Teacher Professional Learning

3. Ambition Two: Develop an infrastructure that incentivises and recognises excellence

Abstract

This chapter presents the second of the four ambitions that orientate this report. It concentrates on the career structure of the teaching profession in a system, including both the opportunities for vertical progression and for horizontal diversification through specialisations. A third consideration is how trustworthy, reliable evaluation mechanisms support the effective implementation of this career structure. In discussing these, the chapter presents key design considerations from research literature, insights on implementation, and examples from systems around the world.

Career structures can be thought of as a set or sequence of recognised professional positions with associated tasks and responsibilities, as well as the rules that govern individuals’ progression across these positions (OECD, 2019[1]). Two core benefits underlie opportunities for promotion or specialisation:

• One, they are important for teachers’ motivation. For instance, differentiated levels allow public acknowledgement of teachers’ skills and professional growth. Accordingly, they also communicate important wider messages about the profession that shape both retention and attraction of teachers.

• Two, they also matter for ensuring effective allocation of resources. Differentiated levels can support efforts to align between teachers’ competencies and particular tasks. For instance, highly effective teachers may be able to be assigned certain classes or roles such as coaching.

Key highlights

This ambition focusses on the goals of rewarding excellence and expertise through career progression; recognising the variety of roles of teachers; and ensuring fair promotions while identifying development needs at different levels. Some of the considerations it draws particular attention to include how:

• A key tool for differentiating and communicating stages can be through alignment with specific competency frameworks.

• Opportunities for progression or specialisation can play a distinct role in teachers’ long-term motivation, even in the absence of end-of-year bonuses or other incentives.

• In determining any financial incentives, the positioning of the ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ can have profound effects on teacher supply and retention.

• Maintaining the ‘external’ nature of high-stakes evaluation can help support trust and consistency in the evaluation mechanisms.

• As measuring the quality of teaching is challenging, one option can be to increase the quantity and diversity of measures that are drawn upon for a more rounded picture; the more varied the information is that is generated, the more likely are teachers to trust it and the less likely it is that teachers will try to manipulate it.

• Focussing evaluation and the criteria for career advancement on the intended outputs of professional learning, such as growth in practice, competencies and knowledge, may help to ensure that professional learning remains impactful and relevant, rather than a ‘box-ticking exercise’.

• Formative evaluation to improve practice is also an important feature, and it can be helpful to consider this as being a more localised, school-led form of evaluation.

Lever 4: A clear and attractive vertical career structure

One way of differentiating teachers’ careers is in terms of vertical progression. Like a ladder, teachers may have opportunities to progress through a succession of formal positions or roles. These are organised hierarchically with distinct task profiles and increasing levels of responsibility, that in turn demand increasing levels of skills or experience.

The clear articulation of these stages and the associated expectations can allow teachers to have clarity over what is necessary to progress. It is also important for any associated certification and evaluation process.

Define stages to be clear, coherent and comprehensible

When designing multi-stage career structures, the number of stages and their associated roles and responsibilities is a foundational consideration for policymakers:

• Stages need to be specific and clearly articulated.

• At the same time, they also need to be distinct to ensure that they can effectively motivate teachers and facilitate fair progression.

• Ideally each stage of a teacher’s career should be associated with a clear set of progressively increasing responsibilities and competencies (see below).

A review of 20 OECD systems in 2019 found that a little less than half provide their teachers with multi-stage vertical career structures that offer opportunities for promotion based on a succession of formal positions with distinct task profiles in the classroom (OECD, 2019[1]). Among these, structures comprise between two and six distinct stages, which gives an indication of the number of stages that may allow meaningful differentiation and motivation.

Often, the articulation of career progression typically begins by considering teacher’s entry point as a novice teacher. This forms the first stage in teacher’s journey, and from which they build. This can also help support alignment with initial teacher education and any forms of induction that are in place to support teachers’ early development.

Align with competency frameworks

A key tool for differentiating stages can be through alignment with specific competency frameworks. These frameworks can be considered as the articulated ‘Teacher Standards’ for what is expected from those in the profession at each level (Hooge, 2016[2]).

• Differentiated competency frameworks that specify what is expected of teachers at different stages of their career can help to build a shared understanding of good teaching.

• This shared understanding can serve as a valuable focal point for connecting how professional learning and career progression interlink; the standards articulate the competencies that teachers should endeavour to develop and which they will eventually be assessed on for their progression.

• In this respect, competency frameworks can give coherence across learning opportunities, evaluation mechanisms and career progression decisions.

In some systems, such as Estonia (see Box 3.1) and the Flemish Community of Belgium, connections between competency frameworks and teachers’ career structures have been clearly established (OECD, 2019[1]). The latter is a valuable example; differentiated professional standards exist, providing teachers with a list of basic teacher competencies adapted for different levels and covering a range of teachers’ expected functions (e.g. content expert, innovator and researcher, partner of parents etc.). There are also a series of professional profiles designed to guide teachers’ development over their career. Notably, the standards are not linked with a corresponding vertically differentiated career structure. The result is limited awareness and use of the standards to plan professional learning needs or guide their appraisal processes (Nusche et al., 2015_[14], pp. 148, 164).

