This chapter examines teachers' working conditions, focusing on how they perceive the demands of teaching. It examines which teachers are more likely to report stress as a proxy for perceived workload challenges and demands, particularly in relation to workload, classroom discipline, student diversity, system-level change and teacher appraisal. The chapter explores how these reported challenges vary according to teacher characteristics, particularly years of experience and levels of confidence or self-efficacy. It provides a comparative picture of which teachers face the most demanding teaching contexts.
Results from TALIS 2024
The State of Teaching
Abstract
Administrative workload remains a considerable demand for teachers. On average across OECD education systems, about half of teachers report excessive administrative work as a source of work-related stress, particularly those with more than ten years of experience. However, in Colombia and Singapore, more novice teachers report this as a source of stress.
Even though administrative time has decreased in only 3 education systems since 2018, related stress shows different patterns. In 18 education systems, teachers' reports of excessive administrative work as a source of stress have increased since 2018, but in only 9 of those education systems did time spent on administrative work increase. Conversely, in 11 education systems, the share of teachers who believe that administrative work is a source of stress has decreased even though the time spent on such tasks has not changed or even increased.
Adapting teaching to student diversity of needs – not academic differences – is consistently related to teacher stress. Teachers are more likely to report stress related to classroom discipline when student diversity involves behavioural, linguistic, or special education needs, rather than when it involves academic differences (e.g. mixing low and high achievers). While this pattern holds for most education systems, no link is found in others, including those in Finland, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands*, New Zealand*, Norway* and Sweden.
About one in five teachers report experiencing significant disruptive noise and disorder in their classrooms, on average across OECD education systems, and the share of time spent on maintaining discipline has increased in almost all education systems since 2018. In 2024, more than 50% of teachers in Brazil report such challenges, and just over 33% of teachers in Chile, Finland, Portugal and South Africa do so. In contrast, fewer than 5% of teachers in Albania, Japan and Shanghai (China) report facing such disciplinary issues. Novice teachers report more classroom disruptions than their experienced colleagues in nearly all education systems.
Younger teachers (under 30) consistently report working in the most diverse classrooms. Younger teachers are more likely to report working with students who have language difficulties, special education needs, and behavioural challenges than their older peers. In some education systems, these differences exceed 15-20 percentage points, including Colombia, Italy, Israel, Latvia, New Zealand* and Portugal.
Teachers’ sources of stress are more closely linked to constant, unsupported change than to resource shortages. While understaffing or lack of resources can be a source of stress, TALIS 2024 finds no consistent relationship across education systems between reported stress and structural resource gaps. Instead, stress is more strongly associated with the experience of constant, unsupported change – particularly when teachers feel overwhelmed by frequent initiatives or are asked to implement reforms without adequate support.
Teacher appraisal focuses on development, but formative support varies widely. While teacher appraisal is widespread, what happens afterwards differs greatly. On average across OECD education systems, 65% of teachers are engaged in post-appraisal discussions about how to improve their teaching. Approximately 46% are offered development or training plans, but this ranges from under 15% in Iceland and Norway* to over 90% in Bahrain and Kazakhstan. Mentorship and financial incentives remain relatively rare (20% and 12%, respectively), and sanctions are even less common (below 3%).
* For countries highlighted with an asterisk (*), estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias. See the Reader's Guide and Annex A for more detail.
Like all professions, teachers face a wide range of changing demands. They have to teach lessons, carry out administrative tasks, adapt to changing student populations, maintain classroom discipline, meet a wide range of learning needs, be held accountable for student performance, and keep up with changes in the profession. Job demands are considered as physical, social, or organisational aspects of work that require sustained effort and may lead to physiological or psychological strain (Demerouti et al., 2001[1]). Work-related stress is often conceptualised as an imbalance between job demands and the resources available to meet those demands. In other words, teachers may experience stress when what is expected of them outweighs the support, time, skills or coping mechanisms available to them.
How teachers respond to these demands depends on several factors. The confidence teachers feel in their work, both in teaching and managing their classrooms, can influence how they perceive professional demands. Another important related factor to assess is the amount of experience they have, which is closely tied to self-efficacy (see Chapter 1). Other elements to consider are the volume (how much there is) and the nature (the type of task) of the demands, and whether they have sufficient resources to cope. If teachers feel less confident and face high workloads, a diverse range of classroom needs, or high-stakes accountability pressures without adequate support, these demands can accumulate, undermining teachers' well-being and eroding their practice. On the other hand, if demands are coupled with higher confidence and relevant support, teachers can improve and meet rising expectations (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017[2]; Crawford, LePine and Rich, 2010[3]).
This chapter examines how often teachers report different demands as sources of stress. While stress is a common occurrence in any professional environment, identifying the sources of stress can help pinpoint where demands are not being met with sufficient support. By comparing data from previous cycles of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), this chapter also looks at whether there have been changes in the perception of these demands as sources of stress.
Based on the findings presented in Chapter 2, which highlight the positive and strong relationship between self-efficacy and professional outcomes, this chapter begins by examining the relationship between self-efficacy and teachers' reports of two types of job demands: workload and maintaining classroom discipline. It then delves into teachers’ reports on these areas in more detail, as well as their experiences with teaching students with diverse learning needs, teacher accountability, and keeping pace with reforms in the profession.
Teacher self-efficacy refers to a teacher's belief in their ability to perform specific teaching-related tasks effectively. It reflects their perceived competence in various professional practice domains, such as instruction and classroom management. These beliefs can be interpreted as teachers’ confidence in their ability to manage their classrooms, deliver lessons and deal with the challenges of teaching.
As shown in Chapter 2, teachers reporting higher self-efficacy are also more likely to report greater job satisfaction, well-being and lower stress. Recent studies support these findings, showing that teachers with strong self-belief are more engaged and resilient (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2017[4]; Çetin, Frank and Jennings, 2024[5]). Research also highlights the relevance of self-efficacy for effective teaching, as it is consistently associated with high-quality pedagogical practices and stronger instructional outcomes (Klassen and Tze, 2014[6]; Zee and Koomen, 2016[7]). Effective planning, adaptive classroom management and the use of student-centred teaching strategies, for instance, have all been linked to higher teacher self-efficacy (Holzberger, Philipp and Kunter, 2013[8]; Klassen and Tze, 2014[6]).
This is aligned with TALIS data, which show that in 34 of the 54 education systems participating in TALIS with available data (hereafter “education systems”), teachers with high instructional self-efficacy (those in the top quarter of the index) are less likely to report maintaining discipline as a source of stress (Figure 3.1). The differences are particularly pronounced in Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands*, New Zealand* and Sweden, where the gap between high- and low-efficacy teachers exceeds 18 percentage points.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report that maintaining classroom discipline is a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Teachers with low self-efficacy in instruction refer to those in the bottom quarter according to the scale of self‐efficacy in instruction (T4SEINS). Teachers with high self-efficacy in instruction refer to those in the top quarter according to the scale of self‐efficacy in instruction (T4SEINS). Quartiles calculated within education systems.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.1.
A strong relationship is also observed between discipline-related stress and self-efficacy in classroom management. In 44 education systems, teachers with high self-efficacy in classroom management (those in the top quarter of the index) are consistently less likely to report discipline as stressful, often by over 40 percentage points (Table 3.2). Teachers who report higher self-efficacy in classroom management are also less likely to report maintaining discipline as a source of stress, even after controlling for the amount of time they spend on maintaining order in the classroom (Table 3.4). This suggests that confidence in classroom management skills and strategies is associated with how teachers perceive and experience these demands, regardless of the actual time spent on classroom management.
Moreover, across most education systems, teachers with high self-efficacy in classroom management report overwhelmingly fewer interruptions, having to wait for students to quiet down, having much disruptive noise and disorder and having many students who do not start working for a long time after the lesson begins (Table 3.5). Teachers with higher instructional or classroom management self-efficacy report spending less time keeping order and more time on actual teaching and learning, on average across OECD countries and territories with available data (hereafter, “on average”) (Tables 3.6 and 3.7). In five education systems, the differences in time spent teaching and learning between high- and low-self-efficacy teachers are about 10 percentage points or more.
These findings underscore that not all demands are uniformly perceived. In many cases, teachers' reports on these demands may relate more to their confidence in handling them, as is the case among class management demands, than to the nature of the tasks themselves. In contrast, other types of teacher demands related to workload (lesson planning, marking and administrative work) appear to be less closely associated with teachers’ levels of self-efficacy.
