This chapter explores key elements Greece may consider in its efforts to strengthen school autonomy, accountability, and local capacity. Drawing on national policy documents, relevant literature, PISA data, stakeholder interviews and international examples, the chapter discusses barriers to school-level decision making, including resistance to decentralisation, challenges in supporting the building of leadership capacity at the school level, and the procedural nature of internal and external evaluation processes. It proposes three main policy recommendations: enhancing school autonomy with effective accountability and support; empowering school leaders to make effective decisions; and streamlining governance to improve coherence and responsiveness. Each recommendation is accompanied by targeted policy considerations and international examples that may offer valuable insights for Greece’s reform efforts.
Improving Learning Outcomes in Greece
Abstract
This chapter focusses on school autonomy in compulsory education in Greece, which encompasses pre-primary, primary, and lower secondary levels. It examines how decision-making responsibilities are distributed across governance levels, with particular attention to the roles of schools, regional authorities, the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports (as central authority), and supporting agencies. The analysis is structured around the premise that school autonomy, when appropriately balanced with accountability mechanisms and targeted support, can improve educational quality and responsiveness. Accordingly, the chapter explores how Greece’s institutional arrangements enable or constrain local decision-making and assesses how these arrangements can evolve to support improved outcomes for all students1.
In this chapter, school autonomy refers to the extent to which individual schools have the discretion to make decisions about key aspects of their operations, such as resource allocation, curriculum planning, and student assessment. This includes determining school budgets, selecting learning materials, deciding course offerings, and establishing policies for student admissions, discipline, and assessment. Additionally, it often involves authority over teacher hiring and dismissal, setting salaries, and managing instructional approaches. Findings from the OECD highlight that school autonomy typically entails granting principals and teachers greater decision-making power, with some models actively involving teachers in school management. However, such autonomy is frequently coupled with accountability mechanisms to ensure educational quality and adherence to national standards (Burns and Köster, 2016[1]; OECD, 2013[2]).
The distribution of decision-making power across different levels of the education system serves as an indicator of how centralised or decentralised a system is. Since the 1980s, many countries have increasingly transferred decision-making authority to the local or school level as part of broader educational reforms (OECD, 2020[3]; Mentini and Levatino, 2023[4]). Among the various decisions schools must take, those related to curriculum design and resource management have a direct impact on teaching and learning. Advocates of greater school autonomy argue that those closest to students, the school leaders and teachers, are best positioned to assess their learning needs and allocate resources effectively (Cheng, Ko and Lee, 2016[5]; Caldwell and Spinks, 2013[6]). They contend that reducing bureaucratic control fosters innovation, increases responsiveness to local communities, and ultimately enhances student performance. Consequently, many education systems have granted schools greater responsibility over curricular, instructional, financial and personnel management, with school leaders playing a pivotal role in these delegated tasks (OECD, 2016[7]; OECD, 2013[2]).
School autonomy is recognised as an important lever for promoting equity in education systems characterised by geographic dispersion, such as Greece, where many small, remote schools might operate under substantially different circumstances from urban schools (OECD, 2023[8]). In Greece, isolated island and rural schools often face significant barriers to attracting and retaining specialist teaching staff, particularly for subjects like foreign languages and science, due to both geographic isolation and limited local accommodation options. This is also a point often identified in Greece’s policy documentation and confirmed by many stakeholders during the OECD review team visit, (MERAS, 2025[9]). Infrastructure challenges, such as unreliable internet access and outdated school buildings, continue to hinder educational provision, although new public–private partnerships (notably involving COSMOTE and the MERAS2) seek to bridge the digital divide by delivering free, high-speed internet and equipment to remote schools using advanced 5G technology (MERAS, 2025[9]).
Remote and rural schools also encounter persistent operational challenges which exacerbate inequities, including unreliable heating, limited student transport, and difficulties in fully implementing centrally designed educational initiatives due to staff shortages or local logistical constraints. Greater school-level autonomy, particularly around curriculum adaptation, resource allocation, and timetabling, can enable these schools to tailor responses to their unique settings and meet local needs more effectively (OECD, 2025[10]).
However, enhanced autonomy also introduces risks because, if there is not an equitable distribution of resources or if schools with weaker leadership and capacity are left without appropriate support, gaps could widen between advantaged and disadvantaged schools. Evidence from OECD systems indicates that increased school autonomy over course content is correlated with greater equality of opportunity, while autonomy over hiring may have mixed effects and may even disadvantage schools lacking the administrative capacity to compete for specialist staff. Effective and needs-based resourcing and funding policies are essential to ensure that greater autonomy leads to equity rather than deepening existing disparities (OECD, 2025[11]).
International experience shows that flexible governance arrangements are critical in ensuring educational quality and relevance in remote settings. For example, in Finland and Norway, localised decision-making capacity has helped remote schools remain responsive to the needs of their communities, while maintaining coherence with national standards (OECD, 2023[8]). While the institutional and socio-economic contexts in Greece differ significantly from those in the Nordic countries, these examples illustrate how greater local autonomy (when accompanied by adequate support and national oversight) can help schools in geographically isolated areas adapt more effectively to local needs.
However, the degree of autonomy and the specific areas in which it is granted vary across countries. While decentralisation efforts have gained traction in policy discussions, many governments have simultaneously reinforced central authority in setting educational standards, curricula and assessments. In some cases, reduced control over financial regulations and school-level processes has been accompanied by increased oversight of educational outcomes, such as national assessments and examinations aligned with centralised curricula. Critics of expanded school autonomy caution that it may lead to politicised staffing decisions, widen regional inequalities and fragment national education standards. Thus, while school autonomy can foster flexibility and responsiveness, it must be carefully balanced with mechanisms that ensure equity and accountability (OECD, 2016[7]; OECD, 2013[2]).
A centralised school system in Greece
In Greece, the education system has traditionally been characterised by a centralised governance structure, with the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports (MERAS) maintaining significant control over crucial aspects of school operations. This centralised model, aiming at ensuring uniformity and equity, has also received criticism for its rigidity and limited capacity for innovation (OECD, 2018[12]), an account that was also confirmed by several stakeholders during the visit of the OECD review team. From the perspective of school units, this governance framework directly shapes daily operations, decision-making, and ultimately, educational outcomes (MERAS, 2021[13]).
Decision-making within Greek schools is largely dictated by national authorities, particularly in relation to curriculum and assessment. The national curriculum is centrally developed and enforced, leaving schools with little flexibility to adapt content or assessment methods to local needs. Similarly, resource allocation is controlled at the national or regional levels, meaning that schools have minimal influence over budgetary decisions and resource distribution, limiting their ability to address specific institutional requirements (MERAS, 2021[13]). Nonetheless, some recent initiatives aim to create more pedagogical space for schools. For example, the establishment of the internal school evaluation system, based on action plans prepared, implemented, and reviewed by school teaching staff, offers a new framework for contextualised school-level planning. In addition, the introduction of Skills Workshops across kindergartens, primary and lower secondary schools (Ministerial Decision 94236/ΓΔ4/2021, Government Gazette 3567 B) enriches the national curriculum with new cross-cutting themes, promoting innovative and participatory teaching and learning practices (MERAS, 2025[9]).
The integration of digital platforms into school activities is another area shaped by national policies. While the promotion of digital tools is intended to enhance teaching and learning, their use remains governed by centrally defined priorities, limiting schools' ability to implement technology in ways that best suit their unique educational contexts (MERAS, 2021[13]). Still, according to the interviews of the OECD Review Team with stakeholders, the pandemic demonstrated the capacity of Greek educators to innovate. In many cases, it seems that teachers were able to rapidly develop new digital competences through informal learning, peer mentoring and professional collaboration. Furthermore, according to the Greek authorities, schools across the country participate actively in European initiatives such as eTwinning and Erasmus+, which often include projects tailored to local educational needs (MERAS, 2025[9]). Additionally, ongoing initiatives are aiming to enhance pedagogical autonomy by progressively transforming curricula into Open Educational Resources (OER), providing teachers with more flexibility in the design and delivery of instruction (MERAS, 2025[9]). This topic is further explored in the chapter on digital education in this report.
School leadership also operates within strict administrative constraints in Greece. While principals have the authority to approve the implementation of educational programmes, student competitions, and similar initiatives, as established in Law 5128/30-07-2024, Article 73 (MERAS, 2025[9]), the broader issue of limited institutional autonomy still restricts schools’ ability to design, adapt, and resource tailored educational programmes or to engage systematically with the local community. As discussed with some stakeholders during the OECD review team visit, these constraints may affect the extent to which schools can respond to local needs through sustained and innovative initiatives. Nonetheless, recent reforms such as the school‑level internal evaluation system and the implementation of the Skills Workshops might provide frameworks that partially alleviate these constraints, supporting principals and teachers in developing targeted actions that enhance learning and community engagement within the national framework (MERAS, 2025[9]).
The process for appointing school principals is defined in Law 4823/2021 and is based on a combination of measurable and clearly defined scientific‑pedagogical and administrative qualifications, teaching and administrative experience, prior appraisal results, and a personal interview. This framework establishes a reliable, merit‑based system of criteria that aligns leadership appointments with the specific requirements of each position. Principals are selected by a five‑member Local Selection Council, which includes representatives from the Directorate of Education and two teachers, and are formally appointed by the Director of Education. The process is highly structured and centralised, with no participation from school‑level governance bodies such as Teachers’ Boards or School Councils (MERAS, 2025[9]).
Both internal and external evaluation processes remain closely aligned with national standards. While internal evaluations are school-led in implementation, they follow centrally established frameworks that may limit schools’ ability to fully tailor improvement efforts to their local contexts. Similarly, external evaluations (conducted by education advisers and regional supervisory bodies) prioritise system-wide coherence and accountability. However, based on the feedback collected through these processes, Quality Supervisors and Regional Quality Supervisors may propose specialised professional development programmes, tailored in content and duration, at regional and local levels, thereby supporting school improvement and strengthening institutional autonomy according to Articles 6–7 of Law 4823/2021 (MERAS, 2025[9]). Ensuring that these processes also support school-driven development could help maximise their contribution to continuous improvement (MERAS, 2025[9]).
Finally, one of the few areas in which schools in Greece seem to enjoy more autonomy is in the definition of their operational rules. Every year, each school in the country is entitled to define its operational rules to foster an environment of cooperation, inclusivity, and respect (MERAS, 2025[9]). Drafted with input from teachers, parents, and students, and validated by education advisers, these rules are meant to promote punctuality, emotional well‑being and a positive climate. Misconduct is meant to be addressed through pedagogical measures, and responsibility for maintaining a safe, respectful environment is shared across the school community. School events and extracurricular activities are expected to further support student development and parent engagement (MERAS, 2025[9]). In addition, Law 5128/30‑07‑2024 grants school leaders the authority to approve the implementation of Educational Programmes, Student Competitions (except those regulated under Law 4692/2020, Article 40), Student Festivals, and Conference Simulations proposed by the Teaching Staff Association or initiated by the principal. These activities must comply with the quality criteria and specifications established by the Institute of Educational Policy (Law 4823/2021, Article 87, paragraph 2). Such provisions allow schools a structured space for innovation and engagement with their wider communities within the national framework of education governance (MERAS, 2025[9])
Despite its centralisation, the Greek education system already possesses several institutional features that could serve as a foundation for granting greater autonomy to schools, provided that strong accountability and support mechanisms are developed in parallel. Among these features is the legal requirement for internal school evaluations, which creates opportunities for schools to engage in structured reflection and continuous improvement. The formal alignment between internal and external evaluation processes might offer a coherent framework for monitoring school performance. In addition, the system includes an expanded network of institutional actors, with responsibilities for supporting and overseeing schools, following the increase in the number of school advisers from approximately 500 to 1 200 under Law 4823/2021. This expansion has reinforced the pedagogical and administrative support available to schools and strengthened the conduct of both internal and external evaluation processes. These include education advisers who play a key role connecting policy and practice. Furthermore, the Authority for Quality Assurance in Primary and Secondary Education (ADIPPDE), established under Law 4142/2013 and amended by Law 4547/2018, serves as the independent national body responsible for ensuring the coherence, effectiveness, and transparency of quality assurance mechanisms across school education. ADIPPDE's role in meta‑evaluating system performance contributes to continuous improvement and provides a solid institutional basis for advancing school autonomy within a framework of accountability. Finally, recent reforms aimed at enhancing school autonomy, strengthening evaluation, and promoting inclusive education suggest a political willingness to evolve towards a more balanced model of governance. The remainder of this section explores each of these features in greater detail.
Schools’ internal or self-evaluation
The internal evaluation process in Greek schools (or self-evaluation) is meant to be a structured and collaborative annual procedure designed to ensure continuous improvement in educational quality. Established by Law 4692/2020 and Ministerial Decision 108906/ΓΔ4/10.9.2021, the internal evaluation is a mandatory process for all schools, and its reintroduction marks a crucial step in empowering schools to assess their strengths and challenges, make data-driven decisions for improvement, and align their practices with broader educational goals (MERAS, 2025[9]). By implementing structured internal evaluation mechanisms, schools can engage in meaningful self-assessment that fosters a culture of continuous improvement and professional development. These internal evaluations encompass the full cycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, and reporting, providing a comprehensive framework for assessing current practices and identifying opportunities to enhance school operations (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]). Figure 2.1 offers an illustration of the number of internal and external evaluation reports by school units during the 2021-2022 school year3.