Clarify connections between stages

In thinking about the nature of the stages in a vertical career structure, a further design consideration is the type of connections between stages. There is a need to define the types of criteria that are necessary for advancement.

• On the one hand, there is the consideration of progression being voluntary or not.

• While vertical career advancement is often voluntary, some countries require teachers to apply for higher career stages after a certain amount of time (OECD, 2019[1]). This is a means of monitoring continued effectiveness.

• Voluntary and meritocratic access to higher career stages can be important though for effectively motivating and rewarding professional growth.

A related consideration is that of the duration of progression. Is progressing to a higher stage permanent or temporary?

• Again, a temporary progression that sees the need to demonstrate the appropriate competencies for that higher level can be a means of monitoring continued effectiveness.

• At the same time, it may have ramifications for teachers’ motivation, potentially reducing the attractiveness of certain progression steps.

• There are also administration burdens and resource costs attached to re-evaluating teachers’ progression.

Underpinning the above considerations is the question of evaluation. Evaluation can inform appraisal processes and a teacher moving up the structure. In defining stages and ensuring that what is expected in terms of roles and responsibilities is clear, so too the ‘step’ between stages must be defined. These can be considered as the criteria for advancement, and is considered in more detail below in relation to Lever 6: Evaluation mechanisms.

Leverage appropriate financial incentives

Opportunities for progression can play a distinct role in teachers’ long-term motivation, even in the absence of end-of-year bonuses or other incentives that are more common in on-teaching professions (Crehan, 2016[3]; Natale et al., 2013[4]). That said, financial incentives may be a key feature of progression. This is an extremely complex matter as it demands policymakers consider teacher salaries and their wider fiscal implications.

In particular, one tension that is navigated is between the positioning of the ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ of the salary structure.

• On the one hand, systems may compress the salary levels between the stages of a career progression and have a higher entry salary – a high ‘floor’ – for beginning teachers (e.g. Denmark). This may have particular implications for the attractiveness of the profession.

• On the other hand, teachers may have a lower entry salary but a steeper progression in salaries, including a higher salary for reaching more advanced stages of the progression – a higher ‘ceiling’ (e.g. Korea). This may have particular implications for retention and the way that progression is incentivised (OECD, 2019[1]).

Box 3.1. International examples of multi-stage career structures

Estonia

Estonia introduced a new vertical career structure in 2013, alongside a reformed system of teacher professional qualifications. It comprises four distinct stages reflecting different levels of professional skills and experience. The four stages are Teacher (Level 6), Teacher (Level 7.1), Senior teacher (Level 7.2), Master teacher (Level 8). Level 7.1 is awarded following completion of a master’s degree level initial teacher education programme or equivalent qualifications. Senior teachers are awarded for, in addition to regular teaching activities, aspects such as supporting the development of the school or other teachers, and Master teachers also work closely with a higher education institution and participate in development and creative activities in and outside of their school.

Level 6 and Level 7.1 are awarded indefinitely, while Level 7.2 and 8 are awarded for a five-year period after which the teacher must reapply. The stages are not formally linked to salaries and financial incentives remain variable (see below), and access to higher stages is voluntary. New responsibilities are given to teachers as a result of progression, rather than being a criterion for progression.

With regard to the financial incentives, career progression decisions are made independently of financial decisions. Promotions are accompanied by a guaranteed salary increase, but the exact amount depends on the number of teachers at each level; local authorities share out salaries from a lump salary sum. This means that there is not an upper limit on promotions but at the same time salary expenditure remains constant and predictable for the authorities.

Notably, the absence of financial incentives has meant that most teachers show little interest in attaining the certifications and engaging in the professional learning that allow access to higher levels. A recent review of the system suggested that the roles of senior and master teacher are not universally understood (Cordingley et al., 2022[5]). Moreover, the review suggested that there was a need to better leverage the two more senior roles of senior and master teacher for fostering more collaboration.

Slovak Republic

The Slovak Republic has four stages: beginning teacher, independent teacher, teacher with first certification and teacher with second certification. In progressing through these stages teachers can undertake different specialisations in the Slovak Republic’s horizontal structure (see Box 3.2). For instance, beginning teachers can only serve as class teachers, and independent teachers can undertake more roles but not yet serve as mentors to other teachers. Meanwhile, those with second certification – the fourth stage – can become members of national and international expert committees and sponsor professional development programmes.

Progress across the four stages is based on teachers’ growing professional competencies, their experience and the accumulation of credits through the continuing professional development opportunities that are provided. For instance, one way to become an independent teacher is by accumulating 60 professional development credits.

