not be administered. This arrangement seeks to avoid creating overlaps, reduce burden on schools and students, and raise questions about the added value and cost-effectiveness of parallel census-based instruments. In the current implementation cycle, this applies to the 6th year of primary and the 4th year of ESO, but the principle extends to any grade level at which the state assessment operates in future cycles of the multi-year programme (Table 5.1).
Sources: OECD/Department of Education and Vocational Training (unpublished[11]), Responses to OECD background questionnaire «A multi-year project to improve learning outcomes in Catalonia», internal document (unpublished[12]), Mapa de evaluaciones y calendario para 2026 [Map of assessments and calendar for 2026].
The move towards sample-based end-of-stage assessment in Catalonia also opens opportunities to focus on key domains that signal broader conceptions of educational quality and core foundational skills. While literacy and numeracy remain central, many OECD education systems are increasingly seeking to monitor a wider range of competencies aligned with evolving curricular goals, such as digital literacy, problem solving, critical thinking, scientific reasoning and selected social and emotional skills. These are often more appropriately assessed through sample-based instruments, which allow greater flexibility in design without creating high stakes for individual schools.
In this way, sample-based assessments can complement census-based testing by broadening the conception of educational success, strengthening monitoring of curriculum objectives and informing policy adjustment, while reducing the cost and administrative burden. Clarifying the distinct purposes of each instrument and aligning technical design with intended use is therefore important for strengthening the overall coherence and efficiency of the evaluation framework.
With this transition, Catalonia’s approach moves closer to that of many OECD systems that differentiate between census-based assessments used for diagnostic or formative purposes and sample-based instruments designed primarily for system-level monitoring. Such differentiation can help clarify expectations regarding the intended use of results and improve proportionality within the overall framework. These changes sit alongside broader initiatives led by the Agency to strengthen student assessment, including improving comparability over time and reinforcing scientific rigour, as explored in subsequent sections.
Participation in international assessments
Catalonia participates in several international large-scale assessments, including PISA, the International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS), the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), and the Trends in Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). These are sample-based, voluntary and primarily used for benchmarking and system monitoring. While they are important components of the quality assurance arrangements, this report focusses mainly on national and regional standardised student assessments, as well as evaluation at the teacher, school and system levels.
At present, the Agency’s role in these studies includes informing participating schools and monitoring implementation. Looking ahead, the Agency aims to draw on available microdata and results to produce analytical studies that enable deeper analysis and interpretation of findings in the Catalan context – supporting more granular understanding of system performance, equity and learning outcomes.
Building on the overview of the institutional landscape and recent reforms, the strengths of Catalonia’s education system are outlined below. These represent key enablers for improvement and are relevant across multiple levels of the system: for students, teachers, schools, and the system as a whole. They provide important foundations on which future developments in evaluation and foresight can build.
Creation of an independent evaluation agency as an opportunity for system learning and improvement
The establishment of the Education Evaluation and Foresight Agency represents a major structural strength for the Catalan education system and a significant new institutional asset. As outlined above, the Agency has been created with a clear mandate to promote independent evaluation, educational foresight and evidence-informed decision-making. Its creation signals an institutional commitment to strengthening analytical capacity, system learning and the credibility of evaluation within Catalonia.
A defining feature, and a major strength, of the Agency is its institutional independence. In exercising its activity, the Agency acts autonomously, including in setting its research agenda and providing policy advice and recommendations to inform decision-making. Stakeholders interviewed by the OECD Review Team consistently viewed this as a clear point of departure from the former Higher Council for the Evaluation of the Educational System and other previous arrangements, where positioning within existing structures of the Department was perceived by some as limiting influence and neutrality. The OECD Review Team heard strong support for the Agency as an opportunity to strengthen a culture of evidence-based improvement and to enhance credibility and trust in system reforms. Stakeholders suggested that an independent body would be better placed to generate evidence that can be used constructively across the system, including by schools and teachers, without being perceived as serving narrow administrative or political interests.
The Agency’s governance arrangements – through the Governing Council, the Scientific Committee and the Monitoring Committee – also position it to provide system-level perspectives that are analytically robust and perceived as credible, while remaining internally accountable. In a context where evaluation can at times be associated with compliance or control rather than learning and improvement (see Key Challenges), such governance features are particularly important.
A small number of stakeholders nevertheless questioned the extent to which the Agency will be fully independent in practice. This reflects varying levels of understanding across the system of the Agency’s mandate and governance arrangements, rather than evidence of concrete constraints. Given the Agency’s recent establishment, such perceptions are not unexpected; however, they underline the importance of building and maintaining legitimacy from the outset.
In this regard, it is notable that the Agency’s current statutes have been submitted to public consultation – a process initiated in March 2026 – with the aim of strengthening the independence and expertise of its governing bodies and redefining its work areas to better reflect its functions (Government of Catalonia, 2026[13]). This signals a consultative approach to reinforce the governance foundations on which the Agency’s credibility and independence depend.
The Agency’s operational focus in its initial months has prioritised this objective, notably through efforts to strengthen the methodological rigour of student assessments (see below). This signals an emphasis on technical quality, comparability over time and scientific credibility, and seeks to respond to longstanding concerns regarding the consistency and interpretability of student assessment data. Early attention to methodological robustness can also help build trust in the reliability of evidence generated through the system and create a foundation for strengthening the use of data in teaching and learning.
More broadly, the creation of the Agency provides an institutional platform to enhance coherence across evaluation and assessment activities. It also creates more favourable conditions for clarifying roles across the system and for distinguishing evaluation and policy functions more clearly in practice. These features align with international experience regarding effective evaluation agencies. For example, in the case of the Danish Evaluation Institute (Box 5.4) and the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (Box 5.9), statutory independence combined with strong methodological capacity and clear differentiation from inspectorate and ministry functions has been central to establishing credibility and sustaining system learning.
The Agency’s early collaborative stance further supports this role. Stakeholder interviews held with the OECD Review Team indicated that it has sought to engage in dialogue with key system actors, including the Education Inspectorate, in order to clarify ways of working, clarify responsibilities and avoid duplication across their respective roles in evaluation. This is particularly important given the Inspectorate’s proximity to schools and its central role in external school evaluation.
These early efforts can therefore be seen as an important foundation, even if the practical articulation of responsibilities and implementation arrangements is still to be defined. Collaboration beyond Catalonia can further strengthen this potential. Through its Scientific Committee, and by signalling interest in engaging with national and international research and evaluation communities, the Agency is positioning itself to draw on sound methodology and leading practice internationally. Such partnerships can help ensure that Catalonia’s evaluation system remains connected to international evidence and methodological developments.
Existing data availability serves as a foundation for more systematic evaluation and learning
Catalonia benefits from a substantial foundation of available data for system monitoring, which provides important conditions for strengthening evaluation and system learning. Internal and external student assessments, school evaluation processes and administrative data systems generate a large volume of information across the education system. As of 2024, this information is managed through more than 170 information systems and over 370 data-generating procedures, approximately one-third of which are already processed electronically, primarily drawing on administrative management records. These systems have been continuously adapted to reflect regulatory changes in education and related fields, requiring ongoing adjustments to procedures and information infrastructures (Department of Education, 2024[14]).
The breadth of available data reflects multiple objectives that shape both availability and use: from individualised management that supports operational decisions at school level, to aggregated data that can inform strategic decision-making, policy design and evaluation. To support transitions between educational stages, co-ordination mechanisms are in place to share relevant information about students across schools, including transfer of information and preparation of end-of-stage reports. Data production also responds to obligations in the field of official statistics and to the needs of scientific research (Department of Education, 2024[14]). These elements suggest that Catalonia has developed a significant information infrastructure capable of supporting both accountability and learning functions within the system. Student- and school-level data are available at territorial level, and the Education Inspectorate produces annual academic performance indicators that provide a consistent basis for monitoring system performance over time.
At the same time, this infrastructure operates under constraints in budgetary, technological and human resources. The scale and complexity of existing systems can create pressures related to maintenance, integration, interoperability and analytical capacity (Department of Education, 2024[14]). As international evidence suggests, the mere availability of data does not automatically translate into effective evaluation or improvement; this depends on the quality of analysis, timeliness of reporting and the ability of actors to interpret and use information meaningfully (OECD, 2013[4]; Golden, 2020[15]). Stakeholders interviewed by the OECD Review Team also noted that results do not always reach schools quickly enough or in sufficiently interpretable formats to inform teaching, school planning and system decision-making.
Recent developments led by the newly established Agency illustrate how this existing foundation can be leveraged more strategically. Ongoing actions aim to improve the timing, efficiency and proportionality of evaluation and assessment activities. The move of certain end-of-stage assessments from census-based to sample-based formats reflects an effort to reduce burden on students, teachers and the system, while maintaining robust system-level monitoring.
As noted previously, this shift has the potential to reallocate capacity towards strengthening methodological rigour, analytical depth and the generation of more actionable insights and strategic data use. The Agency’s mandate also creates an opportunity to streamline analytical processes and develop differentiated reporting strategies for different audiences – including teachers, school leaders, municipalities and central authorities – so that information is better aligned with decision-making needs at each level.
Stakeholders frequently identified strengthening analytical capacity as a logical next area for the Agency to develop, particularly in moving beyond descriptive reporting towards deeper analysis of patterns, trends and emerging issues. While current levels of financial and human resources may constrain the pace of this shift, Catalonia’s existing data infrastructure provides a strong foundation for more systematic synthesis and interpretation over time. Overall, Catalonia’s existing data infrastructure constitutes a significant structural asset if combined with strengthened analytical capacity, clearer feedback loops and proportionate data collection practices.
Emerging school evaluation model for supporting improvement
The introduction of Comprehensive Evaluation for Improvement (Avaluació integral per a la millora, AVIM) represents a significant development within Catalonia’s school evaluation landscape. Piloted under the responsibility of the Education Inspectorate, AVIM signals a deliberate shift towards strengthening evaluation practice with a clearer orientation towards improvement. The model reflects an effort to embed evaluation more firmly as a tool for reflection, learning and improvement within schools.
AVIM is identified as a strategic priority in the Inspectorate’s Master Plan for 2025–2029. The model places particular emphasis on advising and accompanying schools in their educational improvement processes and on fostering a stronger evaluative culture through comprehensive evaluation for improvement. It is conceived as a structured process that supports schools in analysing evidence from self- and external evaluation, identifying priorities, and strengthening professional practice over time. The stated priorities of AVIM include (Government of Catalonia, unpublished[16]):
Promote school reflection on the quality of the implementation of their educational projects
Provide objective evidence to help build a shared understanding of the school’s strengths, satisfactory aspects, areas for improvement, and critical issues across organisational, pedagogical, and results-related dimensions
Deliver a diagnosis of the evaluated teaching and learning processes to support the adoption of measures aimed at improving educational outcomes
Identify and prioritise improvement proposals and ensure their implementation
Provide relevant information on the state of the education system in relation to the evaluated areas, which may be useful for the Inspectorate itself and for other units within the Department of Education and Vocational Training
Design of the AVIM evaluation model
AVIM combines strengthened school self-evaluation with an external evaluation component, supported by newly developed instruments intended to promote methodological consistency. Each evaluation cycle integrates internal evaluation, conducted by the school and supported technically by inspectors, and external evaluation, including inspection visits and focussed review of the key learning areas of mathematics and linguistic communication competencies.
The internal self-evaluation component places particular emphasis on schools’ own evaluative capacity. Self-evaluation prioritises three core dimensions: school organisation, teaching and learning, and results. Schools are provided with structured tools developed by the Inspectorate to support this process, including:
A reflection guide for school leadership and teaching staff to structure internal evaluation discussions
Examples of evidence that may be used to substantiate judgements
Questionnaires for a broad range of stakeholders, including teachers, educational support staff, administrative staff, students and families (Department of Education and Vocational Training, 2025[17]).
While schools retain primary responsibility for conducting their self-evaluation, inspectors provide technical guidance to the evaluation committee and school leadership throughout the process. This design seeks to strengthen schools’ internal evaluative capacity while ensuring alignment with external standards and expectations.
The external component of AVIM complements school self-evaluation through inspection visits and targeted analysis of teaching and learning practices. This includes classroom observations, interviews with teachers and students in observed classrooms, and analysis of student work samples. Inspectors use a suite of structured instruments, such as observation protocols, interview guides and student work analysis frameworks, to ensure the consistency and rigour of the process. The evaluation culminates in a comprehensive report that integrates findings from both internal and external components, providing schools with an overall assessment and directions for improvement.
A notable feature of AVIM is its explicit focus on developing schools’ self-assessment practices. By providing structured instruments, guidance and professional dialogue with inspectors, the model aims not only to generate diagnostic findings but also to embed more systematic and reflective self-evaluation practices within schools. Over time, this may contribute to greater school ownership of evaluation processes and more consistent use of evidence in improvement planning.
Implementation approach
The first phase of AVIM, launched in late 2025, involves 114 schools, with broader roll-out envisaged thereafter. Participating schools were selected based on their assessed capacity to implement improvement measures and the presence of relatively stable staffing. This targeted approach seeks to leverage favourable organisational conditions to support meaningful engagement with evaluation activities and effective follow-through on improvement strategies arising from the pilot.
This implementation strategy may allow the Inspectorate to identify enabling conditions, refine instruments and clarify effective practices before wider roll-out. However, realising this potential will require systematic review of lessons learned and deliberate adaptation of the model for schools operating in more challenging contexts, such as those experiencing higher staff turnover or greater resource constraints. Ensuring that schools have sufficient time, capacity and support to engage meaningfully in evaluation will be critical if AVIM is to function as a genuine mechanism for improvement rather than as an additional compliance requirement.
