Selection into different educational tracks and separation of students according to academic ability has been extensively studied. While proponents of early tracking argue that educating children in different learning environments allows more tailored pedagogical practices from a young age, cross-country evidence rather suggests that such practice yields no significant gains for students. In multiple contexts, tracking has been shown to marginally increase the educational outcomes of high achieving students, while substantially decreases the performance of low-achievers; thus increasing educational inequality with no overall average benefits to academic performance (Hanushek and Wossmann, 2006[77]; Epple, Newlon and Romano, 2002[78]; Schütz, Ursprung and Wößmann, 2008[79]). Causal evidence on a reform in the German state of Bavaria in 2000 showed that moving forward the timing of student selection into basic (Hauptschule) and middle-track (Realschule) schools from grades 6 to 4 significantly decreased student performance in both types of schools. Moreover, the share of very low performing students significantly increased, while the achievement of students selected into the academic track (Gymnasium) remained unchanged (Piopunik, 2014[80]). Descriptive data from PISA lends further support to the claim that separation into different learning environments may be detrimental to overall cognitive development. In fact, OECD countries that tend to educate students from different ability levels in the same classes and schools also have higher levels of performance in science. Furthermore, less of the variation in students' achievement in these countries can be explained by students' socio-economic background (OECD, 2016, pp. 172;383-385, Figure II.5.12, Table II.5.25[27]).

Separation of students into different schools according to ability is a common practice in some of the countries visited by the OECD School Resources Review. In the Czech Republic, where selection into competitive strands first begins at age 11, students move into either a basic school or an eight-year *Gymnasium*. Students can later move to a six-year *gymnasium* after two years of basic school and finally be selected into one of six different tracks in upper secondary education. Educational offer in the country is thus highly stratified. In particular, and similar to other countries, family background significantly influences selection into programmes offered in the most prestigious tracks (*Gymnasium*) (Santiago et al., 2012[81]). Concomitantly, even if not causally, the Czech Republic has the lowest upward educational mobility rate of all OECD countries: 82% of 25-44 year-olds failed to complete tertiary education if both their parents only accomplished upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary (compared to an OECD average of 57%) (OECD, 2016[5]).

The Flemish Community of Belgium also tracks students relatively early, between the ages of 12 and 14. Secondary school is divided into three stages, and educational pathways are further multiplied within those stages. While students can move from the vocational to the academic track, this rarely happens at the upper secondary level (see Figure 4.8, Panel B). Instead, students frequently transfer to less academically oriented schools or programs (known colloquially as the “waterfall system”). As a policy response to the negative effects of early tracking, the Flemish Community of Belgium has developed a “Master Plan for Secondary Education” aimed at – among other objectives – attracting and retaining more students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds in general programmes. In order to reach such objective, the reform envisioned creating a more comprehensive stage of schooling in lower secondary education, delaying early tracking. While delaying early tracking as a means to reduce the impact of student background in the selection of study programmes seems promising, its effectiveness crucially depends on other complementary policies, such as the introduction of better system to monitor the characteristics of students going into different tracks and a strengthened early diagnosis and response to language
learning needs as a means to avoid students being referred to vocational programmes due to language difficulties – a common reason for student selection into VET courses in the Community (Nusche et al., 2015[55]). Similar to Belgium, Austria has also made recent efforts in moving towards a more comprehensive system and reducing inequality in student learning opportunities (Box 4.3).

### Box 4.3. Towards a more comprehensive system - New Secondary Schools in Austria

The New Secondary School (Neue Mittelschule, NMS) was introduced in 2008 as a pilot project. It was originally designed as a comprehensive school for all 10-14 year-old students (Years 5 to 8), combining the lower secondary stages of general secondary school (Hauptschule, HS) and higher-end academic secondary schools (Allgemein bildende höhere Schule – Unterstufe, AHS). While the initial intention was to abolish early tracking in the long run, due to a political compromise within the government coalition, all lower secondary stages of academic secondary schools continued to exist next to the NMS. However, since their introduction the NMS have become the standard lower secondary schools in the country, with most students enrolling and effectively replacing HS in 2016.

The NMS has similar curricula to the AHS-U, but different educational goals. Unlike the previous HS, students are not separated into different ability groups in core subjects. Rather are assessed on a differentiated grading scheme depending on students' academic ability in Years 7 and 8. Better results in the NMS are also sought by applying new pedagogical approaches, including more individualised and project-based learning and a competence-orientation.

The NMS were introduced as a means to mitigate the effects of early tracking and ability grouping in lower secondary education. Students are admitted to the NMS after completing their primary education without further pre-requisites. The NMS are also intended to open up better chances for their students, and particularly to help them continue their education at an upper secondary academic secondary school (Allgemein bildende höhere Schule – Oberstufe, AHS-O) and follow to an academic leaving certificate (matriculation examination, Matura).

The governance and funding distribution of New Secondary Schools is retained at the provincial level. Provincial schools are financed by provinces and municipalities using funds which are largely raised at the federal level and distributed across provinces. Political commitment to the development of NMS has been followed by a significant increase in public spending with relatively higher per-student expenditure than in AHS-U schools. The additional spending is largely dedicated to introduce new pedagogical methods in order to respond to the heterogeneity of the student population in the NMS. However, by the time of the review visit, available evaluations were limited to the schools in the pilot phase and the NMS as a new school type had not yet been evaluated on full-scale.

Source: Nusche, D. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Austria 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264256729-en.

### The vocational offer is often misaligned with labour market needs

The design of high-quality vocational programmes crucially depends on the adequate match between student preferences and the skills demanded by the labour market. However, vocational programmes in many countries are often artefacts of past labour market needs, relying on outdated curricula and insufficiently informed by system-wide planning and
strategic steering. Evidence-based strategies for governing and regulating vocational programmes are critical to developing a VET sector aligned with the needs and opportunities of evolving labour markets. Given recent trends in the development of artificial intelligence and continued integration of technological replacements for traditionally human skills, there are growing concerns related to the development of an adequate set of skills in secondary education. A recent OECD report based on the assessment of different computer science experts and PIAAC data points out that while literacy skills are increasingly used at work, only 13% of workers use them on a daily basis with higher proficiency than computers (Elliott, 2017[82]).

One of the major concerns across OECD countries is that demand for the skills that students acquire through vocational programmes may be short-lived in rapidly changing labour markets. VET that certifies narrow or non-transferable skills is more likely to lead to periods of under-employment or unemployment over the individual's life cycle. International evidence on the impact of VET on long-term labour market trajectories showcases informative differences in outcomes throughout an individual's career. While graduates from general education programmes experience greater initial difficulties in finding employment, they also tend to have higher rates of employment as they age, compared to VET graduates. Additionally, graduates from general programmes also earn more as they age and are more likely to receive additional on-the-job training (Hanushek et al., 2017[83]). Similar evidence shows that, although graduates from vocational programmes have an easier transition from school to work, the value of vocational education relative to general programmes tends to decrease over the career span (Lavrijsen and Nicaise, 2017[84]). Differences associated with gains throughout life can be partially explained by the relative struggles of vocational graduates have in adapting to changing skills demands. Adult workers require high levels of transferable skills – often in advanced literacy and numeracy – to update their skills profile (Abadzi, 2015[85]). Therefore, forecasting of long-term skills needs, strategic planning of the educational offer in consultation with labour market actors and building transferable literacy and numeracy skills into VET curricula are crucial to enhance long-term outcomes of vocational graduates.

Education systems increasingly recognise the need of students in vocational programmes to learn more transferable skills. The continuous evolution of the skills profile sought by companies and technological developments have led to a wider and more flexible range of abilities required from workers (Autor, Levy and Murnane, 2003[61]; Goldin and Katz, 2008[86]). Nonetheless, the development of transferable skills that are simultaneously appropriate to firm- or occupation-specific needs depend on the close involvement of labour market stakeholders. As firms rarely have a short-term incentive to unilaterally invest in the development of long-term human capital, education systems must support vocational programmes that meet these complex demands (OECD, 2016[87]).

Government authorities use complementary mechanisms to inform curriculum options in vocational education, such as regular consultation with labour market actors and rigorous forecasting of projected skills supply and demand. Co-ordination among stakeholders in advisory boards, councils or associations is commonly found across OECD countries. For instance, in the Slovak Republic, the government established a National Council for Vocational Education and Training alongside regional and sectorial VET councils, with the purpose of fostering links to the labour market. The Council has the mandate to discuss and review VET programmes and recommend to the Ministry of Education the fields of study that ought to be kept or excluded. Its members include employers' representatives and regional educational authorities (Santiago et al., 2016[11]).
Other countries have a long tradition of early identification of skills demand. Since 1999, in Germany, the Federal VET Institute, the Trade Union Confederation and the Employers' Organisation for Vocational Training co-ordinate with a network of research institutions (FreQueNz) to anticipate skills needs and adapt the vocational offer accordingly. These institutions work in close collaboration through the use of various complementary approaches such as: the development of forecasting models of labour market development, early identification of skills shortages, surveys of companies and employees, job advertisement analyses, among others (Hensen-Reifgens and Hippach-Schneider, 2014[88]). Long-term forecasts are complemented by short-term forecast exercises that directly feed into the planning of vacancies in apprenticeships, which permits the system to be flexible enough to respond to short-term fluctuations in qualification needs (OECD, 2016, p. 40[87]).

With the objective of better aligning educational offer with labour market needs, several countries have also been recently designing and implementing national qualification frameworks. National qualification frameworks provide a systematic recognition of qualifications – such as degrees, diplomas and other credentials – that are agreed among multiple stakeholders and help to signal the competencies of graduates to employers in the country. Additionally, these frameworks are intended to explain how qualifications relate to each other, and to build pathways within education systems. While national qualification frameworks have been widely applied, there is little empirical research on its effects in the gap between skills supply and demand, mostly showing mixed results (Raffe, 2013[89]). Two recent reports from the International Labour Organisation (ILO), comparing across more than 20 countries, have found little evidence that such policy instrument has led to significantly improved communication between education systems, employers and trade unions. Countries that most benefited were those able to develop national qualification frameworks as a complement, rather than a substitute, to other policies targeted at improving the recognition of qualifications (Allais, 2010[89]; Allais, 2017[90]).

The costs of implementing a national qualifications framework can be significant: policy analysis, assessment of international experience, development of qualification options, engagement of labour market stakeholders, and establishment of specific national agencies can all be particularly resource intensive activities. In fact, the OECD report *Learning for Jobs* points out that where national qualification systems are seen as a separate policy initiative (e.g. New Zealand, South Africa or the United Kingdom), they tend to be seen as capturing resources from other activities. In more embedded qualification systems building on a broader set of strategic, complementary policies (e.g. Scotland [UK]), there is greater potential for efficiency (OECD, 2010[19]). Therefore, gradual institutional change, grounded on capacity building, improved training and professional development for teachers and trainers and continued improvement of VET programmes seems to be more likely to lead to successful and less costly national qualification frameworks (Allais, 2010[89]; Allais, 2017[90]; OECD, 2010[18]).

*Work-based learning has the potential to reduce the skills gap and further involve labour market stakeholders*

A distinctive feature of upper secondary VET systems across OECD countries is the extent to which the vocational education offer incorporates work-based learning. Work-based learning – typically by means of apprenticeships or traineeships – involves the formal acquisition of knowledge and skills at the workplace enabled by employers’ involvement in vocational training. Combined school- and work-based programmes are ones where between 25% and 90% of the learning activities take place in the work environment (OECD, 2016, p. 287[5]). Evidence from OECD countries shows that labour-market
outcomes of VET graduates are stronger if their programmes include substantial work-based learning time (OECD, 2014[72]).

There are several potential reasons behind the observed benefits of work-based learning. First, it fosters the application of theoretical and technical skills obtained in a school context to a workplace setting. Through direct contact with employers, students have more opportunities to learn about the nature of the workplace and determine the best fit for them. A dual system based on apprenticeship helps to ensure a smoother school-to-work transition for students who do not wish to continue on to tertiary education (OECD, 2010[92]). Second, students have the opportunity to apply their new-found skills in an authentic setting, and may, therefore, feel more motivated to learn necessary skills in the classroom context. Third, it enables employers to have access to a pool of skilled and potential future employees. This is especially relevant in strongly regulated labour markets, where companies have fewer incentives to provide initial training. In some contexts, graduates of work-school programmes have priority-status in applying to positions within the partner company (MDRC, 2017[49]). Finally, it enables budget-constrained schools to keep specialised types of training, while restraining costs through transferring part of the training responsibility to employers.

Over reliance on school-based vocational learning may cause inefficient purchasing patterns for schools. In particular, limited work-based learning and involvement with employers makes it more difficult to flexibly adapt the type of vocational training on offer to the skills demand of the labour market, as purchasing new equipment relies mostly on school systems' budgets. For schools, continuously updating the vocational offer to ensure its relevance to the labour market involves significant investments into equipment and physical infrastructure, discouraging innovation in the vocational offer (OECD, 2017[93]).

Despite its benefits for the quality and efficiency of upper secondary VET, most students across the OECD are enrolled in programmes where work-based learning is limited or non-existent (Figure 4.6). In several education systems visited by the OECD School Resources Review work-based learning in upper secondary VET is in the initial stages of development. For instance, in the Czech Republic, work-based learning remains limited, with no mechanisms to involve small companies in the provision of apprenticeships (Shewbridge et al., 2016[71]). In fact, despite high overall rates of enrolment in vocational programmes, most initial VET programmes take place exclusively in the school context. Only around 9 in each 100 students enrolled in vocational programmes in 2014 participated in some form of work-based learning (Figure 4.6).

However, there exist countries that have a strong work-based learning tradition. Austria, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland have a long history of training through apprenticeships. These so-called dual systems employ a structure in which practical training in an apprenticeship is combined with a sound theoretical knowledge base obtained in a school context (see Box 4.4). In countries with substantial work-based learning in upper secondary VET, collaborations with employers are strong both in the form of cost sharing arrangements and the direct provision of apprenticeships. As a result, transitions from school to work tend to be relatively easier in countries with dual systems: the median age for leaving formal education is higher and a greater share of students aged 15-29 are already working (OECD, 2010, p. 55[92]).

In light of the evident benefits, some countries have enacted recent policies to create more work-based learning opportunities. For example, in the Slovak Republic a new VET Act came into force in 2015, introducing features of a dual system. Employers contribute to the practical component of students' training and the state provides tax incentives to employers
for their participation in the dual system. The new legislation has supported work-based learning as schools are now encouraged to establish partnerships with companies for providing practical training in accordance with their needs (Santiago et al., 2016[11]).

In the Flemish Community of Belgium, the offer of vocational programmes was perceived to be primarily determined by the interests of schools and their staff rather than by labour market demand (Nusche et al., 2015[55]). In particular, employers are minimally involved in the content and organisation of the programmes (Musset, 2013[94]). In order to address such concerns, a recent reform has separated VET into two strands: a fully school-based track and an improved dual learning track with 60% of the time spent in the workplace context. In the new system, a closer articulation with employers is also sought. Companies are involved in interviewing potential candidates and evaluating their training performance. Completion of any of the tracks leads to the same certification, organised in modules. This way, students who fail to complete the school-based component are still able to get professional qualifications or modular certificates for the competencies acquired during their work-based training (OECD, 2017[95]).