Source: (Santiago et al., 2016[6]), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Slovak Republic 2015, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247567-en; (OECD, 2019[1]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en; (Crehan, 2016[3]), Exploring the impact of career models on teacher motivation, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246252e.pdf (accessed 21 February 2025); (Cordingley et al., 2022[5]), Policy Recommendations for the Professional Development of Teachers and School Leaders in Estonia, https://www.britishcouncil.ee/sites/default/files/policy_recommendations_for_the_professional_development_of_teachers_and_school_leaders_in_estonia_eng.pdf (accessed 15 February 2025)

Lever 5: Opportunities to specialise through horizontal diversification

Teachers may also have opportunities to undertake horizontal diversification. This is typically a way of recognising and encouraging specialisation and can be thought of as lateral career moves. These lateral moves can be combined with vertical career progression opportunities too (see Box 3.2).

Teachers naturally enjoy and excel in some roles more than others. It is therefore important to acknowledge and support their capacity for leadership in some areas, just as it is to recognise their need for further development in others. Opportunities for horizontal diversification can give teachers autonomy in shaping their careers (Crehan, 2016[3]), as well as potentially supporting more efficient use of teachers’ time in relation to the alignment of their knowledge and skills with tasks. Moreover, it is noteworthy that data from TALIS 2024 finds that mentoring others is positively associated with job satisfaction in about half of education systems (OECD, 2025[7]), which points to the satisfaction that teachers may derive from certain horizontal roles.

It is worth noting too that new roles in a horizontal structure may be effective responses to new and emerging areas of need, which is particularly relevant in an era of rapid change (e.g. technology specialists, social-emotional specialists).

Define specialisations

As with vertical progression, it is important that specialist roles are clearly defined.

• This should encompass the nature of its roles and responsibilities. For instance, specialisations such as mentors or in digital tools may demand specific knowledge, skills or competencies, and they may also have expectations in terms of what teachers do or who they work with.

• This also encompasses outlining what is the relationship with vertical structures. For instance, some systems have developed both horizontal and vertical structures, but this demands clear articulation of the type of roles and responsibilities, as well as competencies expected (see below) that these different structures demand (see Box 3.2).

Accredit and recognise specialisations

A connected question to defining specialisations is how these roles are obtained and retained. Specialisations tend to rely on specific knowledge, skills and competencies and it is therefore important to verify these for the specialisation to be accredited.

• This may take the form of proxy measures, such as experience levels for assigning the specialisation of mentor to a teacher.

• Alternatively, it may draw upon outputs from summative or formative evaluations as part of the vertical structure; again, taking the example of specialisations as a mentor, this may be assigned based on high performance in evaluations (see Lever 6 below).

Another approach may see instead bespoke evaluations of the skillsets of specialisations. In this respect, the space of micro-credentials may be particularly significant. Micro-credentials are a form of credential that individuals can earn upon the completion of organised learning activities that are “smaller, more targeted and more flexible” than traditional education and training programmes (OECD, 2023[8]). This touches upon some of the identified potential advantages of micro-credentials with regard to professional learning:

• micro-credentials allow for the division of particular skills and competences for a more granular recognition of these,

• are learner-centred by allowing teachers to choose areas of focus relevant to their needs,

• enable provision to responsively evolve in step with potential new demands on competences (Minea-Pic, 2020[9]).

Nevertheless, their implementation demands careful consideration.

• One consideration is attending to the quality assurance mechanisms that allow for formal accreditation of the micro-credential (e.g. gathering evidence of skill mastery through student work and videos that are then evaluated by a reviewer).

• A further consideration is how there is coherence across micro-credentials appear particularly relevant. After all, the very name suggests the existence of a connected, wider credential, with micro-credentials typically seen as a tool to complement more conventional programmes (Kato, Galán-Muros and Weko, 2020[10]).

• These challenges are complicated by the considerable lack of evidence with which to make decisions. While there has been particular attention on micro-credentials at the tertiary level (OECD, 2023[8]), in teacher professional learning their use remains in its infancy, due partly to the sheer novelty of the approach. That means that research on the effectiveness of micro-credentials and, crucially, what makes them successful in implementation is nascent.

Finally, as with vertical progression, the question of duration in horizontal specialisations is also significant. How long is a specialisation assigned for? This is connected to the question of evaluation mechanisms and the resources that may be demanded, and balancing this with the degree of quality control that having mechanisms for teachers reapplying to specialisations may bring.

Enable and incentive specialisations

One consideration is how specialisation is incentivised. This may be purely based on teachers’ intrinsic motivation.

• The opportunity to assume more responsibility in terms of an area teachers are passionate about may be a primary means of encouraging teachers to seek out lateral career moves.

• This depends on understanding the demand for particular roles and ensuring provision and demand align.

Other mechanisms that systems may make use of includes reduced teaching hours.

• A common approach is to see teachers who adopt a specialisation compensated with fewer hours in the classroom.

