Chapter 3 examines the teaching profession in Greece, focussing on teacher appraisal, professional learning and teaching standards. It highlights demographic challenges, including an ageing workforce, and analyses the limited use of formative appraisal for teacher development. The chapter reviews recent reforms introducing school-based professional learning roles, such as mentors and co-ordinators, and identifies gaps in policy implementation capacity, school leadership and digital teaching competency. Drawing on international evidence, the chapter recommends strengthening the formative use of teacher appraisal, investing in school-based professional development, and developing national professional standards to align the appraisal, training, and career progression of teachers.
Improving Learning Outcomes in Greece
Abstract
This chapter examines the organisation of the teaching profession and policies to attract, develop and retain effective teachers in Greece. The chapter presents an overview of the current state of the teaching profession and teacher policies in Greece, highlights strengths and challenges, proposes areas for improvement, and outlines recommendations for future policy development. The chapter’s analysis focusses on three main policy issues: 1) Turning the teacher appraisal process into an effective and sustainable tool for continuing improvement; 2) Strengthening professional learning through guidance and support and promoting school-based professional development; and 3) Professional standards, including creating greater awareness of standards for high-quality teaching and using them to integrate initial teacher education (ITE), continuing professional learning (CPL) and appraisals. The chapter focusses on teachers in primary and secondary education. Staff in pre-primary education is covered in Chapter 4.
The teaching profession is critical to the success of education systems, and teachers’ effectiveness is one of the most important school-related factors influencing students’ learning outcomes (OECD, 2019[1]). In Greece, where efforts to enhance educational quality and equity are ongoing, attracting, developing and retaining skilled teachers is a critical policy priority. The following sections provide a descriptive overview of the context, key features and policies shaping the teaching profession in Greece, including its governance, teachers’ initial education and continuing professional learning, their working conditions, career structure and Greece’s approach to performance management. Reforms to Greece’s systems of teacher appraisal, professional learning and quality assurance need to take a coherent approach to these interconnected policy areas in order to strengthen the teaching profession and contribute meaningfully to improved student outcomes.
Governance of the teaching profession
As described in Chapter 2, decisions on teacher policy and the governance of the teaching profession in Greece are highly centralised. The Minister of Education takes key decisions on the long-term objectives and operation of the education system, including those related to teaching times, the regulatory framework of initial teacher education, teacher salaries and the allocation of teachers and other staff to schools. Each school has a Teacher Board (Σύλλογος Διδασκόντων), which comprises all teachers of the school and is headed by its school leader. Teacher Boards have decision-making power concerning a wide range of operational and pedagogical aspects of their schools. At the national level, trade unions represent teachers’ interests in collective bargaining processes. The main teacher unions are the Federation of Primary School Teachers (Διδασκαλική Ομοσπονδία Ελλάδος, DOE) at the pre-primary and primary levels, the Federation of Secondary School Teachers (Ομοσπονδίας Λειτουργών Μέσης Εκπαίδευσης, OLME) at the secondary level, and the Federation of Private School Teachers (Ομοσπονδία Ιδιωτικών Εκπαιδευτικών Λειτουργών Ελλάδας, OIELE).
Demographic characteristics
In the 2023/24 school year, a little over 184 000 teachers were employed in Greek public schools (around 103 000 in primary schools and 81 000 in secondary schools) – an increase since 2016/17 of about 28% in primary schools and 8% in secondary schools. Around 31% of primary school teachers and 21% of secondary school teachers were employed on “substitute contracts” in 2023/24. These substitute contracts are characterised by their fixed-term nature and their lack of civil servant status (Birch et al., 2021, p. 36[2]). Until 2023/24, the proportion of substitute teachers had risen continuously since 2016/17, except for a small decrease in 2021/22 (see Figure 3.1). In line with the ministry’s strategic goal to reduce the reliance on substitute teachers, the number of permanent appointments was increased in 2024/25, compared to the previous two years, leading to a decrease in the share of substitute teachers.
Number of permanent and substitute teachers in public schools and proportion of substitute teachers
Note: Substitute teachers include part-time substitute teachers, hourly substitute teachers (in secondary education) as well as a small number of fixed-term private law teachers. Permanent teachers include a small number of indefinite-term private law teachers.
Source: Greek Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports (2024[3]), OECD Education Policy Review: Improving Learning Outcomes in Greece - Country Background Report.
Greece is confronted with an ageing teacher population and a significant share of teachers are nearing retirement age.1 In 2022, the share of older teachers (aged 50 and over) in Greece stood at 45% in primary education, 56% in lower secondary and 60% in upper secondary education. This was above the respective OECD averages of 34%, 36% and 41% and constituted a significant increase in the share of older teachers at the secondary levels compared to 2013 (OECD, 2024, pp. 440, Table D5.3[4]). Although teacher shortages in Greece are limited for now, the share of young teachers (under the age of 30) is small and more than half of the teaching workforce is expected to retire in the coming 15 years (Birch et al., 2021, p. 32[2]; OECD, 2024, pp. 439, Table D5.2[4]). At the same time, demographic developments are expected to lead to a significant reduction in the number of students over the coming decades. Between 2022 and 2031, it is expected that the population of 5 to 14-year-olds will drop by 15% in Greece – the sixth largest reduction across OECD countries (compared to the average of 4%) (OECD, 2024[5]).
The teaching profession in Greece skews female, particularly at the primary level, albeit slightly less so than in many other OECD countries. In 2022, 25% of Greek teachers at the primary level were male (compared to 17% on average across OECD countries), 31% at the lower secondary level (32% across OECD countries) and 42% at the upper secondary level (40% across OECD countries) (OECD, 2024, pp. 441, Table D5.4[4]).
Pathways into the profession
Initial teacher education
Teaching in Greece is a career-based civil service profession with selective initial teacher education, a centralised, selective process for entry into the profession and lifetime employment for successful candidates. Primary education teachers in Greece complete their initial education in one of the country’s nine universities with Departments of Primary Education (Eurydice, 2025[6]). The primary education programmes are not subject-specific and combine classroom teaching with theoretical and pedagogical training in a concurrent format that lasts four years and leads to a qualification at the bachelor’s level (ISCED 6). Prospective secondary education teachers usually complete 4-year university degrees at the bachelor’s level (ISCED 6) in their substantive area of specialisation. Prospective secondary teachers with prior degrees in subject areas that do not include pedagogical training, such as law, finance or engineering, need to follow a consecutive model of teacher training, completing an additional one-year pedagogical training programme, unless they hold a master’s degree or PhD in education sciences (Birch et al., 2021, p. 63[2]). The curricula for ITE programmes at both the primary and secondary level are developed by the universities, as is the case for all higher education programmes (OECD, 2024, pp. 436, Table D5.1[4]).
Teachers of technical subjects in vocational secondary schools (e.g. for technical professions such as plumbing or steamfitting) need to have completed at least two or three years of studies at the upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary level (MOE, 2024[3]). Overall, according to principals in PISA 2022, 61.0% of Greek teachers in schools of 15-year-olds held a bachelor’s qualification and 33.9% held a master’s qualification or equivalent, below the OECD averages of 78.3% and 44.2% respectively (OECD, 2023, pp. 409, Table II.B1.5.7[7]).
Greek Higher Education Institutions (HEI) and their degree programmes are subject to both internal and external quality assurance processes. Each HEI is required to operate an internal quality assurance system (IQAS), which is externally accredited every two years by the Hellenic Authority for Higher Education (ΕΘ.Α.Α.Ε. / HAHE) (Law 4653, 2020[8]). In addition, all HEI and degree programmes need to comply with quality standards established by the HAHE, which are aligned with the standards and guidelines of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). The external evaluation and accreditation of degree programmes takes place every 5 years. The HAHE’s standards for the accreditation of undergraduate programmes are not subject-specific (HAHE, 2021[9]). As a consequence, they do not explicitly prescribe or incentivise features that are characteristic of high-quality ITE programmes, such as substantial teaching practicums and active relationships with partnering schools (OECD, 2018, p. 180[10]; OECD, 2019[11]).
Selection and assignment to schools
As is the case in about a third of OECD countries, prospective teachers in Greece take part in a selective process at the end of their initial teacher education programme to determine their eligibility for (permanent or fixed-term) teaching positions in public schools. Prior to 2019, prospective primary and secondary education teachers were appointed based on their scores in a central written exam. Since then, the exam was replaced by a credit points (μονάδες) system that ranks teachers based on their academic qualifications, their experience and other factors. Every other year, teachers are ranked by the Supreme Council for Civil Personnel Selection (Ανώτατο Συμβούλιο Επιλογής Προσωπικού, ASEP), an independent commission responsible for the selection of civil servants. The process is governed by Law 4589/2019, and criteria include teachers’ academic qualifications (incl. their attainment as well as foreign language skills and certified computer literacy), their teaching experience, and social criteria (e.g. the number of children in their custody and disabilities in the family) (Law 4589, 2019, p. 168[12]).
Teachers apply for teaching positions through a process administered by the responsible Departments of Education. They are selected and assigned solely on the basis of their accumulated credit points, although some schools (i.e. experimental and model schools, music and art schools) can take additional criteria into account (OECD, 2024, pp. 436, Table D5.1[4]). School leaders are not involved in the selection of teachers. This centralised approach to the selection and allocation of teachers has historically been considered an important mechanism to ensure an even distribution of staff across the country’s school network, which is characterised by a high number of hard-to-staff schools on small islands and in remote, mountainous areas. Teachers are incentivised to work in remote primary and secondary schools through the credit points system, which assigns 2 points (as opposed to the usual single point) per month of teaching experience in remote schools for up to 120 months (Law 4692, 2020[13]). At the same time, the central allocation of teachers limits principals’ autonomy and prevents them from selecting staff in line with school-specific needs (see Chapter 2).
Teachers’ career structure
Opportunities for professional advancement have historically been limited for Greek teachers. The career progression for classroom teachers is largely characterised by an incremental salary progression in line with their years of service (Birch et al., 2021, p. 52[2]). Teachers can assume additional responsibilities in their schools, e.g. to manage the school’s ICT lab or work as deputy principals. Deputy principals in primary schools are compensated with a two-hour reduction in their weekly teaching hours, whereas deputy principals in secondary schools teach 16 hours (as opposed to the regular 20-23 hours), with an additional 2-hour reduction for those with over 20 years of service (MOE, 2024[3]; Law 4152, 2013[14]). Most other opportunities for career advancement (e.g. assuming positions as Education Advisors, Quality Supervisors, Directors of Education or Regional Directors) imply leaving the classroom.
Teachers can also apply for school leader positions. School leaders are appointed by the responsible Director of Primary or Secondary Education and the selection process is supported by a five-member local Selection Council (at the Directorate-level), which comprises the Director of Education, with their deputy, as President; the Education Quality Supervisor, with their deputy, as Vice President; one Education Adviser of Primary or Secondary Education; and two teachers. The Selection Council assesses candidates based on a range of criteria covering their scientific and pedagogical qualifications and skills, their teaching, counseling and administrative experience, previous performance evaluations, and their performance in an interview. The Selection Council uses a process specified in Law 4823/2021 to translate these criteria into evaluation scores and proposes a candidate to the Director of Education who takes the final decision on whom to appoint to a four-year term as school leader (Law 4823, 2021[15]; MOE, 2024[3]).
In 2021, two new formal roles were introduced for teachers in primary and secondary schools: mentors and co-ordinators (Law 4823, 2021[15]). Mentors are responsible for providing professional guidance to beginning teachers during the first five years of their careers. Class co-ordinators and subject co-ordinators are responsible for advancing their schools’ pedagogical quality by convening regular teacher meetings throughout the school year to foster their professional collaboration, curriculum planning, the exchange of good practices, the introduction and evaluation of new teaching tools, and student assessment (MOE, 2024[3]). Depending on the size of the school, principals can appoint one mentor and one or more co-ordinators from among their schools’ teachers, provided that they have received an “excellent” or “very good” rating in their last evaluation.2 While the roles are not remunerated or compensated with reduced teaching hours, teachers who assume these responsibilities are rewarded with additional credit points, which they can use when applying for a new position or a school leadership role.