For example, confidence in one's teaching ability does not necessarily reduce stress about having too much lesson preparation. Only in Brazil and Italy do teachers with high instructional self-efficacy report this stress less frequently than those with low self-efficacy. Conversely, in Estonia, Kazakhstan, Korea, Malta, Montenegro, Morocco, North Macedonia and Uzbekistan, teachers with higher instructional self-efficacy report this stress more often (Table 3.1). Teachers with high classroom management confidence in 15 education systems do report less lesson preparation-related stress (3.2). However, overall, across education systems, lesson preparation stress appears to be unrelated to teachers’ self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy in instruction does not change teachers’ reports on having too many lessons to teach as a source of stress. In three education systems alone (Azerbaijan, Brazil and Colombia), teachers with high instructional self-efficacy report stress from excessive teaching to a lesser extent than those with lower self-efficacy in instruction. The opposite is true in Estonia, Korea, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates, where teachers with high instructional self-efficacy report stress from excessive teaching more frequently than those with lower self-efficacy (Table 3.1). However, when it comes to confidence in classroom management, in all education systems where there are differences (12 education systems), teachers with high self-efficacy report high teaching volume as a source of stress to a lesser extent, with the sole exceptions of North Macedonia and South Africa (Table 3.2).
Moreover, differences in stress related to excessive marking also show a limited connection to self-efficacy in most education systems. Only in Brazil, Kosovo and Sweden do teachers with high confidence in their instructional abilities report less that excessive marking is a source of stress. The opposite is true in Estonia, Finland, Slovenia and South Africa. Similar results can be observed for self-efficacy in classroom management (Table 3.1).
Finally, only in 13 education systems do teachers with high instructional self-efficacy spend less class time on administrative tasks than teachers with low instructional self-efficacy (in the bottom quarter of the index) (Table 3.7). Similar patterns emerge when looking at teachers' reports of stress. In most education systems, confidence in one’s instruction and in classroom management skills does not strongly differentiate teachers’ reports of stress related to administrative workload (Tables 3.1 and 3.2).
In the following sections, teacher reports on these various demands will be analysed regardless of their self-efficacy levels. Understanding these differences can be important for designing the right support mechanisms – such as mentoring, targeted professional development, and well-balanced workload policies – that enable all teachers to better navigate professional demands.
Teachers are often formally required to work a certain number of hours per year, as set out in collective agreements or other contractual arrangements (OECD, 2024[9]). However, formal time allocations rarely capture the full range of activities teachers undertake. They might perform administrative tasks, supervise school activities, and engage in a number of duties during and outside school working hours (see Box 3.1 for a comparative perspective with other professionals).
Full-time teachers report that they work almost half an hour more per week than in 2018, on average (Figure 3.2). However, there is significant variation between education systems. While working time has remained stable in about half of education systems, it has increased in 12, with increases of almost 5 hours per week in Brazil and about 9 hours per week in Korea. Conversely, total working time has decreased in 9 education systems, with a drop of about 4 hours per week in Japan and over 14 in Kazakhstan.
Average number of hours full-time lower secondary teachers report spending on job-related tasks during the most recent complete calendar week
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 3.8.
TALIS collects data on both total weekly workload, reported as a single figure, and disaggregated estimates of hours spent on specific tasks. The survey does not constrain teachers’ responses, so the sum of disaggregated time spent on individual tasks (e.g. teaching, planning, marking and correcting, communicating with parents, etc.) can exceed the reported total workload. To analyse the distribution of working time across different activities, this chapter looks at the task-based data as a share of the sum of time devoted to all tasks among teachers working full-time.1
Teaching is the single most time-consuming task for teachers in all education systems. However, in most education systems, it does not account for the majority of teachers' total workload. On average, it accounts for about 43% of full-time teachers' self-reported total working time. Only in Finland and the French Community of Belgium does teaching account for at least 50% of total self-reported working time. On the other hand, in Azerbaijan, Japan, Shanghai (People’s Republic of China, hereafter “China”), Singapore and Uzbekistan, teaching accounts for less than one-third of total working time (Table 3.10), which suggests that the nature of the work required of teachers can vary considerably across education systems. Some place greater emphasis on teaching, while others allow more time for other tasks (see Box 3.2). When interpreting these results, it is important to note that these differences partly reflect broader teacher working patterns, with teachers in Japan, Shanghai (China) and Singapore reporting higher total working hours than their peers in other education systems.
When looking at the differences in average teaching time by teachers’ years of experience within education systems, there is no actual difference on average and across most education systems. In 11 education systems, however, novice teachers (those with up to five years of teaching experience) report teaching more hours per week than their more experienced peers (those with more than ten years of teaching experience), and by an average of about three teaching hours or more in Bahrain, New Zealand* and Türkiye. This situation could be problematic in certain contexts, as novice teachers may require more support (see Chapter 4). The opposite is true in six education systems only, where experienced teachers report more teaching hours per week, reaching over three hours more in Azerbaijan and Costa Rica (Table 3.12).
Lesson planning and marking and correcting student work are the next most time-consuming tasks, accounting for 14% and 9% of working time, respectively, on average (Table 3.10). In Japan, Shanghai (China) and Singapore, while having some of the lowest teaching hours, the average amount of time spent planning lessons is also around 14%. In these countries, the ratio of teaching to lesson preparation is among the highest, meaning that for every hour spent teaching, teachers spend comparatively more time preparing. Likewise, in both Shanghai (China) and Singapore, teachers spend over 10% of their working time marking and correcting student work (9% on average). The highest shares are in Morocco and Portugal (over 13%).
Novice and experienced teachers appear to organise their non-teaching time differently. On average, novice teachers spend over half an hour more per week on lesson planning than experienced teachers. In 12 education systems, novice teachers spend almost an additional 1-2 hours per week on preparation compared to more experienced teachers. In Albania, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia, however, the opposite trend is true (Table 3.12).
On the other hand, marking and correcting are not tasks where differences by teachers’ level of experience can be seen across most education systems. However, when differences do exist (in 19 education systems), it is experienced teachers who report spending more time per week, with differences reaching up to one hour or more (Table 3.12). These findings suggest that in a number of education systems, lesson planning may occupy more effort from new teachers, while marking and correcting responsibilities may increase with experience.
Teachers carry out a range of tasks which, although related to their work with students in the classroom, are not directly linked to their teaching time. On average, teachers report spending about 6% of their working time on administrative tasks, ranging from about 3% or less of total working time in Morocco and Romania, to over 9% in Japan and about 12% in Korea (where it is the third most time-consuming task after teaching and lesson preparation) (Table 3.10).
While there is no difference in most education systems, experienced teachers report spending more time per week on general administrative work compared to novice teachers in all 19 education systems where experience is a factor (over an extra hour in 5 of them) (Table 3.12).
The OECD Survey of Adult Skills, a product of the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC), provides valuable comparative insights. By collecting information from adults in a range of occupations, including teachers, PIAAC allows comparisons of self-reported workload and work intensity across occupational groups (OECD, 2023[10]). In particular, it captures weekly working hours, including both paid and unpaid overtime, as well as the frequency of working at high speed or under tight deadlines.
In the majority of 26 countries and economies that participated in both surveys, teachers do not report working more hours per week than their non-teaching counterparts. In fact, in 13 of the 26, teachers report working fewer hours than similarly qualified workers. In 11 countries, there is no statistically significant difference in reported working hours between the two groups. Only in Japan and Singapore do teachers report working more hours per week than other similarly qualified workers (Table 3.13).
Workload, however, is not just about the number of hours worked. Work intensity – defined as how often professionals are required to work at a fast pace or under pressure – is another important component. In most countries and economies, there is no statistically significant difference in the proportion of teachers and similarly qualified professionals who report experiencing high work intensity. In 17 of the 26 participants in both surveys, teachers are just as likely as their non-teaching counterparts to report working very often (at least more than half of the time) at high speed or under tight deadlines (Table 3.15). In 8 countries and economies, teachers are less likely to report working to tight deadlines or at high speed than their counterparts in other sectors. In Chile, a higher proportion of teachers report working at a high intensity compared to other occupations.
These differences are likely to reflect variations in national working environments, institutional expectations, and the broader support systems available to teachers. Factors such as class sizes, students’ diverse needs and accountability structures can all influence the intensity of teachers' daily work.
This comparative perspective does not ignore the unique challenges and pressures that teachers face – many of which are closely linked to their roles as educators, mentors and community leaders. Rather, it underscores the importance of considering both job-specific demands and broader systemic factors when designing policies aimed at improving working conditions, reducing stress and supporting the attractiveness and sustainability of the teaching profession.
Note: The analysis presented in this box adopts a different definition of teachers than the one used in TALIS, as it refers to school teachers, including those in primary, secondary, and vocational education. See the Reader’s Guide for more detailed information on how PIAAC data are used for this analysis.