The model also incorporates structured mechanisms for monitoring progress and generating system-level learning over time. Following three years of implementation, an analysis of each evaluated school's situation will be undertaken in relation to the improvement proposals formulated during the evaluation process and the evolution of results, with a new consolidated report prepared on the progression of outcomes across evaluated schools (Government of Catalonia, unpublished[16]). In parallel, it is planned that AVIM's implementation will generate relevant information for system-wide reflection and improvement through the preparation of an annual report on evaluation results, drawing on aggregated data from across the territory. Together, these mechanisms reflect an intention to use AVIM not only as a tool for individual school improvement, but as a source of system-level evaluation. For this potential to be realised, the aggregated evidence generated through AVIM will need to flow systematically to the Agency, where it can inform broader analytical work, feed into system monitoring and contribute to the identification of patterns and priorities across territories.
Beyond its immediate impact on participating schools, AVIM has the potential to clarify expectations regarding effective school evaluation across the system. By making explicit the links between self-evaluation, external evaluation and improvement planning, the model may help articulate a more coherent understanding of how evidence should inform annual plans and longer-term school development strategies.
The implementation approach may also enable the Inspectorate to identify enabling conditions and promising practices for scaling AVIM or other effective school evaluation approaches. For this to occur, the Inspectorate will need to review lessons learned, share these across the system, and adapt its approach for schools facing more challenging circumstances, including those with higher staff turnover or greater resource needs. As time, support and resources are necessary for engaging in evaluation meaningfully, the ability to adapt the model to diverse school contexts will be central to its success.
AVIM may also help clarify expectations for effective school evaluation, both internally within schools and externally across the system. In particular, schools’ self-evaluation practices and their use of evaluation findings for improvement may be strengthened by the model’s explicit focus on these aspects and by the support provided by inspectors. The school evaluation process may also become an avenue for more structured guidance on how self-evaluation and external evaluation can complement one another in informing annual plans and longer-term improvement strategies.
Strong stakeholder appetite for a more formative and improvement-oriented evaluation culture
A key strength of the Catalan education system is the strong and broadly shared appetite for strengthening evaluation practices among stakeholders who engaged in the review – including teachers, school leaders, unions and system actors. The OECD Review Team heard a common acknowledgement that existing processes can be improved, and that evaluation has greater potential to become embedded in professional practice and to support improvement. Importantly, this recognition is accompanied by openness to evaluation rather than resistance, creating favourable conditions for change.
This appetite represents an important enabling factor for shifting evaluation towards a stronger culture of learning and improvement. Stakeholders consistently expressed views that align with contemporary understandings of education evaluation: that evaluation should not be limited to formal, episodic or externally imposed processes, but should function as an organisational mind-set that values evidence, reflection and learning (Trochim, 2009[18]; Golden, 2020[15]; Mayne, 2008[19]). In this conception, evaluation informs decision-making and the refinement of practice at classroom, school and system levels. This orientation is also reflected in system-level priorities. For example, the Inspectorate’s Master Plan for the period 2025–29 identifies as a priority its role in developing an evaluative culture through AVIM, reinforcing the importance of evaluation as a lever for improvement across the system (Department of Education and Vocational Training, 2025[5]).
Although elements of such an evaluative culture are reflected in the perspectives of stakeholders who engaged in the OECD Review, evaluation practices do not appear to be consistently embedded across schools and territories. Furthermore, inspection and evaluation mechanisms may differ in practice between public and state-subsidised private schools (centros concertados). Although publicly funded schools operate under the same legal and regulatory framework – including obligations related to inspection and school self-evaluation – governance arrangements differ. In the concerted sector, greater responsibility may be delegated to providers or networks, and lower levels of direct public intervention can create space for differentiated self-evaluation practices (Zancajo, Verger and Fontdevila, 2021[20]).
These structural differences may contribute to variation in how evaluation is organised and embedded in practice. Stakeholders interviewed during the OECD Review visit perceived that in some parts of the state-subsidised private sector, self-evaluation practices were more common than in public schools – although this does not necessarily imply greater frequency or uniformity across the sector as a whole.
Nonetheless, stakeholders pointed to examples of evaluation practices within parts of the state-subsidised private sector as credible and proximate reference points, illustrating what could be possible more broadly across the education system. In these settings, it was noted that classroom observations and peer feedback do occur (although they are reportedly not commonplace), and school self-evaluation practices were described as more firmly embedded in school routines and professional norms. This includes annual development interviews, structured goal-setting processes and clearer alignment between professional learning and school objectives. These examples show how evaluation could operate in Catalan schools as a formative mechanism that supports coherence, professional growth and school improvement, provided that enabling conditions – including regulation, funding and guidance – are in place.
Importantly, stakeholders did not express a desire for more frequent evaluation, but rather for evaluation that is meaningful and useful for development and improvement. This aligns with the concept of evaluative thinking, defined as critical and reflective engagement with evidence to inform action (Buckley et al., 2015[21]). Embedding evaluative thinking across the system implies strengthening the capacity of educators and leaders to interpret evidence, engage in professional dialogue and use feedback to improve practice. This aspiration provides a strong foundation on which a shared vision and future reforms to strengthen evaluation coherence and capacity can build.
Building on the overview of the institutional landscape and recent reforms, the challenges facing Catalonia’s evaluation system are outlined below. These challenges span three interconnected levels: system evaluation, external school evaluation, and student assessment.
Fragmentation and limited coherence across evaluation components
Over the past 15 years, OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment frameworks across more than 30 education systems have identified three hallmarks of strong systems that promote quality and equity in student learning. First, effective frameworks set clear standards for what is expected of students, teachers, schools and the system overall. Second, they guide the systematic collection and use of data on performance, ensuring that stakeholders receive timely and meaningful feedback to reflect on progress and identify areas for improvement. Third, they promote coherence and alignment across evaluation components, so that different forms of evaluation reinforce one another and the system works in a common direction, making effective use of available resources (OECD, 2013[4]).
At present, these elements do not appear to come together in a sufficiently coherent way in Catalonia. While multiple evaluation components are in place – covering student assessment, school evaluation, teacher appraisal and system monitoring – school stakeholders interviewed by the OECD Review Team indicated that they do not consistently receive clear guidance on the purposes of evaluation, what is expected of them or of other actors, or how evaluation activities are intended to be conducted and used for formative or summative purposes. In practice, stakeholders frequently reported experiencing evaluation as episodic and compliance-oriented rather than as a coherent process supporting improvement – a trend that reflects not only gaps in communication and guidance, but key limitations of assessment instruments that, as discussed below, were not always designed to generate actionable evaluative evidence.
A recent study conducted in Catalonia reinforces this diagnosis: it noted that teachers reported they feel greater pressure from external evaluations than would be expected in a low-stakes system. One identified obstacle is an apparent confusion within schools regarding the role and objectives of the external assessments. This confusion appears to stem from continuous policy changes, isolated initiatives and inconsistent communication about the uses and consequences of assessment results (Verger et al., 2025[22]). The study notes that the Inspectorate's tendency to place considerable weight on test data during school supervision visits, and the inclusion of competency results as a key indicator in school evaluation and leadership assessment instruments, further reinforces this perception. The concern is less with the use of data itself, which is a legitimate and necessary part of evaluation, than with how it is used in practice. For instance, in instances where there is an absence of a diagnostic and improvement-oriented framing, or where it is not accompanied by sufficient guidance on how schools can act on results, it risks being experienced as a form of pressure. This effect could be compounded when quantitative results are considered in isolation from contextual and qualitative evidence, which would allow for a more rounded assessment of school performance.
The OECD Review also finds that, although data are collected across multiple levels of the system, support for teachers and school leaders to act on – whether the feedback through formal or informal mechanisms, guidance or additional resources – appears limited. This is particularly evident in relation to student assessment and external school evaluation, where findings are not always disseminated or used across classroom, school, territorial and system levels with sufficient granularity or guidance to function as an effective lever for improvement.
A related finding concerns the limited aggregation and synthesis of evidence across evaluation components to support a coherent system-level view. Information generated through student assessments, school evaluations and monitoring activities is not consistently brought together to inform system learning, policy adjustment or strategic planning. Analysing trends within and across territories to identify common challenges, effective practices or emerging trends that the system can learn from and respond to is not yet commonplace. As a result, evaluation tends to function as a set of parallel activities rather than as an integrated framework.
This fragmentation also shapes how evaluation insights flow through the system. While some system-level analyses are produced, these do not always circulate in ways that support school-level reflection or professional learning. For example, analyses of census-based student assessments are not consistently presented in formats that translate easily into classroom-level teaching and learning. This exists alongside perceptions of external school evaluation as an atomised exercise that can feel disconnected from broader school improvement strategies, with findings that are not typically aggregated or translated into local, territorial or system-wide insights. There is scope for stronger action in this area by key actors, including the Inspectorate – given its close connection to schools and practice – and the new Agency, given its remit across evaluation components.
This challenge is not unique to Catalonia. Previous OECD research on evidence use in education found that only around one in two teachers (56%) report using student data to a large extent or systematically to inform decisions underpinning their practice. This suggests that, across systems, there is scope to strengthen the use of research evidence and student data by quality assurance agencies to inform their assessments and knowledge mobilisation activities (OECD, 2025[23]).
The establishment of the Agency and the introduction of AVIM represent concrete steps already under way to address these challenges. For example, the pilot school evaluation model AVIM has the potential to establish shared expectations across different evaluation activities, helping to align practices in schools and, if effectively synthesised, across territories and the system. In parallel, the establishment of the Agency creates more favourable institutional conditions to address fragmentation, while also strengthening the technical foundations of student assessment and to develop more coherent analytical frameworks and reporting. As a system-level platform with a mandate spanning evaluation, methodological standard-setting and foresight, it is well positioned to support greater coherence across evaluation components and to strengthen the articulation between school-level practice and system-level learning.
Limited use of evidence for policy and practice
Catalonia has established a range of mechanisms to support regular system monitoring and reporting. These include routine monitoring, public reporting, and analytical outputs designed to increase transparency and accessibility of data. The system also seeks to link analysis to concrete policy and practice questions. Since 2019, for example, it has published brief analytical notes on a monthly basis (Data tasting – Tastets de dades), focussing on specific issues of relevance to the system, such as students’ oral communication in Catalan at the end of compulsory education and overall linguistic competence across three languages (APE, n.d.[24]).
However, the translation of data into systematic analysis that informs policy design, implementation and refinement remains limited. Outputs tend to focus on descriptive statistics rather than explanatory or evaluative analyses that can more directly inform policy and practice decisions. The Agency has itself identified a scarcity of in-depth analysis, noting that substantial volumes of data have accumulated across the system without being systematically interrogated or synthesised (APE, unpublished[6]).
Stakeholders interviewed during the OECD Review visit similarly reported that, although considerable data are collected, stakeholders reported that data are not always used to inform decision-making, support learning from implementation, or guide the adjustment of reforms over time. Several indicated that the rationale for introducing, adapting or discontinuing initiatives is not always clear. In the absence of systematic evaluation, reform efforts can be perceived as volatile, which can weaken confidence and reduce engagement. Independent research in Catalonia reinforces this view, highlighting the risk that accumulated knowledge does not inform evidence-based policy unless it is actively synthesised and mobilised. As noted by Vilalta & Comas (2021[25]):
“There is little effort to take advantage of the potential of all this knowledge to inform education practice and policies in Catalonia. This exacerbates the risk that education practices and policies will be made based on tradition or inertia, that policies that have proven ineffective will remain in place or that policies that have proven effective will not be promoted.”
This challenge is also visible in the use of student assessment data. Census-based assessments generate detailed information, including item-level response distributions and student-level data. Their added value for school and system improvement, however, depends on whether results are sufficiently disaggregated, analytically interrogated and accompanied by guidance for schools and teachers that supports interpretation and use for student learning. Given that large volumes of data do not appear to have been analysed beyond descriptive reporting, this raises questions about whether the burden placed on teachers and schools is proportionate to the insights generated. In light of the commitment in the 2026 agreement to reduce administrative burden on schools, including avoiding duplication of data entry (Government of Catalonia, 2026[26]; Government of Catalonia, 2026[27]), and the transition towards greater use of sample-based assessments from 2026, there is scope to improve this balance, and it will become even more important to ensure that collected data are strategically analysed and clearly linked to decision-making.
At the system level, ex post evaluation does not appear to be a routine feature of Catalonia’s policy cycle, with limited routine use of evidence to assess whether reforms and associated investments are achieving their intended objectives and delivering value for money. Research on evidence-informed policymaking highlights the importance of ex post evaluation for strengthening system learning and accountability, particularly in complex policy domains such as education, where impacts unfold gradually (Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman, 2004[28]; Golden, 2020[15]). While external evaluations of specific policies have been undertaken in recent years – such as a commissioned evaluation of the implementation of the Digital Education Plan of Catalonia (2020–2023), these have been exceptions rather than the norm, and findings have not been consistently connected to subsequent decision-making.
The lack of routine evaluation practices is significant given the scale of recent Catalan reform efforts, which include curriculum reform and measures to promote more balanced enrolment. The system therefore has limited consolidated evidence on whether these reforms are achieving their intended objectives and where adjustments are needed. This challenge is not unique to Catalonia: across OECD education systems, analytical capacity is often concentrated on policy design and early implementation, with less emphasis on evaluation of implementation processes or outcomes over time (OECD, 2013[4]; Gertler et al., 2016[29]). Yet, visible and credible evidence of progress can help anchor change processes in demonstrated results, build public trust and confidence, and sustain implementation momentum (Fullan, 2015[30]).
