The new system for evaluating teachers and school performance goes before the House of Representatives today for debate and expected approval. The vote follows fifteen months of intense consultations, disagreements and revisions, and comes in the shadow of recent strike action and warnings from teachers’ unions that they may escalate measures if their concerns are not addressed.
Beyond its educational dimension, the bill has evolved into a political flashpoint. The Ministry of Education insists that reform is necessary, while the unions argue that several provisions will burden schools and worsen working conditions. Parliament has spent months trying to bridge the gap, reviewing and modifying the original framework.
From the outset the bill submitted by the Ministry of Education provoked strong reactions and triggered a long round of negotiations and amendments in the legislature.
The ministry’s plan
The original proposal, submitted by the Ministry of Education, aimed at a comprehensive overhaul of an evaluation system that has been in place for decades. Its central objectives included linking evaluation to training and professional support, improving teaching quality and assessing the overall educational work of schools.
Among the initial provisions were:
• introduction of formative evaluation, assessment of pedagogical and teaching competence and a final numerical evaluation
• evaluation of school performance through internal and external assessment
• change of the final numerical scale from 1 to 40 to 1 to 100
• participation of the school principal in the final numerical score with a 20 percent weight (the first draft submitted in May set this at 30 percent)
• a five year transitional period
• assessment of teachers by more than one evaluator
• establishment of a secondary appeals body
• introduction of the institution of senior teacher, acting as mentor and pedagogical adviser, especially for new entrants.
Union reactions
Teacher organisations raised objections early on. Although they agree that modernisation is needed, they argue that the proposed design retained strong hierarchical features and lacked clarity on implementation.
OELMEK (Organisation of Greek Secondary Education Teachers) strongly opposed the principal’s role in the final numerical score. It argued that the provision reinforces power dynamics in schools and may harm the pedagogical climate and collegiality. The union also criticised the senior teacher role, warning it creates an intermediary hierarchical layer without clear service plans or defined pedagogical and administrative responsibilities.
POED (Pancyprian Organisation of Greek Primary Teachers) focused on the particularities of primary education. It expressed concern that the system would be implemented without sufficient preparation and support structures, and warned of increased burdens on school management teams, especially in small and single teacher schools. It also raised concerns about mandatory training programmes without corresponding reductions in teaching time.
OLTEK (Organisation of Technical Education Teachers) told the Education Committee that it does not disagree with the philosophy or aims of the new system but stressed the need for careful implementation and adequate training, especially in technical schools.
These disagreements led to strike action in recent weeks, with unions warning that they would escalate if Parliament moved ahead without substantive changes.
Parliament’s intervention
Amid heightened tension, the House Education Committee held seven sessions and produced multiple revisions to bring the two sides closer. The final framework submitted to the plenary includes several significant changes:
• reinstatement of the final numerical scale of 1 to 40
• reduction of the principal’s weighting to 15 percent and inclusion of the assistant principal as an adviser, not as a co evaluator
• appointment of a third evaluator when score discrepancies exceed 10 percent
• shorter transitional period, with full implementation in the 2028 to 2029 school year
• increase in required service for senior teachers seeking promotion to director in primary education or to assistant director A in secondary education, from ten to twelve years.
Despite these changes, OELMEK and POED say their core concerns remain. OLTEK considers the framework workable under certain conditions.
Will it pass
Politically, the bill appears to have the votes it needs. DISY (Democratic Rally), DIKO (Democratic Party) and DIPA (Democratic Front) are expected to support it, arguing that reform is essential. AKEL (Progressive Party of Working People) maintains its objections and submitted amendments during committee discussions, none of which were adopted. These concerned, among other issues, the role of school leadership in evaluation and additional safeguards for teachers.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes discussions continued until yesterday. According to information, oral amendments may still be tabled during the plenary session in response to union pressure. MPs have also been considering a possible amendment regarding the assistant principal, citing strong reactions in recent weeks.
Minister Michailidou’s message
Minister of Education Athena Michailidou, who is expected to attend the plenary debate, sent a written statement stressing that schools must be the priority. She said the new system aims to support teachers and improve the quality of education and added that reform cannot be postponed indefinitely.
Under the threat of further action
Today’s vote will determine not only the future of the evaluation system but also whether a new cycle of industrial action will follow. Last week POED and OELMEK held a two hour work stoppage, while a three hour strike by OELMEK had taken place one month earlier. Both unions have authorisation from their members to escalate measures if the bill is approved without further changes.