Education

Indicators

An

International

Perspective

Nancy Matheson

Laura Hersh Salganik

Richard P. Phelps

Marianne Perie

Pelavin Research Institute

Nabeel Alsalam

Thomas M. Smith

National Center for Education Statistics

with contributions by:

Anne K. Anderson

David Nohara

Zhongren Jing

November 1996
ii

U.S. Department of Education

Richard W. Riley

Secretary

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

Sharon P. Robinson

Assistant Secretary

National Center for Education Statistics

Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data related to education in the United States and other nations.

It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and report full and complete

statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and

specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local

education agencies in improving their statistical systems; and review and report on education

activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent,

reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely,

useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, the Congress, the states,

other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in

communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or suggestions about this or

any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

U.S. Department of Education

555 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20208-5574

November 1996

Suggested Citation

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Education Indicators: An International Perspective, NCES 96-003, by Nancy Matheson, Laura Hersh Salganik, Richard P. Phelps, Marianne

Perie, Nabeel Alsalam, and Thomas M. Smith, Washington, D.C.: 1996.

Contact:

Nabeel Alsalam

(202) 219-2252
iii

FOREWORD

The need to compete in foreign markets with advanced technology has convinced

U.S. business, economic, and political leaders of the importance of understanding the

education systems of other industrialized nations. The awareness of how other

countries educate their citizens provides insight into the competitiveness of those

nations, and it provides a benchmark with which to compare our own education

system.

Education Indicators: An International Perspective expands on the traditional interest

in student achievement and education finance by including a broad range of indicators, such as Gender differences in earnings, Time spent on homework, and

Home and school language, among others. The indicators focus primarily upon

comparisons between the United States and other industrialized nations with large

economiesparticularly those that most closely resemble the United States in terms

of size and are viewed as our major economic competitors.

Among a multitude of sources used in this report, the most comprehensive is Education at a Glance (1995), the international education indicators report produced by

the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Other data

sources include the International Assessment of Educational Progress, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, and the International Assessment of Adult Literacy.

The importance of Education Indicators: An International Perspective lies in its ability

to provide a comprehensive selection of international indicators geared toward a U.S.

audience. This particular set of indicators is presented together for the first time and

much of the data are derived from sources not readily accessible to U.S. readers. The

publication, then, contributes to the continuing effort to make comparative information accessible and useful to U.S. leaders.

Jeanne E. Griffith, Acting Associate Commissioner

National Center for Education Statistics
iv
v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Education Indicators: An International Perspective was authored by a joint

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)/Pelavin Research Institute

(PRI) team under the general direction of Thomas M. Smith of the Data

Development and Longitudinal Studies Group. Overall direction was provided

by Nabeel Alsalam, Director of the Special Studies and Reports Program.

The authors wish to thank all of those who contributed to the production of

this report. Special thanks go to Diedra White at PRI who provided valuable

contributions to the production of this publication from its conception to end.

Wed also like to acknowledge the staff at EEI, including Amy Lenihan,

Kathryn Hall, and Kim Agnew, who were responsible for the final design and

layout of the publication as well as its preparation for printing. Finally, wed

like to recognize Norberto Bottani from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) for his key role in the International Indicators of Education Systems (INES) project, from which many of this

publications indicators originated.

Numerous staff from PRITsze Chan, Bing Deng, Erin Sheehan, Maria

Stephens, Scott Brancolini, and Jack Eastonmade important contributions to

the preparation of this report. Joel Sherman and Jay Moskowitz provided

helpful comments on the draft manuscript. From the American Institutes for

Research (AIR), David Baker wrote the sidebar entitled Similarities among

national education systems, Keith Tidman coordinated the final layout and

production of the publication, and Sally Dillow edited the final draft of the

manuscript.

Many thanks are due to NCES staff, whose contributions range from providing

general direction at the beginning of the project to helping resolve specific

issues along the way. In particular, we would like to thank Sue Ahmed, Marilyn

Binkley, Mary Frase, Jeanne Griffith, Marilyn McMillen, Eugene Owen, Lois

Peak, and Thomas Snyder for their help.

Several individuals served as invited external peer reviewers of the draft

manuscript. These reviewers offered many insightful comments. The peer

reviewers were Dorothy Gilford, former Staff Director of the Board on International Comparative Studies in Education of the National Academy of Sciences;

Howard Nelson, American Federation of Teachers; Delia Pompa, U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Director for Bilingual Education and Minority

Language Affairs; Diane Ravitch, New York University; and Edith M. Rasel,

Economic Policy Institute.

Lastly, thanks are due to our colleagues in the G7 countries who reviewed the

matrices of comparative information on countries education systems for

accuracy, and to many others who have generously shared their time and

knowledge to help us better understand their countries education systems.
vi
vii

Page

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ iii

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. x i

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. x v

Introduction

Over view ...................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and Goals of This Publication ...................................................................... 4

Structure of This Publication ...................................................................................... 6

Indicators

Participation and Student Flows

Over view .................................................................................................................... 13

1 Enrolled Persons 529 Years Old ............................................................................. 16

Sidebar: ISCED levels of education ............................................................. 19

2 Enrollment in Early Childhood Education .............................................................. 21

3 Secondary Education Enrollment ............................................................................. 24

Sidebar: The structure of upper secondary education................................ 27

Sidebar: Strategies for preparing youth for employment ........................... 29

4 Nonuniversity Enrollment ........................................................................................ 32

5 University Enrollment .............................................................................................. 35

Sidebar: Differences in programs offered across education levels.............. 38

6 Enrollment in Upper Secondary or Higher Education ............................................ 40

Achievement and Attainment

Over view .................................................................................................................... 45

Sidebar: Using data from sample surveys.................................................... 47

7 Reading Literacy ........................................................................................................ 50

Sidebar: Comparing reading scores from the International

Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements

(IEA) Reading Literacy Study and the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP) ..................................................................... 55

8 Achievement in Mathematics and Science ............................................................... 58

Sidebar: Curricular requirements: mathematics ......................................... 64

TABLE OF CONTENTS
viii

9 Geography Achievement........................................................................................... 66

10 Adult Literacy ............................................................................................................ 69

Sidebar: International adult literacy ............................................................ 77

11 Education Attainment ............................................................................................... 79