### Box 4.4. Vocational programmes in Northern European countries

VET programmes in Northern European countries are offered relatively late. Either due to prolonged pre-primary education (e.g. Finland and Sweden), or by having 10 instead of the typical 9 school years leading to the completion of lower secondary education (e.g. Denmark or Norway), student transitions to vocational programmes typically occur at age 16.

VET systems in these countries enjoy a high-status; they are regarded as instrumental for successful transitions from school to work. The high degree of confidence among stakeholders in vocational pathways is partly owed to work-based learning being an integral part of the curriculum, and also to the solid theoretical knowledge learned in the school context. Nonetheless, the development of relevant work-based learning opportunities is not without challenges.

#### Different admission criteria

Admission criteria for vocational routes in Northern European countries vary considerably. For instance, in Sweden, fewer courses with passing grades are required for entry into the vocational pathway. Other countries opt for stricter admission policies; Denmark launched a reform of its VET system in 2015 that included increasing performance requirements in Danish and maths to gain access to vocational schools (Cedefop, 2018[96]). In Finland, student selection is based on students' grades. VET providers also have the right to set selection criteria that may include work experience or aptitude tests, according to government regulations.

#### Alternative arrangements of work-based learning

In Norway, work-based learning is built into vocational programmes in a series of alternative arrangements. Most upper secondary VET programmes in the country follow a 2+2 model, implying two years of school-based learning followed by two years of paid apprenticeship training in a company or public institution. Other models place more emphasis on school-based and work-based learning respectively (e.g. 3+1 or 1+3). Graduation from these
programmes allows students to earn a trade (or journeyman's) certificate and to enter the labour market. Nonetheless, Norway is currently working to increase the participation of employers in VET.

In other countries, work-based learning requirements are somewhat more flexible. In Finland, a VET qualification can be earned either through apprenticeship training or competence-based qualifications. In apprenticeship training, learning takes place in a working context 70% to 80% of the total learning time, while a competence-based qualification only requires students to sit through competence tests.

Sweden's VET system also enables different dosages of work-based learning. Students in vocational programmes can attend either a school-based education or an apprenticeship education. In order to complete their upper secondary degree, apprentices need to spend a minimum of 50% of their time in work-based learning, while school-based learners only need a minimum of 15% of on-the-job training.

## Integrated general and vocational certification

In Denmark, vocational learning is offered in a range of different programmes, with varying duration and focus on practical training. From short basic vocational programmes with practical training in enterprises, to longer VET combining longer periods of theoretical education in a secondary vocational college. In particular, the Danish education system offers a combination of VET with a three-year general education programme enabling students to gain both a vocational and a general upper secondary school leaving certificate. The integration of both paths allows the development of job-specific skills without jeopardising the acquisition of general academic ones.

Another option for integrating general and vocational education is by increasing the permeability of the pathways. In Norway, students enrolled in VET programmes, with two years initial education in schools, can opt to change to an academic bridge course in the third year, replacing two years of apprenticeship in a firm. Despite not leading to a trade certificate, successful completion of the bridge course grants access to academic higher education. Students who have also attained trade certificates have the right to attend a fifth year of general supplementary studies. On the other hand, Sweden opts for a modularised approach. In order to facilitate transitions across tracks, students are allowed to transfer completed courses across study pathways and gain alternative qualifications based on accumulated curricular credits.

**Sources:** Nusche, D. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Denmark 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264262430-en; Norweigian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU) (2016), *Vocational education and training in Europe - Norway*, Cedefop ReferNet VET in Europe reports, http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_NO.pdf (accessed on 06 September 2017); Koukku, A. and P. Paronen (2016), *Vocational education and training in Europe Finland*, http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_FI.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2017); Skolverket and ReferNet Sweden (2016), *Vocational education and training in Europe Sweden*, Cedefop ReferNet VETin Europe reports, https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_SE.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2017); Cedefop (2018), *Developments in vocational education and training policy in 2015-17: Denmark*, Cedefop monitoring and analysis of VET policies, Brussels, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/country-reports/vet- (accessed on 16 July 2018).
*Opportunities for transitions across tracks are critical to meet students' changing interests and skills*

The way in which programmes and course pathways are designed may help to reduce the impact of socio-economic background on students' choice of pathway and outcomes. A crucial design feature is the way in which opportunities for horizontal transitions across tracks exist. Early tracking risks placing young students in programmes that do not correspond to their potential performance and changing interest. Effective barriers to transitions can further accentuate the mismatch between the profile of the student and the track initially assigned, often leading to early school leaving. Moreover, inflexible transitions from vocational programmes in upper secondary education to post-secondary studies may exacerbate the separation of tracks and limit the progress to tertiary education opportunities.

In order to allay these concerns, education systems across the OECD have made efforts to ease the progression of students desiring to change tracks, and thereby better match their evolving needs with the available educational offer. In the Netherlands – where a wide range of vocational education programmes is offered starting at age 12 – teachers have the discretion to delay tracking of students in lower secondary education by placing them in “bridge classes”. Additionally, a legal framework for “scaffolding diplomas” allows students, upon graduation from a longer vocational programme in upper secondary education, to have unconditional access to academic tertiary education (OECD, 2016, pp. 173-175[2]; OECD, 2016[96]). In Germany, where tracking may occur as early as Year 5, students are allowed to change tracks when moving from lower to upper secondary education. Recent evidence shows that for marginal students – i.e. students close to the threshold between two different tracks, and potentially misallocated – attending a lower track in lower secondary education has no significant impact on long-term outcomes such as wages, unemployment or occupational choice relative to individuals early assigned to the academic track (*Gymnasium*). The authors present evidence for the fact that such outcomes are only possible due to the in-built flexible mechanisms allowing students to change tracks when entering upper secondary education (Dustmann, Puhani and Schönberg, 2017[97]).

Other countries opt to create direct pathways from upper secondary VET to post-secondary VET and tertiary education. In Austria, students graduating from part-time vocational schools (*Berufsschule*, BS) and secondary technical and vocational schools (*Berufsbildene mittlere Schule*, BMS) have the option to gain access to higher education by sitting a series of general tertiary entrance examinations (*Berufsreifeprüfungen*). Additionally, graduates from ISCED 5-level Colleges for Higher Vocational Education (*Berufsbildene höhere Schule*, BHS) – required to complete one additional year than students in the academic track or other vocational strands – gain direct access to university entrance (*Matura*) (Nusche et al., 2016[20]). Similarly, in Denmark, students can combine a VET programme with a general academic examination to gain access to tertiary education. Moreover, an upper secondary track combining vocational and general programmes enables students to gain both a vocational specialisation, as well as a general upper secondary school leaving certificate to access tertiary education (Nusche et al., 2016[70]).

Combinations of VET and general curricula have been one of the strategies used by countries to improve horizontal transitions in upper secondary education and facilitate progression to tertiary education. This combination is often eased through the modularisation of curricula – i.e. the division of traditionally full-year courses into short duration modules – which has been widespread in the VET sector, particularly among European countries. Modular VET may provide greater flexibility to students and aide the
adaptation of curricula to the changing demand for skills (Cedefop, 2015[98]). For instance, Sweden opted to modularise vocational programmes, allowing students enrolled in upper secondary VET to transfer completed courses to any other programme and graduate from the general track (Skolverket and ReferNet Sweden, 2016[100]).

Despite these efforts, OECD data for a small cohort of countries indicates that, even where there are in-built mechanisms to facilitate flexible transitions across pathways, students rarely transfer across programmes. Figure 4.8 reports the graduation status from upper secondary education two years after the theoretical duration of their studies, i.e. two years after the regulatory or common-practice time it takes a full-time student to complete a level of education. While Panel A describes the graduation rates of those that entered into general programmes, Panel B displays the successful completion of entrants into vocational programmes. Crucially, both panels show that few students transfer across programme orientation before completion. In 5 of the 11 countries for which there is available data, the proportion of students that transition from vocational to general programmes rounds to zero. For instance, despite Sweden and the Netherlands policy efforts, fewer than 5% of students actually transition from one track to the other (Figure 4.8, Panel B). High transition rates across pathways could be indicative or poor initial placement, and it is impossible to fix a goal rate of transition. Nevertheless, very low rates of transition, particularly from the vocational to the general pathway, indicates few opportunities for students to move from the traditionally disfavoured VET track and bears further scrutiny.
<figure><img src="image_42.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.8. Completion rates and track-switching of upper secondary students, 2015</figcaption></figure>

Note: Data presented in this figure come from an ad hoc survey and only concern initial secondary education programmes for young people. It is based on a true cohort method, following one cohort of students for a period corresponding to the theoretical duration of their degrees (N) and N plus two years (N+2). N is defined as the regulatory or common-practice time it takes a full-time student to complete a level of education.

1. Year of reference 2014.

2. Students who continued their studies in the adult education system are included in the column of "Did not graduate or not enrolled"

Source: OECD (2017) Education at Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en, Table A9.2.

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933831545

Designing effective opportunities for flexible transitions is possible, however. More than one-fifth of Norwegian students who begin in vocational programmes end up earning a general upper secondary education degree within two years of the end of their theoretical time in this system. An explanation for this might be the structure of the vocational offer in Norwegian schools (see Box 4.4). At the end of a two-year school-based component, students may apply to an apprenticeship position in a company or transfer to a third year of bridging course, enabling them to qualify with a general upper secondary certificate (Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU), 2016[101]). Such structure helps alleviate the relatively high share of students who do not complete vocational programmes or are still in the same education level two years after the duration of theoretical studies (36%; Figure 4.8, Panel B).
Transitions from general to vocational programmes are somewhat more common across the countries presented. Nevertheless, only in the Flemish Community of Belgium and Chile did more than 10% of students who started in a general programme ultimately graduate from the vocational track (Figure 4.8 Panel A). While it is possible to view such a transition as a stronger match between student interest and programme, many countries use a “waterfall” system such as this as a justification for failing to support struggling students in general programmes. As students experience failure in general settings, they may be pushed into low-opportunity vocational tracks. In this light, the low rate of transfers from general to vocational pathways can be considered a relative success. On the other hand, where vocational programmes can still lead to access to higher education (e.g. Austria) and good labour market opportunities, higher rates of transition from the general to vocational track may also signify success in addressing the risk of students otherwise dropping out from education altogether.

### Co-ordinating pathways for mainstream and special needs education

Historically, school opportunities for students with SEN have been limited in OECD countries. Prior to the 1970s, students with moderate or severe SEN were typically excluded entirely from school. Minimal supports existed for students with mild- or moderate SEN in mainstream settings, and they were often tracked into low-skills classes, having significantly lower levels of educational attainment (Shapiro, 1993[102]). In the worst cases, children with disabilities were relegated to overcrowded, abusive and unsanitary institutions (Fisher, 1997[103]). Over the past 40 years, at varying rates and accelerated by international efforts such as the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, countries have recognised the moral imperative to provide equal educational opportunities to students with SEN (see Box 4.5 for an example from the Flemish Community of Belgium) (OECD, 2017[104]).

### Box 4.5. Reforming special education provision in the Flemish Community of Belgium

After the Flemish Parliament ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2009, the Flemish Community legally reinforced the right of students with special educational needs to be enrolled in mainstream education, through the passing of the M-Decree in 2014, with measures that included:

* Updating the definition categories for special needs students, including a category for children with autism.

* Requiring mainstream schools to make reasonable adjustments, such as providing specialist equipment and support staff to accommodate special needs students in the mainstream system, and requiring mainstream schools to only refer a student to special needs education once all such “reasonable adaptations” have been tried.

* Providing parents of a child with special educational needs who disagree with a school's refusal to enrol their child with the right to appeal to a Student Rights Commission (*Commissie inzake leerlingenrechten* or CLR). This commission is comprised of experts in equality and education law and was created by the Parliamentary Act of 2002 on Equal Educational Opportunities.
The measures imposed in the M-Decree were implemented in 2015/16, and national sources indicate an already noticeable decrease in the number of primary students in special needs education in the first school year under the new measures (Department of Education and Training et al., 2017[105]).

Source: OECD (2017), Education Policy Outlook: Belgium, OECD Publishing, Paris, available at: www.oecd.org/edu/profiles.htm.

In 2015, the UN's adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 underlined this imperative in its Goal 4: "ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all". Consequently, countries have set themselves the target to "build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all" and to ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations, by 2030 (United Nations, 2015[106]).

Recently, empirical evidence has added to the ethical argument for inclusion as it has demonstrated improved academic and life outcomes from educating students with SEN in the least restrictive environments while providing additional supports (Hanushek, Kain and Rivkin, 2002[107]). In some cases, however, education systems have used special needs education as a catch-all to respond to educational difficulties for some students, resulting in the over-identification of racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students and boys (Losen and Orfield, 2002[108]; Harry and Klingner, 2006[109]).

Due to substantial differences in how countries classify students with SEN, internationally comparative data is difficult to collect. The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 data includes 26 countries where more than 5% of principals reported that their schools comprise a population of students with SEN of at least 10%. Teachers working in these schools educating a substantial proportion of SEN students represented an average of 26% of the countries' total teaching populations (OECD, 2014[110]).

The decision about the setting in which to educate students with SEN is a highly complex one. The causal evidence does not generally show harm to SEN students, or their general education peers, by including them in mainstream settings (Hanushek, Kain and Rivkin, 2002[107]; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009[111]). However, neither does it show consistent benefits. Analysis using TALIS 2013 data suggests that where there are more students with disabilities included in mainstream settings, greater classroom disruptions occur and teachers spend less time teaching and more time correcting student behaviour (Cooc, 2018[112]). This accords with evidence from the United States context suggesting negative peer effects and increased teacher turnover associated with the inclusion of students with an emotional or behavioural challenges (Gilmour, 2018[113]). Additionally, every student has an individualised range of specific supports and environments in which he or she will experience the most educational success. Further complicating comparative analysis is that the categorisation of students with SEN is highly idiosyncratic within countries, let alone in cross-country samples. Nevertheless, it is instructive to note that there is an enormous spread in the proportion of SEN students who are fully included in mainstream settings.
As increasing numbers of SEN students are educated in mainstream settings, education systems must make significant investments and build capacity in mainstream schools to meet the needs of students with SEN. Schools are often not physically designed to be accessible to all SEN students. Finally, and most critically, teachers in the TALIS surveys indicate significant levels of discomfort and lack of experience in working with students with SEN (OECD, 2014[110]), necessitating meaningful embedded professional development to create more welcoming and productive classrooms for students with special needs.

*School systems struggle to properly identify, resource and integrate students with SEN*

As noted above, the rate at which School Resources Review countries identify and include students with SEN in mainstream settings varies widely. Lithuania, for example, has an official SEN identification rate of 11%, more than three times that of Uruguay at 3%. Even when countries have relatively similar rates of SEN identification, the setting (general or special needs-specific schools) in which they educate those students can vary (see Table 4.1).

