Assessment has become an increasingly central aspect of teachers’ professional work, reshaping how teaching, learning, and evaluation are understood in everyday school practice. Scholars in education around the world suggest how teachers have to respond to these accountability claims in order to show effectiveness and quality, ultimately making school results the focus of education (Biesta, 2009; Irisdotter Aldenmyr et al., 2025). This has affected the teaching profession in several regards, changing core aspects of the institutional structures for teaching and even what it means to be a teacher (Ball, 2003).

This paper explores how teachers in Sweden navigate professionalism in relation to assessment in a school system characterized by a focus on school results. Drawing on focus group interviews with teachers across primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education, the study aims at exploring how teachers in Sweden understand and enact professionalism in assessment, with particular attention to how their professional judgement is negotiated within institutional conditions shaping teaching and learning.

When the quality of schools, and even teachers, is defined in terms of measurable educational outcomes, there is a risk of teaching focusing on testing and grading, or what has been labelled “teaching to the test”, which, in turn, leads to tests gaining an ever-increasing role (Vogt, 2022), constructing a testing culture in schools (Birenbaum, 2016). Additionally, a school characterized by performance activities and excessive summative assessments is problematic as it often causes teacher stress (Lundahl, et al., 2022; Saeki et al., 2018; von der Embse et al., 2015) and put students learning and well-being at risk (Brolin Låftman et al., 2013; Hirsh, 2020; Luthar et al., 2020).

The study is grounded in sociological theories of professionalism and professional work, combined with research on teachers’ assessment practices and assessment literacy. Professionalism is understood not merely as the possession of formal knowledge or skills, but as a socially and institutionally situated practice shaped by norms, values, and expectations regarding appropriate professional behaviour (Freidson, 2001; Evetts, 2006, 2013). From this perspective, what counts as “professional” teaching is continuously negotiated within specific organizational and policy contexts. A key distinction is made between professionalism as enacted from within the profession and organizationalprofessionalism which is defined from outside of the profession and based on bureaucratic logics and accountability activities (Evetts, 2013). This distinction is used to analyse how teachers’ assessment practices are influenced by institutional demands while still relying on teachers' professional judgement.

Teacher agency is conceptualized as relational and context-dependent, drawing on an ecological understanding of agency (Priestley et al., 2015). Teachers’ responses to assessment practices are thus seen as negotiated rather than uniform. To capture the complexity of assessment work, the analysis is further informed by the concept of assessment literacy (Pastore & Andrade, 2019), which distinguishes between conceptual, praxeological, and socio-emotional dimensions of assessment. This framework enables an examination of how teachers balance formal requirements with pedagogical concerns not forgetting ethical considerations and the pupils’ socio-emotional development. Together, these perspectives frame teacher professionalism in assessment as a dynamic process shaped by institutional conditions and pedagogical values.

The study is based on qualitative focus group interviews with 39 teachers from 12 schools located in a large urban area in Sweden. The participants work across different school levels, including primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education, and all hold formal teaching qualifications. Additionally, most teachers have extensive professional experience. The diversity of school contexts enabled exploration of shared and contrasting understandings of assessment across educational stages as teachers in Sweden don’t’ put grades before grade 6. Focus group interviews were chosen to facilitate collective reflection on assessment as a shared professional practice and to capture how teachers construct and negotiate professional meanings in interaction. The group format also provided a supportive setting for discussing experiences that may be sensitive or contested (Bloor et al., 2001). All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The empirical material was analysed using thematic analysis. The analysis proceeded in three stages: familiarization with the data through repeated reading and listening; identification of recurring and salient themes in teachers’ narratives; and interpretative analysis guided by the study’s aim and theoretical framework.

The study shows how teachers’ professionalism in assessment is continuously negotiated within institutional boundaries. Teachers express frustration that teaching is being pushed aside by a growing emphasis on summative assessment, ultimately reducing school performance to the primary purpose of education. At the same time, they comply with these assessment demands, even if with a professional unease (c.f. Moore et al., 2002). I interpret this as a split between being able to exercise one's professionalism and being recognized for it. The risk is that teachers are pushed into performative practicies to assert professionalism when summative assessment (grades and test scores) become not only a goal of education per se, but also become a definition of school (and teacher) quality. Yet, the constant need to prove one's professionalism and adjust practices to meet new accountability requirements, risks generating what Ball (2003) terms ontological insecurity. The study also reveals how teachers’ professionalism in assessment is characterized by tensions between different aspects of assessment rather than alignment. Teachers experience conflicts between pedagogical and ethical commitments, such as supporting learning, motivation, and well-being, and assessment practices that prioritize formal regulations, expectations from “outside” and comparability. These tensions are especially evident between formative assessment intended to support learning and summative requirements with, for the teachers, sometimes diffuse purposes. When school results become the primary sign of school quality, professionalism recognized through visible, documentable actions rather than through pedagogical reasoning and ethical judgement, teachers’ professionalism in assessment is being contested.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Biesta, G. (2009). Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 33–46. Birenbaum, M. (2016). Assessment culture versus testing culture: The impact on assessment for learning. I: Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation, 275–292. Springer International Publishing. Bloor, G., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. & Robson, K. (2001). Focus Groups in Social research. Sage. Brolin Låftman, S., Almquist, Y. B. & Östberg, V. (2013). Students’ accounts of school-performance stress: a qualitative analysis of a high-achieving setting in Stockholm, Sweden. Journal of Youth Studies, 16, 932–949. Evetts, S. (2013). Professionalism: Value and ideology. Current Sociology Review, 61(5-6), 778–796. Evetts J (2006) Short note: The sociology of professional groups. Current Sociology 54(1), 133–143. Hirsh, Å. (2020). When assessment is a constant companion: students’ experiences of instruction in an era of intensified assessment focus. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6, 89–102. Irisdotter Aldenmyr, S., Gradén, M. & Håkansson J. (2025). Teacher leaders’ capacity for Luthar, S., Kumar, N.L & Zillmer, N. (2020). Teachers’ responsibilities for pupils’ mental health: Challenges in high achieving schools. International journal of school & educational psychology, 8(2), 119–130. Lundahl, C., Mickwitz, L. & Skott, P. (2022). Skolutveckling för hållbart lärande – teoretiska och praktiska perspektiv. Studentlitteratur. Moore, A., Edwards, G, Halpin, D. & George, R. (2002). Compliance, Resistance and pragmatism: the (re)construction of schoolteacher identities in a period of intensive educational reform. British Educational Research Journal, 28(4). Pastore, S. & Andrade, H. (2019). Teacher assessment literacy: A three-dimensional model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 84, 128-138. Priestley, M.; Biesta, G. & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher Agency: An Ecological Approach. Bloomsbury Academic. Saeki, E., Segool, N. & Pendergast, L. (2018). The influence of test-based accountability policies on early elementary teachers: School climate, environmental stress, and teacher stress. Psychology in the Schools 55(4). Vogt, B. (2022). Supportive assessment strategies as curriculum events in a performance-oriented classroom context. European Educational Research Journal, 21(6), 1023-1040. von der Embse, N. P., Kilgus, S. P., Solomon, H. J., Bowler, M., & Curtiss, C. (2015). Initial Development and Factor Structure of the Educator Test Stress Inventory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(3), 223-237.