12 Upper Secondary Education Attainment ................................................................. 82

13 Education Attainment for Females........................................................................... 85

14 Science and Engineering Degrees (As a Percentage of All Degrees)....................... 89

Education and Labor Market Destinations

Over view .................................................................................................................... 95

15 Labor Force Participation and Education ................................................................ 96

16 Labor Force Participation of Males and Females..................................................... 99

17 Education and Relative Earnings............................................................................ 103

18 Gender Differences in Earnings .............................................................................. 106

19 Unemployment and Education............................................................................... 109

Sidebar: Alternative unemployment measures ......................................... 112

Education Institutions

Over view .................................................................................................................. 117

Sidebar: Similarities among national educational systems....................... 119

20 Locus and Mode of Decisionmaking in Education ................................................ 121

21 Class Size ................................................................................................................. 126

Sidebar: Class size in the United States and Japan ................................... 128

22 Teaching Experience ............................................................................................... 129

23 Number of Schools and School Size....................................................................... 132

24 Time in Formal Instruction .................................................................................... 137

Sidebar: Organized instruction outside of formal schooling ................... 141

25 Time Spent on Homework ...................................................................................... 142

26 Testing in Mathematics and Science Classes .......................................................... 147

27 Scientific Experimentation ..................................................................................... 150

28 Calculator Use ......................................................................................................... 153

29 Computer Use ......................................................................................................... 156

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
ix

Contextual Factors

Over view .................................................................................................................. 163

30 Population and Land Area ...................................................................................... 165

31 Youth and Population .............................................................................................. 168

32 Home and School Language ................................................................................... 171

Sidebar: Home and school language differences....................................... 174

33 GDP Per Capita ....................................................................................................... 177

34 Productivity ............................................................................................................. 179

35 Children in Poverty ................................................................................................. 182

36 Books at Home ........................................................................................................ 185

37 Homework Assistance............................................................................................. 187

Societal Support for Education

Over view .................................................................................................................. 193

38 Staff Employed in Education .................................................................................. 195

Sidebar: Staffing a countrys education system ......................................... 198

39 Student/Teacher Ratio ............................................................................................. 200

40 Teacher Salaries ....................................................................................................... 203

Sidebar: Teacher salaries are not a clear-cut

marker of teacher compensation ............................................................... 207

41 Cur rent Public Expenditure on Education as a Percentage

of Total Public Expenditure .................................................................................... 208

Sidebar: Private spending plays a role in education financing ................. 211

42 Current Public Expenditure on Education as a Percentage of GDP ..................... 213

43 Per Student Expenditure on Education ................................................................. 216

44 Distribution of Funds by Level of Education ........................................................ 220

45 Source of Funds for Education ............................................................................... 223

Sidebar: What is public and private education? ................................ 228

Matrices of Comparative Information on Countries Education Systems ............................ 233

Supplemental Notes and Tables ............................................................................................... 245

Sources of Data................................................................................................................ 295

Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 303

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
x
xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Number Title Page

1 Public and private enrollment per 100 persons in the population 529

years of age, by country, and the percentage distribution of education

enrollment, by level and country: 1992 ................................................................... 17

2 Enrollment rates in public and private early childhood education, by

age and country: 1992............................................................................................... 22

3 Enrollment in all public and private secondary education, by age

and country: 1992 ..................................................................................................... 25

4 Percentage of young adults enrolled in public and private nonuniversity

higher education, by age group and country: 1992 ................................................. 33

5 Percentage of young adults enrolled in public and private university

higher education, by age group and country: 1992 ................................................. 36

6 Percentage enrolled in upper secondary or higher education, by age

and country: 1992 ..................................................................................................... 41

7a Average reading literacy scale scores, by domain, age, and

country: 199192 ...................................................................................................... 51

7b Standard errors for estimated averages in Table 7a ................................................. 52

7c Percentile scores for the narrative domain, by age and

country: 1991 ............................................................................................................ 53

8a Average proficiency scores in mathematics and science, by age and

country: 1991 ............................................................................................................ 59

8b Percentile scores in mathematics, by age and country: 1991 .................................. 60

8c Percentile scores in science, by age and country: 1991 ........................................... 61

9 Average percent correct for 13-year-olds on geography items, by sex,

content area, and country: 1991 ............................................................................... 67

10a Percentage distribution of the population across literacy levels,

by country: 1994 ....................................................................................................... 70

10b Percentage distribution of the population across literacy levels,

by educational attainment and country: 1994 ......................................................... 71
xii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

Number Title Page

10c Percentage distribution of the population across literacy levels,

by age and country: 1994 .......................................................................................... 73

11 Percentage of the population 2564 years of age that has completed

a specific highest level of education, by country: 1992........................................... 80

12 Percentage of the population within various age groups having

attained at least an upper secondary level of education, by

country: 1992 ............................................................................................................ 83

13 Women as a percentage of the total population 2564 years of age

who have completed specific levels of education, by highest level

of education completed and country: 1992 ............................................................. 86

14 Science and engineering degrees as a percentage of all university

degrees awarded and science graduates as a proportion of the

labor force, by country: 1992.................................................................................... 90

15 Labor force participation rate for 25- to 64-year-olds, by highest

level of education completed and country: 1992 .................................................... 97

16 Labor force participation rate for individuals 2564 years of age,

by highest level of education attainment, sex, and country: 1992 ....................... 100

17 Ratio of mean annual earnings of 25- to 64-year-olds by highest

level of education attainment to mean annual earnings at the upper

secondary level, by sex and country: 1992 ............................................................ 104

18 Ratio of mean annual earnings of females to males in the labor force,

by highest level of education attainment, age group, and country:

various years ............................................................................................................ 107

19 Unemployment rates, by highest level of education attainment for

persons 2564 years of age and country: 1992...................................................... 110

20a Decisions made by level of governance as a percentage of all

decisions (public lower secondary education), by country: 1991 ........................ 122

20b Decisions involving the school level as a percentage of all decisions,

by mode of decisionmaking and country: 1991 .................................................... 123

22 Average years of teaching experience for teachers of 9- and

14-year-olds, by country: school year 199192..................................................... 130
xiii

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

Number Title Page

23a Number of public and private schools, number of students, and

average number of students per school in preprimary through

secondary institutions, by level and country: various years ................................. 133