Working conditions
The Greek education system and teaching profession have been marked by a decade-long economic crisis that started in late 2009. A deep and prolonged recession – during which GDP fell annually by an average of nearly 4% between 2009 and 2015 – and a rising debt-to-GDP ratio imposed significant constraints on public expenditure (OECD, 2018[10]). Although Greece’s GDP-per-capita growth has outpaced that of the euro area since early 2021, the effects of the crisis linger (OECD, 2024, p. 17[16]). Public expenditure on education did not increase over the course of the economic crisis and teachers’ salaries were frozen for two years in 2016 and 2017 (OECD, 2018, p. 15[10]; Law 4354, 2015[17]). In addition, the number of new teachers hired on open-ended civil-service contracts (as was typical for fully-qualified teachers) was drastically reduced with very few or no permanent appointments made from the 2010/11 school year up to and including 2018/19 (MOE, 2024[3]). During this time, most teachers were hired as non-civil servant public employees on fixed-term “substitute teacher” contracts (Birch et al., 2021, p. 36[2]). Hiring of permanent teachers has since resumed, with around 48 000 permanent teachers hired since 2020 (MOE, 2024[3]). Whereas permanent teachers receive 12 monthly salary payments per year, substitute teachers are hired and paid for 10 out of 12 months. To increase the number of permanent hires while maintaining budget-neutrality, the ministry therefore hired 10 new permanent teachers for every 12 departing substitute teachers in 2024/25.
Teaching and working time
Teachers’ time in Greece is centrally regulated based on their teaching hours and the time they are expected to be present at school (as opposed to their overall working time). Teachers in primary and secondary schools are expected to be present at their schools for no more than six hours per working day or 30 hours per week to carry out teaching or non-teaching tasks, as assigned by their principal (MOE, 2024[3]; Law 4823, 2021[15]). This amounts to a total annual working time with required presence at school of 1 110 hours in primary education and 1 158 hours in secondary education.
Statutory teaching hours in Greece are relatively low in international comparison and decrease with teachers’ experience. At the primary level, teachers in small schools (with up to 3 classes) have 25 weekly teaching hours. Teachers in larger primary schools have 24 teaching hours per week and benefit from a 1-hour reduction in their teaching load after 10, 15 and 20 years of service. This amounts to a typical net annual statutory teaching time of 661 hours (compared to the OECD average of 773 hours) (see Table 3.1). At the secondary level, teachers have 23 weekly teaching hours at the start of their careers, which is reduced to 21 hours after six years of service and 20 hours after 12 years of service. As with primary school teachers, experienced teachers therefore have less contact time with students. The typical net annual statutory teaching time in secondary education is 613 hours (compared to the OECD averages of 706 in lower secondary and 679 in upper secondary education) (see Table 3.1).
The teaching load of Greek principals is relatively high in international comparison, through statutory requirements across OECD countries vary significantly (with maximum statutory annual teaching requirements ranging from 28% to 87% of those for teachers, depending on school characteristics) (OECD, 2021[18]; OECD, 2022, pp. 362, Table D4.6[19]). Principals of larger primary schools (with 12 or more classes) in Greece are expected to teach 6 hours per week, rising to 18 hours in the smallest primary schools (MOE, 2024, p. 59[3]). Secondary school principals are expected to teach between 5 and 10 hours per week, depending on the size of their schools. Teachers selected to serve as deputy principals in primary schools continue to teach nearly full time, benefiting from a teaching load reduction of only two hours. Deputy principals in secondary schools teach 16 hours per week (MOE, 2024[3]).
Statutory annual teaching weeks, teaching days, net teaching hours and working time in public institutions
Notes: (1) Refers to maximum teaching time for Greece.
Lower and upper secondary education refers to general programmes. See OECD (2024[20]) Education at a Glance 2024 Sources Methodologies and Technical Notes p. 285 (https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en) for more information.
Source: OECD (2024[4]), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en, Tables D4.1 and D4.2.
According to principals’ reports in PISA 2022, most teachers (84.2%) in schools at the ISCED 2 level are employed on full-time contracts, i.e. working at least 90%. However, part-time work is more common among teachers in rural areas or villages with fewer than 3 000 inhabitants. In 2022, only 29% of students in rural areas or villages attended schools where 80% or more of teachers were working full time, compared to 71% in towns (with 3 000 to 100 000 inhabitants) and 66% in cities (with over 100 000 inhabitants) (OECD, 2023, pp. 410, Tables II.B1.5.94 and II.B1.5.96[7]).
Teachers’ and school leaders’ salaries
Teachers’ statutory salaries in Greece are identical from pre-primary to upper secondary education and depend on their years of service and formal qualifications (MOE, 2024[3]). Teachers’ salaries in Greece have deteriorated significantly since the country’s economic crisis, dropping by 35% in real terms from a high point in 2010 across primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education (based on the most prevalent qualifications after 15 years of experience) (OECD, 2024, pp. 394, Table D3.6[4]). As of 2023, lower secondary teachers’ average annual salaries were the second lowest among OECD countries with available data (at around 32 000 USD PPP) (see Figure 3.2). As in most OECD countries with available data, teachers’ salaries in Greece are below those of similarly educated workers. In 2024, Greek teachers in primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education earned 69-72% of what tertiary educated workers could expect on average, compared to 83-81% on average across OECD countries (OECD, 2025, pp. 403, Table D3.2[21]).3
Annual salaries of lower secondary teachers in public institutions, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption
Note: Actual salaries include bonuses and allowances; Countries and other participants are ranked in descending order of the starting salaries for teachers with the minimum qualifications.
1. Actual salaries for minimum and maximum statutory salaries.
2. Year of reference for actual salaries differs from 2023. Refer to the source table for more information.
Source: Reproduced from OECD (2024[4]), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en, Figure D3.2.
Teachers’ statutory salary progression over the course of their careers is in line with international averages. As of 2023, the statutory salaries of teachers with 15 years of experience were 32% above the starting salary in primary to upper secondary education, based on the most prevalent qualifications. This is in line with the OECD average of 35% (for lower secondary teachers) (OECD, 2024, pp. 395, Table D3.1[4]). The top of teachers’ statutory salary scale in Greece was 97% above the starting salary, which is higher than the OECD average of 64% (for primary to upper secondary teachers) (see Figure 3.2). Principals of primary and secondary schools benefit from a monthly allowance ranging from EUR 215 to 501, depending on the level and size of the school (as of January 2024, Law 5045/2023). In addition, teachers in borderline or remote regions benefit from a EUR 100 monthly supplement (MOE, 2024[3]; MOE, 2024[22]).
Class sizes and student-teacher ratios
Greek law defines both minimum and maximum class sizes. In primary schools with at least seven classes, the minimum number of students per class is 15 and the maximum number is 25. In lower and general upper secondary schools, the maximum class size is 27, although the responsible Director of Education can grant an exceptional increase by 10% (MOE, 2024, p. 48[3]; Law 4692, 2020[13]; Joint Ministerial Decision 129818/Γ2/2013, 2013[23]). On average, student-teacher ratios and class sizes in Greece are small by international comparison. In 2022, the student-teacher ratios in primary education (7.9) and secondary education (8.7) were significantly below the respective OECD averages of 14.0 and 12.7 (OECD, 2024, pp. 370, Table D2.2[4]). Likewise, the average class sizes in primary schools (17.0) and secondary schools (22.0) were lower than the OECD averages of 20.6 and 23.3 in 2022 (OECD, 2024, pp. 371, Table D2.3[4]). Furthermore, in the 2022 PISA survey, the number of students per teacher in schools attended by 15-year-olds was 8.7 – down from 9.6 in 2018 and significantly below the OECD average of 13.2 (OECD, 2023, pp. 409, Table II.B1.5.13[7]).
At the same time, as the 2022 annual report of the Quality Assurance Authority for Primary and Secondary Education (Αρχή Διασφάλισης της Ποιότητας στην Πρωτοβάθμια και Δευτεροβάθμια Εκπαίδευση, ADIPPDE) points out, the average class size in Greece masks significant regional heterogeneity. In particular, classes in urban areas routinely exceed 25 students, which teachers argue impedes their ability to engage in differentiated instruction (ADIPPDE, 2022, p. 99[24]). On average, language of instruction classes in Greece’s urban areas had 25 students, compared to 20 in rural areas (a statistically significant difference in line with the class sizes observed in many OECD countries).4 Classes in disadvantaged schools were, on average, slightly smaller than those in advantaged schools (22 vs. 25 students) (OECD, 2023, pp. 409, Table II.B1.5.15[7]).
Teacher shortages and attractiveness of the profession
Despite low salaries and limited prospects for career advancement, the teaching profession in Greece remains a comparatively attractive career path and the demand for teaching posts exceeds their supply. There is no shortage of young graduates seeking to enter the classroom and resignations among fully-qualified teachers in Greece are exceedingly rare, according to national statistics (OECD, 2024, pp. 431, Figure D5.6[4]). In 2022/23, 95% of fully-qualified primary teachers in public education and 96% of secondary teachers who left the profession did so through retirement, rather than resignation (OECD, 2025, pp. 505, Table D8.4[25]). Greece, together with Korea and Türkiye, was one of only three OECD countries with available data that did not report facing general teacher shortages at the start of the 2022/23 academic year (OECD, 2024, pp. 429, Figure D5.5[4]).
Nevertheless, there are shortages in some geographical areas, particularly remote regions and low-inhabited islands (Birch et al., 2021, p. 31[2]). Likewise, many school leaders across Greece report suffering from a lack of teaching staff due to budgetary constraints, rather than the availability of staff. In PISA 2022, 54.3% of 15-year-old students attended schools whose principal reported that the school’s capacity to provide instruction was hindered “to some extent” or “a lot” by a lack of teaching staff (OECD average: 46.7%) (OECD, 2023, pp. 408, Table II.B1.5.1[7]). This constitutes a marked 10-percentage point increase compared to 2015 and a 28-percentage point increase compared to 2018 (OECD, 2023, pp. 408, Table II.B1.5.4[7]). Shortages are more pronounced in rural areas and towns, compared to cities (though not statistically significantly so) (OECD, 2023, pp. 408, Table II.B1.5.2[7]).
Continuing professional learning
Teachers’ engagement in continuing professional learning activities is largely voluntary, with the exception of two days of mandatory training at the primary level and a similar amount at the secondary level. Primary school principals are allowed to select two days per year in consultation with their Education Advisers, on which they close the premises for whole-school training. This mandatory training often covers topics of national priority and is typically organised by the IEP. In the past, it covered such subjects as the introduction of new curricula, differentiated instruction, inclusive education and bullying, with further training planned on teachers’ digital skills (see Chapter 5) (MOE, 2024[3]). Education Advisers are responsible for ensuring that the whole-school training is aligned with the individual schools’ development priorities specified in their action plans, and the workshops they organise need to be approved by the Education Quality Supervisors.
In secondary education, where teachers’ training needs are more likely to vary across teachers of different subjects, Education Advisers usually send out a survey to identify the training needs of principals and teachers before the beginning of the school year. Based on the survey responses, Education Advisers plan training activities for individual subject teachers either online or in person throughout the year. While the duration of mandatory training for secondary teachers is not clearly stipulated, teachers usually engage in at least 3 or 4 training sessions of a few hours each over the course of the school year, according to Education Advisers.
In addition to the mandatory training, a law passed in 2021 requires principals to offer teachers at least 15 hours per school year of in-house training outside of their teaching hours, usually in the afternoon (Law 4823, 2021[15]). The topics for this training are decided by the school principal in line with the school’s needs. According to principals interviewed by the OECD review team, the take-up of these voluntary training opportunities tends to be low, partly because teachers tend not to remain on the school premises in the afternoon. However, teachers also engage in independent continuing professional learning, benefiting, for example, from free online courses provided by the Institute of Education Policy (Ινστιτούτο Εκπαιδευτικής Πολιτικής, IEP). Education Advisers sometimes point teachers to these training offers based on the learning needs they identify in their conversations with school staff (often targeting specific issues or groups of teachers, such as the use of specific methods in a particular subject area).
