Out now is the OECD’s 2025 report Unlocking High-Quality Teaching which offers a grounded, international deep dive into what actually happens in classrooms – and more important what ought to happen.
The report is part of the OECD’s Schools+ initiative which analyzed 150 schools across 40 countries, mapping 20 core teaching practices against five fundamental dimensions of pedagogy.
The most interesting side of this report is that it goes beyond the frameworks and policy, making it way more tangible for everyone involved in education.
From Binary Models to Teaching Repertoires
For decades, education debates have turned around teacher-led vs. student-led, traditional vs. progressive, content-heavy vs. skills-based. In their new report the OECD proposes a clean break with the past. Instead of battling over teaching “philosophies”, the report centers on teaching practices – observable, research-aligned actions in real classrooms.
The report organizes these practices across five dimensions:
- Cognitive engagement – strategies that promote active thinking, metacognition, and persistence
- Subject content quality – clarity, sequencing, and responsiveness to student misunderstanding
- Social-emotional support – fostering confidence, inclusivity, and emotional safety
- Classroom interaction – dialogue, scaffolding, and task collaboration
- Formative assessment and feedback – real-time insights for ongoing instruction
These dimensions also structure the OECD’s Schools+ Taxonomy based on the idea that high-quality teaching is not a static style but rather a repertoire of moves, tailored and recombined depending on context.
Who Took Part, and What Was Measured?
The Schools+ research effort spanned 150 schools across public, private, urban, and rural contexts. It was driven by partnerships with over 50 education ministries, networks, and teacher organizations. Each practice in the taxonomy was rated by experts based on research strength, observability, and ease of implementation.
The data itself came from multiple streams:
- Structured teacher interviews and lesson reflections
- Expert-validated observation rubrics
- Meta-analyses of peer-reviewed education studies
- Country-specific policy documentation
For all its precision, the report has limitations – some of which it also acknowledges. There is a lack of causal data, much of the research rests on correlation, not experimental designs. The input from students was minimal, and basically largely absent. There is limited adaptability guidance and little support for localizing practices in multilingual, under-resourced, or crisis-affected settings. Finally, teachers are framed as recipients of best practices, not co-designers of pedagogy.
These omissions matter. Without student perspectives, ethical considerations, and contextual sensitivity, teaching reform risks becoming performative, which is no synonym for high-quality teaching.
A Taxonomy in Action: What Schools Are – and Aren’t – Doing
The report finds that while all five teaching dimensions matter, not all receive equal attention in classrooms, a hurdle to get to high-quality teaching.
Cognitive Engagement: Undervalued, Underutilized
Only 43% of classrooms consistently displayed high levels of cognitive engagement. Practices like prompting metacognition or encouraging deep student elaboration were often squeezed out by rigid pacing guides and test preparation.
Subject Content Quality: Strong Intent, Weak Support
Teachers broadly agreed on the importance of clear explanations and responsive teaching. Yet many cited time constraints and overloaded curricula as barriers to implementation.
Social-Emotional Support: Missing from Metrics
Despite its well-documented impact on learning, emotional support remains poorly integrated into formal teaching frameworks. Just 28% of schools had structured approaches to fostering student well-being.
Classroom Interaction: A Balancing Act
Dialogic instruction – a method shown to improve learning outcomes across disciplines – was frequently deprioritized in favor of more time-efficient delivery methods. Teachers reported discomfort in balancing open-ended talk with syllabus coverage.
Formative Assessment: High Impact, Low Uptake
Perhaps the most critical – and least implemented – set of practices involved formative assessment. Only 22% of teachers regularly adjusted their teaching based on real-time student feedback.
“We want to teach responsively,” one teacher noted, “but without tools, time, or trust in the process, it’s hard to do it meaningfully.”
The Policy Engine Behind the Classroom
Effective high-quality teaching doesn’t happen in a vacuum. The OECD report devotes quite some space to examining the policy scaffolding that supports – or obstructs – teaching practice. It identifies a set of enabling instruments linked to stronger implementation of digital and instructional innovation.
Without this policy alignment, the report argues, good high-quality teaching remains aspirational rather than operational
Implementation Instruments Across Jurisdictions
| Instrument | Jurisdictions Using | Total Surveyed | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Designated implementation budget | 23 | 31 | 74% |
| Time-bound goals | 24 | 31 | 77% |
| Assigned responsibilities | 26 | 31 | 84% |
| Monitoring instruments (e.g. progress reviews) | 24 | 31 | 77% |
| Indicators to measure progress | 19 | 31 | 61% |
| Formal evaluation processes | 17 | 31 | 55% |
A Patchwork of Strategies
The report also examined how jurisdictions develop and implement digital education strategies – often linked to broader teaching quality reforms.