These discrepant rates of special needs identification and inclusion are a product of differing statutory, regulatory, cultural and demographic conditions. Some countries have mandates imposing upon school systems a legal obligation to identify cases of SEN in their student population and requiring schools to educate students with SEN in the most mainstream setting possible. For instance, in the Czech Republic, there exist five legally defined categories of disability. According to Decree No. 72/2005, a team of “school advisors” (a team of psychologists, social workers and pedagogical staff established and overseen by the National Institute for Education) is responsible for identifying and providing services to students with SEN. Critically, if the school advisory team provides a professional evaluation of disability, the student’s parents or guardians are consulted and have a veto power over the child’s placement in a separate setting (Shewbridge et al., 2016[71]). However, in 10 of the 12 completed School Resource Reviews countries, these requirements to educate substantial proportions of students in mainstream settings either do not exist or have only been instituted in the previous 15 years. Thus, there is a limited evidence and knowledge base built around long-term inclusion practices.

As a result of the differing standards for identification, cross-country differences in identification rates are difficult to interpret, particularly as they relates to “softer” categories of special needs (Categories C, I, J, K, L and M in Chart 3.1 in the OECD’s comparative classification system (OECD, 2005[114]). For instance, low rates of identification of “K. Severe and/or Moderate Learning Problems” could be indicative of effective early intervention programming that prevents students from falling behind, or it could be due to neglect in identifying these learning problems. Similarly, high rates of inclusion could be indicative of a school system that has successfully promoted equitable practices, or it could be a cost-saving effort providing minimal supports and weak outcomes for struggling students.

In fact, in the majority of the OECD review countries, the ministries of education reported concerns around incentives built into funding formula provisions for special education students to retain students in separate schools. Indeed, in several OECD review countries, the overall secondary school populations are declining while the enrolment in special needs schools has remained consistent, with growing shares of students educated in these separate settings. Additionally, educators working in separate schools may only have qualifications to work in these settings, or may only work without qualifications in special education
schools. Educators in this situation may feel pressured to identify more students as disabled and requiring separate schooling in order to retain their positions. Non-transferable licenses also prevent reallocation of these teachers in the event of school consolidations.

As with most OECD countries and partner nations, OECD review countries struggle to avoid inaccurately identifying students who are simply struggling in school or suffer from other societal disadvantages as having special needs. Some of the OECD review countries have disproportionate rates of special needs identification for low-income, immigrant and ethnic populations (particularly Roma). Despite legal provisions in Austria, for example, against labelling a students as having a SEN simply due to unsatisfactory achievement, this continues to be an issue when students show learning problems, especially when they are also migrants (Bruneforth and Lassnigg, 2012[115]). Box 4.6 describes some of these cultural biases and other barriers to successful integration of SEN students in more detail.

Misidentification may be stigmatising, result in lowered expectations or inappropriate types of support for the affected student. It also has negative externalities on the entire education system. The costs of educating students with SEN are high and resources may be inaccurately channelled to some students at the expense of others.

What is without question is that international evidence indicates that teachers and school leaders do not feel prepared to meet the needs of students with SEN. Almost half of teachers in TALIS have a principal who reports working in a school where “a shortage of teachers with competencies in teaching students with special needs” hinders the school’s capacity to provide quality instruction (OECD, 2014, p. 47 Figure 2.6[110]). Only about a quarter of TALIS teachers report having participated in professional development in the past 12 months that had “a large” or “moderate” positive impact on their teaching of students with special needs (OECD, 2014, p. 106 Figure 4.12[110]). However, the single highest-need topic of professional development for TALIS teachers was teaching students with special needs (OECD, 2014, p. 109 Figure 4.14[110]).

Despite the expressed need educators report for expertise in serving SEN students, the results from the TALIS survey indicate that there are fewer experienced teachers (more than 5 years of teaching) in schools where more than 10% of students have special needs (OECD, 2014, p. 41 Figure 2.4b[110]). Thus, consistent with other similar evidence, school networks struggle to effectively distribute skilled (or, minimally, experienced) teachers to the students who need them the most.
### Box 4.6. Cultural barriers to the inclusion of SEN students

In addition to the policy and practice barriers to successful integration documented in this report, OECD country review teams consistently heard concerns in country background reports and in interviews with stakeholders that there exist persistent cultural biases against the integration of students with SEN in mainstream settings. This accords with practitioner interview research on this topic (Skiba et al., 2006[117]).

Given the spectrum of ability within each SEN category, this can result in special education evaluation teams assigning students to a separate class or school even if the severity of the student's special educational need does not preclude them from a general education setting. Since each presentation of learning disability or difficulty is so unique and contextual, there are few ways to correct this through a document review or inspectorate process.

These cultural biases can distort the intended effects of inclusion policies even when SEN students are nominally placed in general education classes. For example, a classroom that is designed to be inclusive by policy may have two teachers: one responsible for general education students, the other for SEN students. They can be in the same physical space, but be working towards entirely different learning objectives and organised in groups that interact only minimally with each other.

**Strategies to overcome cultural barriers to inclusion:**

* Advocacy on the part of system leaders for attitudinal changes.

* Professional development to build educators' self-belief and efficacy in working with this population of students.

* Time and protocols for special needs and subject-area teachers to collaborate during the school day to design fully inclusive lessons.

* Inspectorate monitoring reviews to ensure that legal requirements for inclusion are followed both in the letter of the law and in its spirit.

Source: Skiba, R. et al. 2006, *The Context of Minority Disproportionality: Practitioner Perspectives on Special Education Referral, Teachers College Record*, Vol. 108/7, pp. 1424-1459.

### *Standards, procedures and training for the identification of SEN students*

Several OECD review countries have enacted recent legislative reforms to improve the identification process to avoid under-, over- or misidentification. In June 2015, the Slovak Republic passed an amendment to the School Act which defines criteria for placement for students with special educational needs. It precludes students from being assigned to special classes or schools based on socio-economic disadvantage and limits assignment to such a setting for students with a medical disability. The amendment also mandates that the Slovak State Schools Inspectorate monitor the organisations responsible for managing identification (Pedagogical and Psychological Consulting and Prevention Centres). The Inspectorate may require corrective actions from the Centres and impose sanctions if their identification practices result in over-identification or excessive exclusion of socially disadvantaged groups (Santiago et al., 2016[11]).

To support these appropriate identification standards, funding formulas must avoid creating perverse incentives to over-identify students or place them in more restrictive settings. This could mean equalising weighted per-student allocations across placements and
differentiating them based on the objectively defined category of disability or special educational need.

In addition to providing legal guidance for identification, clear protocols for how teams of educators and health professionals recognise students’ special needs help avoid misidentification. In fact, in one sample of schools in Chile, more than 30% of schools designed their own protocols for detecting learning disabilities (Marfán et al., 2013[118]). This makes it difficult to gain a precise understanding of students’ educational needs and may lead to a misidentification resulting in inappropriate kinds of support being offered.

Developing standardised protocols to be used in evaluation meetings can ensure that all actors (student, family, teachers, school leaders, social workers, guidance counsellors, psychologists, health professionals and others) have appropriate voice in the decision making. Additionally, these protocols can ensure all students have access to appropriate testing and evaluation procedures. Finally, these protocols can mandate the collection of data that facilitate agencies that monitor whether all steps of the evaluation process have been taken and potential differentials in identification by student demographic background (Santiago et al., 2017[117]).

With the support of these protocols, it is critical to assemble the appropriate collection of stakeholders to determine a students’ need for special education services and his or her most appropriate educational placement. Students of different socio-economic backgrounds have differential access to mental and physical health personnel which can result in under- (and sometimes over-) identification in certain communities. Timely identification and provision of services to socio-economically vulnerable children depends on access to healthcare professionals. At the same time, teachers and other educators who observe students every day in classes can have more in-depth and extensive insights than a health professional who may observe a child sporadically in a clinical setting (Fletcher and Vaughn, 2009[120]). This may be particularly true in situations in which the child’s special educational need may be informed by his status as a language learner (Ortiz et al., 2011[121]). Thus, all perspectives are critical to the evaluation process.

However, as evidenced in TALIS 2013, at least a quarter of mainstream and special education teachers feel they need additional professional development to understand and meet the needs of students with SEN. Appropriate training for educators to effectively participate in the evaluation and identification process can improve the quality of these practices.

## Integration of mainstream and SEN schools and staff

To ensure that investments into appropriate identification and integrated learning improve educational opportunities for SEN students not only in terms of access but also quality, attention should be paid to both the inclusion of special needs students, as well as the specialised materials, human resources and skills required to serve students with SEN. In order to benefit from the resources and experience of SEN schools and staff, OECD review countries have used a variety of strategies to create synergies between the two sectors. This can take structural forms such as physically siting special needs schools in the same building as mainstream school to provide opportunities for SEN students to take more classes in general education settings. It can also involve efforts to build professional connections between mainstream and special educators, and to encourage teachers with special education expertise to coach their colleagues. Finally, any efforts to mainstream special education students will require a reallocation of human and physical resources. This can be a budget neutral proposition (or even result in some cost savings if special education
schools are closed), but it does require an increase in the level of resources targeted towards mainstream schools for the purposes of SEN.

In some countries such as the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, special education schools are governed by different authorities than mainstream schools. In addition to the difficulties this creates in monitoring school quality, licensing teachers, co-ordinating resources, and the creation of staff development plans, different governance structures make partial integration of students difficult. For instance, students in the two systems might be on a different daily schedule, so having them travel between schools would be difficult. Without a common oversight body, adjusting schedules would require negotiations across the two schools and systems.

To promote learning by and between SEN and mainstream staff, several countries have developed centres devoted to special needs capacity development. In Estonia, regional support centres (called “Pathfinder Centres”) provide services to students, parents, teachers and schools to support children with special educational needs. This might include the provision of speech therapists, special education teachers, social pedagogues and psychologists (Santiago et al., 2016[56]). Similarly, the Czech Republic has four regional “pedagogical advisory centres” that provide support to the school advisory facilities in the identification of and support for students with disabilities (Categories 2 through 5) (Shewbridge et al., 2016[71]). Danish special education service organisations like VISO (Videns- og Specialrådgivningsorganisation – Specialised Knowledge and Counselling Organisation) and municipal PPRs (Paedagogisk Psykologisk Rådgivning – Local Educational-Psychological Advisory Services) play key roles in facilitating the inclusion process in mainstream schools (Nusche et al., 2016[70]). These types of centres can be responsible for the provision of sequences of professional development courses, add-on special needs licenses for subject-area teachers, and curriculum to facilitate integration. In Portugal, specialised support to students with SEN within schools is complemented by a network of 93 specialised resources centres for inclusion (centros de recursos para a inclusão – CRI) and 25 ICT resource centres for special education spread across the country. The resource centres are designed to support the inclusion of children with disabilities, build partnerships with local actors and facilitate the access of students with SEN to different activities (Liebowitz et al., 2018[74]).

In New Zealand, schools have worked together in Communities of Learning (Kāhui Ako) to develop a Learning Support Service Delivery model where multiple stakeholders contribute to the services that children receive. Specialists, teachers, resource providers and others collaborate to follow a six-point approach: (i) family and extended family (whānau) connections; (ii) individualised child educational plans with goals and supports required to meet them; (iii) flexible support services; (iv) increased co-ordination of services cross providers; (v) use of data to identify successful interventions; and (vi) the use of a facilitator to ensure all parties are able to co-operate and work together. New Zealand has attempted this integrated approach in one region, and is gradually extending it nationwide. Additionally, New Zealand has developed an Inclusive Education website that provides schools, leaders and teachers concrete resources to help with inclusive practices ranging from language-based strategies to initiate cultural shifts to classroom strategies to make curricular material more accessible to all students (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2018[122]). Nevertheless, continuing to develop teacher capacity to support the needs of students with SEN remains an ongoing policy priority in New Zealand.

Promoting collaboration between mainstream and special education staff requires schools and networks to dedicate time during teachers’ contractual days and develop protocols to
effectively guide the process. Dedicated regional support centres can play a role in creating teacher professional learning team protocols, modelling effective team-taught lessons, writing curriculum to promote integration, and creating teacher schedules that provide collaboration time.

## Funding robust inclusion systems

The integration of SEN students requires time and short-term resource investments, although cost savings may be achieved in the long run. To improve the provision of services for children and youth with permanent SEN and the quality of education for these students, authorities should make sure that schools which enrol and retain SEN students have the resources, as well as incentives in place to serve these students. Funding approaches must recognise the additional investments needed to provide an inclusive education to students with SEN in terms of infrastructure, educational materials and human resources.

Increasing the capacity of mainstream schools to provide integrated instruction may require infrastructure adjustments including additional classrooms for pull-out options in mainstream schools and the conversion of some special schools into resource centres supporting the integrated work of mainstream schools. This may also involve refitting some special schools to serve mainstream and integrated populations of SEN students (Nusche et al., 2015[55]). Some school systems have particular holes in their apportionment of special education funds. For instance, Estonia and Portugal were particularly under-staffed in special education teachers and teaching assistants to support mainstream inclusion (Santiago et al., 2016[56]; Liebowitz et al., 2018[74]). These types of staffing shortfalls may require the development of a funding formula with additional weighting for the education of special needs students in mainstream settings, the re-calculation of the appropriate coefficient for this additional weight for students at different levels of special needs, the reapportionment of staffing from more costly special schools to mainstream settings, or some combination of these three depending on the country context.

As one example of a country policy to ensure that additional funds for special education are effectively used, Chile requires schools that receive specialised grants for inclusion provide a rigorous investment plan detailing how the funds will be invested in resources that directly benefit students with special needs, including teachers or specialists, teacher training, teaching materials, diagnostics, co-ordination or collaborative work between specialists and teachers (Marfán et al., 2013[118]).

## Accountability and flexibility in the use of SEN funding

In order to effectively integrate SEN children in mainstream schools and classroom, care must be taken in how funding is allocated and monitored for these purposes. Schools are often resource constrained and attention must be paid to ensure that these funds are not re-purposed for general education. At the same time, the categorical nature of these funds should not prevent schools from using funds such as these for the purposes of intervening with students who face the same learning difficulties as SEN students but have not (yet) being identified as such. In some contexts, for example, students without explicit learning disabilities are prohibited from participating in reading or mathematics support classes if students are part of the school's special education programme, even if these other students would benefit from them.

School actors would often like to be able to use some of their targeted SEN funds to provide intensive support to struggling students to prevent them from needing to experience
complete failure before they can receive additional support. This sort of an approach is justified by the educational research literature on the Response to Intervention (RtI) strategy (RTI Action Network, (n.d.)[123]), but often not supported in practice due to constraints on how special education funding can be spent.