• This also provides teachers with time for actually enacting these specialised roles, thus attending to teacher workload and well-being. Indeed, the reduction in hours may actually mean that the most effective teachers stay in the classroom as they do not need to move to administrative or leadership roles due to the opportunities the specialisation facilitates (e.g. see Austria in OECD, 2019_[12]).

There may also be the availability of certain learning opportunities with particular horizontal tracks that serve as an incentive and reward. Financial incentives can also be a factor too (e.g. see Uruguay in Santiago et al., 2016_[17], p.229). This may be tied to the related career progression pay structure, or it may be the case that regular or occasional additional payments are in place.

Box 3.2. International examples drawing upon horizontal diversification

Singapore

In Singapore, vertical career progression is combined with opportunities for specialisation in a particular role through horizontal diversification. In terms of the latter, three parallel streams exist:

• The teaching track is designed to cultivate experts in the classroom, with teachers staying in the classroom and supporting younger teachers in the school. Those at the top of this scale earn the same as school principals.

• The leadership track provides an additional pathway for teachers to develop their leadership competencies – both within a school and across schools. Hence, teachers can progress to Subject Head, Head of Department, Vice Principal and Principal, before progressing beyond a school to roles such as Cluster Superintendent up to the Director-General of Education. Some 25% of educators within Singapore’s schools are on this track.

• The specialist track caters to those wishing to become researchers and to develop specific subject matter knowledge. The specialist track is relatively small, with an estimated less than 1% of Singapore’s 33 000 employees in this track. Specialists are expected to have or be pursuing a doctorate.

Each of these compromises at least four stages of career advancement (vertical progression). Each level on the three tracks does not correspond directly to a set job description or school-based function, with school principals determining the kinds of responsibilities and experiences associated with each level based on the needs of the school.

Teachers’ pay increases as they progress. In the first three years, pay increases independent of performance. Following their specialisation into one of the three tracks, pay increases as teachers progress. Retention bonuses are also available every 3 to 5 years, as well as one-off, performance-based bonuses every year.

Appointment to a higher level is performance-based (see Box 3.3) and can depend on teachers’ or school leaders’ completion of certain forms of professional learning. For instance, some of these can be time-intensive preparation courses of six months that teachers are recommended to (e.g. The Leaders in Education Programme).

There is a degree of central coordination across the career ladder. There is a quota for how many teachers can reach each level. Progression can be viewed more as an ‘appointment’ than ‘certification’. Teachers can preference a certain track, with teachers being supported by a mentor in their first three years to choose a track, but the Ministry could reassign teachers to certain tracks if they demonstrated they are more suited to that track.

England (United Kingdom)

England (United Kingdom) has a series of ‘National Professional Qualifications’ (NPQ) for teachers and school leaders. The qualifications aim to:

• Improve career progression

• Improve quality and consistency of leadership 

• Improve retention of teachers and leaders

• Improve the quality of teaching

These were reformed in 2021 to ensure they were underpinned by the best available evidence of effective teaching and leadership practice. Examples of qualifications include “Leading Behaviour and Culture”, “Leading Literacy” and “Leading Teacher Development”. There are also qualifications aimed at the leadership level (e.g. “Senior Leadership”, “Headship”).

Qualifications are formally taught through a blend of face-to-face, online and independent learning with a defined curriculum, the qualifications are both a learning opportunity as well as recognition of the teacher or school leader’s knowledge and competence in a specific area. To successfully complete the NPQ there is an assessment, which was reformed in 2021.

Qualifications typically last for 12 months with a minimum of 50 hours of engagement. Leadership qualifications are longer at 18 months and most demand a minimum of 75 hours of engagement. Provision and delivery is outsourced to an approved set of providers, with the selection of providers rigorous based on specific criteria. Moreover, for each NPQ, the Department for Education has developed and published a framework to support organisations developing and delivering NPQs. The content of the frameworks for NPQs and the supporting evidence are independently assessed and endorsed by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) (see Annex B for more information).

Slovak Republic

In the Slovak Republic, a range of horizontal specialised positions are available. Different specialisations become available at certain points in teachers’ vertical progression. Although these positions are not organised hierarchically, they allow teachers to develop areas of expertise and deepen certain aspects of their profession.

Specialised positions include roles such as mentor teacher, educational advisor, head of subject committee (takes responsibility for a school’s pedagogical work on a given subject or study area), career advisor, ICT co-ordinator or a co-ordinator overseeing a specific area (e.g. special needs children) in a school.

There can be some variability as school leaders decide on the definition and assignment to certain vertical positions in their school.

Notes: England (United Kingdom) and Singapore shared insights in the organised peer-learning event of 13-14 May 2025 in Kyiv, Ukraine for the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science that have informed this box.

