Conference Agenda

This paper is about images, symbols and metaphors of school development used by educational practitioners that take part in a peer review program with their school.

Mutual visits of school representatives - known as peer reviews - represent a sustainable instrument for school development. Peer reviews in this context can be defined as “a development-oriented evaluation of selected areas of quality in schools and teaching. It is primarily carried out by school administrators and teachers who do not belong to the school being evaluated” (Förschner 2013, 52 (translated by the authors)). Those visits where peers, as critical friends, take a well-intentioned look at each other's practices and provide inspiration, have so far been little researched. For example, the impact on school development and the direct ways and consequences of those visits are rarely captured or recorded in data.

School development is understood as the intentional development of individual schools, including organizational, personnel, and teaching development in equal measure and focusing on the learning progress of students. Schools are required to shape their own goals for school development based on internal and external evaluations and school-specific needs. The development of schools is thus defined as development of the “second-order” (Rolff 2013, 37) and they should strive to be learning schools that: (1) formulate their visions as guiding principles, (2) innovatively develop their infrastructure accordingly, (3) develop cooperation among staff, (4) organize teaching, and (5) select appropriate methods and tools for self-reflection and self-organization (Rolff 2013). To do this, schools need the capacity to “build up internal school processes and structures in a targeted and systematic manner so that school processes and the quality of teaching and learning are improved in the long term and, as a result, all students can successfully achieve their learning goals” (Maag Merki 2017, 269 (translated by the authors)). According to Maag Merki, school development capacity therefore includes organizational, interpersonal, and personal capacity. School development therefore also includes professional and leadership development. This school development capacity model is useful for analyzing school development processes in individual schools, as it focuses on the conditions that has to be in place for successful school development processes (e.g. Maag Merki et al. 2022).

The developments and unique histories of the schools in this study have all been shaped by peer reviews and professional learning communities. The effects, benefits, and consequences of the visits towards the individual school development have been a blind spot up to now, which we would like to shed light on by collecting and analyzing “learning stories”. These “learning stories” were the result of a collaborative two-day workshop involving school management teams and teachers from various schools. The participants are all members of the german school network “Blick über den Zaun”, which means they all regularly participate in peer reviews with their schools (e.g. Carl & Killus 2018). The school network “Blick über den Zaun“ is an association of schools oriented towards innovative education, which has been in existence since 1989 with the goal of supporting school development from the bottom up. The aim is to contribute to the direct exchange of experiences between schools through regular mutual peer reviews, conferences, and workshops, so they can learn from each other. The schools participating in the network are organized in working groups, which usually comprise 8-10 schools. These schools visit each other for 2-3 days at a time. As a rule, two of those peer reviews take place each year.

Teacher assessment is a central topic in educational discourse worldwide, involving researchers, educators, and policymakers. There are two main purposes for teacher assessment: summative and formative.

Summative teachers' assessment is mandated by educational authorities for administrative decisions such as licensure or promotion. It typically uses general, externally defined criteria and is often conducted by outside bodies. This process usually involves limited classroom observations or competency tests, provides little feedback to teachers, and rarely leads to reflective dialogue or professional development (Derrington & Campbell, 2015; Tuytens & Devos, 2017).

Formative teachers' assessment, in contrast, is an internal process generally led by the school principal. It is holistic and comprehensive, focusing on detailed feedback that promotes reflection and professional growth. Formative assessment relies on a wide range of professional criteria, multiple sources of information, and the participation of various partners to reliably identify teachers’ strengths and weaknesses and support their development (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Colby et al., 2002).

Components of an Optimal Teacher Assessment Scheme

In the literature we can identify four major components of an optimal formative teacher assessment scheme. They include the assessment criteria, sources of information, active partners, and actions following the assessment.

1. Assessment Criteria
   Key criteria include in-depth subject knowledge, general and subject-specific pedagogical skills, adapting instruction for diverse learners, flexibility in uncertain situations, engagement in professional development and research, and teamwork within learning communities (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Shulman, 2005). While general criteria may suffice for summative assessment, formative assessment must be detailed and context-sensitive to support professional growth.
2. Sources of Information
   The most common source is classroom observation, usually conducted by the principal (Cosner et al., 2014; Peterson, 2004). Other sources include competency exams, interviews, teacher portfolios, student work, lesson plans, assignments, and student achievements. The importance of self-assessment is also noted, as it encourages teachers to identify their own strengths and weaknesses (Mumford & Newcomer, 2019; Attinello et al., 2006). Combining multiple sources yields richer, more actionable insights.
3. Active Partners in the Process
   The principal and the assessed teacher are the main partners, but external evaluators, other administrators, colleagues, and students may also be involved. Including colleagues who teach the same subjects can provide realistic, context-aware feedback (Antoniou et al., 2015; Peterson, 2004).
4. Actions Following Assessment
   Summative assessment results are used for employment decisions, while formative assessment should lead to professional development. Timely, meaningful feedback and reflective dialogue are essential for formative assessment to benefit teaching practice (Darling-Hammond, 2013; Ford & Hewitt, 2020).

Differences in Perceptions: Principals vs. Teachers

Research shows that principals and teachers do not always share the same vision of optimal formative assessment. Principals often prefer pedagogical assessment, but summative aspects tend to dominate due to systemic constraints (Derrington, 2014; Flores & Derrington, 2017). Teachers are more likely to value assessment when it is conducted in a collegial, supportive environment by qualified evaluators (Campbell & Derrington, 2017; Colby et al., 2002).

The Israeli Context

Since 2010, teacher assessment in Israel has been part of a labor agreement, with summative assessment determining salary and promotion, while formative assessment is encouraged but not monitored. A national survey found significant variation in formative assessment practices across schools, influenced by principals’ training, experience, and beliefs, as well as school assessment culture (Authors, 2023, 2025).

