Background

Like the majority of OECD education systems, Iceland is facing teacher shortages, particularly in rural areas, where recruitment and retention of qualified teachers over past decades have been challenging. This issue became more pronounced following the implementation of a five-year teacher education programme in the early 2000s (from three years), which required prospective teachers to complete a master’s degree. The addition of two years of teacher education was considered by some to have exacerbated teacher shortages more significantly than had originally been anticipated, with those enrolled experiencing slow progress and numerous dropouts before the completion of the degrees.

It was in this context that the Icelandic government launched a five-year action plan in 2019 (Government of Iceland, n.d.[1]), aimed at improving the recruitment and retention of teachers. The plan sets out clear goals to increase enrolment in teacher education programmes and to raise the number of qualified teachers graduating from universities, as well as preventing early career teacher attrition. As part of this plan, a new act came into force at the beginning of 2020, which impacted the organisation of teacher education (The Act on Education, Qualifications and Employment of Teachers and School Administrators in Preschool, Primary and Secondary Schools). Iceland’s approach to teacher recruitment and retention, while sharing commonalities with other countries in terms of financial incentives (United States) and mentoring programmes (Finland, Canada and Singapore), distinguishes itself through its unique flexibility in certification across school levels.

The following elements were implemented:

• Increasing enrolment and supporting completion: Efforts were made to boost enrolment in teacher education programmes, including the option to replace a master's thesis with coursework. This flexibility is intended to make it easier for students from various educational backgrounds to complete their degrees.

• Strengthening in-school professional development through paid internships: Final-year students in teaching programmes are offered a 50% paid internship at preschools or primary schools. The goal is to strengthen student teachers' readiness for the profession by aligning initial teacher education more closely with practical, on-the job-experience, support their transitions into teaching roles, and increase their likelihood of remaining in it.

• Reducing early career attrition through mentorship support: The plan also places a strong emphasis on mentoring. Highly qualified teachers receive financial incentives to mentor novice teachers during their first two to three years in the profession.

• Simplifying teacher certification: By making a Master’s thesis optional (with the possibility of replacing this with coursework), Iceland has made it easier for students to qualify as teachers through the avenue that is most relevant to their individual aspirations. This has been described as a movement from “research-based to practice-oriented teacher education” (Sigurðsson, Björnsdóttir and Jóhannsdóttir, 2023[2]).

• Adopting one license for all school levels: The new act allows licensed teachers to move more easily between school levels, such as primary and secondary schools, and removes special positions for specific subjects like sports and arts, creating a more flexible and accessible certification system.

Implementation Process

The design and implementation of Iceland’s action plan involved extensive stakeholder engagement, bringing together government ministries, teacher unions, universities and parents. This stakeholder engagement and collaboration is key to ensuring buy-in and is designed to meet the various needs of actors within the education system.

Evaluative Knowledge

The number of new teachers enrolling in, graduating from teacher education programmes, and entering the system has increased significantly since the plan's implementation. For example, the number of students graduating from teacher programmes rose from 45 in 2019 to 164 in 2021 (Sigurðsson, Björnsdóttir and Jóhannsdóttir, 2023[2]).

Despite promising signs, the long-term impact of the changes is still uncertain. The policy’s full effects on teacher retention and student outcomes will only become clear over time.

Looking Ahead

A key lesson from Iceland’s strategy for attracting teachers is the importance of flexibility in teacher education and certification. By reducing barriers to entry and providing practical, paid professional development experiences, Iceland has been able to significantly increase the number of teacher graduates in a short time. This approach offers a valuable next practice for other countries facing similar shortages.

However, moving forward, Iceland must continue to refine its policies to ensure equal access to internships and mentoring opportunities, particularly in rural areas. Additionally, more rigorous evaluation of the programme’s long-term impacts will be critical to its success, including through longitudinal evaluation that follow new teachers over the course of their careers to better understand how the reforms affect retention, job satisfaction and teaching quality.

Another potential blindspot is the sustainability of the financial incentives provided to mentors and interns. While effective in the short term, reliance on these incentives may not be feasible in the long run without secure, consistent funding.

Sources: Government of Iceland (n.d.[1]) Let's increase the number of teachers: measures in education, https://www.stjornarradid.is/verkefni/menntamal/adgerdir-i-menntamalum/fjolgum-kennurum-adgerdir-i-menntamalum/, accessed 4 September 2024; Sigurðsson, Björnsdóttir & Jóhannsdóttir (2023[2]), Five-Year Teacher Education for Compulsory School in Iceland: Retreat from Research-Based to Practice-Oriented Teacher Education?. In: Elstad, E. (eds) Teacher Education in the Nordic Region. Evaluating Education: Normative Systems and Institutional Practices. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26051-3_8.

