6.1 Introduction

Over the last decades, several international phenomena have influenced the German school system and several corresponding practices and standards. Three major of these international or travelling policies were: the results of early TIMMS and PISA studies, the global movement towards inclusive education and the Bologna process.

This chapter presents a brief overview of the evolution of teacher training in Germany as well as three major international phenomena that have influenced it, namely the so-called PISA shock, the movement towards inclusion and the Bologna Process. First, the German education system itself is very briefly introduced, including a short historical perspective on its evolution and an introduction to the autonomy of the German federal states with regard to matters of education. This is followed by a short presentation of teacher training in Germany. Next, the teaching profession in Germany is briefly characterized. In addition, aspects of the professional development of teachers and school leaders are presented and discussed. All of this is done against the backdrop of three major international impulses for change.

6.2 The (Evolution of the) German Education System

6.2.1 The German Education System and the Standing Conference

The German education system is deeply characterized by the federal autonomy: the 16 German states, called the «Bundesländer» (often abbreviated «Länder»), have the authority to make their own educational policies. This is linked to the so called «Kulturhoheit der Länder» («sovereignty of the states regarding cultural matters») which is part of the German «Grundgesetz», the basic law or constitution of Germany. It is, therefore, of no surprise that there is considerable variation between the individual states, making for a very complex education system overall (Eurydice Network 2013; Neumann et al. 2010). Compared to other European countries, a great deal of decision making power lies with the states, also referred to as «Länder» (see Table 6.1).

Table 6.1 Percentage of decisions relating to public sector lower secondary education taken at each level of government (OECD 2012, p. 512, data for Brasil and China not available)
Full size table

There is, however, one unifying government body, the Kultusministerkonferenz (conference of ministers of Culture/Education, usually abbreviated KMK). In this standing conference, the ministers of education of all 16 states regularly convene to discuss matters of education and to pass recommendations (Döbert 2007). These recommendations are non-binding, but if all 16 states agree on something, then there is a chance that this might be translated into a nationwide binding rule, usually taking the form of an overarching state treaty. For example, there are standards for high school graduation exams (the «Abitur») that are valid all over Germany that were passed based on recommendations and declarations of the KMK.

The actual influence of the KMK can be viewed as linked to national and international political discourse. As such, the KMK is often a point of contact for policy influences from outside of Germany. A prominent example for this is the so called “PISA shock”. TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) (Baumert et al. 2000a, b) and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) (Baumert et al. 2001; Baumert and Stanat 2002) revealed not only the mediocre performance of German on an international level, but also considerable differences in school quality among the German states themselves. Particularly students from immigrant or socially deprived families were found to have lower chances to “make it” in the German school system (for more details, see Baumert et al. 2001). Following the afore-mentioned PISA shock, national debates took place on the public and political level regarding how to best improve the German school system with the federal structure often being viewed as a hindrance to a large-scale school reform. In the wake of these discussions, the KMK emerged strengthened due to it being able to serve as a conduit to finding and advancing national solutions. In part inspired by successful OECD countries, the KMK pushed towards a shift in German education from an input orientation towards more of an output orientation. This orientation first manifested itself on the level of students with the introduction of standards of education (“Bildungsstandards”), nationwide academic standards for several subjects that shape the curricula and are competence-oriented (Hameyer and Tulowitzki 2013).

6.2.2 Early Childhood Education and School Types

While the schools types and their names vary across the German federal states, the school system overall bears several shared traits (Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education 2013): early education options are available to children younger than six. These were traditionally run more in the vein of daycare centers or kindergartens and a matter of the ministry of social affairs, not the ministry of education. Over the past two decades, there has been a shift towards increasing the number of places available in daycare centers and towards bringing these offers closer to education. The origins of these shifts can be found in the “investive turn” in social politics in Germany which in turn can (again) be linked to international studies and trends. To achieve sustainable economic growth but also a durable societal development, various reports recommended investing in kindergarten infrastructure, making it more compatible with the demands of working parents but also more educative (Klinkhammer 2010; OECD 2001). As a consequence of these recommendations but also of international developments in early childhood care and education, efforts were made to expand the German early childhood care (and education) system. Families gained the right to have access to places in kindergartens for their children and the pedagogical concepts of kindergarten came under revision with the aim to achieve a stronger emphasis on early childhood education.