In the United States, policymakers attuned to this situation provide for two side-by-side solutions. First, school districts operating a school receiving categorical funding for a high-incidence of low-income students may combine their special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) with their compensatory programming for low-income children to design a school-wide system of remediation (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004, p. §300.613[124]). There are limits on the total amount of special education funds that a sub-national school district can provide to a school for that purpose, depending on the total number of students with SEN enrolled in the school, but this program ensures that schools and school districts can use their special education funds in a flexible way to address all needs, while maintaining services for students with SEN. Secondly, school districts with a history of over-identifying sub-populations of students may be required, and others may choose, to use up to 15% of their special education funds for Comprehensive Co-ordinated Early Intervention Services (CEIS) that provide intervention programming intended to limit the number of students identified for special education placement (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2004, p. §300.646[124]). Nevertheless, there is wide variability in states' and districts' use of these opportunities, ranging from 0% of eligible districts taking advantage of this provision in several states to over 64% in Louisiana (U.S. Department of Education, 2016, pp. 270-1[125]). Thus significantly more must be done to ensure that appropriate guidance, incentives and capacity building are in place to promote early intervention to minimise over-identification.

*Supporting the transition of students with SEN into independent lives and work after school*

Students with SEN have substantially worse levels of educational attainment and labour market participation rates than peers without special needs. Their long-term rates of employment, wages, post-secondary education attainment, residential independence and other indicators are lower than their general education peers (Blackorby and Wagner, 1996[126]). Though their experience in some contexts has improved in recent years, including their level of community and civic engagement (e.g. seeing friends, voting), their post-secondary experiences generally measure worse than their peers (Newman et al., 2011[127]). This challenge speaks to the inter-connected dimension of horizontal and vertical transitions. Students entering the special education pathway sometimes struggle with transitioning to a parallel system, as well as from one level of education to the next and further into the world of independent living.

Though few school systems explicitly plan for transition activities after the age of compulsory education, these strategies hold promise. Participation in post-schooling transition planning programmes increased rates of post-secondary enrolment for youth with autism spectrum disorders (Wei et al., 2016[128]; Chiang et al., 2012[129]). Transitional activities improve functional independence (Wagner et al., 2005[130]; Carter, Austin and Trainor, 2012[131]), post-secondary attainment and employment (Shattuck et al., 2012[132]).
*Minimal standards to ensure access to school for special needs children*

Some OECD review countries are substantially further behind in meeting the basic requirements of identification and service provision. In some cases, they fail to identify many students with SEN. In others, they educate all but a handful of students with SEN in entirely separated facilities. In the most serious cases, they fail to provide any schooling options to some categories of students with SEN beyond the primary years. In these situations, countries must develop a comprehensive strategy that includes: i) categories of special needs and a definition of educational success or goals for students in each of the categories; ii) mechanisms to identify students with special needs; iii) a shared reflection process about the role of special schools with respect to the mainstream setting; and iv) a significant increase in the resources allocated for special education services.

**4.4. Policy options**

*Ease students' vertical transitions across school years and levels through effective co-ordination and targeted support*

*Provide incentives for collaboration and transitions across levels of education*

Well-designed pathways through all levels of schooling and into the workforce can help young people develop as human beings and gainfully transition to adult life. Smooth transitions facilitate human capital development, ease entry into the labour market, and reduce costs associated with youth unemployment and worse health outcomes for under-educated adults.

Enhancing the co-ordination between different levels of education yields several efficiency and quality improvements. First, it facilitates resource sharing between school providers, especially when incentives for joint provision are aligned with the goals of each individual school. Ensuring the conditions for reaching agreements across schools specialised in providing different levels of education incentivises sharing of facilities and materials. Second, it fosters greater co-ordination for articulating the curricular and pedagogical offer, facilitating the progression of students throughout the system and helping them to integrate skills and capacities acquired at each level of education.

Ensuring that the curricular sequence progresses smoothly from the initial stages of children's development to completion of upper secondary education helps students successfully move from year to year and minimises reasons to drop out of school. The transition to primary school can be challenging for children faced with the need to adapt to a new environment, with new daily routines. Especially in systems where ECEC has formal learning curricula, co-operation between pre-school and primary school providers can help smooth this transition. This may entail the provision of multiple levels in integrated schools or the exploration of common pedagogical strategies and efficiency gains through organisation into school clusters.

At higher levels of education, and particularly in education systems with early separation of education pathways, it is important to guarantee that the curriculum of less academically-oriented tracks flows smoothly from lower to post-secondary education. Building a shared vision of purpose for all strands and tracks helps providers of different levels of education to explore common curricular options and ensure a continuum of curricular offer.
Policymakers should address the relevant curricular options in consultation with stakeholders and reflect on the appropriate configuration of years and levels of education. Such configuration affects the extent to which services, facilities and materials can be efficiently shared. Greater scale in provision and having curricular options based on shared goals can yield greater school network collaboration and richer learning environments.

*Provide effective alternatives to year repetition*

School systems can minimise inappropriate year repetition through: i) robust early warning indicators, ii) careful, standardised screening processes, iii) individualised, targeted support, iv) “conditional promotion” practices, and v) symbolic guidance from system leaders and public data reporting intended to shift cultural attitudes around grade repetition practices.

Identifying the contextually specific indicators that are simultaneously highly predictive of year repetition and easy for all stakeholders to interpret is a critical first step to intervening early. This may require building data systems that can track in an integrated fashion student attendance, course marks and behaviour. Once these data systems are built, educational professionals at the school level must be trained to interpret their outputs and design a standardised response protocol.

When students are identified as “at risk” as a result of early warning indicators, they should receive immediate additional help in the form of individualised coaching and extra remedial help both within- and outside of the standard school day. The impact of the coaching and additional academic help should be regularly progress-monitored to assess its effectiveness. For the coaching intervention, this can be accomplished through regular surveys of students’ attitudes towards school or sense of self-efficacy. For academic support, short-term monitoring of student grades and exam scores is critical. Adjustments can then be made following these interim progress checks.

If despite intensive intervention, students continue to struggle to demonstrate competency on year-level skills, there may be some students for whom year repetition can be helpful. Employing a culturally relevant screening tool that is validated by comparing recommendations of year repetition to subsequent outcomes and tested for bias in its application is critical to ensure that choices to retain a student in year are done so with the expectation that this decision will benefit the student and are not systematically influenced by cultural biases. Furthermore, school systems can shift away from understanding the year repetition decision as a binary choice. Particularly in higher years, students can be required to take, for example, a prior-year mathematics course in place of an enrichment activity if this is the subject in which they have struggled, rather than repeating the entire previous year. With thoughtful student scheduling, this approach can be implemented at earlier year levels as well.

Finally, in many countries, educators and the public see year repetition as a valuable tool to maintain high standards and there are deep cultural concerns around lessening its practice and the impact it may have on students’ sense of personal accountability. In order to allay these concerns and challenge misconceptions of the effects of year repetition, system leaders must publicly present data on the outcomes of year repetition and take strong public stances against its widespread practice. Only through such leadership will long-standing practices shift over time.
*Guarantee appropriate student guidance and counselling, informed by latest insights in behavioural science*

Students' education pathways are marked by crucial decisions at key transition points. Failing to support students in such significant moments yields several costs, as the consequences of sub-optimal choices impact both the individual and society. Especially in systems with early tracking, students must be adequately supported in selecting the educational pathway that does not unduly limit their ability to make different pathway choices as their individual interests, aspirations and competencies clarify themselves over time. Progression from lower to upper secondary education is a crucial transition point. Typically, common curricular paths are separated into different streams and tracks in the progression to upper secondary education. Student counselling is key to help students navigate the set of available options.

Moments of transitions from upper secondary education to post-secondary education and the labour market are also critical. In some cases, students are unaware of their academic or financial eligibility for tertiary education opportunities. Students' socio-economic background frequently plays a role not only on their ability to financially invest in post-secondary education, including the opportunity costs of not working, but also in their lack of exposure to the necessary qualifications for entry. Students must have adequate information on their post-secondary education options, as well as on the processes for application and enrolment.

Educational authorities should consider the appropriate frameworks for the certification of counsellors who can support students at these critical moments. Advice to students should rely not only on appropriate assessments of student interest but also on future tertiary education and labour market prospects of their choices. Counsellors must also be supported to interpret the course offer in post-secondary education, as well as labour market trends to inform their advice.

Unfortunately, in many contexts, barriers such as complex application and financial support forms, enrolment deadlines, and other logistic concerns prove limiting to students who lack family members or other connections who have already navigated these processes and can guide them through. As a result, even high achieving students may fail to enrol in their best matched post-secondary institution (Hoxby and Avery, 2013[16]).

A first, though costly, investment is to ensure that sufficient guidance counsellors exist and that they are effectively distributed throughout the education system. In the context of constrained resources, investing in guidance counsellors, ensuring their availability in both lower and upper secondary, and disproportionately assigning them to schools with concentrations of high-needs students is a first step.

Complementary strategies, informed by insights of behavioural science, can accomplish similar outcomes at a much lower cost. Systems can provide clear information on post-secondary options, remove unnecessary bureaucratic barriers, and repeatedly remind students of the steps to take to complete their enrolment. These interventions can have major impacts with minimal resource investment.

*Use data-tracking systems to develop early warning indicators for students at risk of repeating years and/or dropping out of school*

A critical factor preventing many school systems from intervening early and effectively with at-risk students is a failure to systematically identify them early, before their struggles are so pronounced as to minimise the efficacy of interventions. Some profiles of students
who risk repeating a year or dropping out of school are obvious for school staff to identify: students who are frequently disruptive, refuse to complete work and fail examinations. There are, however, other profiles of quieter struggles: students who attempt to avoid being noticed, students who produce the minimal required work at low levels of proficiency, and so on. Designing a comprehensive system to identify all students who are at risk requires robust data systems that are regularly used by school staff.

As a first step, ensuring that each student has a unique identifier that can be tracked across schools and networks is critical to follow highly mobile students who are at significant risk. Second, combining educator expertise with empirical analysis to identify the factors that are most predictive of students failing a course, repeating a year and dropping out of school can clarify which are the key indicators to track. In some contexts, these results can run counter to accepted wisdom. For instance, in the United States context, school attendance, course marks, and behavioural conduct are much stronger predictors of school completion than external test scores (see Box 4.1).

Once countries have built data infrastructure systems and agreed on which indicators to track, extensive training of school personnel (teachers, counsellors and school leaders) must take place to ensure that they both understand the meaning of the early warning indicators and believe in their value. For school staff to see value in this data, clear steps for intervention must exist. This might include targeted small-group teaching and counselling sessions or references to social service providers. The key is a clear protocol for what happens when students are flagged as in need, and then a system to track and ensure that these interventions have, in fact, occurred.

The last step to ensure that the data-tracking system has meaningful impacts is to periodically review the intervention impacts at the school and system levels. This involves analysing trends in early warning indicators across types of students and schools, comparing students' outcomes on the early warning indicators before and after the interventions to track individual growth, as well as more formal evaluation studies using regression discontinuity or matched student to identify the causal effects of the interventions. These types of analyses permit review of areas in which students or schools need extra support, an assessment of the efficacy of specific types of interventions, and an overall evaluation of the programme.

*Invest in complementary second chance and early acceleration programmes to re-engage struggling learners and minimise school dropout*

Second chance and early acceleration programmes are specific types of interventions for students who have struggled or are struggling to make successful transitions through secondary education and into post-secondary education and the labour market. These differ in substance from the previous types of interventions as they provide a different curriculum and schooling structure to re-engage students, rather than aiming to better support students in the common curriculum.

These two types of programmes tackle the problem in substantially different ways. The classical way of addressing students who have dropped out of school, but later express interest in gaining skills and credentials at the secondary level as adults, is the second-chance programme. Second-chance programmes can tackle skill gaps and school failure in a variety of ways including literacy and numeracy remediation, course repetition through online or in-person classes, or test-based competency demonstrations.
While there is evident potential for benefits from a second-chance system, it may also
induce students to dropout at earlier ages if they know they can always re-enrol (Field,
Kuczera and Pont, 2007[39]). Additionally, the quality and rigour of these second-chance
courses are often low (Kohli, 2017[53]), which may mean that employers discount the value
of a second-chance credential as it implies no additional skill acquisition on the part of the
student. Thus, careful attention must be paid to the timing of the offer of second-chance
programmes to students, the standards of the course materials, and the qualifications of the
instructors.

An alternative to the traditional second-chance programme is that one that seeks to alter a student's trajectory before she experiences failure in the first place. School systems can use predictive data to identify students who are at risk of dropping out and intervene before it occurs. These types of early intervention programmes are often premised on an idea of acceleration rather than remediation. Though such strategies assume a variety of models, a common structure involves providing students with the opportunity to earn tertiary credits and credentials while enrolled in secondary school, and often with the opportunity for embedded employer internships. Students are assigned professional mentors, visit multiple workplace environments on learning missions, and access paid or unpaid internships. In some cases, graduates from these early acceleration programmes are given priority in job opportunities with partner private employers.

*Ensure greater fluidity in students' horizontal transitions and the coherence of the educational offer*

*Limit the dispersal of educational options as a resource saving opportunity and leverage models that better meet individualised student demand*

The type of opportunities that families and students want from schools is growing all the
time, and schools are responding by offering increasingly diverse choices. While students
and families demand more customisation, school providers sometimes struggle to adapt and
fit the curricula according to the specific options that families seek. This can be due to
constraints on the number of highly trained teachers in a particular sub-field of study, or the
high costs of building and maintaining multiple high-quality facilities such as a school
theatre, chemical laboratories, art studios etc.

Limiting the diversity of educational strands may be an opportunity to free resources up to
invest in fewer, higher-quality options. In concrete terms, this may mean that smaller
schools do not offer multiple educational pathways, and instead leverage blended-learning
models to provide both quality core general and vocational curricula, alongside customised
online learning options. Decisions would be made at a higher organisational level (national
or sub-national). This would require stakeholder involvement to ensure that these decisions
were well-informed and may involve difficult trade-offs and decisions running counter to
the interests of some groups.

Educational authorities, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, should reflect on the
adequate balance between quality and variety. In particular, reforms to the curricular
structure and the existing educational offer should ensure that each educational strand
meets broadly agreed-upon student needs. Where the organisation of the educational offer
is planned at sub-central levels of governance, it is important to couple the authority to
consolidate programmes with greater local flexibility in resource distribution. Combining
these two authorities allows decisions to be made without worry that ending a particular
educational pathway will result in fewer overall resources, or that newly created,
labour-market relevant pathways receive insufficient support (OECD, 2017[93]). Aligning financial and human resource incentives with curricular pathway rationalisation is critical for effective implementation.

*Reflect on effective alternatives to early tracking*

Early tracking of students is a common feature of various OECD education systems. However, international evidence suggests the adverse effects of selecting students to different education streams at an early age. Importantly, the socio-economic background of students is often a significant factor for selection into different tracks. Separation into different streams at an early age often prevents students from maximising their potential, especially when admission into less academically oriented tracks entails less stimulating learning environments. As children develop their capacities at different rates, education systems should flexibly adapt to such differentiated needs. Therefore, delaying the age of first tracking has the potential to allow students to cognitively and socio-emotionally mature and enter the most challenging pathway they can successfully complete.