Note: Private schools, while subject to the same categorisation framework as public schools, may be viewed separately in the online platform of the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) through the use of data filters. The platform includes all types of school units (pre‑primary schools, primary schools, lower secondary schools, general upper secondary schools and vocational upper secondary schools).
Source: Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports (2025[9]), OECD Background Questionnaire: Education Policy Review of Greece.
At the core of this process is the annual collective planning, which requires each school to design and implement one or more action plans (depending on number of staff) based on the findings of the previous year’s evaluation report. These action plans aim to improve educational work across three main domains: 1) Pedagogy and teaching; 2) School management and administration; and 3) Teachers’ professional development. The internal evaluation framework is structured around nine suggested axes, each accompanied by a set of analytic indicators. These are not mandatory or exhaustive; rather, they are intended as a basic reference. Schools have the flexibility to supplement or adapt these indicators to reflect their specific priorities and contexts when evaluating each axis. These axes include teaching practices, school dropout rates, student relationships, teacher-student relations, school-family relations, leadership and administration, community involvement, teacher training activities, and participation in national and European programmes (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]). As mentioned, schools have the flexibility to select the most relevant domain and axis (Table 2.1.), and supplement or adapt them, to design and implement their action plans, based on their specific needs and challenges.
Axes for the evaluation of the pedagogical and learning function of schools
Source: Institute of Educational Policy (2021[14]).
Once selected, staff collaboratively develop targeted action plans, detailing their objectives, implementation strategies and evaluation criteria. These plans are carried out throughout the academic year, with their progress monitored and supported by the school’s designated educational adviser. At the end of the school year, schools assess the impact of these initiatives, making adjustments where necessary to improve future outcomes (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
The internal evaluation reports are structured around three main functions, which together encompass nine thematic axes designed to guide schools’ improvement efforts:
First: The pedagogical and learning function (axes 1-5) focusses on enhancing teaching and assessment methods to promote inclusive practices, strengthen digital and soft skills, and encourage student participation in extracurricular activities. It also aims to address school dropout and attendance by monitoring irregular attendance patterns and supporting smoother transitions between educational levels and into the labour market. Additionally, this dimension prioritises fostering positive relationships among students, preventing and managing bullying, and strengthening communication and trust between students, teachers, and families (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
Second: The administrative function (axes 6-7) is the second crucial component, with the purpose of encouraging effective leadership, organisation and resource management within schools. Initiatives include setting and prioritising objectives, overseeing the implementation of school regulations, managing teaching staff and maintaining school infrastructure. Schools are also encouraged to establish partnerships with local communities, institutions, and networks to exchange best practices and strengthen their role within society (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
Third: The teachers’ professional development function (axes 8-9) emphasises the importance of continuous learning and engagement in training activities. Teachers participate in professional development initiatives such as peer observation, in-service training and literacy development programmes. Additionally, involvement in national and European programmes, including Erasmus and other social initiatives, is encouraged to foster innovation and international collaboration in education (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
The reporting process is intended to ensure transparency and accountability in the internal evaluation process. Schools must publish a short version/summary of their annual internal evaluation reports on their websites, making key findings and developments accessible to the wider school community. These reports do not include any kind of individual teacher assessments or scores. They provide schools with the opportunity to highlight up to five action plans they consider effective. These exemplary initiatives may then be recommended by the educational adviser as good practices that could be disseminated more broadly to inform practice in other schools (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]). By integrating these processes, the internal evaluation system aims to foster a culture of self-evaluation and continuous improvement in Greek schools. Through collective planning, structured monitoring, and systematic reporting, internal evaluations are meant to empower schools to refine their practices, enhance the quality of education, and create a more inclusive and supportive learning environment. At the same time, the approach followed by school internal evaluation in Greece faces some limitations and criticisms, which will be elaborated later in this chapter.
Schools’ external evaluation
The external evaluation process for school units in Greece follows a structured and multi-tiered approach, involving different entities responsible for assessing and improving school operations. The process aims at ensuring that schools receive detailed feedback to encourage continuous refinement of their educational work (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
Source: Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs and Sports (2025[9]).
Building on the internal evaluation process, education advisers with pedagogical responsibility play a key role in the initial phase of external evaluation. They begin by reviewing the internal evaluation reports submitted by the school units under their supervision. Based on this analysis, they prepare an external evaluation report for each school unit using a dedicated digital platform developed and run by the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP). This external evaluation applies the same three functions and nine thematic axes used in the internal evaluation framework, with performance assessed across specific criteria on a four‑level or ten‑point scale, along with an overall evaluation of the school’s strengths and areas for improvement. Additionally, it offers specific feedback and recommendations for further development. Following the completion of individual school evaluations, these education advisers compile a broader report that summarises the strengths and weaknesses of all schools under their jurisdiction. This document includes proposals for enhancing school operations, addressing training needs, and promoting good practices. These reports are submitted via the IEP’s digital platform by the end of July (Figure 2.2.).
Once the previous phase is completed, education quality supervisors oversee the next stage of the external evaluation process. Their responsibilities include reviewing both the internal evaluation reports of schools and the external evaluation reports prepared by the education advisers. By the end of August, they produce their own external evaluation reports, which provide overarching observations on the implementation of school action plans Figure 2.2.. These reports also contain proposals for improvements tailored to different school levels and types, documentation of successful practices, recommendations for the dissemination of effective strategies, and suggestions for necessary training initiatives (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
At the regional level, regional education quality supervisors are responsible for consolidating the findings from the education quality supervisors’ reports. By 10 September each year, they submit a regional evaluation report, which aggregates data from the evaluations conducted in their respective regions Figure 2.2.. This report provides a comprehensive overview of school performance within the region, identifying key results, best practices, challenges and areas requiring further attention. The findings are then made publicly available on the website of the Regional Directorate, ensuring transparency and accessibility (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
The coordination and monitoring of the external evaluation process occur at multiple levels. At the directorate level, education quality supervisors are responsible for monitoring and guiding evaluations within specific areas or institutions. Moving up to the regional level, regional education quality supervisors oversee the process across broader geographical areas, ensuring alignment with regional standards. At the national level, the Authority for Assurance of Quality in Primary and Secondary Education (ADIPPDE) and the Institute for Educational Policy(IEP) coordinate efforts to ensure consistency and effectiveness in evaluation procedures across the country (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]).
The culmination of this process is the preparation of an annual report by the ADIPPDE, which synthesises the findings from the external evaluations conducted throughout the country. This report highlights key achievements, emerging trends, persistent challenges and areas for further development. It also includes recommendations to MERAS aimed at refining and optimising the evaluation framework (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]). The IEP collects and reviews good practices that have been proposed by schools and education advisers and selects a number of them as best practices to be uploaded on IEP’s website for dissemination purposes.
A crucial aspect of the external evaluation process is the integration of digital technologies (see Chapter 5 on digital education). The IEP has developed a specialised digital platform to support the compilation and submission of evaluation reports at the local, regional, and national levels. This platform enhances efficiency, facilitates data collection, and promotes a more streamlined and consistent approach to school evaluation (MERAS, 2021[13]; Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]). Importantly, the external evaluation also serves a formative function. When planning their internal evaluation and school action plans for the following school year, school units are expected to take into account the findings and recommendations of the external evaluation process. By 20th October each year, schools submit their collective planning, based on the previous year’s internal and external evaluations, via the IEP platform. This contributes to continuity in school improvement efforts and aligns internal planning with system-wide quality assurance goals.
Source: Greece, Ministry of Education, Religion Affairs and Sports, (2025[9]).
For authorities in Greece, the interaction between internal and external evaluations is meant to ensure a comprehensive and cohesive approach to school assessment (Institute of Educational Policy, 2021[14]; MERAS, 2021[13]). External evaluations not only verify and support internal evaluations but also provide critical feedback that informs future school planning. This process of evaluation and refinement is oriented to strengthening accountability, promotes the continuous improvement of educational practices, and is meant to facilitate the widespread adoption of effective strategies across Greek schools (Figure 2.3.).
The role and importance of education advisers in Greece
Education advisers are fundamental in improving the quality of education in Greece, serving as intermediaries between schools and the broader education system to help align local practice with national education policies (OECD, 2020[3]). They are responsible for guiding teachers, fostering professional development and ensuring the effective implementation of educational policies. Their expertise supports the continuous advancement of teaching standards, providing pedagogical oversight to schools. By working closely with educators, they help to bridge the gap between national education strategies and classroom practice, ensuring that schools operate effectively and deliver high-quality learning experiences for students. Furthermore, they are expected to contribute significantly to school internal evaluation and collective planning, fostering a culture of continuous assessment and improvement (Government Gazette, 2021[15]).
The responsibilities of education advisers extend beyond only supervision tasks (Table 2.2). Their primary role is to provide pedagogical and curricular support and guidance to teachers and educational staff, supporting them through mentoring, training and lesson observations. They are responsible for developing professional training sessions, presenting model lessons and encouraging innovative teaching methods. In addition, they play a key role in promoting the use of educational resources such as school libraries and laboratories, ensuring that materials and equipment are effectively utilised to enhance learning. In parallel, education advisers closely oversee the collective planning and internal evaluation processes within schools. They monitor and support the implementation of action plans designed to improve educational practices in areas such as pedagogy, school management and teacher professional development (MERAS, 2025[9]). Their work in inclusive education is particularly important, as they provide support for teachers working with students with special educational needs, helping to implement inclusive practices across schools (Government Gazette, 2021[15]).
Each education adviser holds both pedagogical and curricular responsibilities, though these roles are distinct. Pedagogical responsibility refers to the oversight and support of teaching and learning across a defined group of school units, typically including all kindergarten and primary teachers within those schools in the case of pre-primary and primary education. Curricular responsibility, on the other hand, involves providing subject-area instructional leadership to teachers in a given discipline, who may or may not belong to the schools under the adviser’s pedagogical supervision, particularly in secondary education. These responsibilities are formally assigned by Regional Education Quality Supervisors, and in cases where staffing gaps exist, may extend across different directorates or regions (MERAS, 2025[9]). In addition, a key aspect of education advisers’ responsibilities is the evaluation of teachers and special education staff. This process is carried out jointly by the education adviser and the school principal and covers general and subject-specific teaching competences, pedagogical climate, classroom management and professional conduct. The overall aim is to enhance both individual teacher performance and the overall quality of public education (MERAS, 2025[9]).
As mentioned in a previous section, another important dimension of the work of education advisers involves preparing external evaluation reports for each school under their supervision, drawing on the internal evaluation reports developed and approved by the School Teachers’ Board (a formal decision-making body comprising all teachers at the school). The report is submitted to the digital platform by the head of school. These external reports provide structured feedback on the school’s annual planning and the implementation of its action plans, offer a documented assessment across key evaluation axes, and present an overall judgment of the school’s strengths and areas for improvement across the three core functional domains. In addition, education advisers must prepare a summary report covering all schools within their remit, synthesising common strengths and challenges, identifying training needs, highlighting good practices, and flagging issues requiring further attention (Table 2.2). These evaluation reports are a central component of the school evaluation process, designed to support school-level reflection, enhance pedagogical quality, and inform system-wide improvement (MERAS, 2025[9]).
According to documentation from Greek authorities, the allocation of education adviser positions is based on educational needs across different disciplines and school levels (MERAS, 2025[9]). A total of 800 positions have been created under Law 4823/2021, covering all specialisations taught in Greek schools, including academic subjects, vocational education, special education and support roles. Among these, four positions were designated for advisers supporting the Minority Education Programme: two for primary education, one for secondary education, and one for Muslim religion education. However, only the two positions related to the Minority Primary Education Programme are currently active (one in Xanthi and one in Rodopi, also covering the Regional Unit of Evros), as only this programme currently includes permanently appointed teachers (MERAS, 2025[9]). In line with the Treaty of Lausanne, Greece recognises a single religious minority, composed of Greek citizens of Muslim faith residing in the region of Thrace. These positions are distributed across the directorates of primary and secondary education to ensure balanced support for schools. In cases where a directorate lacks an education adviser for a particular subject area, responsibilities may be temporarily reassigned to another directorate to ensure that all schools receive the necessary support (Government Gazette, 2021[15]).
It is important to note that education advisers operate within a multi-layered administrative and supervisory framework designed to ensure coherence, accountability, and alignment with national educational priorities. Their day-to-day work is administratively coordinated by their corresponding Directorate of Education (either primary or secondary level), depending on the school level they serve. Oversight and evaluation of their professional performance is conducted by Education Quality Supervisors who provide direct oversight and evaluation. At the regional level, additional supervision is expected to be provided by Regional Education Quality Supervisors, who monitor quality across districts and help align local actions with broader policy objectives. Regional and central authorities also play a role in monitoring the contributions of education advisers to school improvement efforts (MERAS, 2025[9]). To ensure accountability and measure their impact, education advisers are required to submit quarterly and annual reports detailing their activities and assessing their effectiveness in enhancing educational outcomes. These reports are reviewed by the Education Quality Supervisor and the Directorate of Education to ensure alignment with national educational priorities. A transfer system allows for the reallocation of education advisers when necessary, ensuring flexibility in meeting the evolving needs of schools across different regions (Government Gazette, 2021[15]).
At the same time, the role of education advisers in Greece also faces important limitations that will be discussed in further sections of this chapter. For the moment, it is important to note that these limitations become even more apparent when compared with international practices. In other education systems, many of the responsibilities assigned to education advisers in Greece are distributed more broadly among a range of key stakeholders (Table 2.3). Greece stands out for concentrating a wide array of functions within the education adviser role, combining pedagogical leadership with system-level evaluation. In Ireland and in decentralised systems like Canada, these tasks are more widely shared to support greater school autonomy: curriculum policies and evaluations are typically overseen at the provincial or ministry level, while responsibilities such as professional development and decisions about how to use resources to support teaching and learning are often handled by district school boards or individual school leaders.