At the age of six, children enter compulsory primary school. It lasts four years in most states, six in the federal states of Berlin and Brandenburg. Following the primary education, children enter secondary which is also compulsory. There are different school types (number and name vary from state to state) with some leaning more towards a shorter, vocational education and others towards a more comprehensive one. The number of students attending vocational schools has been decreasing (Statistisches Bundesamt 2016b, p. 12). During the PISA shock, criticisms were made that the German school system had too many different types of secondary school and that it was very difficult to switch between secondary school types (especially going from a more vocational to a more academic school type). This meant that a child’s educational trajectory was essentially determined as soon as she/he left primary school. The many types of German secondary schools also were a rather uncommon phenomenon on an international scale. In the aftermath, efforts were made to increase the “fluidity” between school types. To better support students from all walks of life and to increase education opportunities for all, there has also been an expansion of so-called educational landscapes in Germany, collaborative entities made up of schools, daycares, associations and other providers of education, attempting to better link formal and non-formal education (Tulowitzki et al. 2018).

6.3 (The Evolution) of Teacher Training in Germany

As part of educational matters, teacher training falls under federal regulation and thus differs in each state or “Bundesland”. There are several phases of teacher training: the first phase occurring at a university or university of education, followed by the second phase, the preparatory service (“Referendariat”), where teachers-in-training teach in schools and go to classes usually organized by institutions of the “Bundesländer” with a stronger emphasis on practical aspects of teaching. After another examination, they become full teachers. Over the course of their career, they are then required to regularly participate in in-service training.

In Germany, access to the teachers’ profession is very much linked to the completion of the first and second phases of formal education (the third phase is considered as further education and done alongside the job, see later in this chapter). The extent to which access depends on formal training can be illustrated by the following figures: In 2014, 4614 teachers were hired in the local state Baden-Württemberg of whom only 119 were lateral entrants. So, in this local state, less than 3% of the teachers passed a vocational training that differs from the predetermined career path. In Bavaria, where 3661 were accepted to the teacher’s profession in 2014, there were no lateral entrants at all. Similar ratios also apply to the other federal states (Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung gGmbH 2015). A first study degree and a subsequently completed preparatory service constitute thus the regular and almost exclusive path to the teacher profession throughout Germany.

Although the three phases of teacher education are differently regulated from state to state, a common corridor of scope and content can be identified at least for the first two (masters-level studies and preparatory service). In the following these similarities are outlined.

6.3.1 The University Phase of Teacher Training in Germany

The first phase of teacher training takes place in all states at universities. Only in Baden-Württemberg there are specialized universities for teacher training in addition to the regular universities. There, the teachers for the general upper secondary school (type 4 see below) are prepared in universities while all other teachers are trained in universities of education.

In all states and irrespective of the place of training, the first phase of teacher education serves mainly to provide a theoretical education for future teachers. This focus can be regarded as a first commonality of all teacher study programs in Germany. Additionally, all teacher trainings in Germany build their first phase curricula by using the same »building blocks«. This identical “kit” contains the following study areas:

  1. 1.

    Educational science

  2. 2.

    Specific science of the school subject

  3. 3.

    Specific teaching methodology of the school subject/pedagogical content knowledge

  4. 4.

    Internship

  5. 5.

    Additional subjects

  6. 6.

    Final paper.

The German education system is characterized by the fact that there are many different ways of achieving comparable degrees. This plurality of educational pathways is already present in each single education system of the federal states. Thus, the differences between the »Bundesländer« only intensify this given diversity. This specialty of the German education system is important to know as all teacher training programs in Germany are usually restricted to only one type of school. Even in states where only one institution (the university) covers the entire spectrum of teacher trainings the single programs are differentiated according to the type of schools they are preparing for. Thus, for example, teachers for secondary school level 1 (Hauptschule) and teachers for secondary school level 2 (Realschule) complete their studies in different study programs (with different degrees at the end), even if both programs take place in the same local state. This restriction to a type of school again leads to significant differences between the teacher programs. To make these differences explainable it is necessary to first get an overview of the different types of schools of the local states. According to the guidelines for the “mutual recognition of teacher examinations and teaching skills” published by the Standing Conference of Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs in 1999 all forms of teacher-studies in Germany can be classified into the following six types:

  • type 1: teacher studies for schools at primary level (Grundschule, Primarschule)

  • type 2: Interdisciplinary teacher studies for primary and (all or individual) lower secondary level schools

  • type 3: teacher studies for lower secondary level schools (level 1 and 2). In some states, this type of teacher studies entitles for working as a teacher in more than one type of school.