Where delaying the age of tracking is politically infeasible or undesired, education authorities should consider alternative policies to attenuate its potentially negative effects. Some education systems have been moving towards greater integration in the provision of general, accelerated, pre-vocational and vocational tracks into the same lower and upper secondary schools. Even with early selection, integrated schools providing multiple pathways may generate both better outcomes and free resources to invest in other priorities.

Integrating elements of vocational and general education can create synergies and raise students' awareness of the merits of each of the tracks. Through mingling with peers enrolled in different tracks but in the same school, students also enjoy greater opportunities to observe, experience or be aware of other learning environments. Integrated school settings may also attenuate the impact of socio-economic differences as integrated schools can lead to more fluid transitions for students.

An integrated approach also allows for a more modular approach to tracking where students may pursue different types of applied versus theoretical learning depending on the subject area. Combining this modular approach with intensive counselling (see previous policy recommendation) surrounding selection and admission of students into different tracks can allow students to test out multiple types of courses and pathways before making a supported decision about which direction to pursue.

Such integration of services thus enables a more coherent organisation of educational planning for improved progression throughout the school system. As promising as these integrated approaches may appear, it is important to design them in such a way as to not create a two-tiered school in which some tracks are seen as less prestigious and inferior to the general programme. Counteracting this dominant perception with investments in state-of-the-art facilities and vocal leadership on the benefits of applied learning can help to mitigate these concerns.
## Promote strong VET programmes and facilitate their students' horizontal transitions

*Use labour market forecasting and local industry consultation to govern the vocational offer and better match supply to labour market needs*

Consultations with employers and workers' representatives are important to get a pulse of how labour market actors perceive the skills of the new entrants and project future skills that will be needed. In addition to the qualitative perspective of stakeholders, effective tools for the forecast of skills demand and supply should also be in place to provide evidence-based guidance to educational authorities.

These forecasting processes should be based on high-quality data, including both learning and labour market outcomes. They should be as local or regional as possible, while also considering overall country and international economic trends.

There are at least two critical features of successfully aligning labour market projections with VET programmes: i) convening broad stakeholder groups in some form of Council and providing them with high-quality data on the future of employment; and ii) assigning these Councils with meaningful authority to open, consolidate, shift and otherwise plan the network of the VET offer. Examples such as those found in Austria, Germany, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland can be adapted to fit the particular profile of other countries.

*Ensure that the vocational pathway has a well-defined profile while ensuring the development of transferable skills*

VET systems are widespread across OECD countries. However, while some education systems limit VET to post-secondary levels others offer it as early as lower secondary education. Whether at the lower secondary or post-secondary levels, several countries struggle with the poor reputation of VET schooling. Vocational pathways are costly and often have higher rates of student dropout. VET is also often regarded as a lesser version of the academically-oriented tracks. Policymakers should thus reflect on the strategies to improve the status of VET programmes. Vocational programming should have a well-defined profile, broadly agreed upon by stakeholders, in order to confer it purpose and esteem. The goals of vocational and general tracks should thus be strictly defined and well understood among all educational stakeholders. Other strategies that can contribute to more positive perception of VET programming among stakeholders include: clearly publicising the value of the VET certification in the labour market, investing in high-quality facilities and equipment, attracting high-profile employers to partner with VET programmes, opening the culture of VET schools and programmes to allow students and families to visit and tour their operations from an early age and including first-hand experience in working environments (see policy recommendation on work-based learning).

Nevertheless, clearly differentiating the profile of VET from that of general education does not necessarily imply a complete separation of their curricula. In light of recent developments in labour markets, educational authorities should aim to strike a balance between an adequate provision of transferable skills with specialised know-how in vocational curricula. In particular, they should ensure that core academic skills – such as literacy and numeracy – are built into vocational programmes. An important consideration in the planning of vocational programmes is whether the skills students are learning will serve them only in the short-term or will allow them to learn and grow in an evolving
labour market. An excessive focus on developing specific “employability” skills at an early age risks limiting students’ options to specific jobs that may not exist later in their careers.

Policymakers should also consider incentivising the use of innovative pedagogical approaches to include transferable skills in practical subjects. Hands-on and practical application of theoretical knowledge in vocational programmes may be a way of appealing to students at risk of dropping out, without jeopardising the acquisition of crucial general skills.

National qualification frameworks, systematic frameworks of study and skill verification confirming students’ eligibility for jobs in fields with labour market demand, can reduce fragmentation in the educational offer and provide a basis for steering the provision to match students to jobs. Developing qualification frameworks which are nationally consistent and agreed among the different stakeholders – in particular, employers and workers – is critical. This includes keeping the total number of qualifications manageable, while permitting enough flexibility to meet the local conditions.

*Reduce barriers to students' mobility across tracks and ease transitions from VET to tertiary education*

Having clear goals and a unique profile for vocational programmes should not compromise students’ mobility across tracks and the choice of a vocational programme in lower- or upper secondary education should not deter students from progressing to tertiary education. While many countries, in principle, allow students to move across educational pathways, the actual rate at which this occurs is relatively negligible in most school systems.

Some school systems have begun exploring different strategies to ensure greater fluidity between VET and general pathways and into tertiary education. Some of the options followed by countries with strong VET systems include “bridge courses”, the modularised provision of courses, joint general-vocational upper secondary diplomas, and legal entitlements to “scaffolding” diplomas that allow students to proceed to the next level of education upon the successful completion of the prior level, regardless of their track.

*Include a work-based learning component in vocational programmes*

The status of VET systems is often hindered by challenges in making the educational offer relevant to the workplace. Evidence shows that including strong components of work-based learning in this type of programme can decrease dropout rates and ensure smoother transitions to the world of work. Especially in countries with strongly regulated labour markets, policymakers should consider increasing the component of work-based learning in vocational programmes. Strong regulations in the labour market are often effective in protecting employees but may also hinder the entrance of young graduates from upper and post-secondary levels of education. Creating policy frameworks for strong work-based components of learning (e.g. through apprenticeships) may ease the transition to the labour market and help reduce youth unemployment. Nevertheless, the effective promotion of work-based learning depends on striking the right balance between the added-value of the apprentice to the company and the salary paid. Public authorities can explore alternative strategies that can be used in order to increase employer involvement. Tax allowances or subsidies to companies hiring apprentices can help by expanding the opportunities of VET students to deliver productive work while learning in the firm context.

Furthermore, effective work-based learning depends on the right balance between the skills attained in the context of work and those in classroom. Educational authorities, in
co-ordination with employers, should seek to ensure that curricular options enable the adequate combination of general skills and learning on the job. Such integration helps to guarantee that the acquired human capital is neither too general nor too specific to the training firm.

But while work-based VET systems hold the potential to facilitate smooth transitions from school to the labour market, this can only work with significant support by major stakeholders. Apprenticeship systems can only be effective if employers are adequately involved in setting this type of structure – through the provision and design of training schemes, as well as development of curricula.

*Provide stronger frameworks for co-ordination in the use of resources in VET institutions and with the private sector*

Besides co-ordination in curriculum and between employers and VET providers, policymakers should consider promoting co-ordination across VET providers in their resource usage. Vocational programmes can secure higher quality equipment at lower costs by collaborating within VET networks and across public-private sectors. This would allow more efficient use of high-cost infrastructure and equipment resources that can truly modernise VET curriculum.

Educational authorities should explore different incentive mechanisms for a more adaptable provision of VET. Options may include shared purchasing of equipment and its associated insurance. This would permit a reduction of costs and would incentivise the investment in specialised infrastructure shared between different institutions.

Other cost-saving approaches involve alternative models of equipment provision in co-operation with local and national employers, such as the use of companies' old material - which can still be relevant for learning – or sponsorship agreements.

*Ensure the appropriate identification and supportive placement of students with special educational needs*

*Develop common, standardised definitions of SEN categories and publicly report data in an internationally comparable format*

Countries should work with various stakeholder groups within the educational and disability advocacy communities to develop clear definitions of SEN categories. In many instances, countries do have medical definitions of disabilities such as auditory or physical ones. However, several OECD review countries do not have any clear frameworks for categorising SEN. These shared definitions are critical to ensure common identification and reporting standards, and to ensure that resources are allocated in fair and equitable ways. Countries should work towards adopting SEN categories that map to a common framework so that cross-country comparisons around SEN policy are possible. One potential framework for SEN categories is articulated in the OECD 2005 report on *Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages: Statistics and Indicators* (OECD, 2005[114]), which lists 13 different categories related to Special Education, grouped into two broad cross-national categories of Learning Disabilities (A) and Learning Difficulties (B). A third category of Learning Disadvantages (C) describes challenges faced by students such as migration, language learning and poverty.

Once data are collected in a nationally and internationally comparable way, school systems can track identification rates across socio-demographic groups and regions and benchmark
them against other countries. This permits more effective planning of the allocation of school resources, spotlights problem areas and allows research projects to explore patterns of SEN.

*Articulate clear standards, involve all relevant actors and implement staff training in the special education evaluation process*

In order to promote positive outcomes, limit inappropriate identification, and ensure each child gets what they need in the special education identification process, there must be clear standards for how students are evaluated for special education. This involves creating consistent protocols to incorporate relevant input from the child, family, educator and medical community. Access to specialists such as occupational therapists, psychologists, and other medical personnel should be provided free of charge to all families to ensure that additional support is not contingent on families’ socio-economic status.

All staff who participate in the special education evaluation process should be trained to understand the assessment process and how they can contribute to it. Participants may bring different types of contributions to the special education evaluation process (medical reports, classroom evaluations, academic data etc.) and should provide evidence of the types of interventions that have been attempted already to assist the child in overcoming her educational difficulties.

*Equalise funding across placement and settings based on agreed-upon SEN categories to limit incentives for retaining students in separate schools*

Once school systems reach agreed-upon SEN categories, they can address perverse incentives to retain students in more restrictive educational settings. In several OECD review countries, special SEN schools received their funding precisely because the students they educated were classified as needing to be educated in separate schools. Once categories of SEN are established, however, funding can be set at equitable levels based on the category of SEN, irrespective of the context and setting in which the student is educated. School systems can shift policy, and families can more easily advocate, to encourage more integrated settings for students with SEN. This approach can accomplish three critical objectives: i) it fulfils the ethical obligation to integrate different learners in general settings; ii) it can provide a more intellectually stimulating and challenging setting to a student with SEN, while ensuring complementary supports exist due to the additional funding associated with that child; and iii) it can produce financial savings for the system as the overhead costs associated with running a stand-alone school disappear without any negative impact on the quality of services the child receives.

However, if mainstream schools do not receive adequate support and resources to provide SEN students with an education that is at least of equivalent quality as that offered by special schools, stakeholders are unlikely to support inclusion. To transition towards inclusive education, mainstream schools therefore require investments into infrastructural adjustments and equipment (specialised materials), human capital development, and assistance in using these additional resources to create inclusive learning environments. There may be, therefore, some initial upfront costs as systems transition towards more inclusion, though little empirical evidence exists verifying this in one direction or the other.
*Integrate co-ordination and collaboration between mainstream and SEN providers and educators*

In many contexts, including several OECD review countries, special education teachers working in separate schools either have a different type of certification or are not certified at all. This creates substantial barriers to efforts to integrate students with SEN as their teachers need to be re-certified. This licensure structure can also create a built-in advocacy group that argues against integration as it jeopardises the stability of their employment conditions. Therefore, creating a certification process that permits the transfer of a special education license between special and general schools is critical. In addition, high-quality in-service professional development can enhance general education teachers' interest and ability to integrate SEN students by providing them with the skills to support SEN students and a license or certificate to attest their capacity.

In addition to ensuring that teachers can move more easily between special and general education programmes, aligning the governance and oversight of the two school pathways is necessary to promote greater integration. If SEN students are to take classes in both mainstream and special settings, or if they are to be able to transition between a special lower secondary school and a general upper secondary school, this transition must be seamless. Their unique identifier must travel from one system to the other, class schedules must be aligned between schools and programmes and course credit must be transferable. All of this is difficult to accomplish when the two different types of schools are governed by different bodies as is the case in several of the OECD review countries. Thus, either placing all pathways of schools and programmes under the same governance within the Ministry of Education, or defining authorities and responsibilities and aligning systems are necessary steps to ensure sufficient opportunities for students to smoothly transition between one system and the other.

Developing a continuum of service models will require re-envisioning the role of special education teachers and schools. Rather than being responsible for a separate class of students with SEN, teachers of SEN students could provide integrated co-teaching, act as consultant teachers to build the skills of general education staff, teach separate special education classes, lead professional development seminars, design individualised learning plans for SEN students and more. Their end goal will be to maximise integration of students with SEN, while ensuring that sufficient supports exist, including targeted separate instruction, to promote SEN students' academic and social success.

Special schools can take on new roles and undergo functional transformations to support the integration of SEN students in mainstream schools by acting as “resource centres” offering specialised diagnostic services or support from speech and occupational therapists, special education teachers, social pedagogues and psychologists to multiple mainstream schools. Support from central authorities and private providers can also play a role in advancing integration, but channelling these supports through the regional resource centres can provide a more seamless one-stop-shopping experience for general education schools.

*Design funding mechanisms that allow categorical funds to be used for early intervention, without jeopardising SEN students' funding*

In designing compensatory funding schemes, tensions frequently exist between the desire to ensure that the additional funds reach the intended group and a recognition that local actors may have a better sense of their students' needs. There can be particular tensions around categorical funds intended for students who meet certain criteria that cannot be used for
others who fall just short of those criteria. This challenge is particularly pertinent in the area of special needs education, where policymakers are rightly interested in ensuring that targeted funds are not dispersed across students in a way that does not benefit the intended population. However, many students who struggle in school present similar profiles, whether they have or have not been yet formally identified as having special educational needs.

If funding schemes can be designed to permit some flexibility in the use of targeted funds, while ensuring that the use of these resources is transparent and auditable, both goals can be achieved. Explicit provisions such as allowing a fixed percentage of special education funds to be used for early interventions that serve both students with SEN and struggling students who have not been identified for special education is one strategy that preserves the bulk of funds for its primary intended targets while providing some flexibility that can be monitored for its use. Schools or sub-national entities would need to be able to demonstrate that the funds were used for early intervention (such as an instructional period in a special education teacher's assigned schedule), rather than to fill general budget holes (such as a textbook or tablet purchase). Such a strategy would depend on common accounting procedures across schools.