Note: The comparison focusses on the education adviser role in Greece alongside multiple actors fulfilling similar functions in other systems. Other actors in Greece (such as school heads, the IEP, and regional directorates) also contribute to these domains.
Source: UNESCO (2024[16]); NCEE (2025[17]); Ireland Department of Education and Youth (2023[18]); Government of Canada (2025[19])
The role of ADIPPDE, IEP, and RCS in quality assurance of education in Greece
The Hellenic Authority for Quality Assurance in Primary and Secondary Education (ADIPPDE) functions as an independent administrative authority with a central mandate in shaping, organising, and standardising the evaluation processes for Greece’s primary and secondary education systems (Eurydice, 2023[20]). Drawing on European and international frameworks, ADIPPDE provides expert guidance to the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports regarding the design and implementation of evaluation frameworks for education officials and teaching staff (more information on this in the chapter on the teaching profession) (MERAS, 2025[9]). In addition, ADIPPDE is responsible for overseeing the appeals process related to evaluation reports for education officials, with the exception of school principals, deputy principals and heads of sectoral education centres. Its remit includes the continuous review and refinement of the evaluation system to ensure its consistency, effectiveness, and alignment with national educational priorities. ADIPPDE’s annual reports assess both internal and external evaluation systems, offering recommendations for improvement and synthesising general observations on needs, trends and achievements within the sector (Eurydice, 2023[20]).
The Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) is an executive, scientific, and research body that supports the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports, as well as its supervised institutions, on matters related to primary and secondary education (Eurydice, 2023[21]; Institute of Education Policy, 2025[22]). Its responsibilities extend across teacher training, curriculum planning, post-secondary and transitional education, addressing educational inequalities, and preventing student dropout, contributing to the safeguarding of every child’s right to education. The IEP issues opinions or makes proposals either at the Minister’s request or on its own initiative. It also plays a central role in the quality assurance system by developing and maintaining the digital infrastructure that underpins both internal and external school evaluations (MERAS, 2025[9]). Additionally, the IEP provides methodological guidance for action planning and school improvement, supports the pedagogical aspects of reform implementation, and ensures that evaluation processes are aligned with national educational goals. By facilitating the use of evaluation data, the IEP enables evidence-based policy design and supports the continuous improvement of educational practices across the country (MERAS, 2025[9]).
Beyond their regulatory and coordination roles, both ADIPPDE and IEP actively engage in research and analytical work. ADIPPDE publishes annual reports that analyse various aspects of the education system. For example, the 2022 annual report included research on teachers’ views regarding the National Diagnostic Examinations and proposed targeted interventions to improve student performance in Language and Mathematics (MERAS, 2025[9]). Earlier reports have assessed textbook evaluation criteria and reviewed the selection process for education executives (MERAS, 2025[9]).
In terms of data administration, collaboration, and systemic improvement, ADIPPDE plays a central coordinating role by synthesising data collected at the school, regional, and national levels to inform systemic improvements (MERAS, 2025[9]). In preparing its annual reports, ADIPPDE draws on both internal and external school evaluation reports, which are uploaded to the dedicated digital platform managed by the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP), in line with the provisions of Law 4692/2020. Based on this data, ADIPPDE (a) submits proposals to the Minister of Education and Religious Affairs to improve the design and implementation of internal and external evaluation processes, and (b) analyses the needs, challenges, trends, and achievements of the education system (MERAS, 2025[9]). This process involves close collaboration with IEP and other relevant stakeholders to ensure that reform proposals are grounded in robust evidence and tailored to the evolving needs of schools. Through these combined efforts, ADIPPDE and IEP are meant to contribute to building a culture of accountability and continuous improvement in Greece’s primary and secondary education system.
The Regional Councils of Quality Supervisors (RCS, or Περιφερειακοί Επόπτες Ποιότητας της Εκπαίδευσης, PESEP, in Greek) were instituted through Law 4823/2021 as part of a comprehensive effort to strengthen the quality assurance framework within Greek education. Each council operates under the auspices of a Regional Directorate of Education and is chaired by the Regional Quality Supervisor (Περιφερειακός Επόπτης Ποιότητας), with all Quality Supervisors (Επόπτες Ποιότητας) of the respective region serving as members. Their appointment and remit are clearly defined in the legislation (Eurydice, 2023[20]). The RCS play a pivotal role in coordinating regional quality assurance initiatives, supporting the professional development of educators, and facilitating the implementation of national education policies at the local level. By providing guidance, oversight, and support, these councils help to foster a culture of accountability and ongoing improvement across the Greek educational landscape. Their work is instrumental in aligning regional educational practices with national objectives, thereby promoting consistency and excellence throughout the system.
It is important to note that the establishment of the RCS reflects a broader trend towards decentralisation and enhanced accountability in Greek education policy. The councils serve not only as evaluative bodies but also as key agents for change, supporting schools in the adoption of innovative practices and the pursuit of continuous development. Their activities are governed by a legal framework, which emphasises transparency, collaboration, and the use of evidence-based approaches to educational improvement (Eurydice, 2023[20]).
In addition to the roles of ADIPPDE, IEP, and the Regional Councils of Supervisors, the Computer Technology Institute & Press “Diophantus” (CTI) plays an important role in ensuring the technological quality of digital infrastructures for education and in defining the technical quality assurance specifications concerning both digital and printed educational content. Part of this responsibility includes the quality seal system, a quality assurance framework for open educational resources (OERs), which is implemented through a related public platform centrally managed by CTI (MERAS, 2025[9]).
Recent reforms strengthening Greece's school autonomy and quality assurance processes
In recent years, Greece has made notable efforts to modernise its education system, with a particular focus on enhancing school-level autonomy and strengthening national quality assurance mechanisms. These reforms aim to create a more adaptive and accountable education system, one that upholds national standards while allowing for greater responsiveness to the diverse needs of students and communities (MERAS, 2025[9]).
A cornerstone of these reforms was the adoption of Law 4823/2021, which mandated the implementation of a comprehensive internal evaluation process in all schools. Under this framework and, as explained in previous sections, schools are required to assess their performance annually across key domains such as pedagogy, teaching practices, school management, and professional development. Based on these assessments, schools develop targeted action plans to address identified areas for improvement. The implementation of these plans is supported and monitored by education advisers, who also conduct external evaluations and provide structured feedback. Short summary versions of both internal and external evaluation reports (excluding evaluative marks) are made publicly available on school websites, helping to promote transparency and stakeholder engagement. (MERAS, 2025[9]). Law 4823/2021 also redefined and expanded the role of education advisers, positioning them as central actors in Greece’s evolving governance framework. In addition to overseeing evaluations, education advisers are now responsible for providing pedagogical and curricular guidance, offering training, supporting inclusive practices, and advising on school-wide planning. Their enhanced remit enables a more coherent and sustained approach to school improvement, bridging national policy and school-level implementation. To further reinforce quality assurance, the same law introduced new supervisory positions within Regional Directorates and local education authorities. These quality supervisors help ensure consistency and alignment across regions and support the professionalisation of the advisory and evaluative functions within the system. The integration of internal and external evaluation processes into a coherent national framework, coordinated by ADIPPDE, and IEP is another important step (MERAS, 2025[9]). This dual system aims to provide schools with the autonomy to innovate while holding them accountable for results, promoting a culture of continuous improvement.
Alongside these developments in evaluation and support, Greece has taken steps to increase school-level flexibility in several operational areas. Beginning in the 2026–2027 school year, schools will be able to choose from multiple approved textbooks for each subject. In addition, schools may engage in partnerships with cultural, social, and educational organisations, participate in research activities, and offer student internships. They are also authorised to organise in-school training seminars and collaborate with municipalities in the use of school facilities, including for income-generating purposes. In addition, schools may access supplementary funding through donations and grants and have discretion to organise extracurricular activities, competitions, and local initiatives. These measures represent emerging forms of operational flexibility, although core financial autonomy over budgeting and procurement remains limited (MERAS, 2025[9]).
These changes reflect a gradual but meaningful redistribution of decision-making responsibilities across levels of the education system. By strengthening local autonomy in key areas such as curriculum adaptation, instructional delivery, and resource management, Greece is beginning to move away from its traditionally centralised model. Schools are increasingly empowered to respond to their specific contexts and needs, an approach that may be particularly beneficial in remote or underserved areas, while also supporting innovation and responsiveness system-wide. The overarching aim is to improve educational quality, reduce regional disparities and foster innovation at the school level.
While these reforms represent a positive shift towards a more balanced governance model, their success will depend on sustained implementation efforts, the availability of capacity-building opportunities for school staff, and the continued development of robust accountability mechanisms. Notably, the 2025–2027 Education Strategy (MERAS, 2025[9]; MERAS, 2025[23]) is oriented to further reinforce these directions by highlighting school autonomy as a core pillar of system improvement. Initiatives such as the Eduplan.ai platform, which uses artificial intelligence to optimise staffing and resource allocation, and the EDUQUALITY project, which introduces a multi-criteria evaluation and support system for schools, are designed to promote evidence-based decision-making at the local level. The strategy also advances digital transformation through the digitisation of administrative processes and the deployment of accessible digital tools to support school-level autonomy (MERAS, 2025[23]). According to Greek authorities, these efforts, coupled with ongoing reforms in teacher training, inclusion, and sustainability, are meant to provide a strong foundation for building adaptive, resilient, and autonomous schools capable of responding to local needs. On this point, striking the right balance between autonomy and accountability will be essential to translating these reforms into tangible improvements in teaching and learning. The following section turns to the remaining challenges that must be addressed to ensure that school autonomy becomes a meaningful lever for system-wide improvement in Greece.
Strengthening school autonomy and evaluation has become a central policy objective in many education systems aiming to improve the quality and equity of learning outcomes. Autonomy allows schools to tailor decisions to their specific contexts, potentially fostering more effective teaching and learning. Yet, realising these benefits depends heavily on the conditions in which autonomy is implemented. Without adequate support, capacity, and accountability, autonomy can produce uneven results or even reinforce existing disparities. In the case of Greece, long-standing efforts to enhance school-level decision-making have encountered both opportunities and constraints. Understanding the complex relationship between autonomy, school evaluation, and student outcomes requires a closer look at recent international evidence, and insights from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) can be particularly helpful.
The complex relationship between school autonomy and student performance
School autonomy has emerged as one of the cornerstones of educational reform globally, with substantial evidence linking it to improved student outcomes when paired with robust accountability mechanisms (OECD, 2023[8]; OECD, 2020[24]). However, while increasing school autonomy can offer important benefits, the relationship between school autonomy and student performance is complex and shaped by a range of contextual factors, including system-level governance, school leadership capacity, and the broader policy environment (Hanushek, Link and Woessmann, 2013[25]). Evidence from PISA and related studies has revealed significant variations in how autonomy impacts educational outcomes, not only across different countries but also within countries across various school communities.
Note: Statistically significant differences are indicated by an asterisk. Each bar represents the coefficient from a bivariate regression of mathematics performance on the index, estimated separately for each subgroup (e.g. girls, boys, socio-economically advantaged/disadvantaged, etc.). No control variables are included in these models. Results reflect associations, not causal effects. A socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in Greece. Rural area or villages are defined as having fewer than 3000 inhabitants; towns have between 3000 to 100 000 inhabitants; and cities have over 100 000 inhabitants. Educational leadership in the PISA refers broadly to the role of the principal or school leader in shaping the overall direction, culture or learning environment of the school and is comprised of seven items from the school questionnaire. Instructional leadership, on the other hand, focusses specifically on teaching and learning within the school and is comprised of five items related to direct engagement with teaching practice.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database
This complexity is also reflected in Greece. Variations in the four indices of school autonomy, namely educational leadership, instructional leadership, school responsibility for curriculum and school responsibility for resources, were associated with both gains and declines in student academic performance, with the direction and magnitude of these associations varying by student characteristics (Figure 2.4.). This mixed pattern underscores the complexities associated with effective autonomy policies and highlights the need to complement measures with sustained capacity-building and accountability mechanisms that are responsive to the specific needs and conditions of the Greek context. The benefits of granting schools more autonomy can be best realised when supported by robust accountability structures. The specific domains in which schools are granted autonomy and the extent to which it is coupled with effective accountability measures can significantly influence outcomes (OECD, 2013[2]). Autonomy is most effective when schools are held to clear expectations, supported by transparent reporting, and provided with consistent monitoring of performance. Particularly, the presence of effective quality assurance mechanisms, such as teacher mentoring, class observations, and systematic recording of student results, is essential to ensure that the autonomy granted to schools translates into improvements in teaching and learning (Burns and Köster, 2016[1]).
Recent PISA data further underscores the critical role of accountability and quality assurance mechanisms in ensuring that greater school autonomy can help to achieve better student outcomes. In Greece, the use of results from external evaluation to inform targeted improvement measures is associated with significantly higher mathematics performance, showing an average increase of 43 score points among all students (Figure 2.5). The associations are particularly strong among boys (49 points) and socio-economically advantaged students (48 points), although notable improvements are observed across all student groups.
Thinking about the last external evaluation in your school: Were measures derived from the results of external evaluations put into practice?