These figures point to an uneven policy landscape. While most countries have some form of strategy, only a minority include concrete, time-bound goals or detailed plans to evaluate success.
Digital Education Strategies by Jurisdiction
| Jurisdiction Type | Jurisdictions | Total Responding | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific central-level strategy | 24 | 37 | 65% |
| Covered in broader education strategy | 9 | 37 | 27% |
| No strategy yet, in development | 4 | 37 | 11% |
What Actions Are Needed?
The strength of the OECD’s Unlocking High-Quality Teaching report lies not only in its diagnosis of teaching practice but in its ability to turn evidence into practical guidance. While the taxonomy offers a conceptual map, its implementation demands systemic change and this across policy, schools, and research.
The report closes with a set of tailored recommendations (for policymakers, schools, and researchers) that, if taken seriously, could narrow the persistent gap between what is known about effective teaching and what is done.
For Policymakers: Build the Infrastructure of Quality
1. Integrate the Schools+ Taxonomy into professional teaching standards.
Many countries have national teacher competency frameworks, but few align them tightly with actual teaching practices observed in high-impact classrooms. Embedding the Schools+ dimensions – cognitive engagement, subject clarity, formative feedback – into licensure requirements and career advancement criteria would align expectations with what research shows works.
2. Fund tools and training for formative assessment.
The report identifies formative assessment as the most underused yet potentially transformative dimension. Policymakers must allocate resources for teacher training, digital diagnostics, and collaborative planning tools that make real-time feedback actionable instead of being just theoretical.
3. Shift evaluation from compliance to learning.
Teacher appraisal systems often emphasize compliance, not improvement. A shift to developmental models – and this by using coaching, peer review, and formative observation – can transform evaluation into a process of professional growth rather than fear or form-filling.
4. Protect time and autonomy for pedagogical reflection.
Too many reforms pile expectations onto teachers without reducing other demands. Policies must include mandates for protected non-contact time, instructional coaching, and workload audits that center quality over quantity.
For Schools: Create Cultures That Support the Craft
1. Make space for instructional dialogue and peer learning.
High-quality teaching is rarely built in isolation. Schools should institutionalize routines for shared lesson planning, peer observation, and instructional rounds. Collaborative inquiry must become a norm.
2. Foster emotionally supportive learning environments.
The report found that social-emotional scaffolding remains under-prioritized, despite its strong link to academic outcomes. School leaders should audit policies, classroom routines, and teacher practices to ensure that every student feels safe, seen, and supported.
3. Use evidence to guide teacher judgment.
Data-informed instruction should not mean data-driven standardization. The Schools+ Taxonomy is meant to guide teacher reflection, and not script lessons. Teachers must keep the autonomy to adapt practices for the students in front of them.
4. Prioritize equity in pedagogical innovation.
Innovation efforts often cluster in well-resourced schools. Principals and district leaders should direct additional support to underperforming or underserved contexts to ensure that high-quality teaching practices scale equitably.
For Researchers: Close the Gaps That Matter Most
1. Fill the causality gap with experimental and longitudinal research.
While the OECD synthesizes correlational data across hundreds of studies, more rigorous causal research is needed to move from association to attribution. Long-term studies that follow students across years – and link specific practices to gains – are essential.
2. Center marginalized contexts and communities.
Much of the evidence base comes from schools in stable, high-income environments. Researchers must expand their focus to include rural areas, conflict zones, multilingual settings, and schools serving historically marginalized populations.
3. Develop participatory, practice-led research designs.
Teachers and students must be co-creators of knowledge. Research frameworks should include design-based implementation studies, student-led action research, and embedded research-practice partnerships.
4. Investigate how systems enable practice.
Future studies should zoom out to analyze how school systems, leadership models, and funding structures form pedagogical decisions. Without understanding the ecology of teaching, solutions will remain fragmented.
Blueprint or Mirror?
The Unlocking High-Quality Teaching report shows where the best ideas in teaching come from, and that is from practice, not from policy. It also shows where they often fail to land. It’s also good to realize that pedagogy is inherently political, because it is a product of policy choices, structural supports, and professional cultures.
It also shows that unlocking high-quality teaching is not a matter of teacher will or isolated training, instead it requires systemic recalibration. The OECD’s call is therefor very clear: Equip teachers with the tools, time, and trust to refine their practice. Align systems to support the craft of teaching. And above all, bring students and communities into the heart of this transformation.
