Box 3.11. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) for school infrastructure investments in the Flemish Community of Belgium

In the face of demographic pressures and the need to expand its school network, the Flemish Community of Belgium has attracted private investment through Design-Build-Finance-Maintain (DBFM) schemes. With a total investment volume of EUR 1.5 billion, the public-private partnerships involve the construction of 200 new low-energy facilities, increasing the number of schools by more than 5%. Venture partners that invest in school buildings through the DBFM scheme agree to maintain them to an agreed standard for 30 years, while school boards pay them a leasing fee, partly subsidised by the public Agency for Educational Infrastructure (AGIOn).

At the end of the 30-year leasing period, ownership is transferred to the school boards without any additional costs. Following a public tender, Fortis Bank Belgium's Fortis Real Estate was selected to be AGIOn's private partner for all venture projects, which allowed constructions to benefit from economies of scale. The project's scope and its effectiveness in supplementing public resources with private equity to create sustainable facilities have rendered DBFM schemes a success, although capacity shortages continue to be a pressing issue in Belgium's metropolitan areas.

Source: Nusche, D., et al. (2015), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Flemish Community of Belgium 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247598-en; International Relations Directorate of the Federation Wallonia-Brussels (2016), OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for the French Community of Belgium.

Since large-scale housing constructions generate increased demand for schooling, many countries expect developers to cover some of the associated capital costs. Leveraging contributions from housing developers can thereby help to ensure that the number of school places rises in line with student populations in expanding neighbourhoods. In England and Wales, for example, local authorities can charge developer contributions through Section 106 funding and the more recently introduced Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to meet infrastructural investment needs arising from new developments in their area (Local Government Association, 2014[192]). With few exceptions, CIL contributions are levied on all new developments in the form of a non-negotiable fixed-rate tax and can be used to fund any type of public infrastructure, such as roads, parks, hospitals or schools.

Depending on their design, development fees – as are common in many US states – may be better suited to serving expanding suburban areas than high-density neighbourhoods with little new housing construction, even though they may experience a similar shortage in school places (Vincent, 2006[187]). Particularly where developer contributions are subject to site-by-site negotiations, rather than mandatory and transparently calculated parameters, local authorities may also lack long-term planning certainty and the capacity or power to enter mutually satisfactory agreements. Some communities in the United Kingdom, for example, have reported difficulties when trying to negotiate developer fees in times of economic downturns and raised concerns that they might inhibit investment in affordable housing (Local Government Association, 2014[192]). The newly introduced CIL aimed to mitigate some of these problems with a tariff based approach that allowed the tax to be levied more efficiently and fairly on all new developments, rather than just a few larger-scale schemes, and gave both local authorities and developers more planning certainty. In addition, local authorities did not need to invest contributions where they were collected, which gave them greater flexibility to
channel resources to the places that needed them the most. To encourage the construction of affordable housing, they were excluded from obligatory contributions.

### Integrated multi-sector responses to student segregation

Educational segregation is the product of a complex interplay between residential segregating and different selection dynamics involving both parents and schools. While there may not be a silver bullet to avoid school segregation, a set of co-ordinated interventions spanning multiple policy sectors can attenuate the concentration of educational disadvantage and foster diversity in schools. Some of these strategies seek to reduce housing segregation as one of the main drivers of school segregation. Within the education sector, three sets of strategies have been distinguished: First, direct interventions into the distribution of students and school places. Second, “controlled choice” schemes that regulate the parameters of parental choice. Third, school improvement strategies that seek to promote a more balanced distribution of students by targeting support at the most disadvantaged schools and thereby raise their attractiveness (Karsten, 2010[156]).

### Direct interventions into the distribution of students

In countries operating mandatory student assignment systems, several strategies can be used to increase diversity in schools and counteract the impact of segregated housing. Direct interventions into the distribution of students have been relatively rare among OECD countries. The most prominent examples are known from the United States, where court orders in many school districts advanced the desegregation process by mandating “non-white” children from the poorest neighbourhoods to be “bussed” to predominantly “white” schools in more prosperous districts (Karsten, 2010[156]). Yet, there are other examples of assignment policies aimed at creating a more balanced distribution of students across the school network. These include the adjustment of catchment areas, e.g. integrating affluent and disadvantaged neighbourhoods into one district; the strategic planning of new schools to serve mixed student populations; magnet schools that recruit students and families to attend specialised schools in diverse neighbourhoods; and different forms of student transfer policies (Karsten, 2010[156]) (see Chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion).

The Danish capital city Copenhagen has sought to tackle the consequences of residential segregation and “native flight” with an ambitious initiative incorporating some of these elements starting in 2006. As part of its “Copenhagen Model for Integration”, the city implemented a series of measures including an extensive bussing scheme to more evenly distribute immigrant and native students across the city’s public schools (see Box 3.12) (OECD, 2009[193]; Nusche, 2009[194]; Open Society Foundations, 2011[195]; Houlberg et al., 2016[196]).
Box 3.12. Reducing segregation through student transfers and transport in Copenhagen

Following a pilot phase in 2006, the City of Copenhagen rolled out a series of initiatives as part of its “Improved Learning for All” (*Faglighed for alle*) programme. Its aim was to reduce the high degree of ethnic segregation among the city’s public schools by providing incentives for ethnic minority students to choose mostly native schools, and *vice versa*. The initiative addressed both immigrant students, who tended to be highly concentrated in some neighbourhoods, and native students, many of whom exercised school choice to withdraw from public schools with a high proportion of immigrants.

To increase diversity in predominantly native neighbourhoods, schools reserved a certain number of places for bilingual students from catchment areas with a high concentration of immigrants, who were supported with free municipal bus transport in case they chose to enrol in a school outside their neighbourhood. Participating schools also trained their teachers in educating bilingual students and employed integration workers or translators of ethnic minority background to advance the integration of newly arrived immigrants.

At the same time, the programme involved multiple schools with large numbers of immigrant students in publicity campaigns to raise their attractiveness and deter “native flight”. This included mother tongue instruction, anti-discrimination initiatives and efforts to collaborate with local pre-schools to inform parents of the advantages of choosing their local public school over a private alternative or a school elsewhere.

According to an evaluation carried out by the city in 2010, the programme appears to have had a small but positive impact, resulting in a more balanced distribution of bilingual students across Copenhagen’s public schools, an improved perception of local public schools and a reduced achievement gap between immigrant and native students. Other cities, such as Aarhus, have adopted similar policies to encourage voluntary transfers among immigrant students.

Source: OECD (2009), *OECD Territorial Reviews: Copenhagen, Denmark 2009*, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264060036-en; Nusche, D. (2009), “What Works in Migrant Education?: A Review of Evidence and Policy Options”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/227131784531; Open Society Foundations (2011), *At Home in Europe: Muslims in Denmark*, Open Society Foundation: Budapest.

Other strategies aim to re-balance the distribution of students in segregated school systems by providing socio-economically advantaged or ethnic majority students with incentives to attend schools with diverse student populations. In the United States, some “magnet schools” have been explicitly designed as desegregation tools since the 1970s. Located in relatively disadvantaged areas, they sought to attract students from other neighbourhoods with specialised math, science or art curricula and a high-quality education in an integrated learning environment. Students attending such magnet schools outside their catchment areas are usually provided with free school transport (Nusche, 2009[194]).
*Regulating school choice and selection to reduce student segregation*

As discussed in Chapter 2, the process by which students are allocated to schools has a significant impact on the degree of school segregation. The modalities of parental choice and residence-based assignment matter particularly in dense school networks where most students have multiple schools within their reach. Although they are frequently intended to reduce the impact of residential segregation on educational opportunities, school choice schemes that lack carefully designed checks and balances have sometimes reproduced, if not exacerbated segregation in the school network due to differential parental preferences and decision-making behaviour (see Chapter 2 for a more detailed discussion).

Public and school transport systems are another factor moderating the link between residential segregation and diversity in schools. Weakly developed or prohibitively costly transport networks can limit the extent to which lower-income families benefit from school choice while effective school transport arrangements can ensure that all students are sufficiently mobile to benefit from the expansion of parental choice. Pioneered in the United States to overcome the legacy of racial segregation in the 1950s, bussing schemes have since been used in multiple countries with the explicit aim to achieve a more socially balanced distribution of students across the school network and reduce the impact of residential segregation (Brunello and De Paola, 2017[197]).

*Using integrated improvement strategies for schools across the performance spectrum*

One of the most troubling consequences of segregation in urban areas is the concentration of high-needs students, which places a disproportionate burden on some schools in the network if they fail to receive adequate support. Given that demographic trends and entrenched segregation in many inner-city districts limit policy makers’ ability to raise schools’ socio-economic and ethnic diversity, some cities have shifted their attention towards making schools with a high concentration of disadvantaged students as effective as possible (Karsten, 2010[156]). Alongside approaches such as weighted funding formulas and teacher mobility schemes (OECD, 2017[27]), integrated school improvement strategies seek to address the complex needs of schools with widely diverging levels of performance and capacity.

One example of integrated improvement plans that co-ordinate targeted support for schools across the performance spectrum is the London Challenge, which was implemented in the United Kingdom's capital between 2003 and 2008 and subsequently expanded to other regions as the City Challenge until 2011 (see Box 3.13) (Nusche et al., 2016, p. 167[72]). Other initiatives seeking to raise the quality of schools with high proportions of migrant students include Switzerland's Quality in Multi-Ethnic Schools (QUIMS) programme. In a context where growing numbers of native middle class families left inner-city districts with ethnically diverse populations, Swiss authorities responded with an area-wide model of quality assurance to improve educational provisions for students from migrant backgrounds and reverse the trend of segregation by increasing the attractiveness of multi-ethnic schools. To achieve these goals, the programme provided additional resources and professional support to schools with 40% or more students from migrant backgrounds (Nusche, 2009[194]).
Box 3.13. The London Challenge and City Challenge

In England (United Kingdom), the Department for Education and Skills launched the London Challenge to improve education in the capital. While the programme initially focused on supporting secondary schools in London between 2003 and 2008, it was expanded as the “City Challenge” to include primary schools in to two additional areas – Greater Manchester and the Black Country – between 2008 and 2011.

Building on the experience of its predecessor, the City Challenge pursued three objectives: to reduce the number of underperforming schools; to increase the number of good and outstanding schools; and to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged children. The programme included a number of elements aimed at schools across the performance spectrum: identifying the underperforming schools that would require the most support (“Keys to Success”); supporting satisfactory schools in becoming outstanding through targeted interventions; support schools in narrowing attainment gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers; providing schools with data about their intake; grouping schools into so-called “Families of Schools” and encouraging them to work together; building the capacity of local authorities; implementing leadership development strategies led by the National College for School Leadership; in addition to various local interventions. The programme did not promote a single view of what schools needed to do to improve. Instead, all interventions were based on local decisions involving key stakeholders, including school principals and local authority officials.

An evaluation of the City Challenge positively highlighted that the proposed strategies for school improvement included different forms of support, depending on the schools' performance and reinforced the notion that all schools should strive to improve their provision (Hutchings et al., 2012[198]). Inadequate and underperforming schools benefited from experts' support. Satisfactory schools worked with two or three other schools with similar intakes, led by the principal of a school that was further along its school improvement process. Good and outstanding schools benefited from a wide range of opportunities to share their practices and learn from the experience of other successful schools, while also supporting weaker schools.

Source: Baars, S. et al. (2014), *Lessons from London Schools: Investigating the Success, http://centreforlondon.org/publication/lessons-london-schools*; Kidson, M. and E. Norris (2014), Implementing the London Challenge, https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Implementing%20the%20London%20Challenge%20-%20final_0.pdf; Hutchings, M. et al. (2012), Evaluation of the City Challenge Programme, www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-city-challenge-programme.

*Supporting students' access to high-quality schools through concomitant housing policies*

Although school improvement, the regulation of school choice systems, and incentives for schools to enrol more diverse cohorts are important levers to reduce student segregation and address its consequences, residential segregation exerts a pervasive influence on the distribution of students across the school network. Ensuring that cities' rich educational offer benefits all of their residents therefore requires a broader strategy that includes concomitant approaches across multiple policy sectors including housing and public transport. Policies designed to increase the availability of affordable housing
in high-quality school districts or expand the residential mobility of minority and low-income families can expand access to neighbourhoods that meet both their residential and educational expectations (Rhodes and Warkentien, 2017[199]).

Authorities at the national and the local level can have a critical influence on the supply and demand for affordable housing. Policies such as inclusionary zoning and housing allowances, which aim to make quality housing available to all segments of the population, are not only an important step towards more mixed neighbourhoods and lower school segregation – they are also considered a primary lever for inclusive economic growth in cities (OECD, 2016, p. 121[129]). Income-dependent housing allowances, usually centrally provided in the form of cash subsidies or vouchers, can help to promote mixed-income urban neighbourhoods and encourage residential mobility. Recent evidence also suggests that well-implemented allowances yield significant benefits for young children’s long-term educational trajectories. For example, evaluations of the Moving to Opportunities (MTO) experiment, conducted by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, show that children who benefited from the programme under the age of 13 were more likely to attend college and went on to have higher earnings as adults (Chetty, Hendren and Katz, 2016[166]).

At the city-level, inclusionary zoning policies can be an effective supply-side instrument to reduce segregation and increase the availability of affordable housing, for example by requiring new developments to contain a specified share of affordable housing units, sometimes in exchange for financial or regulatory concessions. This can encourage the inclusion of low-income households in otherwise market-rate residential areas and avoid the spatially concentrated supply of low-income housing that sometimes resulted from traditional social housing schemes. Originating primarily in the United States, inclusionary zoning practices have since been adopted in a number of other countries (OECD, 2016, p. 125[129]).

If housing policies at the national and local levels are misaligned, they can cancel each other out, resulting in a sub-optimal use of resources and the erosion of their social and economic impact. Common examples of such conflicting approaches include the imposition of demand-side constraints on the housing supply at the local level (e.g. through land-use regulations, development controls and zoning requirements), and simultaneous efforts to stimulate supply at the national level (e.g. through spending on new housing construction or facilitated access to home ownership through regulatory tools and tax incentives). To prevent housing policies at different levels of government from undercutting one another, it is important to address the causes of co-ordination weaknesses and ensure that policies across levels are aligned (OECD, 2016, p. 121[129]).

Social rental housing provided at sub-market prices and allocated according to specific criteria, is commonly used to increase access to affordable housing for low-income individuals. In systems with decentralised responsibilities for the provision of social housing, municipalities with a high share of low-income households may not have the financial and organisational capacity to maintain an adequate supply of social housing. In addition, the construction of large social housing estates, disconnected from existing street networks, has occasionally aggravated segregation and exclusion by concentrating disadvantaged households in neighbourhoods with low-quality public services and limited access to job opportunities. Creating inclusive cities therefore requires a holistic urban planning approach that addresses issues related to education, employment, culture, safety, urban services and social cohesion while carefully considering the indirect consequences of policy decisions over the long term (OECD, 2016[129]).
3.7. Policy options

*Consider a range of strategies to enhance the efficiency of school networks with excess capacities in the light of contextual constraints and students' educational needs*

Demographic shifts, regional economic developments and changing student needs have exposed many school systems to costly mismatches between educational demand and supply in both rural and urban areas. Adjusting the school network in response to these challenges and realising its potential for synergies has therefore become a central aim for school systems seeking to enhance their efficiency and free up resources to improve student outcomes. In order to do so, policy makers should consider the full spectrum of strategies to rationalise the organisation of the school network, which includes re-thinking how educational services are defined and distributed across school sites, fostering co-operation and resource sharing between providers, creating school clusters and engaging in consolidation.

*Adopt a modular approach, allowing for flexibility in the way grade levels are distributed across school sites*

Encouraging a “modular” approach to the school network and educational offer can expand the repertoire of flexible strategies to advance their efficient organisation. This entails shifting the focus away from schools as entire institutions towards the individual services they offer and re-evaluating whether there is room for improving the way they are distributed across school sites. Allowing for some flexibility in the combination of different grade levels within the same institutions can make it easier to adapt the school network in response to changing levels of demand, particularly if contextual developments generate different pressures across levels of education. Promoting these modular approaches should also involve a reflection on which levels of education can be adequately offered at the local level and which ones should rather be provided at a larger scale.

*Promote resource sharing and school clusters to address efficiency concerns in fragmented networks*

In many cases, encouraging small schools to co-ordinate their educational offer, share resources or consolidate their administrations can allow school networks to significantly enhance their efficiency without fundamentally intervening in the number, size or location of its schools. Besides the economic savings generated through economies of scale, resource sharing and collaboration can also improve small schools’ capacity to provide a broad curriculum and high-quality instruction. This can be achieved, for example, by sharing teaching equipment or entering joint purchasing agreements, by jointly offering courses or easing the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers by providing them with better development opportunities and a larger professional community.

Co-operation between schools can take different forms with varying degrees of formality, duration and scope. School clusters and federations, for example, which consolidate the administration of multiple school sites, should be considered as an effective means to counteract some of the disadvantages of small schools without requiring their removal from the local community. In light of its complexity, the successful introduction of a centralised leadership team and budget for multi-site schools requires careful attention to
building the capacity for pedagogical and administrative leadership, and possibly the
development of middle and distributed leadership structures.