Background

Singapore is a notable example of a leading education system where teaching is highly attractive, and where top talent is retained within the profession. Singapore is well-recognised for its focus on maintaining teacher quality, through rigorous entry requirements, evidence-based preparation and ongoing professional development (Chong and Gopinathan, 2019[3]). The annual resignation rate for teachers in Singapore is low, remaining stable at around 2% since 2018 (Ministry of Education, 2024[4]).

However, Singapore is currently facing the same imperative as other education systems. This involves responding to the disrupting forces of AI and other emerging digital technologies, and to ensure that teachers are adequately prepared to harness its potential in the classroom.

In this respect, Singapore is also a leading education system for its work in outlining a long-term plan and implementing AI and digital technologies in its education settings. This is underpinned by the Singapore government's National AI Strategy, launched in 2019, which outlines a vision for integrating AI across various sectors, including education. Through this strategy, Singapore aims to provide students with a more personalised learning experience, tailored to their individual strengths and weaknesses. This also aims to reduce the amount of time teachers spend on routine assessment tasks, while providing data-driven insights (Smart Nation Singapore, 2019[5]). These objectives are built upon, and operationalised, in Singapore’s “Transforming Education through Technology” Masterplan 2030” (Ministry of Education, 2023[6]).

While not explicitly tied to matters of teacher retention, many of the objectives, implementation processes and learnings are highly valuable to education systems for this purpose. This is because these actions are important for addressing drivers of poor teacher retention as outlined in Chapter 2, including supporting collaborative practices at the institutional level, and focusing on augmenting teacher practices, teacher time reduction and investment in professional development.

Implementation Process

Singapore’s approach to implementing its education technology policies is through the five strategic thrusts of the Masterplan and supported by three key enablers (Ministry of Education, 2023[6]).

One aspect of the implementation process was the focus on enhancing schools’ capacity to use data for informed decision-making in teaching and learning. Another key aspect was to ensure that the use of educational technology tools are appropriate and pedagogically sound. The Ministry of Education (MOE) prioritised providing professional development opportunities for educators, specifically in e-pedagogy and utilising learning data to enhance the effectiveness of teaching and learning.

Furthermore, Singapore continues to establish a robust network of strategic partnerships to support the AI-driven transformation of its education system. The MOE facilitated the creation of both local and global EdTech partnerships, engaging with other government agencies, industry players, and research centrers. This collaborative approach not only brought in expertise and resources from outside the traditional educational sphere but also helped align the AI tools and strategies being implemented to ethical principles and sound pedagogical considerations, with necessary guardrails.

The implementation process also included a focus on teacher-led innovation. The Ministry of Education encouraged the creation and sharing of teacher resources at the school level, facilitating partnerships with teacher-developers to amplify ground-up innovation. This approach towards teaching as a team sport is intended to empower educators to take an active role in shaping how AI and technology was integrated into their classrooms.

Evaluative Knowledge

While the key ingredients behind Singapore’s success in attracting and retaining teachers are well-documented, there is currently a notable lack of publicly available evaluative evidence on the long-term effectiveness of its many strategies, particularly in relation to teacher retention and student outcomes. The absence of comprehensive data and studies makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the impact, and counterfactual, of each initiative.

Regarding the implementation of AI tools in classrooms, the evaluation process will need to occur over a sufficiently long period to capture the full range of effects. This is because the adoption of AI in education is still in its early stages, and the impacts may only become apparent after a matter of years. For instance, while AI tools are intended to improve personalised learning and reduce administrative burdens for teachers, it is still too early to determine whether this is being realised in practice. Additionally, it is unclear what teachers are doing with their additional time and what is impactful. Importantly, it is unknown how these changes will affect long-term teacher retention and student achievement.

Looking ahead

Singapore’s experience with integrating AI into education offers several important lessons for the future. One key lesson is the importance of professional development tailored to the needs of teachers at different stages of their careers, and those undertaking initial teacher education. As AI becomes increasingly embedded in the educational landscape, ongoing professional development will be crucial to ensure that teachers are leveraging these tools undergirded by sound pedagogical principles, in their practice.