Source: (Crehan, 2016[3]), Exploring the impact of career models on teacher motivation, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246252e.pdf (accessed 21 February 2025); (Santiago et al., 2016[6]), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Slovak Republic 2015, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247567-en ; (National Institute for School Leadership, 2019[11]), Singapore's Career Ladder System, https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Education/Study-Group/NISLSingapore%27sCareerLadderSystem.pdf (accessed 21 February 2025)

Lever 6: Trusted evaluation mechanisms

An attractive and effective career structure goes hand-in-hand with the evaluation mechanisms that allow progress to happen fairly and appropriately. Evaluation mechanisms serve as a mechanism for determining career progression and thus facilitating reward and acknowledgement. They are also a form of quality control and thus a way of promoting growth, providing valuable information that can be used to support individual teachers as well as the system as a whole to improve.

Protect the role of the ‘external’ in evaluation for certification and promotion

One central goal of evaluation is to reliably and fairly support career progression. It is helpful to consider this as a distinct objective in terms of how it can be best approached, even if it may also furnish valuable information for formative growth as set out below.

To support trust and consistency in the evaluation mechanisms, it can be helpful to consider this form of evaluation as consisting of a distinct external aspect.

• That is, the evaluation is overseen by external actors to the teacher and the school. It may be that school leaders – and even teachers’ own self-evaluations – play a role, but there is a degree of external oversight that operates across the evaluation of teachers.

• After all, for career progression to effectively function it needs to account for teachers across multiple schools, and this is naturally something that stretches beyond the remit of a school leader.

• There is also a question of the quality of judgements and potentially the need for specialised skills or multiple perspectives; research has found that leaders could distinguish between those teachers that added the most and least value in terms of student standardised achievement gains, but that they struggled to distinguish between teachers in the middle (Jacob and Lefgren, 2008[12]).

• Furthermore, the external aspect also avoids the personal relationships between teachers and leaders affecting evaluations (OECD, 2019[1]).

Defining the nature of this external body is important and its constituent inputs.

• There should be a clear process to how they work in relation to teachers, as well as the measures that they draw upon to actually conduct evaluations.

• The evaluation system of Singapore captures this blend of more detailed internal knowledge from leaders with external oversight (see Box 3.3).

• In some systems, such as those of Austria and Poland, an external perspective is only sought out in cases of complaint or appeal (OECD, 2019[13]).

Draw upon well-defined, multiple measures

A range of measures can be drawn upon to determine teachers’ competency levels and their career progression.

• More direct methods include observation of practice such as by school leaders or inspectorates, other more indirect methods include student performance such as in external assessments.

• Other indirect measures of competency may be participation in professional learning opportunities, such as the obtention of a certain amount of ‘credits’, or successful completion of qualifications.

The internal validity of measures is a key question.

• For instance, measuring performance of teachers is difficult; one way is through student performance, but this is confounded by the composition of the class and student starting points, while it may also mean that teachers prioritise – as mentioned – the mechanism that measures student performance (e.g. examinations over holistic development).

• Alternatively, rubrics for observing practice can be resource-intensive; for instance, observers need to be trained with specific rubrics.

• Accordingly, one option can be to increase the quantity of measures that are drawn upon to provide a more rounded picture, though this also incurs time and resource costs and increases the burden that evaluation carries on both evaluators and those being evaluated.

The measures that are used to evaluate a career structure will shape how teachers engage with that career structure. If the incentives function, the measures can receive increased attention from teachers – as the example of student examinations illustrates above. Accordingly, an overarching focus on competency in measures seems particularly important.

• This is connected to the question of the provision of professional learning opportunities. If engagement with professional learning is part of the evaluation criteria for career advancement this may impact incentives when it comes to engagement with professional learning opportunities.

• Participation in professional learning opportunities may become the primary incentive or objective, rather than the actual growth that such opportunities can yield (Santiago et al., 2016[6]). Thus, professional learning may become a ‘box-ticking’ exercise (Crehan, 2016[3]).

• Focussing evaluation and the criteria for career advancement on the intended outputs of professional learning, such as growth in practice, competencies and knowledge, may help to ensure that professional learning remains impactful and relevant.

Calibrate and audit measures

Confidence and trust in evaluation measures are important for the measures to effectively function.

• Transparency in how evaluation measures are conducted is a fundamental of this.

• This is connected to the specific standards that are associated with different career progressions; teachers should understand what clearly is expected of them.

• They should also understand how these expectations are to be measured and what success looks like on the evaluation mechanisms.

Efforts can also be made to foster greater confidence in how the measures are applied.

• For instance, if observation is used, it may be that multiple observers or observations are conducted to increase reliability.

• Alternatively, it may be that there are trained, specialist observers.

• There may also be auditing of measures, such as the consistency of how observation ratings are provided.

Again, this points to the value of the external nature of evaluation for progression. This process of building confidence is, however, shaped by constraints in terms of time and resources.

Use formative evaluation for development

A second central goal of evaluation is to facilitate learning. Its importance can be considered as tantamount to that of evaluation for certification and promotion, but it is again helpful to consider it as distinct, even if connections between the two require careful consideration (see below).

Considering formative evaluation as being a more localised, school-led form of evaluation can be helpful.