Source: OECD (2023[10]), Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC) database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/piaac-2nd-cycle-database.html.
Workload as a source of stress
As noted earlier, this chapter uses reported sources of stress to understand how teachers respond to work demands. Teachers' workload demands are shaped not only by regulations on the tasks teachers have to perform, but also by the broader nature of teaching itself, where formal time allocations rarely capture the full range of activities and teacher workload overall. Teachers’ reports of certain tasks as sources of stress highlight areas where demands may feel particularly intense relative to available support. The focus here is on understanding which demands are most reported as sources of stress, who is most likely to report them and under what conditions.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report that the following are sources of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.16
Preparing lessons, teaching and marking
At the heart of the teaching profession lies teaching itself, supported by two tasks that enable teachers to plan, adapt and monitor student learning: lesson preparation and marking student work. These tasks are fundamental to the profession but can be sources of stress when there are insufficient resources or time to carry them out effectively. The following section explores how teachers experience these demands across different education systems and career stages.
Having too much lesson preparation can be interpreted as teachers having too many lessons to prepare or too much content to cover, given their working time or resources. Too much lesson preparation is reported as a source of stress by just over three in ten teachers across OECD education systems (35%) (Figure 3.3).
In Morocco, where teaching and lesson preparation together account for more than 60% of working time, this perception is particularly prevalent (63%) (Table 3.10). In the other two education systems with the highest levels of stress from too much lesson preparation, Latvia and Portugal (which have some of the oldest teaching populations), this is largely driven by experienced teachers, with gaps of over 15 percentage points compared to novice teachers (Figure 3.4). This is the opposite pattern of what is observed within education systems more broadly, as more novice teachers report having too much lesson planning as a source of stress compared to experienced teachers in 17 out of 23 education systems, where there is a difference between the two groups .
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report that too much lesson preparation is a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Novice teachers refer to those with up to five years of teaching experience. Experienced teachers refer to those with more than ten years of teaching experience.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.16.
How countries allocate teachers’ workload and distribute their time across different activities can enhance – or hinder – teaching quality, student outcomes and teacher well-being. This box describes approaches from three TALIS participants.
Iceland
A collective labour agreement (2014) sets full-time teachers’ working hours to 1 800 per year, or 40 hours per week. Within this envelope, teachers’ time is divided into three components:
Part A covers core tasks of teaching, such as preparation and follow-up.
Part B covers all other non-teaching activities, including professional development, meetings with parents, record keeping, collaboration with peers and breaks.
Part C covers special assignments, which are proposed by the school leader in agreement with the teacher (e.g. the management of school projects).
In the baseline model, full-time teachers spend approximately 641 hours per year on teaching and 395 hours on preparation (Part A), 150 hours on professional development, and 614 hours on other tasks (Part B). Any time spent on Part C is supposed to be compensated by a reduction in the time spent on teaching and other tasks (Parts A and B).
In practice, the precise distribution of time between Parts A and B is determined at the school level. This is determined by a range of factors, including: the teacher’s subject(s), class size and composition, required preparation and marking time, student assessments, the amount of teacher co-operation required, the use of new teaching methods, and communication with parents.
Portugal
In Portugal, full-time school teachers work 35 hours per week, consisting of 22 teaching hours, 2.5 hours for other school-related activities (e.g. meetings with colleagues or parents), and 10.5 hours for autonomous work (e.g. preparing lessons and student assessments). Teachers with sufficient experience benefit from a progressive reduction of their teaching hours, matched by a corresponding increase in the time they are expected to dedicate to other tasks. In line with the school leader’s instructions, this time can be used, for example, to co-ordinate school projects, mentor teachers, design pedagogical resources or build partnerships with the local community. Teachers serving in leadership roles (e.g. as school co-ordinators or department heads) also benefit from a reduced teaching load.
In addition, each school receives a number of credit hours that are calculated based on the school’s size, its socio-economic profile and the number of teachers with reduced teaching hours. School leaders can allocate these credit hours freely to reduce the teaching load of selected teachers, providing them with more time to engage in other activities. For example, school leaders might recognise a teacher’s organisational talent by providing them with time to design and supervise innovative pedagogical projects.
Singapore
Singaporean teachers, and in particular novice teachers, spend considerably more time on non-teaching activities not measured in TALIS than their peers in other countries. This is partly enabled by the country’s larger-than-average class sizes, which allow teachers to spend fewer hours – and a smaller share of their working time – on classroom instruction. It also reflects a system-wide commitment to supporting teachers’ professional growth, particularly in the early years of their teaching careers.
Although the Ministry of Education does not prescribe a fixed schedule, teachers’ working hours are generally distributed in similar ways across Singaporean schools. Notably, most schools formally embed dedicated time for learning and collaboration into teachers’ weekly timetables.
A substantial portion of teachers’ non-teaching time is devoted to collaborative lesson planning, curriculum design, assessment development and structured training programmes. Many Singaporean teachers also engage in activities that take place outside of their schools, such as participating in professional development activities (e.g. in-service workshops and courses run by the Academy of Singapore Teachers, as well as education conferences) and taking students on learning journeys or field trips.
Source: Boeskens, L. and D. Nusche (2021[11]), “Not enough hours in the day: Policies that shape teachers’ use of time”, https://doi.org/10.1787/15990b42-en; Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2014[12]), Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report: Iceland, https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-of-Education/count_backgr_rep_iceland_2015_fin.pdf; Liebowitz, D., et al. (2018[13]), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264308411-en; Low, E.L, A. Lin Goodwin and J. Snyder (2017[14]), Focused on Learning: Student and Teacher Time in a Singapore School, https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-singapore-student-and-teacher-time-report-final_0.pdf; Ministry of Education (2022[15]), Teacher Workload and Blended Learning, https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/20220215-teacher-workload-and-blended-learning; NCEE (2021[16]), Lesson Time: Reimagining Teachers’ Working Hours, https://ncee.org/lesson-time-reimagining-teachers-working-hours/.
Compared to 2018, teachers across OECD education systems report spending about one additional half hour per week on individual lesson planning and preparation. However, in Japan, teachers report an average decrease of almost three-quarters of an hour per week (Table 3.8).
Reasons why teachers have too much lesson preparation can relate to several factors, including the number of lessons they have to teach, the needs of the students they teach or the content they have to cover. About three in ten teachers (31%) across OECD education systems report having too many lessons to teach as a source of stress. Brazil, Morocco, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are among the countries where more than half of teachers report feeling stressed due to the number of lessons they have to teach. They are also education systems where over half of teachers report having too much lesson preparation as a source of stress (Table 3.16). Self-reported teaching hours in Morocco and Saudi Arabia, however, are similar to the OECD average, which suggests that the nature of teaching in these education systems may contribute to stress more than the volume (Table 3.8).
In a majority of education systems, teachers’ reports on their teaching hours have remained unchanged. However, in 16 education systems, teachers report increases ranging from about half an hour per week in Austria to seven hours in Kazakhstan. Meanwhile, in Japan, Portugal and Türkiye, teachers report spending between half and about two-and-a-half fewer hours teaching per week in 2024 than in 2018 (Table 3.8).
In most education systems, the feeling of being overwhelmed by the volume of teaching is equally prevalent among teachers, regardless of their experience. However, when differences do exist, it is most often experienced teachers who report this, with an average difference of about 4 percentage points. In 18 education systems, experienced teachers report stress due to having too many lessons to teach more often than novice teachers, with the difference ranging from over 5 percentage points in Azerbaijan, Spain and Uzbekistan to almost 23 in Portugal. Nevertheless, the self-reported number of hours taught per week in Portugal is higher among novice teachers. In only 4 education systems – Bahrain, Colombia, Romania and the United States – do more novice teachers report having too many lessons as a source of stress compared to experienced teachers (Tables 3.16 and 3.12).
Moreover, 40% of teachers across OECD education systems report that too much marking is a source of stress. While there is much variation across education systems, in no education system is the proportion of teachers who consider excessive marking a source of stress below 20%. The share is approximately 25% in Finland and Iceland, about 50% in Australia, Bahrain, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Lithuania, and over 70% in Morocco, Portugal and South Africa (Table 3.16).
The feeling of stress related to excessive marking is shared across the teacher population in the majority of education systems. However, in 22 education systems, more experienced teachers report marking as a source of stress by an average of 4 percentage points, with the difference being particularly pronounced in Albania, Costa Rica and Serbia, where it exceeds 15 percentage points. Conversely, in Alberta (Canada)*, Bahrain, Colombia, Japan, Singapore and the United States, novice teachers report this source of stress, with a difference of between 5 and over 20 percentage points compared to experienced teachers (Table 3.16).