An appropriately paced implementation approach is also important. For example, Singapore ensured that teachers had access to the professional development and capacity building required to benefit from, and to harness the potential of new digital technologies.

Looking ahead, Singapore plans to expand its AI initiatives further and aims to move the needle on its education outcomes and national progress on AI, while mitigating risks against potential negative impact to learning outcomes. The insights and evaluative evidence on achieved and unintended outcomes that will be gathered stand to have far-reaching utility for other education systems for matters of teacher retention and more broadly.

Sources: Ministry of Education (2024[4]) Data on resignation rates for teachers since 2018, https://www.moe.gov.sg/news/parliamentary-replies/20240702-data-on-resignation-rates-for-teachers-since-2018#:~:text=1.,2%25%20per%20year%20since%202018, accessed 9 September 2024 Ministry of Education (2023[6]), “Transforming Education through Technology” Masterplan 2030, https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/educational-technology-journey/edtech-masterplan Accessed 2 September 2024; Smart Nation Singapore (2019[5]) National Artificial Intelligence Strategy, https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/files/publications/national-ai-strategy.pdf, Accessed 2 September 2024.

Background

The "Grow Your Own" (GYO) initiatives were developed in response to several pressing issues within the education system in the United States. One of the primary challenges was the persistent shortage of qualified teachers, particularly in underserved and rural areas. This shortage disproportionately affects schools in low-income communities, where high turnover rates further exacerbate the problem. Another issue is that at times, the diversity within the teaching workforce may not reflect the student and school communities in which they serve. Such disparities can limit students’ opportunities to see themselves reflected in their educators, which research shows can negatively impact student engagement and achievement.

GYO initiatives vary widely in their design and implementation approach. The single, near universal feature of GYO initiatives is that they aim to increase teacher supply by targeting individuals who work in, live in, or attend schools near a specific district. These may include school support staff, community members, local college students or high school graduates. The emphasis on recruiting from within the community is based on an underlying assumption that teachers are more likely to stay in their positions, reducing turnover and fostering stronger relationships with students and families. This has flow-on impacts on other outcome areas, including attracting teachers. Creating a more diverse workforce also gives more opportunities for students to see themselves in their teachers, but is also an inherent opportunity for attracting the next generation to the workforce.

There are two predominant types of GYOs: those that promote students’ interest and awareness of a teaching career (for example, through high school clubs or courses), and those that provide a certification pathway and support by removing common barriers to entry. For the latter, this occurs through financial assistance, such as tuition reimbursement and scholarships, living stipends, as well as holistic support like mentoring and job placement services. As such, GYO programmes hold the potential to expand the pool of effective teachers, reduce teacher staffing challenges, and increase teacher retention by recruiting teachers from the surrounding community.

Implementation Process

While there is no definitive assessment of how many GYO programmes are currently operating in the United States, a systematic national collection and analysis of programmes that self-describe as “GYO” found that, at the time of collection, that there has been widespread proliferation in the past five years, with approximately 40 states and Washington D.C. operating a GYO programme (Edwards and Kraft, 2024[7]).

The implementation of GYO initiatives is highly local and, as a result, there is large variation in their design and strategy. For instance, some programmes support participants to undertake pathways that involve traditional routes and certifications, while others offer nontraditional pathways that bypass undergraduate teacher education programmes. Others do not provide support but rather focus on promoting interest in a career in teaching. This is both a strength of the initiative (for instance, where this helps to reduce localised challenges in specific contexts) as well as a potential weakness (where the effective features of the programmes are not transferrable).

A distinct feature of the GYO initiatives is that they aim to provide individualised support for candidates, and that the management and delivery of the programmes aims to be tailored to meet the specific needs of the communities they serve. This typically occurs through partnerships between school districts, community organisations, and educator preparation programmes. Each partner provides additional layers of support to programme candidates to support completion of the programme, which include paid job-embedded learning, academic advising, flexible scheduling for courses, mentorship, tutoring, preparation and a cohort model (New America, n.d.[8]).

The cost-effectiveness of GYO programmes is another strength. Because GYO teachers are often from the communities in which they teach, the programme theory is that they are more likely to stay in their positions long-term, which further contributes to the stability of the teaching staff. By reducing teacher turnover, these programmes save costs associated with recruiting and preparing new teachers. Yet, the implementation of GYO programmes is not without challenges. While many GYO programmes combine state funding, grants and local contributions, ensuring a stable financial base can be difficult.