These considerations are particularly salient in light of recent developments in Catalonia. The 2026 agreement between the Department of Education and Vocational Training and the teachers' unions – covering teacher remuneration, progressive reduction of class ratios, resources for inclusive education and measures to reduce administrative burden on schools – represents a significant and wide-ranging package of reforms, with an estimated budget impact of 1 998.57 million EUR over the next four years (see Chapter 2) (Government of Catalonia, 2026[26]; Government of Catalonia, 2026[27]). Reforms of this scale and ambition require robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks to assess whether agreed measures are being implemented as intended, whether they are producing their expected effects on teaching conditions and student outcomes, and where adjustments may be needed over time. The system's capacity for this kind of ex post, implementation-focussed analysis remains limited – making the establishment of the Agency, and the progressive embedding of evaluation into policy cycles, particularly timely.
The challenge extends beyond formal policy evaluation to knowledge mobilisation across the system. Previous studies have highlighted a disconnect between knowledge generation and evidence for use in system-level policymaking (Vilalta and Comas, 2021[25]). This gap is also felt at school level, particularly in relation to the limited identification, recognition and dissemination of effective practices across the system. Several stakeholders indicated to the OECD Review Team the importance of making visible “what works” in schools, including successful practices and innovations developed by teachers and school teams, with equity and inclusion cited as particularly relevant domains. Stakeholders also highlighted the need for greater recognition of teachers’ work and expertise, including the complexity of daily practice.
This points to a broader structural challenge: strengthening not only the production of evidence, but also the conditions and resources that enable its systematic use in decision-making and policy refinement. OECD research on evidence-informed policymaking suggests that this is best understood as an ecosystem issue rather than a purely technical one (Box 5.1).
The OECD and European Commission recently examined evidence-informed policymaking (EIPM) through an ecosystem approach, emphasising that healthy evidence-to-policy systems depend on valuing diversity of actors and enabling frequent, structured interactions between policymakers and academia. The report highlights the importance of institutional co-ordination mechanisms, strong leadership, an enabling organisational culture, and effective feedback loops, alongside sufficient capacity in terms of skills, training and analytical resources. Together, these conditions help ensure that evidence-informed advice is integrated into decision-making processes and that the production and uptake of evidence are recognised, valued and incentivised across the full policy cycle.
There is no single, standardised model for EIPM, and each context is unique. To support reflection, the report proposes a framework identifying the core ingredients that underpin a well-functioning evidence-informed policy ecosystem (OECD/European Commission, 2025[31]).
Demand and use of evidence
Individual capacity: Competence, training, and resources, skills for using evidence.
Organisational capacity: Policy framework, guidelines and other practices.
Inter-organisational: Internal capacity for EIPM and engagement with scientific expertise. across government, provisions for conflicts of interest, role of parliamentary structures, culture, and values.
Supply of evidence
Individual capacity and skills: competence, training, and resources of evidence suppliers.
Organisational capacity for supply of evidence: financing mechanisms for research and evidence, public sector analytical structures, analytical structures co-ordinating the work of research organisations, data access and use in government.
Inter-organisational co-ordination mechanisms for evidence and science for policy: existence of policy champions, networks of analysts, co-ordination platforms, culture, and values.
Where supply and demand meet: Established processes and policies within government for EIPM
Role of knowledge brokers and their networks
Science advice
Strategic foresight
Better regulation processes and regulatory impact assessment
Preparation of budgets and resource allocations
Research policy frameworks and funding plans in support of EIPM
Source: OECD/European Commission (2025[31]), Strengthening National Evidence-Informed Policymaking Ecosystems: Lessons from Seven European Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/855c5286-en.
Student assessment design and implementation does not consistently support teaching and learning monitoring
For student assessment to contribute meaningfully to improvement in teaching and learning, it needs to be methodologically sound, aligned with curriculum expectations and designed in ways that support valid interpretation and use. The perceived relevance of student assessment also matters. Evidence from a recent study conducted by Verger et. al (2025[22]) in Catalonia suggests that, even when teachers feel capable of interpreting and using external test data, they do not do so more frequently for two main reasons: lack of time due to workload and the perceived limited usefulness of the data. In other words, assessments are not always seen as providing substantially new or actionable information about their students.
Strengthening the technical quality and credibility of system-level student assessments has therefore become a priority for the Agency in its initial phase. Previous census-based instruments, while generating substantial volumes of data, lacked the methodological foundations: they did not include contextual questionnaires, anchor items or the psychometric features needed to support standardised comparison over time (APE, unpublished[6]). Without these features, results could not be robustly interpreted in light of student and school characteristics, nor used to monitor learning trends in a meaningful way. In effect, these instruments produced large volumes of data but limited capacity to support robust longitudinal analysis, system learning and evidence-informed policy adjustment on student or system performance relative to the burden they imposed on schools. Furthermore, although the assessments were not designed for longitudinal comparison, they have at times been used for this purpose, resulting in interpretations and narratives about changes in performance over time that are not supported by the underlying methodological design or scientific evidence.
The Agency is already working to address these limitations. Current and planned actions include clarifying performance standards, strengthening item development and piloting procedures, and ensuring appropriate psychometric methods for scaling, equating and trend analysis. Establishing these stronger technical foundations would enhance the system’s capacity to monitor progress and provide more credible and actionable evidence to inform teaching, school improvement and system-level decision-making.
At the same time, questions arise regarding the inclusivity and representativeness of student assessments. According to the Agency, around 20% of students, on average, are exempted from external assessments. While there are legitimate reasons for exemptions – including students with special educational needs or newly arrived students with limited proficiency in Catalan – the scale of exemptions raises important questions regarding representativeness of assessment data and the system’s ability to capture learning outcomes across the full student population.
A more inclusive approach to assessment, for example, through more accessible assessment instruments and appropriate accommodations, could enable a greater proportion of students to participate. This would strengthen the quality of evidence available at system, school and classroom levels, and improve the system’s ability to identify learning gaps and target support effectively.
Finally, the impact of student assessment depends not only on its technical design but also on how it is used in schools and classrooms. Classroom-based assessment may continue to emphasise traditional summative tasks focussed on a narrow range of outcomes, rather than supporting deeper learning aligned with curriculum goals. Teachers also require sufficient capacity, time and support to interpret assessment results and to use formative assessment effectively. Where these conditions are not in place, the potential of student assessment to inform instruction and improve learning outcomes is unlikely to be fully realised.
Australia’s National Assessment Plan provides an example of a co-ordinated approach to standardised student assessment, illustrating how assessment frameworks can be aligned with national learning goals while evolving over time to strengthen technical design, comparability and formative use (Box 5.2).
Australia’s National Assessment Plan (NAP) provides a co-ordinated framework for monitoring student learning. It is overseen by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and aligned with the national goals set out in the Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration (2019), which emphasises promoting excellence and equity in education, and supporting all young Australians to become confident and creative individuals, successful lifelong learners and active, informed members of the community.
The NAP integrates several sources of evidence on student learning. These include national assessments, participation in international assessments including PISA, TIMMS and PIRLS, and additional thematic studies. A central component of the framework is the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). NAPLAN is an annual census-based assessment of students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 that measures foundational skills in literacy and numeracy. Introduced to replace a range of state and territory assessments, NAPLAN enables the monitoring of learning outcomes and comparability of results across Australia’s jurisdictions. Results are placed on common scales within each domain, allowing progress to be tracked across year levels and over time.
In addition to NAPLAN, the NAP includes sample-based national assessments conducted every three years in areas such as science literacy, civics and citizenship, and information and communication technology literacy. These assessments provide broader system-level insights aligned with the Australian Curriculum and offer information to schools for teaching and learning purposes. Australia is also introducing opt-in national assessments, which schools can voluntarily participate in to assess students’ knowledge and skills in these curriculum areas.
NAPLAN uses an online multistage adaptive testing design, which tailors question difficulty to students’ responses and allows more precise measurement of achievement. In 2023, reporting moved from numerical performance bands to four proficiency levels – Exceeding, Strong, Developing, and Needs additional support – providing clearer information about students’ progress against national standards.
NAPLAN is intended to serve a formative purpose: guiding instruction by providing feedback that supports teaching and learning, while also informing parents. Reflecting this intention, the assessment was moved earlier in the school year so that results are returned sooner and can be used to inform teaching and identify students who may need additional support. NAPLAN does not carry the same consequences as high-stakes assessments that occur at the end of upper secondary education in Australia. Guidance accompanying the assessments emphasises that NAPLAN should be interpreted as part of a balanced assessment system, complementing classroom-based assessment and teachers’ professional judgement rather than serving as the sole measure of student performance. However, the ways in which NAPLAN results are sometimes used – such as public reporting of school-level results, their interpretation as indicators of school or teacher quality, use of results for student selection and enrolment in certain selective entry schools – along with the stress it can generate among students, can create perceptions of higher stakes that risk distorting its formative intent.
Results are disseminated through several reporting channels tailored to different audiences. Schools receive detailed data through secure portals to support instructional planning, while parents receive individual reports describing their child’s achievement in accessible language. At the system level, aggregated results are published annually in national reports and through the public My School website, which provides school-level information to support transparency and accountability.
Sources: Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2024[32]) National Report on Schooling in Australia 2023, https://dataandreporting.blob.core.windows.net/anrdataportal/ANR-Documents/nationalreportonschoolinginaustralia_2023.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2026), ACARA (2025[33]), The Australian National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) assessment framework, https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/naplan/naplan-assessment-framework.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2026); ACARA (2025[34]) NAPLAN technical report https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/naplan/naplan-2024-technical-report.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2026); Education Council (2019[35]), Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, https://www.education.gov.au/download/4816/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/7180/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/pdf (accessed on March 2026).
External school evaluation does not seem to be consistently experienced as a tool for improvement
External school evaluation refers to the review of schools by an external body and has traditionally served an accountability function by assessing the quality of school structures, processes and student outcomes. Across OECD systems, external evaluation typically involves a focus on accountability, but increasingly aims to give feedback for school development (OECD, 2013[4]). Mechanisms that are more developmental – such as feedback, follow-up and structured support for school improvement – can also be pursued through internal school self-evaluation, which is recognised as an increasingly important lever for change. A key policy challenge identified across OECD systems is balancing these accountability and development functions, while ensuring that external evaluation is aligned with internal school self-evaluation and remains centred on strengthening the quality of teaching and learning (OECD, 2013[4]).
International evidence suggests that when the results of external evaluations are actively used to implement improvement measures, they are associated with stronger student outcomes. For example, PISA 2022 data indicate positive associations between schools reporting that measures derived from external evaluations were implemented and higher student performance in mathematics.
In Catalonia, the Inspectorate has employed a range of external school evaluation models over the past fifteen years. The current model – implemented through AVIM, as described previously – focusses on teaching and learning processes in mathematics and linguistic communication within basic education. It is conducted by teams of two inspectors and involves classroom observations, interviews with teachers and students, and analysis of student work samples. The resulting report incorporates findings from both the school’s self-evaluation and the external review, and includes proposals for improvement, which schools are expected to integrate into their planning processes.
The overall effectiveness of these models has not yet been systematically evaluated in Catalonia, as is the case in most education systems. Isolating the specific impact of inspection activity on academic performance is methodologically complex (Choi, 2019[36]), particularly in contexts such as Catalonia where schools exercise a relatively high degree of autonomy and outcomes are shaped by multiple interacting policies. Research suggests that in Catalonia, greater school autonomy has been accompanied by a corresponding reinforcement of external accountability mechanisms, including the use of performance indicators and improvement objectives embedded in schools' annual planning processes as a means of monitoring progress (Álvarez and Torrens, 2018, as cited in Ferrer-Esteban et. al (2025[37])).
Other research conducted in Catalonia indicates that the interaction between school leadership teams and the Inspectorate is not experienced uniformly, but varies depending on the inspector’s profile and working style. A distinction is often made between a more distant, supervision-oriented approach and a more collaborative, improvement-oriented approach (Verger et al., 2025[22]).
This variation helps explain why the usefulness of external evaluation is perceived differently across schools. During the OECD Review visit, many school stakeholders described their experience of external school evaluation as compliance oriented. At the same time, inspectors emphasised collaborative elements in their work, including improvement planning and mentoring support. Schools also acknowledged that external evaluations could validate internal priorities, recognise strengths and foster constructive professional relationships. This suggests that while the model incorporates improvement-oriented elements in its design, these are not yet experienced consistently in practice.
A recurring concern expressed by stakeholders during the OECD Review Visit relates to the limited follow-up support and resourcing associated with external evaluation. While schools generally value the feedback received, schools reported that findings are not always accompanied by structured implementation support, sustained monitoring or additional resources aligned with identified needs. In such circumstances, external evaluation may be experienced as a one-off event rather than as part of a continuous improvement process. Contextual factors further influence how evaluation findings are implemented. Schools facing high levels of staff turnover or organisational instability may lack the capacity to act on recommendations. At the same time, teachers highlighted the need for dedicated time and structured opportunities to analyse results and engage in professional reflection. Without these enabling conditions, the potential of evaluation to inform sustained improvement remains limited.
The new AVIM model – initially introduced in schools with stronger implementation capacity – offers an opportunity to strengthen this approach. As it scales, careful attention will be needed to adapt it to schools with varying levels of organisational capacity so that external evaluation can function as a genuine lever for improvement across diverse contexts.
These challenges are closely linked to school self-evaluation practices. While self-evaluation is intended to support reflective practice and continuous improvement, it was reported to be unevenly embedded across schools and often limited to formal processes associated with external evaluation. This limits its potential to complement external evaluation and reinforces the broader challenge of embedding a culture of evaluation where evaluation findings are engaged with as an ongoing reflective practice rather than episodic compliance.