In 16 education systems, there has been an increase in the amount of time teachers report devoting to marking and correcting student work between 2018 and 2024.2 On average, teachers report spending more time per week on these tasks, with the increase reaching over one weekly hour in Brazil, Malta and Slovenia. Only in six education systems has the amount of time decreased. Teachers in Singapore report spending about one hour per week less on marking and correcting student work in 2024 (Table 3.8).
General administrative work
Teachers do more than just teach; they also carry out a variety of other tasks that support the running of their schools and help them fulfil their professional responsibilities. General administrative work plays a distinct role among these tasks. This includes non-pedagogical duties, such as school management tasks, paperwork, and other clerical responsibilities necessary for school operations, but not directly related to instruction. Examples include completing attendance records, managing timekeeping systems, processing forms and handling other bureaucratic requirements.
On average, around half of teachers report general administrative work as a source of stress (52%), the largest share compared to all other demands. However, in a number of education systems (11 out of 54), less than 33% of teachers report this as a source of stress, and in Kazakhstan and Morocco, it can be as low as about 25% or less. In Korea, the Netherlands* and Saudi Arabia, around 50% of teachers report this as a source of stress, and over 75% do so in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Portugal. In both these education systems, however, teachers spend less than three hours per week on general administrative work, which is similar to the OECD average (Tables 3.16 and 3.10). This finding suggests that in these education systems, factors such as the nature of administrative work, the combined burden of this work alongside other tasks, and social and cultural perceptions of the tasks that teachers should perform may related to teacher perceptions, rather than the amount of administrative work they do.
Experienced teachers report administrative workload as a source of stress more often than novice teachers (in 38 out of 54 education systems). The largest differences are found in Costa Rica, Malta, Montenegro and Serbia (about 22 percentage points or more). In these four education systems, less than 50% of novice teachers report this stressor, while almost 60% or more of experienced teachers do (Table 3.16). The opposite is true in only two countries, Colombia and Singapore, where novice teachers report this to a larger extent than experienced teachers, highlighting that the administrative burden is not experienced uniformly. These patterns align with actual time use as reported above: in all education systems where there are differences in reported time spent on administrative tasks by teacher experience, experienced teachers spend more time on administrative tasks than novice teachers (Table 3.12).
Moreover, there are substantial differences in the share of teachers reporting excessive administrative work as a source of stress between publicly managed and privately managed schools. Across education systems, more teachers in publicly managed schools report this as a source of stress than teachers in privately managed schools by 11 percentage points, on average. This is also the case in 17 out of 54 education systems, and the difference can be as high as about 29 percentage points in Denmark and the United States (Table 3.18).
Compared to 2018, teachers in three education systems – Japan, Kazakhstan and Sweden – report spending less time on administrative tasks. In Japan, the reported time decreased by almost one hour, while in Kazakhstan and Sweden, the change was less than half an hour (Table 3.8). In 18 education systems, teachers' reports of too much administrative work as a source of stress have increased between 2018 and 2024, ranging from over 2 percentage points in Portugal to about 18 percentage points in Spain (Table 3.17).
Nevertheless, in only half of those education systems has the time spent on administrative work increased since 2018. Conversely, in 12 education systems, the share of teachers who believe that administrative work is a source of stress has decreased, even though the time spent on such tasks has not changed or increased, as in Romania (Figure 3.5).
Change in weekly hours spent on administrative workload and in the share of teachers reporting administrative work as a source of stress, based on responses of lower secondary teachers
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Tables 3.17 and 3.8.
These findings suggests that the relationship between stress and administrative workload may be shaped by more than volume in most education systems. The nature of these activities matter, potentially including factors like the distribution and combination of tasks and the way in which tasks interact and compete for time. Although administrative tasks account for a comparatively small proportion of total working time, high levels of teachers report them as sources of stress. Teachers might see this type of work as interfering with their core professional activities – such as teaching and engaging with students – rather than as routine or neutral bureaucratic requirements.
TALIS 2024 data show that factors contributing to stress – such as lesson planning, teaching load, classroom discipline and administrative work – do not affect all teachers equally. For example, the share of teachers reporting too much lesson preparation as a source of stress has increased since 2018 in five education systems for primary teachers, but has decreased in France and the United Arab Emirates (Table 3.17). In Morocco, three out of four primary teachers report this as a stressor. In five education systems, novice primary teachers are more likely than their experienced peers to report stress related to lesson preparation, with Morocco being the only country where more experienced teachers report this as a source of stress (Table 3.16).
Among upper secondary teachers, the prevalence of excessive lesson preparation as a source of stress has decreased compared to 2018, particularly in Denmark (by 25 percentage points) and Portugal (by 10 percentage points) (Table 3.17). At this level of education, teachers’ reports do not vary according to their experience. Only in Slovenia and Türkiye, novice primary teachers are more likely than their experienced peers to report stress related to lesson preparation. In Portugal the opposite is true (Table 3.16).
The share of primary teachers reporting too many lessons to teach as a source of stress ranges from 15% in the Flemish Community of Belgium* to 79% in Morocco (Table 3.16). Between 2018 and 2024, the share of teachers reporting excessive teaching as a source of stress increased in the majority of education systems with available data for the two reference years (Table 3.17). In 5 out of 15 education systems, primary teachers are more likely to report too much teaching as a stressor than their lower secondary peers, with the largest difference observed in Morocco (12 percentage points more) (Table 3.16). Among upper secondary teachers, novice teachers report this stressor more than experienced ones only in Türkiye. In Denmark, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Portugal, experienced teachers are more likely to do so, by a margin of about 5 percentage points or more (Table 3.16). Teacher reports on this source of stress have decreased since 2018 in Portugal and the United Arab Emirates, but increased in Croatia, Slovenia and Türkiye (Table 3.17). Only in Croatia and Portugal do fewer upper secondary teachers report having too many lessons to teach as a source of stress, compared to lower secondary teachers. The opposite is observed in Denmark (Table 3.16).
Classroom discipline is another major source of stress for primary and upper secondary teachers, with increases observed since 2018. The only exceptions to this trend are primary teachers in France (17 percentage points) and upper secondary teachers in Portugal (11 percentage points) (Table 3.17). A larger proportion of novice teachers report this stressor in comparison to their more experienced peers, most notably among primary teachers in Australia (17 percentage points) and upper secondary teachers in the Flemish Community of Belgium (20 percentage points) (Table 3.16). When comparing across education levels, primary teachers report higher stress related to classroom discipline than lower secondary teachers in 5 out of 15 education systems. This difference is most pronounced in Japan (10 percentage points) and Korea (12 percentage points). Conversely, upper secondary teachers report less stress from discipline than their lower secondary counterparts in 6 of 8 education systems, particularly in Croatia (14 percentage points) and Portugal (13 percentage points) (Table 3.16).
Finally, having excessive administrative workload remains a significant stressor, especially for more experienced teachers at both the primary and upper secondary levels. The share of teachers reporting this source of stress has risen since 2018 (Table 3.17). Nevertheless, primary teachers report this stressor less frequently than lower secondary teachers in 5 out of 15 education systems, with the largest gap in New Zealand* (14 percentage points). A similar pattern is seen among upper secondary teachers in 5 of 8 education systems, most notably in Slovenia (16 percentage points) (Table 3.16).
Inclusive education refers to the capacity of schools to provide quality learning opportunities for all students, taking into account their diverse needs, abilities and expectations. Teachers face a wide range of demands arising from the need to support students with different academic profiles, learning needs and linguistic backgrounds. These demands can have a significant impact on how teachers experience and manage their daily work.
Mixed academic settings
TALIS 2024 data show that over half of teachers in all education systems report teaching in academically diverse classrooms, with an average of 73% across education systems in OECD countries. More than 20% of teachers report that over 30% of their students are low academic achievers, on average. This figure exceeds 40% in the French Community of Belgium, Morocco and South Africa (Tables 3.19 and 3.23). Since all education systems will have higher- and lower-achieving students, the extent to which some teachers have more in a single classroom, can be a reflection of policies around grouping and sorting students.
Academically challenging settings are also more likely to experience classroom disruption. TALIS results show that the proportion of low-achieving students is more consistently associated with classroom disruption than other student intake characteristics, such as class size, language difficulties or special education needs (Table 3.24). This highlights a difference in how different types of diversity affect classroom dynamics: while behavioural and support needs may increase teachers' stress levels (see next section on “Maintaining discipline as a source of stress”), low academic achievement appears to be more strongly linked to classroom climate and the organisation of teaching.