Note: Based on principal reports (school questionnaire). All student groups showed statistically significant improvements in mathematics performance. Each bar represents the coefficient from a bivariate regression of mathematics performance on the index, estimated separately for each subgroup (e.g. girls, boys, socio-economically advantaged/disadvantaged, etc.). No control variables are included in these models. Results reflect associations, not causal effects. A socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in Greece. Data are not available for rural or city areas. Towns are defined as having between 3000 to 100 000 inhabitants.
Source: OECD, PISA2022, Volume II
Equally important to granting autonomy is ensuring that schools have the capacity to exercise autonomy effectively. Without sufficient leadership, resources and support, autonomy can inadvertently exacerbate inequalities, particularly in schools serving disadvantaged communities. As Hanushek, Link and Woessmann (2013[25]) argue, school autonomy alone is not enough to drive improvement if schools lack the ability to act on it. In this regard, while the association is not statistically significant for Greece, PISA data suggest that, as in several other countries, greater school autonomy is linked to lower mathematics performance among students from disadvantaged backgrounds (Figure 2.6). These patterns, though inconclusive (as they are not statistically significant), raise important questions about whether all schools, especially those serving vulnerable populations, have the necessary support to turn autonomy into meaningful improvements in student learning. This issue deserves further investigation and more in-depth statistical analysis.
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a blue tone. Each bar represents the coefficient from a bivariate regression of mathematics performance on the index, estimated separately for each subgroup (e.g. girls, boys, socio-economically advantaged/disadvantaged, etc.). No control variables are included in these models. Results reflect associations, not causal effects. A socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in Greece. Rural area or villages are defined as having fewer than 3000 inhabitants; towns have between 3000 to 100 000 inhabitants; and cities have over 100 000 inhabitants.
Source: OECD, PISA2022 Database
Effective autonomy reforms must be embedded within a coherent and integrated policy framework, as context plays a critical role in shaping their success (OECD, 2016[7]; OECD, 2013[2]). Autonomy should not be implemented in isolation but must align with curriculum standards, teacher development policies, and funding mechanisms to ensure schools operate within a supportive and structured environment. At the same time, school-level decision-making must remain responsive to local needs (OECD, 2023[8]). This requires that schools have both the capacity and the tools to make informed, evidence-based decisions tailored to the specific challenges and opportunities of their communities. Achieving this balance demands a nuanced understanding of local contexts and necessary support to translate autonomy into meaningful improvements in teaching and learning.
The alignment of autonomy policies with other educational policies is essential, as policies need to be coherent and supportive to maximise the benefits of school autonomy. Local needs and conditions must be considered, as schools need to adapt their autonomous decisions to the specific challenges and opportunities within their communities. Additionally, the skills and motivation of school leaders and teachers are critical, as effective leadership and a capable teaching staff are necessary to leverage the benefits of autonomy (Hanushek, Link and Woessmann, 2013[25]).
A centralised system with fragmented responsibilities
The challenges associated with the centralisation of the education system in Greece are particularly evident in the difficulties schools might face to respond effectively to the specific needs of their student populations. For instance, schools in rural or remote areas may face unique challenges that require tailored solutions. In this sense, while the Canadian charter school model differs from the Greek context it might still offer an interesting set of experience to reflect on (Box 2.1). The lack of enough flexibility in national policies and curricula often prevents schools from addressing these issues adequately. In response to this kind of challenges, Greece is embarking in some new initiatives. For example, Greece’s recent effort to establish the Public Onassis Schools (Δ.ΗΜ.Ω.Σ.) which is a network of model public schools created in partnership between the MERAS and the Onassis Foundation, might reflect emerging interest in approaches that promote innovation and local responsiveness within the public system. Through these schools, the Ministry intends to encourage the implementation of innovative practices and disseminate effective models across the wider education system (Onassis Foundation, 2025[26]). This flexibility-oriented reform effort could potentially address some concerns raised in previous OECD reports about the rigidity of governance arrangements that may limit schools’ capacity to innovate and provide context-specific‑ educational experiences (OECD, 2018[12]).
In Canada, Alberta’s charter school model provides a notable example of using school autonomy to address the specific needs of rural and remote communities. Established under the 1994 School Act, Alberta’s charter schools are fully publicly funded but operate independently of local school boards, giving them significant decision-making powers over curriculum, pedagogy, staffing and resource allocation.
This autonomy has been particularly impactful in rural settings, where charter schools have been established to maintain local education services and tailor learning to community contexts. For instance, Valhalla Community School in rural northwestern Alberta was created as a charter school following the threat of closure. Leveraging its autonomy, the school developed a distinctive programme combining classical education with agricultural literacy, entrepreneurship, and community-based learning, directly reflecting the area’s rural character and priorities.
Alberta’s charter schools demonstrate how enhanced school-level autonomy, within a publicly accountable framework, can empower rural communities to develop innovative educational models aligned with local needs and aspirations. The ability to self-govern key aspects of school operations has enabled these schools to remain viable, responsive and engaged with their communities.
Source: Government of Alberta (2025[27]), Public Charter Schools, https://www.alberta.ca/public-charter-schools; Valhalla School Foundation (2025[28]), Valhalla Community Charter School, https://valhallacommunityschool.ca; Bosetti and Butterfield (2016[29]), The politics of educational reform: The Alberta charter school experiment 20 years later, https://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/199
Interestingly, another challenge stemming from Greece's centralised governance model is the fragmentation of responsibilities across multiple agencies, ministries and local authorities. While the Ministry of Education retains primary control over policy and administration, regional and local bodies also play roles in implementing these policies. This overlapping jurisdiction seems to create inefficiencies and delays in decision-making processes. For example, school funding in Greece continues to be distributed through a complex, fragmented system involving the Ministry of Education, municipal budgets, and other administrative bodies responsible for infrastructure and support services.
Despite ongoing public investment and recent restoration initiatives such as the “Marietta Giannakou” programme (which targets the renovation of more than 2 500 school buildings nationwide by autumn 2025), coordination between different funding streams remains limited (MERAS, 2025[9]). This fragmentation persists as a barrier to effective, strategic planning and resource allocation in schools. According to the OECD’s Education Policy Outlook 2024 and PISA 2022 data, nearly half of Greek students still attend schools where principals report that shortages of staff and teaching resources directly hamper instructional quality and student learning outcomes (OECD, 2023[8]). The proportion of students in under-resourced schools in Greece remains above the OECD average, with figures stable or slightly higher than the levels previously reported (44% to 56%, compared to the OECD range of 24% to 47%) (Figure 2.7). These continued shortages reflect persistent national challenges around resource distribution and teacher supply, particularly impacting disadvantaged and rural areas.
Note: Examples of educational materials include textbooks, IT equipment, library or laboratory materials; Physical infrastructure includes buildings, building grounds, heating/cooling systems, lighting and acoustic systems; and examples of digital resources are desktop or laptop computers, internet access, learning management systems or school learning platforms.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022, Volume II, Chapter IV.
The centralised and fragmented nature of Greece’s education governance might have significant implications for policy implementation. Efforts to address these challenges must focus on streamlining governance structures and clarifying roles and responsibilities at all levels of the education system, like in the case of Singapore (Box 2.2). Strengthening local capacity through targeted investments in training and resources will also be essential for enabling schools to take on greater autonomy effectively.
Like in Greece, Singapore’s education system also operates within a centralised governance model. To mitigate inefficiencies often associated with such a system, Singapore has progressively enhanced the coherence and efficiency of its governance structures by consolidating oversight functions within a single central agency and clearly delineating the roles of subordinate bodies.
The Ministry of Education (MoE) serves as the sole authority for all education levels and types, overseeing curriculum, assessment, teacher training, school funding and quality assurance. The key to Singapore’s success in overcoming fragmentation and duplication of efforts has been the establishment of specialised statutory boards and divisions operating under the MoE umbrella, each with a clearly defined mandate. This approach ensures that responsibilities are distributed in a complementary, rather than overlapping, manner:
Assessments: The Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board (SEAB) is a statutory board with an exclusive mandate to develop, administer, and assure the quality of national examinations and assessments. This clear delegation allows SEAB to focus solely on assessment, while the MoE retains responsibility for broader education policy, curriculum development, and governance. By separating these functions, SEAB can act as an autonomous expert body without involvement in day-to-day school operations or curriculum content, which remain under other MoE divisions.
School operations: Cluster Superintendents form an intermediate leadership layer that supports schools directly while ensuring alignment with national policies. Appointed by MoE, superintendents provide both pedagogical and administrative support, bridging central authorities and individual schools. Their role ensures that schools receive timely support while maintaining coherence with system-wide priorities.
Teacher training: The Academy of Singapore Teachers (AST) serves as the national hub for teacher professional development and pedagogical innovation. AST focusses exclusively on training, mentoring, and facilitating professional learning communities.
This integrated and streamlined governance model, sometimes referred to as Centralised Decentralisation, is designed to ensure that all major functions are managed by specialised, well-defined bodies reporting directly through clear structures to MOE. The result is a highly coordinated system that supports policy coherence, responsiveness, and implementation efficiency, helping Singapore avoid the fragmentation and overlapping responsibilities observed in other centralised systems.
Source: Singapore Ministry of Education (2024[30]), Singapore Ministry of Education: Moulding the future of our nation, https://www.moe.gov.sg/; Beck (2017[31]), Learning from Singapore: the power of paradoxes, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13632434.2017.1397081
Resistance to decentralisation in the system
Institutional resistance to move power away from central authorities remains one of the most significant barriers to increasing school autonomy in many countries. This resistance is not confined to policymakers but extends to school leaders, who might often lack the training and experience necessary to operate in a more autonomous environment (OECD, 2023[8]). Beyond institutional resistance, cultural factors also play a significant role in shaping attitudes towards decentralisation. In the case of Greece, its long history of centralised governance might have fostered a cultural attachment to top-down decision-making processes. This attachment creates a reluctance among educators and policymakers to embrace autonomy, as it represents a departure from established norms. School leaders and teachers might perceive autonomy as an additional administrative burden, a delegation of tasks from central authorities, rather than an opportunity for innovation and improvement. Although Greece did not participate in the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), findings from participating countries and economies offer relevant insights into this challenge. In both the 2018 and 2024 cycles of TALIS, teachers across OECD countries consistently identified administrative workload as a leading source of stress. This burden can reduce the time and energy available for high-quality teaching and learning, ultimately limiting teachers’ ability to focus on core instructional tasks (OECD, 2020[24]; OECD, 2025[32]).
The combination of institutional and cultural resistance seems to be also compounded by a lack of trust between central authorities and local actors, further hindering efforts to decentralise governance, at least according to some of the stakeholders interviewed by the OECD review team. For example, reforms aimed at introducing school internal evaluation have faced opposition from teacher unions, who view these measures as overly bureaucratic or punitive rather than developmental (Bourelou and Fragkos, 2023[33]). These dynamics pose significant challenges for implementing reforms that aim to increase school autonomy. Efforts to decentralise governance must address these barriers by fostering trust among stakeholders and providing targeted training for school leaders and teachers. On this point, the experience of Ireland can be informative (Box 2.3) as building trust between different levels of government is essential for enabling schools to take on greater responsibilities effectively.
Launched in 2011, Ireland’s National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and Young People 2011–2020 was developed in response to concerns about stagnant performance in foundational skills. Aware that introducing new accountability measures (such as national standardised testing and reporting) could meet resistance from educators, the government pursued a deliberate, trust-based approach to implementing the reforms.
Central to this strategy was the introduction of School Self-Evaluation (SSE), which placed schools in control of their own improvement processes through reflective internal evaluation. Rather than imposing rigid mandates, the Inspectorate of the Department of Education developed comprehensive SSE guidelines, offering schools a structured yet flexible framework to assess and plan improvements in literacy and numeracy. The approach emphasised professional dialogue, reflection, and locally driven action plans, reducing the perception of top-down interference.
To build trust, the government first engaged in extensive consultations with teacher unions, school leaders, and parent associations, ensuring that stakeholders had input into the design and rollout of reforms. This process also included phased implementation, capacity-building workshops, and the dissemination of good practice examples to support schools and foster ownership of the process. Combining school-led internal evaluations with national support structures and stakeholder engagement enabled the Department of Education to gain traction in a context of initial scepticism. By framing schools as active agents of change, rather than passive recipients of directive, the Literacy and Numeracy Strategy fostered a culture of improvement grounded in professional trust and shared accountability.
Source: Government of Ireland, Department of Education (2020[34]), Literacy and Numeracy Learning for Life, https://assets.gov.ie/static/documents/interim-review-of-the-national-strategy-literacy-and-numeracy-for-learning-and-life-20.pdf
Underfunding and leadership constraints: Two resource challenges for school autonomy
Efforts to strengthen school autonomy in Greece must be considered within the broader context of funding and leadership capacity. Although the evidence collected for this review did not allow for a detailed assessment of school-level funding arrangements, it should be noted that this is a particularly important area; limitations in financial and leadership resources remain key constraints to schools’ ability to exercise autonomy effectively and equitably. A more in-depth analysis of funding mechanisms would help clarify these issues, and merits future attention. In this regard, Greece continues to face chronic underinvestment in education. In 2025, public expenditure on education represented only 3.9–4.0% of GDP, compared to the OECD and EU averages of 4.7% (OECD, 2025[11]; Eurostat, 2025[35]). Education accounted for just 8% of total public spending, among the lowest shares in Europe. These financial constraints might contribute to persistent challenges such as outdated infrastructure, limited access to teaching materials, and insufficient professional development opportunities, a perspective also shared by several stakeholders during the OECD review visit. As reported in recent surveys and confirmed by earlier OECD reviews, a large proportion of Greek school principals continue to report that lack of resources hinders their capacity to improve student learning outcomes (OECD, 2025[11]).