Teacher training in Greece is provided through several channels. Regional Education Quality Supervisors are responsible for organising and implementing training programmes or seminars and educational activities at the level of the Regional Directorates of Primary and Secondary Education. In doing so, they work with the Education Quality Supervisors, the Centres for Interdisciplinary Assessment, Counselling and Support (Κέντρο Διεπιστημονικής Αξιολόγησης, Συμβουλευτικής και Υποστήριξης, KEDASY) and Centres of Education for the Environment and Sustainability (Κέντρα Εκπαίδευσης για το Περιβάλλον και την Αειφορία, KEPEA), as well as the Institute of Educational Policy (IEP), the Computer Technology Institute and Press “DIOPHANTUS” (CTI), ADIPPDE, Higher Education Institutions (Law 4823, 2021[15]), and – starting in 2025 – 13 Innovation Centres.
The Institute of Education Policy – an executive body that supports the Ministry of Education – is responsible for developing CPD programmes and for accrediting CPD providers. IEP offers a wide range of free training opportunities via its central Teacher Training Platform (Πλατφόρμα Επιμόρφωσης Εκπαιδευτικών). The IEP is subsidised with an annual grant of EUR 845k from the regular budget of the ministry to cover its operating costs. The IEP’s development and delivery of teacher training and its work on the development of the new curricula are financed by the NSRF of the Public Investment Programme (PIP). The IEP’s teacher training programmes and work on curriculum development was funded by approximately EUR 7.1 million, through European Social Fund (ESF) Partnership Agreement projects implemented by the IEP during the 2014-2020 programming period (MOE, 2024[3]).
Since 2017, IEP has increasingly relied on distance learning (both synchronous and asynchronous) to deliver and expand the reach of its training programmes (MOE, 2024[3]). Recent reforms have transformed the structures for the delivery of professional learning. Since replacing the Regional Training Centres (Περιφερειακά Εκπαιδευτικά Κέντρα, PEK) in 2018, Regional Centres for Educational Planning (Περιφερειακών Κέντρων Εκπαιδευτικού Σχεδιασμού, PEKES) had been responsible for organising and implementing teacher training at the regional level, either in collaboration with the IEP (for centrally developed programmes) or on their own (for training programmes developed in response to local or regional needs) (Law 4547, 2018[26]). In 2021, the PEKES were abolished and their responsibilities for professional learning transferred to existing authorised training providers, including the Higher Educational Institutions and the Institute of Educational Policy, as well as schools, the Regional Supervisors of the Quality of Education and the newly established Education Advisers (Law 4823, 2021[15]; MOE, 2024[3]).
In 2024, Article 71 of Law 5128 laid the basis for the IEP’s development of a Teacher Training Register (Μητρώο Επιμόρφωσης Εκπαιδευτικών). Once implemented, the Register is intended to establish a central digital database of all IEP training programmes, the trainers who implement them, training materials and other data related to teachers’ professional learning (Law 5128, 2024[27]). Trainers in the IEP’s Register will deliver courses and contribute to the identification of training needs, work on the design, evaluation and impact assessment of training programmes, as well as the development of training materials. With the introduction of the Teacher Training Register, IEP also intends to strengthen its quality assurance mechanisms by introducing procedures for the ongoing evaluation of trainers by participating teachers as well as managers (experts – usually IEP Consultants – who are appointed to take responsibility for a given training programme).
Proportion of 15-year-old students’ teachers who had attended a programme of professional development during the previous three months; based on principals' reports
Note: *In this and all other Figures drawing on PISA data, the asterisk indicates that caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4 in OECD (2023[28])).
Source: Authors’ analysis based on OECD (2023[28]), PISA 2022 Database; and OECD (2019[29]), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, Table II.B1.5.6, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
The limited data available suggest that teachers in Greece engage in less professional learning than many of their international peers. The average share of teachers whose principals reported they had attended professional development in the previous three months had increased between 2018 and 2022 (from 25.9% to 38.1%) but remained well below the OECD average (52.3%) (see Figure 3.3).
Teacher appraisal
In 2021, Greece introduced a new teacher appraisal process (Law 4823, 2021[15]) with the aim to improve the quality of teaching as well as the pedagogical and support work provided by schools. The appraisal process, including its frequency, domains and scoring system, are defined in Law 4823/2021. It was established based on the recommendation by the General Director of Primary and Secondary Education Personnel at the Ministry of Education and with the approval of the Authority for Quality Assurance in Primary and Secondary Education (ADIPPDE), an independent administrative authority responsible for the education systems’ evaluation processes, including those for schools and teachers in Greece. ADIPPDE is also responsible for evaluating the new appraisal system and submits annual recommendations to the Minister of Education on how to enhance its procedures, domains and criteria (MOE, 2024[3]).
The new teacher appraisal process involves two separate appraisals on teachers’ pedagogical work and their administrative work. The first (Field A) is designed to take place focussing every four years, the second (Field B) every two years (see Table 3.2). Both appraisals involve the external Education Adviser as well as the school principal. First, teachers are evaluated on their general and specific teaching abilities by their Education Adviser of Scientific Responsibility as well as on their “pedagogical climate and classroom management” by their school principal or the head of their school unit. Second, teachers are evaluated on their “professional consistency and competence” by their school principal and their Education Advisers of Pedagogical Responsibility (see Table 3.2). For each criterion, the appraisal framework includes descriptions of what is expected of teachers at four performance levels.
Criteria guiding the appraisal of teachers in primary and secondary education
Source: MOE (2024[3]), OECD Education Policy Review: Improving Learning Outcomes in Greece - Country Background Report, Greek Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports; Government Gazette (2021[15]), Law 4823: Αναβάθμιση του σχολείου, ενδυνάμωση των εκπαιδευτικών και άλλες διατάξεις [School upgrading, empowering teachers and other provisions], p. 8990; Ministerial Decision 9950/ΓΔ5 (2023[30]), Ρύθμιση Ειδικότερων και Λεπτομερειακών Θεμάτων Σχετικά με την Αξιολόγηση των Εκπαιδευτικών (…) [Regulation of Specific and Detailed Issues Concerning the Evaluation of Teachers (…)], https://www.minedu.gov.gr/publications/docs2023/ΦΕΚ_Αξιολόγησης.pdf.
The appraisal involves multiple steps, starting with a preparation meeting in which the teachers and evaluators discuss the timing of the appraisal, the lesson(s) to observe, the focus of the appraisal and any additional information to supply. The meeting’s decisions are recorded and signed by the teacher and evaluator. The evaluator(s) then observe the teacher's lesson using an observation framework adapted on a case-by-case basis. The process ends with a discussion and reflection within two days of the lesson observation, during which the evaluators provide the teachers with feedback on positive points and areas for further attention, as well as suggestions for improvements and opportunities for further support or training (Law 4823, 2021, p. 8995[15]). Teachers’ performance in each of the fields is rated on a four-point scale (“excellent”, “very good”, “satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory”) (MOE, 2024, p. 27[3]).
During the first year of its country-wide implementation, in 2022/23, the appraisals focussed on 10 000 newly appointed teachers and those applying for promotion. Based on ADIPPDE’s evaluation of the first round of teacher appraisals (ADIPPDE, 2023[31]), the ministry is currently considering ways to further simplify the appraisal process (MOE, 2024, p. 27[3]). Participation in the appraisal process is mandatory and teachers’ refusal to take part in or obstruction of the process is treated as a disciplinary misconduct, leading to a fine, replacement and exclusion from the selection procedure for any position for the next eight years (MOE, 2024, p. 27[3]).
The introduction of teacher appraisals is an important first step towards a culture of feedback, accountability and continuous improvement
Given the centralised nature of the Greek education system, teachers and school leaders have – by international comparison – little formal autonomy in areas such as determining course contents, selecting learning materials or establishing assessment policies (OECD, 2023, pp. 411, Table II.B1.6.1[7]). Nevertheless, Greek teachers enjoy significant pedagogical autonomy inside the classroom and are subject to limited accountability and oversight. Staff appraisal and regular feedback on teachers’ work, linked with opportunities for professional development are considered central tenants of effective teacher policy (OECD, 2019[1]). While rigorous empirical evidence on the effectiveness of teacher appraisals in low-stakes contexts is limited, a well-identified study of a teacher evaluation process in Cincinnati (United States) (Taylor and Tyler, 2012[32]) suggests that it can lead to significant improvements in students’ performance (about 0.1 SDs) (Liebowitz, 2022[33]).
Until the new teacher appraisal process was rolled out in 2022/23, the long-time lack of formal teacher appraisals was particularly notable in the absence of a culture of peer-observations or other forms of informal professional appraisal in Greece. This left teachers with few alternative sources of feedback and support in their professional growth. As of 2022, Greece was one of the OECD countries where teachers were least likely to receive regular feedback from their school leaders. Only 63.4%% of students attended a school whose principal reported that they or a member of the management team provided feedback to teachers based on observations of instruction in the classroom at least once or twice a year, compared to 91.0% on average across OECD countries (OECD, 2023, pp. 411, Table II.B1.6.5[7]). This absence of a culture of lesson observation and support was in line with the historically administrative role of school leaders in Greece (OECD, 2018, p. 71[10]).
When PISA 2022 asked school leaders explicitly about the previous academic year, only 22.4% of students’ principals reported that they or a senior staff member had monitored teachers’ practice through lesson observations (see Figure 3.4). This constituted an improvement compared to 2015 but remained the lowest proportion across OECD countries and well below the OECD average of 77.3%. It is notable that this lack of school-based performance monitoring was not clearly compensated by external accountability mechanisms. Only 17.7% of students were in schools whose teachers’ lessons had been observed by inspectors or other persons external to the school, compared to 34.1% across OECD countries (OECD, 2023, pp. 412, Tables II.B1.6.51 and II.B1.6.56[7]). This contrasts with countries such as France and Ireland, where the absence of widespread lesson observations by principals is compensated by external monitoring (Figure 3.4). It is notable that, in the year prior to PISA 2022, lesson observations by principals were a lot more common in private schools than in public schools (68% vs. 19%) in Greece (OECD, 2023, pp. 412, Table II.B1.6.54[7]).
Percentage of students in schools where, during the previous academic year, the following methods were used to monitor teachers’ practice; based on principals' reports
Note: Countries/economies ordered in ascending order of the share of teachers subject to lesson observations by their principals or senior staff members.
Source: OECD (2023[7]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en, Table II.B1.6.51.
Against this backdrop, Greece’s recent introduction of regular teacher appraisals marks an important first step towards a culture of feedback, accountability and continuous improvement. Previous efforts to introduce teacher appraisals in Greece were met with strong resistance by the teaching profession and perceived as punitive or in opposition with teachers’ professional autonomy and a democratic school culture (Stamelos, Vassilopoulos and Bartzakli, 2012[34]; European Commission, 2019[35]). Prior to recent reforms, Greece had therefore remained one of the few OECD countries without provisions for regular teacher appraisals (Birch et al., 2021, p. 108[2]).
Following the adoption of a legal framework in 2021, the country-wide roll out of teacher appraisals in 2022/23 introduced an important instrument to strengthen the quality of teaching in Greece (European Commission, 2023[36]). Although only beginning teachers were evaluated during the first two years since the reform, the government is planning to gradually expand the appraisal process to the entire teaching profession. Stakeholders interviewed during the OECD review visit reported that some teachers remained uncomfortable with the prospect of being observed or worried about the consequences of appraisals. However, the beginning teachers who had undergone the process generally reported positive experiences (although some pointed to its administrative and procedural burden).
The appraisal process is primarily designed for formative, rather than accountability purposes. Consequences for teachers who are deemed “unsatisfactory” are limited to participation in mandatory training, rendering the process relatively low-stakes. Positive appraisals are considered in promotions to positions of responsibility and the (modest) salary increases associated with them (European Commission, 2023, p. 7[36]). Given the low-stakes involved in the appraisal process, it will be important that its benefits for teachers’ professional growth are apparent to all actors involved. This will be needed to ensure not only that the process is taken seriously and becomes more than an administrative exercise, but also to justify the significant time and resources it requires.