Evaluative Knowledge

Currently, much of the evidence supporting the success of GYO programmes is anecdotal or based on stakeholder reports or single-site case studies within their own schools or district specifically. There are indications that GYO programmes have been effective in recruiting teachers of colour, where the focus is on creating a diverse teaching workforce that reflects the student population. A review conducted by RAND on six GYO programmes revealed that these initiatives recruited a higher percentage of people of colour compared to other recruitment efforts. Specifically, 52% of teachers recruited through GYO were people of colour, compared to 43% from other recruitment efforts. A study of the rollout of the Teacher Academy of Maryland GYO (a career and technical education certificate programme across public high schools) also found that exposed students were more likely to become teachers (Blazar et al., n.d.[9]).

The increase in the local teacher supply from GYO programmes may reduce teacher shortages in those areas due to the highly localised nature of teacher staffing challenges. It has been noted that GYO programmes may also be especially effective in alleviating teacher shortages in communities that do not already produce a large supply of college graduates that go on to become teachers, such as in low-income neighbourhoods and rural areas (Wodtke, Harding and Elwert, 2011[10]).

Looking Ahead

A key lesson from the GYO initiatives is the importance of localised, place-based approaches to teacher recruitment and retention. By focusing on local needs and leveraging community resources, these programmes have the potential to create a more sustainable and responsive teaching workforce.

As these programmes continue to evolve, it will be important to evaluate the initiatives to understand what is working and where there can be adaptations for improvement. This includes conducting longitudinal studies that can track the impact of GYO teachers over time and across different contexts. Additionally, there is a need for more research into the specific elements of GYO programmes that contribute most to their success, for example the support services provided, and the extent to which these should be implemented with fidelity across varied contexts.

The programme’s success depends heavily on local context, specific community needs, resource availability, and the strength of local partnerships. It has also been suggested that GYO programmes may need to shift their focus from increasing interest in the profession, to removing barriers to entry and providing support to earn certification. Prior research suggests that financial and academic supports are needed for GYO participants to enter the teaching profession (Irizarry, 2007[11]; Skinner, Garreton and Schultz, 2011[12]).

Sources: Edwards and Kraft (2024[7]) Grow Your Own: An Umbrella Term for Very Different Localized Teacher Pipeline Programmes. (EdWorkingPaper: 24-895); Annenberg Institute at Brown University, https://doi.org/10.26300/0s8x-c050; New America (n.d.[8]), Grow Your Own Teachers Findings, https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/grow-your-own-teachers/findings/, Accessed 27 July 2024 Washington State Professional Educators Standards Board (2016[13]), Grow Your Own teachers report, https://www.pesb.wa.gov/resources-and-reports/reports/grow-your-own-teachers-report, accessed 27 July 2024; Wodtke, Harding & Elwert (2011[10]), Neighborhood Effects in Temporal Perspective: The Impact of Long-Term Exposure to Concentrated Disadvantage on High School Graduation. American Sociological Review, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122411420816.

In 2019, Japan announced the start of the “Reiwa” era, redefining school education as providing individually optimised and collaborative learning that draws out the potential of all children. Reiwa-era teachers are expected to accept change positively and continue learning throughout their career, maintaining an inquisitive mind. This deep dive considers early policy efforts to realise this vision, focusing on reforms to teachers’ professional learning.

Background

The Japanese school system is recognised internationally as having high-quality teachers who work collaboratively in schools to enhance practice, principally through lesson study. Data from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) show that not only is deep collaboration through peer lesson observation and feedback more common in Japan than in most OECD education systems, but larger shares of teachers perceive the feedback they receive to have a positive impact on different aspects of their teaching (Figure A1.1). Nevertheless, Japan seeks to further improve the quality of school-based collaboration and broader professional learning while resolving ongoing challenges to teacher well-being, workload and attraction.

Following a major review of the status quo in 2021, Japan launched a revised system of professional learning which, among other things, seeks to tailor development activities to individual needs based on ongoing dialogue between teachers and school leaders, as well as a career-spanning development record. The revised system is notable for its efforts to be responsive to individual, school and regional needs while adhering to the national aims of the Reiwa era. It also complements a wider re-imagining of the teacher workforce which seeks to diversify specialist skills within school teams.