To leverage innovative approaches to the design and delivery of services in rural communities, authorities should also identify and reduce barriers or disincentives that impede schools from engaging in voluntary collaboration and resource sharing. Depending on an assessment of the obstacles to co-operation, promoting efficient collaboration can also involve strengthening local capacity, regional planning platforms and steering the process through regulatory instruments or incentives.

*Advance school consolidation by carefully combining incentives and direct support if there is a strong economic and pedagogical case*

Despite the great potential of resource sharing and inter-school collaboration, systems with a fragmented school network that exhibits significant inefficiencies should complement these approaches with incentives for the consolidation of small schools. This practice involving the closure of some schools and the transfer of its students to a proximate site can yield long-term cost savings by increasing the average size of schools and lower per-student fixed costs. When considering the consolidation of school networks, authorities should take great care to weigh its economic benefits against the substantial transition costs generated during the process, the public and private expenditure arising from longer commuting distances, and the social and economic impact on surrounding communities.

As reiterated below, any consolidation project must also, first and foremost, yield tangible pedagogical benefits for the students it concerns. Larger, better resourced schools may offer their students greater curricular diversity, specialised teachers and support services, better equipment, facilities and activities as well as the ability to organise all instruction in single-grade settings. Yet, the increased distance from students’ homes and the short-term disruptive experience of relocating to a new school can negatively impact students’ well-being and learning outcomes. To attenuate these effects, authorities need to ensure that the transition process is as smooth as possible and students are well-integrated in their new environments. Policy makers should also acknowledge that some constraints, such as the geographic isolation of some rural communities, may render consolidation impossible and that, particularly for younger children, maintaining access to schools at a reasonable distance from home should remain a priority.

Authorities that decide to pursue consolidation should consider a combination of policy levers, including financial incentives and direct support in the school closure process. Incentives for consolidation, for example in the form of per capita funding through a central formula, can constitute a powerful steering tool that discourages the maintenance of small schools due to their relatively high per-student fixed costs. These measures should be carefully targeted at the educational levels and sectors in which consolidation is expected to yield the greatest benefit, and include safeguards for schools that can or should not be subject to closure. Direct aid can help consolidating districts in stemming the associated transition cost. As discussed in Chapter 2, consolidation can also be encouraged through policy levers aimed at the adjustment of governance arrangements, for example by increasing the size of catchment areas and financially autonomous administrative districts. Imposing universal rules concerning, for example, minimum class and school sizes that leave local actors with little room for manoeuvre risks to overlook the importance of local context for the efficient organisation of the school network and the feasibility of consolidation. In general, authorities should be careful to
provide clear incentives, avoid sending contradictory signals and select steering tools that reinforce, rather than undermine or offset each other.

*Address concerns for local development and develop strategies to use facilities effectively beyond the point of consolidation*

School closures may have short- and longer-term ramifications for the local community and neighbouring areas, which need to be taken into consideration when planning to restructure the school network. Particularly the closure of schools frequently raises concerns that it may accelerate the demographic and economic decline, particularly in rural communities. Even though the consolidation of schools is more frequently a symptom than a cause of a community's decline, fears that any efficiency gains stemming from consolidation could be offset by reduced economic activity, lower tax revenue and declining property values need to be taken seriously. While decisions on the future of small, rural schools should be based on what is in the best interest of their students rather than their value for local and regional development, authorities should think of alternative ways to sustain the social benefits that schools provide where consolidation is seen as economically unavoidable or pedagogically prudent.

This should involve supporting local institutions in taking over any essential functions that the school may have provided in addition to its educational services, as well as a broader reflection on economic strategies and funding solutions to support rural development beyond the field of education. Developing plans for the future use of consolidated school facilities in close collaboration with local stakeholders is another important part of the post-consolidation process. Doing so is not only central to materialising the prospective efficiency gains of consolidation, but also to pre-empt local stakeholders' concerns and offset some of the negative side-effects the consolidating community may experience.

*Compensate for efficiency, quality and equity challenges experienced by remote schools*

In areas where network consolidation or increased co-operation between schools is unfeasible due to their geographic isolation or other reasons, a range of compensatory policies including targeted funding and the use of ICT can put them in a better position to provide their students with the high-quality education they deserve. Various forms of ICT-supported education, ranging from distance learning to students' participation in teacher-facilitated web-based lessons can ameliorate the limitations imposed by the narrow curriculum and personnel of small rural schools. Given the wide distribution of student outcomes in ICT-supported education, their successful introduction requires careful preparation, including the development and provision of appropriate electronic content, training teachers in rural schools, and ensuring sufficient network connectivity.

To compensate for efficiency challenges in parts of the school network, authorities should also ensure that the regulatory environment is transparent and flexible enough for schools to leverage the support of their community. Given that small schools, particularly in rural areas, are often embedded in tight-knit communities and considered to serve an important role in their social life, many of them have sought to leverage the support of parents, small businesses and other local actors to ameliorate their condition. Voluntary contributions and favourable collaborations, for example on maintenance works or the organisation of social events, can ease the financial burden of small schools and help to ensure their continued operation. To encourage community involvement, local authorities
should therefore create a constructive and permissible regulatory environment while at
the same time monitoring community involvement to ensure that health and safety
regulations are adhered to and public resources are spent effectively.

Where consolidation and other means to improve the efficient operation of the school network are not an option, authorities should consider providing struggling remote schools with targeted financial support. Since it is widely recognised that the provision of high-quality education in rural areas comes at a higher per-student cost, some countries provide dedicated funding to compensate for the greater resource needs of small, isolated schools and their difficulty to recruit high-quality teachers. In addition, targeted programmes have been used to finance teacher professional development and collaboration across isolated schools and transport arrangements where distance constitutes a significant barrier for teachers' mobility. Given the significant geographic heterogeneity in the supply of high-quality teachers, support for an adequate provision of initial teacher education and effective "grow your own" programmes can help to alleviate concerns about teacher shortages in rural settings.

*Respond to capacity shortages in school networks strategically*

Effectively meeting the rising demand for school places in high-density urban areas and networks with rising student numbers can be a major challenge. Increases in enrolment, whether caused by residential development, increased birth rates or changing patterns of migration, may be long-lasting or short-lived and appear with varying degrees of predictability. Initiating new constructions in response to momentary spikes in enrolment can render buildings obsolete long the investment has paid off. Conversely, short-term solutions such as the intensified use of existing buildings or temporary facilities are unlikely to be efficient and beneficial for student learning in the long run if the level of enrolment remains high. Countries should therefore cultivate strategic foresight and the capacity to distinguish long-term enrolment trends from short-term fluctuations to ensure that the school network's capacity grows in line with increased long-term demand. This may include providing the responsible authorities with the analytical tools and capacity to identify areas of heightened demographic pressure and the sites where new school constructions would most effectively alleviate overcrowding or cater to expected population growth.

Modifying the school networks’ existing infrastructure can enhance their efficiency and generate additional capacity where increases in student enrolment are expected to be temporary or occur too rapidly for new constructions to offer sufficient relief. Contingency plans and guidance materials should be used to help schools and local authorities in weighing the pros and cons of different ways to adjust their facilities in these scenarios. As an immediate and minimally invasive remedy, remaining capacities in oversubscribed school networks should be identified and put to use by re-directing students or advising schools how to use their space more efficiently. In exceptional circumstances, relaxing maximum class size rules for a limited period of time can also be an effective way to accommodate temporary spikes in demand.

The use of prefabricated mobile classrooms can be another effective short to medium-term response to capacity shortages where insufficient time or capital funding rules out the construction of new facilities or student demand is expected to subside again. Temporary classrooms can add flexibility to the school network and attenuate the negative impact of acute overcrowding but high standards should ensure that they not only guarantee the students’ health and safety but also provide them with a high-quality
learning environment. Since mobile classrooms are unlikely to be as economically efficient or conducive to student learning as permanent facilities in the long run, their period of use should remain limited.

In contexts where the demand for school places is expected to rise and remain high, whether due to demographic shifts or policy changes, authorities need to ensure that the school network expands its provision of high-quality facilities in line with educational demand. Where new demand is generated by housing development, instruments like developer fees that link capital funding to residential construction projects, can be an effective way to share the burden for infrastructural investments. However, authorities should avoid an overreliance on locally restricted developer contributions and acknowledge that high-density areas with little new construction activity may also experience rising demand for school places. Likewise, countries in which developer contributions are subject to site-by-site negotiations rather than calculations based on uniform criteria, local authorities should be given sufficient long-term planning certainty and the capacity to reach satisfactory agreements without having to compromise on the construction of affordable housing, particularly in times of economic downturn.

## *Take a multi-sector approach to reduce segregation and ensure that all students benefit from the rich offer of urban school networks*

A high density of schools and students can enable cities to provide a rich educational offer and extensive choice. However, due to residential patterns and differential school choice behaviour, not all students benefit from these opportunities to the same extent. The schools of many cities are academically stratified and segregated along the lines of students' economic and socio-demographic characteristics. These patterns have a tendency to become entrenched and risk depriving students of the chance to live up to their full potential. Since the factors that contribute to segregation dynamics are context dependent, authorities should investigate them carefully before rigorously piloting and rolling out an appropriate combination of measures across policy domains, including education, transport and housing.

The position of new schools can exacerbate or attenuate the effect of residential segregation on students' educational opportunities. Newly opened schools should be encouraged to serve areas with diverse student populations, accompanied by information campaigns or specialised offers to encourage their attendance, particularly where parents are at risk of transferring their children to the private sector. Policies related to student assignment mechanisms and parental choice also mediate the educational consequences of residential segregation. Although they are often intended to widen access to high-quality education, school choice schemes risk to limit rather than expand opportunities for disadvantaged students due to differential parental preferences and behaviour. To avoid this, all parents should be supported in taking full advantage of their educational opportunities and carefully designed checks and balances need to ensure that the submission of school preferences and admissions criteria support a diverse student intake (see Chapter 2). In systems that rely on the geographic assignment of students to local schools, authorities should seek to define catchment areas that integrate affluent and disadvantaged neighbourhoods where possible, while keeping students' distance from their school reasonably short.

Sustainable efforts to prevent the marginalisation of disadvantaged students in highly segregated school systems need to be aligned with concomitant housing and public transport policies. To reduce residential segregation, authorities should consider both
supply-side instruments, such as inclusionary zoning, and demand-side tools like income-dependent housing allowances to promote residential mobility, increase the availability of affordable housing and foster mixed-income urban neighbourhoods. Housing policies at the national and local levels should be co-ordinated to prevent them from undercutting one another, which could result in a sub-optimal allocation of resources and the erosion of their social and economic objectives. Likewise, authorities should carefully monitor the effects of restrictive zoning, lot size regulations and other policies known to encourage the spatial concentration of social housing and take preventative measures where segregation is a concern.

Finally, the mutual reinforcement of residential and school segregation should be acknowledged and addressed to prevent the displacement of disadvantaged families from areas with high-quality schooling. Local funding mechanisms, including the relative importance of locally raised taxes for school investments, play an important role in mediating this relationship and should be scrutinised with a view to reduce geographic inequities. Likewise, initiatives aimed at narrowing the gap between high-performing and low-performing schools can be effective in raising the quality of the most disadvantaged schools while preventing the exodus of advantaged families from underperforming school districts. Among the promising avenues in this regard are integrated school improvement plans that provide tailored support for schools across the performance spectrum and encourage them to learn from one another.

*Make educational quality, equity and student well-being the guiding principles for network reforms*

Regardless of whether increased efficiency of the school network is pursued through school collaboration, consolidation or the expansion of capacity, advancing educational quality, equity and student well-being should be the guiding principle for any network reforms. To put this ambition into practice, responsible authorities can consider a set of policy options aimed at rendering network reforms more effective and sensitive to students' needs. The basis for any of these efforts is taking a systematic approach to monitoring ongoing network reforms and evaluating their effect on students and families. While authorities should also draw on international best practices for network reforms and the experience of comparable projects elsewhere, generating and sharing evaluation results among national stakeholders at the sub-system level is an equally crucial step towards system-wide learning and generating reliable insights into its effects on students.

*Ensure stakeholders are consulted and engaged in the process*

As with any major reform project, the reorganisation of school networks should be preceded by the systematic consultation and engagement of stakeholders. Structured consultation procedures bringing together all major stakeholders, including less powerful and active voices, can be an effective means to resolve conflicts before they arise, to hold authorities to account and find implementation strategies suitable to the local community's needs. The consultation and engagement leading up to reforms is crucial to ensure that stakeholders have adequate knowledge of educational policy goals, the ownership and willingness to effect change, and the tools to implement a reform as planned. Authorities should contribute to this process by maintaining a high level of transparency, articulating a clear vision for the school network reform, demonstrating that potential alternatives and their likely effects on students and the local community have been considered and providing a strong case that the plan will bring about tangible improvements in educational quality. Central guidance on when and how to conduct
consultation procedures can be an effective means to support local authorities and align expectations among all actors involved.

*Identify and address equity concerns*

For school network reforms to benefit students of all backgrounds and needs, it is essential for authorities to identify their potential impact on equity and the well-being of specific student groups well in advance and take the necessary steps to address them. Just as current inefficiencies in the school networks can place some students at a systematic disadvantage based on their location, resources or educational needs, restructuring the network can have a harmful impact on specific student groups and exacerbate existing inequities. Equity concerns should therefore receive particular attention in the institutional frameworks for effective network design and planning. As well as raising awareness among the responsible authorities, countries should take active steps to guarantee that these concerns are addressed, for example by ensuring that representatives of vulnerable groups are involved at key stages of the proposed reforms' design and implementation.

*Ensure effective arrangements for school transport*

Effective arrangements for students' transport to and from school or afternoon activities are central to guarantee their access to high-quality education. They are particularly crucial for the successful relocation of students affected by consolidation and to alleviate uncertainties among families and other stakeholders leading up to the closure of schools. Authorities should therefore provide clear and transparent frameworks that specify the conditions under which students have a right to school transport. The criteria used to determine students' eligibility for transport should be responsive to students' and families' needs. Besides the distance from the nearest school, these criteria could include the students' age or level of education, the availability of public transport options and the reliance on arrangements for special needs students.

Authorities should also align the responsibilities for setting up, operating and funding transport systems in case of school closures with their policy priorities for the organisation of the school network. Assigning responsibilities for the funding of student transport to the authorities responsible for managing the school network, for example, can ensure that the economic benefits and drawback of school closures are accounted for in their entirety before enacting consolidation plans, provided that the authorities manage a sufficiently large school network.

In denser school networks with some degree of parental choice, the means-tested provision of transport options also plays an important role in promoting equity and overcoming spatial segregation by enabling disadvantaged students to consider a wider range of schools beyond their immediate community. Weakly developed or prohibitively costly transport networks in urban areas may limit the extent to which lower-income families can benefit from educational opportunities that suit their children's needs. Authorities should therefore facilitate students' mobility between neighbourhoods as well as peripheral and central areas and monitor whether current transport provisions are effective in enhancing the mobility of disadvantaged families.
Notes

¹ Authors’ analysis based on TALIS 2013 data.
² Authors’ analysis based on PISA 2015 data. The analysis is limited to OECD countries with at least 100 sampled students in both levels of education. Differences may be partially explained by the fact that 15-year-old students in rural schools are more likely to have repeated a grade, and therefore to be in lower secondary education.
³ Authors’ analysis based on PISA 2015 data.
⁴ Authors’ analysis based on TALIS 2013 data.
⁵ Authors’ analysis based on PISA 2015 data.
References

Alcázar, L. and L. Ortiz (2011), “Para la mejora efectiva de la educación básica en el Perú, revisión de los principales programas educativos [For the effective improvement of basic education in Peru: review of the four main education programmes]”, IPAE, USAID, Canadian International Development Agency, http://repositorio.minedu.gob.pe/.[65]

Alemanno, A. (2015), “Stakeholder engagement in regulatory policy”, in OECD (ed.), *Regulatory Policy in Perspective: A Reader's Companion to the OECD Regulatory Policy Outlook 2015*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241800-6-en.[93]

Andrews, M., W. Duncombe and J. Yinger (2002), “Revisiting economies of size in American education: are we any closer to a consensus?”, *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 21, pp. 245-262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(01)00006-1.[34]

Ares Abalde, M. (2014), “School Size Policies: A Literature Review”, *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 106, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jxt472ddkjl-en.[30]

Asia Society/OECD (2018), *Teaching for Global Competence in a Rapidly Changing World*, Asia Society, New York, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264289024-en.[152]

Ballou, D. and M. Podgursky (1995), “Rural Schools—Fewer Highly Trained Teachers and Special Programs, but Better Learning Environment”, *Rural Development Perspectives*, Vol. 10/3, https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND20532391/PDF (accessed on 25 September 2017).[37]

Barbour, M. (2011), “The Promise and the Reality: Exploring Virtual Schooling in Rural Jurisdictions”, *Education in Rural Australia*, Vol. 21/1, http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/ced_fac/128 (accessed on 20 September 2017).[115]

Bayer, P., F. Ferreira and R. McMillan (2004), “Tiebout sorting, social multipliers and the demand for school quality”, *NBER Working Paper*, No. 10871, http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w10871.[169]

Behaghel, L., C. de Chaisemartin and M. Gurgand (2017), “Ready for boarding? The effects of a boarding school for disadvantaged students”, *American Economic Journal: Applied Economics*, Vol. 9/1, pp. 140-164, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/app.20150090.[111]

Belgian Court of Audit (2010), *Omkadering in het gewoon voltijds secundair onderwijs (Staff Structure in the Full-time Ordinary Secondary Education System)*, http://www.rekenhof.be/EN/Publications/Fiche.html?id=308088a0-06cf-42fd-b2d1-b9906b64b570.[69]

Bellei, C. (2009), “Does lengthening the school day increase students' academic achievement? Results from a natural experiment in Chile”, *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 28, pp. 629-640, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.01.008.[183]
Berends, M. and G. Zottola (2009), "Social perspectives on school choice", in Berends, M. (ed.), *Handbook of Research on School Choice*, Taylor and Francis, New York. [143]

Bernard, R. et al. (2004), "How Does Distance Education Compare With Classroom Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature", *Review of Educational Research*, Vol. 74/3, pp. 379-439, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379.