Limited capacity and resources across the system to undertake and use evaluation
Effective evaluation depends not only on the design of instruments within a coherent framework, but also on the capacity of actors across all levels of the system to interpret, use and act on evaluation results. International evidence consistently shows that even well-designed evaluation and assessment systems have limited impact unless teachers, school leaders and system actors have sufficient time, skills and organisational support to engage meaningfully with evaluative evidence (OECD, 2013[4]; Golden, 2020[15]).
In Catalonia, despite a stated willingness among stakeholders to engage in evaluation, limited time, capacity and resources appear to constrain its potential to act as a lever for improvement in teaching practice, school development and system learning. Stakeholders across different levels of the system reported constraints related to time, expertise and organisational support for engaging with evaluation. These constraints are closely linked to the limited prevalence of evaluation practices at school level.
During the OECD Review visit, the use of assessment and evaluation data was an area in which teachers and school leaders expressed a particular need for additional time and support. This was especially evident in relation to the interpretation and use of evidence generated through system-level student assessments to inform teaching practices, professional learning and school improvement planning. While the format and accessibility of feedback are important, stakeholders emphasised that meaningful use of evaluation depends equally on schools’ capacity to analyse and discuss evidence.
This capacity varies across the system and is shaped by broader structural and organisational factors, including competing demands on teachers’ and school leaders’ time, opportunities for collaborative analysis of evidence, and access to analytical or pedagogical support. As a result, the challenge is not only to provide evaluation tools and findings, but also to equip schools with the resources, skills and support structures needed to use and act on them. In this context, the introduction of the new AVIM model, and the commitment in the 2026 agreement between the Department and the teachers' unions to reduce administrative burden on schools (Government of Catalonia, 2026[26]; Government of Catalonia, 2026[27]) – including through the review and simplification of documentation and data collection procedures that do not add pedagogical value – is directly relevant. This commitment reinforces a direction to ensure that data collection through evaluation processes is proportionate and clearly linked to improvement purposes, so that the reduction of administrative burden and the strengthening of meaningful evaluation engagement can be pursued collectively.
This issue is also connected to teachers’ influence over assessment processes. Across OECD education systems, teachers’ influence on school-level policy in student assessment is often limited. According to TALIS 2024, approximately four out of ten teachers work in schools where they are involved in setting student assessment policies (OECD, 2025[38]). In Catalonia, however, teachers report comparatively high levels of professional autonomy, particularly in choosing assessment methods and designing classes. At lower secondary level, 80.1% of teachers in Catalonia report that they have autonomy to choose evaluation methods, compared to 73.7% in Spain and 78.2% on average across the OECD. Teachers in Catalonia also report high levels of autonomy in the design and preparation of classes: 96.8% indicate that they have autonomy in this area, slightly above the Spanish average of 96.2% and notably above the OECD average of 93.1%. High levels of autonomy in Catalonia increase the importance of ensuring that teachers have access to high-quality evidence, clear guidance and opportunities for reflection on assessment results.
Challenges around capacity are also evident at system level. As discussed earlier, while multiple data sources and evaluation outputs exist, limited resources and capacity for analysis and co-ordination reduce opportunities to integrate evidence, identify system-wide patterns and generate insights to inform strategic decision-making. The establishment of the Agency represents a significant investment in strengthening system-level capacity. Its impact will depend in part on its ability to respond to stakeholder needs for guidance and analytical support, and to reinforce feedback loops between evidence generation and action. Without deliberate investment in capacity for evidence use at multiple levels, evaluation is unlikely to fulfil its potential as a lever for improvement or accountability (Golden, 2020[15]).
Foresight remains at an early stage of development, including in relation to emerging technological change
Foresight refers to the structured exploration of possible future developments to inform decisions in the present (School of International Futures, 2021[39]). As education systems governments face increasing uncertainty driven by disruptions, challenges and longer-term structural change brought about by factors such as demographic change, technological developments and broader societal transformations, there is growing recognition that effective public governance requires not only reactive responses, but also forward-looking capacity. Strategic foresight provides a systematic way to engage with uncertainty, anticipate change and support more adaptive policy responses (European Commission, 2020[40]; OECD, 2024[41]). However, while forward-looking thinking is often implicit in policymaking, the systematic and participatory use of foresight remains less widespread.
In Catalonia, foresight has an explicit legal basis. The Education Law and subsequent Decree establish that the system should draw on analysis of future external trends and developments to inform long-term planning, and explicitly include foresight as part of evaluation activity. The Decree further specifies that foresight should analyse the implications of changes across demographic, technological, legislative and organisational domains, and contribute to guiding policy development and system transformation. As a function of the newly established Agency, foresight therefore has the potential to strengthen system planning, preparedness and change management, complementing the evaluation of current policies with a forward-looking perspective.
Despite this regulatory foundation, foresight remains at an early stage of development. The system has focussed on strengthening evaluation and student assessment, while forward-looking analysis has yet to become a visible or routine component of system governance. As a result, foresight is not yet fully positioned to play the anticipatory and strategic role envisaged in the regulatory framework. Questions remain regarding the extent to which foresight activities are resourced, operationalised and connected to decision-making processes within the Department and across the system. The establishment of the Agency – with foresight as an explicit part of its mandate – nonetheless provides a significant institutional opportunity to shape these practices and give it visibility and greater connectedness to policy and decision-making.
This limits the system’s ability to anticipate and respond proactively to emerging challenges. Education systems are operating in an increasingly complex and uncertain environment, shaped by demographic shifts, evolving family structures, digitalisation, changing work patterns, climate transitions and growing expectations around demands for inclusion and well-being. Without structured foresight capacity, there is a risk that policy responses remain reactive rather than strategic (OECD, 2025[42]). In this context, foresight is not limited to scanning trends, but also involves generating shared visions, exploring alternative future scenarios and informing priority-setting over time.
Addressing this requires not only monitoring trends but also generating and mobilising evidence on emerging practices to inform forward-looking analysis. There remain significant gaps in understanding what works, for whom, under what conditions and at what cost in the use of generative AI in education, which limits the system’s capacity to anticipate future developments and plan effectively. If the Agency is to fulfil its mandate, its foresight and research activities will need to contribute to clarifying both opportunities and risks, including implications for teaching practices, equity and inclusion, data governance and the professional capacity of educators. This also points to the need for engagement with a broader ecosystem of actors, including researchers and technology developers, to ensure that innovation in educational AI is aligned with pedagogical objectives and public values.
More broadly, foresight can support anticipation of labour market transformations linked to automation, the green transition and demographic change. OECD research highlights the importance of combining labour market intelligence, scenario analysis, backcasting approaches and skills assessment to support more adaptive and forward-looking education systems (OECD, 2022[43]). Effective anticipation also requires granular regional and local data, as well as attention to the distribution of skills across different population groups, to support more targeted and equitable planning.
Overall, the limited development of a systematic foresight function constrains the system’s ability to identify emerging trends, assess their implications and integrate forward-looking insights into decision-making. Ensuring that foresight is not only developed but also embedded in governance processes – including its articulation with evaluation, planning and policy design – will be critical if it to support system preparedness and strategic leadership.
Building on the analysis of strengths and challenges in the Catalan education system, there is a clear opportunity to strengthen evaluation as a coherent mechanism for system-wide improvement and decision-making.
Recommendation 5.1. Build a coherent evaluation and assessment system
This section covers how to build a coherent evaluation and learning system in Catalonia by developing a shared vision for evaluation, strengthening ownership and transparency, and clarifying roles across the evaluation ecosystem to improve co-ordination, evidence use and system-wide learning.
Develop a shared, system-wide vision for evaluation and assessment
Catalonia should articulate a clear and shared vision for evaluation and assessment to ensure that it functions as a driver of improvement, coherence and system learning, rather than as a fragmented or compliance-oriented exercise. Evidence from this review suggests that stakeholders hold differing perceptions about the role and value of evaluation, and that these do not always align with its intended purposes. Where purposes are unclear or inconsistently interpreted, evaluation risks being, is a clear signal that there is scope for improvement experienced as episodic or disconnected from teaching and learning processes.
A coherent evaluation and learning system requires that evaluation activities are mutually reinforcing and aligned with broader strategic objectives. Catalonia should therefore define a high-level vision that clarifies what evaluation is for, how its components relate to one another, and how they contribute to system goals. This vision should:
strengthen alignment between curriculum, teaching and assessment, ensuring that evaluation reflects the kinds of learning the system seeks to promote;
articulate a clear theory of action linking evaluation activities to improvements in learning, equity, professional practice and system effectiveness;
position student assessment as integral to teaching and learning, balancing formative and system-monitoring functions; and
embed evaluation within continuous improvement cycles at classroom, school and system levels.
Formalising this vision through policy frameworks and accessible guidance tailored to different audiences can support consistent interpretation and implementation. The Agency can play a key role in clarifying purposes and supporting coherence across the system.
Catalonia should also clearly distinguish the purposes and characteristics of evaluation across levels of the system, so that instruments are fit for purpose and expectations are understood. In particular:
Student level: clarify the purposes of diagnostic, formative and summative assessments, and how results are used and communicated;
Teacher level: ensure that appraisal balances developmental and accountability functions and links to professional learning;
School level: strengthen self-evaluation as a continuous process and clarify its relationship with external evaluation;
System level: clarify how monitoring and evaluation inform policy development, planning and resource allocation.
Embedding this differentiation within the broader vision would strengthen coherence, usability and shared understanding across the system.
Strengthening ownership at multiple levels to create a lasting vision and culture of evaluation
The establishment of the Agency and the piloting of the AVIM model create a timely opportunity to strengthen a culture of evaluation across the Catalan education system. However, international evidence suggests that such a culture does not emerge solely from new institutions or instruments, but from the extent to which evaluation becomes embedded in everyday professional practice. If Catalonia seeks to foster a genuine evaluation culture, evaluation should function less as an externally imposed requirement activated during formal review cycles and more as an integral element of professional practice at classroom, school and system levels.
Achieving this requires strengthening ownership at all levels and ensuring that the conditions are in place for evaluation to function as intended. Research on evaluation cultures highlights the importance of organisational context and leadership in supporting effective evaluation practices (McCoy, Rose and Connolly, 2013[44]). In schools, leadership is particularly important. Evidence shows that school leaders influence teachers’ engagement with improvement by establishing a shared vision, building consensus around goals and fostering professional collaboration (Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins, 2008[45]).
In practice, this implies providing the time, capacity and structures necessary for teachers and school leaders to engage meaningfully with evaluation. This includes opportunities to analyse evidence collaboratively, to connect findings to instructional practice and to engage in professional dialogue focussed on improvement. At the same time, the Agency represents only one component of a broader evaluation ecosystem. It cannot substitute for strong implementation capacity within the Department, the operational role of the Inspectorate, or the leadership and evaluative culture within schools themselves. A sustainable evaluation culture depends on shared ownership across actors and levels, supported by aligned expectations and coherent processes that connect system monitoring with school-level improvement.
Strengthen transparency to support trust and evidence use
Transparency is critical to sustaining trust between system-level actors and those working on the ground. Catalonia already benefits from a relatively strong foundation for transparency, with legislation requiring that evaluation procedures, indicators and selected findings be made publicly available (DOGC, 2009[2]). This contributes to openness and accountability within a system characterised by significant school autonomy.
Building on this foundation, further efforts should focus on strengthening the analytical depth, accessibility and usability of evaluation findings. Transparency is most effective when evaluation results are not only available but also communicated in ways that are meaningful to different stakeholders and connected to learning and improvement processes (OECD, 2013[4]). This includes presenting findings in accessible formats, clarifying their implications for teaching and learning, and demonstrating how evidence informs policy decisions and resource allocation.
Transparency can also strengthen the evaluation ecosystem by helping stakeholders understand how evidence generated at different levels connects and contributes to shared goals. Communicating lessons from evaluation activities, including effective practices and system-level insights, can reinforce evaluation as a collective endeavour and support a culture of continuous improvement.
Previous OECD work highlights three hallmarks of effective evaluation and assessment systems: setting clear expectations, collecting robust evidence on performance, and achieving coherence across evaluation components. Strengthening transparency around these elements can further support trust and engagement across the system (Box 5.3).
Previous OECD reviews of education evaluation and assessment have highlighted three hallmarks of a strong evaluation and assessment framework:
Setting clear standards for what is expected nationally of students, teachers, schools and the system overall. Countries that achieve high levels of quality and equity set ambitious goals for all, but are also responsive to different needs and contexts.
Collecting data and information on current learning and education performance. This is important for accountability – so that objectives are followed through – but also for improvement, so that students, teachers, schools and policymakers receive the feedback they need to reflect critically on their own progress and remain engaged and motivated to succeed.
Achieving coherence across the evaluation and assessment system. This means, for example, that school evaluation values the types of teaching and assessment practices that effectively support student learning and that teachers are appraised on the basis of the knowledge and skills that promote national education goals. This is critical to ensure that the whole education system is working in the same direction and that resources are used effectively.
Source: OECD (2013[46]), 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.
Clarify and align roles within the evaluation ecosystem
A coherent evaluation ecosystem depends on clear role differentiation combined with effective co-ordination across actors. With the establishment of the Evaluation Agency, Catalonia is well positioned to clarify how the different components of its evaluation and assessment framework interact in practice and to strengthen the overall coherence of the system.
This moment provides an opportunity to articulate a shared operating framework that clarifies how responsibilities are distributed across actors and levels, how information flows within the system, and how evaluation findings are expected to inform both practice and policy. This does not necessarily require new regulation, but rather clearer articulation of responsibilities, expectations and co-ordination mechanisms across actors.