The design of the teacher appraisal process includes important elements of high-quality appraisal systems, including repeated lesson observations and feedback with suggestions for improvement. Including both external and internal reviewers in the appraisal process can help to ensure its integrity, although it is more typically associated with high-stakes evaluations (e.g. for certifications or promotions), rather than growth-oriented appraisals (OECD, 2019, p. 124[1]). Involving school leaders in appraising their teachers also constitutes an important step in transforming their highly administrative role into one that places greater emphasis on pedagogical leadership. Given that many Greek principals had not previously engaged in regular teacher observations, the presence of experienced Education Advisers in the appraisal process may constitute an important source of support and peer-learning. During the OECD review visit, some principals clearly appreciated this support, while more experienced principals expressed no need for the involvement of external actors in the appraisal process.
There are encouraging efforts to make professional development more school-based and collaborative
Teacher training in Greece has, historically, been highly centralised and top-down, relying on the central development and provision of standardised large-scale training programmes aligned with major reforms or national priorities. School-based professional learning, by contrast, has traditionally been weakly developed. This is reflected in PISA 2022, where 29.9% of 15-year-old students in Greece attended schools whose principals reported “never or almost never” working on a professional development plan for their school. This was the second highest proportion across OECD countries and significantly above the international average of just 5.6% (OECD, 2023, pp. 411, Table II.B1.6.5[7]).
In recent years, several reforms indicate a reorientation of teachers’ professional learning in Greece. The new frameworks and processes for school self-evaluations (see Chapter 2) and teacher appraisals developed with ADIPPDE and the IEP signal a shift towards more individualised, needs-oriented and school-based professional learning. These approaches are conducive to encouraging professional development that is more closely linked to teachers’ and schools’ needs and more integrated with their daily practice. These forms of professional learning are also more aligned with evidence on effective teacher training (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[37]).
The introduction of 15 annual hours of on-site training during school hours provides new opportunities for principals to make time for teachers to collaborate or engage in other forms of professional learning with their peers. Engagement in this training remains voluntary and interviews suggest that some principals struggle to motivate teachers to participate. Nevertheless, in interviews during the OECD review visit, representatives of IEP reported that some principals have worked with their Education Advisers and used this time effectively for teachers to work on school projects and engage in professional learning aligned with the schools’ action plans.
Professional development also features prominently in the school self-evaluation and improvement process as one of 9 thematic axes around which schools can develop their action plans (ADIPPDE, 2023[31]). In the school year 2021/22, ADIPPDE estimates that around 14.5% of primary schools’ action plans and over 10.5% of secondary schools’ action plans were related to teachers’ engagement in professional learning activities (ADIPPDE, 2023, pp. 210, 266[31]). The structure of the self-evaluation process itself encourages collaboration among teachers since it requires them to reflect on the school’s needs and action plans in groups of three to five. This professional exchange can itself be a powerful form of informal learning. Several of the schools visited by the OECD review team had also worked with their Education Advisers and used the action plans to select appropriate themes for their compulsory whole-school training at the beginning of the school year. The school self-evaluation process can thus serve both to identify the school’s needs, encourage a culture of collaboration among its teachers and integrate professional development into a whole-school improvement process adapted to each school’s context.
In addition to their role in the teacher appraisal and school improvement process, the Education Advisers are also responsible for the pedagogical guidance of teachers, their training and subject-specific “scientific guidance”. (These are three of the seven pillars guiding the Education Advisers’ work). Education Advisers do so by providing teachers with practical pedagogical advice or by pointing them to appropriate training opportunities throughout the school year. In secondary education, Education Advisers use surveys to identify teachers’ training needs before the beginning of the school year. Given the Education Advisers’ limited capacity (each of the 800 Education Advisers is responsible for around 150-180 teachers), their professional development support for individual teachers is necessarily limited and ad hoc. In the medium term, expecting Education Advisers to orient individual teachers towards appropriate professional learning opportunities is unlikely to be sustainable. However, the Advisor’s approach is indicative of an important recognition that teachers require individualised support to address their specific learning needs within the context of their particular school environment.
New staff positions have created opportunities for professional growth in a historically flat career structure
The teaching career in Greece has historically provided few opportunities for highly effective educators to put their skills to use by assuming greater responsibilities or by specialising in an area of expertise. This lack of vertical or horizontal differentiation in teachers’ career structure can make it difficult to motivate teachers in the long term, provide them with recognition and prevent the most effective teachers from leaving the profession or entering leadership roles outside the classroom. The introduction of new roles for mentors and co-ordinators in 2021 constituted an encouraging effort to change this.
While mentors are responsible for providing beginning teachers with professional guidance during the first five years of their careers, co-ordinators are responsible for advancing their schools’ pedagogical quality by convening regular teacher meetings to foster professional collaboration, advance curriculum planning and accompany the introduction of new teaching or assessment tools (MOE, 2024[3]). The professional responsibilities of mentors and co-ordinators are therefore well aligned with the goal to foster peer-learning and professional exchange within schools.
Both mentors and co-ordinators are appointed by the school principal on the condition of teachers having received “excellent” or “very good” appraisal results, thus giving highly effective teachers the ability to share their experience and knowledge with their peers and to contribute to the professional development of their Teacher Boards (Law 4823, 2021[15]). While the roles are not remunerated or compensated with reduced teaching hours, teachers who assume these responsibilities are rewarded with additional credit points, which they can use when applying for a new position or a school leadership role. They also offer a new means of recognising the work of highly motivated teachers and provide a starting point to expand the opportunities for formal career advancement available to classroom teachers in Greece.
The ministry has taken important steps to address challenges in the allocation of substitute teachers
Due to the constraints on the number of permanent teaching staff, Greek schools rely on substitute teachers with fixed-term renewable contracts to deliver instruction. Substitute teachers make up around 31% of teachers in primary and 21% of teachers in secondary schools on average (see Figure 3.1). Despite the centralised hiring of teachers, Greece lacks a unified human resource management system. Historically, vacancies were reported by school leaders at the beginning of the school year. The ministry then evaluated and approved schools’ eligibility for substitute teachers and allocated candidates to fill vacancies through a lengthy process without the principals’ involvement. This process was widely considered to be administratively burdensome, time-intensive and inefficient. During the OECD review visit, stakeholders reported that delays in lengthy approval processes frequently left schools with unfilled vacancies at the beginning of the school year. While teachers in primary schools may be able to alleviate these staffing issues by substituting for one another, instruction in smaller secondary schools can be severely disrupted if vacancies for subject teachers remain unfilled (e.g. if a school is unable to provide mathematics instruction for several months).
The ministry has recently undertaken two initiatives to address this operational challenge and ameliorate delays in the hiring of substitute teachers. After two centralised recruitment phases, additional vacancies for substitute teachers are now allocated to the Regional Directorates of Education who can hire staff through “Local Calls” outside the regular centralised recruitment process. In addition to the creation of regional substitute pools, the ministry has piloted a new platform (Eduplan.ai) in 2023/24, which is aimed at increasing the efficiency of the substitution process. The platform makes it easier for principals and Regional Directors to enter staffing data for their schools. It also uses artificial intelligence (AI) to detect vacancies earlier than was previously the case and to match them with available candidates. At the time of the OECD review visit, the platform was being piloted in selected regions and it was planned to be rolled out country-wide, embedded in the eSchools platform, in the 2025/26 school year. The ministry’s evaluation of the pilot estimates that the new platform has increased the efficiency of substitute hiring by 60-80%, based on indicators such as the teaching hours per teacher, the proportion of unassigned substitutes or the time it takes for upcoming vacancies to be identified and filled with suitable candidates.
Teachers feel a lack of support in their continuing professional learning
Teachers in Greece are subject to multiple reforms and developments that give rise to substantial professional learning needs. The success of the Greek school system’s digital transformation (see Chapter 5), its ambitious plans to promote inclusion, and the introduction of a new curriculum all rely on teachers’ ability to acquire new skills on the job and to adapt to new methods of teaching and learning. In 2022, for example, 27.5% of 15-year-old students’ teachers did not have the necessary technical and pedagogical skills to integrate digital devices in instruction, according to their principals. This was one of the highest proportions across OECD countries (compared to an average of 12.4%) and marked one of the smallest improvements since 2018 (OECD, 2023, pp. 409, Table II.B1.5.32[7]).
Likewise, the curriculum reform seeks to enhance professional practices and promote a more skills-oriented style of instruction that requires teachers to take greater ownership of the curricula and to select learning materials from multiple sources, rather than following a centrally prescribed syllabus. To put this bold vision into practice, teachers will need to be adequately prepared. Yet, despite the new curriculum’s imminent introduction, only a small proportion of the country’s 184 000 teachers have received training on the new curriculum to date. In 2022, 1 470 teachers in experimental and model schools were trained on the new curriculum, obtained B-level certificates and acted as multipliers, training an additional 1 900 teachers (MOE, 2024[3]). In a second phase (from March 2021 to July 2023), another 21 800 teachers from the pre-school to the secondary education level received training on the curriculum in a blended distance learning format (8 hours of synchronous and 28 hours of asynchronous training). IEP is planning to roll out asynchronous distant learning courses (MOOCS) for the remaining teachers. However, as of early 2025, most teachers interviewed during the OECD review visit reported having no knowledge of the curriculum’s structure, content or pedagogical approach.
The two days of mandatory training that teachers usually engage in at the beginning of the school year are an important cornerstone of professional development in Greece, but it is doubtful whether the mandatory training alone will be sufficient to address the unprecedented training needs of the teaching profession. Not all OECD countries require teachers to engage in a given amount of professional development each year. Some rely on strong culture of professional learning or incentives (e.g. related to career advancement) for teachers to build their skills. Yet, in comparison with most other OECD countries that require teachers to engage in in-service training, the amount of professional development required of Greek teachers is small (OECD, 2022, pp. 403, Table D7.1[19]). At the same time – although some teachers are highly motivated to acquire new competencies – there are few incentives, resources or expectations for Greek teachers to engage in training beyond the prescribed hours.
Some teachers interviewed by the OECD review team at both the primary and secondary education levels reported feeling a lack of orientation, guidance and support in their professional development. Historically, Greece’s approach to professional learning relied primarily on central, large-scale training campaigns. As the system pivots to place greater emphasis on school-based approaches to professional learning and teachers’ independent engagement in (online) courses developed by the IEP, teachers need to understand their responsibility for professional development and be empowered to become leaders of their own learning pathways. While the Education Advisers play an important role in collaborating with school leaders to shape school-based learning activities as well as making ad hoc suggestions for individual teachers’ professional development (see above), their capacity is too limited to provide all teachers with in-depth guidance. As a consequence, there is a risk that teachers feel left alone or fail to engage in any professional learning beyond the legally required minimum.
The quality of professional learning is insufficiently emphasised and monitored
In addition to Greek teachers’ relatively limited engagement in professional learning, insufficient emphasis is placed on ensuring its quality and on promoting effective formats of professional learning. Although there are longer-term in-depth professional learning opportunities – such as the B-level certificates – many of the training opportunities developed by IEP take the form of one-off online courses. Evidence suggests that such courses are unlikely to meaningfully enhance the quality of teaching, particularly if they are not directly applied in the classroom, connected to the specific challenges faced by the participating teachers or embedded in wider school improvement plans (Timperley et al., 2007[38]; Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[37]). Effective professional learning, by contrast, tends to be sustained over longer periods of time, involve professional collaboration with peers, respond to context-specific challenges, and offer time between sessions for teachers to apply what they have learned, evaluate its impact and make adjustments in an iterative way. As discussed above, more integrated and collaborative forms of professional learning remain less common in Greece. Although there are encouraging signs of change, few principals observe teachers’ lessons to provide feedback (see Figure 3.4) and a below-average proportion of school leaders encourage teachers to engage in peer review (46.8% vs. 59.1% on average across OECD countries) (OECD, 2023, pp. 412, Table II.B1.6.51[7]).
Furthermore, Greece’s approach to monitoring teachers’ participation in professional development activities and its quality does not appear to be sufficiently developed to strengthen teachers’ engagement in effective forms of professional learning. While IEP collects information on teachers’ participation in its training programmes, quality assurance mechanisms around professional learning seem weakly developed. While IEP training courses usually include satisfaction surveys, the OECD review team is not aware of attempts to investigate their longer-term impact on teachers’ practices. This was also the case for school-based professional learning programmes, even though schools are encouraged to select indicators (δείκτες) to evaluate their effectiveness (ADIPPDE, 2023, p. 475[31]). This may be explained by the absence of widely known standards or quality criteria that could guide school leaders in their selection of professional development activities. ADIPPDE’s 2023 Annual Report on school self-evaluations includes a framework of suggested quality criteria to evaluate teachers’ professional development actions. However, the criteria focus on the outcomes of effective professional development rather than its structural features, are relatively abstract and do not include specific examples of effective practices (ADIPPDE, 2023, p. 475[31]).
