The temporary nature of teaching staff in Spain remains above the OECD average

I would highlight some relevant issues from the TALIS 2024 report:

• The level of teacher satisfaction in Spain is particularly high, above the OECD and EU average and among the highest of all participating countries. This is a very relevant piece of information because it challenges the doom-mongering discourse about the teaching profession and its poor social perception, a discourse generated by both external and internal actors within the education system.
• Teacher autonomy presents paradoxical elements. Teachers report having a great deal of control over materials, but also report having little decision-making power over courses.
• The challenges faced by teachers in Spain are greater from the point of view of socio-demographic changes. Classrooms are more diverse and the profile of students is one of greater social and educational needs.
• Substantive differences continue to be observed between primary school teachers, who are more collaborative and coordinate more with other professionals and families, and secondary school teachers, who are more isolated in their classroom work and less inclined to use digital tools (they tend to consider that these distract students from real learning).
• The perception of excessive administrative work among teachers is becoming more widespread, especially among secondary school teachers.
• It is clear that we have a system that does not evaluate the teaching function (the percentage of teachers who consider that they are evaluated through different mechanisms is low and below the OECD average).
• Teachers are critical of the initial training they received. They consider that it does not provide the necessary tools to manage the classroom and the learning process, and that there is a particular lack of more practical training (the results show more critical averages than those seen in the OECD or EU). Similarly, continuing professional development does not seem to be valued positively, nor are there sufficient mentoring programmes between teachers.
• The level of salary satisfaction is notable and above the OECD average.

The increase in administrative work (so-called bureaucracy) has grown slightly [in Spain], although it remains low in relation to the OECD average, with between 2 and 3 hours per week on average for primary and secondary education. This contrasts with recent rhetoric and statements about a sharp increase in bureaucracy, which does not seem to be reflected in the data from the teachers' own responses.

I am not particularly in favour of international tests and assessments. Their logic – deeply technocratic and neoliberal – reduces education to that which can be measured, thereby impoverishing its meaning. Rather than tools for understanding the reality of education, they become instruments that distort it: they simplify phenomena, create hierarchies within systems and, above all, fuel the cultural battle. Each new report is used as ammunition to reinforce positions: the narrative of educational apocalypse or that of systemic success. Sometimes I think that this is, in fact, their true function: to legitimise positions.

TALIS 2024 is no exception. However, beyond the apocalyptic or success headlines, what the report reveals – if the data is read in context – is the persistence of a technocratic and bureaucratic model that prevents the system from evolving towards a truly inclusive and pedagogically coherent school.

Spain has one of the highest rates of teacher satisfaction in Europe, accompanied by unusually low levels of stress. But this apparent stability does not reflect professional well-being, but rather a demobilisation of teachers and a deep institutional inertia. Teaching is done with formal autonomy, but without real autonomy; with freedom to decide methods, but without the ability to question structures. In practice, autonomy is experienced as an individual burden under the guise of freedom.

Similarly, collaboration is reduced to bureaucratic coordination: sharing materials, adjusting criteria, complying with regulations. There is a lack of time, recognition and structure for deep cooperation. Educational centres function as small islands governed by administrative logic rather than by shared educational projects of the community.

This scenario paints a picture of teachers caught between two opposing forces: the pressure to adapt to new school requirements and the absence of a structural framework to support that change. They are required to be creative, adaptable and committed, but are offered a system designed for technical and bureaucratic obedience. It is therefore not surprising that reactionary discourse is on the rise among those teachers whose professional identity – based on disciplinary instruction and selective education – conflicts with a comprehensive and inclusive school system.

The core of the problem lies in the very architecture of the system, which is the heir to a long tradition of curriculum engineering: a model that organises education around objectives, standards and indicators, where learning is confused with compliance and quality with technocratic management. This approach permeates the entire school culture, from initial teacher training to educational inspection.

The result is a school system that modernises its language but not its foundations. Active methodologies and discourses on innovation are incorporated, but within the same timeframes, curriculum and assessment as decades ago. It is a change of packaging rather than logic: the language changes, but practices rarely do.

Beyond apocalyptic or triumphalist interpretations, TALIS 2024 highlights something essential: teachers are not the problem, but the victims of a system that requires them to be pedagogically creative in a structurally technocratic and bureaucratic environment. But they are also the starting point for any possible change. Rebuilding their professional identity on solid pedagogical foundations that are collaborative and consistent with the inclusive nature of the school is the only real path to transformation.

Until we understand that education is not transformed by decree, but by systemic coherence – and by rebuilding the teaching profession within that coherence – we will continue to change the rules without changing the reality of schools.

We have excellent, committed, motivated, and well-trained teachers, but the system doesn't allow them to develop their full potential. After many years of underinvestment, the education system has offered professionals insufficient conditions to sustain this commitment to quality. Without specific policies for teacher development and support, it is very difficult for them to meet the challenge of improving educational outcomes, no matter how committed they are. Education systems should take advantage of this high level of professionalism to promote structural reforms that improve the well-being and conditions of the profession. Without decisive action, stress and demotivation figures could worsen in a few years, as is already happening in other countries struggling to attract and retain teachers.