In particular, Catalonia should ensure greater clarity regarding:
who generates evidence,
who supports its interpretation and use, and
how findings circulate across classroom, school, territorial and system levels, including how they feed into decision-making processes.
Clarifying these elements can help reduce duplication, strengthen coherence across evaluation activities, and ensure that evidence is used more consistently and effectively throughout the system.
Position the Evaluation Agency as the system’s strategic and technical reference point
Within this ecosystem, the Evaluation Agency should serve as Catalonia’s strategic and technical reference point for evaluation and assessment. Its core contribution lies in ensuring coherence, methodological rigour and analytical credibility across evaluation processes. To fulfil this role, the Agency should prioritise:
strengthening the design and quality of evaluation and assessment instruments;
enhancing the use of available data for evidence-informed policymaking;
providing guidance on the purposes, appropriate uses and limitations of evaluation tools;
supporting capacity building and knowledge use across the system;
developing foresight capacity to support forward-looking analysis, including on emerging technological change, labour market developments and long-term system planning, and ensuring that these insights are connected to policy and decision-making processes.
As an independent entity, the Agency is well placed to issue guidance clarifying the purposes, appropriate uses and limitations of different evaluation instruments. In collaboration with the Inspectorate, it can support a shift from compliance-oriented approaches towards more improvement-focussed evaluation practices, as identified by stakeholders across the system. Translating technical findings into accessible and actionable insights will be essential to ensuring that evidence informs decision-making at classroom, school, territorial and system levels.
Clear and consistent communication of the Agency’s role, mandate and independence is itself a strategic function that shapes how evaluation processes are perceived and engaged with across the system. A well-communicated mandate will help to build institutional trust, manage stakeholder expectations and ensure that the Agency is recognised as a credible and useful system actor.
At the same time, the Agency should maintain a focussed mandate. Its role is not to drive all evaluation-related agendas, but to provide methodological leadership and analytical insight within a broader system in which implementation capacity remains distributed across the Department, the Inspectorate, territorial structures and schools. Clear prioritisation and sequencing of functions will therefore be critical to avoid overextension. The Agency’s effectiveness will also depend on its ability to develop structured partnerships with universities, research organisations and school networks. Such collaboration can extend its analytical capacity and support knowledge mobilisation, provided that it preserves the Agency’s methodological independence and technical authority (as explored in subsequent recommendations).
Finally, strengthening the Agency’s analytical function will be essential. Moving beyond descriptive monitoring towards more interpretative and policy-relevant analysis, including identifying what works, for whom, under what conditions and at what cost, can help position it as a recognised reference point for evidence-informed policymaking. Recent efforts to strengthen the methodological foundations of Catalonia’s external assessments – including the introduction of Item Response Theory and other modern psychometric approaches – provide an important basis for this shift. Likewise, the planned publication of analytical studies drawing on assessment data, accompanied by policy-oriented synthesis chapters, represents a promising step towards translating technical evidence into actionable insights for decision makers. The examples of established agencies in Denmark (Box 5.4) and Finland (Box 5.9) provide useful reference points.
In Denmark, the Danish Evaluation Institute (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, abbreviated EVA) is Denmark’s national agency responsible for evaluating and improving quality in education and learning. It conducts research-based evaluations and provides guidance to enhance standards across all levels of the Danish education system, from early childhood to higher education. It evaluates institutions, programs, and teaching methods, providing data-driven analyses and recommendations. Its work supports policymakers, educational institutions, and practitioners in creating evidence-based improvements across the education sector.
EVA operates under the oversight of the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science but functions independently in its evaluations. It is led by a director and a board with representation from academia, public administration and the education sector. EVA collaborates with European and international partners and contributes to comparative studies on education quality.
Its work includes national surveys and thematic studies in areas such as daycare services, school education, vocational education and training, teacher education and higher education quality frameworks. EVA also develops evaluation tools and guidelines that educational institutions can use for internal quality assurance.
A central feature of EVA’s role is knowledge mobilisation. EVA produces knowledge targeted at different audiences, including decision-makers, stakeholders, practitioners and the wider public, and seeks to support the use of evidence in both policy and practice. Its work is carried out in close dialogue with researchers, knowledge professionals and stakeholders in the education sector, with an emphasis on collaboration to strengthen relevance, quality, dissemination and anchoring.
EVA’s activities are guided by multi-year action plans. In recent years, it has placed increased emphasis on strengthening its dissemination approaches by using several different channels to communicate EVA's studies. There will be a particular focus on increased use of webinars, knowledge contributions to the press and professional media, and holding public seminars or conferences. In addition, there will continue to be a strong focus on increasing cooperation with major Danish foundations with a view to entering into partnerships on larger and multi-year studies.
Source: Danish Ministry of Children and Education (2025[47]), Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut Årsrapport 2024 [Danish Evaluation Institute Annual Report 2024], https://eva.dk/Media/638785092126975957/EVA's%20rsrapport%202024.pdf.
Strengthen the Inspectorate’s role in synthesis, feedback and networked improvement
The Inspectorate occupies a central position in the evaluation ecosystem, given its proximity to schools and its role in external school evaluation. This position enables it to act as a key intermediary between system-level expectations and school-level practice.
Catalonia should strengthen the Inspectorate’s role in synthesising insights across schools and territories, and in feeding these insights back into system-level analysis and policy development. This includes ensuring that findings from school evaluation contribute to system-level understanding of challenges and effective practices; and system-level evidence and expectations are clearly reflected in the Inspectorate’s work with schools.
Furthermore, as AVIM scales over the next three years, its synthesis function becomes increasingly significant. The annual reporting on aggregated evaluation results and the three-year consolidated analysis of school progression foreseen under the model represent important opportunities to generate system-level insights. The evidence gathered through these processes should be shared with, and analysed in collaboration with, the Agency. Establishing clear protocols for data sharing and analysis between the Inspectorate and the Agency will therefore be an important early step in operationalising the complementary roles of these two institutions.
As evaluation approaches evolve, particular attention should be paid to ensuring that school evaluation processes remain focussed on teaching and learning, and do not become overly procedural or compliance driven. Maintaining this balance will be critical to sustaining professional engagement and ensuring that evaluation supports meaningful improvement.
Strengthening collaboration between the Inspectorate and the Agency will also be important to support more effective use of evidence across the system. This includes reinforcing the two-way flow of information whereby system-level analyses inform school-level support, and school-level insights inform the refinement of evaluation tools and analytical priorities. For the Agency, the evidence generated through the Inspectorate's school evaluation work – particularly as AVIM scales – represents a valuable input to its broader analytical and system monitoring functions, and one that is not easily replicated through other means. Realising this potential will depend on both institutions having a shared understanding of how this evidence contributes to the system's overall evaluation and learning architecture.
Embed the Department of Education and Vocational Training’s role in steering, use and mobilisation of evidence
A coherent evaluation ecosystem ultimately depends on the visible and consistent use of evidence in policy and governance. This is a core responsibility of the Department of Education and Vocational Training, as the actor responsible for translating evaluation findings into system-level decisions and strategic direction.
Strengthening this role requires ensuring that evaluation findings are systematically used to inform strategic priorities, reform design and resource allocation decisions. This implies not only making evidence available, but also embedding its use within decision-making processes and policy cycles. Clear and consistent communication about the purposes of evaluation and how its results are used can help reinforce a shared understanding across the system and support professional trust.
The Department also signals the value of evaluation through its use in policy decisions. When evaluation findings are visibly reflected in policy adjustments, targeted supports or funding decisions, this helps demonstrate that evaluation is consequential and contributes meaningfully to system improvement. Conversely, when links between evidence and decision-making are not clear, stakeholders may question the relevance and purpose of evaluation processes.
In addition, the Department is responsible for ensuring alignment between evaluation and broader system conditions. For example, evaluation processes – including teacher appraisal – are more likely to support improvement when they are connected to professional learning opportunities, career structures and incentives that recognise and value effective practice. Strengthening these connections is essential for ensuring that evaluation findings translate into changes in practice.
In this regard, the challenge lies less in introducing additional regulatory provisions and more in ensuring that existing frameworks are implemented coherently and consistently. Embedding evaluation within broader governance arrangements and professional practices is critical for ensuring that it functions as a meaningful tool for improvement rather than as a formal or compliance-driven requirement.
Finally, the Department is well positioned to strengthen feedback loops across the system. This includes ensuring that insights generated through evaluation, whether at classroom, school or system level, are synthesised, communicated and used to inform ongoing policy development. Demonstrating how evaluation findings feed back into system priorities can reinforce stakeholder engagement and support a more coherent and trusted evaluation ecosystem.
Recommendation 5.2. Prioritise a focussed set of immediate actions for the Agency to drive system-wide impact
In its initial phase, the Evaluation Agency should prioritise a focussed set of actions that establish credibility, clarify expectations and create visible system-level impact. Early priorities should reinforce coherence across the broader evaluation ecosystem while remaining realistic about capacity and sequencing. Demonstrating early value will be important to build trust across stakeholders and to position the Agency as a credible and useful reference point within the system.
A concrete and timely opportunity in this regard arises from the 2026 agreement on teaching conditions, which commits significant public investment to a package of measures to improve education quality (Government of Catalonia, 2026[26]; Government of Catalonia, 2026[27]). Developing a framework for evaluating the effects of these measures – for example, tracking whether measures are being implemented as intended, and whether they are producing expected improvements in teaching conditions and student outcomes – would represent an early and visible contribution by the Agency to evidence-informed policymaking, as well as a practical illustration of the value of embedding ex post evaluation into policy cycles.
Set expectations for evaluation and assessment and promote its use and culture across the system
In line with establishing a coherent evaluation framework, the Agency should work with the Department and the Inspectorate to articulate clearer expectations regarding the purposes and use of evaluation and assessment at different levels of the system. This includes clarifying the respective roles of student assessment, teacher appraisal, school evaluation and system monitoring, and how these components collectively contribute to learning improvement, professional development and accountability.
In doing so, the Agency can help set strategic direction for the broader evaluation ecosystem and provide guidance on appropriate approaches to teacher and school evaluation. Strengthening and refining evaluation instruments, and clarifying their intended uses, can help ensure that they are fit for purpose, formative and oriented towards improvement. Clear expectations for teachers, schools, the Inspectorate and territorial authorities regarding how they are to engage with evaluation should be aligned with this shared direction.
At the same time, strengthening evaluative capacity across the system will be essential. The Agency is well placed to support stakeholders in developing the skills and confidence to interpret and use evaluation results meaningfully. This may include practical tools, guidance and professional learning opportunities that help teachers and school leaders use assessment data diagnostically and connect findings to instructional improvement. For example, targeted support on interpreting student responses and connecting assessment evidence to pedagogical decisions can help embed evaluative thinking in classroom practice.
The Agency should also ensure that its analytical outputs are translated into clear, accessible and policy-relevant insights that support decision-making at various levels of the system.
Articulate a high-level vision of student assessment, supported by targeted analytical, methodological and capacity-building improvements
Catalonia should articulate a high-level vision of student assessment that clearly establishes assessment as an integral part of teaching and learning. Building broad consensus around this vision, across administrations and levels of governance, will be essential to sustaining reform and ensuring coherence over time. This vision should clarify the purposes of different assessment approaches, how they relate to curriculum goals and how they collectively support learning improvement and system monitoring.
Formalising this direction through legislation and accompanying explanatory materials tailored to different audiences can enhance transparency and provide a durable reference point for actors across the system. In this context, the Agency has a key role to play in strengthening the scientific rigour and coherence of student assessment over time, while ensuring that it contributes meaningfully to instructional improvement and policy learning.
To support this vision, Catalonia should strengthen the dissemination and use of student assessment results to inform both system-level policy and school-level improvement. While regular monitoring insights are already published, there is scope to develop more consolidated and analytical reporting for policymakers that draws out implications for policy and practice. Schools could also benefit from more differentiated feedback, including item-level analysis and disaggregation by relevant comparison groups, such as socio-economic background. Providing clearer and more actionable reports would enable schools to identify patterns of learning, prioritise areas for improvement and connect assessment findings to instructional practice.
The planned transition from certain census-based assessments to more robust sample-based approaches from 2026 represents a positive step towards strengthening system-level monitoring while reducing burden on schools. Catalonia should use this shift to rebalance effort and resources towards activities that enhance the quality and usefulness of assessment. In particular, greater emphasis could be placed on high-quality item development, scoring reliability, psychometric capacity and clearer guidance for schools on the interpretation and pedagogical use of results.
To further strengthen the contribution of student assessment to system-level monitoring, Catalonia could expand the depth and sophistication of analysis. Moving beyond predominantly descriptive reporting towards more analytical approaches would allow assessment data to inform strategic decision-making more directly. For example, linking assessment data with administrative and contextual information could support monitoring progress towards strategic objectives, identifying persistent equity gaps, tracking cohort trajectories and exploring how reforms relate to changes in student outcomes.
Embedded within a broader vision of assessment, these analytical, methodological and capacity-building improvements can help integrate accountability and improvement functions within a technically robust framework, ensuring that student assessment contributes meaningfully to policy learning, instructional improvement and long-term system performance.
Align student assessment, appraisal and evaluation within a coherent framework
Improving the rigour and coherence of student assessment should form part of a broader strategy to align evaluation components within a coherent framework. Student assessment is a central element of the quality assurance system, but it is only one of several interrelated policy levers that collectively shape teaching practices and learning outcomes (OECD, 2013[4])
Catalonia should therefore ensure that improvements to student assessment are embedded within a wider evaluation architecture that promotes alignment, complementarity and shared purpose. Strengthening the technical quality of student assessment – including instrument design, comparability over time and alignment with curriculum expectations – can enhance monitoring of learning and improve the reliability of data for classroom, school and system-level use.