The structure of education funding in Greece is marked by both centralisation and fragmentation. The Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports (MERAS), the Ministry of Interior, and local municipalities all play a role (Eurydice, 2023[21]; MERAS, 2025[9]). The Ordinary Budget, drawn from central government funds, covers operational costs, while the Public Investment Programme (often co-financed with EU funds) supports infrastructure and long-term projects such as the Marietta Giannakou renovation initiative.
For ongoing operations, the Ministry of Interior disburses funds to municipalities four times per year, following Law 5056/2023 and Ministerial Decision 45120/2024. Allocations are based on enrolment, class size, building conditions, climate-related issues, and other factors. School-level distribution is managed by municipal authorities, often through separate School Committees for primary and secondary education. However, national agencies such as the Diophantus Computer Technology Institute are not involved in financial allocation or management (MERAS, 2025[9]). It should be noted that, in Greece, a funding formula is used to allocate resources at the municipal level, with 30% of funds based on the number of classes and 70% on the number of students (Eurydice, 2025[36]). While this formula outlines the basic distribution of operational funding, this chapter (due to time, information and length constraints) does not explore how teacher resources are allocated across individual schools or discusses targeted funding streams designed to meet diverse school needs. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this remains an important issue that warrants further analysis in future work.
As discussed, despite recent efforts to improve transparency and standardisation, school-level financial autonomy remains extremely limited. Schools are not permitted to raise or manage funds and lack authority over procurement or capital investment. Any flexibility is mediated through municipal School Committees, which does not fundamentally change the lack of school control, a challenge identified in previous OECD reviews (OECD, 2018[12]). Fragmentation, underfunding, and weak monitoring systems continue to hinder strategic planning and exacerbate regional inequalities, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Recent reforms have aimed to improve standardisation, monitoring, and transparency in the allocation process, yet persistent fragmentation, underfunding, and systemic inefficiencies continue to impede strategic planning and equitable resource allocation. Municipal discretion is further curtailed by the lack of robust monitoring, which complicates oversight and exacerbates regional disparities, especially for disadvantaged communities (MERAS, 2025[9])
Reliance on private spending remains high in Greece, especially for supplemental services such as tutoring, further amplifying inequalities in access and opportunity (OECD, 2025[11]; Eurydice, 2023[21]). As shown in PISA 2022, higher education expenditure is generally associated with stronger student performance, but only up to a certain point (Figure 2.8). Among countries with cumulative per-student spending below USD 75 000, performance tends to improve with investment. However, beyond this threshold, the relationship weakens. For example, Singapore, with a mathematics score of 575, spends approximately USD 166 112 per student. Canada spends about USD 121 678 and scores 497, while Ireland and Poland show solid results (492 and 489, respectively) at more moderate spending levels. In contrast, Greece, with one of the lowest cumulative expenditures (USD 71 509), reports an average score of 430. As already mentioned, among countries whose cumulative expenditure exceeded USD 75 000, the relationship between spending and performance weakened, suggesting that how these financial resources are used matters more than how much is spent. For Greece, this implies that while addressing underfunding remains an urgent priority, efforts should also focus on improving the efficiency and strategic use of resources to maximise impact on student learning.
Note: Spending on education and per capita GDP are highly correlated. In 2019, average total expenditure by educational institution per student from the age of 6 to 15 in OECD countries was USD 102 612 (PPP-corrected dollars).
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Volume I, Tables I.B1.2.1 and I.B3.2.2.
In addition to funding constraints, school leadership also plays a critical role in implementing autonomy and driving school improvement. In the interviews with the OECD review team, school principals in Greece often report lack the necessary training and support to manage schools with greater autonomy. Traditionally, school leadership in Greece has been viewed as an administrative role rather than a pedagogical one. This limits principals’ ability to engage in instructional leadership or foster innovation within their schools. The lack of professional development opportunities further compounds this issue. While recent reforms have introduced some training programmes for school leaders, these efforts remain insufficient given the scale of the challenge. For example, principals report limited access to structured leadership training that would equip them with the skills needed to manage resources effectively or implement data-driven decision-making processes (OECD, 2018[12]). The experience of Poland might offer some relevant insights for Greece (Box 2.4). Through strategic reforms and capacity-building initiatives, including training cascades and independent leadership academies, Poland has strengthened school leadership within a centralised framework, balancing autonomy with accountability.
Poland operates within a moderately centralised framework but has progressively granted more autonomy to schools, particularly in pedagogical and organisational matters. A significant shift occurred in the early 2000s with the Amendment of the Education System Act. School leaders gained authority over curriculum adaptation, teacher recruitment, internal evaluations, and budgeting within allocated funds. While the Ministry of Education set core requirements, schools were given autonomy to develop their own curricula and adjust timetables to local needs.
To support school leaders in exercising these expanded responsibilities, the Ministry of Education introduced capacity-building programmes, including the New School (Nowa Szkoła) initiative, which provided large-scale cascade training on curriculum development, assessment, and school management. School leaders were also provided access to dedicated guidance materials through the Reform Library (Biblioteczka Reformy), which was specifically created to offer practical resources on areas such as school organisation, financing, and instructional leadership of the reform.
In 2017, reforms further emphasised decentralised school governance, giving school principals greater discretion over staffing decisions, professional development, and the organisation of learning processes, in line with efforts to improve responsiveness to community-specific needs. Beyond these government-led efforts, leadership capacity has also been strengthened by independent initiatives such as the Leadership Academy for Poland, which provides school leaders and other professionals with high-quality training on strategic leadership, innovation, and organisational change management. While autonomy remains bounded by strong national standards and external inspections, Poland is increasingly recognised as an education system where school autonomy is effectively supported within a high-accountability framework, seeking to balance innovation with equity and quality assurance.
Source: Poland Ministry of National Education (2025[37]), Ministry of Education: Service of the Republic of Poland, https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja; Eurydice (2024[38]) Organisation and Governance, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/poland/fundamental-principles-and-national-policies; Jakubowski (2020[39]), Poland: Polish Education Reforms and Evidence from International Assessments. In: Crato, N. (eds) Improving a Country’s Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59031-4_7
Providing school leaders with greater autonomy is not only a governance issue but a key lever in promoting greater equity in student learning outcomes. Recent PISA 2022 data show a negative association between educational leadership and the mathematics performance gap between socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged students (Figure 2.9). This suggests that in systems where principals are more actively engaged in shaping the educational direction and instructional practices of their schools, the impact of students’ socio-economic background on performance tends to be smaller (OECD, 2023[8]). In other words, stronger educational leadership is linked to reduced disparities in learning outcomes. These findings are further supported by other OECD reports, which shows that school leaders who report higher levels of instructional and educational leadership are more effective in fostering teacher collaboration and driving improvements in teaching practices (OECD, 2020[24]).
Note: Educational leadership in the PISA refers broadly to the role of the principal or school leader in shaping the overall direction, culture or learning environment of the school and is comprised of seven items from the school questionnaire. A socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in his country or economy.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022, Volume II.
These findings point to the need for Greece to not only grant school leaders more autonomy but to do so within a system that also invests in leadership capacity-building, strengthens internal evaluation practices, and fosters participatory and collaborative school cultures. Without such complementary measures, increased autonomy risks remaining symbolic, rather than becoming a lever for meaningful school improvement and innovation. A more meaningful approach requires building the capacity of school leaders through comprehensive training in instructional leadership, strategic planning and resource management. By equipping principals with the tools and supports they need to succeed in a more autonomous system, Greece can ensure that decentralisation efforts translate into meaningful improvements in educational quality. At the same time, addressing underfunding and resource constraints is critical for enabling schools to operate more autonomously and effectively. Streamlining funding mechanisms could reduce inefficiencies and ensure that resources are allocated transparently and equitably. Additionally, targeted investments in infrastructure and educational materials are essential for creating an environment conducive to learning.
A bureaucratic view of internal evaluation: A barrier to systemic improvement
Despite recent reforms, feedback from stakeholders interviewed by the OECD Review Team indicates that internal school evaluation is not yet consistently seen as a meaningful tool for improvement, and in some cases is still perceived as a bureaucratic task. This perception is rooted in a system where top-down directives dominate, and participatory approaches are less embedded in school culture. As a result, many teachers and school leaders see internal evaluation as a compliance exercise imposed by external authorities, disconnected from the realities of classroom practice and school-specific needs. The implementation of school action plans also requires a sound understanding of research and evaluation methodology, an area in which many educators are still adapting and evolving. While the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP) has developed detailed guidelines, manuals, and digital tools to support schools in this process, there remains a need for more systematic and sustained professional development. According to Greek authorities, the main challenge appears to lie less in the lack of training opportunities than in cultural resistance to change, which continues to limit the potential of internal evaluation as a driver of school improvement. Without targeted professional development, the process often feels irrelevant to the challenges schools face or to the broader goals of quality assurance. Consequently, internal evaluation risks being reduced to a formalistic activity that lacks depth and fails to support meaningful reflection or improvement.
One of the core challenges in leveraging the full potential of the quality assurance system lies in overcoming the association of internal evaluation with red tape. Teachers frequently experience the process as overly procedural and misaligned with their pedagogical work. Such a compliance-driven culture undermines the transformative potential of internal evaluation, limiting its role in promoting innovation and continuous development (Bourelou and Fragkos, 2023[33]; Varkas, 2022[40]) Feedback collected during the OECD review team’s school visits confirmed this view, with many educators describing internal evaluation as a routine task rather than a valuable opportunity for growth.
To address these issues, a cultural shift is needed, one that reframes internal evaluation as a developmental rather than administrative tool. The experience of Estonia (Box 2.5) may offer valuable insights for Greece in rethinking and reinforcing its approach. Central to this shift is the promotion of a collaborative and trust-based environment where all actors, including teachers, school leaders, and policymakers, share responsibility for school improvement. Professional learning opportunities, focussed on practical ways to use evaluation data for informed decision-making, are key to building this capacity. Ultimately, transforming internal evaluation into a driver of systemic improvement requires addressing both cultural mindsets and institutional structures. This includes embedding evaluation into broader quality assurance processes, aligning it with school-level priorities and national objectives, and creating space for professional dialogue. When internal evaluation is viewed as a tool for learning and development, rather than a regulatory formality, it can play a vital role in enhancing teaching practices, improving student outcomes, and fostering sustainable school improvement.
Following the decentralisation of education governance in the 1990s, Estonia introduced requirements for schools to conduct internal evaluations as part of their quality assurance obligations. However, these processes were initially perceived by schools and municipalities as checklist-driven formalities, aimed primarily at satisfying central authorities rather than supporting meaningful improvement. This perception limited the effectiveness of internal evaluation, as schools approached it as a bureaucratic task disconnected from teaching and learning.
To address this challenge, the Estonian government undertook a significant reframing of internal evaluation processes in the early 2000s. The introduction of School Development Plans and Quality Assurance Guidelines positioned internal evaluation as a tool for school self-reflection and strategic planning, explicitly linking the process to each school’s priorities, context, and development goals. This shift encouraged schools to use internal evaluation not as a compliance exercise but as an opportunity to assess their own performance, identify areas for improvement, and set actionable targets aligned with their educational mission.
Critical to this cultural shift was the establishment of dialogue platforms and participatory processes involving school leaders’ associations, municipal education offices and teacher networks. The government organised capacity-building workshops, peer learning exchanges, and collaborative forums, ensuring that schools and local authorities saw themselves as co-owners of the process rather than subjects of external, top-down control. The use of the Estonian Education Information System (EHIS) further supported this transition, providing user-friendly access to school data for self-diagnosis and improvement planning, rather than as a monitoring tool by the Ministry of Education and Research.
Recognising that shifting internal evaluation from control to developmental dialogue requires more than regulatory changes, the Estonian government focussed on school leadership capacity, collaborative platforms, and a reframing of evaluation as a school-owned learning process. By doing so, Estonia successfully overcame initial resistance and built a system where internal evaluation is widely seen as integral to continuous school improvement.
Source: Republic of Estonia Ministry of Education and Research (2016[41]); OECD (2020[42]);
Fragmented roles and systemic overload: Challenges undermining the effectiveness of education advisers
The role of education advisers is critical within Greece’s education system, where schools have limited decision-making autonomy and rely heavily on external guidance for pedagogical and instructional support. In this context, education advisers serve as vital intermediaries between national policies and classroom practices, offering tailored support to teachers and school leaders. This function is especially important in remote areas, where access to professional development opportunities and pedagogical support is often scarce (OECD, 2018[43]; MERAS, 2025[9]).
Despite their essential role, the current number of education advisers in Greece seems to remain insufficient relative to the size and needs of the teaching workforce. This mismatch might be creating significant pressures, undermining their ability to provide meaningful and timely support. The broadening of their responsibilities through Law 4823/2021 (now including teacher appraisal, oversight of collective planning, and preparation of external school evaluations) has potentially intensified these challenges further (MERAS, 2025[9]). However, it is important to note that the increase in the number of education advisers, from approximately 500 to 1 200 under Law 4823/2021, it is expected to have a positive effect on pedagogical support and the implementation of both internal and external school evaluations. According to Greek authorities, this expansion is intended to enable more regular communication and guidance for schools, partly alleviating previous strains on the system (MERAS, 2025[9]). Nevertheless, without adjustments to their workload, there is a serious risk that these additional duties for education advisers may compromise the quality and developmental nature of their support, reducing their effectiveness to little more than procedural oversight.