Berry, A. et al. (2012), "Issues in Special Education Teacher Recruitment, Retention, and Professional Development: Considerations in Supporting Rural Teachers", *Rural Special Education Quarterly*, Vol. 30/4, https://search.proquest.com/openview/35be380164a6078544778fe44f2468f5/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=26876 (accessed on 25 September 2017). [38]

Berry, C. and M. West (2008), "Growing Pains: The School Consolidation Movement and Student Outcomes", *The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization*, Vol. 26/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewn015.

Bertolini, P., M. Montanari and V. Peragine (2008), *Poverty and social exclusion in rural areas: Final study report*, European Commission, Brussels. [12]

Beuchert, L. et al. (2016), "The Short-Term Effects of School Consolidation on Student Achievement: Evidence of Disruption?", *IZA Discussion Paper*, No. 10195, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, http://ftp.iza.org/dp10195.pdf (accessed on 29 September 2017).

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

Borgonovi, F. and A. Pokropek (2017), "Birthplace diversity, income inequality and education gradients in generalised trust: The relevance of cognitive skills in 29 countries", *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 164, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f16a8bae-en.

Boulant, J., M. Brezzi and P. Veneri (2016), "Income Levels And Inequality in Metropolitan Areas: A Comparative Approach in OECD Countries", *OECD Regional Development Working Papers*, No. 2016/6, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwj02zz4mr-en.

Bray, M. (2008), *Double-shift schooling: Design and operation for cost-effectiveness*, UNESCO Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.14217/9781848597280-en.

Brummet, Q. (2014), "The effect of school closings on student achievement", *Journal of Public Economics*, Vol. 119, pp. 108-124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.010.

Brunello, G. and M. De Paola (2017), "School Segregation of Immigrants and its Effects on Educational Outcomes in Europe", *EENEE Analytical Reports*, No. 30.

Burdick-Will, J. and J. Logan (2017), "Schools at the Rural-Urban Boundary: Blurring the Divide?", *The Annals of the American Academy*, Vol. 672, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002716217707176.
Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), *Governing Education in a Complex World*, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.

Butler, J. et al. (2013), “Choice in a World of New School Types”, *Journal of Policy Analysis and Management*, Vol. 32, pp. 785-806, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21711.

Byun, S., J. Meece and M. Irvin (2012), “Rural-Nonrural Disparities in Postsecondary Educational Attainment Revisited”, *American Educational Research Journal*, Vol. 49/3, pp. 412-437, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831211416344.

Carr, P. and M. Kefalas (2009), *Hollowing Out the Middle: The Rural Brain Drain and What It Means for America*, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

Cellini, S., F. Ferreira and J. Rothstein (2010), “The Value of School Facility Investments: Evidence from a Dynamic Regression Discontinuity Design”, *Quarterly Journal of Economics*, Vol. 125/1, pp. 215-261, https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.215.

Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (2013), *Rural and Remote Education: Literature Review*, NSW Department of Education and Communication, Sydney, https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/RuralandRemoteEducation_literatureReview.pdf (accessed on 19 September 2017).

Chan, T. (2009), “Do portable classrooms impact teaching and learning?”, *Journal of Educational Administration*, Vol. 43/3, pp. 290-304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09578230910955746.

Chetty, R., N. Hendren and L. Katz (2016), “The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment”, *American Economic Review*, Vol. 106/4, pp. 855-902, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150572.

Chetty, R. et al. (2014), “Where is the land of opportunity? The Geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States”, *The Quarterly Journal of Economics*, Vol. 129/4, pp. 1553-1623, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju022.

Chingos, M. and K. Blagg (2017), *Student Transportation and Educational Access: How Students Get to School in Denver, Detroit, New Orleans, New York City, and Washington, DC*, Urban Institute, Washington D.C., https://www.urban.org.

Chubb, J. and T. Moe (1990), *Politics, Markets and America's Schools*, Brookings, Washington, DC.

Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education (2013), *Commission on the Delivery of Rural Education: Report*, The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, http://www.gov.scot/Resource/0041/00418669.pdf (accessed on 05 September 2017).

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2017), *Fighting school segregation in Europe through inclusive education*, https://rm.coe.int/fighting-school-segregationin-europe-throughinclusive-education-a-posi/168073fb65 (accessed on 16 November 2017).
Dickerson, A. and S. McIntosh (2013), “The Impact of Distance to Nearest Education Institution on the Post- compulsory Education Participation Decision”, *Urban Studies*, Vol. 50/4, pp. 742-758, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098012455717.

Dujardin, C., H. Selod and I. Thomas (2008), “Residential Segregation and Unemployment: The Case of Brussels”, *Urban Studies*, Vol. 45/1, pp. 89-113, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098007085103.

Duncombe, W. and J. Yinger (2007), “Does School District Consolidation Cut Costs?”, *Education Finance and Policy*, Vol. 2/4, pp. 341-375, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2007.2.4.341.

Dustan, A. and D. Ngo (2018), “Commuting to educational opportunity? School choice effects of mass transit expansion in Mexico City”, *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 63, pp. 116-133, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.01.006.

Dynarski, S., J. Hyman and D. Schanzenbach (2013), “Experimental evidence on the effect of childhood investments on postsecondary attainment and degree completion”, *Journal of Policy Analysis and Management*, Vol. 32/4, pp. 692-717, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.21715.

Educational Policy Institute (2015), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for the Slovak Republic*, Educational Policy Institute, Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sports of the Slovak Republic, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

Egelund, N. and H. Laustsen (2006), “School Closure: What are the consequences for the local society?”, *Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research*, Vol. 50/4, pp. 429-439, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00313830600823787.

Engberg, J. et al. (2012), “Closing schools in a shrinking district: Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed?”, *Journal of Urban Economics*, Vol. 71, pp. 189-203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2011.10.001.

Engel, M., B. Jacob and F. Curran (2014), “New evidence on teacher labor supply”, *American Educational Research Journal*, Vol. 51/1, pp. 36-72, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831213503031.

European Commission, EACEA and Eurydice (2013), *Funding of Education in Europe 2000-2012: The Impact of the Economic Crisis*, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/147EN.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2017).

Falch, T., P. Lujala and B. Strøm (2013), “Geographical constraints and educational attainment”, *Regional Science and Urban Economics*, Tests theo, pp. 164-176, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2012.06.007.

Falch, T., M. Rønning and B. Strøm (2008), “A cost model of schools: School size, school structure and student composition”, in Soguel, N. and P. Jaccard (eds.), *Governance and Performance of Education Systems*, Springer, Dodrecht.
Flemish Ministry of Education and Training (2015), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report of the Flemish Community of Belgium*, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm. [70]

Fowles, J. et al. (2014), “Public Employee Quality in a Geographic Context”, *The American Review of Public Administration*, Vol. 44/5, pp. 503-521, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074012474714. [61]

Friedman, M. (1955), “The Role of Government in Education”, in Solo, R. (ed.), *Economics and the Public Interest*, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. [139]

Gershenson, S. (2016), “Linking teacher quality, student attendance, and student achievement”, *Education Finance and Policy*, Vol. 11/2, pp. 125-149, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00180. [48]

Gertler, P., H. Patrinos and M. Rubio-Codina (2012), “Empowering parents to improve education: Evidence from rural Mexico”, *Journal of Development Economics*, Vol. 99, pp. 68-79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2011.09.004. [123]

Gingrich, J. and B. Ansell (2014), “Sorting for schools: housing, education and inequality”, *Socio-Economic Review*, Vol. 12, pp. 329-351, https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwu009. [172]

Giordano, E. (2008), *School clusters and teacher resource centres*, UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001597/159776e.pdf (accessed on 24 July 2017). [71]

Gottfried, M. (2017), “Linking getting to school with going to school”, *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, Vol. 39/4, pp. 571-592, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373717699472. [101]

Greenough, R. and S. Nelson (2015), “Recognizing the variety of rural schools”, *Peabody Journal of Education*, Vol. 90, pp. 322-332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022393. [23]

Gromada, A. and C. Shewbridge (2015), “Student learning time: A literature review”, *OECD Education Working Papers*, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm409kqqkjh-en. [186]

Gronberg, T. et al. (2015), “School district consolidation: Market concentration and the scale-efficiency tradeoff”, *Southern Economic Journal*, Vol. 82/2, pp. 580-597, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/soej.12029. [18]

Halsey, J. (2017), *Independent Review into Regional Rural and Remote Education—Discussion Paper*, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, https://docs.education.gov.au/ (accessed on 30 August 2017). [41]

Hannum, W. et al. (2009), “Distance Education Use in Rural Schools”, *Journal of Research in Rural Education*, Vol. 24/3. [114]

Hanushek, E., J. Kain and S. Rivkin (2009), “New evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achievement”, *Journal of Labor Economics*, Vol. 27/3, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/600386. [148]
Harjunen, O., M. Kortelainen and T. Saarimaa (2018), “Best education money can buy? Capitalization of school quality in Finland”, *CESifo Economic Studies*, pp. 1–26, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifx025.

Hashim, A., K. Strunk and J. Marsh (2018), “The new school advantage? Examining the effects of strategic new school openings on student achievement”, *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 62, pp. 254-266, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.12.002.

Hattie, J. (2009), *Visible learning: A Synthesis of over 800 Meta-analyses Relating to Achievement*, Routledge, London.

Heyneman, S. (2009), “International perspectives on school choice”, in Berends, M. et al. (eds.), *Handbook of Research on School Choice*, Routledge, New York, NY.

Houlberg, K. et al. (2016), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Denmark*, KORA, Copenhagen, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

Howley, C., J. Johnson and J. Petrie (2011), *Consolidation of Schools and Districts: What the Research Says and What It Means*, National Education Policy Centre, Boulder, CO, http://www.nepc.colorado.edu/publication/consolidation-schools-districts. (accessed on 27 September 2017).

Hutchings, M. et al. (2012), *Evaluation of the City Challenge Programme*, Institute for Policy Studies in Education, London Metropolitan University, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/184093/DFE-RR215.pdf (accessed on 04 April 2018).

INEE (2016), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Spain*, Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (National Institute for Educational Evaluation), Madrid, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

INEEd (2015), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Uruguay*, Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (National Institute for Educational Evaluation), Montevideo, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

Instituto Nacional de Evaluación Educativa (INEEd) (2016), *Encuesta Nacional Docente 2015: Primeros resultados*, https://www.ineed.edu.uy/images/pdf/presentacion-encuesta-nacional.pdf (accessed on 30 January 2018).

International Relations Directorate of the Federation Wallonia-Brussels (2016), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for the French Community of Belgium*, International Relations Directorate of the Federation Wallonia-Brussels, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

Irvin, M. et al. (2017), “Relation of Opportunity to Learn Advanced Math to the Educational Attainment of Rural Youth”, *American Journal of Education*, Vol. 123/3, pp. 475-510, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/691231.
Jackson, C. (2012), "Non-cognitive ability, test scores, and teacher quality: Evidence from 9th grade teachers in North Carolina", NBER Working Paper Series, No. 18624, National Bureau of Economic Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w18624.

James, S. (2011), Review of Education Capital, http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/c/capital review final report april 2011.pdf (accessed on 04 August 2017).

Jan Pijl, S. and K. Van Den Bos (2001), "Redesigning regular education support in The Netherlands", European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 16/2, pp. 111-119, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250110040686.

Jensen, B. (2012), Catching up: learning from the best school systems in East Asia, Grattan Institute, Mebourne, https://grattan.edu.au/report/catching-up-learning-from-the-best-school-systems-in-east-asia/.

Kalaoja, E. and J. Pietarinen (2009), "Small rural primary schools in Finland: A pedagogically valuable part of the school network", International Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 48, pp. 109-116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2009.02.003.

Karsten, S. (2010), "School Segregation", in Equal Opportunities?: The Labour Market Integration of the Children of Immigrants, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264086395-8-en.

Karsten, S. et al. (2003), "School Choice and Ethnic Segregation", Educational Policy, Vol. 17/4, pp. 452-477, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0895904803254963.

Killeen, K. and J. Sipple (2000), "School Consolidation and Transportation Policy: An Empirical and Institutional Analysis", Working Paper for the Rural School and Community Trust Policy Program, Cornell University, Ithaca.

Knoth Humlum, M. and N. Smith (2015), The impact of school size and school consolidations on quality and equity in education, http://dx.doi.org/10.2766/008.

Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2012), "Who chooses schools, and why? The characteristics and motivations of families who actively choose school", in Miron, G. et al. (eds.), Exploring the School Choice Universe: Evidence and Recommendations, Information Age Publishing Inc., Charlotte, NC.

Ladd, H. (2002), "School vouchers: A critical view", The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 16/4, pp. 3-24, https://doi.org/10.1257/089533002320950957.

Lee, J. and C. Lubienski (2017), "The impact of school closures on equity of access in Chicago", Education and Urban Society, Vol. 49/1, pp. 53-80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013124516630601.

Leemans, G. and H. von Ahlefeld (2013), "Understanding School Building Policy and Practice in Belgium's Flemish Community", OECD Education Working Papers, No. 92, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k46h2rtw5mx-en.
Lee, V. et al. (1998), "Sector Differences in High School Course-Taking: A Private School or Catholic School Effect?", *Sociology of Education*, Vol. 71/4, pp. 314-335, https://doi.org/10.2307/2673173.

Leithwood, K. and D. Jantzi (2009), "A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective", *Review of Educational Research*, Vol. 79/1, pp. 464-490, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654308326158.

Leuven, E. and M. Rønning (2016), "Classroom Grade Composition and Pupil Achievement", *The Economic Journal*, Vol. 126/June, pp. 1164-1192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12177.

Levin, H. (2012), "More than just test scores", *Prospects*, Vol. 42/3, pp. 269-284, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11125-012-9240-z.

Liebowitz, D. et al. (2018), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Portugal 2018*, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Linden, T. (2001), "Double-shift secondary schools: Possibilities and issues", *Secondary Education Series*, The World Bank, Washington, DC, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/819151468740107174/pdf/multi0page.pdf (accessed on 26 March 2018).

Local Government Association (2014), *The council role in school place planning: Making sure there are enough school places locally*, https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/council-role-school-place-8b2.pdf (accessed on 27 February 2018).

Lusher, L. and V. Yasenov (2016), "Double-shift schooling and student success: Quasi-experimental evidence from Europe", *Economics Letters*, Vol. 139, pp. 36-39.

Lyson, T. (2002), "What does a school mean to a community? Assessing the social and economic benefits of schools to rural villages in New York", *Journal of Research in Rural Education*, Vol. 17, pp. 131-137, https://cardi.cals.cornell.edu/sites/cardi.cals.cornell.edu/files/shared/documents/AdditionalPublicationschool-community lyson.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2017).

Marchand, G. et al. (2014), "The impact of the classroom built environment on student perceptions and learning", *Journal of Environmental Psychology*, Vol. 40, pp. 187-197, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.009.

Martin, A. et al. (2014), "Boarding school, academic motivation and engagement, and psychological well-being: A large-scale investigation", *American Educational Research Journal*, Vol. 51/5, pp. 1007-1049, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831214532164.

Masi, B. (2018), "A ticket to ride: The unintended consequences of school transport subsidies", *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 63, pp. 100-115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.01.008.
Mason, D. and R. Burns (1996), ""Simply No Worse and Simply No Better" May Simply Be Wrong: A Critique of Veenman's Conclusion About Multigrade Classes", *Review of Educational Research*, Vol. 66/3, pp. 307-322, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543066003307.

Matthews, P. et al. (2009), *Policy Measures Implemented in the First Cycle of Compulsory Education in Portugal: International Evaluation for the Ministry of Education*, Office for Education Statistics and Planning, Ministry of Education, Portugal.

McDonough, P., R. Gildersleeve and M. Jarsky (2010), "The Golden Cage of Rural College Access: How Higher Education Can Respond to the Rural Life", in Schafft, K. and A. Jackson (eds.), *Rural Education for the Twenty-First Century: Identity, Place, and Community in a Globalizing World*, Penn State Press, University Park, PA.

McEwan, P. (2008), "Evaluating multigrade school reform in Latin America", *Comparative Education*, Vol. 44/4, pp. 465-483, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03050060802481504.

McMullen, S. and K. Rouse (2012), "School crowding, year-round schooling, and mobile classroom use: Evidence from North Carolina", *Economics of Education Review*, Vol. 31, pp. 812-823, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2012.05.005.