Notes

<footnote n="1">¹ A key factor in students’ vertical transitions is the vertical alignment of the curriculum. Curriculum analysis falls outside the scope of this review, but is addressed in detail in the OECD’s *Education 2030 International Curriculum Analysis*, currently underway.</footnote>
References

Abadzi, H. (2015), “Training the 21st-century worker: Policy advice from the dark network of implicit memory”, *IBE working papers on curriculum issues*, No. 16, IBE UNESCO Bureau of Education, Geneva, http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/wp-16-training_21st_century_worker_eng.pdf (accessed on 05 September 2017). [84]

Ahtola, A. et al. (2011), “Transition to formal schooling: Do transition practices matter for academic performance?”, *Early Childhood Research Quarterly*, Vol. 26/3, pp. 295-302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.12.002. [7]

Alet, É., L. Bonnal and P. Favard (2013), “Repetition: Medicine for a Short-run Remission”, *Annals of Economics and Statistics* 111/112, p. 227, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/23646332. [36]

Allais, S. (2017), “Labour market impact of National Qualification Frameworks in six countries”, *Journal of Education and Work*, https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2016.1243232. [90]

Allais, S. (2010), *The implementation and impact of National Qualifications Frameworks: Report of a study in 16 countries*, International Labour Office, Skills and Employability Department, http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_emp/@ifpSkills/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_126589.pdf. [89]

Allen, C. et al. (2009), “Quality of Research Design Moderates Effects of Grade Retention on Achievement: A Meta-Analytic, Multilevel Analysis”, *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, Vol. 31, pp. 480-499, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25621596. [30]

American School Counselor Association (2015), *Student-to-School-Counselor Ratio 2013-2014*, American School Counselor Association, Alexandria, VA, https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/home/Ratios13-14.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2017). [22]

Autor, D., F. Levy and R. Murnane (2003), “The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration”, *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, Vol. 118/4, pp. 1279-1333, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355303322552801. [60]

Benhenda, A. and J. Grenet (2015), *How much does grade repetition in French Primary and Secondary Schools Cost?*, Institut des Politiques Publiques, Paris, http://www.ipp.eu. [37]

Berger, A. et al. (2014), *Early College, Continued Success: Early College High School Initiative Impact Study*, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, http://www.air.org (accessed on 04 September 2017). [50]

Berger, A. et al. (2013), *Early College, Early Success: Early College High School Initiative Impact Study*, American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/ECHSI_Impact_Study_Report_Final0.pdf (accessed on 04 September 2017). [49]
Blackorby, J. and M. Wagner (1996), "Longitudinal Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study", *Exceptional Children*, Vol. 62/5, pp. 399-413, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001440299606200502.

Bruneforth, M. and L. Lassnigg (2012), *Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2012* [National Education Monitoring Report for Austria 2012], https://www.bifie.at/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NBB2012_Band-1_gesamt.pdf.

Carter, E., D. Austin and A. Trainor (2012), "Predictors of Postschool Employment Outcomes for Young Adults With Severe Disabilities", *Journal of Disability Policy Studies*, Vol. 23/1, pp. 50-63, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1044207311414680.

Castleman, B. and J. Goodman (2016), "Intensive College Counseling and the Enrollment and Persistence of Low Income Students", *Education Finance and Policy*, Vol. 0/0, pp. 1-41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00204.

Castleman, B. and L. Page (2014), "A Trickle or a Torrent? Understanding the Extent of Summer "Melt" Among College-Intending High School Graduates", *Social Science Quarterly*, Vol. 95/1, pp. 202-220, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12032.

Castleman, B. and L. Page (2013), "The not-so-lazy days of summer: Experimental interventions to increase college entry among low-income high school graduates", *New Directions for Youth Development*, Vol. 2013/140, pp. 77-97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.20079.

Castleman, B., L. Page and K. Schooley (2014), "The Forgotten Summer: Does the Offer of College Counseling After High School Mitigate Summer Melt Among College-Intending, Low-Income High School Graduates?", *Journal of Policy Analysis and Management*, Vol. 33/2, pp. 320-344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.21743.

Cedefop (2018), *Developments in vocational education and training policy in 2015-17: Denmark*, Cedefop monitoring and analysis of VET policies, Brussels, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/country-reports/vet- (accessed on 16 July 2018).

Cedefop (2015), "The role of modularisation and unitisation in vocational education and training", *Cedefop working paper, no. 26*, https://doi.org/10.2801/38475.

CEDEFOP and European Center for the Development of Vocational Training (2017), *Job Opportunities: 2016 Skills Forecasts*, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/data-visualisations/job-opportunities (accessed on 17 August 2017).

Chiang, H. et al. (2012), "Predictive Factors of Participation in Postsecondary Education for High School Leavers with Autism", *Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders*, Vol. 42/5, pp. 685-696, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1297-7.

Cooc, N. (2018), *Do teachers spend less time teaching in inclusive classrooms: Evidence from international data*, https://aefpweb.org/sites/default/files/webform/Time%20Teaching%20in%20Inclusion_AEFP.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2018).
Corrin, W. et al. (2016), *Addressing Early Warning Indicators: Interim Impact Findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) Evaluation of Diplomas Now*, MDRC, New York, http://diplomasnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DiplomasNow-3rd-2016_2.pdf (accessed on 04 September 2017). [57]

Department of Education and Training, Q. et al. (2017), *Flemish education in figures 2015-2016*, Flemish Ministry of Education and Training, Brussels. [104]

Diplomas Now (2016), *What We Do* | Diplomas Now, http://diplomasnow.org/about/what-we-do/ (accessed on 04 September 2017). [56]

Dougherty, S. (2016), “The Effect of Career and Technical Education on Human Capital Accumulation: Causal Evidence from Massachusetts”, *Education Finance and Policy*, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00224.

Dustmann, C., P. Puhani and U. Schönberg (2017), “The Long-term Effects of Early Track Choice”, *The Economic Journal*, Vol. 127/603, pp. 1348-1380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12419.

Eccles, J. and C. Midgley (1989), “Stage/environment fit: developmentally appropriate classrooms for younger adolescents”, in Ames, R. and C. Ames (eds.), *Research on Motivation in Education*, Academic Press.

Edmunds, J. et al. (2017), “Smoothing the Transition to Postsecondary Education: The Impact of the Early College Model”, *Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness*, Vol. 10/2, pp. 297-325, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1191574.

Elliott, S. (2017), *Computers and the Future of Skill Demand*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264284395-en.

Epple, D., E. Newlon and R. Romano (2002), “Ability tracking, school competition, and the distribution of educational benefits”, *Journal of Public Economics*, Vol. 83/1, pp. 1-48, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00175-4.

Eren, O., B. Depew and S. Barnes (2017), “Test-based promotion policies, dropping out, and juvenile crime”, *Journal of Public Economics*, Vol. 153, pp. 9-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.07.002.

European Commission (2017), *Education and Training Monitor 2017 - Czech Republic*, European Commission, Brussels, http://dx.doi.org/10.2766/064521.

European Commission (2011), *Grade Retention during Compulsory Education in Europe: Regulations and Statistics*, Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, EURYDICE, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/126EN.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2017). [43]
Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs (2012), *Education Regulation* (Lehrplanverordnung), http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/BgblAuth/BGBLA_2012_II_185/COO_2026_100_2_75_2334.pdfsig. [20]

Field, S., M. Kuczera and B. Pont (2007), *No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264032606-en. [38]

Fisher, J. (1997), "Unforgotten: Twenty-Five Years after Willowbrook". [102]

Fletcher, J. and S. Vaughn (2009), "Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic Difficulties", *Child Development Perspectives*, Vol. 3/1, pp. 30-37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x. [118]

Gilmour, A. (2018), "Has inclusion gone too far? Weighing its effects on students with disabilities, their peers, and teachers", *Education Next*, Vol. 18/4. [112]

Goldin, C. and L. Katz (2008), *The race between education and technology*, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. [85]

Goos, M. et al. (2013), "How Can Cross-Country Differences in the Practice of Grade Retention Be Explained? A Closer Look at National Educational Policy Factors", *Comparative Education Review*, Vol. 57/1, pp. 54-84, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/667655. [25]

Hanushek, E., J. Kain and S. Rivkin (2002), "Inferring Program Effects for Special Populations: Does Special Education Raise Achievement for Students with Disabilities?", *The Review of Economics and Statistics*, Vol. 84/4, pp. 584-599, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3211720. [106]

Hanushek, E. et al. (2017), "General Education, Vocational Education, and Labor-Market Outcomes over the Lifecycle", *Journal of Human Resources*, Vol. 52/1, pp. 48-87, http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/jhr.52.1.0415-7074R. [82]

Hanushek, E. and L. Wossmann (2006), "Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance and Inequality? Differences- in-Differences Evidence Across Countries*", *The Economic Journal*, Vol. 116/510, pp. C63-C76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01076.x. [76]

Harry, B. and J. Klingner (2006), *Why are so many minority students in special education? Understanding race and disability in schools*, Teachers College Press, New York. [108]

Heisig, J. and H. Solga (2015), "Secondary Education Systems and the General Skills of Less-and Intermediate-educated Adults", *Sociology of Education*, Vol. 88/3, pp. 202-225, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0038040715588603. [68]

Hemelt, S., M. Lenard and C. Paeplow (2017), "Building Better Bridges to Life After High School: Experimental Evidence on Contemporary Career Academies", *CALDER Working Papers*, No. 176, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Washington, DC, http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20176.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2017). [67]
Hensen-Reifgens, K. and U. Hippach-Schneider (2014), *Germany. VET in Europe - Country report 2014*, Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training (BIBB), Bonn, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/publications-and-resources/country-reports/vet-in-europe-country-reports. (accessed on 06 September 2017). [87]

Hoffman, N. and R. Schwartz (2017), *Learning for Careers: The Pathways to Prosperity Network*, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA. [61]

Holmlund, H. and A. Böhlmark (2017), “Does grade configuration matter for school performance? Short- and long-run effects of school reorganisation”, *Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy Working Paper 2017:6*, https://www.ifau.se/globalassets/pdf/se/2017/wp2017-06-does-grade-configuration-matter-for-school-performance.pdf (accessed on 13 February 2018). [13]

Hoxby, C. and C. Avery (2013), “The Missing &quot;One-Offs&quot;: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students”, *Brookings Papers on Economic Activity*, Vol. 2013/1, pp. 1-65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/eca.2013.0000. [15]

Ikeda, M. and E. García (2014), “Grade repetition: A comparative study of academic and non-academic consequences”, *OECD Journal: Economic Studies*, Vol. 2013/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_studies-2013-5k3w65mx3hnx. [27]

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), 20 U.S.C.. [122]

Jacob, B. and L. Lefgren (2004), “Remedial Education and Student Achievement: A Regression-Discontinuity Analysis”, *Review of Economics and Statistics*, Vol. 86/1, pp. 226-244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003465304323023778. [31]

Jimerson, S. (2001), “Meta-analysis of Grade Retention Research: Implications for Practice in the 21st Century”, *School Psychology Review*, Vol. 30/3, pp. 420-437, http://edresearch.yolasite.com/resources/Jimerson01.pdf. [32]

Jimerson, S., G. Anderson and A. Whipple (2002), “Winning the battle and losing the war: Examining the relation between grade retention and dropping out of high school”, *Psychology in the Schools*, Vol. 39/4, pp. 441-457, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.10046. [33]

Kemple, J. (2008), *Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes, Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood*, MDRC, New York, http://www.mdrc.org (accessed on 17 August 2017). [65]

Kohli, S. (2017), “Schools are boosting graduation rates by offering 'credit recovery.' But what are students learning?”, *Los Angeles Times*, http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-pass-credit-recovery-20170701-htmlstory.html. [52]

Lavrijsen, J. and I. Nicaise (2017), “Returns on vocational education over the life cycle: Between immediate labour market preparation and lifelong employability”, *International Review of Education*, Vol. 63/2, pp. 257-280, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-017-9630-9. [83]

Liebowitz, D. et al. (2018), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018*, OECD Publishing, Paris. [73]
Light, H. (2015), *Light's Retention Scale*, Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA. [41]

Losen, D. and G. Orfield (2002), *Racial inequity in special education*, Harvard Education Publishing Group, Cambridge. [107]

Lubienski, C. (2003), “Innovation in Education Markets: Theory and Evidence on the Impact of Competition and Choice in Charter Schools”, *American Educational Research Journal Summer*, Vol. 40/2, pp. 395-443, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/00028312040002395 (accessed on 13 September 2017). [74]

Manacorda, M. (2012), “The Cost of Grade Retention”, *Review of Economics and Statistics*, Vol. 94/2, pp. 596-606, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00165. [34]

Marfán, J. et al. (2013), *Análisis de la implementación de los programas de integración escolar (PIE) en establecimientos que han incorporado estudiantes con necesidades educativas especiales transitorias (NEET): Informe Final [Analysis of the implementation of School Integration Programmes in schools with students with transitory special needs: Final Report]*, Centro de Innovación en Educación Fundación Chile [Centre for Innovation in Education, Chile Foundation]. [116]

MDRC (2017), *P-TECH 9-14 Evaluation*, http://www.mdrc.org/project/p-tech-9-14-evaluation#overview (accessed on 04 September 2017). [48]

Murnane, R. (2013), “U.S. High School Graduation Rates: Patterns and Explanations”, *Journal of Economic Literature*, Vol. 51/2, pp. 370-422, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.51.2.370. [53]

Musset, P. (2013), *A Skills Beyond School Commentary on Flanders*, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/ASkillsBeyondSchoolCommentaryOnFlanders.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2017). [93]

Neild, R., C. Boccanfuso and V. Byrnes (2015), “Academic Impacts of Career and Technical Schools”, *Career and Technical Education Research*, Vol. 40/1, pp. 28-47, http://dx.doi.org/10.5328/cter40.1.28. [63]

Neild, R. and V. Byrnes (2014), *Impacts of Career and Technical Schools on Postsecondary Outcomes: A Case Study of a Large Urban School District*, Center for Social Organization of Schools School of Education John Hopkins University, Baltimore, http://new.every1graduates.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Impacts-of-Career-and-Technical-Schools-on-Postsecondary-Outcomes.pdf (accessed on 17 August 2017). [64]

New Zealand Ministry of Education (2018), *Inclusive education*, Education in New Zealand (5-19 years), http://www.education.govt.nz/school/running-a-school/inclusive-education/ (accessed on 15 June 2018). [120]

Newman, L. et al. (2011), *The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults With Disabilities up to 8 Years After High School: A Report From the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005)*, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. [125]
Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU) (2016), *Vocational Education and training in Europe - Norway*, Cedefop ReferNet VET in Europe reports; 2016, http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_NO.pdf. [100]

Nusche, D. et al. (2015), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Flemish Community of Belgium 2015*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264247598-en. [54]

Nusche, D. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Austria 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264256729-en. [19]

Nusche, D. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Denmark 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264262430-en. [69]

OECD (2017), *Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en. [1]

OECD (2017), *Education Policy Outlook: Belgium*, http://www.oecd.org/education/Education-Policy-Outlook-Country-Profile-Belgium.pdf. [94]

OECD (2017), *Education Policy Profile Belgium*, OECD Publishing, Paris. [103]

OECD (2017), *PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students' Well-Being*, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en. [4]

OECD (2017), *Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en. [6]

OECD (2017), *The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en. [92]

OECD (2016), *Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.187/eag-2016-en. [5]

OECD (2016), *Getting Skills Right: Assessing and Anticipating Changing Skill Needs*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252073-en. [86]

OECD (2016), *Netherlands 2016: Foundations for the Future*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264257658-en. [96]

OECD (2016), *PISA 2015 Results (Volume I): Excellence and Equity in Education*, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264266490-en. [3]

OECD (2016), *PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools*, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en. [2]

OECD (2016), "Selecting and grouping students", in *PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-9-en. [26]
OECD (2014), *Skills beyond School: Synthesis Report*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264214682-en. [71]