Given the central position of education advisers in Greece’s school improvement architecture, addressing these challenges is not only critical for enhancing the effectiveness of the advisers themselves but also presents a broader opportunity to strengthen the entire quality assurance and support system. On this point, the experiences of Portugal and Singapore can be valuable examples for Greece to consider (Box 2.6). Streamlining and clarifying roles and responsibilities, accompanied by targeted professional development and better use of digital tools, could enable education advisers to focus on high-value support functions and provide more equitable assistance, particularly to disadvantaged schools. Moreover, expanding the number of education advisers and ensuring their more balanced distribution across regions and disciplines would reduce existing inequities in the provision of pedagogical support.4 Complementary strategies, such as decentralising certain functions to regional teams or enabling peer-to-peer networks of schools, could further alleviate pressure on individual advisers and foster more sustainable, context-specific supports.
Portugal
Portugal’s 2008 education governance reform introduced significant changes to strengthen school autonomy and leadership by establishing the role of Diretor (school director) as the central figure in school management. This reform responded to the need to streamline governance, reduce fragmented decision-making, and reinforce accountability mechanisms at the school level.
Under Decree-Law 75/2008, all public schools and school clusters are managed by a single Diretor, who holds overall responsibility for the administrative, financial, and pedagogical management of the cluster. The role of the Diretor replaced the previous model of collegial management bodies, such as school councils, which were often seen as bureaucratic, slow, and prone to inefficiencies due to overlapping responsibilities and lack of clear leadership.
Diretores are selected through a competitive process by the school’s General Council, composed of representatives of teachers, students, parents, staff, and local authorities. Once appointed, the Diretor is relieved of teaching duties and devotes full-time attention to school leadership, with a four-year renewable mandate.
The introduction of Diretores as single accountable leaders is widely seen as having strengthened decision-making coherence, improved the alignment between internal and external evaluation processes, and increased responsiveness to local educational needs.
Singapore
Singapore introduced an intermediate governance layer, known as Cluster Superintendents, in 1997 as part of the “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” initiative. This reform was driven by the need to reduce fragmentation, strengthen school leadership support and balance strong central policy direction with more agile, decentralised problem-solving capacities.
Under this model, the Ministry of Education (MoE) divides schools into 28 geographical clusters, each overseen by a Cluster Superintendent, who is a senior MoE-appointed leader, typically an experienced former school principal. Each Cluster Superintendent is responsible for 11 to 14 schools, including primary, secondary, and junior colleges, providing pedagogical, leadership, and administrative support. Cluster Superintendents serve as the direct interface between MoE and schools.
The Cluster Superintendent structure has been credited with reducing bureaucratic bottlenecks by clarifying roles and streamlining decision-making, while also strengthening school leadership capacity and enhancing system responsiveness, particularly in adapting policies to local contexts. Moreover, it ensures that school self-assessment, external reviews, and leadership development are closely integrated within a unified governance framework, preventing fragmentation of support and accountability functions.
Over the past decades, the distribution of school management responsibilities has shifted significantly across education systems. While some countries have decentralised decision-making authority, granting local actors, such as principals and teachers, greater control over budgetary, operational, and instructional matters, others have reinforced the role of local, regional, or national education authorities in overseeing these areas (OECD, 2013[2]; OECD, 2016[7]; OECD, 2025[10]). The argument for greater school autonomy is based on the premise that local actors, being more familiar with students’ needs, can make better-informed decisions to enhance learning outcomes. However, findings from PISA suggest that the impact of school autonomy on student performance might be associated with the scope of decision-making areas delegated to school leaders and the extent to which accountability measures and local capacity support these responsibilities (OECD, 2013[2]; OECD, 2016[7]; OECD, 2025[10]; OECD, 2023[8]). Notably, evidence suggests that students tend to perform better when school principals have greater autonomy in using accountability measures, such as external evaluations, to inform school development planning. In Greece, for example, the use of data from external evaluations to guide school improvement efforts is associated with higher mathematics performance (Figure 2.10) The gains are largest and statistically significant among socio-economically advantaged students (40 points), followed by non-immigrant students (26 points) and girls (21 points), underscoring the potential of data-informed planning to enhance academic outcomes across student groups.
Thinking about the last external evaluation in your school, was the data used to plan specific action for school development?
Note: Based on principal reports (school questionnaire). Statistically significant differences are shown in a blue tone. Each bar represents the coefficient from a bivariate regression of mathematics performance on the index, estimated separately for each subgroup (e.g. girls, boys, socio-economically advantaged/disadvantaged, etc.). No control variables are included in these models. Results reflect associations, not causal effects. A socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in Greece. Data are not available for rural or city areas. Towns are defined as having between 3000 to 100 000 inhabitants. External evaluations are part of a process controlled and headed by an external body. The school does not define the areas which are judged.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database
Moreover, the positive effects of autonomy are most pronounced when school leaders demonstrate strong educational leadership. These results reinforce the findings of earlier PISA assessments, emphasising that autonomy alone is not sufficient; it must be accompanied by accountability mechanisms and leadership capacity. If principals and school staff lack the necessary expertise and support, transferring decision-making authority to schools may hinder rather than improve student outcomes, as they may not have access to the resources and guidance available at higher levels of the education system (OECD, 2013[2]; OECD, 2016[7]). Ultimately, successful school autonomy requires a careful balance between decentralised decision-making, robust accountability structures, and investment in the capacity of school leaders and teachers (OECD, 2013[2]; OECD, 2016[7]).
It is therefore imperative that funding distribution mechanisms are designed to underpin equity and effectiveness as autonomy expands. International evidence highlights the importance of associating school funding formulas with individual school needs, ensuring that resources are allocated according to specific characteristics, including student socio-economic status, location, and other educational needs. In addition to basic allocation criteria, countries frequently deploy targeted or special programmes to strengthen the resources and support available to disadvantaged schools. Such approaches help mitigate the risk that autonomy could exacerbate inequities and are consistent with recommendations and country examples provided in related thematic reports on school funding elaborated by the OECD (OECD, 2022[47])
The aim of this final section of the chapter is to offer the education community in Greece a set of policy recommendations to balance school autonomy with accountability and local capacity building accompanied by relevant country examples. These findings seem also to align with recent directions in Greece’s 2025–2027 Education Strategy (MERAS, 2025[23]), which places emphasis on enhancing school-level governance, improving evaluation systems, and strengthening data-informed planning tools such as Eduplan.ai and EDUQUALITY to support evidence-based decision-making at the local level.
Policy recommendation 1: Enhancing school autonomy with accountability and support
Greece's education system presents challenges in adapting to local needs. Expanding school autonomy in key decision-making areas, such as curriculum design, resource allocation and staffing, can improve responsiveness and innovation. However, autonomy must be accompanied by strong accountability mechanisms to maintain educational quality and equity.
Granting schools greater control over curriculum adaptation, resource management and teacher recruitment can enhance their ability to address student needs. Greece should consider, for example granting schools flexibility to adapt portions of the national curriculum to reflect regional needs while maintaining alignment with national education goals. But this autonomy should not equate to deregulation. Greater autonomy must be accompanied by the following key elements:
Reinforce performance evaluations with flexibility for local adaptation.
Encourage transparent reporting mechanisms, ensuring schools are accountable to both educational authorities and local communities.
Secure training for school leaders on how to manage autonomy effectively.
Reinforce performance evaluations with flexibility for local adaptation
To ensure that increased school autonomy leads to improvements in student learning and overall school quality, Greece should reinforce its performance evaluations with flexibility for adaptation. The evaluation framework should build upon Greece’s already existing dual system of internal and external evaluation, linking school-level action plans to system-wide quality objectives even more strongly. Lessons can be drawn from Portugal and Estonia (below), where evaluations are underpinned by structured national frameworks but allow for school-level adaptation. Clear communication of benchmarks, supported by education advisers and regional supervisors in Greece, will help schools understand expectations and align improvement efforts.
Encourage transparent reporting mechanisms, ensuring schools are accountable to both educational authorities and local communities
Autonomy must go hand-in-hand with transparency and mutual accountability. All schools should publish annual reports that summarise internal evaluation findings, action plan progress, and external feedback, along with highlights of effective practices. In Greece, these reports are publicly available by law, as extracted from the central platform. However, school websites do not have a standardised format (MERAS, 2025[9]). Greece should expand on existing legal provisions (Law 4823/2021) by simplifying reporting formats and to consider encouraging schools to host annual public forums with parents and the local community. The model used in British Columbia (below), where district-level frameworks combine system-wide performance indicators with school-specific goals, offers a useful reference for strengthening bottom-up accountability and public engagement.
Secure training for school leaders on how to manage autonomy effectively
Effective school autonomy depends on leadership capacity. School leaders need targeted training in strategic planning, data use, instructional leadership, and resource management to manage autonomy effectively and improve learning outcomes. Greece already has a National Programme for public sector leadership development offered by the National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government (EKDDA) (2025[48]), but might consider adapting or extending this for school leaders specifically. Drawing on the structured approaches of Ireland and Poland, Greek authorities might want to consider combining formal training with mentoring, peer learning and regional leadership networks. Special attention should be given to leaders in rural or disadvantaged schools who often operate with fewer support structures. Training should be continuous, allowing principals to refine their leadership skills throughout their careers, and should be integrated with the school evaluation framework to ensure coherence between school improvement and leadership development. Please note that the importance of strong school leadership warrants a dedicated recommendation in this chapter (see Recommendation 2), which expands on additional areas where school leaders require support.
A balanced approach, one that combines school-level discretion with clear national expectations, transparency and professional support, will help ensure that autonomy leads to measurable gains in student learning, school innovation, and equity. International experience highlights that autonomy alone is not sufficient; it must be embedded in a robust framework of accountability, capacity building, and stakeholder engagement to deliver sustainable results. Several elements of this approach are already present in Greece’s 2025–2027 Education Strategy, which explicitly supports increased autonomy in areas such as curriculum flexibility, digitisation of administrative procedures, and the development of school-level evaluation tools (MERAS, 2025[23]). Continued implementation of these measures can reinforce the effectiveness of this balanced governance model.
Some relevant international practices can be considered such as:
British Columbia, Canada emphasises flexibility and local adaptation in the revised curriculum (implemented progressively since 2016). While the curriculum sets provincial standards and core competencies, schools and teachers have the autonomy to design learning experiences that are relevant to their students’ contexts, cultures, and communities. Schools also have significant discretion in resource allocation and staffing within district frameworks, enabling them to tailor programmes and recruit staff to address local needs. Accountability is ensured through the Framework for Enhancing Student Learning, which requires schools and school districts to set goals, monitor progress through local and provincial data, and report results publicly (Ministry of Education and Child Care, 2025[49]).
Portugal granted schools the ability to adapt up to 25% of the curriculum to local contexts through the national curriculum flexibility and autonomy policy reform (2017). Schools are also empowered to allocate resources and manage staff within national funding and staffing guidelines, allowing them to adjust teaching methods and organise learning environments in ways that best meet the needs of their students and communities. This increased autonomy is accompanied by national guidelines for curriculum adaptation, capacity-building programmes for teachers and school leaders, and regular external inspections conducted by the General Inspectorate of Education and Science (OECD, 2018[50]).
Estonia provides schools with high levels of autonomy in curriculum adaptation, budgeting, and staffing, while maintaining a strong framework for accountability and quality assurance. Schools can adjust the national curriculum to reflect local contexts, student interests, and community needs, within the overarching framework of national goals and standards. School leaders also have full autonomy over budget allocation, allowing them to make decisions on staffing, professional development, and educational programmes based on their specific priorities. Accountability measures include the annual school internal evaluation process and external quality assurance reviews, supported by national guidelines from the Ministry of Education and Research. Student performance is also regularly monitored through national examinations, ensuring alignment between local innovations and national educational objectives (OECD, 2020[42]; Republic of Estonia Ministry of Education and Research, 2016[41])
Policy recommendation 2: Empowering school leaders for effective decision-making
Expanding school autonomy requires strong and effective leadership at the school level. Given its central role in enabling autonomy to translate into improved outcomes, school leadership merits a dedicated recommendation within this chapter. In Greece, school principals have traditionally focussed on administrative duties, with limited involvement in instructional leadership. As their responsibilities broaden under recent reforms (for example, Law 4823/2021), it becomes essential to equip them with the skills and support needed to lead more autonomous and improvement-oriented schools. This calls for structured training in the following areas:
Establish strategic planning and resource management to ensure schools operate efficiently.
Use data-driven decision-making to assess school performance and improve learning outcomes.
Support instructional leadership to guide teaching and learning improvements.
Greece currently offers relevant training programmes for school leaders and education officials through IEP and public sector leadership development programmes via EKDDA (National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government, 2025[48]). Between 2018 and 2024, EKDDA provided over 10 000 training opportunities specifically targeted at the educational community, including principals, deputy principals, education advisers, and other education officials. These programmes covered key areas such as school administration, instructional leadership, digital transformation, crisis management, gender equality, and curriculum integration. For example, more than 5 200 participants attended training modules on leadership and school management, and nearly 1 000 participated in courses specifically designed for school principals and deputy principals in recent years (National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government, 2025[51]). These initiatives already provide modules for principals, which could be adapted and further strengthened to address the evolving leadership demands in Greek schools.