Ministry of Education Agency for Quality Education and Education Superintendence (2016), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Chile*, MINEDUC, AQE and ES, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

Ministry of Education and Research (2015), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Estonia*, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm.

Monk, D. (2007), "Recruiting and Retaining High-Quality Teachers in Rural Areas", *The Future of Children*, Vol. 17/1, pp. 155-174, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795884.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2017).

Muijs, D. (2015), "Collaboration and networking among rural schools: can it work and when? Evidence from England", *Peabody Journal of Education*, Vol. 90/2, pp. 294-305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2015.1022386.

Mulryan-Kyne, C. (2007), "The preparation of teachers for multigrade teaching", *Teaching and Teacher Education*, Vol. 23/4, pp. 501-514, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.12.003.

Musset, P. (2012), "School Choice and Equity: Current Policies in OECD Countries and a Literature Review", *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 66, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9fq23507vc-en.

Musterd, S. et al. (2017), "Socioeconomic segregation in European capital cities. Increasing separation between poor and rich", *Urban Geography*, Vol. 38/7, pp. 1062-1083, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1228371.
NASE (National Agency for School Evaluation) (2015), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Lithuania*, National Agency for School Evaluation, Vilnius, http://www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm. [97]

Nechyba, T. (2006), "Income and peer quality sorting in public and private schools", in Hanushek, E. and F. Welch (eds.), *Handbook of the Economics of Education, Volume 2*, Elsevier, Burlington, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0692(06)02022-8. [153]

Neumark, D. and H. Simpson (2015), "Place-Based Policies", *Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics*, Vol. 5, pp. 1197-1287, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59531-7.00018-1. [125]

Nusche, D. (2009), "What Works in Migrant Education?: A Review of Evidence and Policy Options", *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/227131784531. [194]

Nusche, D. et al. (2015), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Flemish Community of Belgium 2015*, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264247598-en. [17]

Nusche, D. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Austria 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264256729-en. [16]

Nusche, D. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Denmark 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264262430-en. [72]

OECD (2018), *Working Together for Local Integration of Migrants and Refugees*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085350-en. [131]

OECD (2017), *PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students' Well-Being*, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en. [10]

OECD (2017), *School choice and school vouchers: An OECD perspective*, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/edu/School-choice-and-school-vouchers-an-OECD-perspective.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2018). [160]

OECD (2017), *The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning*, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en. [27]

OECD (2016), *A New Rural Development Paradigm for the 21st Century: A Toolkit for Developing Countries*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252271-en. [1]

OECD (2016), *Better Policies for 2030: An OECD Action Plan on the Sustainable Development Goals*, https://www.oecd.org/dac/Better Policies for 2030.pdf (accessed on 23 October 2017). [6]

OECD (2016), *Making Cities Work for All: Data and Actions for Inclusive Growth*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264263260-en. [129]
OECD (2016), *OECD Regions at a Glance 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/reg_glance-2016-en. [2]

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. [15]

OECD (2015), *OECD Economic Surveys: Belgium 2015*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-bel-2015-en. [155]

OECD (2015), *Students, Computers and Learning: Making the Connection*, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239555-en. [117]

OECD (2014), *TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning*, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en. [54]

OECD (2013), “OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools (Design and Implementation Plan for the Review)” September. [113]

OECD (2013), *PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through Equity (Volume II): Giving Every Student the Chance to Succeed*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264201132-en. [3]

OECD (2013), *PISA in Focus - What makes urban schools different?*, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k4618w342jc-en. [26]

OECD (2011), “Standardised design for schools: Old solution, new context ?”, http://www.oecd.org/education/innovation-education/centreforeffectivelearningenvironmentscele/48224041.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2017). [178]

OECD (2011), *Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care*, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-en. [5]

OECD (2010), *OECD Rural Policy Reviews: Strategies to Improve Rural Service Delivery*, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083967-en. [62]

OECD (2010), *Strategies to Improve Rural Service Delivery*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264083967-en. [21]

OECD (2009), *OECD Territorial Reviews: Copenhagen, Denmark 2009*, OECD Territorial Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264060036-en. [193]

OECD (2008), *OECD Rural Policy Review: Finland*, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/19909284. [127]

OECD (2005), *Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers*, OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264018044-en. [50]

OECD/Korea Development Institute (2017), *Improving Regulatory Governance: Trends, Practices and the Way Forward*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264280366-en. [90]
OECD/The World Bank (2015), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Kazakhstan 2015*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264245891-en. [76]

Ontario Ministry of Education (2017), “Supporting Students and Communities: A Discussion Paper to Strengthen Education in Ontario’s Rural and Remote Communities”, https://files.ontario.ca/rural_education_discussion_paper_eng.pdf (accessed on 02 October 2017). [119]

Open Society Foundations (2011), *At Home in Europe: Muslims in Denmark*, Open Society Foundations, Budapest, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/a-muslims-copenhagen-en-20110428_0.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2018). [195]

Østergaard Larsen, B., K. Houlberg and B. Schindler Rangvid (2013), *Metodenotat om udgiftsanalyser på folkeskoleområdet på skoleniveau [Methodological Note on the Cost Analysis of the Folkeskole by Level of Schooling]*, KORA. [32]

Patrinos, H., F. Barrera-Osorio and J. Guaqueta (2009), *The Role and Impact of Public-Private Partnerships in Education*, The World Bank, http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7866-3. [190]

Petrin, R., K. Schafft and J. Meece (2014), “Educational sorting and residential aspirations among rural high school students: What are the contributions of schools and educators to rural brain drain?”, *American Educational Research Journal*, Vol. 51/2, pp. 294-326, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831214527493. [126]

Piketty, T. (2004), “L’impact de la taille des classes et de la ségrégation sociale sur la réussite scolaire dans les écoles françaises : une estimation à partir du panel primaire 1997”. [35]

Pont, B., D. Nusche and H. Moorman (2008), *Improving School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264044715-en. [68]

Prater, D., A. Bermudez and E. Owens (1997), “Examining Parental Involvement in Rural, Urban, and Suburban Schools”, *Journal of Research in Rural Education*, Vol. 13/1, pp. 72-75. [121]

Provasnik, S. et al. (2007), *Status of Education in Rural America*, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007040.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2017). [122]

Puryear, J. and T. Kettler (2017), “Rural gifted education and the effect of proximity”, *Gifted Child Quarterly*, Vol. 61/2, pp. 143-152, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0016986217690229. [39]

Putnam, R. (2007), “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture”, *Scandinavian Political Studies*, Vol. 30/2, pp. 137-174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2008.9521631. [149]

Quail, A. and E. Smyth (2014), “Multigrade teaching and age composition of the class: The influence on academic and social outcomes among students”, *Teaching and Teacher Education*, Vol. 43, pp. 80-90, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.004. [55]

Radinger, T. et al. (2018), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Colombia 2018*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264303751-en. [77]
Rangvid, B. (2010), "School Choice, Universal Vouchers and Native Flight from Local Schools", *European Sociological Review*, Vol. 26/3, pp. 319-335, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcp024. [159]

Reardon, S. and K. Bischoff (2011), "Income Inequality and Income Segregation", *American Journal of Sociology*, Vol. 116/4, pp. 1092-1153, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/657114. [165]

Rechnungshof (2014), *Schulstandortkonzepte/festlegung im Bereich der allgemein bildenden Pflichtschulen in den Ländern Oberösterreich und Steiermark, Rechnungshofbericht, Bund 2014/12 [Concept for the School Offer in the Area of General Compulsory Schooling in the Provinces]*, Austrian Court of Audit, Vienna. [96]

Rees, G. et al. (2017), "Urban-rural variations in children's lives and subjective well-being: A comparative analysis of four countries", *Children and Youth Services Review*, Vol. 80, pp. 41-51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2017.06.056. [13]

Reeves, C. (2003), *Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for Rural Schools and Districts*, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, http://www.ncrel.org (accessed on 25 September 2017). [98]

Reininger, M. (2012), "Hometown disadvantage? It depends on where you're from: teachers' location preferences and the implications for staffing schools", *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis*, Vol. 34/2, pp. 127-145, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373711420864. [52]

Rhodes, A. and S. Warkentien (2017), "Unwrapping the suburban 'package deal': Race, class, and school access", *American Educational Research Journal*, Vol. 54/1, pp. 168-189, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831216634456. [199]

Rogers, J., T. Glesner and H. Meyers (2014), "Early Experiences Implementing Voluntary School District Mergers in Vermont", *Journal of Research in Rural Education*, Vol. 29/7. [43]

Rothwell, J. and D. Massey (2010), "Density Zoning and Class Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas", *Social Science Quarterly*, Vol. 91/5, pp. 1123-1143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00724.x. [166]

Rule, T. (2005), "Small Rural Schools: An English Perspective", in Sigsworth, A. and K. Solstad (eds.), *Small Rural Schools: A Small Inquiry*, Interskola, Cornwall. [73]

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, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264285637-en. [182]

Santiago, P. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Slovak Republic 2015*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264247567-en. [4]

Santiago, P. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Estonia 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264251731-en. [25]
Schafer, M. and S. Khan (2017), "Family economy, rural school choice, and flexischooling children with disabilities", *Rural Sociology*, Vol. 82/3, pp. 524-547, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ruso.12132.

Schafft, K. (2016), "Rural Education As Rural Development: Understanding the Rural School-Community Well-Being Linkage in a 21st-Century Policy Context", *Peabody Journal of Education*, Vol. 91/2, pp. 137-154, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1151734.

Schelling, T. (1971), "Dynamic Models of Segregation", *Journal of Mathematical Sociology*, Vol. 1, pp. 143-186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1971.9989794.

Schneider, B., C. Swanson and C. Riegle-Crumb (1998), "Opportunities for Learning: Course Sequences and Positional Advantages", *Social Psychology of Education*, Vol. 2/1, pp. 25-53, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009601517753.

Schneider, M. et al. (1998), "Shopping for schools: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed parent may be enough", *American Journal of Political Science*, Vol. 42/3, pp. 769-793, https://doi.org/10.2307/2991729.

Sharkey, P. (2016), "Neighborhoods, Cities, and Economic Mobility", *The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences*, Vol. 2/2, pp. 159-177, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/616925.

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.

Shin, H., R. Iyengar and M. Bajaj (2013), "Cross-Country Review of Public Primary Education in Rural Brazil, China, Indonesia, and Mexico: Suggestions for Policy and Practice Reforms in India", *Columbia Global Centers | Mumbai Working Paper Series* 10.

Showalter, D. et al. (2017), *Why Rural Matters 2015-16: Understanding the Changing Landscape Innovation and Practice in Rural Education*, Rural School and Community Trust, Washington, DC, http://www.ruraledu.org/user_uploads/file/WRM-2015-16.pdf (accessed on 28 September 2017).

Sipple, J. and B. Brent (2015), "Challenges and Strategies Associated with Rural School Settings", in Ladd, H. and E. Fiske (eds.), *Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy*, Routledge, New York.

Slate, J. and C. Jones (2005), "Effects of School Size: A Review of the Literature with Recommendations", *Essays in Education*, Vol. 13/1, pp. 1-22.

Slee, B. and D. Miller (2015), "School Closures as a Driver of Rural Decline in Scotland: A Problem in Pursuit of Some Evidence?", *Scottish Geographical Journal*, Vol. 131/2, pp. 78-97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2014.988288.
Slovenian Ministry of Education Science and Sport (2016), *OECD Review of Policies to Improve the Effectiveness of Resource Use in Schools: Country Background Report for Slovenia*, http://www.oecd.org/ [106]

Smoos, M. (2017), *Pour un usage plus efficace de nos ressources scolaires (Presentation)*. [177]

Stern, J. (1994), *The Condition of Education in Rural Schools*, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470509.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2017).

Stuart, E. et al. (2017), “Characteristics of school districts that participate in rigorous national educational evaluations”, *Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness*, Vol. 10/1, pp. 168–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1205160.

U.S. Department of Education, N. (2016), *Digest of Education Statistics, 2014*, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016006.pdf (accessed on 12 March 2018).

UK Department for Education (2016), *Multi-academy trusts: Good practice guidance and expectations for growth*, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/576240/Multi-academy_trusts good practice guidance and expectations for growth.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2018).

United Nations (2015), *Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development*, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. [7]

United States Department of Agriculture (2017), “Rural Education at a Glance, 2017 Edition”, *Economic Information Bulletin*, No. 171, https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/83078/eib-171.pdf?v=42830 (accessed on 28 September 2017).

Uslaner, E. (2012), *Segregation and Mistrust: Diversity, Isolation, and Social Cohesion*, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Valenzuela, J., C. Bellei and D. Rios (2014), “Socioeconomic school segregation in a market-oriented educational system: The case of Chile”, *Journal of Education Policy*, Vol. 29/2, pp. 217-241, https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.806995.

Veenman, S. (1995), “Cognitive and Noncognitive Effects of Multigrade and Multi-Age Classes: A Best-Evidence Synthesis”, *Review of Educational Research*, Vol. 65/4, pp. 319-381, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543065004319.

Viennet, R. and B. Pont (2017), “Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework”, *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 162, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en.

Vincent, J. (2006), “Public schools as public infrastructure”, *Journal of Planning Education and Research*, Vol. 25, pp. 433-437, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06288092.
Wang, J. and P. Goldschmidt (2003), "Importance of Middle School Mathematics on High School Students' Mathematics Achievement", *Journal of Educational Research*, Vol. 97/1, pp. 3-17, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309596624.

Wößmann, L. et al. (2007), “School Accountability, Autonomy, Choice, and the Level of Student Achievement: International Evidence from PISA 2003”, *OECD Education Working Papers*, No. 13, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/246402531617.

Yarrow, A. et al. (1999), “Teaching in rural and remote schools: a literature review”, *Teaching and Teacher Education*, Vol. 15, pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(98)00036-5.
Annex 3.A. Supplementary material

<table><caption>Annex Table 3.A.1. Public support for school transport, ISCED 1-3, 2016</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Authority responsible for school transport</th><th rowspan="2">Parental contributions (if eligible)</th><th colspan="5">Eligibility criteria for school transport provision</th><th rowspan="2">Regular public transport discounts (3)</th></tr><tr><th>Funding</th><th>Organisation</th><th>Distance (km)</th><th>Distance (other) (1)</th><th>Means-based</th><th>SEN</th><th>Other (2)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>Central</td><td>Central</td><td>Yes</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Lack of public transport</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (Fl.)</td><td>State</td><td>State</td><td>Yes</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (Fr.)</td><td>State</td><td>State</td><td>Yes</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td>Central</td><td>Central</td><td>No</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>School's rurality index</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td>Regional</td><td>Regional</td><td>Yes</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>Local</td><td>Local</td><td>Depends</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>Age, school type, immigrant background</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>Central</td><td>Local and school</td><td>Depends</td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>School type</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td>Central and local</td><td>Local</td><td>No</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Kazakhstan</td><td>Local</td><td>Local</td><td>No</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>Central</td><td>Central and local</td><td>No</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Slovak Republic</td><td>Central</td><td>Regional</td><td>No</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td>Central</td><td>Local</td><td>✓</td><td>(ISCED 1/2)</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td>(ISCED 3)</td><td>Wildlife threats</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>Central and regional</td><td>Regional</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>Academic scholarships</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td>Local</td><td>Central and Local</td><td>No</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td></td><td>✓</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td>Central</td><td>x</td><td>No</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>✓</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: The review team made every effort to ensure, in collaboration with countries, that the information collected through the qualitative survey on school funding is valid and reliable and reflects specific country contexts while being comparable across countries. However, given the qualitative nature of the survey, information should be interpreted with care.

For definitions of levels of education and levels of administration, see Annex A. For country-specific notes to this table, see the end of this annex.

x: not applicable

..: missing information

1: Other distance-related criteria include travel times or the attendance of schools outside the municipality of residence.

2: Other criteria include the specific education level, age, or other municipality specific criteria rather than the ones already presented in the table.

3: Transport discounts include reduced prices for public transport and need not imply transport arrangements for students in specific schools.

Source: The information in this table was compiled based on information provided by the review countries through the Review's qualitative questionnaire on school funding and Country Background Reports (accessible at www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm).
## Country notes

**Austria:** School transport is free of charge for students using public transport, except for a small parental contribution (€ 19.60 per school year). Where no adequate public transport is available, municipalities and school providers can apply for special transport arrangements to be set up that are provided free of charge to students. In cases where more than two kilometres of a student's commute to school are covered by neither of the provisions above, students can receive additional support according to the length of their commute. The funds for school transport are administered by the Federal Minister within the Federal Chancellery for Women, Families and Youth (*Familienlastenausgleichsfonds*). Austrian authorities also provide accommodation and transport grants for students who can prove school success and attend a school outside their place of residence.

**Belgium (Fl.):** School children are offered discounts for the use of public transport. If primary school students cannot find a public or subsidised private school within a 4 km radius from their home, the Community is obliged to either contribute to the cost of transporting students to the nearest publicly funded school or expand its subsidies to include whichever non-funded school the students end up attending. Children with special educational needs can make use of free bus transport services provided by schools and funded by the government.

**Belgium (Fr.):** School children in the regions of Wallonia and Brussels are offered discounts for the use of public transport. The regions are mandated to extend the same transport support to all students attending public or subsidised private schools. In rural or remote areas, the responsible authorities can organise student pick-up systems to enable students to bridge the distance between their homes and the nearest schools. Children with special educational needs can make use of free bus transport services provided by schools and funded by the government.