Teaching in academically diverse classrooms requires increased instructional adaptation and differentiation – tasks that place high demands on teachers' time, focus and pedagogical agility (Hu, 2024[17]; Porta, 2025[18]). These demands increase when academic diversity intersects with other complex student needs. This may lead to increased disruption as more time and effort are required to manage differentiated instruction and maintain engagement.
Student background
In addition to academic diversity, other student characteristics can be important sources of demands for teachers. As mentioned in Chapter 1, at the school level, more students have difficulty understanding the language of instruction or have special education needs with respect to 2018. In many cases, these student characteristics may be interrelated, compounding their impact on teaching and learning conditions.
When examining the classroom-level TALIS data, it is found that, on average, about one in five teachers report that more than 10% of their students have difficulties understanding the language of instruction. While this is relatively low in education systems such as those in Albania, Croatia, Denmark, Lithuania, the Netherlands*, Poland, Serbia and Shanghai (China), it rises to about 25% in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and the United States. It exceeds 60% in Morocco and South Africa (Table 3.23).
Students who are migrants or have an immigrant background, who are refugees or who belong to ethnic/national minorities or Indigenous communities, among others, may be more vulnerable to these linguistic challenges. These student profiles are represented in most of the education systems in TALIS 2024. However, in many education systems, the number of students with these profiles is low. For example, only 9% of teachers on average report teaching in classrooms where over 30% of students are immigrants or have an immigrant background (not including refugees). Similarly, on average, 16% of teachers report that 10% of their students belong to ethnic/national minorities or Indigenous communities, and only 4% of teachers report that over 10% of their students are refugees (Table 3.23).
Other dimensions of diversity are more prevalent. Across education systems in OECD countries, 33% of teachers report that more than 10% of their students have special education needs. In some education systems, such as Chile, the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium, France and the Netherlands*, this proportion exceeds 50% (Table 3.23). There are several reasons for the large differences between education systems. Education systems may differ in how and when special education needs are identified or diagnosed. Policies also vary in terms of whether students with special education needs are placed in more specialised classrooms or tracks. In the Flemish Community of Belgium, for example, a policy reform in 2014 facilitated the enrolment of students with special education needs into regular schools and classrooms, which may explain the large shares reported by teachers.3
Teacher experience in diverse settings
TALIS 2024 data show that younger teachers (under the age of 30) disproportionately report the most diverse classrooms. This can expose them to demands which can be challenging early in their careers. For example, younger teachers are more likely to report that over 10% of their students have difficulties understanding the language of instruction (Figure 3.6). On average, the difference between younger and older teachers (those over age 50) is around 5 percentage points, but it rises to over 15 percentage points in Bahrain, Colombia, Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The pattern is reversed in only three education systems: Denmark, South Africa and Viet Nam (with a difference of 3 to almost 10 percentage points) .
Percentage of lower secondary teachers reporting that more than 10% of students have difficulties understanding the language of instruction in the target class
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Older teachers refer to those aged 50 and above. Younger teachers refer to those under age 30. Results refer to lessons taught to a class randomly selected from teachers' current weekly timetables during the week preceding the survey.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.25.
A similar pattern holds for reports of students with special education needs. Younger teachers are more likely to work with such students than older teachers in 16 out of 54 education systems, with the average difference again around 5 percentage points (35% and 30%, respectively) The gap is largest in the Netherlands*, where 73% of younger teachers report teaching classes with a high share of students with special education needs, about 19 percentage points higher than their older counterparts. Only in Azerbaijan, Shanghai (China) and Uzbekistan is the opposite true (Table 3.26).
Similar disparities are observed in the case of behavioural problems. In most education systems, younger teachers are significantly more likely than older colleagues to report that over 10% of their students exhibit behavioural problems (by 11 percentage points, on average). In Bahrain, the French Community of Belgium, Colombia, Latvia, New Zealand* and Portugal, this difference exceeds 20 percentage points (Table 3.27). It should be borne in mind that novice teachers' reports on behavioural problems may be related to their mastery of classroom management rather than the actual characteristics of their students.
These distribution patterns are important. Teachers often enter the profession while still developing their classroom management skills and confidence. Facing more complex student needs early in their careers, especially without robust support systems, can intensify the demands they experience and increase the risk of burnout. The mismatch between the complexity of teaching contexts and the preparedness of new teachers underlines the importance of equitable deployment strategies and targeted support.
Teachers’ perspectives on stress in diverse education contexts
TALIS data provide insights into the extent to which adapting teaching to diverse learning needs is perceived as a source of stress for teachers. More than one-third of teachers (37%) across education systems in OECD countries report that modifying lessons for students with special education needs is a source of stress (3.16). However, this average conceals substantial cross-country variation. In Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Shanghai (China) and Singapore, fewer than 20% of teachers identify this as a source of stress. In contrast, in Lithuania, Norway*, Portugal and Sweden, this figure is over 50%.
These differences may reflect different system-level approaches to identifying and supporting students with special education needs. Countries differ in how and when needs are assessed, and in whether students are educated in inclusive settings or specialised programmes.
Differences also emerge within education systems. While teachers generally report similar stress levels regardless of experience, when differences occur, it is experienced teachers who tend to report modifying lessons for students with special education needs as a source of stress more often. This pattern is particularly pronounced in Brazil and Costa Rica, where the difference is almost 12 percentage points. In contrast, Austria, Bahrain, Colombia and Spain are the only education systems in which novice teachers report this stressor more frequently, by margins of about 5 to 11 percentage points (Table 3.16).
Moreover, slightly over one-quarter of teachers (27%) report too much work on diversity and equity issues, concerns or conflicts as a source of stress, on average. Substantial variation is also observed here. In Austria, Kazakhstan and the United States, fewer than 15% of teachers report this concern. In contrast, the figures are around 33% and 34% in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Korea and Spain, and over 45% in Brazil and South Africa.
Within education systems, this type of stress is generally reported across experience levels. However, when differences are observed, experienced teachers more frequently identify this issue as a stressor – this is the case in 16 education systems. Exceptions include Bahrain, Colombia and Kazakhstan, where novice teachers report higher levels of stress related to diversity and equity work, ranging from 3 to over 12 percentage points more than their experienced colleagues (Table 3.16).
These findings underscore the importance of addressing teachers’ professional needs when working in classrooms that are rich with diverse student profiles, with special attention to the stage in their teaching careers. For example, TALIS shows that teachers who report adapting instruction to meet diverse learning needs as a source of stress are also more likely to report the need for continuous professional learning in the areas of teaching students with special education needs and teaching in multicultural or multilingual settings (Tables 3.30 and 3.31). Effectively supporting teachers in navigating the richness and complexity of diverse classrooms requires professional learning opportunities that are both continuous and carefully adapted, evolving alongside their experiences (see Chapter 4).
Classroom management and discipline are key parts of teachers’ responsibilities. In increasingly diverse classrooms, managing behaviour is a multifaceted task requiring both technical and socio-emotional skills, from maintaining focus during lessons to responding to disruptive behaviour and ensuring equitable participation. Analyses show that disruptive behaviour is closely linked to teachers' perceptions of their effectiveness: teachers are less likely to feel that they have achieved their lesson aims if they report behaviour issues in the classroom (Tables 3.32 and 3.33). In TALIS, teachers' perceptions of the disciplinary climate in the classroom are measured by the reported frequency of four disruptive situations in their classrooms:
“I lose quite a lot of time because students interrupt the lesson”
“I have to wait quite a long time for students to quiet down”
“There is much disruptive noise and disorder”
“Many students don’t start working for a long time after the lesson begins”.
About one in five teachers report experiencing significant disruptive noise and disorder in their classrooms, on average. More than 50% of teachers in Brazil report such challenges, and just over 33% of teachers in Chile, Finland, Portugal and South Africa do so. In contrast, fewer than 5% of teachers in Albania, Japan and Shanghai (China) report facing such disciplinary issues (Table 3.34). Brazil also stands out with the highest proportions of teachers reporting that they lose a lot of time due to waiting for students to quiet down and student interruptions (both around 43-44%), compared to the OECD averages of 15% and 18%, respectively (Table 3.34).
Classroom discipline demands are also not evenly distributed across the profession. Novice teachers report more classroom disruptions than their experienced colleagues in nearly all education systems. In Alberta (Canada)*, Austria, the Flemish and French Communities of Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy and Spain, more than 40% of novice teachers report frequent disruptive noise, rising to 59% in Portugal and 66% in Brazil. Among experienced teachers, these rates are consistently lower, remaining below one-third in all education systems except Portugal (33%) and Brazil (53%) (Table 3.35). These findings highlight that classroom management skills can develop significantly with experience and that early-career teachers may require additional support in this area.