  • type 4: teacher studies for general upper secondary level schools (e.g. Gymnasium)

  • type 5: teacher studies for upper secondary level vocational schools

  • type 6: teacher studies for special needs schools.

(Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2009, p. 4)

Due to the different school landscapes, there are individual types of teacher studies which are not offered in all federal states. For example, type 2 only exists in the federal state of Hamburg, while the state of Brandenburg currently does not offer type 5. However, it can be said that nearly all types of teacher studies are represented in almost all local states. As already said, creating a reference to (only) one of these types, can be considered as a fourth communality of all German teacher trainings. But of course, there are again some exceptions as type 2 programs are preparing for more than one school type.

6.3.2 Shifts in the First Phase of Teacher Training

The afore-mentioned shift towards an output orientation also extended to the teaching profession through the introduction of teaching standards. Interestingly enough, while the public debate following the first PISA results also included changing teaching practices, no retraining of teachers on a national scale was implemented or even attempted. In other professions like commercial aviation for example, retrainings are part of the job and nothing unusual. If practices regarding how to handle a plane have to be adapted or new safety regulations come into effect, pilots are retrained on a mandatory basis in order to continue to be allowed to fly. While the debates often mentioned changing teaching practices, the actual changes focused on changes to the first phase (and in part of the second phase) of teacher education, not on the more than 900,000 teachers already on the job (Terhart 2007). The newly introduced “Standards für Lehrerbildung” (standards for teacher training) constituted a common element across Germany (see also Tulowitzki 2015); they were ratified by the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs in 2004 (KMK 2005). They have since been adopted by all universities that offer teacher training and thus shape the profile of teachers.

Another international development that has affected the first phase of teacher training, is the implementation of inclusive education policies and practices in Germany. Ever since the ratification and subsequent implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol 2006) by Germany, the reform of the education system towards education for all (UNESCO 2009) has become more of a priority. The standards for teacher training were updated in 2014 to acknowledge the importance of inclusion (Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2014). Teacher training has further shifted to acknowledge (and prepare for) teachers as multiprofessional teams.

Finally, an important evolution of teacher training in recent times is also linked to a policy change that occurred on an international scale: the Bologna Process. The Bologna Process is a series of reforms with the Bologna Declaration constituting a central piece. Two central elements of this declaration were the move towards establishing internationally comparable, easy-to-read degrees and to create to major cycles of study (Bachelor and Master level). As the German teacher education until then featured a system of state examination, major reforms had to be undertaken to bring it in line with the vision of the Bologna Declaration. In the spirit of Bologna, many universities tried to be transparent about the contents of their new teacher training related Bachelor and Master programs. This revealed the many different areas of emphasis that universities had in Germany (with one university for example putting more emphases on teaching methods, another on psychology and another on subject matter). Paradoxically, this increase in transparency has made switching between universities more challenging for students as universities struggle to formally recognize study performances from other universities with slightly differently configured study programs (Arnold and Reh 2005). In the context of these reforms of teacher training programs all over Germany, it also often occurred that the new programs turned out more rigid and inflexible than the previous models, sometimes being likened to school rather than university programs (for example in Ricken 2010, p. 118). Going against the spirit of the Bologna Declaration, the new, more structured Bachelor and Master-degree teacher training made it more challenging for students to find the time to travel and spend semester abroad (Finger 2012).

6.3.3 The Preparatory Phase of Teacher Training (Referendariat)

After completing the first academic phase of the teacher training, the applicants enter a second, also obligatory, phase, in which they teach under supervision and with a reduced teaching load. This phase is typically referred to as the preparatory phase (“Referendariat”), although the official name for this phase varies from state to state. It usually covers a period of one to two years. In addition to the practical work, the preparatory service includes accompanying seminars, exercises, classroom observations and coaching (Abs 2011, p. 381). Besides the function of qualification, the “Referendariat” also has a further selection function with regard to the profession of the teacher.