Stakeholders in Catalonia have expressed aspirations to move towards more rigorous, fit-for-purpose and improvement-oriented evaluation. International evidence suggests that evaluation systems are most effective when complementary mechanisms provide formative feedback, support professional learning and enable adaptation of practice (OECD, 2013[46]). Strengthening coherence between student assessment, teacher appraisal and school evaluation will be critical to ensuring that these components reinforce rather than operate in parallel.
In particular, clearer articulation of the purposes of each component, whether diagnostic, formative, summative or accountability-oriented, would help ensure that evaluation contributes meaningfully to professional growth, school improvement and system learning. Over time, a more integrated framework, in which assessment results inform appraisal processes, school development planning and system-level monitoring, can strengthen coherence, reduce duplication and enhance the overall credibility and usefulness of evaluation.
Integrate foresight in, and for evaluation strategic planning
Foresight is a stated function of the Agency, but it is still in an early stage of development, with its role alongside evaluation and assessment continuing to be defined. The Agency is well placed to establish a forward-looking function that complements its evaluation mandate and supports longer-term system planning.
To make this function operational, Catalonia should clarify the scope and purpose of foresight and ensure that it is deliberately connected to decision-making processes within the Department of Education and Vocational Training, rather than functioning as a parallel analytical exercise. When effectively integrated, foresight can strengthen the system’s capacity for anticipation, adaptation and resilience.
For foresight to be strategically useful, it should be anchored in a shared vision for the education system and used to inform priorities and trade-offs over time, rather than focussing only on identifying emerging trends and their implications. This implies moving beyond descriptive analysis towards supporting decisions about how the system should evolve in response to changing conditions.
The Agency could draw on established approaches such as horizon scanning to detect early signals of change, trend analysis to identify emerging patterns, expert consultation to explore potential trajectories and implications, and scenario development to examine plausible futures and their policy consequences (OECD, 2024[48]). These approaches should be adapted to Catalonia’s institutional context and linked to strategic priorities.
While foresight activities already exist across parts of the system, further development will be required for this capacity to become fully integrated with evaluation processes and strategic planning. The Agency is well placed to complement its evaluation mandate with a dedicated forward-looking function that supports long-term planning and system preparedness.
For this to be effective, foresight will need to be clearly articulated, adequately resourced and deliberately connected to decision-making processes within the Department of Education and Vocational Training. This includes ensuring that foresight insights inform reform design, curriculum development, assessment strategy and system governance, rather than remaining as parallel analytical exercises. Crucially, anticipation should be strategic: it should be anchored in a shared vision for the education system and used to shape priorities and trade-offs over time, not only to describe emerging trends (OECD, 2022[43]).
A further facet of effective foresight is the ability to connect education planning to wider economic and social developments. Although the Agency’s remit covers the non-higher education system, anticipating future needs will require structured approaches to integrating evidence on labour market dynamics, skills demand and regional economic transformation.
In this regard, strengthening collaboration with relevant actors producing labour market intelligence – such as the Observatory of Labour and Productive Model of Catalonia (Observatori del Treball i Model Productiu, OTMP) – could enhance the evidence base for foresight and support more coherent system planning. More broadly, clarifying how the Agency interfaces with such bodies will be important to ensure that foresight is comprehensive, aligned with the system’s long-term vision for preparing learners, and usable for decision-making.
Over time, the development of foresight capacity will require dedicated resources, institutional anchoring and clear links to policy processes. Ensuring that foresight insights inform areas such as curriculum development, assessment strategy and system planning will be critical to its relevance and impact. International experience, such as the Flemish Community’s use of education-focussed context analysis, illustrates how foresight can be embedded within policy cycles to support strategic decision-making (Box 5.5).
The Flemish education administration develops its own, more education-focussed, context analysis to explore the impact of broader societal trends on education. These analyses offer an overview of demographic, socio-cultural, political, economic, ecological, and technological evolutions and megatrends at global, European, and Flemish levels. The first edition of the Educational Context Analysis (Omgevingsanalyse Onderwijs en Vorming) was published by the education administration in 2013, together with a set of education policy proposals for the next Flemish Government.
The Educational Context Analysis reports are a joint product of the Flemish Education and Training policy domain, which comprises the Department of Education and Training, three autonomous executive agencies (the Agency for Educational Services [AgODI], the Agency for Higher Education, Adult Education, Qualifications and Study Grants [AHOVOKS], and the Agency for Infrastructure in Education [AGIOn]), and the Education Inspectorate. As such, the analysis is a product of the education administration, developed independently from the political leadership, and approved for publication by the Education and Training Management Committee, the internal steering and co-ordination body within the Flemish Government’s policy domain Education and Training.
The Educational Context Analyses systematically map external trends, drivers of change, and uncertainties that could impact the education system in the medium-to-long term. The focus of these analyses has been on trends that are believed to be persistent, e.g. demographic developments that may influence demand and supply of teachers, or technological changes that are likely to create new challenges and opportunities for education institutions, with the focus on alerting policymakers to their potential educational consequences and inform evidence-informed policy responses (Flemish Department of Education and Training, 2023[49]).
Source: Flemish Department of Education and Training (2023[49]), Environmental analysis of the Education and Training policy domain (Omgevingsanalyse van het beleidsdomein Onderwijs en Vorming), https://www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/omgevingsanalyse-van-het-beleidsdomein-onderwijs-en-vorming, accessed 20 February 2026.
Recommendation 5.3. Build on the Agency’s emerging internal capability for independence, quality and system reach
As a newly established body, the Agency will need to sequence the development of its functions deliberately and realistically. In its initial phase, priority should be given to establishing independence, credibility and trust across the system, alongside articulating a clear vision, strategy and coherent frameworks for evaluation, assessment and foresight. This foundational phase is critical to positioning the Agency as a legitimate and technically rigorous actor within the broader evaluation ecosystem.
It is also important to recognise that the Agency does not appear to have inherited personnel or institutional memory from the former Higher Council. While this reinforces its independence and signals a fresh start to stakeholders, it also implies that capacity is being built largely from the ground up. This is likely to extend the time required to reach operational maturity and places greater emphasis on recruitment, organisational development and early prioritisation of its workplan.
Given finite resources and high expectations, careful management of scope will be essential, particularly in the Agency’s early years. There is a risk of overburdening the Agency by expecting it to lead across too many functions simultaneously. Prioritising a clearly defined core set of functions – supported by a transparent, public-facing evaluation agenda – can help concentrate internal capacity where it adds the most value and build credibility over time. The remit can then expand progressively in line with strengthened expertise, partnerships and staffing. International experience illustrates how similar bodies have adopted such phased approaches to institutional development, aligning mandate, governance and capacity over time.
As the Agency moves towards a more consolidated phase, its role in supporting capacity building across the system should become more pronounced. The emphasis should gradually shift from institutional establishment to operational impact. This includes increasing the visibility of how its analyses inform policy and decision-making, how evaluation supports school improvement processes (in collaboration with the Inspectorate), and how evidence contributes to sustained changes in professional practice.
Throughout this transition, the Agency will need to make strategic choices about which functions to internalise, which to develop through partnerships, and which to outsource. These decisions will be critical to safeguarding quality, independence and long-term impact. International experience illustrates how similar bodies have sequenced their development from establishment to consolidation. The evolution of the Netherlands’ National Education Institute is presented in Box 5.6, illustrating how mandate, governance and capacity were established over time.
The Dutch National Education Institute (NKO) aims to use knowledge from research to improve the quality of education in the Netherlands. It co-ordinates and funds educational research and makes the results accessible and usable for educational practice and policy. Its mission is to use knowledge from research to contribute to strengthening the quality of education. It stands for an evidence-informed approach to education, emphasising the scientific underpinning of educational choices and encouraging the use of research results in policy and practice.
The NKO is part of the Dutch Research Council (NWO) and is responsible for the co-ordination of national research on education. Its governance structure integrates science, practice and policy. A Steering Committee oversees the organisation and establishes two key bodies: the Programme Council for Scientific Educational Research (Prowo), responsible for coherent programming and monitoring of research funded by the NKO, and the Knowledge Utilisation Board (KBR), responsible for knowledge utilisation and communication activities. Additional programme committees provide thematic research guidance, and a sounding board group of teachers ensures practitioner input. The NKO office manages day-to-day operations, including research programming, grant management and knowledge-sharing activities.
The institute was founded in 2012 as the Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO), following advisory reports on strengthening education research. A covenant between the Minister of Education, Culture and Science and NWO formally established the initiative. Institutional development followed a phased approach: a small core team began operations in late 2012; governance structures were appointed in 2013; and the first funding rounds were launched the same year. A vision and strategy were also developed. Since 2014, the organisation has operated with a structural annual budget of approximately EUR 15 million, supplemented by additional thematic research funding for research programmes on specific themes of current importance. Knowledge utilisation has been embedded from the outset, including initiatives such as Kennisrotonde and Onderwijskennis.nl to support practitioners’ access to research. From January 2026, it is known as the Dutch National Education Institute.
Source: NKO (2026[50]), “About the NKO”, Dutch National Education Institute, https://www.nko.nl/en/about-the-nko; NKO (2026[51]), “Background”, Dutch National Education Institute, https://www.nko.nl/en/background (accessed on 25 February 2026).
Build core technical functions internally to safeguard quality and independence
In its initial phase, the Agency should prioritise building and retaining a strong core of internal technical capacity in areas central to its credibility and independence. This includes methodological and analytical expertise in student assessment, evaluation design and analysis, as well as the development of coherent frameworks in collaboration with the Department.
Establishing these functions internally is essential before they can be shared, delegated or supported through partnerships. A stable internal core helps safeguard methodological rigour, ensure comparability over time and protect the Agency’s technical independence.
As the Agency matures, this capacity should enable it to act as the system’s strategic and technical reference point – setting direction, issuing guidance on appropriate methods and instruments, and supporting coherence across evaluation components.
Preserve analytical focus and differentiated core and support functions
Given finite resources, the Agency should avoid internalising functions that are not central to its analytical and evaluative mandate. Outsourcing administrative and support functions – such as human resources, budgeting or contracting – may create efficiencies and help preserve internal capacity for high-value technical work.
Clear differentiation between:
core technical functions (linked to independence and credibility), and
support functions (which can be delivered through other arrangements)
will help maintain focus, flexibility and sustainability over time. International experience, such as the Danish Evaluation Institute, illustrates how an evaluation body can combine technical expertise, practical tools and collaborative engagement while maintaining methodological independence (Box 5.4).
Embed partnerships to extend capacity and reach
To complement its internal expertise, the Agency should progressively develop structured partnerships with universities, research organisations, networks of schools and other relevant actors.
As the Agency moves towards operational consolidation, the strategic development of structured partnerships will be important to extending its analytical reach, enhancing the relevance of its outputs and strengthening evidence uptake across the system. While the Agency’s governance arrangements already provide a basis for such engagement; this next phase should focus on establishing deliberate and well-managed collaborative arrangements that reinforce rather than dilute its core technical mandate.
Catalonia's education research and knowledge ecosystem includes a range of institutional actors whose capacities are directly relevant to the Agency’s mandate. Formalised collaboration with universities, including commissioned or co-produced research, could provide access to specialised methodological expertise while helping align academic research with system-level priorities. Educational research organisations, which often maintain close relationships with schools and territorial actors, are well positioned to support knowledge mobilisation and dissemination activities. Structured engagement with diverse networks of schools, including public, state-subsidised private (centros concertados) and independent settings, would further ensure that evaluation frameworks are grounded in practice and that school-level insights inform system-level analysis.
In areas such as assessment development and educational foresight, engagement with international partners may also be valuable to support methodological development and contextualise system-level findings. At the same time, collaborative arrangements may create ambiguity around methodological responsibility and accountability. It is therefore essential that the Agency maintains a strong internal technical core, with clear standards for quality assurance and governance of partnerships.
Operationally, this could involve developing a structured framework that categorises partnerships by function – for example, research production, knowledge mobilisation, practitioner engagement, international benchmarking – supported by clear protocols for roles, responsibilities, and quality control. A practical first step may be to map existing relationships with universities, research organisations, foundations and school networks, and to identify where more formalised collaboration would add the most value.
Effective partnership development requires co-ordination across the system. The Department of Education and Vocational Training can facilitate engagement with school networks and other territorial agents, while the Inspectorate can support partnerships focussed on school improvement and evidence use. Developing this ecosystem approach, with clearly defined roles and responsibilities across actors, represents an important lever for extending the reach, relevance and impact of evaluation across the system.
Support knowledge mobilisation as a deliberate, shared system function
The importance of knowledge mobilisation, which is the process through which research, data and evidence are interpreted, shared and applied in policy and practice, is increasing across OECD systems and is particularly salient for Catalonia. While the system already produces a range of evaluative outputs, their uptake and influence remain uneven.
Catalonia has already undertaken initiatives that support knowledge mobilisation, including the development of curricular guidance materials, providing teachers with more detailed sequencing of learning objectives, pedagogical resources and examples of classroom activities, and targeted programmes aimed at strengthening teaching and learning priority areas such as mathematics (Department of Education and Vocational Training, 2026[52]; Department of Education and Vocational Training, n.d.[53]). At the same time, stakeholders pointed to gaps between evidence generation and use, weak feedback loops between schools and system-level analysis, and limited dissemination of effective practices. These findings suggest that knowledge mobilisation should be treated as a deliberate and structured function within the evaluation ecosystem, rather than as an automatic by-product of evaluation activity.