• The closer relationship between school leaders and teachers, as well as school leaders’ knowledge of the school context, may facilitate more effective identification of a teacher’s strengths and weaknesses and, in particular, targeted ongoing support for the latter.

• Teachers’ self-evaluation may be less honest and, thus, less effective if the stakes are especially high for this evaluation, but more localised formative evaluation may reduce this risk.

• Moreover, one limitation of summative evaluations for progression are that they may not occur very regularly, with intervals of a year or more common. More regular evaluation and support at the school-level may better facilitate growth.

Formative evaluation closer to the grassroots level can see collaboration between school management and teachers to create individualised development plans, defining activities aimed at improving specific aspects of teaching practice (Maghnouj et al., 2020[14]). For instance, in Colombia, teachers are formally appraised by leaders every year. This consists of an assessment of skills and qualifications, with a summative rating out of 100 applied. However, evaluation for appraisal occurs only every three years and is managed externally by the national testing agency and the sub-national governments (OECD, 2019[1]).

Facilitate connections between the summative and formative to identify learning needs

While distinct, considering the mechanisms of summative and formative evaluation in total isolation from one another may be inefficient. One central question remains how to align evaluation for certification and promotion with professional improvement.

• Recent data from TALIS 2024 (Teaching and Learning International Survey) suggested while teacher appraisal is widespread, there is a lot of variation in what happens after appraisal. On average across OECD education systems, 65% of teachers are engaged in post-appraisal discussions about how to improve their teaching. Less than half of teachers (46%) are offered development or training plans, on average, with this varying considerably across systems from less than 15% to over 90% of teachers (OECD, 2025[7]).

• Questions have been raised historically by teachers around how appraisal processes can substantially impact on their classroom practice (OECD, 2014[15]; OECD, 2019[1]). This is significant when considering that evaluation for appraisal purposes is demanding, both in the sense of resources for a system but also often emotionally for teachers.

Carefully considering what connections exist between evaluation for certification and promotion and formative evaluation for development can be meaningful.

• For instance, how can shortcomings in the former feed into the more day-to-day support provided by schools to their teachers?

• This is where school leaders taking on more oversight for formative development can be meaningful, as they may understand the expected standards for progression better than individual teachers.

• Similarly, system leaders may choose to better align the provision of professional learning based on identified shortcomings from looking across summative evaluations.

Box 3.3. International examples on unlocking the fuller potential of evaluation

Singapore

Singapore’s Enhanced Performance Management System (EPMS) guides evaluation and advancement in the career progression. Teachers (and school leaders) are evaluated every year based on three sets of outcomes: student outcomes (e.g. learning outcomes, holistic development), professional outcomes (e.g. collaboration, sharing resources), and organisational outcomes (e.g. contributions to the school). Teachers are assigned a specific grade, which determines progression and annual bonuses.

The evaluation is multi-step and multi-stakeholder. Teachers are assigned a specific supervisor to oversee the process. There is a close relationship between goal-setting and evaluation, with teachers meeting at the beginning of the year to set goals with their supervisor and to co-design an evaluation plan. Observation and monitoring unfold throughout the year, with a mid-year check-in designed to monitor ongoing progress towards goals and discuss what further support may be needed. A final evaluation sees all members of the school leadership team meet to decide on a final evaluation.

The EPMS does not specify exactly how supervisors carry out an assessment but provides a broad set of competencies (e.g. individual attributes, professional mastery, organisational excellence and effective collaboration). There is a high level of consistency in the shared understanding among principals of the evaluation process due to the professional learning opportunities they undertake and the clear, consistent communication around the EPMS.

The evaluation process is notably time-intensive with its expectation of thorough evaluations every year involving a range of individuals. This has a cost for both evaluators, as well as teachers in terms of preparation for evaluations. At the same time, this process also can contribute to trust and consistency across a system due to the engagement of a range of individuals.

Estonia

In Estonia, the more resource-intensive forms of evaluation with external personal are reserved for more high-stakes assessment. For instance, Level 6 and Level 7.1 teachers (see Box 3.1) are granted by the head of the institution, while the head of the institution appoints a commission for those being attested as senior teachers, and the Ministry of Education establishes a commission for those being appointed as master teachers. The external aspects not only accounts for the greater weight of these roles but that there may also not be sufficient expertise within a school to make certain judgements on more senior promotions.

Teachers submit a written application for attestation at the next level. This includes documents that can help document their fulfilment of the requirements. There is a sense that the attestation is a verification of fulfilment, as opposed to a full evaluation for promotion (Crehan, 2016[3]).

Estonia has, interestingly, also established a 360-degree feedback tool for the directors and leaders of schools. This is designed to support their self-evaluation and own leadership on their development, with anonymous commentaries from teachers, students, parents, colleagues and other parties.