OECD (2014), *TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en. [109]

OECD (2013), *Education Policy Outlook Norway*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/norway/EDUCATION%20POLICY%20OUTLOOK%20NORWAY_EN.pdf (accessed on 04 September 2017). [47]

OECD (2012), *Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en. [40]

OECD (2011), “When students repeat grades or are transferred out of school: What does it mean for education systems?”, *PISA in Focus* 6, https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/pisainfocus/48363440.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2017). [35]

OECD (2010), *Learning for Jobs*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264087460-en. [18]

OECD (2010), *Off to a Good Start? Jobs for Youth*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096127-en. [91]

OECD (2005), *Students with Disabilities, Learning Difficulties and Disadvantages: Statistics and Indicators*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264009813-en. [113]

Oreopoulos, P., R. Brown and A. Lavecchia (2017), “Pathways to Education: An Integrated Approach to Helping At-Risk High School Students”, *Journal of Political Economy*, Vol. 125/4, pp. 947-984, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/692713. [66]

Ortiz, A. et al. (2011), “The Role of Bilingual Education Teachers in Preventing Inappropriate Referrals of ELLs to Special Education: Implications for Response to Intervention”, *Bilingual Research Journal*, Vol. 34/3, pp. 316-333, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15235882.2011.628608. [119]

Piopunik, M. (2014), “The effects of early tracking on student performance: Evidence from a school reform in Bavaria”, *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 42, pp. 12-33, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.06.002. [79]

Portugal Ministry of Education (forthcoming), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools in Portugal: Country Background Report*. [14]

Preston, C. et al. (2011), “School innovation in district context: Comparing traditional public schools and charter schools”, *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 31, pp. 318-330, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.016. [75]

Raffe, D. (2013), “What is the evidence for the impact of National Qualifications Frameworks?”, *Comparative Education*, Vol. 49/2, pp. 143-162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2012.686260. [88]
Range, B. et al. (2012), “The Perceptions of Primary Grade Teachers and Elementary Principals about the Effectiveness of Grade-Level Retention”, *Professional Educator*, Vol. 36/1, pp. 1-16, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ989520.pdf (accessed on 01 September 2017). [39]

Republic of Slovenia Ministry of Education, S. (2016), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools in Slovenia: Country Background Report*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/schoolresourcesreview.htm. [21]

Richards, E. (2015), *Overview of projections to 2024*, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://doi.org/10.21916/mlr/2015.50. [59]

Rockoff, J. and B. Lockwood (2010), “Stuck in the middle: Impacts of grade configuration in public schools”, *Journal of Public Economics*, Vol. 94/11-12, pp. 1051-1061, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.06.017. [11]

RTI Action Network((n.d.)), *What is Response to Intervention (RTI)?*, http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/what/whatisrti (accessed on 25 October 2017). [121]

Ruijs, N. and T. Peetsma (2009), “Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed”, *Educational Research Review*, Vol. 4/2, pp. 67-79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002. [110]

Santiago, P. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Uruguay 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265530-en. [46]

Santiago, P. et al. (2017), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Chile 2017*, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264285637-en. [117]

Santiago, P. et al. (2012), *OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Czech Republic*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264116788-en. [80]

Santiago, P. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Slovak Republic 2015*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264247567-en. [10]

Santiago, P. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Estonia 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251731-en. [55]

Schulting, A., P. Malone and K. Dodge (2005), “The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes.”, *Developmental psychology*, Vol. 41/6, pp. 860-71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.860. [8]

Schütz, G., H. Ursprung and L. Wößmann (2008), “Education Policy and Equality of Opportunity”, *Kyklos*, Vol. 61/2, pp. 279-308. [78]

Schwerdt, G. and M. West (2013), “The impact of alternative grade configurations on student outcomes through middle and high school”, *Journal of Public Economics*, Vol. 97, pp. 308-326, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.10.002. [12]
Schwerdt, G., M. West and M. Winters (2017), “The effects of test-based retention on student outcomes over time: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida”, *Journal of Public Economics*, Vol. 152, pp. 154-169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.06.004.

Shapiro, J. (1993), *No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement*, Three Rivers Press, New York.

Shattuck, P. et al. (2012), “Postsecondary education and employment among youth with an autism spectrum disorder.”, *Pediatrics*, Vol. 129/6, pp. 1042-9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-2864.

Shewbridge, C. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Lithuania 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252547-en.

Shewbridge, C. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Czech Republic 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264262379-en.

Skiba, R. et al. (2006), “The Context of Minority Disproportionality: Practitioner Perspectives on Special Education Referral”, *Teachers College Record*, Vol. 108/7, pp. 1424-1459, https://ai2-s2-pdfs.s3.amazonaws.com/761e/52011ac219c17987d216c65d96cbd207737a.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2017).

Skolverket and ReferNet Sweden (2016), *Vocational education and training in Europe - Sweden*, Cedefop ReferNet VET in Europe reports, https://cumulus.cedefop.europa.eu/files/vetelib/2016/2016_CR_SE.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2017).

U.S. Department of Education (2016), *38th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2016*, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2016/parts-b-c/38th-arc-for-idea.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2017).

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), *Opportunities lost: The impact of grade repetition and early school leaving*, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal, http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/opportunities-lost-the-impact-of-grade-repetition-and-early-school-leaving-en_0.pdf (accessed on 01 September 2017).

United Nations (2015), *Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development*, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.

Välijärvi, J. and P. Sahlberg (2008), “Should ‘failing’ students repeat a grade? Retrospective response from Finland”, *Journal of Educational Change*, Vol. 9, pp. 385-389, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9089-3.

Wagner, M. et al. (2005), *After High School: A First Look at the Postschool Experiences of Youth with Disabilities. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2)*., SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Wei, X. et al. (2016), “The Effect of Transition Planning Participation and Goal-Setting on College Enrollment Among Youth With Autism Spectrum Disorders”, *Remedial and Special Education*, Vol. 37/1, pp. 3-14, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932515581495.

[126]
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>
# Annex A. Glossary

## Levels of education according to UNESCO's International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 2011)

**Early childhood education (ISCED 0):** Provides learning and educational activities with a holistic approach to support children's early cognitive, physical, social and emotional development and introduce young children to organised instruction outside of the family context to develop some of the skills needed for academic readiness and to prepare them for entry into primary education. ISCED level 0 is further divided into two sub-levels: ISCED 01 and ISCED 02.

**Early childhood educational development (ISCED 01):** Characterised by a learning environment that is visually stimulating and language-rich. These programmes foster self-expression, with an emphasis on language acquisition and the use of language for meaningful communication. There are opportunities for active play, so that children can exercise their co-ordination and motor skills under supervision and through interaction with staff. Programmes providing only childcare (supervision, nutrition and health) are not covered by ISCED. Early childhood educational development programmes (ISCED level 01) are targeted at children aged 0 to 2 years.

**Pre-primary education (ISCED 02):** Characterised by interaction with peers and educators, through which children improve their use of language and social skills, start to develop logical and reasoning skills, and talk through their thought processes. They are also introduced to alphabetical and mathematical concepts, and encouraged to explore their surrounding world and environment. Pre-primary education programmes (ISCED level 02) are targeted at children aged 3 until the age to start ISCED 1. The upper age limit for the pre-primary education category depends in each case on the theoretical age of entry into ISCED level 1, i.e. primary education.

**Primary education (ISCED 1):** Usually begins at age 5, 6 or 7, and has a typical duration of 6 years. Programmes at ISCED level 1 are normally designed to give students a sound basic education in reading, writing and mathematics, along with an elementary understanding of other subjects such as history, geography, natural science, social sciences, art and music. The commencement of reading activities alone is not a sufficient criterion for classification of an education programme at ISCED 1. Programmes classified at ISCED 1 may be referred to in many ways, for example: primary education, elementary education or basic education (stage 1 or lower grades if an education system has one programme that spans ISCED 1 and 2).

**Lower secondary education (ISCED 2):** Programmes are designed to lay the foundation across a wide range of subjects and to prepare children and young people for more specialised study at upper secondary and higher levels of education. The beginning – or the end – of lower secondary education often involves a change of school for young students and also a change in the style of instruction. Programmes classified at ISCED level 2 may be referred to in many ways, for example: secondary school (stage
one/lower grades), junior secondary school, middle school or junior high school. If a programme spans ISCED levels 1 and 2, the terms elementary education or basic school (second stage/upper grades) are often used.

**Upper secondary education (ISCED 3):** Programmes are more specialised than those at lower secondary and offer students more choices and diverse pathways for completing their secondary education. The range of subjects studied by a single student tends to be narrower than at lower levels of education, but the content is more complex and the study more in depth. Programmes offered are differentiated by orientation and often by broad subject groups. Programmes classified at ISCED level 3 may be referred to in many ways, for example, secondary school (stage 2/upper grades), senior secondary school or (senior) high school.

**General, pre-vocational and vocational education:** Programmes at ISCED levels 2 and 3 can also be subdivided into two categories based on the degree to which the programme is specifically oriented towards a specific class of occupations or trades and leads to a labour-market relevant qualification: general programmes and pre-vocational/vocational programmes.

**General programmes:** Refers to programmes that are not designed explicitly to prepare participants for a specific class of occupations or trades or for entry into further vocational or technical education programmes.

**Pre-vocational/vocational programmes:** This category encompasses both pre-vocational and vocational education. Pre-vocational education is mainly designed to introduce participants to the world of work and to prepare them for entry into further vocational or technical programmes. Successful completion of such programmes does not lead to a labour-market relevant vocational or technical qualification. Vocational programmes prepare participants for direct entry into specific occupations without further training. Successful completion of such programmes leads to a labour-market relevant vocational qualification.

For further details, see:

UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2012), *International Standard Classification of Education*

ISCED 2011, UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal, Quebec, www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/isced-2011-en.pdf.

OECD/Eurostat/UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015), ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for Classifying National Education Programmes and Related Qualifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264228368-en.

## Levels of governance and administration

For international comparability, levels of governance and administration are described following a standard terminology. The report may, however, use the particular terms of a specific national context where country approaches are described in greater detail. For example, for Austria, the report may refer to “states” when information is presented in a comparable format (e.g. for a group of countries with a similar approach or in comparative tables) or to “provinces” when the Austrian school system is analysed in greater detail.
**Central level:** The central level specifies authorities that make decisions or participate in different aspects of decision making on a national scale. This includes, among others, the central government, central education, financial and legislative authorities and central auditing services. All authorities below the central level in administrative terms are referred to as sub-central authorities at the sub-central level.

**State level:** The state level refers to the first territorial unit below the nation in federal countries or countries with similar types of governmental structures. The state level includes, among others, state governments, state education, financial and legislative authorities, and state auditing services. In Austria, for example, the state level refers to the level of the "provinces". In Belgium, the state level refers to the level of the "Communities".

**Regional level:** The region level is the first territorial unit below the national level in countries that do not have a federal or similar type of governmental structure, and the second territorial unit below the national level in countries with federal or similar types of governmental structures. The regional level includes, among others, regional governments, regional education, financial and legislative authorities, and regional auditing services. In the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, for example, the regional level refers to the "self-governing regions". In Spain, the regional level refers to the "Autonomous Communities".

**Local level:** The local level corresponds to the smallest territorial unit with a governing authority, such as municipalities or communities. This includes local governments, local education, financial and legislative authorities and local auditing services. The local authority may be the education department within a general-purpose local government or it may be a special-purpose government whose sole area of authority is education.

## Public and private schools

**Public:** An educational institution is classified as public if it is controlled and managed by a public education authority or agency, or by a governing body (council, committee, etc.) most of whose members are either appointed by a public authority or elected by public franchise.

**Private:** An educational institution is classified as private if it is controlled and managed by a non-governmental organisation (e.g. a church, a trade union or a business enterprise, foreign or international agency), or a governing board which consists mostly of members not selected by a public agency. A private institution can receive public funding (publicly-subsidised private schools) or not (independent private schools).

## Current and capital expenditure

**Current expenditure:** Current expenditure describes incurred costs with teaching and learning activities, teachers' and other educational staff's salaries, other operating costs and costs with assets that have a duration of less than one year, except where noted otherwise. Operating costs refer to expenses associated with the maintenance and administration of a school on a day-to-day basis (e.g. heating, electricity, small repairs, perishable instructional materials, etc.).
**Capital expenditure:** Funding for capital expenditures covers spending on assets that last longer than one year. It includes funds for construction, renovation or major repairs to buildings (immovable) as well as on new or replacement instructional and non-instructional equipment (e.g. furniture, laboratory equipment, computers, etc.).

## Allocation mechanisms for capital expenditure

Allocation mechanisms describe different approaches to distributing and transferring resources and funds to different levels of governance and administration, to school providers and to individual schools. Below are the mechanisms most commonly used in the allocation of capital funding, as identified in the review's qualitative data collection. They vary in the level of discretion the recipient has in deciding how the funding is used:

**Ad hoc grant:** Refers to an ad hoc agreement between the public funder and the entities receiving the funds.

**Infrastructure investment programme:** Refers to a specific, usually central or state level, initiative targeted at infrastructure investment following medium-term development plans or strategies at the national or sector level for a fixed period of time.

**Earmarked grant:** Consists of funds that recipients (sub-central authorities or schools) are required to use for specific elements/items of current expenditure in early childhood or school education (e.g. teacher professional development, extra funds for special needs education).

## Bases for the allocation of funding for capital expenditure

The basis for the allocation of funding refers to the method which determines the amount of funding distributed to recipients (sub-central authorities and/or schools). Below are the processes most commonly used in the allocation of capital funding, as identified in the review's qualitative data collection:

**Administrative discretion:** Typically refers to administrators' assessment of the amount of resources that each school needs. It involves decision making about the allocation of funds based on professional judgement and expertise and might involve the use of indicators.

**Competition:** Refers to an application process in which individual authorities and/or schools apply for funding for capital expenditure. The authority providing the funding selects the recipients based on the quality of their application as judged against relevant criteria.

**Negotiated process:** Refers to negotiations and agreements between the funding provider and the funding recipient on the amount of funding (e.g. local authorities making a case for additional resources from relevant authority to respond to short-term needs, bargaining between different levels of governance for regular funding allocation).
# Annex B. How the School Resources Review was conducted

## Governance of the review

Within the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills the review has been carried out by the Early Childhood and Schools Division under the leadership of Michael Davidson (from January 2013 to September 2014) and Yuri Belfali (from October 2014 to July 2016) and by the Policy Advice and Implementation Division under the leadership of Paulo Santiago (since August 2016).

The School Resources Review is overseen by a Group of National Experts (GNE) on School Resources, a subsidiary body of the OECD Education Policy Committee. The GNE on School Resources guides the review and facilitates the exchange of information and experiences concerning school resources among countries. The GNE on School Resources has been chaired by Mr Jørn Skovsgaard, Senior Advisor, Danish Ministry of Education, and vice-chairs Ms Marie-Anne Persoons, Policy advisor, Flemish Ministry of Education and Training and Mr Matej Šišković, Director, Education Policy Institute, Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic. Ms Shelley Robertson, Chief Advisor International Education, New Zealand Ministry of Education, served as vice-chair for the GNE from May 2014 to May 2015 and chaired its 1st meeting.