**Chile:** The central government provides transport for students living in remote areas but close enough to attend a school using transport services. The Programme to Support the Rural School Transport System provides schools with a rurality index above 25% additional funding to pay for student transport, and rural schools offering boarding services receive an extra subsidy to pay for the students' accommodation and meals. In addition, the National Student Card allows students to use public transport at a lower price, for all students attending 5th to 12th grade in subsidised municipal and private schools, technical centres, professional institutes and universities.

**Czech Republic:** The regions are responsible for ensuring that transport is provided to and from students' catchment school if their permanent residence is located further than 4 km away. While families bear the cost of dedicated school transport services themselves, students benefit from discounts on public transport during school days. These discounts are financed through earmarked funding which the government has provided for public transport providers since 2004. As of 2018, students under the age of 26 receive a 75% discount.

**Denmark:** Municipalities have the legal obligation to subsidise transport costs for students living further than 2.5 km from their local Folkeskole. The extent to which transport costs are covered varies based on the students' age, the type of school they are enrolled in and its distance from their home. In order to advance equity objectives, some municipalities operate bussing schemes for students with an immigrant background from
districts and schools with a large number of immigrants (or students from a disadvantaged socio-economic background) to those with more students of non-immigrant background.

**Estonia:** The municipalities in which students reside are responsible for organising their school transport. In many cases, this involves free school bus rides or reimbursements and subsidies for public transport tickets. The national government also covers some of the cost of transport for students who commute from another municipality to attend one of the new state-run gymnasiums or public schools for children with special needs.

**Iceland:** School transport is fully funded by local communities, which receive funding from the central government based on the number of students and the distances between their homes and schools.

**Kazakhstan:** Where no school is available in the students' home village/rayon, transport to the nearest school is funded by the local budget. Funding does not cover transport to afternoon-courses or extracurricular activities.

**Lithuania:** Students in the country are entitled to subsidised public transport tickets, according to the Law on Reduced Transport Charges. Students in pre-school and general education residing in villages and towns farther than 3 km from the nearest school are entitled to transport to and from school organised by the municipality. The Lithuanian government is also implementing the "Yellow Bus programme" to improve transport conditions for students living in rural areas or students with special educational needs, and to ensure the safe transport of students who formerly attended consolidated schools or whose schools are re-organised to another school nearby.

**Slovak Republic:** Transport support is provided by the central budget and includes the payment of transport costs for students of basic schools and special basic schools completing their compulsory school attendance outside the place of their permanent residence within a defined school district. Regional authorities organise the students' transport to and from school, while the Ministry of Education reimburses parents for the cost incurred via the municipalities.

**Slovenia:** Public transport to school is funded for primary and lower secondary students living farther than 4 km from the nearest school. For upper secondary students the eligibility criterion is their household's level of income. The central government provides additional funds to support transport arrangements in municipalities that are the habitat of brown bears, where students might risk being attacked by bears and other wild animals. The transport of students with special educational needs is also funded if it is not guaranteed by the school.

**Spain:** Transport support is provided for students enrolled in compulsory education depending on their place of residence and their household's level of income. Families of children with special educational needs can receive additional social assistance and schooling benefits including transport support from the central government. The transport support for students with severe motor disabilities is up to 50% higher. This support depends on both household income and capital thresholds set by the administration.

**Sweden:** Each municipality is responsible for covering the cost of school transport for upper secondary students living farther than six kilometres from their school. This responsibility applies regardless of the schools' location and type of provision. However, the municipality's responsibility does not extend to organising the transport. The right to school transport means that the municipality is obliged to arrange free transport to school if necessary with regard to the length of the journey, traffic conditions, each student's
limitation or any other special circumstance. The right applies to students in compulsory education and students with special needs (including in upper secondary education), provided that the students attend the school to which the municipality has assigned them.

**Uruguay:** The central government funds free public transport for children attending primary school (public or private), free bus tickets for public secondary school students and student ticket subsidies for private secondary school students. For students in public lower secondary schools between 12 and 18 years of age and those of public upper secondary up to 20 years old, the government fully funds the cost of 50 monthly bus tickets. Transport is also provided for rural schools and a 2015 pilot project explored the use of transport services as a means to facilitate school consolidation in very low density areas, but the approach has not been pursued further due to resistance from parents and the local community (INEEd, 2015, p. 91[118]).
<table><caption>Annex Table 3.A.2. Material resources in rural and urban schools</caption><caption>Results based on principals' and teachers' reports</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">Principals' concern about:</th><th rowspan="2">Science-specific resources</th><th rowspan="2">Computers per student</th><th rowspan="2">Proportion of computers connected to the internet</th></tr><tr><th>Quantity of educational material</th><th>Quality of educational material</th><th>Quantity of physical infrastructure</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Mexico</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Colombia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OECD average</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Austria</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Israel</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovak Republic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>New Zealand</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>United States</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Systems are ranked in descending order of the number of variables according to which urban schools are statistically significantly better equipped than rural schools.

Sources: OECD (2015), PISA 2015 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015database/; OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): *Policies and Practices for Successful Schools*, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en, Table II.2.6, Table II.6.5 and Table II.6.6.
<table><caption>Annex Table 3.A.3. Teaching in rural and urban schools</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="2">Principals' concern about:</th><th rowspan="2">Share of qualified science teachers (1)</th><th rowspan="2">Share of teachers participating in professional development</th><th rowspan="2">In-service training conducted by specialists</th></tr><tr><th>Quantity of teaching staff</th><th>Quality of teaching staff</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Chile</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Iceland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Norway</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Turkey</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Colombia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Latvia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mexico</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>OECD average</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovak Republic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Austria</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Finland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Israel</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>New Zealand</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Poland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Slovenia</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Sweden</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Switzerland</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>United States</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hungary</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Italy</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Systems are ranked in descending order of the number of variables according to which urban schools are statistically significantly better staffed than rural schools.

1: Science teachers with a university degree and a major in science.

Sources: Authors' analysis, OECD (2015), PISA 2015 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2015database/; OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en, Table II.2.10, Table II.6.18 and Table II.6.22.
# Chapter 4. Co-ordinating educational levels and sectors to improve student trajectories

> This chapter analyses how the vertical and horizontal co-ordination of the educational offer can improve students' trajectories and contribute to greater efficiency. First, it discusses the co-ordination of years and levels of education and the challenges that arise from barriers to students' vertical progression. These include year repetition, early school leaving and unsuccessful transitions beyond secondary education. The chapter then analyses the horizontal co-ordination of parallel sectors and programmes. It focuses on inequities and inefficiencies that arise from the duplication or fragmentation of services and from the insufficient co-ordination of general and vocational, mainstream and special needs pathways. The chapter concludes with a set of policy options to address these challenges.

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Providing all students - regardless of their social background, educational need, or unique interests - with a high-quality education is a central priority of education systems across the OECD. Strengthening the capacity of school systems to address this challenge critically depends on the efficient organisation of the many components of the educational offer. School systems must be organised to facilitate regular progress from pre-primary through post-secondary education and the labour market. They must successfully guide students to access the appropriate supports for their particular educational profiles. At the core, this challenge relates to providing families and children with options and pathways that simultaneously promote the student's future opportunities and societal goals of excellence and equity. Accomplishing this requires careful co-ordination between the different levels and sectors of the school system.

In OECD countries, students choose between (or are selected into) a great variety of educational pathways: general or vocational tracks; separate or integrated education of students with special educational needs (SEN); public or private provision (addressed in Chapter 2); different programmes within schools, and so on. Offering students and families a variety of educational pathways and parallel programmes promises a diverse educational provision that matches each student's interests and potential. At the same time, it may lead to increased segregation, mismatches in students' pathway choices and a fragmentation of the educational offer. The co-ordination of education services across levels, sectors and programmes is therefore critical to reap the benefits of a diversified offer, to ensure students' smooth progression throughout compulsory and upper secondary education and to employ educational resources efficiently. This chapter analyses this co-ordination along two dimensions: First, the co-ordination of school years and levels of education to improve students' vertical transitions. Second, the co-ordination of parallel sectors and programmes and students' horizontal transitions between them. The way in which school systems organise different levels, sectors and programmes of education affects how children and families engage with and transition through the schooling process. Vertical transitions play an important role in all students' educational experiences, often right from the beginning of their time in school. Students enrol in early education and care services, accumulate years of educational attainment, and leverage these educational milestones to seek success in the labour market. Horizontal transitions, on the other hand, occur for some, but not all students, often at key inflection points in a child's educational pathway. They include shifting from a general curricular programme to a vocational pathway or from a general classroom into a separate special education class. Both contextual conditions and institutional factors can create barriers for students' smooth progression through the education system. The design of vertical and horizontal transitions is crucial to overcome these challenges while ensuring that school resources are efficiently and equitably allocated across education sectors and programmes.

## 4.1. Characteristics of vertical and horizontal educational pathways in OECD review countries

Students' experience as they progress across levels of education differs markedly across OECD countries. At the starting point of their educational trajectory, the proportion of three-year-old children enrolled in early childhood education widely ranges from 56% in Chile to over 95% in Belgium and Denmark (see Table 4.1). Analogously, at the end of their school education, in some countries nearly every student (92% in Denmark and Lithuania) graduates from an upper secondary school. By contrast, in the Czech Republic nearly a quarter fail to receive their degree. While more than 90% of Israelis and Koreans
below the age of 25 graduate from upper secondary education, less than 70% of Mexicans, Spanish or Turks are able to complete their degrees by this age (OECD, 2017, p. 62 Table A2.2[1]). Such differences often reflect variations in policy and practice. Notably, year repetition is one of the factors that has the strongest impact on students' vertical progression. An average of 11.3% of 15-year-old students across the OECD report having repeated a year. Across the countries visited by the OECD School Resources Review, this figure ranges from 2.5% in Lithuania to 42.6% in Colombia (OECD, 2016, p. Table II.5.9[2]).

In the horizontal dimension, there are also major differences in the proportions of students enrolled in various educational pathways. In Denmark and Belgium, nearly 5% of students are placed in separate special education classes or schools, whereas in Portugal and Lithuania, this is true for only about 1% of students. In Denmark and Estonia, 15-year-old students are typically enrolled in a common pathway, and are not placed into a general or vocational programme until they are 16 years old. However, in some of the OECD review countries, secondary education is organised in four, five, six, or even eight potential pathways in which 15-year-old students might be enrolled, usually stemming from the distinction between general and vocational programmes. Students in these countries may have initiated enrolment in general or vocational tracks as young as 10 or 11 or as old as 16 years of age. Unsurprisingly, there are also wide ranges in the enrolment rates of students in general and vocational pathways, with as many as 41% of 15-19 year-olds enrolled in general upper secondary programmes in Chile, compared to 18% in Austria (see Table 4.1).

Successful completion of alternative pathways also differs within and across countries. As with overall graduation rates, the variation in graduation between general and vocational programmes varies substantially. As few as 14% of Lithuanian young people who enter the Vocational Education and Training (VET) system graduate on time, but as many as 80% of Austrian VET students earn a diploma. These percentages reflect differences in effectiveness, orientation, rigour and purpose. Therefore these comparisons are not intended to rank the performance of each system, but rather to highlight differences in structure at the country level.

While the sample of education systems participating in the OECD Review of School Resources is not representative or exhaustive of the OECD and partner countries, it includes a rich diversity of conditions, practices and outcomes that permits a valuable series of comparative problems for practice and policy solutions to emerge.
<table><caption>Table 4.1. School pathways in OECD School Resources Review countries</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th rowspan="2">Enrolment rates in ISCED 01/02, age 3</th><th rowspan="2">SEN (%)</th><th rowspan="2">SEN in separate schools (%)</th><th rowspan="2">Repeat (%)</th><th rowspan="2">Number of school types available to 15-year-olds</th><th rowspan="2">Age of 1st tracking</th><th colspan="3">Enrolment rate, 15-19 year olds</th><th colspan="3">Upper secondary graduation rates</th></tr><tr><th>General upper secondary (%)</th><th>Upper secondary VET (%)</th><th>Of which, in combined school/ work programmes</th><th>First-time grad rates, all</th><th>Grad rate, general</th><th>Grad rate, VET</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>(1)</th><th>(2)</th><th>(3)</th><th>(4)</th><th>(5)</th><th>(6)</th><th>(7)</th><th>(8)</th><th>(9)</th><th>(10)</th><th>(11)</th><th>(12)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Austria</td><td>75</td><td>..</td><td>..</td><td>15.2</td><td>5 (5)</td><td>10</td><td>18</td><td>44</td><td>21</td><td>90</td><td>20</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium (Fl.)</td><td>98 (b.2)</td><td>5.7</td><td>4.4</td><td>34.0 (b)</td><td>4 (b)</td><td>12 (b)</td><td>29 (b)</td><td>39 (b)</td><td>2 (b)</td><td>35</td><td>38 (b)</td><td>60 (b)</td></tr><tr><td>Chile</td><td>56</td><td>5.0</td><td>2 (3)</td><td>24.6</td><td>3 (1)</td><td>16 (1)</td><td>41</td><td>19</td><td>1</td><td>90</td><td>61</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>Colombia</td><td>60</td><td>2.2</td><td>..</td><td>42.6</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>18</td><td>7</td><td>x</td><td>72</td><td>..</td><td>..</td></tr><tr><td>Czech Republic</td><td>77</td><td>..</td><td>..</td><td>4.8</td><td>6</td><td>11</td><td>21</td><td>52</td><td>5</td><td>76</td><td>24</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Denmark</td><td>97</td><td>..</td><td>4.8 (4)</td><td>3.4</td><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>40</td><td>12</td><td>12</td><td>92</td><td>69</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Estonia</td><td>87</td><td>4.2</td><td>3.9</td><td>4.0</td><td>1</td><td>16</td><td>39</td><td>18</td><td>0</td><td>..</td><td>60</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>Lithuania</td><td>77</td><td>11.0</td><td>1.0</td><td>2.5</td><td>5</td><td>16</td><td>32</td><td>10</td><td>x</td><td>92</td><td>79</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Portugal</td><td>..</td><td>5.8</td><td>1.2</td><td>31.2</td><td>3</td><td>15</td><td>37</td><td>23</td><td>x</td><td>89</td><td>45</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>Slovak Republic</td><td>60</td><td>7.0</td><td>3.5</td><td>6.5</td><td>5</td><td>11</td><td>21</td><td>44</td><td>4</td><td>80</td><td>27</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>Uruguay</td><td>..</td><td>3.0 (3)</td><td>2.9 (3)</td><td>35.3</td><td>2</td><td>15</td><td>..</td><td>..</td><td>..</td><td>..</td><td>..</td><td>..</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: Kazakhstan not included due to lack of internationally comparable data. See EAG 2017, Annex 3, for notes http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/EAG2017-Annex-3.pdf.

x: Data not applicable because category does not apply.

b: data refers to all of Belgium.

..: Data are not available in the specified sources.

1: In Chile, 15-year-olds can be enrolled in three types of school according to the study programme they offer: only general studies, only vocational studies, or both. At the modal year for 15-year-olds (Year 10), a common curriculum or education programme is offered in these three types of school. Vocational studies begin only at Year 11.

2: Includes only ISCED 02 enrolled students, ISCED 01 data not available.

3: ISCED 1 only (in Uruguay, there is no provision of special education services at secondary level); year of reference: 2016; data compiled from MEC Statistical Yearbooks and Bulletins of public and private education of the Educational Statistics Department of CEIP

4: Municipal schools only.

5: Year of reference 2018.

Sources: Column 1: OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en, Table C2.1; Columns 2-3: Country background reports, unless otherwise noted (see www.oecd.org/education/schoolresourcesreview.htm); Columns 4-6: OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en, Figure II.5.3 and Table II.5.27; Columns 7-9: OECD (2016), Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2016-en; Table C1.3a; Columns 10-12: OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en, Table A2.2.
The academic and socio-emotional needs of students across the OECD have increased substantially over the past decade. Between the 2006 and 2015 OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) cycles, the percentage of students with an immigrant background in OECD countries increased from 9.4% to 12.6%, in line with the share of students who speak a foreign language at home (OECD, 2016, pp. 421-423[3]). Growing percentages of students are identified as having special educational needs and are integrated within inclusive environments in mainstream schools. Despite increases in the level of students' needs in schools, the impact of students' socio-economic status on their science performance remained statistically identical between 2006 and 2015 (OECD, 2016, pp. 418-420[3]).

The challenges for addressing students’ needs within schools are also evolving. The proportion of students who felt socially isolated in their school grew by nearly 10 percentage points between 2003 and 2015 – one of several OECD indicators pointing to students’ growing socio-emotional needs (OECD, 2017, pp. 345-346[4]). As the level of students’ needs has increased, so too have ambitions to hold schools accountable for the measurable performance of all students. Thus, more than ever, schools must be enabled to continue their progress in helping a diverse range of students overcome the obstacles imposed by socio-economic and cultural disadvantage and to prepare them for responsible citizenship and success in the labour market. When all actors in school systems are aligned, schools may more easily continue their progress from the 2015 PISA in overcoming obstacles imposed by socio-economic and cultural disadvantage.