The importance of maintaining discipline
The most immediate consequence of classroom discipline demands is the loss of instructional time. Teachers report spending over 15% of lesson time keeping order in the classroom, on average. In Brazil, the French Community of Belgium, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, this figure exceeds 20%, while in Albania, Czechia, Estonia and Lithuania, it falls below 10% (Table 3.36). TALIS data show that since 2018, the share of time allocated to maintaining discipline has increased in nearly all education systems, with Portugal being the only system where it has decreased (Table 3.37). The average share of class time spent on keeping order increased from 13% in 2018 to 16% in 2024 across OECD education systems. The largest increases of 5 percentage points or more occurred in Alberta (Canada)*, Colombia and Norway*. As mentioned before, different accumulating demands may put increasing pressure on teachers' core professional task of teaching. For example, without adequate time for planning and preparation, teachers may find it more difficult to deliver well-structured lessons, which in turn can make classroom management more challenging. Novice teachers who feel less confident or less prepared may be particularly affected by this dynamic.
Poor behaviour not only undermines classroom order and peer relationships but can also escalate into more serious incidents affecting the safety of both students and staff. Intimidation or bullying among students (or other forms of verbal abuse) on school grounds is the most reported form of safety issues reported across education systems, on average. Approximately 19% of teachers work in schools where principals report student bullying or verbal abuse as a regular issue (occurring weekly or daily), on average. In Finland, Malta, Norway* and Sweden, over 40% of teachers work in such schools, and in the Flemish Community of Belgium, the figure reaches around 50% (Table 3.38). Variations on principals’ reports on this issue may be related to active policy efforts and public campaigns on student bullying. These efforts can increase awareness and reporting in some education systems.
TALIS data show that principals are more likely to report intimidation or bullying among students on school grounds when teachers report that more than 10% of students in their classroom have behavioural problems, before and after accounting for teachers’ and schools’ characteristics (Table 3.41). Similar relationships can also be seen when teachers report classroom disruptions and spending more time maintaining order in the classroom (Tables 3.42 and 3.43).
While bullying on school grounds remains a persistent and relatively visible problem, it is increasingly accompanied by a parallel challenge: bullying that takes place online or cyberbullying. Unlike face-to-face incidents, online bullying can occur outside of school hours and platforms, making it much more difficult for principals and teachers to address. According to principals, online intimidation or bullying is reported at similar levels to in-school bullying across education systems: 18% of teachers work in schools where this is an issue, on average. In Australia, the French Community of Belgium, Malta, Norway* and Sweden, more than one in three teachers work in schools where this is a reported concern. In the Flemish Community of Belgium and Finland, more than half do (Table 3.38).
Verbal abuse or intimidation directed at teachers or staff is less prevalent. According to principals’ reports, these concern 5% of teachers on average. On school premises, the figure exceeds 15% in Australia, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Malta. Online teacher intimidation concerns at least 5% of teachers in Colombia and South Africa, while it concerns 1% of teachers across OECD education systems (Table 3.38).
Maintaining discipline as a source of stress
Managing discipline is also a prominent source of reported stress (Figure 3.7). On average, 45% of teachers say that maintaining discipline causes them stress. This share rises to 55% among novice teachers, compared to 41% among experienced teachers. In almost all education systems, novice teachers are more likely to report this source of stress, except in Azerbaijan and Bulgaria, where the pattern is reversed and more experienced teachers report higher discipline-related stress by a margin of about 6 percentage points. More experienced teachers also report spending a greater proportion of class time on teaching and learning and less on maintaining order (Table 3.44).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report that maintaining classroom discipline is source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Novice teachers refer to those with up to five years of teaching experience. Experienced teachers refer to those with more than ten years of teaching experience.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.16.
Finally, on average, about 18% of teachers report being intimidated or verbally abused by students as a source of stress. This proportion remains under 25% in the majority of education systems. However, in Brazil, 47% of teachers report this as a source of stress. While there are no notable differences among teachers, it is mainly novice teachers who report this source of stress the most (in 13 education systems). In Bulgaria, Costa Rica and Korea, however, it is more experienced teachers who report being intimidated or verbally abused as a source of stress (Table 3.16).
Change in the likelihood that lower secondary teachers report maintaining classroom discipline as a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”1 associated with diverse behavioural, language and special education learning needs in the classroom2,3
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Statistically significant coefficients are highlighted with filled circles (see Annex B). Filled circles above 1 indicate a positive association between teachers maintaining classroom discipline as a source of stress and diverse behavioural, language and special education learning needs in the classroom, while those below 0 reflect a negative relationship.
1. Binary variable: the reference category refers to “not at all” and “to some extent”.
2. Binary variable: the reference category refers to a class where the share of students is up to 10% in more than one of the following categories: students with behavioural problems; students with difficulties understanding the language of instruction; students with special education needs.
3. Results based on binary logistic regression. An odds ratio indicates the degree to which an explanatory variable is associated with a categorical outcome variable. An odds ratio below one denotes a negative association; an odds ratio above one indicates a positive association; and an odds ratio of one means that there is no association. Teacher characteristics include gender, age (standardised at the international level) and years of teaching experience (standardised at the international level). School characteristics include school location, school governance type, school intake of students from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, school intake of students who have difficulties understanding the language(s) of instruction, and school intake of students with special education needs.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.46.
Moving from primary to lower secondary and then to upper secondary levels, teachers tend to spend less time keeping order in the classroom (Table 3.36). In 6 out of 15 education systems with available data for primary and lower secondary education, primary teachers report spending more time on maintaining discipline than their lower secondary peers. The only exceptions are Morocco and the Netherlands*, where primary teachers report about 2 and 3 percentage points less, respectively. In seven education systems, no significant difference between both levels of education is observed.
The pattern is more consistent at the upper secondary level. In all education systems with data for both lower and upper secondary levels, upper secondary teachers report spending less time on discipline than their lower secondary colleagues. The largest difference is observed in Denmark, where the difference reaches 6 percentage points (Table 3.36).
Moreover, novice teachers consistently report facing these challenges more frequently than their experienced peers. No education system shows the opposite (Table 3.35). Among primary education teachers, the widest gaps by experience level are reported in New Zealand*, where novice teachers are significantly more likely to report having too much disruptive noise and disorder (26 percentage points), having to wait a long time for students to quiet down (23 percentage points), having many students that do not start working for a long time after the lesson begins (14 percentage points) and losing quite a lot of time because students interrupt the lesson (21 percentage points) (Table 3.34).
When comparing primary and lower secondary teachers, primary teachers in 6 out of 15 education systems report disruptive noise and disorder more frequently, with the largest difference observed in Korea (8 percentage points). The reverse is true only in Brazil, Spain and Türkiye. However, when examining classrooms where many students delay starting work, lower secondary teachers report this challenge more frequently in 10 education systems, most notably in Brazil (16 percentage points). Only Korea reverses this trend, with 3 percentage points more primary teachers identifying this issue (Table 3.34).
Among upper secondary teachers, the most notable gaps between novice and experienced teachers are found in Portugal for having too much disruptive noise and disorder (28 percentage points), having many students that do not start working for a long time after the lesson begins (22 percentage points) and losing quite a lot of time because students interrupt the lesson (18 percentage points). Regarding waiting for students to quiet down, the largest difference is seen in the Flemish Community of Belgium (16 percentage points) (Table 3.35).
Upper secondary teachers consistently report fewer classroom discipline issues than their lower secondary peers. The only exception is again the Flemish Community of Belgium, where a slightly higher share of upper secondary teachers report delays in students starting work (5 percentage points). The largest observed differences are in Portugal, where upper secondary teachers report substantially fewer problems with much disruptive noise and disorder (12 percentage points), having to wait a long time for students to quiet down (10 percentage points), having students that do not start working for a long time after the lesson begins (7 percentage points), and losing a lot of time because students interrupt the class (14 percentage points) (Table 3.34).
Teacher appraisal, the act of evaluating teacher performance, typically serves two main functions. The first is formative: helping teachers to improve their practice by identifying strengths and areas for development. The second is summative: determining how effective teachers are and holding them accountable (Santiago and Benavides, 2009[19]).
While appraisal systems are designed to support professional practice, they can also introduce new demands or increase existing pressures, especially if they are linked to student outcomes or implemented unevenly (OECD, 2013[20]). This section focuses on how appraisal is implemented across education systems, the extent to which it is reported as a source of stress, and which teachers are more likely to report it as a source of stress.