International research emphasises that effective knowledge mobilisation requires dedicated functions, clear role definition and sustained investment (Torres and Steponavičius, 2022[54]). The Agency is well positioned to play a central role in this area, given its analytical capacity and system-level mandate. However, knowledge mobilisation cannot rest with the Agency alone. It should be undertaken in close collaboration with the Department of Education and Vocational Training and the Inspectorate, each of which has complementary responsibilities in steering, communicating and applying evidence.
Catalonia could consider defining a diversified but complementary ecosystem of actors to support teaching and learning enhancement and knowledge mobilisation. These functions may include research production and synthesis, dissemination and communication, relationship-building with practitioners and territorial actors, capacity development for evidence use, direct support to schools, and evaluation of knowledge mobilisation efforts themselves. A first step would be to map which of these knowledge mobilisation functions are already present, which remain underdeveloped, and where gaps persist. This would allow Catalonia to clarify where the Agency is best positioned to add value, and where other actors should take the lead.
Clarifying the scope of the Agency’s mandate in this area will also be important. One option would be to limit its role more strictly to evaluation and quality assessment. However, if other actors do not hold an explicit mandate for knowledge mobilisation, and given the Agency’s internal research capacity, it may be appropriate to assign it a clearer responsibility in this domain. Doing so would require commensurate resourcing and explicit recognition of knowledge mobilisation as a core function. The OECD framework on knowledge intermediary functions (2025[23]) provides a useful reference for identifying the core capacities that education systems typically require to support effective research and evidence use (see Annex Table 5.A.1).
Recommendation 5.4. Safeguard the Agency’s independence and sustainability over the long-term
The establishment of the Agency represents a significant institutional investment and a long-term reform in its own right. Safeguarding its stability, credibility and impact over time will be essential if it is to fulfil its mandate as intended and contribute meaningfully to system improvement. Beyond ensuring resourcing commensurate with its mandate, this requires a strong mandate, a coherent long-term strategy, clear safeguards across political cycles, and a deliberate approach to demonstrating value over time. The following recommendations apply both in the immediate and longer term and underpin the preceding recommendations.
Ensure resourcing commensurate with mandate and expectations
To deliver on stakeholder expectations and its broad mandate, the Agency will require sufficient and stable investment in its human, financial and technical resources. Under-resourcing, or uncertainty in funding over the short, medium or long term, could constrain its ability to implement a sustained strategic agenda and to produce timely, high-quality outputs. Over time, this may weaken confidence among policymakers, schools and the wider public in the Agency’s credibility and added value.
Even where overall resourcing is adequate, recruitment may pose a structural challenge that reinforces the need for careful prioritisation and sequencing. Under its statutory arrangements, Agency staff are salaried personnel rather than civil servants, and remuneration in other parts of the public sector may be more attractive. This may limit its ability to attract and retain specialised expertise in areas such as psychometrics, educational research, evaluation design, data analysis and information systems. While external expertise or secondments can help address short-term gaps, the Agency should avoid becoming overly dependent on such arrangements at the expense of strengthening its internal capacity and knowledge base. Maintaining a strong core group of staff with deep technical expertise will be critical to safeguarding methodological rigour, continuity and institutional knowledge. At the same time, flexibility to engage non-permanent staff will remain important, particularly where the Agency undertakes contracted research or time-bound projects.
In this context, outsourcing support functions such as general services, administration, budgeting, contracting and human resources could help the Agency concentrate its internal capacity on high-value analytical and evaluative work. This would allow it to prioritise core technical functions while preserving the expertise needed to support knowledge dissemination and communication as an independent and authoritative body. In Finland, the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) operates independently while receiving administrative and support services from the Finnish National Agency for Education (Box 5.9). Other international experience also illustrates how institutional sustainability can be supported through diversified operating models. The example of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) highlights how a mixed funding structure can contribute to long-term stability and strategic autonomy (Box 5.7).
The New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER) is an independent, statutory research and development organisation established in 1934 to undertake research and evaluation to improve education outcomes in New Zealand. It operates as an autonomous Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act, with a governing board appointed by the Minister of Education, but functions independently in the conduct and publication of its research. It is driven by its strategic visions and goals, approved by the board and Electoral College.
NZCER’s remit spans educational research, evaluation, assessment development and knowledge dissemination. It conducts primary and applied research on teaching, learning and education policy; undertakes evaluations of programmes and reforms; and develops assessment tools used by schools, such as the Progressive Achievement Tests (PAT) and the e-asTTle assessment system. In addition to producing research reports and working papers, NZCER develops practical resources, professional learning supports and data tools designed to assist teachers, school leaders and policymakers in interpreting and using evidence in practice.
A distinctive feature of NZCER’s model is its diversified funding structure. Rather than relying exclusively on direct government funding, NZCER operates through a mixed funding model that includes government research contracts, competitive research grants and revenue generated through the development and provision of assessment tools and services to schools. This blended funding approach contributes to financial sustainability while supporting a degree of strategic autonomy. It enables NZCER to respond to government priorities, while also pursuing longer-term research agendas and maintaining independent analytical capacity. Its diversified funding structure illustrates one approach to balancing responsiveness to policy needs with institutional stability and independence.
Source: NZCER (2024[55]), Pūrongo ā-tau (Annual Report) 2023-24, Wellington New Zealand, https://www.nzcer.org.nz/sites/default/files/downloads/P%C5%ABrongo%20%C4%81-tau%20%28Annual%20Report%29%202023-24.pdf; NZCER (n.d.[56]), Evaluation Services, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/evaluation-services (accessed 20 February 2026); New Zealand Government (2004[57]), Crown Entities Act 2004, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0115/latest/DLM329631.html (accessed 20 February 2026).
Create and maintain a strong mandate
For the Agency to fulfil its mandate effectively and to be recognised as a credible and authoritative body within the Catalan education system, it will require a strong mandate. In public governance, this refers to the set of political, institutional and societal conditions that legitimise an organisation’s work and provide the authority, resources and support needed to operate over time (Moore, 1995[58]).
This issue is particularly salient in Catalonia given the Agency’s recent establishment and evolving position within the education governance architecture. While the legal framework provides a clear mandate, the Agency is still building operational capacity, defining relationships with other actors – particularly the Department of Education and Vocational Training and the Inspectorate – and establishing its credibility among schools and stakeholders. In this context, consistent institutional backing and clarity about expectations will be essential to enable the Agency to develop its functions progressively and to be recognised as a trusted reference point for evaluation and foresight.
Many of the Agency’s core functions, including strengthening the technical quality of student assessments, conducting system evaluation and embedding foresight, require sustained effort and may take several years to yield visible impact. Unrealistic expectations of short-term results, shifting priorities or fluctuating institutional support risk undermining both the quality of the Agency’s work and its credibility as a system asset.
It will therefore be important for the Catalan education system to communicate clearly the Agency’s role, mandate and limits, and to articulate what change is likely to look like for stakeholders at various levels over time. Managing expectations transparently will help sustain the mandate, reinforce legitimacy and protect the Agency from pressures that could distort its strategic focus as while it consolidates its role within the broader evaluation ecosystem.
Anchor the Agency’s work in a coherent long-term strategy with early milestones
A coherent long-term strategy that clearly articulates how the Agency’s functions contribute to system improvement would strengthen clarity of purpose and help manage expectations across the education community. Such a strategy can serve as a reference point for sequencing activities, prioritising investments and communicating progress, particularly in areas where results will only become visible over time.
While strengthening an evaluation system is inherently a long-term endeavour, early visible progress will be important for building trust and demonstrating value. In its initial phase, the Agency should define what constitutes meaningful early milestones. This may include the completion of a methodological review of existing assessment instruments, the establishment of key partnership agreements, the publication of analytical reports, or the development of guidance materials for schools. This may also include communicating improvements in the technical quality of student assessments and explaining how enhanced comparability over time can inform system decision-making and teaching and learning improvement. The Agency could also prioritise clearer guidance on the interpretation and use of results, and work with the Inspectorate to support more timely and usable feedback to schools.
At the same time, there is commonly a tension between the demand for rapid, visible results and the time required for institutional and system-level change to take hold (Burns and Köster, 2016[59]). This connects directly to the mandate discussion above: sustained political and institutional support is more likely to be maintained where the Agency has been transparent from the outset about the conditions and timescales under which its work can be expected to generate impact.
Measure and demonstrate the Agency’s value and impact
Sustaining political and public confidence over the long term requires more than acknowledging that system change takes time. The Agency will need to develop a clear framework for measuring and demonstrating its value. This includes articulating how its work contributes to improved decision-making, stronger system coherence and enhanced professional practice. Without a deliberate approach to evidencing impact, its contribution – particularly in areas such as methodological improvement, foresight and system learning – may remain insufficiently visible to stakeholders.
This could involve defining a focussed set of performance indicators aligned with its mandate. These might include indicators related to the technical quality of evaluation methods, timeliness of analytical outputs, uptake of guidance by schools and system actors, and evidence of use in policy development. Organisations such as the Education Endowment Foundation in the United Kingdom (England) provide relevant examples of how monitoring the reach and use of their outputs can help demonstrate how research and evaluation contribute to improved professional practice (see Box 4.9).
Transparent reporting on delivery efficiency, cost-effectiveness and progress against strategic objectives can further reinforce credibility. In some OECD education systems, evaluation agencies publish annual impact reports or undergo periodic external reviews to communicate outline their contribution. In addition, scenario-based planning could help articulate the implications of different funding trajectories. This may include identifying risks associated with reduced funding, such as loss of technical expertise, fragmentation of evaluation practices or diminished foresight capacity, as well as clarifying what sustained or enhanced investment would enable in terms of analytical capacity, evaluation depth and knowledge mobilisation.
The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) is an independent charity established in 2011 to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils in England. Although it is not a regulatory body, its functions are similar to the Agency in that it generates evidence, evaluates programmes and translates research into practical guidance for teachers and policymakers. Its mandate combines research funding, programme evaluation, evidence synthesis and knowledge mobilisation to support evidence-informed decision-making in schools and government.
A distinctive feature of the EEF model is its effort to measure and communicate its impact. Through annual and Impact Reports, the foundation assesses not only its activities but also the extent to which its work influences practice across the education system. EEF reporting tracks how widely its evidence is used across the system. Indicators include:
Senior leaders reporting that they use the Teaching & Learning Toolkit to inform their decision-making;
Headteachers reporting that they use and trust EEF guidance;
Schools reporting that they find EEF resources useful;
Numbers of:
website visitors each year;
downloads from the website;
users accessing toolkits and resources each year;
schools and children reached through projects; and
evaluations commissioned.
Beyond reach, the EEF monitors how evidence influences professional practice. This includes surveys of teachers and school leaders on changes linked to EEF guidance, studies of school implementation processes, and evaluations of professional development programmes supporting evidence use.
EEF communicates findings through impact reports, evaluation reports, guidance documents and public data. This transparency allows stakeholders to assess the organisation’s contribution to improving teaching and learning.
Source: Education Endowment Foundation (2026[60]) How we work, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/about-us/how-we-work (accessed on 12 March 2026), Education Endowment Foundation (2025[61]), Impact Report, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/impact-report (accessed on 12 March 2026), Education Endowment Foundation (2025[62]), The Education Endowment Foundation 2025-2035 Strategy, https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/documents/eef_strategy_-_v1.1.0.pdf?v=1773316824 (accessed on 12 March 2026).
Establish safeguards to protect stability and continuity across political cycles
To ensure the stability and credibility of its work programmes, the Agency will benefit from explicit safeguards that protect its technical independence and continuity over time. This responsibility sits across the governance system: the Catalan Government and Education Authority, in collaboration with the Agency’s Governing Board, should ensure that appropriate protections are in place, including:
clear statutory protections around the Agency’s mandate, core functions and authority to publish findings, limiting the scope for undue political or administrative interference
multi-year planning and funding arrangements that reduce vulnerability to short-term budgetary pressures or electoral cycles
transparent processes for setting and reviewing work programmes, including the use of scientific or technical advisory bodies to reinforce methodological integrity
clear role definitions and protocols governing interactions with the Department of Education and Vocational Training and the Inspectorate, preserving independence while enabling collaboration
public reporting and communication practices that reinforce accountability and strengthen trust in the Agency’s objectivity.
International experience further illustrates how such safeguards can support institutional credibility and long-term effectiveness. The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC), for example, combines a clear legal mandate, stable resourcing and a multi-year evaluation plan with strong stakeholder engagement and recognised methodological independence (Box 5.9). These features align closely with Catalonia’s priorities as it consolidates the Agency’s role within the evaluation ecosystem.
The Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC) is an independent authority operating as a separate unit within the Finnish National Agency for Education. It exercises the duties and decision-making powers of an independent authority, while receiving administrative and support services from the Finnish National Agency for Education.
Established in 2014 through the merger of several pre-existing evaluation functions, FINEEC is responsible for evaluating the entire education system, from early childhood education to higher education. As shown in Figure 5.2, its organisational structure reflects this broad mandate and is divided into four units: general education; vocational education and early childhood education; higher education and liberal adult education; and development services (comprising of activities including administration, communication and methodology and analyses) (Karvi, 2026[63]).
The centre employs around 40 staff members. In addition, approximately 200 external experts participate each year in the conduct of evaluations. These experts are appointed to evaluation groups that play a central role in FINEEC’s work. In peer-review processes, such as audits of higher education institutions, members of the audit group conduct the evaluation jointly with FINEEC staff. In other evaluations, expert groups support FINEEC’s work by contributing the perspectives of different stakeholder groups relevant to the topic under review.