The IEP’s monitoring ability is further constrained by the fact that the institute does not collect data on the professional learning activities that are locally organised in collaboration with the Education Advisers in schools (neither the topics covered, nor teachers’ attendance). Given that the Education Advisers have been an important source of training and information concerning the upcoming curriculum reform, this constitutes an important blind spot, making it difficult for the ministry to assess how many teachers have already been prepared for the curriculum reform (apart from the 21 800 teachers who took part in the IEP’s training programme). These gaps in monitoring also extends to teachers’ training needs. There is no clear mechanism for the IEP to capture thematic areas in which teachers are in greatest need of further training and the information that the Education Advisers collect on a regular basis on teachers’ training needs are not aggregated or passed on to IEP. With the development of a Teacher Training Register, IEP has committed to responding to some of these concerns by investing in both the identification of teachers’ training needs and placing greater emphasis on the evaluation of its programmes (Law 5128, 2024[27]).
The teacher appraisal process is not sufficiently connected to professional learning and imposes a high administrative burden
In PISA 2022, the great majority of Greek principals reported that teacher appraisals had “no impact” on opportunities for professional development activities (69.8%, compared to 27.4% on average across OECD countries) and only 16.3% reported that it had a “moderate” or “large impact”, compared to the OECD average of 47.7% (see Figure 3.5). The introduction of a new teacher appraisal system sought to address this weak connection between teachers’ appraisal and their professional development and is an important first step towards a culture of feedback, accountability and continuous improvement. Yet, some structural features of the new appraisal process may impede it from fulfilling its full potential. Notably, the new teacher appraisal process is not yet sufficiently embedded in a continuous improvement cycle, which is a key feature of effective formative teacher appraisal systems (OECD, 2013, p. 340[39]). Although Greek teachers who receive an “insufficient” rating are required to engage in mandatory training, for all other teachers, the appraisal is not clearly connected to professional learning activities aimed at addressing identified areas for improvement.
Percentage of students whose principal reported that appraisals of teachers at their school had an impact on their opportunities for professional development activities
Note: Countries/economies ordered in ascending order of the share of principals reporting that appraisals had a moderate or large impact.
Source: Authors' analysis based on OECD (2023[40]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
Rather than conceiving of training exclusively as a response to identified deficits, effective appraisal processes use professional learning as a means for every teacher to engage in continuing professional growth. Effective appraisal processes accomplish this by including discussions of growth opportunities for all teachers and by agreeing on steps that teachers can take to implement improvements in practice. Regular follow-ups can support teachers’ progress and help them to adapt their approach as needed (OECD, 2019[1]). If the benefits of appraisals for professional growth are not apparent to the great majority of Greek teachers, they risk being perceived as an administrative exercise and receiving limited buy-in from the profession. (As discussed in Chapter 2, the same risk applies to perceptions of school-level evaluations).
A second structural feature that raises concerns about the longer-term sustainability of the appraisal process is its resource intensity. The appraisal involves six distinct steps, including two separate appraisals involving both external staff (the Education Advisers) and senior staff of the school. Principals and teachers interviewed during the OECD review visit reported that the appraisal process imposes a high administrative burden and involves a significant amount of reporting work. In addition, given the limited capacity of the Education Advisers and wide range of their responsibilities, it seems unlikely that they will be able to maintain their high level of involvement in the appraisal process once it is expanded to the entire teacher population. Unless the staff resources and administrative workload associated with the appraisal process are reduced, it will be challenging for teachers and principals to give appraisals the attention they deserve once all educators will undergo the process at least every four years.
There is no shared vision of “high-quality teaching” or the skills that teachers will need in order to remain successful
Professional standards or competency frameworks can be a highly effective instrument to align teacher policies across different domains and set clear expectations for the skills, knowledge and attitudes that teachers are expected to demonstrate at different stages of their careers (OECD, 2019, p. 123[1]). Greece currently lacks such clear and widely recognised standards outlining the characteristics of effective teaching and the skills and competencies that teachers are expected to display or develop for the future. Although ADIPPDE has developed a framework to guide the appraisal of teachers, the OECD review team formed the impression that this framework was not widely known by teachers or school leaders.
The lack of accepted professional standards and a shared vision of “high quality teaching” impedes co-ordination and joined-up thinking across relevant policy initiatives. Clear professional standards can help to clarify expectations among relevant stakeholders, align different policies affecting the teaching profession (e.g. related to ITE, CPL, appraisal or career advancement) and guide teachers’ professional learning activities. In the absence of such standards, important initiatives (including the implementation of the new curricula, the development of ITE programmes, the IEP’s development of professional learning opportunities and teacher appraisal) do not appear to be guided by a shared framework for high quality teaching. Instead, teachers lack certainty on the skills they will need in order to implement the new curricula successfully and the training developed by IEP risk responding to ad hoc initiatives and changing political priorities more so than a clear vision for the teaching profession.
Inefficiencies in the management of staff resources diminish teachers’ impact on student learning
Greece is one of the few OECD countries that report not suffering from a shortage of teachers at the system level and benefits from a consistently high supply of graduates seeking to enter the profession (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025[41]). Nevertheless, 54% of Greece’s 15-year-olds attend schools whose principals reported that instruction in their schools is hindered to some extent or a lot by teacher shortages (compared to 47% on average across OECD countries) (OECD, 2023, pp. 408, Table II.B1.5.1[7]). This seeming paradox points to the challenges in management staff resources in Greece’s schools, which affects the use of teachers’ time as well as reported frictions in the allocation of substitute teachers. These factors combine to diminish the potential of Greece’s teachers to support student learning.
Many teachers (and principals) interviewed during the OECD review visit reported experiencing a high administrative burden. While no national or international data on Greek teachers’ administrative workload are available (Greece has not participated in previous cycles of TALIS), educators reported spending a substantial amount of their limited time on duplicative administrative tasks, data entry or retrieval procedures unrelated to their core teaching responsibilities. The ministry has started to address these concerns, for example by creating a platform that encourages Teacher Boards to move their records online, includes templates of commonly required documents and facilitates teachers’ approval of routine decisions online, rather than by physical signature (Ministry of Digital Governance, 2025[42]). Nevertheless, the administrative burden faced by teachers appears to remain high.
In a system characterised by heavy bureaucratic procedures and limited subsidiarity or decision-making autonomy for school leaders, teachers’ administrative burden is increased by the absence of secretarial support in most schools (see Chapter 2). Among OECD countries, Greece has by far the highest share of principals reporting that their school’s ability to provide instruction is hindered “to some extent” or “a lot” by lack of assisting staff (70.0%, compared to the OECD average of 37.2%) (see Figure 3.6) (OECD, 2023, pp. 408, Table II.B1.5.1[7]). Likewise, 75.6% of 15-year-olds were in schools whose principals reported that the school did not have sufficient qualified technical assisting staff, compared to 41.2% across OECD countries (OECD, 2023, pp. 409, Table II.B1.5.29[7]). As a result, given the small size of school leadership teams in Greece, many teachers need to take on a substantial part of their schools’ administrative work.
Percentage of students whose principal reported that their school's capacity to provide instruction is hindered by the following
Note: Countries/economies ordered in ascending order of the share of principals reporting a lack of assisting staff.
Source: OECD (2023[7]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en, Table II.B1.5.1.
Challenges in the timely allocation of permanent and substitute teachers (discussed above) add to perceived teacher shortages, regularly causing vacancies in hard-to-staff schools to remain unfilled at the start or during the school year. This places a burden on the remaining teaching staff who have to make up for lost instruction time, particularly in secondary schools that are unable to find replacements for subject teachers. Another factor that may aggravate perceived staff shortages includes student-to-teacher ratios, which are significantly below the OECD average in both primary and secondary education (see above) (OECD, 2024, pp. 370, Table D2.2[4]). Furthermore, the progressive reduction in teaching hours quite early on in teachers’ careers reduces students’ contact time with the most experienced teachers. Although similar arrangements can be found in other OECD countries, this can add to existing inefficiencies in the use of staff time (Boeskens and Nusche, 2021[43]).
Teachers have limited professional agency and involvement in policy development at the national level
Greek teachers play an important role in the governance of their schools, where Teacher Boards (comprised of all teachers as well as the principal) are responsible for taking many of the operational decisions that, in other countries, are assumed by principals independently. Through the Teacher Board, teachers also play a leading role in preparing their schools’ self-evaluation reports. However, given the limited consultation with trade unions on policy developments at the national level and the lack of alternative professional organisations or fora, teachers’ ability to collectively shape the future of their profession and play a role in policy developments at the national level is limited.
Relationships between the main teacher unions – the Federations of Primary and Secondary School Teachers (DOE and OLME) – and the ministry have been tense, which has stalled social dialogue on key reform processes. Teacher unions in Greece have focussed much of their attention on improving teachers’ material working conditions, such as their contractual status, pensions, salaries and working hours. Conflictual negotiations and an inability to reach mutually acceptable solutions and engage in the productive exchange of opposing views have led to a long-term deterioration of trust between public authorities and trade unions in Greece (OECD, 2018, p. 69[10]).
The Greek legislative process provides for a public consultation on draft bills during which stakeholders and other interested parties are invited to review and comment on bills before they are submitted to Parliament. Yet, in interviews conducted during the OECD review visit, union representatives reported no longer being involved in the co-design of policies or consulted systematically during earlier stages of their development. Given the lack of alternative professional organisations for teachers, this diminishes the systematic involvement of teachers in policy making. A recent exception was ADIPPDE’s survey of teachers’ views on the implementation of the new diagnostic exams, conducted in 2022, which (by their own account) constituted the first time the ministry had systematically requested teachers’ opinions to inform policy development (ADIPPDE, 2022, p. 10[24]). By contrast, there was no systematic involvement of a broader group of teachers during the development of the criteria for the new teacher appraisal framework (beyond the teachers serving on ADIPPDE’s Council, which approved proposals prior to their submission to the Minister). This lack of direct communication with and involvement of the wider teaching profession in key reform processes constitutes a missed opportunity to improve the design of policies based on teachers’ input. It also and creates challenges when seeking the profession’s buy-in for reforms, such as the new teacher appraisal process, risks undermining teachers’ sense of professional agency and could heighten apprehensions around reform efforts.
Policy recommendation 1: Developing a framework for teacher and school leader competencies and high-quality teaching practices
To align teacher policies across different domains and set clear expectations for the skills, knowledge and attitudes that teachers are expected to demonstrate at different stages of their careers, Greece should develop a framework for teacher competencies, guided by a clear vision for high-quality teaching. Such a framework should be used to align teachers’ appraisal, their continuing professional learning and their initial education. An integrated framework would help to guide teachers’ self-evaluation and orient their professional growth by helping them to identify training opportunities that match their development needs. For example, the IEP could use the central Teacher Training Register it is currently developing to index training opportunities based on the competencies included in the professional standards framework. Professional standards for teachers could also help to connect the teaching professions’ development with system-wide priorities, such as the skills-oriented curriculum reform and the effective use of digital resources (see Chapter 5).
The teacher appraisal framework developed by ADIPPDE provides a strong basis for developing such professional standards since it covers important aspects of teachers’ pedagogical competency, professionalism and their contribution to their schools’ development (Ministerial Decision 9950/ΓΔ5, 2023[30]). Such professional standards are most effective when they are widely known and developed together with the teaching profession, allowing teachers to collectively reflect on the future of their profession and to assume ownership of its underlying vision. High-performing school systems, such as Singapore and Estonia, provide examples of how professional standards with clearly defined competencies and associated indicators of effective behaviour can support teachers’ appraisal and career development (see Box 3.1).