A special feature of this second phase is that it is not coordinated either the universities (Abs 2011, p. 385). In fact, the responsibility for the organization (and for the final examination) of the “Referendariat” lies with specific state institutes. Abs sees this institutional separation of the first and the second training phase as a consequence of the fact that universities have traditionally held a very independent position in German society. Enabling students to act as teachers or at least to reflect the current practice of teaching used to be rather alien to the universities, according to Abs. For this reason, the “Referendariat” was set up historically in an explicit demarcation from the universities. This genesis partly explains why cooperation between the state institutes and the universities is still challenging (Abs 2011, p. 386).

6.3.4 Shifts in the Practical Phase of Teacher Training (“Referendariat”)

Of the three major policy changes mentioned in this chapter (PISA shock, shift towards inclusion, Bologna Process), the PISA shock and the shift towards inclusion have arguably had an impact on the second phase of teacher training. One consequence of the PISA shock were the afore-mentioned standards of teacher training. These were also valid for the second phase of teacher training. That meant that training modules were altered to ensure they were in line with standards for teacher training. The same holds true for inclusion; again training modules have been adapted to ensure concepts and practices of inclusion are covered. However, more than in the first phase of teacher training, these changes get counter-acted by what teacher trainees see in school. As the teacher trainees teach themselves and spend a large of amount of time in schools, they get confronted with the local school cultures, which can contain differing views on teaching, inclusion, pedagogy and didactics.

6.4 Professional Development of Teachers (and School Leaders) in Germany

The typical career of a German teacher can be divided into two phases. The first phase of begins with the career choice, moves through the stages of university teacher training and the practical phase of teacher training (“Referendariat”) and ends once the teacher reaches the milestone of being appointed to regular teacher position. This appointment can in many instances be for life, be it in the form of an indefinite work contract or in the form of the teacher becoming a civil servant. What is possible depends on the state.

Afterwards, the second phase is marked by further training and the takeover of specialized roles and functions. It ends with either retirement, in few cases principalship or a change of careers. The career as such can be described a as lifelong professional development process, in which teachers’ further training forms the third phase of professional development for teachers, following the initial teacher training and the practical phase of teacher (Messner and Reusser 2000; Pant et al. 2013).

6.4.1 Customers of Professional Development for Teachers, Their Demands and Needs

While the first two phases are mainly shaped by the ministries of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder and their standing conference (KMK), the third phase and its market are more heterogeneous in nature. On the demand side, the market is heavily shaped by the ministries of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder and their standing conference (KMK), but also by individual schools and individual teachers (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2015; Rothland 2016).

6.4.2 Top-Level Authorities

The ministries of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder are able to heavily shape the market through their influence, policies and financial control. The KMK (2005) as highest authority in the German educational system views the assurance of educational quality as one of its essential tasks and demands from teachers continued professional development. The group responsible for the reports on education monitoring (“Bildungsberichterstattung” 2016) which includes many high-ranking members of scientific German institutions considers the participation in formal professional development indispensable for the development of professional competencies and every German teacher is legally required to engage in continued professional development (Rothland 2016).

On the side of formal requirements only three German federal states—Bavaria, Hamburg and Bremen—currently have regulations regarding how much formal professional development teachers actually do have to participate in; 30 h a year in Bremen and Hamburg and 12 days over the course of four years in Bavaria (Pant et al. 2013; Rothland 2016).

How much the German government invests into further teacher’s training on a national level is hard to quantify because the German Federal Statistical Office reports those investments only aggregated into the “expenditure on other educational offers”, which also includes museums, libraries and other educational institutions. One of the few exceptions was in 2005, where the expenditure for teachers’ professional development was reported to be 100 Million Euros (BLK, Geschäftsstelle 2006; Fussangel et al. 2010; Statistisches Bundesamt 2016a).

While all German schools are required to create a competence development plan in which they define the areas and personnel they intend to develop through further trainings, in 2010 only schools in eleven of the 16 federal states actually had a school budget for implementing such a plan. Instead, there appears to be a tendency to only partially fund external trainings and to make teachers pay the rest out of their own pockets (Fussangel et al. 2010; Stanat et al. 2012; Statistisches Bundesamt 2016a).