Implementation process

To support professional learning dialogue between school leaders and teachers, Japan developed a set of national indicators for improving teacher quality across five areas: basic ability as a teaching profession, classroom instruction, student guidance, supporting children who require special consideration and support and leveraging digital technologies. Each regional board of education must revise these indicators to take into account regional specificities, including strengths, challenges and goals for school education, and related skill needs. The indicators should account for diversity within the teacher workforce, with scope for differentiation by school type, teacher type and specialist skills. Recognising the additional demands placed by the new professional learning system on school leadership, regional authorities are also responsible for formulating indicators for leaders and their leadership teams. These should include management skills and human resource development. In 2022, Japan introduced Guidelines for encouraging teacher development based on guidance or advice from school leaders using teachers’ development histories.

Knowing that these new measures have the potential to add considerable administrative burden to a staff cohort that works long hours, Japan is mobilising digital tools to develop an efficient and effective online platform to support the new process. In 2024, Japan launched the Platform for Teachers and Staff Development which includes the following:

• Development-history recording system, which enables teachers to evidence participation and completion and evaluates performance. This includes tests to check the acquisition of knowledge and skills or practice reports and reflective tasks that will help participants relate learning to their own practice. Teachers are required to record all professional learning activities from 2023.

• Catalogue of development opportunities from which teachers and leaders can select those that best respond to their own and their school’s needs.

• Library of video on-demand teacher development programme developed by universities, boards of education, and public-interest corporations, among others. The platform also incorporates mechanisms for sharing development content, recording participation and completion and evaluating performance. These mechanisms are also available for school-based and collaborative development and lesson study.

Evaluative knowledge

The reforms are in the early stages of implementation. However, an advantage of the platform is that it can facilitate system-level monitoring and policy evaluation. By centralising the national professional learning offer, Japan can more easily ensure the quality of learning content and comprehensive coverage according to national goals. There is also scope to build strong system-level data based on teachers’ learning pathways and evaluations.

Looking ahead

In the years to come, it will be important to ensure the platform is accessible to all and easily navigated. This will also help as part of efforts to ensure the platform does not add administrative burden or become just a box ticking exercise for teachers.

Source: Central Education Council (2020[15]), Realising a "new way of learning for teachers" and promoting diverse expertise, MEXT, https://www.mext.go.jp/content/20221219-mxt_kyoikujinzai01-1412985_00004-1.pdf; OECD (2019[14]), TALIS 2018 database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2018-database.html.

This deep dive explores very recent measures in Korea to bring together teacher-led pedagogical innovation and high-tech developments to activate a full-scale transformation of school education.

Background

Korea has been among the highest performing school systems in mathematics, reading and science since the earliest cycles of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Over the same period, governments have consistently prioritised strategic efforts to embed digital technologies in education. The COVID-19 experience evidenced Korea’s preparedness for digital learning relative to many international peers (Figure A1.2).

Nevertheless, Korea has identified a growing frustration that digital education has not transformed teaching and learning to the extent it could. Although this policy challenge is not unique to Korea, the response is noteworthy. Building on recent AI leaps, Korea is now pursuing numerous policy efforts to instigate a whole-of-system paradigm shift from one-size-fits-all teaching models designed to transfer knowledge from teacher to student, to personalised learning through relationship-centred teaching that develops agency for the digital era.

Implementation process

To realise this transformation, Korea is pursuing an array of policy measures (Figure A1.3):

A system-level culture that values research use is key for strengthening impact. Among OECD countries, Norway is a leading example. This deep dive examines policy efforts in recent years to strengthen that culture further, emphasising the translation of research into evidence-informed teaching and learning. It complements a previous OECD case study exploring evidence-based education policy making in Norway (see Mouthaan et al. in OECD (2023[19])).

Background

In 2018, a system evaluation determined that while the quality of education research in Norway had improved considerably in the previous decade, the connections between research, policy and practice required strengthening. This echoed research that found that teachers in Norway actively contribute to research only to a relatively small extent and that more should be done to empower the profession to build a strong professional knowledge base.

Since then, Norway has introduced major reforms to teacher education for ECEC and school practitioners, strengthening the development of future teachers’ research competence and the connections between researchers, teacher educators and schools. In parallel, Norway has made efforts across the education research infrastructure from ECEC to adult education, as well as teacher policy, to enhance connections between research and practice. Among other objectives, this ecosystem approach seeks to ensure that when teachers begin their professional careers, they will be working in environments receptive to enquiry-driven practice.

Implementation process

In 2017, Norway’s Ministry of Education and Research launched the National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education (2017). Key aims include:

• Developing intellectually challenging and rewarding study programmes delivered by academically strong providers. This means aligning teacher education with the academic rigour of other higher education programmes and ensuring that teacher education institutions engage in more research and development in schools and ECEC settings.