23b Number of public and private higher education institutions, number

of students enrolled, and average number of students per institution,

by level and country: various years ........................................................................ 134

24 Time in formal instruction for 13-year-olds, by countr y: 1991 ............................ 138

25a Percentage of students reporting number of hours spent on

homework daily, by age and country: 1991 ........................................................... 143

25b Percentage of students reporting number of hours spent weekly on

mathematics and science homework, by age and country: 1991.......................... 144

26 Percentage of 13-year-old students who took a test or quiz at least

once a week, by subject and country: 1991 ........................................................... 148

27 Percentage of students who never conduct science experiments,

by age and country: 1991........................................................................................ 151

28 Percentage of 13-year-old students who have a calculator and who

ever use calculators in school, by country: 1991 ................................................... 154

29 Percentage of schools using computers for instructional purposes

and median student/computer ratio, by level of education and

by country: 1989 ..................................................................................................... 157

30 Population, area, and population density, by country: 1991 ................................. 166

31 Percentage of population 529 years of age, by country: 1992 ............................ 169

32 Percentage of all 9- and 14-year-olds who say that they usually

speak a language other than the official school language at home,

by country: 1991 ..................................................................................................... 172

33 GDP per capita, by country: 1992 .......................................................................... 178

34 Productivity as a percentage of U.S. productivity (based on 1990

purchasing power parities, U.S.=100) and average annual percentage

increase in productivity, by country: 196191 ....................................................... 180

35 Percentage of children (ages 17 or younger) whose family income is

below 40 percent of adjusted median family income, by family status,

tax and transfer status, and country: various years ............................................... 183
xiv

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table

Number Title Page

36 Percentage of 13-year-old students who reported having fewer than

25 books in their home, by country: 1991............................................................. 186

37 Percentage of 13-year-old students who receive help at home with

homework, by subject area and country: 1991...................................................... 188

38 Teaching staff and nonteaching staff employed in the education

system as percentages of the total labor force, by level of education

and country: 1992 ................................................................................................... 196

39 Ratio of students to teaching staff, by level of education and

country: 1992 .......................................................................................................... 201

40a Teacher salaries in U.S. dollars, by education level, career point,

and country: 1992 ................................................................................................... 204

40b Ratio of teacher salary to per capita GDP, by education level, career

point, and country: 1992 ........................................................................................ 205

41 Current public expenditure on education as a percentage of total

public expenditure, by level of education and country: 1992 .............................. 209

42 Current public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP,

by level of education and country: 1992 ................................................................ 214

43 Current public expenditure per student (in constant 199192

U.S. dollars) and relative to GDP per capita, by education level and

country: 1992 .......................................................................................................... 217

44 Distribution of current public expenditure on education, by

education level and country: 1992 ......................................................................... 221

45a Distribution of public and private expenditure on primary and

secondary education, by initial source of funds and countr y: 1992 ..................... 224

45b Distribution of public and private expenditure at the higher

education level, by initial source of funds and country: 1992 .............................. 225
xv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

Number Title Page

1a Public and private enrollment in formal education per 100

persons in the population 529 years of age, by G7

country: 1992...................................................................................................... 18

1b Percentage distribution of education enrollment of 5- to

29-year-olds among levels of formal education, by G7

country: 1992...................................................................................................... 18

2 Enrollment rates in early childhood education, by age and

G7 country: 1992 .............................................................................................. 23

3 Percentage enrolled in secondary education, by age and G7

country: 1992...................................................................................................... 26

4 Percentage enrolled in nonuniversity higher education, by age

group and G7 country: 1992............................................................................ 34

5 Percentage enrolled in university education, by age group and

G7 country: 1992 .............................................................................................. 37

6 Percentage enrolled in upper secondary or higher education,

by age and G7 country: 1992 ........................................................................... 42

7 Average reading literacy scale scores, by domain, age, and G7

country: 199192 ............................................................................................... 54

8a Average proficiency scores in mathematics, by age and selected

country: 1991...................................................................................................... 62

8b Average proficiency scores in science, by age and selected

country: 1991...................................................................................................... 63

9a Average percent correct for 13-year-olds on geography items,

by sex and country: 1991 ................................................................................... 68

9b Average percent correct for 13-year-olds on geography items,

by content area and country: 1991 .................................................................... 68

10a Percentage distribution of the population across literacy levels,

by country: 1994 ................................................................................................. 75

10b Percentage distribution of the population across literacy levels

(prose scale), by age and country: 1994 ............................................................ 76

11 Percentage of the population 2564 years of age that has

completed a specific highest level of education, by G7 country: 1992 .......... 81
xvi

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Number Title Page

12 Percentage of the population within various age groups having

completed at least an upper secondary level of education, by

G7 country: 1992 .............................................................................................. 84

13 Women as a percentage of the total population 2564 years of

age who have completed various levels of education, by highest

level of education completed and G7 country: 1992 ...................................... 87

14a Science and engineering degrees as a percentage of all university

degrees awarded, by G7 country: 1992 ........................................................... 91

14b Science degrees awarded per 100,000 25- to 34-year-olds in the

labor force by G7 country: 1992 ...................................................................... 92

15 Labor force participation rate of persons 2564 years of age who

have attained various levels of education, by the highest level

of education completed and G7 country: 1992............................................... 98

16a Labor force participation rate of 25- to 64-year-old males and females,

by G7 country: 1992....................................................................................... 101

16b Labor force participation rate of 25- to 64-year-old males and females,

by highest level of education attainment and G7 country: 1992 ................. 102

17 Ratio of mean annual earnings of 25- to 64-year-olds by highest

level of education attainment to mean annual earnings at the

upper secondary level, by sex and selected country: 1992............................. 105

18 Ratio of mean annual earnings of females to males, by highest

level of education attainment, age group, and selected country:

various years ..................................................................................................... 108

19 Unemployment rates for 25- to 64-year-olds, by highest level

of education attainment and G7 country: 1992 ............................................ 111

20a Decisions made by level of governance as a percentage of all

decisions (public lower secondary) in France, Germany, and

the United States: 1991 .................................................................................... 124

20b Decisions involving the school level as a percentage of all

decisions, by mode and country: 1991 ............................................................ 125