There is widespread evidence of fragmentation in the offer of school services by educational levels, sectors and educational programming¹. Unfortunately, the challenges systems face in supporting students to successfully transition through school levels, sectors and services carry significant individual and societal costs. Poor transitions between school years risk students falling behind in their academic curriculum, repeating years or leaving school early.

Thus, it is critical that policymakers and practitioners prepare schools to support students’ success. The remainder of this chapter first describes barriers to student progress in primary and secondary schooling and mechanisms to improve these vertical transitions. It then maps the diversity of educational sectors, pathways and programmes and some of the challenges associated with students’ horizontal transitions between them. Throughout, the chapter articulates strategies to ensure that resource expenditure maximises student interest and labour market demands without sacrificing equity. The chapter concludes with a series of policy options to promote co-ordination of smooth and successful vertical and horizontal transitions.

## 4.2. Vertical co-ordination and students’ transitions across levels of education

Formal education is a cumulative – if not linear – process. When student progression through school is compromised by knowledge gaps or inappropriate year repetition, students risk leaving school early, failing to progress to tertiary education and having lower prospects in the labour market. Academic skill gaps result in meaningfully worse later-life outcomes. Young adults who struggle with literacy skills experience a nearly 21 percentage point higher rate of being neither employed nor in education or training (NEET) relatively to those who otherwise demonstrate higher proficiency on OECD's Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2016, p. 360 Table C5.3 (L) [5]). The benefits of literacy are not only limited to better employment prospects. Adults who show the highest levels of literacy skills report
being in good health at rates nearly 30 percentage points higher than low skilled individuals (OECD, 2016, p. 163 Table A8.1 (L) [5]).

Alongside literacy and numeracy skills, higher educational attainment continues to be relevant to improved returns in the labour market. Those who achieved tertiary education diplomas experienced 25 percentage points higher levels of employment in 2016 relative to those below an upper secondary education (Figure 4.1). This pattern is, on average, true across all levels of educational progression.

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.1.** Employment rates of 25-34 year-olds, by educational attainment and programme orientation, 2016</figcaption></figure>

*Note:* Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate of tertiary-educated 25-34 year-olds. The label 'general or no distinction' refers to upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary general education for countries with a vocational track and to all upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education otherwise.

1. Year of reference differs from 2016.

2. Data for upper secondary attainment include completion of a sufficient volume and standard of programmes that would be classified individually as completion of intermediate upper secondary programmes (16% of the adults aged 25-64 are in this group).

*Source:* OECD (2017), *Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en, Table A5.1.

StatLink

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933831412

Greater educational attainment is also reflected in larger financial returns. Employed workers experience a nearly 100% earnings benefit as a result of completing tertiary education compared to workers who fail to complete upper secondary education (OECD, 2017, p. 114 Table A6.1[1]). These benefits accrue not just to the individual but to society. As a result of reductions in unemployment payments, higher income tax payments, social contributions and transfers, the estimated net per capita public returns of completing upper secondary education are USD 66 000 (PPP) for men and USD 51 100 (PPP) for women (OECD, 2017, p. 128 Tables A7.5a and A7.5b[1]). The public returns are even greater for completing tertiary as compared to upper secondary education (OECD, 2017, pp. 131 f., Tables A7.2a and A7.2b[1]).
The failure to provide students with a smooth progression through the education system and guide them to programmes that correspond to their interests and potential can increase the likelihood of educational failure and skills mismatches later on. This section highlights challenges and opportunities to support students in progressing sequentially upwards through their educational journey.

Year repetition, early school leaving, and unsuccessful transitions beyond secondary education are common across the OECD and within the countries participating in the School Resources Review. Failing to design pathways conducive to a smooth vertical progression of students throughout the system leads to both an inefficient and inequitable use of school resources. Poor year-over-year progress risks students falling behind in their academic curriculum, repeating years or leaving school early. Interventions specific to these problems, as well as the common application of early warning data systems and external support staff can counteract the negative effects of these challenges.

*Transitions between early childhood education and care (ECEC), primary and secondary education*

There is widespread evidence of fragmentation in the offer of school services by educational levels. A recent OECD report on the state of ECEC finds substantial variation in practices and policies employed across ECEC and primary providers (OECD, 2017[6]). While minimal causal evidence exists on the benefits of specifically targeted transition support into primary education, correlational evidence from Finland and the United States finds that students who engaged in more transition activities from pre-primary to primary schooling experienced positive academic outcomes (Ahtola et al., 2011[7]; Schulting, Malone and Dodge, 2005[8]). In the United States, this effect was most pronounced for low-income children.

Additionally, school systems across the OECD have struggled with the best ways to address the unique learning and social needs of students transitioning from primary into lower secondary education. Psychologists find consistently worse achievement-related attitudes and beliefs among students transitioning to lower secondary schools. Some have attributed this to a mismatch between the motivational and developmental needs of early adolescents and the structure of lower secondary schools (Eccles and Midgley, 1989[9]).

The transition between lower and upper secondary levels of education is often one of the most fraught. This transition point is frequently aligned with movement into general and VET tracks (OECD, 2016, p. 167 Figure II.5.8[2]). It also happens in many countries near the age for the end of compulsory education (OECD, 2017, pp. 420 ff., Tables X1.1b and X1.3[1]). As a result, it can be an inflection point for some students leading to either early school leaving or tracking into an educational programme that prepares students for entry into either post-secondary education or the labour market.

*Insufficient co-ordination between multiple governing bodies can create barriers to students' vertical transitions, particularly from ECEC to primary*

Different levels of the education system are often governed by different public authorities. Although the approaches for public governance of education vary across countries, some patterns hold consistently. Notably, ECEC and primary education are relatively more locally managed than secondary education, which tends to be the responsibility of central governments (see Chapter 2). In some cases, responsibilities are not only divided between public authorities at different levels of government, but also between multiple actors at the
same level of government. This is commonly observed in centrally governed ECEC sectors whose regulatory frameworks are co-administered by multiple ministries.

Effective co-ordination across the governing bodies involved in educational provision is crucial to ensure a smooth progression across levels of education. A commonly observed challenge is at the transition from pre-primary to primary education. Some of the concerns include the unpreparedness for the increased rigours of primary school, significantly different pedagogical techniques being used at the primary level relative to ECEC, or varying levels of teacher qualification requirements, associated with differing instructional skill levels between ECEC and primary institutions (OECD, 2017[6]).

Among OECD review countries, these divisions of responsibilities have been identified as a reason for the relative isolation of ECEC and primary education subsystems. For example, in the Slovak Republic, funding of ECEC providers is under the responsibility of municipalities and comes from their own revenues, while the financing of primary education is ensured by the central budget. Therefore, the local level has few incentives and significant barriers to organise pre-primary and primary education as integrated services, allowing for smoother transitions across levels (Santiago et al., 2016[11]). The alignment of funding models across subsystems and the integration of provision holds the potential for greater efficiency.

Providing ECEC services under the same administrative leadership as primary or basic education can encourage resource sharing, common professional development, curriculum and instructional practices, as well as built-in mechanisms to support students' transitions. Nevertheless, the integration of ECEC and primary education services also entails considerable concerns. The provision of ECEC services in integrated schools presents risks associated with introducing children to formal school environments too soon. Therefore, public authorities must weigh the potential efficiency and effectiveness gains of integrated provision against the risks of a "schoolification" in pre-primary education and its impacts on the cognitive and socio-emotional development of children. Furthermore, the higher teaching qualification requirements and public employee status of primary teachers regularly result in higher salary and fringe benefits than pre-primary teachers. Thus, full integration of the two sectors can impose substantial costs. In the absence of integrated provision, enhanced collaboration between providers of ECEC and primary education can help improve transitions for children.

### *Adapting school year configurations to minimise transitions*

Parent advocates, politicians and commentators frequently debate the appropriate school year configuration in which to organise schools. These debates can be motivated by concerns about early tracking, separating students into developmentally appropriate bands, a need to capture scale efficiencies, or worries by parents that their younger children not attend schools with more mature adolescents.

In Germany, extending primary school through Year 6 (Grundschule) has been presented as a way of delaying early tracking from age 10 to 12. Similarly, in Scandinavian countries that provide all of compulsory education (Year 1 to 9) together in one "basic school", the arguments in favour of this arrangement have generally centred on the equity enhancements this arrangement produces.

Based on concerns about students who struggle with transitions, there can be an independent benefit to avoiding the disruptive effect of transitions. Several studies in the United States have found benefits in student outcomes to eliminating entirely the
transition between primary and lower secondary schooling and keeping students in their same primary school through Year 8 (Rockoff and Lockwood, 2010[12]; Schwerdt and West, 2013[13]). In Sweden, a 1994 reform aimed at integrating grades 7-9 in locally run basic schools, led students to keep attending smaller schools closer to their homes, while having no significant impacts on educational outcomes as a result of the policy change (Holmlund and Böhlmark, 2017[14]).

A greater integration of different levels of education can also be achieved through an alternative administration of schools and curricula for a more efficient allocation of resources. By grouping schools offering different levels of education, Portugal's cluster system enables students to complete their entire school education within the same extended school community if they so wish (see Chapter 3, Box 3.6). The move towards a reformed school administration was facilitated by an earlier revision in curricular standards that integrated Years 1-9 under a unified basic education curricular framework. Concomitantly, while different schools may still offer different cycles of basic or upper secondary education, clustering helps ensure a coherent curricular progression, leveraged by a unique administration and increased collaboration among teachers from different cycles (Portugal Ministry of Education, forthcoming[15]).

## Transitions to post-secondary education and the labour market

Vertical transitions from the upper secondary level are instrumental to prepare students for integration in the labour market or for studying in higher education institutions. Of course, an additional critical transition point is that between post-secondary education and the labour market, although this falls outside the focus of this analysis. There is substantial evidence of students struggling to successfully complete the transition to post-secondary education. This can take several forms. Some students may not be aware of their eligibility for financial support or their competitiveness for entry into tertiary education (Hoxby and Avery, 2013[16]), an important concern in both countries with high tuition fees or opportunity costs related to foregone earnings. Ineffective transitions can also stem from an increasingly well-documented phenomenon of “summer melt”, in which students indicate their intent to enrol in post-secondary institutions in the spring of their last year of secondary school, followed by a failure to ever enrol. Behavioural research in the context of the United States has shown that this is especially prevalent among students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. In some analyses, 4 in every 10 students from low-income families who have reported a desire to enrol in tertiary education, fail to do so during the summer (Castleman and Page, 2014[17]). Financial barriers for enrolment are an obvious constraint, but policymakers must also be conscious of other constraints. In particular, the way in which the information for enrolment in higher levels of education is conveyed may contribute to persistent inequality of access. Students may suffer from inadequate counselling and insufficient incentives to access formal support even when it is available. Effective career advice helps students to understand their potential, to update their initial expectations and to better situate all their post-secondary options.

Effective transitions to post-secondary education and the labour market depend on intensive, individualised coaching and guidance. Guidance counselling is a key tool to help students self-identify their aspirations and abilities. It includes both general career and post-secondary counselling, where students learn about the work environment and post-secondary options, as well as individual advice, where students reflect on their potential choices.
If based on high-quality information, student guidance has the potential to better link student preferences with post-secondary and labour market demands. The growing complexity of school-to-work and post-secondary transitions, propelled by a rapidly changing skills demand, fuels the urgency of effective student counselling. Recent causal evidence finds that counselling can shift enrolment choices toward long-cycle tertiary options that have higher graduation rates than the alternatives students would otherwise choose. Counselling also improves persistence through at least the second year of tertiary studies, suggesting the potential to increase the degree completion rates of disadvantaged students (Castleman and Goodman, 2016[18]). Where there are no formal career guidance services at schools, students rely on informal sources – such as parents and peers – which tend to reinforce existing socio-economic inequalities (OECD, 2010[19]).

Counselling is thus crucial to set students' sights higher, while providing them with smoother transitions to post-secondary education or the labour market. However, education systems face a series of concerns regarding the effective provision of this type of support. An OECD review of upper secondary VET identified a number of these challenges: inadequate preparation of counselling staff, multiple staff and institutions responsible for different aspects of counselling, a shortage of counsellors, and lack of relevant labour market information (OECD, 2010[19]). The ratio of students to counsellors in many countries is very high, resulting in superficial and insufficient services to most students. Data on labour market supply and demand, as well as tertiary education quality and affordability often require cautious interpretation. Effective counselling should allow students to navigate these complex decisions, while updating their initial preferences and expectations.

Figure 4.2 depicts the percentage of 15-year-old students who have accessed different types of career guidance across several OECD countries for which data is available. Access to this type of service varies widely. While in countries like Denmark and Finland more than 80% of the students have consulted with career advisors at school, less than 3 in 10 students have accessed these services in Austria, Belgium, Hungary or the Slovak Republic. Figure 4.2 also shows that in countries where students rarely consult advisors at school, this is not replaced by career guidance outside the school environment. On the other hand, education systems where interaction with career advisors at school is low tend to have somewhat higher frequency of worksite visits and internships.

Formal career guidance services were often underdeveloped in many OECD review countries. In Austria, educational psychology and career guidance (Schulpsychologie / *Bildungsberatung*) was provided by 77 information centres with only 150 educational psychologists for the whole country, mainly relegating that function to teachers with counselling preparation. Figure 4.2 shows that Austria has below average guidance at schools, mainly relying on visits to employers instead. In order to address the limited access students had to school-based guidance, the Austrian government made career guidance classes compulsory in lower secondary education (Nusche et al., 2016[20]; Federal Ministry for Digital and Economic Affairs, 2012[21]).

Other countries participating in the Review have expressed that high-quality student counselling is a clear policy priority. In Slovenia, the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport aims to improve the provision of career guidance for students in schools across all levels of education. The planned reforms are intended to be implemented vis-à-vis a modernisation of the Slovenian VET system and a move towards a system of apprenticeships. Vocational guidance in the country is co-ordinated by counselling services, also offered in lower secondary education. In co-ordination with teachers, external experts
and career advisors of the Employment Service of Slovenia, school counselling services provide visits to companies, career information, counselling on educational choice and occupations, evaluation of students capabilities and follow-up of the counselees (Republic of Slovenia Ministry of Education, 2016[22]). This policy priority seems to be confirmed by the data, where Slovenia is a comparative leader in the accessibility of career advisors at school and in the frequency of worksite visits (Figure 4.2).

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.2.** Percentage of 15-year-old students who reported having accessed different types of career guidance, 2012</figcaption></figure>

Note: Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the share of students who had access to a career advisor at school.

Source: OECD (2012), PISA 2012 Database.

StatLink

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933831431

Comparative data on the availability of guidance counsellors to students is difficult to obtain. In the United States, there was one guidance counsellor for every 491 students in 2013/14, whereas the maximal recommended number of students per guidance counsellor is 250 and the rate should be lower for guidance counsellors serving large numbers of students with social and educational disadvantages (American School Counselor Association, 2015[23]). The overall comparative pattern suggests that students across OECD countries would benefit from greater access to guidance services.

While guidance services have clear positive benefits for students in terms of labour market participation and post-secondary enrolment, other less resource intensive interventions may produce similar benefits for students. When students receive information on the schools for which their qualifications make them eligible and opportunities for financial support, they are more likely to attend more rigorous institutions (Hoxby and Avery, 2013[16]). When standard information is already pre-populated on application forms, and when students receive regular text messaging reminders to complete application processes, they are much more likely to enrol in post-secondary education than when left to their own devices (Castleman and Page, 2013[24]; Castleman, Page and Schooley, 2014[25]). This is particularly true for students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds.
*Addressing barriers to students' vertical progression*

The progression of students through vertical pathways in school is affected by institutional factors. These include such educational regulations as academic standards, promotion examinations, year repetition practices, structures to support struggling learners and others. Education systems must constantly navigate a tension between adopting policies intended to, on the one hand, impose high standards for students' knowledge and skills to ensure that they acquire the necessary skills for future life success, and on the other hand to promulgate policies that do not unnecessarily inhibit students' vertical progression.

*Addressing high rates of year repetition through policy interventions and intensive support for struggling students*

Whether students acquire specific academic skills may or may not determine whether they progress from one year to another, depending on system policies and cultural contexts (Goos et al., 2013[26]). At the extremes within OECD countries, all students in Japan and Norway progress from one year to the next as a matter of policy, whereas a full 34% of 15-year-olds in Belgium and 31% of students in Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain had repeated at least once in primary, lower secondary or upper secondary school (OECD, 2016, p. 368 Table II.5.9[2]).

International evidence provides no support for systematic grade repetition practices. Clear evidence shows that students who repeat years do worse on a host of measures than students who have never repeated (OECD, 2016[27]; Ikeda and García, 2014[28]). Researchers debate the proper counterfactual – how would students do had they never repeated? The evidence points to worse – or at best mixed outcomes for repeaters (Schwerdt, West and Winters, 2017[29]; Eren, Depew and Barnes, 2017[30]; Allen et al., 2009[31]; Jacob and Lefgren, 2004[32]; Jimerson, 2001[33]; Jimerson, Anderson and Whipple, 2002[34]) – and greater costs to society associated with retaining children in their year (Manacorda, 2012[35]; OECD, 2011[36]; Alet, Bonnal and Favard, 2013[37]; Benhenda and Grenet, 2015[38]). Poor results from year repetition may be partially explained by the fact that year repetition is rarely accompanied by a modified curriculum or additional instructional resources for the affected students. Disadvantaged students who fall behind may also not have the same access to early support and remedial opportunities as advantaged students.