Chile

Chile introduced wholesale changes to its system of professional learning and teacher career structure in 2016. Progression across its five-stage career model hinges upon a certification process that is competency-based and regulated by an external component, as well as teachers’ years of experience. Interestingly, this was recently further reformed to try to create more efficiency and reduce the burden on teachers.

Competencies are specified in the national teaching standards. Evaluation consists of two external components: the teacher completes a standardised written assessment on their pedagogical knowledge and prepares a professional portfolio. The latter seeks to evaluate different aspects of the pedagogical practice of classroom teachers, based on multiple direct evidence of the work inside and outside it, including samples of work (e.g. lesson planning), a recording of their teaching, and proof of collaborative work with colleagues.

Teachers are expected to move from the first stage (‘Initial’) to the second stage (‘Early’) and, under the new reform, onto the third stage (‘Advanced’). Teachers have the opportunity to engage in the evaluation process between these stages twice. This means that evaluation serves as a mechanism to remove underperforming teachers from the profession if they fail the examination more than twice (Santiago et al., 2017_[21] pp. 240, 253). In some cases, teachers can re-enter the profession after a two-year break and try the evaluations again.

Progression to the two highest stages (‘Expert I’ and ‘Expert II’) are voluntary. Thus, those at the ‘Advanced’ or higher levels do not need to engage in evaluation processes but, instead, they must participate in the ‘Deepening Cycle’. This cycle lasts for four years and seeks to actively promote professional learning. During this, teachers must complete one of four actions, which can include taking and passing at least one of the evaluation mechanisms; mentoring colleagues; participating and passing a certified programme, course or peer-action activity; or actively engaging in the programme of the Teachers’ Network of Teachers.

Under their new salary and career re-structuring in 2016, all beginning teachers were assigned to the lowest stage while current teachers were designated a step based on their years of experience and their previous results in multiple teacher evaluation processes (Santiago et al., 2017_[21] p. 240). In the more recent reforms, an additional provisional category was created for teachers who did not have evaluations from recent years, who have several years to complete an evaluation with which they would essentially ‘re-join’ the new progression ladder.

The reforms centred on creating a high-stakes evaluation system that, as mentioned, could see the removal of underperforming teachers. The evaluation was also intensive in terms of measures. Central to its successful implementation was it being a multi-stakeholder affair, with the government creating a tripartite technical committee that provided a platform for central and local authorities alongside the country’s main teacher union to develop consensus positions.

Notes: Chile and Singapore shared insights in the organised peer-learning event of 13-14 May 2025 in Kyiv, Ukraine for the Ukrainian Ministry of Education and Science that have informed this box.

Source: (OECD, 2019[1]), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en; (Crehan, 2016[3]), Exploring the impact of career models on teacher motivation, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246252e.pdf (accessed 21 February 2025); (Santiago et al., 2017[16]), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Chile 2017, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264285637-en; (National Institute for School Leadership, 2019[11]), Singapore's Career Ladder System, https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Education/Study-Group/NISLSingapore%27sCareerLadderSystem.pdf (accessed 21 February 2025); (CPEIP, 2025[17]), El centro de perfeccionamiento, experimentación e investigaciones pedagógicas del ministerio de Educación, https://www.cpeip.cl/ (accessed 25 February 2025)

Key implementation considerations

Developing an infrastructure that incentives and recognises excellence is complex, with multiple considerations at play and many of these interconnecting. Further complexity comes from the fact that there are also historic, existing structures to typically engage with. Some key implementation considerations that surface from international examples and best practice include:

• Translating existing structures to new structures: Considering how the transition process will unfold is an important element of change, with adjustments to career structures naturally inviting uncertainty for a range of stakeholders. Re-assigning teachers to certain levels needs a clear process and transparency. In particular, it demands balancing between placing too many teachers at a certain higher level, which can impact the credibility of the new structure and potentially have financial implications, with too few teachers at a certain higher level which may lead to frustration and reduced motivation. The example of Chile is particularly relevant here (see Box 3.3). Designing and evaluating pilot projects may be a way of allaying some concerns, as well as supporting consensus-building (see below).

• Communicating changes and building ownership: A lack of clarity around changes and the sense that one’s voice is not heard in these changes may be significant barriers. Participative processes may be important. For instance, the French Community of Belgium’s vertical expansion of the career structure saw an emphasis on early involvement of stakeholders and the clear communication of the reform package’s goals to build support. There was a participatory consultative process that encompassed teachers, school leaders, parents and students alongside the economic, social and cultural sectors (OECD, 2019[1]). Again, this is echoed in the case of Chile too (see Box 3.3).

• Understanding the role of cultures: The question of buy-in mentioned above is connected to a further challenge around understanding how to navigate existing tacit norms in the system. There may be historic ways of working or thinking when it comes to careers and processes such as evaluation that may need to be attended to. For instance, formative, learning-orientated appraisals may take time to adapt to when cultures of more summative appraisal are historically the norm in a system. Alternatively, it may take time to understand and adapt to the language of underpinning teacher standards, particularly if they demand new knowledge or practices from teachers in a changing world. These more ‘tacit’ ways of working and interacting may demand sustained effort and attention during implementation if they are to steadily become ingrained and to foster a new culture around the career infrastructure.