21 Average class size for 13-year-olds, by country: 1991..................................... 127

22 Average years of teaching experience for teachers of 9- and

14-year-olds, by G7 country: school year 199192 ...................................... 131

23a Average number of students enrolled per preprimarysecondary

education institution, by G7 country: various years..................................... 135
xvii

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Number Title Page

23b Average number of students enrolled per institution of higher

education, by G7 country: various years ....................................................... 136

24a Average hours of formal instruction per year for 13-year-olds,

by selected country: 1991 ................................................................................ 139

24b Average hours of instruction per week in mathematics and

science for 13-year-olds, by selected country: 1991 ....................................... 140

25a Percentage of 9- and 13-year-old students who reported doing

2 or more hours of homework per day, by selected country: 1991 ................ 145

25b Percentage of 9- and 13-year-olds who reported doing at least

4 hours of mathematics or science homework weekly, by

selected country: 1991 ..................................................................................... 146

26 Percentage of 13-year-old students who took a mathematics or

science test or quiz at least once a week, by selected country: 1991 ............. 149

27 Percentage of students who never conduct science experiments,

by age and selected country: 1992 ................................................................... 152

28 Percentage of 13-year-old students who reported ever using

calculators in school, by selected country: 1991 ............................................ 155

29a Percentage of schools using computers for instructional

purposes, by education level and selected G7 country: 1989 ...................... 158

29b Ratio of students to computers, by education level and selected

G7 country: 1989 ............................................................................................ 159

30a Land area, by G7 country: 1991 ..................................................................... 167

30b Population, by G7 country: 1991 .................................................................. 167

31 Percentage of the Population 529 years of age by G7

country: 1992.................................................................................................... 170

32 Percentage of 9- and 14-year-olds who say that they usually

speak a language other than the official school language at home,

by G7 country: 1991 ....................................................................................... 173

33 GDP per capita (in 1990 U.S. dollars), by G7 country: 1992 ....................... 177

34 Productivity as a percentage of U.S. productivity, by country:

196191 ............................................................................................................. 181

35 Percentage of children in poverty, before and after tax and

transfers, by countr y: various years ................................................................. 184
xviii

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure

Number Title Page

36 Percentage of students with fewer than 25 books in their home,

by selected country: 1991 ................................................................................ 185

37 Percentage of 13-year-old students who receive help at home

with mathematics or science homework, by selected country: 1991............. 189

38 Teaching and nonteaching staff employed in education as a

percentage of the labor force, by selected country: 1992................................ 197

39 Ratio of students to teaching staff, by level of education and

G7 country: 1992 ............................................................................................ 202

40 Ratio of teacher salary to GDP per capita, by education level,

career point, and G7 country: 1992 ............................................................... 206

41 Current public expenditure on education as a percentage of

total public expenditure, by education level and G7 country: 1992 ............ 210

42 Current public expenditure on education as a percentage of

GDP, by education level and G7 country: 1992 ............................................ 215

43 Current public expenditure per student (in constant 199192

U.S. dollars) and relative to GDP per capita, by education level

and G7 country: 1992..................................................................................... 218

44 Distribution of current public expenditure on education, by

education level and G7 country: 1992 .......................................................... 222

45a Distribution of public education expenditure on primary and

secondary education, by initial source of funds and G7 country, 1992 ....... 226

45b Distribution of public and private education expenditure at the

higher education level, by initial source of funds and G7

country: 1992.................................................................................................... 227
INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

U.S. business leaders, policymakers, and researchers have expressed great

interest in understanding how the U.S. education system compares with those

of other countries. Why is so much importance placed on international comparisons? Simply stated, understanding others helps us to better understand

ourselves. International indicators provide the United States with the opportunity to compare its performance with that of other countries, to identify

similarities and differences between our system and others, and to suggest

new approaches to the challenge of providing a world-class education in the

United States.

While this publication provides data on many countries, the primar y comparisons are among the Group of Seven or G7 countries. These are seven industrialized nations with large economies: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,

the United Kingdom, and the United States. Comparisons between the United

States and other G7 countries are generally more informative than comparisons with other countries, as the G7 countries are more similar to the United

States in terms of size and are viewed as our major economic competitors.

Cross-country comparisons in education have focused on indicators of

achievement and of finance. A prime example is the attention devoted to

international comparisons of student achievement. The information that these

comparisons provide about the performance of students in other countries is

valuable to U.S. educators as they work toward establishing high standards for

U.S. student achievement. Similarly, information about other countries financial investment in education is of interest to U.S. policymakers.

This publication presents a wide range of indicators, including several in

both of these key areas. The achievement indicators show that the performance of U.S. students is mixed; they perform well in comparison with their

peers in other countries in reading and less well in geography and science.

Their weakest area relative to students in other countries is mathematics.

(For more information about student performance, see the section entitled

Achievement and Attainment.) The finance indicators presented in this publication show that public financial investment in education in the United States

is among the highest of the G7 countries on multiple measures. (For more

information about education finance, see the section entitled Societal Support

for Education.)

3
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

4

Purpose and Goals of This Publication

The purpose of this publication is to expand the discussion of education

indicators in three key ways:

■ Compiling a comprehensive set of indicators using information from a

variety of sources;

■ Presenting results that are of interest to a U.S. audience; and

■ Providing the reader with background information on the education

systems of both the United States and its economic competitors to aid in

the interpretation of indicators.

Comprehensive set of indicators

International education indicators are available from a number of sources, but

many of these sources are not readily accessible to U.S. readers; we have

compiled a large collection of these indicators for use in this publication. No

other U.S. publication to date provides as comprehensive a selection of international indicators related to education.

Presentation geared to the U.S. audience

Whereas publications prepared by international groups are careful not to focus

on any one country, this publication presents indicators and results geared to a

U.S. audience. For example, decisionmaking in education is an area of policy

interest in the United States. In the United States, the local level plays a key

role in education decisionmaking and includes the school level in the

decisionmaking process by consulting with the school on many decisions. The

presentation of the indicator on decisionmaking highlights the finding that no

other country relies more heavily on local-level decisionmaking or includes

consultation with those at the school level to the extent that the United States

does (for details, see Indicator 20).