Furthermore, year repetition raises equity concerns as socio-economically disadvantaged students are nearly 20% more likely to have been held back even when their academic performance, gender, level of motivation and immigrant status is identical to their more advantaged peers (Figure 4.3). Across OECD countries, one in five socio-economically disadvantaged students reported that they had repeated a year at least once since they entered primary school, while only 7% of advantaged students did. Similarly, boys were more than 1.5 times as likely as girls (and immigrants nearly twice as likely as native-born students) to have repeated a year, even when their academic performance, level of motivation and socio-economic status were identical (OECD, 2016, p. 164 Figure II.5.6[2]).
Year repetition, which adds an additional year of schooling and delays entry into the labour market by one year, is a costly practice. In a recent OECD estimate, the total estimated cost of year repetition was equivalent to 10% or more of the annual national expenditure on primary and secondary school education for some countries. The cost per 15-year-old student can be as high as USD 11 000 or more (Figure 4.4) (OECD, 2011[36]).

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.3. Students’ socio-economic profile and year repetition, 2015</figcaption></figure>

Note: Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the impact of socio-economic status on likelihood of year repetition. Statistically significant differences are marked in a darker tone. The socio-economic profile is measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status. The logit regression model accounts for students’ performance, truancy, motivation, gender and immigrant background.

Source: OECD (2015), PISA 2015 Database, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933436132, Table II.5.13.

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.4. Cost of grade repetition, 2009/10</figcaption></figure>

Note: These estimates add up both the direct and the opportunity cost and are based on the assumption that students who repeat years attain, at most, lower secondary education. These estimates do not address either the potential benefits of year repetition or the costs if school systems do not allow for year repetition. For example, students who have repeated a year might be better prepared for the labour market than if they had not done so. Schools might also have to spend more to offer remedial classes to struggling students if those students are not permitted to repeat a year.

1. In Estonia, Israel and Slovenia, gross annual full-time earnings are used as annual labour costs are not available in EAG 2010.

Source: OECD (2011), “When Students Repeat Grades or Are Transferred Out of School: What Does it Mean for Education Systems?”, PISA in Focus, No. 6, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k9h362n5z45-en, Figure 2.

StatLink

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933831469

Despite research evidence suggesting the ineffectiveness of year repetition, there are strong cultural attitudes in support of year repetition in many countries, particularly among educators (Paul, 1997 cited in (Field, Kuczera and Pont, 2007[39]). Teachers frequently believe that students must be held accountable for mastering year-level standards and skills prior to advancing to the next stage of education. Additionally, the threat of repetition can serve as a motivating tool to encourage productive behaviours in students (Range et al., 2012[40]). These are surely valid concerns, and for some students traditional forms of year repetition can be a valuable opportunity to solidify their learning gaps. However, using this practice as selectively as possible has educational performance, equity and cost benefits.

Over the past years, a number of OECD countries have taken steps to reduce their reliance on grade repetition practices. Across OECD countries, the percentage of 15-year-old students who reported that they had repeated a year at least once decreased by almost three percentage points between 2009 and 2015. Notably, the percentage of 15-year-old students who had repeated a year at least once had dropped by a margin of 10 percentage points or more in France, Latvia, and Mexico. By contrast, in Austria the percentage was higher in 2015 than it was in 2009 (Figure 4.5).
<caption>Figure 4.5. Change in the year repetition rate between 2009 and 2015</caption>

Percentage of students who had repeated a year in primary, lower secondary or upper secondary school

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

Note: Statistically significant differences are shown above the bars. Only countries and economies with comparable data from PISA 2009 and PISA 2015 are shown. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of students who had repeated a year, in 2015.

Source: OECD (2016) PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en, Table II.5.11.

StatLink

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933831488

Reducing year repetition begins by providing intensive, individualised support to struggling students: learning gaps between students should be targeted early with necessary supports provided for students with difficulties so that they can be put back on track before the learning gaps widen. For example, in the Finnish education system, almost all students are automatically promoted (none are retained prior to Year 10). Every child has the right to individualised support provided by trained professionals as part of their regular schooling. A teacher who is specifically trained to work with struggling students is assigned to each school and works closely with teachers to identify students who need extra help. Similarly, Austria postpones assigning course grades and provides extra resources and up to 11 additional hours of language courses to recently arrived migrants. As the OECD has previously recommended, "this support should be offered on a regular and frequent basis, supplementing rather than repeating the workload, using different methods and ensuring continuity in student-teacher relationships" (OECD, 2012, p. 52[41]).

In situations in which schools do decide that decisions must be made to retain some students, flexible, comprehensive and evidence-based criteria should be used to assess whether a student should repeat a year. This can ensure that those students whose profiles suggest that they are most likely to benefit from repetition are the only ones who are retained (OECD, 2012, pp. 52, Table 2.1[41]).

Students' academic performance (either grades or test marks) is too narrow a criterion on its own to assess the appropriateness of repetition. Light's Retention Scale is one assessment instrument that examines a variety of non-cognitive factors including physical and emotional maturity, other learning disadvantages, supports already provided, chronological age, and a variety of other factors that may proscribe repetition (Light,
2015[42]). Unfortunately, there exists limited research base on the validity and reliability of scales such as these for accurately predicting which students would benefit from repetition. Therefore, whatever tool school personnel uses, the process should be minimally formalised and subject to clear criteria.

At higher years, limiting repetition to a module, subject area, or a failed course instead of an entire year can smooth transitions. At the upper secondary level in Canada, New Zealand and the United States, repetition "is usually restricted to the specific classes that the student failed. A student can be promoted in a mathematics class but retained in a language class. Usually this is complemented with additional opportunities to learn and be assessed." (OECD, 2012, p. 54[41]). This form of "conditional promotion" can involve students being required to take an on-year level course at the same time they take a remedial class in the subject area in which they struggle at the expense of an elective or enrichment class. It satisfies many educators' practice-based preferences for student-level accountability and support, while avoiding system-level concerns about its associated harms. In Finland, at the upper secondary level, schools operate on a course system whereby students can repeat the courses that were not passed rather than the entire year. With this modular and intensified counselling approach, only 4% of students drop out during general upper secondary school in Finland (Välijärvi and Sahlberg, 2008[43]).

A similar approach in upper secondary education is to allow students to change to other equivalent educational programmes to ensure completion when different educational pathways exist in the year to be repeated. In some countries such as the Netherlands and Spain, students in a general upper secondary pathway may be given the option, in the event of course failure, to shift into a vocational stream to avoid repeating a year (OECD, 2012[41]). However, while there can be benefits to permitting switches between educational programmes, care must be taken to ensure that such measures do not become a form of demotion to a lower-level track for struggling students. Stream switches should permit transitions between pathways that meet students' interests without constraining future opportunities. Critical to accomplish this goal is ensuring that different school pathways have unique profiles and all promote labour market success.

As important as policy proscriptions against repetition or shifts in how the practice of repetition is enacted, cultural shifts in the education profession and school-level incentives to avoid repetition are critical. Decisions to retain a student are typically taken by school leaders and teachers, sometimes involving parental consultations, and may be governed by national or sub-national guidelines and regulations (European Commission, 2011[44]). Ultimately, however, the decision lies in the hands of educators, so shifting their perceptions on the benefits and drawbacks of repetition is critical. Raising awareness through professional development and initial and ongoing teacher preparation programs is one tool.

France has managed to reduce year repetition since turning serious attention to this issue in 2008. The Ministry of Education set ambitious objectives to reduce repetition rates. School leaders were required to explain their school level results and encouraged to decrease the number of repeaters. Students struggling in the last two years of primary school were provided with two additional hours of academic support. The rate of primary school repetition was still 14% in 2009, so the ministry set a goal of halving this rate by 2013. In 2014, Parliament passed a decree addressing school repetition [Decree 2014-1377 of 18 November relating to the monitoring and educational support of pupils]. The decree indicates that the repeating of a year should be considered "exceptional." (Benhenda and Grenet, 2015[38]). The decree also highlights the value of dialogue between
the student and the school staff prior to the decision on a student's repetition. Though overall rates of repetition are still quite high, France experienced the greatest drop of any PISA country in the proportion of 15-year-olds who had repeated a year at any time in their schooling between 2009 and 2015, declining by 16.1 percentage points from 38.2% to 22.1% of all students. However, this rate of repetition is still the sixth highest in the OECD, and 12.7% of students are still retained at least once in primary school, thus more work remains (OECD, 2016, pp. 368-369 Tables II.5.9 and II.5.11[2]).

It is worth noting that budget savings from year repetition abolition appear gradually. Indeed, as a French case study shows, the abolition of this practice can induce short-term costs related to the more rapid flow of students towards higher and more costly educational levels. The first savings could appear in the medium term (after two years in the French case) and increase gradually over time. This has important implications in terms of policy as "first, the savings to be made by abolishing year repetition can only be realised and used for other education purposes gradually. Second, the reform would require several years of careful and rigorous management of the recruitment and allocation of teaching staff over the whole transition period." (Benhenda and Grenet, 2015, p. 4[38]).

In countries where year repetition is very high and deeply rooted such as in Belgium and Uruguay, UNESCO advises a gradual transition away from repetition practices. Limits can be placed on the number of times a student repeats a year within a schooling cycle, for instance "dividing the average six-year cycle of primary schooling into two-year sub-cycles with no repetition allowed within each sub-cycle. When practiced alongside a system that identifies and supports weaker children, this approach has been found to increase quality" (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2012, p. 57[45]).

*Addressing student dropout through professional development, second chance education and predictive data systems*

Students who fail in school often find it difficult to recover later on. They are less likely to continue learning in adult life and face significant barriers in the labour market. While prevention through interventions in earlier years is more effective and less costly, addressing the urgent needs of students who have left school early or are at risk of doing so is a critical educational and economic priority. Large proportions of students across the OECD still fail to complete upper (and in some cases lower) secondary education. The first-time graduation rates in OECD review countries range from less than three quarters to over 90%. These averages, however, mask heterogeneity within each country in the severity of early leaving. For instance, in Lithuania, in 2013, the percentage of early school leavers aged 18 to 24 was 3.6% in urban and 11.4% in rural areas. Rates for early school leaving also vary dramatically across socio-economic backgrounds, gender, immigration status, and educational history among students (OECD, 2016[5]).

Educational authorities have the potential to design and implement policies to reduce early school leaving. While variability in the dropout rate is related to student background characteristics, there is still a wide range of variation across communities with similar demographic makeups. For instance, the Slovak Republic and Japan have a statistically indistinguishable proportion of students in the bottom 20% of the international income distribution (7.6% vs. 7.9% with standard errors of 0.6 and 0.5, respectively). However, the first-time upper secondary graduation rate across all programmes is 97% for Japan and 83% for the Slovak Republic.

There are a variety of common reasons across countries and regions for these differential outcomes, such as poor match between students' interest and their programme of study,
weak and under-resourced counselling, or barriers to accessing the curriculum due to early
skills gaps. There are also some country-specific policy challenges that produce differences
in outcomes for different populations. For example, according to the Lithuanian National
Reform Programme report, “the main causes for [...] increasing regional differences [in the
dropout rate] are believed to be an inadequate school network, underdeveloped
infrastructure of educational support, and insufficient qualifications and competences of
teachers” (Shewbridge et al., 2016, p. 14[46]). Thus this report presents some common
strategies that can benefit all school systems in addressing the problem of early school
leaving, but in each case, the solutions must be adapted to the local context.

Several OECD review countries provide systems of individualised support for at-risk students. For instance, although Uruguay and Austria have dramatically different rates of school dropout, both have been using similar prevention approaches based on reinforced human interaction with students. In Uruguay, “Community Classrooms” (Aulas Comunitarias) exist for over-age students under 17 who have not yet completed Year 7 to receive additional compensatory and remedial support. The Community Teachers Programme pairs youth with members of the community to provide coaching support (Santiago et al., 2016, p. 57;83[47]). In Austria, the Youth Coaching Service provides support to challenged secondary students (Nusche et al., 2016[20]) (see Box 4.1 for more information on these programs). Norway’s Follow-Up Project (discontinued in 2013) paired non-enrolled youth, aged 16-21 with officers trained in motivational techniques to encourage youth to complete secondary and tertiary credentialing (OECD, 2013[48]).

Students who struggle to remain motivated may be re-engaged through the possibility of early acceleration into joint upper secondary (ISCED 3) and short-cycle tertiary (ISCED 5) programmes. Though such programmes take a variety of forms, 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 internship. One such Early College High School in New York City is the Pathways in Technology Early College High. “The school provides students with an enriched curriculum that is aligned with actual employment opportunities with industry partner IBM and that enables them to earn both a high school diploma and a cost-free Associate in Applied Science (AAS) degree in six years. Students have professional mentors, substantive workplace experiences (which differ from school to school), and internships” (MDRC, 2017[49]).

Emerging evidence indicates that students enrolled in these types of programmes had a higher chance of graduating from secondary education and further enrol or graduate from post-secondary education than those who – despite applying – were not selected (Berger et al., 2013[50]; Berger et al., 2014[51]; Edmunds et al., 2017[52]). Although opportunities for tertiary acceleration have shown potential for some at-risk students, these programmes do not address what happens when students do fall behind in secondary school. Second chance programmes can tackle this issue in a variety of ways including literacy and numeracy remediation or course repetition through online or in-person classes.

In Norway, the Transition Project identified the lowest performing students at the end of Year 10 and in upper secondary education and provided them with additional support in core skills. The project worked with teachers to provide concrete strategies for making Norwegian, English and mathematics more meaningful to students’ lives. It also instructed teachers on ways to provide basic remediation to struggling students when this may not have been the focus in secondary teachers’ pre-service preparation (OECD, 2013[48]). This project has since ended without a full evaluation of its effectiveness. 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 courses are often called into question (Kohli, 2017[53]). Thus, careful attention must be paid to the timing at which second chance programmes are offered to students, the standards of the course material, and the qualifications of their instructors.

*Using early warning systems to support student-level interventions*

The collection and analysis of data on students' transitions and distribution across programmes can facilitate the identification and mitigation of unsuccessful educational transitions. In multiple OECD review countries (e.g. Austria, Belgium (Fl.), Denmark, Estonia, Portugal and Uruguay), the OECD review teams have recommended that data on the distribution of student demographic groups across educational programmes be collected. Collecting disaggregated data on early tracking, VET placement, course failure, and early school leaving are necessary pre-requisites to address these challenges.

In some cases, the lack of data may reflect capacity constraints: countries such as Uruguay need to develop the information technology infrastructure to track this student-level data. In other cases, disagreements about the appropriate statistics with which to define whether an individual has completed secondary education can cause differences in how the dropout rates are reported. Within the United States, for example, multiple definitions of the status dropout rate, cohort graduation rates, and the use of alternate certification criteria (GED) tell different stories about who is a dropout (Murnane, 2013[54]).

In other systems such as Belgium (Fl.), Denmark, Estonia and Portugal, data on repetition or early leaving is systematically collected but not disaggregated, though student-level demographic indicators do exist. For instance, information on the rate of language learners' placement into vocational tracks in Belgium (Fl.) is not available (Nusche et al., 2015[55]). Similarly, in Estonia where Russian-speaking students attend vocational education programmes at higher rates than their peers, no information is collected on why they more frequently take (or are assigned to) these courses (Santiago et al., 2016[56]). It is possible that the failure to disaggregate the data or research these topics may be reflective of cultural concerns regarding the impact of presenting such educational disparities publicly.

Whatever the reasons, when educators cannot holistically review students' profiles and anticipate which need the most help, some will fail to receive the help they need. The Norwegian Completion Statistics project establishes attainment goals and a common set of data on which to base analysis of the dropout problem (OECD, 2013[48]). Critically, students receive targeted help when there is an identified risk of school failure. The Diplomas Now Project at Johns Hopkins attempts to quantify measures of student risk and define a program of intervention (see Box 4.1).
**Box 4.1. Reducing year repetition and early school leaving using data and people**

**Early warning indicators**

Informed by a body of research by Robert Balfanz at Johns Hopkins University, the Diplomas Now Program in the United States works by assembling a cohort of school- and community-support members who analyse students exhibiting Early Warning Indicators (EWI) of falling off track. Teams of educators hold regular meetings to discuss student progress, assess collected data and set a support plan in motion. Students are identified based on data in three domains found to have the greatest predictive power in whether a student will leave school early, also known as the ABCs of School Success:

* Attendance

* Behaviour and

* Course Grades

Critical to this support is pairing children with caring adults and setting aside time during the school day for them to meet either individually or in small groups with at-risk students. For the neediest students, Diplomas Now helps by forming support groups and connecting students with community resources, such as counselling, health care, housing, food and clothing. Full-time employed young adults welcome students to school, call them if they are absent, and offer tutoring. They intervene to help resolve problems and celebrate positive behaviour. After school, they help with homework and involve students in service and enrichment programs (Diplomas Now, 2016[57]).

Early evaluation of the program finds that there are some positive outcomes with respect to the ABC indicators, though not consistently across all measures. The ongoing study on long-term outcomes will culminate in 2019 (Corrin et al., 2016[58]).