• Alignment with ITE provision: It is limiting to view the career structure for teachers in isolation without considering its close connections with the wider Initial Teacher Education (ITE) and professional learning provision (see Ambition 2). ITE can be considered as the entry point to the first stage in the vertical teacher career. It thus builds the foundations of the career and the competencies it develops should have some alignment with what is expected in future progressions. Meanwhile, in its most fundamental form the nature of professional learning is a vehicle for teachers to grow and progress. If certain roles, be that vertical or horizontal, demand certain competencies, then the opportunity for these to be developed is important.

• Coherence with leaders’ career structures: It is also important to attend to how teachers’ career structure intersects with that of leaders. For instance, assuming that a final stage of a particular teacher track is becoming a ‘leader’ is insufficient. School leadership demands particular competencies that should be duly recognised, nurtured and rewarded. While leadership lies beyond the remit of this paper, a view to its structure – from the entry requirements to leadership positions to its progression – alongside processes of change in teachers’ career progression may be fruitful. A range of systems have explored ways of establishing preparatory support and ongoing support for leaders (see 4.3 “Developing leadership for inquiry, dialogue and learning” in OECD, 2019_[5]).

Box 3.4. Key reflection questions for system leaders

To develop an infrastructure that incentivises and recognises excellence, system leaders may reflect on the following:

A clear and attractive vertical career structure

• How can each stage of the career, as well as the connections between them, be clearly defined and communicated?

• How could teacher standards with their expected knowledge, skills, values and attitudes underpin the career stages?

• How can ownership and shared understanding of teaching standards and career structure be developed?

• What may be the role of financial incentives in career progression?

Opportunities to specialise through horizontal diversification

• How can specialist roles be clearly defined, from tasks to expectations for success?

• What features of the career structure may incentivise teachers’ engagement with specialist roles?

• How can effective fulfilment in specialist roles be ensured through sufficient resources, from time to financial resources to the learning opportunities that may be included?

• How are specialist roles accredited to teachers to ensure they are suitable for this role?

Trusted evaluation mechanisms

• How can evaluation positively shape career progression?

• What is the potential to draw upon multiple measures, including the perspectives of different stakeholders, to address the complexity of teaching in evaluating?

• What mechanisms can support the reliability and validity of measures? (e.g. capacity of evaluators, auditing, calibrating)?

• What can be the role of more regular and ongoing internal formative evaluation in supporting professional learning?

• How can learning needs from summative evaluations be identified and harnessed for positive formative experiences?

• How can both individual needs of teachers be identified, but also wider school and system needs by school or system leaders?

Implementation considerations

• How are the distinct needs of leaders met and considered in the career structure, while retaining coherence?

• How does the career structure build upon the foundations of the system of Initial Teacher Education?

• How have different stakeholders’ perspectives been incorporated to ensure ownership of the career structure?

References

[5] Cordingley, P. et al. (2022), Policy Recommendations for the Professional Development of Teachers and School Leaders in Estonia, https://www.britishcouncil.ee/sites/default/files/policy_recommendations_for_the_professional_development_of_teachers_and_school_leaders_in_estonia_eng.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2025).

[17] CPEIP (2025), El centro de perfeccionamiento, experimentación e investigaciones pedagógicas del ministerio de educación, https://www.cpeip.cl/ (accessed on 25 February 2025).

[3] Crehan, L. (2016), Exploring the impact of career models on teacher motivation.

[2] Hooge, E. (2016), “Making multiple school accountability work”, in Governing Education in a Complex World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-7-en.

[12] Jacob, B. and L. Lefgren (2008), “Can Principals Identify Effective Teachers? Evidence on Subjective Performance Evaluation in Education”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 26/1, pp. 101-136, https://doi.org/10.1086/522974.

[10] Kato, S., V. Galán-Muros and T. Weko (2020), “The emergence of alternative credentials”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 216, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b741f39e-en.

[14] Maghnouj, S. et al. (2020), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Albania, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d267dc93-en.

[9] Minea-Pic, A. (2020), “Innovating teachers’ professional learning through digital technologies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 237, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3329fae9-en.

[4] Natale, C. et al. (2013), Creating Sustainable Teacher Career Pathways: A 21 st Century Imperative.

[11] National Institute for School Leadership (2019), Singapore’s Career Ladder System, Criterion Education LCC, https://documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/Education/Study-Group/NISLSingapore%27sCareerLadderSystem.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2025).

[7] OECD (2025), Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en.

[8] OECD (2023), “Public policies for effective micro-credential learning”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 85, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a41f148b-en.

[13] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.

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

[15] OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.

[16] Santiago, P. et al. (2017), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Chile 2017, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264285637-en.

[6] Santiago, P. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Slovak Republic 2015, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247567-en.