Background information

Countries education systems and societies operate differently in many

important ways, and awareness of these differences has a bearing on the

interpretation of the indicators. The intent of this publication is to provide

everyoneincluding policymakers, business people, researchers, and concerned citizenswith both the data and the contextual information that they

need to make informed judgments about the successes and failures of the U.S.

education system.

Education Indicators: An International Perspective provides readers with relevant material about the education systems and social structures of other countries, specifically designed for readers who are knowledgeable about the United

States. To illustrate, in spite of the fact that there is an international system for

classifying levels of education (International Standard Classification of Education [ISCED]), schools in different countries that are classified at the same
Participation and Student Flows

5

ISCED level may not provide the same programs or have the same functions.

In the United States, for example, nurses receive their qualifying training in

posthigh school vocational training programs, nonbaccalaureate higher

education programs, or baccalaureate programs. Comparable training in other

countries rarely takes place in baccalaureate programs. In Austria and Germany, for instance, nurse training takes place at institutions classified as upper

secondary school level (the level at which U.S. high schools are classified) in

full-time nurse training schools. Upper-secondary-level apprenticeship and

vocational programs in several countries, including Germany and Austria,

provide the type of specialized occupational training that in the United States

does not take place until after high school. Interpreting student enrollment

rates at different levels of education requires an understanding of these differences. (For further information, see sidebars entitled ISCED levels of education and Differences in programs offered across education levels.)

Throughout this publication, background information is interspersed with the

indicators, appearing in overviews that introduce sections of indicators and in

sidebars. It is only with this background that the reader can fully understand

the meaning of the indicators. In addition, a separate section at the back of the

publication provides comparative descriptions of education systems, along

with technical notes and other reference materials.

Introduction
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

6

Structure of This Publication

This publication presents:

■ 45 education indicators, grouped by topic into six sections, with critical

background information incorporated into each section; and

■ additional reference material at the back of the publication.

The individual indicators

With few exceptions, each indicator includes:

■ one page of text, which consists of an introductory paragraph that

explains the indicators significance, followed by bulleted items that

summarize key findings;

■ one or more tables, which summarize the data in a tabular format; and

■ one or more figures (usually line graphs, bar charts, or pie charts), which

summarize the data in a graphical format.

In addition, sidebars accompany several of the indicators. The sidebars provide

explanatory material to help readers better understand the context surrounding certain indicators, so that readers can interpret these indicators more

accurately.

The indicators are divided into the following sections:

■ Participation and Student Flows,

■ Achievement and Attainment,

■ Education and Labor Market Destinations,

■ Education Institutions,

■ Contextual Factors, and

■ Societal Support for Education.

Each section begins with an overview, which summarizes key results and

introduces selected information from the sidebars and from the reference

sections at the back of the publication.
Participation and Student Flows

7

Reference material

At the back of the publication, four separate sections provide additional

information:

■ Matrices of Comparative Information on Countries Education Systems.

Four matrices (that is, text tables) provide a comparative description of

the education systems of the G7 countries. The matrices cover the

following topics:

❏ Curriculum standards,

❏ Entrance and exit examinations,

❏ Teacher training and certification requirements, and

❏ Structure and governance of education systems.

■ Supplemental Notes and Tables. Notes provide an explanation of technical

or data-related issues. In some instances, tables also provide additional

details on a topic. Individuals who are interested in using these data for

research or policy purposes should pay special attention to this section.

■ Sources of Data. Brief descriptions provide key information about each

data source.

■ Glossary. Definitions explain terms that may be unfamiliar to the reader.

Introduction

INDICATORS

PARTICIPATION AND STUDENT FLOWS

PARTICIPATION AND STUDENT FLOWS

The supply of formal education is a primary concern of the United States, as it

is for most other countries. Nations have increasingly turned to formal education for a number of political and economic purposes, including the training of

a competitive labor force and the reduction of social problems.1 Indeed,

policymakers around the world have actively embraced the notion that a

highly educated citizenry is vital to a countrys economic success.2

While the United States does not stand out on measures of compulsory schooling or overall enrollment in formal education, its rate of participation in

noncompulsory education (preprimary, high school, and higher education)

differed from many of the G7 countries.

In 1992, the enrollment of 5- to 29-year-olds in formal education in the United

States was in the mid-range of enrollment in the G7 countries54 students

enrolled per 100 5- to 29-year-olds. In all of the G7 countries except Italy,

approximately 6067 percent of enrollment was in primary and lower secondary education (Indicator 1).

Early childhood education

Approximately 29 percent of 3-year-olds in the United States were enrolled in

early childhood education in 1992. Corresponding rates for 3-year-olds in the

G7 countries ranged from 23 percent in Japan to 99 percent in France (Indicator 2). Structural differences in early childhood education systems help to

explain these differences. For instance, in the United States, children begin

early childhood education as early as age 3, although it is not until age 5 that

the vast majority of children are enrolled. In many other countries, children

typically begin early childhood education at different ages (e.g., age 2 in

France and Belgium, age 4 in the Netherlands, and age 5 in Switzerland).

Differential enrollment rates also stem from cross-country differences in how

early childhood education is defined and how data are collected. To illustrate,

some countries only reported education programs in their measure of early

childhood education, while others also included programs that focused primarily on physical and social development. The United States reported only

enrollments in schools or other educational institutions.

1J. Meyer, F. Ramirez, R. Rubinson, and J. Boli-Bennet, The World Educational Revolution,

195070, in National Development and the World System, Educational, Economic, and

Political Change, 195070, ed. J. Meyer and M. Hannan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1979).

2U.S. Department of Labor, Secretarys Commission on Achieving Necessar y Skills, Learning a

Living (Washington, D.C.: 1992).

13
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

14

Compulsory education

Since the 1960s, there has been a persistent increase in the proportion of

children attending formal schooling, especially at the elementary, middle/

junior high, and high school levels. Enrollment at these levels is almost

universal in most developed countries. Since schooling at these levels is

typically compulsory, it is not surprising that participation rates are almost

universal for 14- to 15-year-olds (Indicator 3).

Postcompulsory education

Compulsory education ends at different ages across the G7 countries. In the

United States,3

 Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, mandatory

schooling ends at age 16; the end point is age 14 in Italy and 15 in Japan. In

Germany, full-time compulsory education ends at age 16, although students

are required to be enrolled at least part-time through age 18. (See the matrix

entitled Structure and Governance of Education Systems in G7 Countries.)