FINEEC operates with a clear legal mandate, stable resourcing and a multi-year national evaluation plan. Its work covers learning outcomes evaluations, thematic and system evaluations and quality management audits, with methods designed to generate robust evidence while supporting continuous improvement rather than sanctions. FINEEC’s evaluations are recognised as an important input to policymaking, providing regular, trusted information on the state of the system and on the implementation of reforms.
Source: OECD (2024[64]), Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC): OECD Centre for Skills Evaluations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b1c0b194-en; Karvi (2026[63]), FINEEC's Organisation, https://www.karvi.fi/en/about-us/fineecs-organisation (accessed on 6 March 2026).
A further feature of FINEEC’s approach is systematic collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders, including education providers, municipalities, higher education institutions and international partners. It combines strong analytical capacity with active efforts to communicate findings in accessible ways and to engage practitioners in using results for improvement. This has helped strengthen the perceived relevance and usefulness of evaluation among schools and policymakers.
Its positive reputation among stakeholders has been largely attributed to FINEEC’s acknowledged expertise, strong stakeholder engagement practices and perceived impartiality. Furthermore, FINEEC’s perceived impartiality has been founded largely on its operational and financial autonomy, which protects it from potential third-party interests.
Sources: OECD (2024[64]), Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC): OECD Centre for Skills Evaluations, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b1c0b194-en; Karvi (2026[63]), FINEEC's Organisation, https://www.karvi.fi/en/about-us/fineecs-organisation (accessed on 6 March 2026).
References
[34] ACARA (2025), NAPLAN 2024 Technical Report, https://www.nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/naplan/naplan-2024-technical-report.pdf.
[33] ACARA (2025), The Australian National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) assessment framework, https://nap.edu.au/docs/default-source/naplan/naplan-assessment-framework.pdf.
[32] ACARA (2024), National Report on Schooling in Australia 2023, https://dataandreporting.blob.core.windows.net/anrdataportal/ANR-Documents/nationalreportonschoolinginaustralia_2023.pdf.
[3] APE (n.d.), Funcions de l’Agència d’Avaluació i Prospectiva de l’Educació (APE) [Functions of the Education Evaluation and Prospective Agency (APE)], https://avaluacioeducativa.gencat.cat/ca/agencia/funcions/ (accessed on 4 December 2025).
[6] APE (unpublished), Informe resumen sobre evaluaciones del sistema educativo Catalán [Summary report of the evaluations of the Catalan educational system].
[12] APE (unpublished), Mapa de evaluaciones y calendario para 2026 [Map of assessments and calendar for 2026].
[24] APE (n.d.), Tast de dades [Data snapshot], https://avaluacioeducativa.gencat.cat/ca/publicacions/tast-de-dades/ (accessed on 25 February 2026).
[21] Buckley, J. et al. (2015), “Defining and Teaching Evaluative Thinking”, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 36/3, pp. 375-388, https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214015581706.
[59] Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.
[36] Choi, Á. (2019), Education inspection: which models work best?, https://fundaciobofill.cat/en/publications/education-inspection-which-models-work-best (accessed on 11 February 2026).
[1] CIDO (2025), Decret 65/2025, de 8 d’abril, de represa de l’activitat de l’Agència d’Avaluació i Prospectiva de l’Educació i de la constitució del seu Consell Rector, [Decree 65/2025, of April 8, on the resumption of the activity of the Education Evaluation and Prospective Agency and the constitution of its Governing Council], https://cido.diba.cat/legislacio/19259868/decret-652025-de-8-dabril-de-represa-de-lactivitat-de-lagencia-davaluacio-i-prospectiva-de-leducacio-i-de-la-constitucio-del-seu-consell-rector-departament-deducacio-i-formacio-professional (accessed on 12 February 2026).
[47] Danish Ministry of Children and Education (2025), Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut Årsrapport 2024 [Danish Evaluation Institute Annual Report 2024], https://eva.dk/Media/638785092126975957/EVA's%20rsrapport%202024.pdf.
[14] Department of Education (2024), Les dades educatives de Catalunya al servei de la recerca educativa [Catalonia’s educational data at the service of educational research], https://educacio.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/departament/estadistiques/acces-informacio-estadistica-dades/cataleg-dades-recerca.pdf.
[52] Department of Education and Vocational Training (2026), Orientacions curriculars [Curricular guidelines], https://projectes.xtec.cat/nou-curriculum/orientacions-curriculars/ (accessed on 12 May 2026).
[17] Department of Education and Vocational Training (2025), Documents per a l’organització i la gestió dels centres. Projecte educatiu de centre. Curs 2025-2026 [Documents for the organization and management of schools. School’s educational project. Academic year 2025-2026], https://documents.espai.educacio.gencat.cat/IPCNormativa/DOIGC/DOIGC_Projecte.pdf.
[5] Department of Education and Vocational Training (2025), Pla director de la Inspecció d’Educació 2025-2029 [Master Plan of the Education Inspectorate 2025-2029], https://educacio.gencat.cat/web/.content/home/departament/inspeccio-educacio/pla-director/pla-director-2025-2029.pdf.
[53] Department of Education and Vocational Training (n.d.), Millora educativa [Educational improvement], https://educacio.gencat.cat/ca/departament/linies-estrategiques/millora-educativa/ (accessed on 12 May 2026).
[2] DOGC (2009), LLEI 12/2009, del 10 de juliol, d’educació [LAW 12/2009, of July 10, on Education], https://portaljuridic.gencat.cat/eli/es-ct/l/2009/07/10/12 (accessed on 3 February 2026).
[35] Education Council (2019), Alice Springs (Mparntwe) Education Declaration, https://www.education.gov.au/download/4816/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/7180/alice-springs-mparntwe-education-declaration/pdf.
[60] Education Endowment Foundation (2026), How we work, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/about-us/how-we-work (accessed on 12 March 2026).
[61] Education Endowment Foundation (2025), Impact Report, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/impact-report (accessed on 12 March 2026).
[62] Education Endowment Foundation (2025), The Education Endowment Foundation 2025-2035 Strategy, https://d2tic4wvo1iusb.cloudfront.net/production/documents/eef_strategy_-_v1.1.0.pdf?v=1773316824 (accessed on 12 March 2026).
[40] European Commission (2020), 2020 Strategic Foresight Report, https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/strategic-foresight/2020-strategic-foresight-report_en (accessed on 5 March 2026).
[37] Ferrer-Esteban, G. et al. (2025), “Educational improvement in vulnerable environments. How the most complex centers face the challenge of results, evaluation and equity”, Millora educativa en entorns vulnerables. Com els centres de més complexitat afronten el repte dels resultats, l’avaluació i l’equitat, https://ddd.uab.cat/record/312163 (accessed on 25 Febuary 2026).
[49] Flemish Department of Education and Training (2023), Omgevingsanalyse van het beleidsdomein Ondervijs en Vorming [Environmental analysis of the policy area Education and Training], https://www.vlaanderen.be/publicaties/omgevingsanalyse-van-het-beleidsdomein-onderwijs-en-vorming (accessed on 16 February 2026).
[30] Fullan, M. (2015), The new meaning of educational change (5th ed.), Routledge.
[29] Gertler, P. et al. (2016), Impact Evaluation in Practice, second edition, Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank and World Bank, https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0779-4.
[15] Golden, G. (2020), “Education policy evaluation: Surveying the OECD landscape”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 236, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9f127490-en.
[26] Government of Catalonia (2026), Acord entre el Departament d’Educació i Formació Professional i les organitzacions sindicals CCOO i UGT sobre millores del sistema educatiu i condicions de reball del personal funcionari docent del Departament d’Educació i Formació Professional, [Agreement between the Department of Education and Vocational Training and the union organisations CCOO and UGT on system improvements to the educational and working conditions of the teaching staff of the Department of Education and Vocational Training], https://www.ccoo.cat/educacio/wp-content/uploads/sites/139/2026/03/el-text-de-lacord.pdf.
[27] Government of Catalonia (2026), Acuerdo para la mejora educativa [Agreement for Educational Improvement], https://web.gencat.cat/ca/ciutadania/actualitat/noticies/2026/06/acord-per-a-la-millora-educativa (accessed on 12 June 2026).
[13] Government of Catalonia (2026), Consulta pública prèvia Estatuts de l’Agència d’Avaluació i Prospectiva de l’Educació [Public consultation prior to Statutes of the Agency for Evaluation and Prospective Education], https://participa.gencat.cat/processes/agencia-avaluacio-prospectiva-educacio (accessed on 8 May 2026).
[16] Government of Catalonia (unpublished), Evaluation of centres: Guide for the application of integrated assessment for improvement (AVIM).
[63] Karvi (2026), FINEEC’s Organisation, https://www.karvi.fi/en/about-us/fineecs-organisation (accessed on 6 March 2026).
[45] Leithwood, K., A. Harris and D. Hopkins (2008), “Seven strong claims about successful school leadership”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 28/1, pp. 27-42, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701800060.
[19] Mayne, J. (2008), Building an evaluative culture for effective evaluation and results management, https://www.betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/ILAC_Brief20_Evaluative_Culture.pdf.
[44] McCoy, A., D. Rose and M. Connolly (2013), “Developing Evaluation Cultures in Human Service Organisations”, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, Vol. 13/1, pp. 15-20, https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x1301300103.
[8] MEFPD (2024), Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa [National Institute for Educational Evaluation], https://www.educacionfpydeportes.gob.es/inee/portada.html (accessed on 20 April 2026).
[9] MEFPD (n.d.), Primera edición Evaluación general del sistema 6.º EP 2025-2026 [First edition General evaluation of the system 6th EP 2025-2026], https://www.educacionfpydeportes.gob.es/inee/evaluaciones-nacionales/evaluacion-general-sistema/primera-edicion-egs-6ep-2025-2026.html (accessed on 18 February 2026).
[58] Moore, M. (1995), Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
[10] Morris, A. (2011), “Student Standardised Testing: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 65, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kg3rp9qbnr6-en.
[57] New Zealand Government (2004), Crown Entities Act 2004, https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2004/0115/latest/DLM329631.html (accessed on 1 April 2026).
[50] NKO (2026), “About the NKO”, Dutch National Education Institute, https://www.nko.nl/en/about-the-nko (accessed on 25 February 2026).
[51] NKO (2026), “Background”, Dutch National Education Institute, https://www.nko.nl/en/background (accessed on 25 February 2026).
[55] NZCER (2024), “Pūrongo ā-tau - Annual Report 2023-24”, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, https://www.nzcer.org.nz/sites/default/files/downloads/P%C5%ABrongo%20%C4%81-tau%20%28Annual%20Report%29%202023-24.pdf.
[56] NZCER (n.d.), “Evaluation Services”, New Zealand Council for Educational Research, https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/evaluation-services (accessed on 20 February 2026).
[23] OECD (2025), “How can quality assurance agencies support research use in policy and practice?”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 132, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/086c85e2-en.
[38] OECD (2025), Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en.
[42] OECD (2025), Trends Shaping Education 2025, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ee6587fd-en.
[48] OECD (2024), “Assessing potential future artificial intelligence risks, benefits and policy imperatives”, OECD Artificial Intelligence Papers, No. 27, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3f4e3dfb-en.
[64] OECD (2024), Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (FINEEC): OECD Centre for Skills Evaluations, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b1c0b194-en.
[41] OECD (2024), The Strategic Foresight System of the Government of Flanders, Belgium, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e55125c5-en.
[7] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[43] OECD (2022), Education Policy Outlook 2022: Transforming Pathways for Lifelong Learners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c77c7a97-en.
[4] OECD (2013), “OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education”, in Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
[46] 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.
[11] OECD/Department of Education and Vocational Training (unpublished), Responses to OECD background questionnaire «A multi-year project to improve learning outcomes in Catalonia», internal document.
[31] OECD/European Commission (2025), Strengthening National Evidence-Informed Policymaking Ecosystems: Lessons from Seven European Countries, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/855c5286-en.
[28] Rossi, P., M. Lipsey and H. Freeman (2004), Assessing and Monitoring Program Process. In Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
[39] School of International Futures (2021), Features of effective systemic foresight in governments around the world, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/609aa813d3bf7f2888d18fe3/effective-systemic-foresight-governments-report.pdf.
[54] Torres, J. and M. Steponavičius (2022), “More than just a go-between: The role of intermediaries in knowledge mobilisation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 285, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa29cfd3-en.
[18] Trochim, W. (2009), “Evaluation policy and evaluation practice”, New Directions for Evaluation, Vol. 2009/123, pp. 13-32, https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.303.
[22] Verger, A. et al. (2025), Escoles i professorat davant l’autonomia de centre. Reptes de l’avaluació, la millora i la governança escolar [Schools and teachers facing school autonomy. Challenges of evaluation, improvement and school governance], https://idus.us.es/server/api/core/bitstreams/54852b4a-2e34-4cd8-9220-89945c2e1524/content (accessed on 24 February 2026).
[25] Vilalta, J. and N. Comas (2021), La recerca al servei d’una política educativa fonamentada [Research in the service of an evidence-informed education policy], https://www.equitat.org/app/uploads/2025/03/9hc-informe_la-recerca-al-servei-d-una-poliitica-educativa-fonamentada_web.pdf.
[20] Zancajo, A., A. Verger and C. Fontdevila (2021), La concertada a debat. Reformes contra les desigualtats educatives des d’una mirada internacional i comparada [The concerted debate: Reforms against educational inequalities from an international and comparative perspective], https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/272765/1/272765.pdf.
Source: Torres, J. and M. Steponavičius (2022[54]), “More than just a go-between: The role of intermediaries in knowledge mobilisation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 285, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aa29cfd3-en.