6.4.3 Schools

Since the 1990s, the autonomy of individual schools in Germany especially in regards to learning and teaching increased, with the goal to increase the quality and efficiency of education (Altrichter et al. 2007, 2016). After the German PISA results at the beginning of the 21th century this autonomy reforms got increasingly supplemented by accountability aspects through quality standards and external evaluation and go nowadays hand in hand (Altrichter et al. 2007, 2016). Yet quality improvements of an organization, like a school, depend on its employees, the teachers and the school leaders (Easley II and Tulowitzki 2016). Reforms are unlikely to succeed without their support (Terhart 2016). Since the instruments of human resource management available to schools are limited they increasingly rely on internal and external teachers’ further training to perform organizational development (Terhart 2010, 2016).

6.4.4 Teachers

Those factors lead to an overall high demand and participation rate of teachers in further training. Roughly 80% of German teachers participate in formal professional development each year, regardless of the formal regulations on teachers’ further training (Frey and Asseburg 2009; Pant et al. 2013; Stanat et al. 2012, 2016).

Despite the high influence of top-level authorities and increasing influence of schools, teachers in Germany are still usually free to pick the teacher trainings themselves (Rothland 2016). Teachers are mostly interested in trainings that directly deal with teaching lessons or other classroom issues. The thematic areas of trainings teachers most often visit are subject-related content and subject didactic. There is less interest in trainings focusing on current educational reforms (Rothland 2016; Stanat et al. 2016).

Through an explorative factor analysis, Rzejak et al. (2014) identified four factors or dimensions influencing teacher training motivation: collegial interaction, external expectations, carrier orientation and professional development orientation. These factors explained 61.9% of the total variance. Within those four dimensions, German teachers scored high on collegial interaction (M 3.71, SD 1.22) and professional development (M 4.61, SD 0.97) and low on external expectations (M 1.58 SD 0.77) and carrier orientation (M 1.72, SD 1.03) on a six-point Likert scale. This could indicate that German teachers’ training participation is highly intrinsically motivated.

An often-mentioned reason teachers mention why they do not participate in teachers’ further trainings is that they can’t find enough time in their work schedule because of other professional demands. This is probably related to the fact that in 2011 teachers in four different federal states had no right to a leave of absence for personal development during lessons and in four additional states only if another teacher was able to fill in for them. Other reasons include the unsatisfying quality of the training offered and that no suitable training is offered (Pant et al. 2013; Rothland 2016; Stanat et al. 2012).

6.4.5 The Providers and Forms of Continuing Professional Development for Teachers

6.4.5.1 Providers of Continuing Professional Development

On the supply side, formal teachers’ advanced training has a long tradition in Germany. The first teacher training institutes were already established in 1920 in Baden-Württemberg and in 1927 in Hamburg. After several expansions phases mainly in the 50 and 70s Germany nowadays has 25 state institutes of teacher training, which are funded by ministries of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder (Fussangel et al. 2010; Rothland 2016; Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 2017).

In addition to the state institutes, training providers of teachers’ further training include churches, professional associations, private foundations like the Telekom Foundation, state universities and private organizations. Despite this variety of training providers the ministries of Education and Cultural Affairs of the federal states are able to exert high level of control over the market through accrediting and recommending certain providers (Fussangel et al. 2010; Rothland 2016).

6.4.6 Forms of Continuing Professional Development

The trainings those providers offer vary greatly in their didactic design and length. From a didactic and methodical perspective, traditional content-oriented forms of teachers’ training like lectures as well as distance learning courses are still very common in Germany. But in recent years newer approaches, based on the use of new media or more constructivist and practice-oriented in design or both, are on the rise (Fussangel et al. 2010; Rothland 2016).

With regard to the training duration, while longer trainings are still offered by some providers, short-term trainings which often last only up to day are becoming more and more dominant and school-based trainings usually only have a duration of one day or less as well (Fussangel et al. 2010).

In addition to those formal means of professional development which also dominated the first two phases of teacher training non-formal means play an increasingly important role in the third phase. Informal arrangements like professional networks have shown high potential in facilitating innovation and improving the teaching quality (Fussangel et al. 2010). Additionally, 40% of German schools nowadays are offering mentoring for teachers which is an increase over the last years even though the percentage is still rather low compared to OECD average of 72% (Reiss et al. 2016) But compared to other German academics, German teachers hold informal learning in high regard, which for them usually takes the form of collegial exchange, online research, reading of educational academic literature and reflective tryout of new approaches in their everyday work (Heise 2007; Hollick 2013).