After compulsory education, enrollment rates drop off, but the drop-off

patterns differ in different countries. In the United States, enrollment in

secondary education dropped from 72 percent for 17-year-olds to 21 percent

for 18-year-olds. In contrast, the rate declined as early as age 16 in the

United Kingdom, whereas several countries (e.g., the former West Germany)

had a sizable percentage of 19-year-olds still enrolled in secondary education

(Indicator 3).

Differences in the structure and processes inherent in the education systems of

these countries help to explain the differential drop-off. The student certification processes of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany are a

case in point. In the United States, the first opportunity for students to receive

secondary certification is upon completing high school, usually at age 17 or

18. In the United Kingdom, students take the examination for the general

certificate of secondary education when they are 16. Youth who do not continue to upper secondary schooling and are unemployed are eligible for

training programs supported by the government but outside the education

system. In Germany, the majority of secondary school students who continue

after age 16 and are not preparing for university education participate in

vocational training at the upper secondary level, including the countrys dual

system of part-time schooling and part-time apprenticeship. Because the

certification offered by the dual system is a prerequisite for many fields, a

significant number of students enroll in it. There are sizable upper secondary

participation rates in Germany even after age 19 because students may enroll

in a second upper secondary program after completing one program.

Differential enrollment and drop-off also reflect differences in the types of

programs offered or classified as upper secondary or higher education. To

illustrate, nursing training takes place in any variety of posthigh school

3The end point of compulsory education also varies within the United States. In some states,

mandatory schooling ends later than age 16.
Participation and Student Flows

15

training programs in the United States (nonbaccalaureate and baccalaureate).

In France, it occurs in nonbaccalaureate programs at schools of nursing; and in

Austria and Germany, it occurs at the secondary level in full-time nurse

training schools.

Participation in higher education in the United States and Canada was among

the highest in the world in 1992 (Indicator 4, Indicator 5). However, this does

not mean that young adults the age of U.S. college students are more likely to

be enrolled in education programs in the United States than in other countries.

For example, when higher education and upper secondary education are

considered together (Indicator 6), the percentage of 19-year-olds who are

enrolled in education programs is higher in many countries, including France

and the former West Germany, than in the United States.

One reason that young adults in the United States are among the most likely of

those in the G7 countries to pursue higher education is that the U.S. system

of higher education is more accessible and less restrictive than that of many

other countries. Many countries limit access to higher education through

mandatory examinations or by offering a relatively small number of slots in

their institutions of higher education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

16

Indicator 1: Enrolled Persons 529 Years Old

The number of students enrolled in formal education (except preprimary

education1) per 100 persons in the population 529 years old provides an

indication of the extent to which youth are enrolled in the education system;

the percentage distribution of enrollment reflects how they are distributed

across education levels. These measures are influenced by the age structure of

the population 529 years old (i.e., the percentage in the younger portion of

this age cohort) and the rate at which youth of various ages are enrolled. A

high overall participation rate may reflect a high value placed on education, an

economy dependent on a highly trained workforce, the availability of education institutions, or a relatively high percentage of the population 529 years

old who are in the younger age groups that have virtually 100 percent enrollment. A high percentage of students enrolled at a particular level may reflect a

relatively large cohort of the age typically attending that level or a high enrollment rate among the young people in the cohort.

■ In 1992, the enrollment of 5- to 29-year-olds in the G7 countries

ranged from almost 50 per 100 persons in that age range in Germany

to more than 58 per 100 in France. The U.S. enrollment ratio was in

the middle, at 54 per 100 5- to 29-year-olds.

■ In all of the G7 countries, approximately 6067 percent of enrollment was in primary and lower secondary education,2

 with the

exception of Italy, where only 52 percent of all enrolled students

were at the primary or lower secondar y level. The share of enrolled

5- to 29-year-olds attending higher education ranged from 8 percent

in the United Kingdom to 17 percent in Canada. The percentage of

total enrollment in higher education in the United States (16 percent) neared that of Canada.

1 For the United States, preprimar y includes kindergarten.

2 See the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of education for an explanation of education levels.
Participation and Student Flows

17

Table 1: Public and private enrollment1 per 100 persons in the

population 529 years of age, by country, and the

percentage distribution of education enrollment, by level

and country: 1992

Percentage distribution (Total = 100.0)

Primary and Upper Higher

Country lower secondary secondary education Unclassified

G7

Canada 58.0 62.8 20.0 17.4 0.0 

France 58.4 61.3 21.1 15.4 2.2 15.9

Germany 49.8 62.4 22.1 15.5 0.0 

Italy 50.0 52.2 32.0 15.6 0.0 

Japan 55.7 60.3 23.7 14.0 2.0 

United Kingdom 51.9 67.4 24.5 8.1 0.0 14.0

United States 54.2 66.2 17.5 16.1 0.0 14.8

Other

Australia 53.3 75.4 11.6 12.9  

Austria 50.5 52.9 28.7 18.4 0.0 

Belgium 53.9 57.1 28.6 13.9 0.2 15.8

Czech Republic 51.2 63.9 29.9 6.4 0.0 

Denmark 54.9 59.4 23.7 17.1 0.0 15.6

Finland 60.8 59.2 23.7 17.1  15.4

Greece 50.0 67.8 22.4 9.8 0.0 13.7

Hungary 48.7 64.5 30.8 4.7 0.0 13.2

Ireland 56.4 72.0 18.6 9.0 0.5 14.6

Netherlands 54.4 63.1 23.3 13.6 0.0 16.0

New Zealand 55.6 70.5 18.7 10.6 0.0 14.6

Norway 54.6 57.3 27.7 15.0 0.0 15.6

Poland 52.6 67.5 25.5 7.0 0.0 13.0

Portugal3 47.0 72.3 19.4 8.5 8.0 

Russia 45.0 71.8 15.1 13.3 0.0 12.5

Spain 56.9 54.1 30.2 15.1 0.5 

Sweden 50.2 63.7 21.3 14.9 0.0 14.7

Switzerland 49.1 65.2 23.8 10.2 0.6 15.2

Turkey 39.7 79.3 13.6 7.1 0.0 9.4

Not available.

1Full-time equivalent.