Establish strategic planning and resource management to ensure schools operate efficiently
School principals must be able to set priorities aligned with school improvement plans and allocate human, financial, and material resources accordingly. This includes managing staff deployment, overseeing maintenance and infrastructure, and using available funds strategically. Drawing inspiration from Poland (more information below), where training for principals includes resource management and financial planning through regional teacher training centres, Greece could provide modules on operational planning and school budgeting, tailored to local administrative constraints. As this chapter notes, Greek principals currently have limited influence over resource allocation, and training in this area will be essential to support greater financial responsibility and reduce inefficiencies stemming from the country’s fragmented governance system.
Use data-driven decision-making to assess school performance and improve learning outcomes
School principals need the skills to interpret data from internal and external evaluations, student assessments, and administrative records to inform decision-making and school improvement planning. However, recent evidence from OECD and academic sources shows that, while there has been a notable expansion in the use of digital platforms and data-informed leadership practices in Greek schools, many school leaders continue to face challenges in developing advanced digital competencies, accessing targeted training, and systematically applying evaluation data to drive improvement strategies (Geraki, 2014[52]; Lavranos, 2025[53]; OECD, 2023[54]). Contemporary studies and policy reviews emphasise that principals’ roles increasingly include navigating platforms such as mySchool, eClass, and edupass, and making use of digital analytics tools. Nonetheless, persistent barriers, such as regional disparities in infrastructure, variation in digital literacy levels, and insufficiently cohesive strategic planning, continue to limit the depth and consistency of data-driven decision-making across the system (OECD, 2018[12]; European Commission, 2019[55]; Lavranos, 2025[53]). Progress has been made, but further professional development and institutional support are needed to enable all school principals to fully leverage digital and data-informed leadership practices in pursuit of improved student outcomes.
Recent years have witnessed concerted efforts across OECD countries (including Greece) to expand access to digital tools and enhance professional development for school leaders. International evidence from PISA 2022 demonstrates that schools which systematically use data for planning and monitoring purposes tend to have significantly better educational outcomes, especially in urban and disadvantaged contexts (OECD, 2023[54]). Nevertheless, gaps remain in school leaders’ data literacy and their capacity for analysing trends, identifying equity gaps, and evaluating educational interventions across participating countries. In Greece, academic studies highlight additional challenges, such as fragmented digital infrastructure and the absence of statutory frameworks mandating digital competence training for principals, which constrain the capacity of school leaders to interpret performance data and implement evidence-based improvements (Lavranos, 2025[53]). Strengthening professional development in data literacy and digital leadership is thus essential for embedding data-informed decision-making in school leadership pathways, ultimately enhancing accountability and responsiveness across diverse educational settings.
Support instructional leadership to guide teaching and learning improvements
School principals should not only manage school operations but also act as instructional leaders supporting pedagogical innovation, mentoring teachers and fostering a collaborative school climate. While principals in Greece typically have both managerial and teaching responsibilities, the current perception and institutional framing of school leadership remains primarily administrative (an account also confirmed by some stakeholders interviewed by the OECD review team), often focussed on day-to-day operations and compliance. Drawing on Singapore’s Leaders in Education Programme (more information below) and Ireland’s Centre for School Leadership (CSL), Greece could place stronger emphasis on pedagogical leadership, ensuring that school principals are empowered to lead curriculum development teams, observe teaching practices, and facilitate professional development aligned with school priorities.
In parallel to formal training, collaborative learning structures can strengthen school leadership capacity by providing opportunities for peer-to-peer support, collective problem-solving and professional dialogue. Greece might want to consider promoting the creation of Regional Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) for school principals, which would serve as platforms to:
Facilitate knowledge-sharing and the dissemination of best practices: School leaders can exchange insights on implementing internal evaluation plans, managing limited resources, or navigating relationships with education advisers and quality supervisors.
Provide mentorship opportunities for new school leaders: Less experienced principals would benefit from structured mentoring by more experienced peers, as part of an embedded professional development approach. Mentoring has been a key feature of Ireland’s CSL and Poland’s cascade training model, contributing to the professionalisation of school leadership.
Strengthen collaboration between schools to address common challenges: PLCs can support joint problem-solving in areas such as inclusive education, student engagement, or digital innovation. In Estonia, regional school networks have helped schools collectively design development plans and support each other through peer learning and resource-sharing, an approach particularly relevant for Greece’s more remote or under-resourced schools.
In addition, building on their current position within Directorates of Education, support education advisers in becoming more effective instructional leaders by reducing administrative burdens and enabling closer collaboration with schools. Their role could focus more clearly on mentoring teachers, supporting the implementation of school action plans, and aligning classroom practices with curricular objectives.
To reinforce these initiatives, the proposed National Leadership Development Programme (NLDP) (suggested in the first recommendation), should include a dedicated component on the creation and facilitation of PLCs, supported by regional education hubs and quality supervisors. Participation in PLCs should be formally recognised as part of ongoing professional development. Additionally, training and peer collaboration should be closely aligned with the internal and external evaluation systems. This alignment will help school principals link their own professional growth with school-level goals, enhancing both their leadership capacity and the overall impact of school autonomy reforms. It is also worth noting that the recent 2025–2027 Education Strategy also affirms the importance of strengthening leadership capacity as a key enabler of school autonomy, notably through digital tools and professional development efforts aimed at fostering data-informed, inclusive, and community-responsive leadership (MERAS, 2025[23]).
As mentioned, some relevant international practices that can be considered for Greece include:
Poland grants extensive autonomy over school management, including staffing, budgeting, and instructional leadership to school principals. However, to ensure principals are prepared for these responsibilities, structured training and support mechanisms have been developed at the regional and national levels. Regional teacher training centres offer leadership courses that equip school leaders with skills in strategic planning, budgeting, and managing human resources effectively. These courses help principals align school improvement plans with resource allocation decisions. Training programmes also emphasise instructional leadership, supporting principals to lead curriculum development teams, mentor teachers, and foster school-based professional learning communities (Ministry of National Education, 2025[37]; NCEE, 2025[17]; UNESCO, 2024[16]).
Ireland has made significant investments in professionalising school leadership through the Centre for School Leadership (CSL), established as a partnership between the Department of Education, the Irish Primary Principals' Network (IPPN), and the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals (NAPD). The CSL provides training on leading school improvement planning, financial management, and change leadership, ensuring school leaders have the skills to manage resources efficiently and strategically align them with school priorities. Principals receive training on using data from school self-evaluations, national assessments, and inspections to inform decision-making, helping them to identify areas for improvement and set measurable goals. Additionally, the CSL’s leadership development programmes emphasise the role of principals as instructional leaders, focussing on guiding teaching and learning, fostering collaboration among teachers, and supporting professional development activities that enhance classroom practice (NAPD, 2025[56]; Government of Ireland, 2020[34]).
Singapore’s Leaders in Education Programme (LEP), which is a flagship leadership preparation programme for future principals, delivered by the National Institute of Education (NIE), is also another useful model for reference. The LEP is internationally recognised for its rigorous approach, combining theory, practice, and innovation. The LEP includes intensive modules on strategic leadership, organisational change, and resource optimisation, equipping leaders with skills to plan strategically, manage school finances, and lead change initiatives effectively. Participants are trained to analyse school data and use key performance indicators to guide school improvement, including the use of evidence to make informed decisions about teaching strategies, resource deployment, and student support interventions. A key focus of the LEP is on developing leaders who can drive instructional excellence, through mentoring teachers, leading pedagogical innovation, and fostering a strong professional learning culture within schools. The Overseas Study Visits and School-Based Projects are core components that allow future principals to contextualise these skills in diverse settings (Ministry of Education, 2024[30]; Nanyang Technical University, 2025[57]).
Policy recommendation 3: Streamlining governance to support education efforts at school level
The effectiveness of school autonomy reforms depends not only on devolving decision-making but also on the clarity, coherence and functionality of the education governance system. To achieve this, a deliberate effort to streamline responsibilities and strengthen the alignment between different administrative levels is required.
To reduce inefficiencies and strengthen the delivery of education policy through higher levels of school autonomy, Greece should consider:
Refine and clarify the roles of national, regional and local education authorities with a view to supporting school units.
Clarify and reinforce the delegation of operational responsibilities (such as infrastructure maintenance and certain aspects of resource allocation) to regional and municipal authorities, ensuring coherence and responsiveness to local needs.
Further strengthen the Ministry of Education’s role in strategic planning and quality assurance by reducing administrative burdens and enabling a stronger focus on system-wide improvement.
Refine and clarify the roles of national, regional and local education authorities with a view to supporting school units
Each governance level should have a clearly delineated set of responsibilities to minimise duplication, reduce delays, and address institutional ambiguities, thereby supporting schools in their mission to improve learning outcomes for all students. National authorities, particularly the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports, should continue focussing on strategic direction, curriculum development, national standards, and system-wide quality assurance. Meanwhile, regional and local authorities, which already play key roles in implementation and operational support, could be further empowered and resourced to lead school-level planning and respond flexibly to local needs. While institutional structures are in place, it is not always clear how consistently or effectively they guarantee the support needed by all schools.
Delegate operational responsibilities (such as resource allocation and infrastructure maintenance) to regional and municipal authorities
Schools often face serious limitations in their capacity to address operational issues (for example, from building maintenance to resource procurement) because they depend on slow or unclear bureaucratic processes. As highlighted in the chapter, the fragmentation of financial responsibilities across various actors, including municipalities and central agencies, undermines strategic planning and equitable resourcing. Drawing on the governance model of Poland, where municipalities manage infrastructure and non-teaching staff, and Ireland, where ETB regional bodies coordinate education services, Greece should adopt a clearer decentralisation of operational tasks to subnational actors, accompanied by adequate resourcing and capacity-building.
Ensure that the Ministry of Education focusses on strategic planning and quality assurance
To maximise the effectiveness of the Greek education system, the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports (MERAS) should continue to focus on its core mandate of strategic planning and quality assurance. This means prioritising leadership in designing and monitoring the national education strategy, setting curriculum and quality benchmarks, and supporting innovation and inclusion through policies and funding, rather than direct involvement in the operational management of schools. This approach is reflected in the Singapore model, where the Ministry maintains strategic oversight while operational responsibilities are distributed across cluster superintendents and specialised agencies. Clarifying these complementary roles within the Greek system could improve coherence and enable more flexible, locally responsive school leadership.
Drawing from international practice in the previous points, models for Greece to consider are:
Ontario, Canada made notable efforts to streamline governance and reduce fragmentation by clarifying the roles of the Ministry of Education, school boards, and schools, through reforms in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The Education Act of Ontario delineates the Ministry’s responsibilities for setting curriculum standards, assessment policies, and overarching strategies, while school boards are responsible for local implementation, including staffing, facilities management, budgeting, and ensuring responsiveness to community needs. To enhance system coherence, Ontario reinforced the accountability relationship between the Ministry and school boards, requiring boards to report directly on student achievement and operational performance. This strengthened vertical alignment, minimised duplication in policymaking and resource allocation, and clarified school improvement responsibilities. Complementary initiatives, such as the Ontario Focussed Intervention Partnership (OFIP) and the School Effectiveness Framework (SEF), further aligned school improvement planning, data reporting, and monitoring processes across schools, boards, and the Ministry. These mechanisms established a coordinated cycle of planning, support and accountability, reducing bureaucratic overlap and ensuring that schools were primarily supported by their boards rather than through multiple Ministry channels, streamlining both support and oversight pathways (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2025[58]).
Poland made decisive efforts to reduce governance fragmentation and clarify the division of responsibilities through its 1999-2000 education reforms, which introduced a clear separation between operational and pedagogical oversight functions. The Ministry of Education retained responsibility for national policymaking, curriculum and examination standards, and system-wide quality assurance, while operational management was formally delegated to municipalities (Gminas). Municipalities became solely responsible for school infrastructure, non-teaching staff employment, and financial management, removing previous overlaps where both the Ministry and municipalities had roles in operational matters. At the same time, pedagogical supervision was streamlined under the Kuratorium (Regional Education Inspectorates), which became the sole authority overseeing pedagogical standards, compliance with regulations, and teaching quality at the regional level. To strengthen vertical alignment, municipalities are required to coordinate closely with the Kuratorium and report on operational management through defined channels, ensuring clear role distinctions and eliminating confusion between infrastructure management and pedagogical oversight (Eurydice, 2024[38]; Jakubowski, 2020[39]; Ministry of National Education, 2025[37]).
Ireland streamlined its governance structures and reduced fragmentation through the establishment of the Education and Training Boards Ireland (ETBI) in 2013, consolidating over 30 education committees into 16 regional bodies. This structural reform aimed to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Department of Education, ETBI and schools. The Department of Education retained responsibility for policymaking, curriculum development, funding allocations, and system-wide quality assurance, while ETBI was given full operational responsibility for managing schools and educational services within their regions, including staffing, budgeting, infrastructure and local service delivery. Clear accountability arrangements were also established, with ETBI reporting directly to the Department on the implementation of national strategies, operational management, and educational outcomes. This ensured vertical alignment of responsibilities and reduced overlaps that had previously existed between municipal authorities, school boards, and the Department itself (ETBI, 2025[59]).
In addition to clarifying responsibilities across governance levels, Greece should consider reinforcing the existing Regional Councils of Quality Supervisors (RCS), with a particular focus on supporting schools in remote, rural, and disadvantaged areas, including island communities. These councils could leverage their decentralised structure to function as regional support hubs, helping to bridge the gap between central policy and the practical needs of schools. Relevant experiences from earlier decentralised support mechanisms, such as the Counselling and Guidance Centres or Regional Centres for Educational Planning, could provide useful insights when revisiting and strengthening the role and mandate of the RCS. This could include the following functions:
Providing guidance on curriculum adaptation, ensuring that schools have the flexibility to tailor parts of the national curriculum to local contexts, student profiles, and community priorities (within the boundaries of national standards). This echoes the approach used in Estonia, where schools receive support in adjusting the curriculum through regional centres and networks.