Appraisal is nearly universal. On average, 88% of teachers work in schools where they are formally appraised at least once a year by their school principal. Only in Finland and Italy do less than two-thirds of teachers work in schools where this is the case (62% and 59% respectively) (Table 3.47). In most education systems, the responsibility is shared by school management teams (66%) or assigned mentors (61%), while appraisal by fellow teachers is less common – on average, about 45% of teachers are appraised by their peers according to principals’ reports. This latter form of appraisal is particularly rare in the French Community of Belgium and Finland (less than 10%) but highly prevalent in Shanghai (China) and Viet Nam, where nearly all teachers report being appraised by their peers.
In terms of appraisal methods, classroom observation remains the most widespread. According to school principals, 96% of teachers work in schools that use classroom observation as a formal appraisal method. This proportion exceeds 90% in almost all education systems, except for Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Spain (although even in these education systems, the proportion is over 70%) (Table 3.48). The use of this method has remained relatively stable since 2018, with few countries reporting significant changes (Table 3.49).
In contrast, the use of student performance data in appraisal is declining. Since 2018, 16 education systems reported a significant decrease in the use of external student results (e.g. national exams) (Figure 3.9). Similarly, 14 education systems exhibit a decline in the use of internal performance measures (e.g. school- or classroom-based results). These trends are particularly pronounced in the French Community of Belgium, where the use of both types of student data in appraisal has fallen by more than 20 percentage points between 2018 and 2024 (Table 3.49).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers working in schools where students’ external results are used in the formal appraisal of teachers' work
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Results based on responses of principals.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 and TALIS 2024 Databases, Table 3.49.
These shifts may reflect a broader rebalancing of how performance evidence is used in teacher evaluation and professional learning in recent years. The disruptions caused by the coronavirus (COVID‑19) pandemic may also have contributed to this shift. In many education systems, national examinations and regular school-based assessments were suspended or reduced during periods of school closure (OECD, 2021[21]). Consequently, there has been an increased reliance on other forms of teacher feedback.
Differentiated appraisal
Research suggests that teacher appraisal does not have to be uniformly applied. A differentiated approach adapts appraisal to the stage of a teacher’s career and the aims of the appraisal system (OECD, 2013[20]; Danielson, 2011[22]; Danielson, 2001[23]). Developing such a system can be challenging, but it can also be more resource efficient as some teachers might be appraised less because they do not require continuous evaluation.
TALIS results suggest that many education systems might be practising differentiated approaches to appraisal. Although feedback practices differ across education systems, several clear trends emerge from TALIS 2024 data. Among the three most commonly reported forms of feedback for teachers, two are more prevalent for experienced teachers than for their novice counterparts. On average, the share of experienced teachers receiving feedback based on school- and classroom-based student results is 8 percentage points higher than for novice teachers (Table 3.52). The gap is especially wide in Estonia, Italy and Poland, where it reaches 18 percentage points or more. One exception is Shanghai (China), where novice teachers report this type of feedback more frequently, though the difference is marginal (2 percentage points). Second, receiving feedback based on external student results shows the greatest difference by experience level. In most education systems, experienced teachers are more likely to receive feedback based on external assessments. Across education systems, the average difference is 17 percentage points, with 14 education systems reporting gaps exceeding 20 percentage points, and differences surpassing 30 percentage points in Italy and Portugal.
The third feedback method – classroom observation – shows more mixed patterns. In 11 education systems, novice teachers are more likely to report receiving feedback based on observation, with differences reaching over 12 percentage points in Alberta (Canada)* and the Flemish Community of Belgium, and about 16 percentage points in Israel. In contrast, in 16 education systems, experienced teachers report more frequent use of observation as a feedback method, with the most pronounced gap in Portugal (34 percentage points) and a modest 2-point average difference across education systems (Table 3.52).
Consequences following appraisal
Finally, while teacher appraisal systems often show more developmental approaches internationally, the specific supportive measures implemented vary widely across countries. On average, 65% of teachers are involved in post-appraisal discussions aimed at addressing any weaknesses in their teaching. However, this percentage ranges from over 95% in Bahrain and Kazakhstan to under 50% in Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Korea and Portugal. Similarly, 46% of teachers are offered post-appraisal development or training plans, on average. Nonetheless, this ranges from less than 15% in Iceland and Norway* to 50% of teachers in Spain, and over 90% of teachers in Bahrain and Kazakhstan (Table 3.50).
Punitive consequences are less common. Financial incentives are reported by 12% of teachers, and formal sanctions (e.g. salary adjustments or contract termination) are rare, affecting about 3% of teachers across education systems (Table 3.50).
Teacher accountability as a source of stress
On average, 45% of teachers report that being held responsible for their students’ achievement is a significant source of stress. This perception is particularly high in Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and South Africa, where over 70% of teachers report such stress. In contrast, less than 33% of teachers in Finland, Hungary, Iceland and Kazakhstan report this (Table 3.16).
These perceptions can also vary depending on the teacher's profile. In 17 out of 54 education systems, experienced teachers are more likely than novice teachers to report being held accountable for student achievement as a source of stress (Figure 3.10). These differences are the largest in Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, where they exceed 15 percentage points.
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who report that being held responsible for student achievement is a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Novice teachers refer to those with up to five years of teaching experience. Experienced teachers refer to those with more than ten years of teaching experience.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.16.
Moreover, other forms of accountability can also play an important role in teachers’ perceptions of demands. For example, 40% of teachers report being held responsible for students’ social and emotional well-being as a source of stress, on average. In nine education systems, the proportion of teachers exceeds half, reaching nearly 60% in Lithuania and Saudi Arabia. On the opposite end of the spectrum, only 12% report this in Hungary. While there is no clear pattern within education systems, in 12 education systems, more experienced teachers report this type of accountability as a source of stress with respect to novice teachers, with an average difference of 3 percentage points across education systems (Table 3.16).
Furthermore, addressing concerns from parents or guardians is another form of accountability. Teachers play an important role in providing parents with adequate, meaningful and clear information on their child’s progress. Addressing parents’ concerns is a source of stress for approximately 42% of teachers on average, and for more than 50% in Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia. While in most education systems, teachers report this as a source of stress without distinction, in 12 education systems, experienced teachers are more concerned by this form of accountability than novice teachers, by 2 percentage points, on average. In six education systems, novice teachers are more likely than experienced teachers to report addressing parent or guardian concerns as a source of stress, particularly in Bahrain and Colombia, where the difference exceeds 10 percentage points (Table 3.16).
Furthermore, there are significant differences between reports from female and male teachers regarding addressing parents’ concerns is a source of stress. On average, 44% of female teachers report this as a source of stress, compared to 35% of male teachers. This trend is evident in most education systems, with the difference exceeding 19 percentage points in Poland and Lithuania (Table 3.53).
Like other fields, education constantly evolves in response to social, technological, environmental and economic changes. Educational reforms aim to keep pace with these changes, but the process of reform also involves trade-offs. Research suggests that teachers are often asked to implement new initiatives with inadequate support, sometimes while previous changes are still taking root (Sykes, Schneider and Plank, 2012[24]; Fullan, 2007[25]; Hargreaves and Shirley, 2009[26]). TALIS 2024 data make it possible to explore how teachers perceive these systemic developments and whether they regard them as sources of stress.
Some 44% of teachers report that they would like to see a period of stability before new changes are introduced in their schools, on average across OECD education systems. This sentiment is particularly strong in the Netherlands*, Shanghai (China) and Singapore, where at least two out of three teachers agree. Indeed, these three countries are at the top end when it comes to the share of teachers who believe that too many change initiatives are introduced in their schools (between 47% and 54%). In education systems such as Uzbekistan, up to 83% of teachers agree that too many initiatives are introduced, compared to an OECD average of 31% (Table 3.54).
Approximately 31% of teachers report being asked to implement changes without the necessary resources, on average. This figure ranges from about 13% or less in Bulgaria, Czechia, Romania and the Slovak Republic to nearly 50% in France (Table 3.54). These patterns indicate that the perceived pressure of reform is shaped not only by its pace, but also by the support – or lack thereof – that teachers receive in implementing it.
Again, experience plays a role. In most countries, experienced teachers are more likely than their less experienced colleagues to report that too many changes are introduced in their schools, by an average of 6 percentage points across (Figure 3.11). Notably, the opposite pattern is observed in only two education systems: Costa Rica and Montenegro, where novice teachers are more likely to report this sentiment, by margins of almost 10 percentage points. These exceptions aside, this finding suggests that novice teachers are less likely to feel overwhelmed by new initiatives or simply have experienced fewer cycles of reform.