The Estonian Qualifications Authority’s professional standards for teachers
The Estonian Qualifications Authority has developed professional standards specifying the skills, knowledge and attitudes that teachers are expected to demonstrate at each stage of their career. First developed in 2003, Estonia’s current professional standards were introduced in 2013 and have been updated in 2020 to place greater emphasis on digital pedagogy and inclusive education (OECD, 2020, p. 15[44]). Estonia’s professional standards serve a range of functions. They provide the basis for the curriculum of initial teacher education programmes, they are used to evaluate teachers, they provide a framework to guide their continuing professional learning and they are used in the voluntary certification process that determines teachers’ advancement across career stages (Révai, 2018, p. 25[45]; Pedaste et al., 2019[46]). The certification process is organised by the teacher professional organisation (the Estonian Association of Teachers) and teachers can apply for a new certification twice a year. A three-member committee oversees the two-stage application process, which involves an evaluation of the candidate’s application materials and an interview.
The Estonian teacher professional standards are differentiated across different levels of experience, which facilitates their links to appraisal procedures and career advancement (see (Révai, 2018, p. 25[45]) for a detailed description). The standards are articulated for Teachers (Levels 6 and 7.1), Senior Teachers (Level 7.2), and Master Teachers (Level 8). For teachers at Level 7, for example, there are six mandatory competencies (B.2.1 “Supporting the learner”; B.2.2 “Planning learning and teaching activities”; B.2.3 “Teaching”; B.2.4 “Reflection and professional self-development”; B.2.5 “Collaboration and coaching”; B.2.6 “Development, creative and research activities”) and two elective competencies (B.2.7 “Supporting learners with special educational needs” and B.2.8 “Implementation of digital pedagogy”). Each competency is associated with a set of indicators describing the corresponding behaviours that teachers are expected to demonstrate. For example, one of four indicators associated with competency B.2.4 states that the teacher “analyses and interprets the results of educational research and applies them in his/her work; conducts action research at the class/group level, analysing the learning process, defining problems, gathering evidence from practice; shares evidence-based knowledge with colleagues” (Estonian Qualifications Authority, 2024[47]).
Singapore’s Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS)
Singapore’s Ministry of Education has developed a competency-based management framework, the Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS), which lays out the knowledge, skills and professional characteristics expected from teachers at different stages of their careers (Révai, 2018[45]). The EPMS informs the evaluation of teachers’ performance, their professional development needs, decisions on their promotion and performance bonuses. The EPMS is aligned with Singapore’s teacher career ladder, which allows classroom teachers to develop their careers along three distinct pathways: the teaching track, the leadership track and the specialist track (NISL, 2019[48]).
The EPMS comprises a broad set of competencies and outcomes, called Key Result Areas (KRAs). The 13 competencies are grouped into four categories: 1) Individual attributes, 2) Professional mastery, 3) Organisational excellence and 4) Effective collaboration. The latter, for example, covers the following competencies: Interpersonal skills and relationships, teamwork and team building, and internal and external partnerships. The three KRAs are 1) Holistic student development (students’ learning, character development and co-curricular activities); 2) Professional development (development of oneself, coaching and development of others); and 3) Organisational outcomes (contributions to the school, committee work and nation, and collaboration with parents). All education staff typically work with their supervisors to set targets based on the KRAs at the beginning of the year and review their progress against them during a mid-year check-in and at the end of the year. Rather than providing precise metrics for each competency, the EPMS relies on professional judgement and each principal’s ability to develop evaluation metrics and processes to assess their teachers’ performance (NISL, 2019[48]).
Sources: Révai, N. (2018[45]), “What difference do standards make to educating teachers?: A review with case studies on Australia, Estonia and Singapore”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 174, https://doi.org/10.1787/f1cb24d5-en; OECD (2019[1]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en; OECD (2020[44]), “Education Policy Outlook in Estonia”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 13, https://doi.org/10.1787/9d472195-en; Estonian Qualifications Authority (2024[47]), Professional Standards: Teacher, Level 7, https://www.kutseregister.ee/ctrl/et/Standardid/vaata/10824233; NISL (2019[48]), Singapore's Career Ladder System, https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Education/Study-Group/NISLSingapore%27sCareerLadderSystem.pdf;
Professional standards should also be developed for school principals. This would help to promote professionalism and a coherent vision of school leadership, underlining the commitment to strengthening their role in the pedagogical leadership of schools. As for teachers, standards for school leaders could guide their preparation, their appraisal and their continuing professional learning. School leader standards should be developed with the profession to reflect the increasing complexity of their role, including their new responsibilities for pedagogical leadership and the appraisal of teachers (OECD, 2019, p. 177[1]).
Policy recommendation 2: Embedding the teacher appraisal process in a continuous improvement cycle
As the Greek education system pivots towards a more school-based and targeted approach to teachers’ professional learning, educators need to be empowered to become leaders of their own professional growth and assume responsibility for continuing to develop their skills throughout their careers. Given the ministry’s commitment to using teacher appraisal as a tool for professional growth, rather than accountability, the introduction of teacher appraisals constitutes a critical instrument to advance these goals. However, to fulfil its potential and provide teachers with guidance and support in developing their pedagogical practice, the appraisal process needs to be more strongly embedded in a continuous improvement cycle.
Although the teacher appraisal process in Greece comprises several important elements (including classroom observation and feedback conversations), its links with professional improvement are weakly developed and largely confined to a small number of underperforming teachers. This problem is not unique to Greece. In fact, many OECD countries fail to effectively link the outcomes of teachers’ appraisal to their continuing learning, either in the form of professional development opportunities or structured improvement plans (OECD, 2019, p. 310[1]). In addition, many countries struggle to resolve tensions that can arise between the growth-oriented and accountability-oriented objectives of teacher appraisals (Liebowitz, 2021[49]). Greece should address this challenge in line with evidence on effective growth-oriented appraisal models.
Given that Greece has decided to focus primarily on the formative functions of teacher appraisal, it should continue to clearly communicate this commitment in order to ensure that teachers engage in the appraisal process with a sense of psychological safety and focus on their internal motivation (Liebowitz, 2022[33]). The focus of the appraisal should be to provide teachers with constructive, narrative feedback on their practice and orient them towards further learning opportunities and a professional growth perspective regardless of their performance level. A distinction should be made between teachers performing near or below the accountability floor and the majority of teachers for whom no accountability pressure should be applied.
For teachers performing above the thresholds, the reliability and validity of appraisal ratings is less critical (Liebowitz, 2022[33]). What matters is that they are provided with detailed feedback on their practice and corresponding suggestions for voluntary professional learning opportunities, motivated by a perspective of professional growth. In the medium-term, the involvement of external evaluators should therefore be reserved for teachers at the bottom of the performance spectrum to target limited resources where they matter most. Likewise, while all teachers should walk away from their appraisals with a clear sense of areas in which they want to improve, mandatory development plans should remain limited to teachers at the lower end of the performance spectrum, who are likely to be more responsive to accountability pressure (Pope, 2019[50]).
Evidence also suggests that the most effective growth-oriented teacher appraisal systems involve a commitment to regularly observe teachers and dedicate resources to post-observation meetings, to share feedback and to identify specific areas for skill development (Liebowitz, 2022[33]; Taylor and Tyler, 2012[32]). The “High-Quality Professional Learning Cycle” articulated by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) is a good example of this approach (see Box 3.2). To move towards adopting these best practices, Greece should ensure that all teachers benefit from regular informal check-ins and lesson observations carried out by the school principal or co-ordinators as an opportunity to take stock of their progress and receive further input during the four years between their regular formal appraisals (OECD, 2019[1]).
Australia seeks promotes a continuous improvement cycle for teachers, integrating their regular appraisal with continuing professional learning to improve students’ learning outcomes. The system is built around the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, developed by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). The Professional Standards articulate a vision for high-quality teaching and the things teachers are expected to know and be able to do at different stages of their careers. While not all federal states and territories use the Standards in the same way, they are linked to teachers’ registration requirements across Australia and help them to engage in professional learning that is aligned with the quality criteria elaborated in the Standards (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[37]).
AITSL has developed the concept of a “High-Quality Professional Learning Cycle”, which proposes that teachers engage in four stages as part of an integrated cycle in which teachers 1) identify their professional learning needs; 2) select and undertake professional learning; 3) apply it in the context of their schools and refine their professional learning; and 4) evaluate its impact. Through its website, AITSL has published a suite of resources including practical guides, video case studies and research reports to support teachers in implementing each of the cycle’s stages (AITSL, 2019[51]). AITSL recommends that teachers identify their learning needs with references to the Professional Standards, their students’ needs and their schools’ strategic goals, informed by regular performance and development conversations.
To help teachers in identifying their learning needs and find matching professional learning opportunities, AITSL has launched an online Teacher Self Assessment Tool (AITSL, 2025[52]). The tool allows teachers to review their practice against the Professional Standards and receive personalised feedback using a 30-minute questionnaire. The tool may be used for informal purposes of self-reflection, identifying strengths and areas for further development, professional learning planning or to set career goals. The tool can also be used in more formal contexts, e.g. in teachers’ performance appraisals, to set developmental goals or to formally certify that teachers have reached the “Highly Accomplished” or “Lead Teacher” levels of the Professional Standards.
To support teachers’ engagement in effective forms of professional learning, AITSL also published the Australian Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School Leaders (AITSL, 2022[53]), which lays out characteristics of high-quality professional learning, and the Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework (AITSL, 2022[54]), which supports school leaders in developing a positive performance and development culture in their schools. Previous evaluations of the AITSL’s Professional Standards in 2013 and 2015 found them to be widely used across Australia at the national, state and school levels. While they were most frequently used in mandatory registration and certification processes, the reports also highlighted examples of their use to guide professional development and teachers’ self-reflection (AITSL, 2016[55]; Révai, 2018, p. 35[45]).
Sources: Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020[37]), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en, Box 3.2; AITSL (2016[55]), Final Report - Evaluation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/finalreport-of-the-evaluation-of-the-apst.pdf?sfvrsn=428aec3c_0.
The IEP’s Teacher Training Register, currently under development, could play an important role in linking teachers’ appraisals with professional learning opportunities (Law 5128, 2024[27]). To live up to this potential, the Register should be aligned with the professional standards that teachers are evaluated against. This would enable principals and teachers to identify training opportunities that can help them to strengthen their skills in areas that have been identified as needing further improvement.
Policy recommendation 3: Working towards redesigning the teacher appraisal process to make it more sustainable and school-based
The new teacher appraisal process is unlikely to be sustainable in its current form once it will be extended beyond beginning teachers in the coming years. The Education Advisers play a central role in the time-intensive appraisal process, which will not be feasible to maintain once every teacher is on a 4-yearly appraisal cycle. The many competing responsibilities of Education Advisers and the fact that each of them is responsible for around 150-180 teachers will require adjustments to the way the process is designed.
Given that many Greek principals had not previously engaged in regular teacher observations, the involvement of experienced Education Advisers offers an important source of support and a way to build school leaders’ capacity. As school leaders become more experienced in appraising their teachers and strengthen their pedagogical leadership role, the ministry should gradually reduce the involvement of Education Advisers in the appraisal process. As discussed above, shifting responsibility for the appraisal of teachers to schools could involve limiting the Education Advisers’ involvement to teachers at the lower end of the performance spectrum or to selected schools that have been identified as requiring additional attention and support.
Making teacher appraisals more school-based could also involve giving senior school staff besides the principal, such as mentors or co-ordinators, a greater role in the appraisal process. Although teachers’ appraisal is usually led by principals, it is not uncommon for peers or other senior school staff to play a role in the appraisal of teachers. Across OECD countries in TALIS 2018, 51% teachers were in schools whose principals reported that other members of the school management team contributed to teachers’ formal appraisal at least once a year. For 34% of teachers, their mentors contributed to the appraisal, for 31% of teachers, other teachers played a role. (Principals annually contributed to the appraisal of 63% of teachers) (OECD, 2020, pp. 237, Table II.3.30[56]).
Although the overall responsibility for appraisals tends to rest with principals or other senior school staff in most countries, some high-performing systems, such as Shanghai (China) and Korea, routinely involve teachers in the appraisal of their peers (OECD, 2020, pp. 237, Table II.3.30[56]). Formative peer appraisal can be a powerful instrument for professional growth since experienced teachers can draw on their teaching experience as well as their understanding of the school context to provide targeted advice to their colleagues (OECD, 2020, p. 124[56]). An evaluation of a formative peer evaluation scheme in England, for example, found that teachers who received feedback from their peers improved students’ test-score gains (by 0.07-0.09 SD) (Burgess, Rawal and Taylor, 2021[57]). If Greece were to give a greater role in the appraisal process to mentors, co-ordinators (or experienced teachers from other schools), it will be critical that evaluators are adequately prepared for their role and supported with structures and guidance to provide effective feedback to their peers.