2The hypothetical duration of schooling for a 5-year-old child under current conditions, calculated by adding the

net enrollment rate for each year of age from 5 to 29, and dividing by 100.

31991 data.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 1 for details on indicator calculation for Australia, the Czech Republic,

Denmark, Hungar y, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the United States and for an explanation of the calculation of

full-time equivalent enrollments.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Enrollment per

100 persons

(all levels)

Schooling

expectancy for

a 5-year-old2
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

United Italy Germany

Kingdom

United

States

France Canada Japan

Number 

enrolled per 100

Figure 1a: Public and private enrollment in formal

education per 100 persons in the population

529 years of age, by G7 country: 1992

NOTE: Unclassified enrollments for France and Japan are included.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Figure 1b: Percentage distribution of education enrollment

of 5- to 29-year-olds among levels of formal

education, by G7 country:* 1992

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of enrollment in higher education.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Unclassified

Preprimary and lower secondary

Upper secondary

Higher education

Canada United States Italy Germany France Japan United Kingdo

Percent
Participation and Student Flows

19

ISCED levels of education

In order to define levels of education uniformly across all countries, this

publication uses terms that were developed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and have been agreed

upon by all participating countries, but which might be unfamiliar to readers

from the United States. These levels, called the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) levels, are used to compile internationally comparable statistics on education.

The classification distinguishes between seven levels of education ranging

from preprimary to tertiar y. International definitions of preprimar y, primar y, and tertiary education are similar to the definitions used in the

United States; however, lower and upper secondary education have slightly

different meanings.

Preprimary education (level 0), also called early childhood education, usually

includes education for children aged 35, although in some countries, it starts

as early as age 2 and in others continues through age 6. In the United States,

preprimary education includes kindergarten. Primary education (level 1) runs

from about ages 611, or about first through sixth grades in the United States.

Specialization rarely occurs in any country before secondary education.

Secondary education covers ages 11 or 12 through 18 or 19 and is divided into

two levels: lower and upper secondary (levels 2 and 3). For the purposes of

statistical comparability, the United States has defined lower secondary education as grades 7 through 9 and upper secondary as grades 10 through 12. In

the United States, lower secondary education is the loose equivalent of intermediate school, middle school, or junior high school; however, in many other

countries lower secondary education ends with an examination and constitutes

the completion of compulsory education. Upper secondary education immediately follows lower secondary education and includes general (academic),

technical, and vocational education, or any combination thereof, depending on

the country. An upper secondary attainment level is roughly equivalent to a

U.S. high school diploma.

Higher education, also referred to as tertiary education, includes three ISCED

levels and is the equivalent of postsecondary education in the United States.

Nonuniversity higher education includes education beyond the secondary

school level involving programs (e.g., vocational, community college, and

junior college programs) that terminate in less than a 4-year degree. This type

of education is at ISCED level 5. ISCED level 6 comprises education programs

that lead to a 4-year undergraduate degree. These programs are typically

located in universities and other 4-year institutions. The highest level, ISCED

level 7, includes graduate and professional degree programs.

NOTE: For the attainment indicators, a person is classified in the highest level for which they

completed the last grade or degree for the level. For example, a U.S. student must complete

grade 9 in order to attain a lower secondary education and 2 years of higher education

(associates degree) in order to attain a nonuniversity higher education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

20

ISCED

level Definition U.S. equivalent

0 Preprimary Kindergarten and below

1 Primary 1st6th grades

2 Lower secondary 7th9th grades

3 Upper secondary 10th12th grades or first 3 years of

vocational education

5 Nonuniversity higher Community or junior colleges or vocational/

education technical institutes (nonuniversity) leading

to an associates degree

6 University higher University or other 4-year education

education (first institution (college or university) leading to a

degree) bachelors degree

7 University higher University or professional institute (university)

education (advanced leading to a masters or doctors degree

degree)
Participation and Student Flows

21

Indicator 2: Enrollment in Early Childhood Education

The percentage of 3- to 7-year-olds who are enrolled in public and private early

childhood education programs* reflects the importance of student participation in education and the availability of affordable programs. The percentage of

children enrolled in early childhood education at different ages is influenced

by differences in the timing of entry. A countrys early childhood education

enrollment rates may be influenced by the labor force participation of its

females and by the prevalence of center-based or home-based care. While

children may be exposed to educational opportunities in a variety of settings,

this indicator only includes enrollment in center- or school-based education

programs.

■ In the United States, 29 percent of 3-year-olds were enrolled in an

early childhood education program in 1992. In the G7 countries for

which data were available, 1992 enrollment for 3-year-olds ranged

from approximately 23 percent in Japan to almost 100 percent in

France.

■ By age 4, over half of the children in the United States were enrolled

in some form of early childhood education. In a number of countriesFrance, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Hungary, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Spainenrollment among 4-year-olds was

90 percent or higher.

■ By age 6, almost all the children in every country were enrolled in an

education program, with the exception of Finland (58 percent),

Norway (79 percent), and Turkey (14 percent). By age 7, all countries had a net enrollment rate above 93 percent.

*Early childhood education includes both preprimary and primary education, since there are

variations in the definition of preprimary education among countries.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

22

Table 2: Enrollment rates1 in public and private early

childhood education,2 by age and country: 1992

Percent enrolled by single year of age3

Country 3 4 5 6 7

G74

Canada  45.9 99.2 103.7 102.9

France 98.8 101.4 101.5 100.6 100.2

West Germany (former) 30.8 68.5 78.5 115.1 97.5

Japan 23.1 57.6 65.7 101.9 101.0

United Kingdom 37.0 90.1 98.9 98.5 98.9

United States 28.5 53.0 88.6 102.3 103.3

Other

Austria 29.0 66.3 86.2 98.4 100.0

Belgium 97.7 99.3 99.7 99.8 99.1

Czech Republic 65.7 84.1 99.8 106.7 102.8

Denmark 37.9 53.6 61.1 96.4 99.7

Finland 24.3 28.1 32.0 57.6 99.5

Greece 11.2 48.9 85.2 102.5 95.6

Hungary 99.0 100.5 101.2 100.6 101.1

Ireland 1.2 55.7 100.0 99.1 100.5

Netherlands 0.0 98.0 98.8 97.7 100.0

New Zealand 73.7 92.6 105.1 100.8 100.9

Norway 44.0 56.5 65.1 79.3 99.3

Poland 78.3   95.0 98.5

Russia 53.9 52.0 51.6 99.3 100.0

Spain 37.2 95.8 100.4 103.2 103.8

Sweden 45.2 50.8 60.6 99.9 97.5

Switzerland 7.4 26.2 77.3 99.0 100.1

Turkey  0.3 1.5 14.2 93.3

Not available due to lack of data or problems in defining preprimary education at this age.