• Securing knowledge-based and involved partners in ECEC settings and schools, and ensuring stable, mutually beneficial cooperation between them and teacher education institutions.

Implementation measures have included a national framework for partnerships between education settings and teacher education institutions; an increase in dual positions whereby experienced teachers lecture part-time on campus and academic faculty work part-time in schools; and the introduction of research-based Master's education for new teachers.

In 2020, a report prepared on behalf of the Ministry of Education and Research, concluded that most of Norway’s teacher education institutions have established partnerships with schools, covering several different types and areas of cooperation. In particular, the practical training/study component is key in promoting collaboration between employees in teacher education and in schools and kindergartens. In 2019/2020, approximately half of the institutions included shared positions as part partnership collaborations.

However, the report also identified some areas that could enhance deep collaboration including addressing the uneven power dynamics between settings and teacher education institutions, strengthening research capacity within teacher education institutions and fully integrating a school-based practicum into research processes.

As part of efforts to overcome these challenges, Norway has also looked beyond teacher education policy to embed a culture of collaboration between research and practice more widely across the education sector. Norway’s Strategy for Educational Research 2020-24 seeks to stimulate user participation in research into practice-oriented issues. This guides the main funding programme for education research (FINNUT) which has emphasised initiatives seeking to enhance the role of research in change processes in educational settings and to facilitate knowledge development based on educators’ needs. More recently, FINNUT has emphasised collaborative projects that investigate the effect of measures to enhance quality. Researchers apply for funding in close collaboration with educational settings who determine which measures are to be tested.

Norway’s various national and education research centres have also contributed, providing research-led professional development, knowledge dissemination and other support for research-based practice. There are dedicated centres for various levels of education as well as priority thematic areas. The National Research Centre for Teacher Education has developed an extensive PhD programme for teachers. Contrary to other disciplines, these PhD candidates are typically mid-career professionals and pursue research that is practice-oriented and in close connection with the sector.

Evaluative knowledge

The Research Council’s annual report 2023 notes that efforts to strengthen the research effort in teacher professional development have been very impactful, contributing to greater cooperation with educators, enhancing the knowledge base for teacher education, and increasing research capacity in the profession. However, there is a need to further develop mechanisms through which education settings themselves, in collaboration with research environments, apply for research funding.

Qualitative data finds that students studying the new Master’s programmes are generally content with the process: most understand the purpose of the thesis, feel well-prepared for it and recognise that it enhances their research literacy. However, opinions are more mixed regarding the extent to which it prepares them for enquiry-led practice. Similarly, while attitudes towards school practicum are positive, most respondents feel the follow up and integration of school-based experiences in professional development programmes could be better.

Looking ahead

As the first cohorts of teachers move through a more research-oriented initial teacher education programme and into full-time work in the profession, it will be important to consider how schools can make the most of their research skills while also supporting them to develop them further across their careers. In addition, it will be important to explore ways in which their skillset can be used to support more experienced colleagues who have not received research-oriented professional development to develop more evidence-informed and inquiry-driven practice.

Sources: Cochran-Smith et al. (2020[20]), Transforming Norwegian Teacher Education: The Final Report of the International Advisory Panel for Primary and Lower Secondary Teacher Education, https://khrono.no/files/2020/05/18/transforming-norwegian-teacher-education-2020.pdf; NOKUT (2024[21]), Evaluations – quality in education, https://www.nokut.no/en/publications/evaluations--quality-in-education/; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2020[22]), Research, knowledge brokering and use: Strategy for educational research 2020-2024,https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/8b5e5ebb145540f581c9996ef164acfb/kd_strategi-for-utdanningsforskning-2020-2024.pdf; Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (2018[23]), Teacher Education 2025: National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/d0c1da83bce94e2da21d5f631bbae817/kd_teacher-education-2025_uu.pdf; OECD (2023[19]), Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, Educational Research and Innovation, https://doi.org/10.1787/bc641427-en; Research Council of Norway (2023[24]), Portfolio analysis for Education and Skills, https://www.forskningsradet.no/portefoljer/utdanning-og-kompetanse/portefoljeanalysen-for-utdanning-og-kompetanse/vurderinger-av-fornyet-innsats/; Research Council of Norway, (2017[25]), Work programme 2014–2023: Research and Innovation in the Educational Sector – FINNUT, https://www.forskningsradet.no/siteassets/publikasjoner/1254032727932.pdf.