**Specialised staff**

In Uruguay, the Community Teachers Programme (Programa Maestros Comunitarios) allocates one to two community teachers to disadvantaged schools depending on the size of the school. This programme aims to prevent students from falling behind and having to repeat a year by supporting children who perform poorly. This is coupled with the Teacher + Teacher (Maestro más Maestro) Programme providing either after-school or team teaching support for students in underserved communities (Santiago et al., 2016, p. 80[47]).

In Austria, the Federal Ministry for Labour, Social Affairs Health and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales, Gesundheit und Konsumentenschutz, BMASGK) provides a nationwide “Youth Coaching” initiative. Youth coaches advise and accompany young people aged 15-19 at risk of dropping out from school or being marginalised (Nusche et al., 2016[20]).

Source: Diplomas Now (2016), What We Do, Diplomas Now, http://diplomasnow.org/about/what-we-do; Corrin, W. et al. (2016), Addressing Early Warning Indicators: Interim Impact Findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) http://diplomasnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/DiplomasNow-3rd-2016_2.pdf; Santiago, P. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Uruguay 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265530-en; Nusche, D. et al. (2016), OECD Reviews of School Resources: Austria 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264265729-en.
4.3. Horizontal co-ordination and students’ transitions across parallel pathways

In response to students’ different preferences, abilities and needs, many school systems
offer a variety of educational pathways and parallel programmes, often tracking students
into separate learning environments. The development of different pathways, tailored to
different students’ needs, is generally justified on the basis of increased choice and
effectiveness, even if it may come at the expense of equity in educational outcomes.
According to its proponents, educating students with similar skills and interests can help
better target pedagogical interventions and more adequately allocate school resources.
Concurrently, providing alternative paths for students disengaged from academic studies,
those attuned to practical learning or those requiring special education services may help
increase attainment and success in school education.

The design of horizontal transitions is instrumental to ease the successful progression of students. Providing multiple pathways and educational programmes raises the chances of meeting the interests of a diverse student population and the skills demands of a differentiated labour market. Challenges stemming from the integration of students from different socio-economic backgrounds, immigrants, students with special educational needs or those uninspired by traditional academic content have led countries to explore different policy options to cover the full spectrum of educational demand and provide “made-to-measure curricula” for students. Notably, this has resulted in multiple strands of offers, programmes and schools, which often raise efficiency and equity concerns.

This section focuses on the co-ordination of education programmes for two specific sectors: vocational education and training (VET) and the provision of education to students with special needs.

Co-ordinating pathways for general and vocational education

*High-quality vocational programmes are costly but critical to expand students' learning and labour market opportunities*

VET programmes play a substantial role in the education of upper secondary students. On average across OECD countries, nearly half the students in upper secondary education, and over two thirds in some countries, are enrolled in VET (Figure 4.6). Vocational education programmes are primarily intended to help students acquire the practical skills leading to employment. In contrast to general academic programmes, they are targeted to prepare students primarily to enter a specific occupation often with a defined qualification, rather than providing the general academic background necessary for tertiary education (OECD, 2010[19]).
<figure><img src="image_39.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4.6. Share of students enrolled in upper secondary VET, 2015</figcaption></figure>

Note: Countries ranked in descending order of the share of students in vocational programmes. Missing values indicate the absence of combined school- and work-based programmes or a lack of data (see online Figure).

Source: OECD (2017), *Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en, Table C1.3.

StatLink

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933831507

In recent years, policymakers have come to see VET as critical to national economic success, as employers seek a wider array of skills from secondary school graduates than those provided by the traditional academic disciplines. In fact, most employment growth in the European Union (EU) is predicted to be in the “technicians and associate professionals”, an occupational category demanding some form of technical training (CEDEFOP and European Center for the Development of Vocational Training, 2017[59]). In North America, the field of greatest growth is projected to be in “healthcare professionals and technical occupations”, as well as “healthcare support occupations” (Richards, 2015[60]). While these types of professions may require some type of post-secondary training, tertiary academic education is not required. More broadly, the labour market has experienced a hollowing-out of routinized, middle-skilled jobs as a result of automation and technical innovation (Autor, Levy and Murnane, 2003[61]). The jobs of the future require technical and interpersonal skills, but not necessarily at the tertiary level; the value of vocational education is at premium (Hoffman and Schwartz, 2017[62]).

From a system perspective, vocational education programmes entail considerable costs. Driven by smaller classes and increased expenditure on infrastructure and specialised equipment, the annual expenditure for secondary VET students was higher than that for general education students in 19 of 26 OECD countries with available data. Across the OECD, the average spending per VET student in 2014 was 10% higher compared to those enrolled in general education (see Figure 4.7). Therefore, and in order to increase their overall efficiency, VET programmes have also been increasingly called to justify the higher costs by providing ever more relevant opportunities for students.
<figure><img src="image_40.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 4.7.** Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions in general and vocational secondary education, 2014</figcaption></figure>

*Note:* Countries ranked by annual expenditure per student in vocational secondary education.

1. Public institutions only (for Italy, for primary and secondary education; for Canada and Luxembourg, for tertiary education and from primary to tertiary; for the Slovak Republic, for bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees).

2. Year of reference 2015.

3. Vocational programmes in upper secondary education include information from vocational programmes in lower secondary education.

*Source:* OECD (2017), *Education at a Glance 2017, OECD Indicators*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en, Table B1.1.

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1787/888933831526

The benefits of vocational education are borne out by labour market data from across the OECD. Employment rates for 25-34 year-olds are 10 percentage points higher among those who graduated from upper secondary VET than those who only completed upper secondary general programmes as their highest level of education (OECD, 2016, p. 107 Table A5.5[5]). Furthermore, increasing causal evidence points to benefits of VET for students that, based on prior performance, were on the margin of being assigned to a vocational or general track. Although VET's impact on students' test score outcomes is ambiguous, mounting evidence points to improved secondary graduation rates, higher rates of enrolment in tertiary education, and better labour market outcomes for students at the margin (Dougherty, 2016[63]; Neild, Boccanfuso and Byrnes, 2015[64]; Neild and Byrnes, 2014[65]; Kemple, 2008[66]; Murnane, 2013[54]; Oreopoulos, Brown and Lavecchia, 2017[67]; Hemelt, Lenard and Paeplow, 2017[68]). Interestingly, data from OECD's Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIACC) suggest that while tracking overall has negative impacts on adult skills, a focus on vocational skills within a tracked system increases the weakest students' numeracy skills (Heisig and Solga, 2015[69]).

Although the benefits from graduating with a VET diploma may be high, students in vocational programmes frequently fail to complete their studies. In order to curtail the relatively higher dropout rates in vocational programmes, some countries have been re-designing the educational offer to help meet students' needs. Denmark, in 2008, reformed its VET system, rationalising provision into 12 main study areas with updated syllabi. Alongside the new study programmes, the VET track also allows easier transitions
to post-secondary education (see also Box 4.4). The country has further implemented a new reform on VET in 2015 with the objective of enhancing the attractiveness of the vocational track. Despite the relatively well-perceived status of VET in the country, Denmark is below the OECD average with regards to the number of enrolled students. Danish authorities set goals for 2020 to increase the proportion of young students enrolling in vocational programmes directly after primary or lower secondary education by at least 25%, to offer ever more flexible programmes tailored to each student's level of ability and to deepen the involvement of labour market stakeholders (Nusche et al., 2016[70]).

Among other factors, consistently low rates of successful completion in VET programmes make it harder for them to attain parity of esteem relative to academic programmes. The perceived low status of VET programmes is a shared concern among several education systems visited by the School Resources Review. In countries like the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, although enrolment in VET is higher than the OECD average (Figure 4.6), graduation rates are low. In the Czech Republic, where overall graduation rates are climbing, completion rates of upper secondary VET have decreased by more than 30 percentage points between 2005 and 2014 (Shewbridge et al., 2016[71]). Other Central-Eastern European countries, such as Lithuania or Estonia face similar challenges, despite lower levels of enrolment in VET. Lithuania, where graduation from general programmes is considerably above OECD average, has one of the lowest graduation rates from upper secondary VET among OECD and partner countries (OECD, 2017, p. 62 Table A2.2[1]). In Estonia, one out of every five students enrolled in vocational programmes stops attending school each year (Santiago et al., 2016[56]). The persisting challenges with VET in Central-Eastern European countries had already been identified by the World Bank in 2006. Besides the high dropout rates, curricula relatively isolated from the world of work and a significant mismatch between job placement and the formal qualification of entrant workers remains a challenge of vocational programmes in these countries.

*Separate provision and governance of general and vocational education must weigh trade-offs*

General and vocational tracks are often regarded as disconnected strands of the educational offer. Vocational schools often require specific buildings and equipment, which encourages the provision of general and vocational programmes in separate schools. In countries such as Austria, France, Germany and the Netherlands, school-based VET instruction generally occurs in dedicated schools. Establishing a tier of institutions providing a clearly distinct offer may help to improve the profile of vocational programmes. Specialised provision deters schools from drifting towards an academic mission, with the risk of marginalising its specific vocational offer. An excessive “academisation” of VET programmes may feed perceptions of vocational programmes as a lesser version of the general curricula or cause students to become disaffected due to the repetition of the general curriculum from which they have already opted out. VET-specific schools may, therefore, be better able to distinguish themselves from general schools by having specialised curricula and infrastructure making themselves more attractive to potential VET students (OECD, 2014[72]).

But the provision of VET in separate schools may incur considerable costs. An excessive fragmentation of the course offer often compromises the ability of education systems and schools to provide services at scale. Differentiated provision often implies spreading the educational offer across smaller schools (see Chapter 3). For example, in the Austrian education system, students are selected into different schools according to their abilities and interests in both the transition from primary to lower education and – at a later stage – in
the transition to upper secondary education. Upper secondary education in Austria is offered in five different types of schools, including pre-vocational schools providing only one year of education and schools providing part-time vocational programmes. Combined with a relatively sparse distribution of population in rural areas, fragmentation of the educational offer into separate schools can further hinder school network consolidation (Nusche et al., 2016[20]). Austria has, however, made recent efforts to allay these concerns. Beginning with 2018/19 school year, schools are allowed to cluster under a common leadership and administration, even when offering different tracks.

The Czech Republic has one of the most differentiated education systems by international comparison. Schools offer specialised provision at both lower secondary and upper secondary levels, including general, artistic, technical and vocational education, which contributes to the high number of small schools and small class sizes existent in the country. Moreover, the governance of the educational offer limits incentives for rationalisation. While vocational schooling is organised and planned at the regional level, there is limited collaboration across regions, hindering the ability to consolidate programmes into broader vocational fields. In the past, the school funding design worked as a mechanism to keep existing programmes in place. Schools would not experience a decrease in their funding allocation if student numbers in a given programme were to decline. Therefore, there was little incentive for schools to rationalise their educational offer and design programmes that were appealing to both students and employers (Shewbridge et al., 2016[71]). However, based in part on recommendations from the School Resources Review, reforms were initiated in 2017 that will come into force for the 2018/19 school year. Schools will now receive funds based on the total number of student-hours taught, and this is forecast to reduce regional funding inequalities (European Commission, 2017[73]).

The provision of VET in comprehensive schools can also have the potential for improving its status. In Lithuania, the review team was optimistic that increased collaboration with general lower and upper secondary provision could be a way for vocational schools to provide a broader range of curricular options and to allow students to experience at first hand the high-quality facilities that exist in many vocational education centres (Shewbridge et al., 2016[46]). Recently, Portugal has been increasingly offering vocational programmes in comprehensive upper secondary schools, gradually departing from a traditional model of VET provision in a network of publicly funded professional schools. Concurrently, both enrolment and graduation rates of students in VET have been converging towards parity with general programmes (Liebowitz et al., 2018[74]). Finally, the provision of VET programming in comprehensive schools has the potential to lower rates of social segregation insofar as VET pathways tend to attract greater proportions of low-income, immigrant students.

The risk of fragmentation in the educational offer extends beyond the separation of the general and vocational offer. A proliferation of parallel tracks in general or vocational secondary education can be costly without substantially improving students’ learning experience. In multiple OECD review countries, greater school autonomy and a trend towards providing greater choice to students and their families has led to an expansion in the number of both courses and the types of school providers. Proponents of school autonomy argue that providing schools with independence for setting the curricula yields the potential to foster pedagogical approaches that are better tailored to students’ and local needs. It is anchored in this ambition that the Flemish Community of Belgium, for example, combines curricular autonomy with free choice of schools. There are no catchment areas and students and their families are free to choose any school from its three umbrella
networks of providers. However, the OECD Review of School Resources noted that, despite the curricular autonomy, most of the schools abide by the curricular guidelines and assessments developed by their umbrella networks, failing to systematically develop wholly innovative practices (Nusche et al., 2015[55]). The impressions drawn seem to echo different strands of research in the context of charter schools in the United States which show that greater diversity of providers does not necessarily lead to significant pedagogical innovations (Lubienski, 2003[75]; Preston et al., 2011[76]).

*National and regional collaboration across governmental actors and with private providers is critical for a well-designed VET offer*

Fragmented vocational systems are often the result of inefficient governance arrangements for the oversight of VET provision, such as a lack of co-ordination among the local administrative entities responsible for the VET system, or between public authorities and private providers. These difficulties have in many cases led to schools offering similar vocational programmes in close proximity to one another and, by extension, duplicating costs.

Countries have taken steps to provide regional support systems to improve the quality of vocational education and its co-ordination at the regional level. In the Slovak Republic a recent 2015 reform nurtured the creation of regional training centres for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the VET system and is expected to bring improvements to regional co-ordination across sectoral employer organisations, regional state authorities and VET providers (Santiago et al., 2016[11]). With sufficient capacity, regional and local training centres have the potential to take stock of the skills sought by local and regional employers, steer vocational curricula and foster collaboration.

VET programmes can also benefit from greater collaboration with private providers of resources and facilities. Schools in close geographic proximity often purchase and provide students with similar equipment. Regional and local training centres can either decide to consolidate these options or allow schools to share the physical resources. Hungary, Germany, France and the Netherlands have all implemented such measures aiming to improve the cost efficiency of vocational training. In Lithuania, multi-functional, regional vocational training centres bring small rural providers under a unified administrative structure. The regionalised structure can increase the quality of the educational offer in rural areas and helps avoid duplicative course pathways, while the multi-functionality allows these centres to better serve the community and students' needs (see Box 4.2).

Avoiding duplication in the purchasing of materials and capturing the benefits of sharing specialised equipment requires the willingness of providers to engage in active collaboration. In practice, the scope of these agreements may be limited by a lack of incentives, the absence of established communication channels, or legal barriers such as insurance liabilities or contractual restrictions on those permitted to use equipment. In addition, as investments in workshops and other specialised infrastructure and equipment are large, school principals and local authorities often have a strong sense of ownership over their physical resources, which may reduce their initial willingness to collaborate.
Box 4.2. The establishment of regional multi-function and vocational training centres in Lithuania

As one of the Eastern and Central European countries that inherited a large number of small technical and vocational schools, Lithuania launched a programme in the early 2000s to restructure and enhance the efficiency of its vocational school network. Since the country's accession to the EU, this process of regionalising VET provision has been supported by the EU's Structural Funds and resulted in the establishment of regional vocational training centres, equipped with practical training facilities. The first regional training centres were created by merging training institutions within a given region and focussing their provision on one or several sectors of the Lithuanian economy, which caused a significant reduction in the number of VET schools. By 2008, 13 of these training centres had been granted self-governing status and increased budgetary autonomy, which allowed them to involve a greater variety of stakeholders in their management (including enterprises alongside regional and municipal government representatives).

Likewise, support from EU Structural Funds has allowed some Lithuanian municipalities to create “multi-function centres” (daugiafunkcis centras) that bring together day care services with pre-primary and primary education, as well as a community facility under a single management structure. In 2015, 11 municipal primary schools and 40 municipal basic schools were operating as part of such multi-function centres. Their primary purpose is to improve the quality and accessibility of public services in rural areas and reduce their isolation. This integrated approach allows for the benefits from economies of scale and collaboration which a small, isolated primary school could not, on its own, provide. It also provides the opportunity to better align pre-primary and primary education – a concern that had been picked up in an EU funded research project in 2012.

Source: Shewbridge, C. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Lithuania 2016*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264252547-en, p. 62; Santiago, P. et al. (2016), *OECD Reviews of School Resources: Slovak Republic 2015*, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247567-en.

Early tracking of students may limit educational efficiency and equity

Despite the potential benefits of high-quality vocational programmes, concerns remain regarding the selection of students into these programmes. In some OECD countries, students can be placed into selective tracks from as early as age 12 (e.g. in the Netherlands and Belgium), age 11 (e.g. the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic) or even age 10 (e.g. Austria and some German states) (OECD, 2016, p. 167 Figure II.5.8[2]). Particularly where tracking occurs at a young age, students' choice of or selection into tracks tends to be strongly associated with their socio-economic background. School education may thus contribute to reproducing – rather than mitigating – initial differences in educational opportunities. In most OECD countries, students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds are significantly overrepresented in vocational tracks. According to PISA 2015, the share of 15-year-old students enrolled in a vocational track is 21 percentage points smaller among students in advantaged schools (the top 25% of schools ranked by the average socio-economic status of their students) than among students in disadvantaged ones (the bottom 25% of schools) (OECD, 2016, pp. 168; 375-377 Figure II.5.9 and Table II.5.17[2]).