Delivering professional development for teachers and school leaders, aligned with national priorities but adapted to local needs. This includes training on inclusive education, digital pedagogy, and instructional leadership. As discussed in this chapter, training is more effective when embedded in school realities, and the Portugal TEIP programme demonstrates how decentralised structures can deliver targeted capacity building.
Establishing resource-sharing mechanisms, including shared access to specialised staff, materials, digital tools, or professional services. Such mechanisms are particularly important in smaller or rural schools, where economies of scale are harder to achieve. Models from Alberta, Canada, show how rural school networks benefit from pooled resources, shared professional development, and collaborative planning, while maintaining a high standard of educational provision.
International examples of how regional hubs can improve efficiency while maintaining quality standards include:
In Alberta, Canada, rural education networks have been established to pool resources, centralise administrative services, and enhance instructional support across dispersed communities. These hubs support schools in small towns and remote rural areas by offering shared professional development for teachers, leadership coaching, and curriculum guidance tailored to local needs. Schools within these networks benefit from collaborative planning structures, resource-sharing mechanisms, and centralised services such as IT, finance, and special education support. This approach allows for cost efficiencies while maintaining responsiveness to community needs, providing small or remote schools with equitable access to quality education services and leadership development (Government of Alberta, 2025[27]).
Estonia has established a system of regional support centres, including Pathfinder Centres (Rajaleidja centres) and school networks that support pedagogical innovation and capacity-building, particularly in sparsely populated regions like Ida-Viru County and South Estonia. These centres offer schools on-demand support for curriculum adaptation, inclusive education strategies, and school development planning. Notably, these centres have helped support a shift in internal evaluation practices, from a primarily compliance-driven approach toward one that encourages self-reflection and strategic planning, by offering targeted coaching, peer-learning opportunities, and data literacy support for school leaders and teachers (Santiago et al., 2016[60]).
Portugal’s Priority Intervention Educational Territories (TEIP) programme organises underprivileged schools into territorial networks that benefit from dedicated support teams. These teams provide schools with tailored guidance on improving instructional practices, adapting curriculum to local needs, and implementing inclusive education strategies. In addition, regional directorates coordinate teacher training centres, ensuring that schools in remote or disadvantaged areas have access to professional development opportunities and curriculum support aligned with their specific community challenges.
As central actors in the implementation of school evaluation and pedagogical support, education advisers must be explicitly integrated into the reformed governance architecture. Their current role spans mentoring, collective planning, professional development, and school evaluation. However, this wide scope, coupled with insufficient staffing and fragmented lines of supervision, risks diluting their impact.
To ensure their effectiveness:
Education advisers are currently based within regional Directorates of Education, where they are administratively subordinate to the Director of Education and supervised by the Education Quality Supervisor. Building on this structure, their role could be further strengthened to function as dedicated pedagogical leaders working collaboratively with schools. Positioning them as active members of regional education support teams could help reduce bureaucratic load, improve responsiveness, and foster more coherent linkages between school-level needs and national policy objectives.
Their responsibilities should be clarified and balanced, with greater focus on mentoring and school improvement, and reduced procedural and administrative burden. Lessons from Singapore’s cluster superintendent model and Portugal’s school director role suggest that support functions are most impactful when tied to leadership development, rather than routine oversight.
The number and distribution of education advisers should be adjusted based on school needs, subject specialisation, and geographic equity. This includes prioritising underserved areas and enhancing their ability to support schools in implementing inclusive practices, curriculum innovation, and teacher professional development.
Education advisers, when supported through regional structures and clear mandates, can reinforce their position as key enablers of school autonomy and pedagogical improvement, ensuring that schools are not left alone in navigating new responsibilities, and that evaluation and support are meaningfully connected. Similarly, the Heads of Health Education, School Activities, Cultural Affairs, Career Guidance, and Environmental Education within the Directorates of Primary and Secondary Education play a decisive role in supporting the design and implementation of Educational Programmes tailored to local educational, social, cultural, and health needs. These roles are vital for fostering school-led interventions that are responsive to the specific priorities of local communities and built on the principles of sustainability.
Finally, streamlining governance structures in education can strengthen support for evidence-based policymaking by fostering more efficient, transparent, and responsive decision-making. Reducing bureaucratic complexity and clarifying lines of accountability would enable the Greek education system to better integrate data, research findings, and school performance metrics into policy development. This, in turn, could help prioritise evidence over tradition or political influence, leading to more effective outcomes. Clearer governance arrangements can also promote collaboration among schools, research institutions, and government bodies, encouraging the exchange of data and best practices to inform policy.
References
[31] Beck, C. (2017), “Learning from Singapore: the power of paradoxes”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 38/3, pp. 345-349, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1397081.
[29] Bosetti, L. and P. Butterfield (2016), “The politics of educational reform: The Alberta charter school experiment 20 years later”, Global Education Review, Vol. 3/2, https://ger.mercy.edu/index.php/ger/article/view/199.
[33] Bourelou, V. and S. Fragkos (2023), “Self-Evaluation as a Change in the Greek Education System (General and Special Education): A Critical Overview of This Project”, International Journal of Social Science And Human Research, Vol. 06/01, https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i1-03.
[1] Burns, T. and F. Köster (2016), “Modern governance challenges in education”, in Governing Education in a Complex World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-3-en.
[6] Caldwell, B. and J. Spinks (2013), The Self-Transforming School, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203387986.
[5] Cheng, Y., J. Ko and T. Lee (2016), “School autonomy, leadership and learning: a reconceptualisation”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/2, pp. 177-196, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-08-2015-0108.
[59] ETBI (2025), Education and Training Boards Ireland.
[55] European Commission (2019), Education and Training Monitor 2019 – Greece, https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document-library-docs/et-monitor-report-2019-greece_en.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2025).
[35] Eurostat (2025), Government Expenditure on Education, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ (accessed on 26 September 2025).
[36] Eurydice (2025), Funding in education. Greece, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/greece/early-childhood-and-school-education-funding.
[45] Eurydice (2025), Portugal: Legislation and official policy documents.
[38] Eurydice (2024), Poland: Organisation and Governance.
[21] Eurydice (2023), Greece: Organisation and governance, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/greece/organisation-and-governance.
[20] Eurydice (2023), Greece: Quality assurance, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/greece/quality-assurance.
[52] Geraki, A. (2014), “Roles and skills comparison among principals in Greek schools”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 42/4_suppl, pp. 45-64, https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213513189.
[15] Government Gazette (2021), Law 4823/21. School upgrading, teacher empowerment and other provisions.
[27] Government of Alberta (2025), Ministry of Education: Alberta Public Charter Schools.
[19] Government of Canada (2025), Understand the Canadian Education System.
[34] Government of Ireland (2020), Literacy and Numeracy Learning for Life.
[25] Hanushek, E., S. Link and L. Woessmann (2013), “Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 104, pp. 212-232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.08.002.
[22] Institute of Education Policy (2025), Institute of Education Policy, https://www.iep.edu.gr/en/in-general/ (accessed on 25 September 2025).
[14] Institute of Educational Policy (2021), Monitoring and Evaluation of Quality: Internal and External School Evaluation, https://iep.edu.gr/el/nea-anakoinoseis.
[18] Ireland Department of Education and Youth (2023), Department of Education Statement of Strategy 2023-2025.
[39] Jakubowski, M. (2020), “Poland: Polish Education Reforms and Evidence from International Assessments”, in Improving a Country’s Education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59031-4_7.
[53] Lavranos, C. (2025), “Harnessing Emerging Technologies and Data-Driven Strategies in School Leadership: The Greek Public Education System Case Study”, Creative Education, Vol. 16/08, pp. 1080-1096, https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2025.168067.
[4] Mentini, L. and A. Levatino (2023), “A “three-legged model”: (De)constructing school autonomy, accountability, and innovation in the Italian National Evaluation System”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 23/3, pp. 321-346, https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041221148280.
[23] MERAS (2025), Education Strategic Plan for Primary and Secondary Education 2025–2027.
[9] MERAS (2025), OECD Background Questionnaire: Education Policy Review of Greece, Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports.
[13] MERAS (2021), Collective planning, internal and external evaluation of school units in terms of their educational work. Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports.
[30] Ministry of Education (2024), Singapore Ministry of Education: Moulding the future of our nation.
[49] Ministry of Education and Child Care (2025), British Columbia: Redesigned Curriculum.
[37] Ministry of National Education (2025), Ministry of Education: Service of the Republic of Poland.
[57] Nanyang Technical University (2025), Singapore: Leaders in Education Programme.
[56] NAPD (2025), Empowering and supporting school leaders.
[51] National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government (2025), https://www.ekdd.gr/en/, https://www.ekdd.gr/en/ (accessed on 30 September 2025).
[48] National Centre for Public Administration and Local Government (2025), Training at INEP, https://www.ekdd.gr (accessed on 26 September 2025).
[17] NCEE (2025), Top Performing Countries.
[11] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: Greece Country Note, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2025_1a3543e2-en/greece_30092c7f-en.html.
[10] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[32] OECD (2025), Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en.
[54] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
[8] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[47] OECD (2022), Value for Money in School Education: Smart Investments, Quality Outcomes, Equal Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6de8710-en.
[42] OECD (2020), “Education Policy Outlook in Estonia”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9d472195-en.
[3] OECD (2020), “Material resources available at school”, in PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2a420765-en.
[24] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[50] OECD (2018), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy in Portugal: an OECD Review.
[43] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
[12] OECD (2018), Education for a Bright Future in Greece, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264298750-en.
[7] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[2] OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-en.
[26] Onassis Foundation (2025), Public Onassis Schools, https://www.onassis.org/education/the-public-onassis-schools-in-twelve-questions-and-answers (accessed on 26 September 2025).
[58] Ontario Ministry of Education (2025), Ministry of Education.
[41] Republic of Estonia Ministry of Education and Research (2016), The Inspectorate of Education of Estonia.
[60] Santiago, P. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Estonia 2016, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264251731-en.
[46] T.S., K. and D. Hung (eds.) (2018), Historical development of educational leadership in Singapore, World Scientific Publishing, https://repository.nie.edu.sg/server/api/core/bitstreams/dd0e5e31-e794-4151-a441-8d6c58d73e3e/content.
[16] UNESCO (2024), Global Education Monitoring Report- Poland.
[44] UNESCO (2024), Portugal: School Leadership.
[28] Valhalla School Foundation (2025), Valhalla Community Charter School.
[40] Varkas, M. (2022), “School Self-Evaluation: A Bureaucratic Obligation or an Opportunity for School Development and Education Quality Improvement”, IJAEDU- International E-Journal of Advances in Education, https://doi.org/10.18768/ijaedu.1070055.
← 1. While this chapter does not provide a detailed analysis of school funding mechanisms, it recognises their critical role in shaping school autonomy and local capacity. The allocation and use of financial resources are central to enabling schools to exercise autonomy effectively and to respond to local needs. However, due to limitations in the available data, it was not possible to undertake a detailed analysis of funding arrangements at the school level or to assess how they interact with school autonomy— the central focus of this chapter.
← 2. In October 2025, the Ministry of Education and COSMOTE TELEKOM will formally announce a new corporate social responsibility initiative aimed at reducing the digital divide in remote areas of Greece. Through this programme, the OTE Group will donate high-speed internet connections (up to 300 Mbps) to public schools located in remote areas, as designated by the Ministry. The donation includes free installation, free service for three years, and free classroom equipment (T-Tablets with protective case and stylus), delivered via 5G Stand Alone (5G+) Fixed Wireless Access technology. This public–private initiative forms part of COSMOTE’s broader commitment to digital inclusion and equal opportunities in education (MERAS, 2025[9]).
← 3. According to documentation provided by Greek authorities, during the school year 2021-2022, a total of 5 022 pre-primary schools, 5 002 primary schools, 1 832 lower secondary schools, 1 075 general upper secondary schools, 624 vocational upper secondary schools, and 1 255 private schools were in operation. Collective planning was conducted for the school year, resulting in 55,499 action plans, with feedback provided by Coordinators of Educational Work. Internal evaluation reports were submitted by school units, totaling 4 387 for pre-primary schools, 4 391 for primary schools, 3,991 for lower secondary schools, 1 828 for general upper secondary schools, 621 for vocational upper secondary schools, and 1,135 for private schools. External evaluation reports of school units conducted by Coordinators of Educational Work included 57 for pre-primary schools, 156 for primary schools, and 327 for upper secondary schools, special education, and minority education teachers. Additionally, external evaluation reports by Coordinators of Educational Work for school units under their responsibility amounted to 4 618 for pre-primary schools, 4 410 for primary schools, 3 912 for lower secondary schools, 1 707 for general upper secondary schools, 576 for vocational upper secondary schools, and 727 for private schools. Furthermore, 24 external evaluation reports were submitted by the Regional Centers for Educational Planning, and an annual evaluation report was prepared by the Authority for Quality Assurance in Primary and Secondary Education (ADIPPDE) (MERAS, 2025[9]).
← 4. In a media release (12 April 2025), the Greek Minister of Education announced plans to increase the number of education advisers from 500 to 1 200. However, no further details, such as timelines or the number of positions, have been provided. The Minister also acknowledged that the education system lacks a clear, updated, and comprehensive description of roles and responsibilities and committed to clarifying these roles and addressing overlaps. (Source: Ministry of Education Announcement).