Between May 2014 and July 2018, the GNE on School Resources held five official meetings at the OECD premises in Paris. These were open to all OECD member countries and observers to the Education Policy Committee as well as to the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC) and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC). The project is conducted in co-operation with a range of international organisations to reduce duplication and develop synergies. In particular, within a broader framework of collaboration, a partnership with the European Commission (EC) is established for this project (see below). The review of Kazakhstan was undertaken in co-operation with the World Bank. Other international agencies collaborating with the project include Eurydice, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Organising Bureau of European School Student Unions (OBESSU), the Standing International Conference of Inspectorates (SICI) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the Global Education Monitoring Report.

## National co-ordinators

Each participating country appointed a national co-ordinator, who was responsible for: communications with the OECD Secretariat and within the country about the review; ensuring that the Country Background Report was completed on schedule; liaising with the OECD Secretariat about the organisation of the review team visit, for those countries which opted for a country review; attending meetings of the Group of National Experts on School Resources; co-ordinating country responses to the review's qualitative survey on school funding; co-ordinating country feedback on draft materials; and assisting with dissemination activities. Past and present national co-ordinators are listed in Table B.1.
<table><caption>Table B.1. National co-ordinators in participating countries</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>National co-ordinator(s)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Bernhard Chabera, Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Research</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (Flemish Community)</td><td>Marie-Anne Persoons, Flemish Ministry of Education and Training</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (French Community)</td><td>Philippe Dieu, International Relations Directorate of the Federation Wallonia-Brussels</td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td>Amanda Castillo Rodríguez, Chilean Ministry of Education<br>Eduardo Candia Agusti, Chilean Ministry of Education<br>Carla Guazzini, Chilean Ministry of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Colombia</td><td>José Luis Sánchez, Colombian Ministry of National Education</td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td>Luci Priknerová, Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports<br>Michael Vlach, Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Jon Jespersen, Danish Ministry of Education<br>Sigrid Lundetoft Clausen, Danish Ministry of Education<br>Cathrine Scheuermann, Danish Ministry of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Kadi Serbak, Estonian Ministry of Education and Research</td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>Sigríður Lára Ásbergsdóttir, Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture</td></tr><tr><td>Kazakhstan</td><td>Zhannat Mussina, Information Analytic Center<br>Assem Satmukhambetova, Information Analytic Center</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>Aidas Aldakauskas, Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science<br>Vilma Bačkiūtė, Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science</td></tr><tr><td>Luxembourg</td><td>Amina Kafai, Luxembourg Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training<br>Charlotte Mahon, Luxembourg Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>Pedro Abrantes, Portuguese Ministry of Education<br>Ana Neves, Portuguese Ministry of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Slovak Republic</td><td>Matej Šiškovič, National Institute for Educational Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>Klemen Surk Kokalj, Slovenian Ministry of Education, Science and Sport</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>Vicente Alcañiz, National Institute for Educational Assessment<br>Isabel Couso Tapia, Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Gunnar Stenberg, Swedish Ministry of Education and Research<br>Merja Strömberg, Swedish Ministry of Education and Research</td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td>Cecilia Llambi, National Institute for Educational Evaluation<br>Cecilia Oreiro, National Institute for Educational Evaluation</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Collaboration with the European Commission

Within a broader framework of collaboration, the OECD School Resources Review has benefited from a partnership with the European Commission (EC) that was established for the project. The support of the EC has covered part of the participation costs for members of the European Union Erasmus+ programme and contributed significantly to the preparation of a series of thematic comparative reports, including this publication. Within the EC's Directorate-General for Education and Culture, the collaboration was organised by *Unit A.2: Education and Training in Europe 2020* by Mónika Képe-Holmberg under the leadership of Michael Teutsch (until December 2016) and Denis Crowley (since January 2017), and *Unit B.2: Schools and Multilingualism* under the leadership of Sophie Beernaerts (until December 2016) and Michael Teutsch (since January 2017) and deputy leadership of Diana Jablonska. Through its Country Analysis unit, the EC contributed to planning individual country reviews in the countries listed in Table B.2, with the relevant country desk officers participating in planning visits, providing input for the organisation of the main visit and offering feedback on draft country review reports.
<table><caption>Table B.2. European Commission contribution to country reviews</caption><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>EC Country Desk Officer contributing to the planning of the review</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Slovak Republic</td><td>Christèle Duvieusart, European Commission</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Krzysztof Kania, European Commission</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (Flemish Community)</td><td>Patricia De Smet, European Commission</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Joanna Basztura, European Commission</td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td>Christèle Duvieusart, European Commission</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>Joanna Basztura, European Commission</td></tr><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Klaus Koerner, European Commission</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>Antonio García Gómez, European Commission</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Country Background Report

Information on countries' policies and practices was gathered through country background reports (CBRs). The CBRs were prepared in response to a common set of issues and questions, and used a common framework to facilitate comparative analysis and maximise the opportunities for countries to learn from each other. The CBRs were a key source of information for the review's thematic comparative reports. The guidelines for the preparation of CBRs are set out in a dedicated document available on the review website (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm). The CBRs were structured around the following main chapters:

1. The national context

2. The school system

3. Governance of resource use in schools

4. Resource distribution

5. Resource utilisation

6. Resource management

The CBRs are intended for four main audiences: The Secretariat and OECD member and observer countries as an aid to sharing experiences and identifying common problems and policy options; the team of external reviewers who visited the countries which opted for a country review; those interested in the use of school resources in the country concerned; and those interested in the use of school resources at international level and in other countries. All CBRs are available on the review website (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).

## Qualitative data collection

In addition to the country background reports, the School Resources Review collected information on countries' national approaches to school funding through a qualitative questionnaire prepared by the OECD Secretariat. Seventeen systems participated in this qualitative data collection. The questionnaire focused on formal requirements for funding in terms of laws and regulations for early childhood and school education that were in place in 2016. It did not cover observed practices which can vary considerably. The questionnaire covered the following issues: raising resources for education; the public funding of private providers; budgeting and planning procedures; the distribution of
current and capital expenditure; targeted funding; VET funding; the use of funding at the school level; and monitoring and reporting procedures.

The qualitative survey provided crucial information to complement the information available through CBRs and to support the review's analysis. Selected information gathered through the survey is reflected in the review's first thematic report on school funding as well as Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of this report. The review team made every effort to ensure in collaboration with countries that the information available in this report is as valid and robust as possible and reflects specific country contexts while being comparable across countries. However, given the complex nature of school funding and the qualitative nature of this survey, information should be interpreted with care. Country contacts for the qualitative data collection are listed in Table B.3.

<table><caption>Table B.3. Country contacts for the qualitative data collection</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>Country contact(s)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Bernhard Chabera, Austrian Federal Ministry for Education and Women's Affairs</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (Flemish Community)</td><td>Marie-Anne Persoons, Flemish Ministry of Education and Training</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (French Community)</td><td>Philippe Dieu, International Relations Directorate of the Federation Wallonia-Brussels</td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td>Eduardo Candia Agusti, Chilean Ministry of Education<br/>Carla Guazzini, Chilean Ministry of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td>Luci Priknerová, Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Jon Jespersen, Danish Ministry of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Kadi Serbak, Estonian Ministry of Education and Research</td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>Gunnar Jóhannes Árnason, Icelandic Ministry of Education, Science and Culture</td></tr><tr><td>Israel</td><td>Daniel Levi-Mazloum, Israeli Ministry of Education<br/>Yoav Azulay, Israeli Ministry of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Kazakhstan</td><td>Dilyara Tashibaeva, Information Analytic Center<br/>Saniya Boranbayeva, Information Analytic Center</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>Jurga Zacharkienė, Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Science</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>Ana Neves, Portuguese Ministry of Education</td></tr><tr><td>Slovak Republic</td><td>Ján Toman, National Institute for Educational Assessment</td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>Klemen Surk Kokalj, Slovenian Ministry of Education, Science and Sport</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>Isabel Couso Tapia, Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport</td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Gunnar Stenberg, Swedish Ministry of Education and Research</td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td>Lucía Castro, National Institute for Educational Evaluation<br/>Cecilia Oreiro, National Institute for Educational Evaluation</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Country review reports

Another major source of material for this report was the set of country review reports prepared by the external review teams that visited participating countries engaging in a full country review. By providing an external perspective on the use of school resources in the countries concerned, the country review reports were also intended to contribute to national discussions, as well as inform other countries about policy innovations underway. The country review reports were also published as a publication series, *OECD Reviews of School Resources*, in order to enhance the visibility of these country-specific outputs as part of the review.
For each country visited, a team of up to five reviewers (including at least two OECD Secretariat members) analysed the country background report and associated materials and subsequently undertook an intensive case study visit over the course of about seven days. The reviewers were selected in consultation with the country authorities to ensure that they had experience relevant to the main policy issues in the country concerned. The study visit aimed to provide the review team with a variety of perspectives on the governance, distribution, management and utilisation of school resources and included meetings with education and finance authorities at national and sub-national levels; relevant agencies (e.g. audit offices); teacher professional organisations and unions; parents' organisations; representatives of schools and school leaders; students' organisations; teacher educators; researchers; as well as students, teachers and school leaders at the schools visited. The objective was to accumulate sufficient information and understanding on which to base the analysis and policy recommendations.

At the time of publication, 12 review visits had been conducted, involving 25 external reviewers with a range of research and policy backgrounds. The reviews involved a planning visit and a main review visit. Details on the composition of the review teams for the main visits can be found in Table B.4. The country review reports are published on the project website (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
<table><caption>Table B.4. Country reviews and team members</caption><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>Review visit team</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Kazakhstan<br>31 March-9 April 2014</td><td>Anna Pons, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Jeremie Amoroso, World Bank<br>Jan Herczyński, Institute for Educational Research, Poland<br>Igor Kheyfets, World Bank<br>Marlaine Lockheed, Princeton University, United States<br>Paulo Santiago, OECD Secretariat</td></tr><tr><td>Slovak Republic<br>7-14 October 2014</td><td>Paulo Santiago, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Gábor Halász, University Eötvös Loránd, Hungary<br>Rosalind Levačić, Institute of Education - University of London, United Kingdom<br>Claire Shewbridge, OECD Secretariat</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia<br>20-27 October 2014</td><td>Paulo Santiago, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Anthony Levitas, Brown University, United States<br>Péter Radó, Education Consultant, Hungary<br>Claire Shewbridge, OECD Secretariat</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (Flemish Community)<br>3-10 November 2014</td><td>Deborah Nusche, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Gary Miron, Western Michigan University, United States<br>Paulo Santiago, OECD Secretariat<br>Richard Teese, University of Melbourne, Australia</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania<br>2-9 December 2014</td><td>Claire Shewbridge, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Katrina Godfrey, Department of Education of Northern Ireland, United Kingdom<br>Zoltán Hermann, Institute of Economics - Academy of Sciences, Hungary<br>Deborah Nusche, OECD Secretariat</td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay<br>17-25 March 2015</td><td>Paulo Santiago, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Beatrice Avalos, Universidad de Chile, Chile<br>Tracey Burns, OECD Secretariat<br>Alejandro Morduchowicz, Inter-American Development Bank<br>Thomas Radinger, OECD Secretariat</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark<br>22-29 April 2015</td><td>Deborah Nusche, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Torberg Falch, Norwegian University of Science and Technology<br>Thomas Radinger, OECD Secretariat<br>Bruce Shaw, Ontario Ministry of Education, Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic<br>26 May - 2 June 2015</td><td>Claire Shewbridge, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Jan Herczyński, Institute for Educational Research, Poland<br>Thomas Radinger, OECD Secretariat<br>Julie Sonneman, Education Consultant - Learning First, Australia</td></tr><tr><td>Austria<br>24-30 June 2015</td><td>Deborah Nusche, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Marius R. Busemeyer, University of Konstanz, Germany<br>Thomas Radinger, OECD Secretariat<br>Henno Theisens, The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Chile<br>22-30 September 2015</td><td>Paulo Santiago, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Ariel Fiszbein, Inter-American Dialogue, United States<br>Sandra Garcia Jaramillo, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia<br>Thomas Radinger, OECD Secretariat</td></tr><tr><td>Colombia<br>5-13 December 2017</td><td>Thomas Radinger, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Alfonso Echazarra, OECD Secretariat<br>Gabriela Guerrero, GRADE Peru<br>Juan Pablo Valenzuela, University of Chile</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal<br>8-12 January 2018<br>(report forthcoming)</td><td>David Liebowitz, OECD Secretariat (co-ordinator)<br>Pablo González, University of Chile<br>Edith Hooge, Tilburg University, Netherlands<br>Gonçalo Lima, OECD Secretariat<br>Deborah Nusche, OECD Secretariat</td></tr></tbody></table>
## Analytical background papers

The School Resources Review was also informed by the following analytical background papers and literature reviews prepared in the context of the project:

* *School Size Policies: A Literature Review*, by Macarena Ares Abalde, OECD Education Working Paper No. 106 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxt472ddkjl-en.

* *Learning Support Staff: A Literature Review*, by Francesc Masdeu, OECD Education Working Paper No. 125 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrnzm39w45l-en.

* *Student Learning Time: A Literature Review*, by Anna Gromada and Claire Shewbridge, OECD Education Working Paper No. 127 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm409kqqkjh-en.

* *Budgeting and Accounting in OECD Education Systems: A Literature Review*, by Tala Fakharzadeh, OECD Education Working Paper No. 128 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jm3xgsz03kh-en.

* *Regulating Publicly Funded Private Schools: A Literature Review on Equity and Effectiveness*, by Luka Boeskens, OECD Education Working Paper No. 147 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jln6jcg80r4-en.

## Dissemination

To facilitate dissemination and encourage feedback, all project documents and outputs are published on the review's website (www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm). Throughout the review, the OECD Secretariat presented the project and its findings at a wide range of internal and external meetings and a significant number of countries organised national events to discuss both the international results from the review and the conclusions of specific country reviews.
<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT

The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies.

The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The European Union takes part in the work of the OECD.

OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation's statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members.
# Responsive School Systems

## CONNECTING FACILITIES, SECTORS AND PROGRAMMES FOR STUDENT SUCCESS

This report on *Responsive School Systems* is the second in a series of thematic comparative reports bringing together findings from the OECD's School Resources Review. Evolving educational objectives, changing student needs and demographic developments require school systems to be highly responsive to new patterns of demand and adapt their provision accordingly. The organisation of school facilities, sectors and programmes plays a key role in doing so and in providing students with a high-quality education where they need it. The report aims to assist governments in organising school infrastructures and services to achieve their education policy objectives and to ensure that resources are used effectively and equitably. It offers a systematic analysis of the governance of school networks, their adaption to demographic changes and student needs in urban, rural and remote areas, as well as the vertical and horizontal co-ordination of education services to improve students' transitions.

Consult this publication on line at https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306707-en.

This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases.

Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org for more information.

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>