We can summarize and say that an effective teacher assessment scheme requires consensus between principals and teachers regarding criteria, sources of information, active partners, and follow-up actions. Combining multiple sources, ensuring teacher involvement, and providing high-quality feedback are essential for successful formative assessment and professional development.

A view of Career Guidance and Counselling (CGC) as an important set of services to be made available to individuals and groups at any stage of their lives is supported by various policy-oriented international networks for over a decade. These networks have focused their efforts on defining career guidance and related concepts (e.g. ELGPN, 2014), emphasizing the lifelong dimension of these services (e.g. CEDEFOP, 2025; ELGPN, 2015), and guiding national policy developments across Europe (e.g. Interagency Working Group, 2025). In recent years, the OECD has joined these efforts by providing extensive data, mainly from PISA, as well as from longitudinal studies on Career Readiness. These data show that secondary school students who frequently explore, experience, and reflect on their future working lives encounter lower levels of unemployment, receive higher wages, and report greater career satisfaction as adults (Covacevich et al., 2021). Moreover, PISA data indicate that a high proportion of all students are uncertain about their career plans and that students from disadvantaged backgrounds face greater uncertainty, lower occupational ambition, and higher levels of career misalignment (OECD, 2025). Extensive PISA data further show that students from disadvantaged groups are less likely to participate in regular school-based career guidance activities; therefore emphasizing the importance of high-quality, tailored guidance for vulnerable groups (OECD, 2024).

However, career guidance provision and governance differ greatly across countries and regions, as do guidance practitioners’ job profiles and qualifications (CEDEFOP, 2021). Only a few European countries have clearly regulated practitioner qualification levels and professional development requirements (Barnes et al., 2020). Moreover, in many European countries the delivery of guidance services is often fragmented, with services established only for specific targeted groups (Barnes et al., 2020). However, recent efforts to define practitioners’ roles and to recognize their competencies are noticeable across Europe (CEDEFOP, 2021).

In Serbia, the CGC landscape is similar to the situation described above. Career guidance services are delivered across three sectors, education, employment, and youth, with varying levels of regulation governing service provision in each sector. Professionals providing these services differ considerably in terms of job requirements, qualifications, and continuing professional development (CPD) pathways (European Training Foundation, 2022), thus forming a heterogeneous group. A specific feature of career guidance provision in educational institutions is that, by Law, CGC activities are an integral part of school activities. These activities may be provided by teachers and/or professional associates (most commonly psychologists, pedagogues, andragogues). While the latter may acquire CGC-related competences through their initial education, teachers typically do not (European Training Foundation, 2022). Consequently, CPD remains the primary mechanism through which teachers can gain knowledge and understanding of the field and enhance their CGC competences. At the system level, continuous efforts are being made to promote service quality, enable cross-sectoral cooperation, and bridge competence gaps through the development of CGC standards, guidelines, and training opportunities (European Training Foundation, 2022). However, these processes are still ongoing.

As part of an organization and team specifically dedicated to supporting the quality of career guidance at the national level, primarily through the activities of the Euroguidance Centre, the author team sought to further examine guidance practitioners in schools. Given existing constraints, such as limited opportunities to develop CGC competences through initial education and the multiple responsibilities these practitioners face within their roles, they are in a specific position in the provision of CGC. Therefore, this study aims to explore teachers’ and professional associates’ perceptions of the role of schools in the career guidance of young people, their own role within this process, as well as the contextual barriers they encounter and the strengths they recognise.

Teachers do not enter classrooms as blank slates but bring with them complex, experience-based interpretive frameworks that shape how they perceive classroom situations, interpret events, and justify pedagogical decisions (Lortie, 1975; Calderhead, 1996). Within the German research tradition, such frameworks have been conceptualised as subjektive Theorien (Groeben et al., 1988) and subsequently adapted to educational contexts as Teachers’ Subjective Theories (TSTs). TSTs have been used to capture teachers’ personal, practice-grounded ways of making sense of teaching and learning (e.g. Kelchtermans, 2009; Kindermann & Riegel, 2016).

Despite their long-standing use, TSTs remain conceptually diffuse and are inconsistently distinguished from related constructs such as teacher beliefs, teacher cognition, personal practical knowledge, and pedagogical content knowledge (e.g. Pajares, 1992; Fives & Buehl, 2012). This conceptual overlap hampers theoretical coherence, complicates empirical operationalisation, and limits our capacity to theorise how teachers’ interpretive frameworks develop over time and contribute to professional learning.

Building on this theoretical positioning, the paper draws on established research traditions in reflective practice (Schön, 1983; Larrivee, 2008), pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986), curriculum theory and constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996), and research on teacher expertise (Berliner, 2004; Anderson & Taner, 2023). Together, these traditions provide the conceptual grounding for examining how teachers’ interpretive frameworks are shaped, challenged, and transformed across contexts and over time.

Against this theoretical background, the paper pursues four interrelated aims:
(1) to clarify TSTs as a distinct theoretical construct by situating them within traditions of subjective theories, teacher cognition, and practical knowledge;
(2) to identify the contributory domains that shape and develop TSTs;
(3) to propose a cyclical model in which TSTs function simultaneously as the starting point of instructional action and as the evolving outcome of teacher learning; and
(4) to link this cyclical reconstruction of TSTs to trajectories of professional expertise development.

By conceptualising TSTs as dynamic, integrative explanatory frameworks, the paper synthesises existing research traditions into a coherent conceptual framework that clarifies how contributory domains may be considered in relation to teacher professional learning and development.