Policy recommendation 4: Continue strengthening school-based approaches to professional learning
Greece has made encouraging efforts to reorient teachers’ professional learning from centrally provided top-down, mass training programmes towards more school-based and embedded forms of professional development. The new processes for school and teacher appraisals, the guidance offered by Education Advisers as well as the introduction of 15 annual hours of additional on-site training constitute important steps in this direction. Nevertheless, more efforts are needed to foster a culture of school-based professional learning and ensure that teachers are guided and supported in the process. This should involve further investments in the capacity of staff to lead this transformation at the school level as well as a strengthening of provisions at the central level to monitor teachers’ training needs and the quality of professional development programmes.
Further build the capacity of co-ordinators and mentors to lead school-based professional learning
To fulfil its commitment to enhancing the role of school-based learning, Greece’s Ministry of Education and ADIPPDE should further integrate collaborative practices into the teacher appraisal, school improvement and action planning processes. While the Education Advisers play a critical role in promoting school-based professional learning and helping teachers to work together on their school action plans, the Education Advisers’ capacity is too limited to provide all teachers with in-depth guidance for their professional learning. In the longer term, the orientation of teachers towards appropriate learning opportunities should happen within schools – both through the teacher appraisal process and through teachers’ collaborative work on school improvement plans. Greece will need to build capacity among school principals as well as other school staff to accomplish this transition to avoid that teachers feel left alone or seize to engage in any professional learning beyond the legally required minimum as the ministry shifts away from the central provision of uniform training.
A handful of OECD countries have sought to systematically support job-embedded approaches to professional learning that create opportunities for teachers to observe each other’s work, provide feedback on each other’s pedagogical practices and work on shared challenges or projects (see Box 3.3 for examples). The experience of these countries demonstrates that meaningful collaboration and professional learning in schools requires not only dedicated and shared time in teachers’ schedules, but also teacher leadership, dedicated resources, protocols and technical support (OECD, 2019, p. 302[1]; Kraft and Papay, 2014[58]). Developing a culture of professional collaboration and learning in Greek schools will not happen overnight and its impact may take time to manifest in measurable indicators. Yet, without dedicated resources, it is unlikely to succeed.
Teacher collaboration in Chile
The Chilean Ministry of Education is promoting several formats of teacher collaboration, including professional learning communities, lesson studies, video study clubs and action research (investigación-acción). Teams of teachers are encouraged to engage in these methods with the goal to better respond to students’ learning needs and address challenges they face in their teaching practice. The important role of collaborative work in professional learning had been established through Law 20.903, which establishes that schools must develop Local Plans that encourage collaborative work and pedagogical feedback. Furthermore, it establishes that local training must include processes by which teachers prepare classroom work, systematically reflect on their own practice, and provide evaluation and feedback for continuous improvement. Collaborative work has also been incorporated into the teacher appraisal process, which requires teachers to describe a peer-to-peer work experience and reflect on it in their professional portfolio (MINEDUC, 2019[59]).
The Teacher-led Innovation Fund (TLIF) (2015-19) in New Zealand
The Teacher-led Innovation Fund (TLIF) in New Zealand (2015-19) was an initiative by the Ministry of Education that provided teachers with time in their schedules and expert support to examine and improve upon their teaching practices (Tātai Aho Rau, 2019[60]). Teachers applied for funds, formed collaborative inquiry groups, received internal and external expert support, adapted practices as appropriate and documented what they learned. A 2017 evaluation of the programme through survey and focus groups interviews found that, although the quality of the TLIP project was variable, participants strongly appreciated the opportunity to work in teams and reported more opportunities for pedagogical feedback among peers (Sinnema, Alansari and Turner, 2018[61]). The New Zealand Education Research Council still administers the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (with a more limited budget of NZD 1.5 million), which funds joint research of practitioners and researchers rather than spreading best practice more widely (Haugh, Purwin and Santiago, 2024[62]).
Learning and lesson studies in Sweden
In Sweden, the National Agency for Education (Skoleverket) encourages teachers to collaborate by solving problems and critically scrutinising teach others’ work to create systematic approaches within schools to improving teaching methods, assessments and grading. This form of professional learning has its roots in learning studies and lesson studies (practices pioneered in Japan) in which teams of teachers work collaboratively to develop a lesson, teach it in turn and provide each other with feedback to continuously improve the lesson over time (Swedish Ministry of Education and Research, 2016[63]).
Source: OECD (2019[1]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en, p. 302.
The introduction of formal roles for co-ordinators and mentors provides a unique opportunity to build capacity for teacher-led professional learning within schools. They are in a good position to work with Education Advisers and gradually assume greater responsibilities in leading school-based professional development and peer learning. To do so, they need to be empowered and provided with sufficient resources. Currently, teachers receive very little preparation (mostly in writing) to assume these roles effectively and they are neither remunerated nor compensated with reduced teaching hours. Providing co-ordinators and mentors with dedicated time to plan school-based professional learning activities will be an important condition for their success and Greece should consider remunerating them for the additional responsibilities they assume to increase the attractiveness of their roles. Further efforts should also be undertaken to overcome the professional isolation of mentors and co-ordinators to foster their professional exchange and the dissemination of best practices. This could be accomplished by creating local networks and regular meetings for mentors and co-ordinators to share experiences of successful practices or address common challenges with their peers. They should also be provided with guidance and protocols for effective collaborative practices. Likewise, more attention needs to be placed on strengthening school leaders’ competency to support collaboration in schools as part of their selection process, their initial preparation and their appraisal.
Strengthen the monitoring of teachers’ training needs and the quality of professional development programmes
To strengthen the quality of professional development, Greece will need to improve its monitoring of teachers’ professional learning and their training needs. Education Advisers work closely with schools and regularly collect valuable information on teachers’ learning needs, which could inform IEP’s development of corresponding training programmes. A systematic exchange between the Education Advisers and the experts at IEP should seek to identify gaps in the professional learning offer and to strengthen its alignment with the needs identified at the school level. Given the growing importance of school-based learning, it will also be important to collect data on the types of activities that principals and Education Advisers organise during the mandatory whole-school training days, to gage whether system-level needs (e.g. related to the curriculum reform) are being sufficiently addressed or require further targeted training efforts.
Although IEP training courses usually integrate satisfaction surveys, there is scope to strengthen quality assurance mechanisms around teachers’ professional development, including their school-based professional learning. The IEP has announced that the development of its Teacher Training Register will be accompanied by a strengthening of its quality assurance mechanisms, including the regular evaluation of trainers by teachers and managers (Law 5128, 2024[27]). These plans are commendable and should be further pursued. Central professional learning services in other OECD countries, offer examples of promising strategies that could inform Greece’s efforts to monitor the quality of its professional development offer more systematically, such as the use of course evaluations by Ireland’s Oide (see Box 3.4).
Ireland’s Department of Education (DoE) offers a range of free professional learning opportunities for teachers and school leaders through its central support service Oide and the local Education Support Centres. Oide was launched in September 2023, bringing together four previously separate professional learning services: the Centre for School Leadership (CSL), Junior Cycle for Teachers (JCT), the National Induction Programme for Teachers (NIPT) and the Professional Development Service for Teachers (PDST).
Oide has engaged in a number of efforts to monitor and raise the quality of its professional learning offer. All summer courses offered by Oide include a teacher evaluation at the end and Oide regularly reviews the quality of in-person training courses at the primary and post-primary levels, as well as a sample of online courses. In addition, the DoE Inspectorate evaluates the design and facilitation of a sample of online and in-person professional learning courses each year. Support and development services for school staff offered by the DoE’s National Educational Psychological Service (NEPS) are informed by evaluations with teachers and educational psychologists that are carried out upon completion of the learning events.
In parallel, the Educational Research Centre (ERC) has developed an “Evaluation framework for teachers’ professional learning in Ireland” to support the evaluation of different forms of teachers’ formal professional learning, either by providers or external evaluators in 2023. This complements an internal (unpublished) framework developed by the DoE in 2021 to inform the design and quality assurance process of learning opportunities provided by its support services (Gilleece, Surdey and Rawdon, 2023[64]).
The ERC evaluation framework is designed to assess four components of teachers’ professional learning (TPL): 1) the context in which it takes place, 2) its key features, 3) teacher outcomes, and 4) student, school or system outcomes. The key features of TPL covered by the framework are “structural features” (active learning; duration; collective participation; and access, administration & data), “core features” (TPL focus, coherence and ownership), and “facilitator competencies”. For each of these components, the framework proposes a range of indicators and instruments that can be used to assess them. In a detailed case study, for example, a training on “Restorative Practice” was evaluated using pre- and post-TPL questionnaires for both teachers and principals, reflective journal prompts and a questionnaire for the TPL facilitator (Gilleece, Surdey and Rawdon, 2023, p. 37[64]).
Sources: OECD (2024[65]), OECD Review of Resourcing Schools to Address Educational Disadvantage in Ireland, Reviews of National Policies for Education, https://doi.org/10.1787/3433784c-en, p. 168; Gilleece, Surdey and Rawdon (2023[64]), An evaluation framework for teachers’ professional learning in Ireland, Educational Research Centre, Dublin, https://www.erc.ie/wpcontent/uploads/2023/05/TPL-Evaluation-Framework-Report-Online-2023.pdf.
There is also scope for strengthening schools’ guidance on effective forms of professional development. ADIPPDE has developed a framework of quality criteria that schools can use to evaluate their teachers’ professional development actions. In order to serve as an effective instrument to guide principals’ and teachers’ efforts to strengthen professional development, these criteria should be revised to cover not only the desired outcomes of professional learning activities, but also their structural features and specific examples of high-impact professional learning formats (ADIPPDE, 2023, p. 475[31]). The quality criteria would also need to be disseminated more effectively to ensure that school co-ordinators and principals are aware of them and draw on them when designing and evaluating their schools’ professional learning. This should also involve a greater emphasis on evaluating the effects of both central and school-based forms of professional leaning on teaching practices.
References
[31] ADIPPDE (2023), Ετήσια Έκθεση 2023: Διαδικασίες Συλλογικού Προγραμματισμού, Εσωτερικής και Εξωτερικής Αξιολόγησης των Σχολικών Μονάδων , όπως Εφαρμόστηκαν κατά το Σχολικό Έτος 2021 - 22 [Annual Report 2023: Collective Planning Processes, Internal and External Evaluation of School Units as Implemented in the School Year 2021-22], https://adippde.gr/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/etisia_ekthesi_2023.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2025).
[24] ADIPPDE (2022), Ετήσια Έκθεση 2022 Εξετάσεις Διαγνωστικού Χαρακτήρα: Απόψεις και Προτάσεις των Εκπαιδευτικών [Annual Report 2022 - Diagnostic Examinations: Teachers’ Views and Suggestions], • Authority for Quality Assurance in Primary and Secondary Education, Athens, https://adippde.gr/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/ADIPPDE_ekthesi_2022.pdf (accessed on 4 May 2025).
[52] AITSL (2025), Teacher Self Assessment Tool, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/improve-practice/teacher-self-assessment-tool (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[53] AITSL (2022), Australian Charter for the Professional Learning of Teachers and School Leaders, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-charter-for-the-professional-learning-of-teachers-and-school-leaders.pdf?sfvrsn=6f7eff3c_8 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[54] AITSL (2022), Australian Teacher Performance and Development Framework, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/national-policy-framework/australian-teacher-performance-and-development-framework.pdf?sfvrsn=4a7fff3c_10 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[51] AITSL (2019), Enabling the High Quality Professional Learning Cycle, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/hqpl/enabling-the-high-quality-professional-learning-cycle---for-leaders.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[55] AITSL (2016), Final Report - Evaluation of the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers, Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/final-report-of-the-evaluation-of-the-apst.pdf?sfvrsn=428aec3c_0 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[2] Birch, P. et al. (2021), Teachers in Europe: Careers, Development and Well-being, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, https://doi.org/10.2797/997402.