Another aspect to consider is whether teachers' age is a factor contributing to change fatigue. It is possible that teachers nearing retirement may experience more fatigue than their younger counterparts. However, this may be difficult to distinguish from teacher experience. TALIS data suggest that, on average, older teachers (aged 50 or over) report more frequently than younger teachers (under 30) that too many changes are introduced in their schools. Nevertheless, these differences are less consistent across education systems than those related to experience. In Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Montenegro, the Netherlands*, New Zealand* and Spain, for example, age is not a factor, whereas experience is. In Israel, it is more experienced teachers who report this sort of change fatigue, although younger teachers also report it more than older teachers do (Table 3.55).
Percentage of lower secondary teachers who “agree” or “strongly agree” that too many change initiatives are introduced at their school
Note: *Estimates should be interpreted with caution due to higher risk of non-response bias.
Novice teachers refer to those with up to five years of teaching experience. Experienced teachers refer to those with more than ten years of teaching experience.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2024 Database, Table 3.55.
System reform as a source of stress
Across OECD education systems, more than one in three teachers (39%) report that keeping up with changing requirements from different authorities – whether local, regional or national – is a source of stress. While this figure reflects an important share of the profession, it obscures differences between education systems. In Latvia, Lithuania and Malta, over 67% of teachers report such stress, whereas in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Morocco, the Netherlands* and Sweden, less than 20% do so (Table 3.16).
More experienced teachers report more stress from changing requirements (10 percentage points) compared to novice teachers, on average. This may reflect a longer accumulation of exposure to reform cycles or a more profound understanding of how policy changes impact classroom practice over time. In 29 out of 54 education systems, more experienced teachers are more likely to report this type of stress (Table 3.16).
Although policy reform is often linked to the availability of resources, TALIS 2024 data show that reported stress is more consistently associated with the experience of constant, unsupported change than with a general lack of human resources, for example (Tables 3.57 to 3.70). In other words, while the absence of resources such as support staff may be frustrating, teachers are more likely to report stress when change is frequent and when they are asked to implement reforms without the support to do so effectively. This suggests that well-managed change processes may be just as important as resource investment in reducing teacher stress.
Furthermore, about one in three teachers (34%) report keeping up with curriculum or programme changes in their schools as a source of stress. This figure is over 60% in Lithuania and Malta, around 33% in Estonia, Italy and Shanghai (China), and under 20% in Finland, the Netherlands*, Poland and Sweden (Table 3.16).
In most participating education systems, experienced teachers report this more often as a source of stress than novice teachers. While the average difference is 6 percentage points, it reaches approximately 25 percentage points in Norway*. In only three countries – Bahrain, Colombia and the Netherlands* – do novice teachers report this as a source of stress to a greater extent. The difference is above 8 percentage points (Table 3.16).
Finally, while not universal, self-efficacy can be associated with how teachers perceive the need to keep up with changing requirements from different authorities. In 14 education systems, teachers with low self-efficacy are more likely to report this as a source of stress than those with high self-efficacy (Table 3.3). Furthermore, on average, fewer teachers with high self-efficacy report feeling tired due to changes in their schools and, most notably, being asked to implement change initiatives without the necessary resources (Table. Likewise, they are less likely to report that they would like to see a period of stability in 25 education systems (5 percentage point difference, on average).
These findings reinforce the idea that self-efficacy is an important lens through which to analyse teachers' perceptions of professional demands. Confident teachers are less likely to be stressed by new requirements. However, this relationship is not consistent in all areas of teachers' work. As with workload, teachers’ perception of system-level demands – such as pressure to adapt to changing requirements or implement new initiatives – can be related to self-efficacy, but this varies depending on the nature of the demand. Understanding this variation could be key for supporting teachers in navigating the evolving complexity of their professional environments.
References
[2] Bakker, A. and E. Demerouti (2017), “Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward.”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 22/3, pp. 273-285, https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056.
[11] 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.
[5] Çetin, G., J. Frank and P. Jennings (2024), “Teacher self-efficacy beliefs and burnout: The mediating roles of interpersonal mindfulness in teaching and emotion regulation”, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Vol. 33/2, pp. 81-98, https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266241272049.
[3] Crawford, E., J. LePine and B. Rich (2010), “Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: A theoretical extension and meta-analytic test”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95/5, pp. 834-848, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019364.
[22] Danielson, C. (2011), “Evaluations that help teachers learn”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 68/4, pp. 35-39.
[23] Danielson, C. (2001), “New trends in teacher evaluation”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 58/5, pp. 12-15.
[1] Demerouti, E. et al. (2001), “The job demands-resources model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86/3, pp. 499-512, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.
[25] Fullan, M. (2007), The New Meaning of Educational Change, Teachers College Press, New York.
[26] Hargreaves, A. and D. Shirley (2009), The Fourth Way: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452219523.
[8] Holzberger, D., A. Philipp and M. Kunter (2013), “How teachers’ self-efficacy is related to instructional quality: A longitudinal analysis.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 105/3, pp. 774-786, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032198.
[17] Hu, L. (2024), “Utilization of differentiated instruction in K-12 classrooms: A systematic literature review (2000–2022)”, Asia Pacific Education Review, Vol. 25/2, pp. 507-525, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-024-09931-y.
[12] Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture (2014), Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report: Iceland, https://www.government.is/library/01-Ministries/Ministry-of-Education/count_backgr_rep_iceland_2015_fin.pdf.
[6] Klassen, R. and V. Tze (2014), “Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis”, Educational Research Review, Vol. 12, pp. 59-76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.
[13] Liebowitz, D. (2018), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264308411-en.
[14] Low, E., A. Lin Goodwin and J. Snyder (2017), Focused on Learning: Student and Teacher Time in a Singapore School, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, Stanford, CA, https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/scope-singapore-student-and-teacher-time-report-final_0.pdf.
[15] Ministry of Education of Singapore (2022), Teacher Workload and Blended Learning, https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/20220215-teacher-workload-and-blended-learning.
[16] NCEE (2021), Lesson Time: Reimagining Teachers’ Working Hours, https://ncee.org/lesson-time-reimagining-teachers-working-hours/.
[9] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[10] OECD (2023), Survey of Adult Skills 2023 (PIAAC) database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/piaac-2nd-cycle-database.html (accessed on 6 May 2025).
[21] OECD (2021), The State of School Education: One Year into the COVID Pandemic, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/201dde84-en.
[20] 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.
[18] Porta, T. (2025), “Differentiated instruction and student diversity”, Strengthening Teacher Self-Efficacy for Differentiated Instruction, SpringerBriefs in Education, Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-4368-4_2.
[19] Santiago, P. and F. Benavides (2009), Teacher Evaluation A Conceptual Framework and examples of Country Practices.
[4] Skaalvik, E. and S. Skaalvik (2017), “Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 67, pp. 152-160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.06.006.
[24] Sykes, G., B. Schneider and D. Plank (eds.) (2012), Handbook of Education Policy Research, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880968.
[7] Zee, M. and H. Koomen (2016), “Teacher self-efficacy and Its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 86/4, pp. 981-1015, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801.
← 1. Some teachers may interpret the total workload question as referring only to contracted or official working hours, which provides a defined number of weekly hours, whereas task-based reporting encourages the inclusion of all activities, including off-site tasks. Moreover, this discrepancy is likely to reflect a combination of other factors. On the one hand, teachers may underestimate the full extent of their work when asked to provide a single figure, especially if their workload includes many fragmented or low-visibility tasks (e.g. emails, informal meetings, preparation at home). On the other hand, when breaking down time by task, teachers may inadvertently double-count concurrent activities with overlapping time or overestimate each component individually, leading to an inflated total when added together. However, this gap highlights that, like in many other professions, teachers may not have a clear or consistent sense of their total workload. While teaching time may be the clearest set of hours in a teacher's workload (i.e. teaching periods/hours are generally clearly identifiable and drive other tasks, such as lesson preparation), other tasks may be more difficult to identify due to their diffuse, irregular and overlapping nature.
← 2. When interpreting these results, it should be taken into consideration that, while teachers report working time spent on marking and correcting, they only report marking as a source of stress.
← 3. Following the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the Flemish Parliament in 2009, the Flemish Community legally reinforced the right of students with special educational needs to be enrolled in mainstream education by passing the M-Decree in 2014. This included measures such as: 1) Updating the definition categories for students with special educational needs, including a category for children with autism; 2) Requiring mainstream schools to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate students with special education needs, such as providing specialist equipment and support staff, and only referring a student to special education after all such 'reasonable adaptations' have been tried. 3) Parents of children with special education needs who disagree with a school's refusal to enrol their child are given the right to appeal to a Student Rights Commission (Commissie inzake Leerlingenrechten or CLR). This commission comprises experts in equality and education law, and was created by the Parliamentary Act of 2002 on Equal Educational Opportunities.