6.4.7 Shifts in the Professional Development of Teachers in Germany

Matching its more heterogeneous setup, the influence of three major international developments (PISA shock, move towards inclusion, Bologna Process) is more difficult to assess. This is first of all due to the fact that there is no strong nationally coordinating presence or institution for the professional development of teachers. There also appears to be a lack of laws or standards on a national level governing the further education of teachers (Fischler 2010). While the PISA shock certainly left its mark on the professional development sector of teachers, its impact was and is lessened by the freedom of teachers to choose their trainings and by their restricted availability, coupled with the variance in further training opportunities between the German federal states. The same could be said for the move towards inclusion. Regarding the Bologna Process, one could make the argument of it having had a ripple effect: It impacted the first and second phase of teacher training. This led to newly trained teachers that differed in how they were trained from the “old” generation. In order to be able to provide fitting further trainings for those new teachers, educational offers were adapted.

6.5 Travelling Policies Impacting Teachership and the Professional Development of Teachers in Germany

There are several challenges surrounding the evolution of education policies on teacher training: Even though the market for teachers’ further training is heavily influenced by federal authorities, the lack of quantitative data about the actual supply of teachers’ further training makes it impossible to judge the fit of supply and demand. This is becoming a special challenge as the autonomy of schools increases and they are (more) able to define the individual organizational development needs and the professional development needs of their teachers (Fussangel et al. 2010).

Another challenge in the context of teacher professionalization is a lack of fluctuation and mobility of teachers. Once appointed German teachers tend to remain at the same school during their entire career. This and the fact that 41% of German teachers are 50 years or older (Statistisches Bundesamt 2017), combined with a rapidly changing technological and socio-cultural environment increases the reliance of the German education system on teacher’s further training as a source of knowledge renewal (Fussangel et al. 2010). While one of the goals of the Bologna Process was to increase mobility for students, on the levels of teachers, mobility on a regional, national or international level remains an unresolved issue.

One criticism echoed predominantly by young teachers is that the first phase of teacher training, the Bachelor- and Master-studies taking place at a university or teacher university, is too theoretical and of limited relevance for the actual practice of being a teacher (Schultz 2007). In addition, an issue raised by teachers is the divide between what is taught during the first and second phase of teacher training and what is practiced later on (Knoke 2013). While the policies after the PISA shock helped make the first and second phase of teacher training more standardized, this theory-practice gap was apparently not overcome. Universities have, however, (slowly) expanded the amount that students spend in school during their university studies, usually through hands-on training in schools, i.e. sending students to observe and work in schools for anywhere between several weeks and an entire semester.

In Germany, it can clearly be seen that international developments impact national educational policy. These developments can be triggered by international comparative assessments like PISA or by political dialogue and agenda setting (inclusion, Bologna Process). Travelling policies therefore certainly have made an impact on the German education system. Yet, in many instances, this impact has been less powerful than one could anticipate. This is due to several factors:

  • Teacher training is divided in two phases and carried out by two different institutions.

  • The further education or professional development system has hardly been influenced by travelling policies, is heterogeneous in nature and its impact is even harder to assess because teachers pick further trainings on a quasi-voluntary basis.

  • There is a large amount of autonomy that teachers enjoy in their practice (“pedagogical freedom”) which means that pre-existing cultures of teaching practices can be quite dominant (and thus can act as a counterbalance to new policies).

In at least one instance, the Bologna Process, the implementation of policies intending to increase transparency, exchange and mobility paradoxically ended up having detriment effects at least on student mobility and the ability to switch between universities. This can be seen as an indicator of the power of possibly the biggest mediator of national or international impulses for change in education in Germany, the federal system.

This biggest mediator of travelling policies can also be seen as a defining characteristic and possibly an advantage of the German education system as well: The 16 states are the central stakeholders in many regards. Several layers of this 16-piece mosaic that shapes the teaching profession have been presented in this chapter. Coordination of matters between the 16 states is often a challenge and yet the alternative, a national, centralistic body of control, does not seem to offer any notable advantages with regard to efficiency or flexibility. Shifting decision-making powers towards the schools—in other words further decentralization—also seems counter-intuitive if a nationwide coherence in matters of teacher education and professionalization is to be achieved or if international developments are to be translated and integrated into national policy in a coherent manner. The most viable course of action may therefore well be to work within the existing frameworks and continue to strive for common standards and increased coordination.