[41] Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025), “Policies for the digital transformation of school education: Evidence from the Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 328, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/464dab4d-en.
[43] Boeskens, L. and D. Nusche (2021), “Not enough hours in the day: Policies that shape teachers’ use of time”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 245, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/15990b42-en.
[37] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.
[57] Burgess, S., S. Rawal and E. Taylor (2021), “Teacher peer observation and student test scores: Evidence from a field experiment in English secondary schools”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 39/4, pp. 1155-1186, https://doi.org/10.1086/712997/SUPPL_FILE/19353DATA.ZIP.
[47] Estonian Qualifications Authority (2024), Professional Standards: Teacher, Level 7, https://www.kutseregister.ee/ctrl/et/Standardid/vaata/10824233 (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[36] European Commission (2023), European and Training Monitor 2023 - Greece, https://doi.org/10.2766/95892.
[35] European Commission (2019), Education and Training Monitor 2019 - Greece, https://doi.org/10.2766/80814.
[6] Eurydice (2025), Eurypedia: Greece, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/greece/overview (accessed on 6 May 2025).
[64] Gilleece, L., J. Surdey and C. Rawdon (2023), An evaluation framework for teachers’ professional learning in Ireland, Educational Research Centre, Dublin, https://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/TPL-Evaluation-Framework-Report-Online-2023.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2024).
[9] HAHE (2021), Standards for Quality Accreditation of Undergraduate Programmes, Hellenic Authority for Higher Education, Athens, https://www.ethaae.gr/images/articles/P1A_Standards_UGP_%CE%95%CE%9D.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2025).
[62] Haugh, D., A. Purwin and P. Santiago (2024), “Ensuring the tide lifts all boats: Improving quality and equity in schools across New Zealand”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1816, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1fa0a2b1-en.
[23] Joint Ministerial Decision 129818/Γ2/2013 (2013), Αριθμός μαθητών ανά τμήμα στα Γυμνάσια και στα Γενικά Λύκεια [Number of Students Per Class in Lower and General Upper Secondary Schools], Government Gazette 2451 Β, Athens, https://www.e-nomothesia.gr/kat-ekpaideuse/deuterobathmia-ekpaideuse/kya-129818-g2-2013.html#google_vignette (accessed on 31 October 2025).
[58] Kraft, M. and J. Papay (2014), “Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 36/4, pp. 476-500, https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713519496.
[14] Law 4152 (2013), Υποπαράγραφος Θ.2.: Ρυθμίσεις για την Πρωτοβάθμια και Δευτεροβάθμια Εκπαίδευση [Subparagraph 0.2: Provisions for Primary and Secondary Education], Government Gazette 107 A, Athens.
[17] Law 4354 (2015), Διαχείριση των Μη Εξυπηρετούμενων Δανείων, Μισθολογικές Ρυθμίσεις και Άλλες Επείγουσες Διατάξεις Εφαρμογής της Συμφωνίας Δημοσιονομικών Στόχων και Διαρθρωτικών Μεταρρυθμίσεων [Management of Non-performing Loans, Wage Settlements and other Urgent Regulatory Provisions Concerning the Agreement of Budgetary Objectives and Structural Reforms], Government Gazette 176 A, Athens, https://ia37rg02wpsa01.blob.core.windows.net/fek/01/2015/20150100176.pdf (accessed on 30 October 2025).
[26] Law 4547 (2018), Αναδιοργάνωση των δομών υποστήριξης της πρωτοβάθμιας και δευτεροβάθμιας εκπαίδευσης και άλλες διατάξει [Reorganisation of primary and secondary education support structures and other provisions], Government Gazette A’102.
[12] Law 4589 (2019), Synergies between the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, the Agricultural University of Athens, the University of Thessaly with the Technical and Vocational Institutes of Thessaly and Central Greece, the Pallimniako Fund and other provisions, Government Gazette A’13, Athens, https://www.minedu.gov.gr/publications/docs2018/N4589FEK13.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2025).
[8] Law 4653 (2020), Εθνική Αρχή Ανώτατης Εκπαίδευσης. Ειδικοί Λογαριασμοί Κονδυλίων Έρευνας Ανώτατων Εκπαιδευτικών Ιδρυμάτων, Ερευνητικών και Τεχνολογικών Φορέων και άλλες διατάξεις [National Authority for Higher Education. Special Accounts for Research Funds of Higher Education Institutions, Research and Technological Bodies and other provisions], Government Gazette A’12, Athens, https://search.et.gr/el/fek/?fekId=589078 (accessed on 24 June 2025).
[13] Law 4692 (2020), Αναβάθμιση του Σχολείου και άλλες διατάξεις [School upgrade and other provisions], Government Gazette 111 A.
[15] Law 4823 (2021), Αναβάθμιση του σχολείου, ενδυνάμωση των εκπαιδευτικών και άλλες διατάξεις [School upgrading, empowering teachers and other provisions], Government Gazette 136 A, https://search.et.gr/el/fek/?fekId=603011 (accessed on 28 April 2025).
[27] Law 5128 (2024), Ρυθμίσεις για την Ψηφιακή Εκπαιδευτική Πύλη και το Ψηφιακό Φροντιστήριο, επαγγελματικός προσανατολισμός στη δευτεροβάθμια εκπαίδευση, μέτρα στήριξης του εκπαιδευτικού συστήματος στις απομακρυσμένες περιοχές και λοιπές ρυθμίσεις [Regulations for the Digital Educational Portal and the Digital Tutoring Center, vocational guidance in secondary education, measures to support the educational system in remote areas and other regulations], Government Gazette A’118, https://search.et.gr/el/fek/?fekId=767942 (accessed on 20 June 2025).
[33] Liebowitz, D. (2022), “Teacher evaluation for growth and accountability: Under what conditions does it improve student outcomes?”, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 92/4, pp. 533-565, https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-92.4.533.
[49] Liebowitz, D. (2021), “Teacher evaluation for accountability and growth: Should policy treat them as complements or substitutes?”, Labour Economics, Vol. 71, p. 102024, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LABECO.2021.102024.
[59] MINEDUC (2019), Trabajo Collaborativo y Desarrollo Profesional Docente en la Escuela, Ministerio de Educación, Santiago, https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/handle/20.500.12365/2266 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[30] Ministerial Decision 9950/ΓΔ5 (2023), Ρύθμιση Ειδικότερων και Λεπτομερειακών Θεμάτων Σχετικά με την Αξιολόγηση των Εκπαιδευτικών και των Μελών Ειδικού Εκπαιδευτικού Προσωπικού και Ειδικού Βοηθητικού Προσωπικού της Πρωτοβάθμιας και Δευτεροβάθμιας Εκπαίδευσης, καθώς και τη Διαδικασία Διενέργειάς της [Regulation of Specific and Detailed Issues Concerning the Evaluation of Teachers and Members of the Special Educational Staff and Special Support Staff of Primary and Secondary Education, as well as the Procedure for Its Implementation], Government Gazette 388 B, Athens, https://www.minedu.gov.gr/publications/docs2023/ΦΕΚ_Αξιολόγησης.pdf (accessed on 31 October 2025).
[42] Ministry of Digital Governance (2025), Ψηφιακό βιβλίο πράξεων συλλόγου διδασκόντων [Digital Teachers’ Association Minutes], https://edudocs.services.gov.gr/ (accessed on 23 June 2025).
[3] MOE (2024), OECD Education Policy Review: Improving Learning Outcomes in Greece - Country Background Report, Greek Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs and Sports.
[22] MOE (2024), Provision of Teachers’ Payroll Data for the Survey “Teachers’ & School Heads’ Salaries & Allowances”.
[48] NISL (2019), Singapore’s Career Ladder System, National Institute for School Leadership, Singapore, https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Education/Study-Group/NISLSingapore%27sCareerLadderSystem.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2025).
[66] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fcfaf2d1-en.
[25] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[21] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[20] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e7d20315-en.
[4] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[5] OECD (2024), “How are demographic changes affecting education systems?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 87, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/158d4c5c-en.
[16] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Greece 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a35a56b6-en.
[65] OECD (2024), OECD Review of Resourcing Schools to Address Educational Disadvantage in Ireland, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3433784c-en.
[28] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 29 January 2024).
[40] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 29 January 2024).
[7] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[19] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.
[18] OECD (2021), “What are the roles and salaries of school heads?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 78, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2021/02/what-are-the-roles-and-salaries-of-school-heads_947d0bbc.html (accessed on 7 May 2025).
[44] OECD (2020), “Education Policy Outlook in Estonia”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9d472195-en.
[56] 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.
[11] OECD (2019), A Flying Start: Improving Initial Teacher Preparation Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf74e549-en.
[29] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume II): Where All Students Can Succeed, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en.
[1] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
[10] 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.
[39] OECD (2013), Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-en.
[46] Pedaste, M. et al. (2019), “Teacher professional standards to support teacher quality and learning in Estonia”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 54/3, pp. 389-399, https://doi.org/10.1111/EJED.12346.
[50] Pope, N. (2019), “The effect of teacher ratings on teacher performance”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 172, pp. 84-110, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JPUBECO.2019.01.001.
[45] Révai, N. (2018), “What difference do standards make to educating teachers?: A review with case studies on Australia, Estonia and Singapore”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 174, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f1cb24d5-en.
[61] Sinnema, C., M. Alansari and H. Turner (2018), The Promise of Improvement Through and of the Teacher Led Innovation Fund: Evaluation of the TLIF (Final Report), https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/server/api/core/bitstreams/f9a99d3e-5839-4ce2-904f-b2cb5eb32278/content (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[34] Stamelos, G., A. Vassilopoulos and M. Bartzakli (2012), “Understanding the difficulties of implementation of a teachers’ evaluation system in Greek primary education: From national past to European influences”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 11/4, pp. 545-557, https://doi.org/10.2304/EERJ.2012.11.4.545.
[63] Swedish Ministry of Education and Research (2016), OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Sweden, Swedish Ministry of Education and Research, Stockholm, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.
[60] Tātai Aho Rau (2019), Teacher-led Innovation Fund (TLIF), https://core-ed.org/en_NZ/our-projects/research-and-evaluation/teacher-led-innovation-fund/ (accessed on 27 June 2025).
[32] Taylor, E. and J. Tyler (2012), “The effect of evaluation on teacher performance”, American Economic Review, Vol. 2012/7, pp. 3628-3651, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3628.
[38] Timperley, H. et al. (2007), Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration, New Zealand Ministry of Education, Wellington, http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/goto/BES (accessed on 26 March 2019).
← 1. Teachers’ statutory retirement age in Greece is regulated by the Laws 4387(2016) and 4336(2015). Teachers can retire with a full pension at age 67 or at age 62, provided that they have served for at least 40 years. The statutory maximum age of service is 67 years. However, since the retirement system is currently going through a transition period, several factors affect the age of retirement, including teachers’ years of service and the year in which they started working as civil servants. Moreover, there are specific provisions for female teachers with underaged children at a certain age.
← 2. In primary schools with at least six and up to ten classes, principals appoint one class co-ordinator and one subject co-ordinator, provided that there are at least three teachers of the same specialty in the school. In primary schools with more than ten classes, principals appoint two class co-ordinators and one subject co-ordinator, provided there are at least three teachers of the same specialty. (The principal may assign the same teacher to serve both as class co-ordinator and subject co-ordinator). In secondary schools with up to ten classes, principals appoint one class co-ordinator. One subject co-ordinator per specialty is appointed if there are at least four teachers of the same specialty or, if this is not possible, at least four teachers in the same teaching field. In secondary schools with more than ten classes, principals appoint two class co-ordinators. (The same rules for subject co-ordinators apply). In both cases, principals may assign the same teacher to serve as both class co-ordinator and subject co-ordinator. (Ministerial Decision F12/102913/GD4/22, Government Gazette 4509 B/25-8-2022).
← 3. Year of reference of the latest available data on earnings of tertiary-educated workers in Greece is 2018, which may affect the comparability. For detailed information on sources, methodologies and technical notes on the calculation of teachers’ salaries in Greece, see OECD (2025, p. 234[66]).
← 4. Authors' analysis based on OECD (2023[40]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.