1Head counts.

2Enrollment rates that exceed 100 reflect measurement error.

3Enrollment for 3-year-olds reflects only enrollment in preprimary education. The other ages

reflect both preprimary and primary enrollment.

4No data available for Italy.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 2 for details on indicator calculation for Austria, the

Czech Republic, Denmark, the former West Germany, Hungary, Japan, Poland, Spain, and the

United Kingdom and for information on the calculation of enrollment rates.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Participation and Student Flows

23

1

No data available for Italy.

2Countries are reported in alphabetical order.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Figure 2: Enrollment rates in early childhood education, by age and

G7 country:1,2 1992

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

West GermanyJapan United Kingdom United States

(former)

Canada France

Age 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Data

N/A 0

20

40

60

80

100 Age 3

West GermanyJapan United Kingdom United States

(former)

Canada France

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

West GermanyJapan United Kingdom United States

(former)

Canada France

Age 5

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

West GermanyJapan United Kingdom United States

(former)

Canada France

Age 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

West GermanyJapan United Kingdom United States

(former)

Canada France

Age 7

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

24

Indicator 3: Secondary Education Enrollment

The end point of compulsory education typically occurs during secondary

education, and this event influences the percentage of students of a particular

age cohort enrolled in secondary education. Secondary education enrollment

also reflects the desirability and importance of secondary-level credentials.

Secondary education enrollment rates for some countries may be higher than

those for others because certain programs offered at higher levels of education

in other countries are offered at the secondary level.

■ In 1992, enrollment in secondary education was nearly universal for

14- and 15-year-olds in the G7 countries for which data were

available and in the other countries reported, with the exception of

Hungary, Poland, and Turkey.

■ Secondary enrollment dropped off at different ages in different

countries. In the United States, the largest decline occurred between

ages 17 and 18, from 72 to 21 percent. The rate declined as early as

age 15 in Russia and age 16 in the United Kingdom, whereas several

countries had a sizable percentage of 19-year-olds still enrolled in

secondary education. For example, more than half of 19-year-olds in

the former West Germany were enrolled in secondar y education.
Participation and Student Flows

25

Table 3: Enrollment in all public and private secondary education,1,2

by age and country: 1992

Percent enrolled by single year of age

Country 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

G73

Canada 99.8 98.7 96.3 72.0 36.9 11.1 14.0 0.0

France 94.3 94.1 92.1 87.2 58.6 34.0 12.0 3.1

West Germany (former) 93.9 93.1 95.3 92.8 82.3 55.0 29.3 16.0

Japan 101.6 96.8 95.1 90.3 1.8   

United Kingdom 99.6 98.9 75.3 55.3 18.7 4.3 1.9 1.2

United States 98.7 95.7 91.4 72.0 20.6 5.8 1.7 0.6

Other

Belgium 98.9 98.7 97.2 93.6 49.8 25.1 10.6 4.4

Czech Republic 106.4 90.2 86.9 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Denmark 93.4 97.8 92.4 80.1 68.9 48.4 28.3 16.3

Finland 99.8 99.8 94.5 85.8 79.7 26.8 16.5 15.3

Greece 94.2 86.1 88.4 62.1 19.4 10.5 4.7 3.1

Hungary 88.7 84.4 75.2 45.4 12.2 3.9 1.4 0.0

Ireland 97.6 94.3 87.5 70.2 33.1 11.5 7.0 3.6

Netherlands 98.7 99.0 97.3 90.8 67.9 42.3 25.4 14.7

New Zealand 98.9 96.7 87.8 65.7 20.8 5.9 2.4 1.7

Norway 99.4 99.3 92.8 86.6 77.2 34.6 17.6 11.9

Poland 1.4 81.6 85.1 81.6 49.8 17.3 5.8 

Russia 95.1 59.6 47.7 8.4 0.1   

Spain 100.4 91.0 75.6 66.9 35.5 20.7 17.2 10.6

Sweden 99.7 95.6 89.2 87.0 59.6 11.5 2.7 1.7

Switzerland 98.3 95.8 85.2 82.0 74.2 48.9 20.6 8.2

Turkey 47.5 45.9 39.3 33.9 19.8 9.7 6.0 0.0

Not available.

1Full-time equivalent.

2Enrollment rates that exceed 100 reflect measurement error.

3No data available for Italy.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 3 for details on indicator calculation for the Czech Republic, Denmark,

Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the Unites States, for an explanation of the

calculation of full-time equivalent enrollments, and for information on the calculation of enrollment rates.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

26

Figure 3: Percentage enrolled in secondary education, by age and G7

country:* 1992

*No data available for Italy.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

United States

United Kingdom

Japan

Germany

France

Canada

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Percent

Age
Participation and Student Flows

27

The structure of upper secondary education

In the United States, a students involvement in upper secondary education

typically ends with graduation from high school at or around age 18. In other

countries, however, because upper secondary education is structured differently, it is harder to pinpoint an age or an accomplishment that marks the end

of involvement in secondary education. Thus, as the data from Indicator 3

show, upper secondary enrollment rates among people over the age of 19

remain relatively high for some countries (e.g., Germany, Denmark, the

Netherlands, and Switzerland), and tend to decrease after age 1516 for others

(e.g., the United Kingdom, Hungary, and the Czech Republic).

Upper secondary school in the United States typically consists of 3 or 4 years

of high school. High schools are usually comprehensive, meaning that they do

not specialize in one type of program, such as vocational or college preparatory. Students may take some courses in a particular vocational area, although

upper secondary school is not generally the time students receive essential

training or credentials in vocational areas. On average, 1992 high school

graduates earned about 4 credits in vocational courses compared with 17

credits in academic courses.1 For both college-bound and non-college-bound

students, a high school diploma signifies successful completion of upper

secondary education. Students then may continue on to postsecondary education or enter the workforce. Beyond the age of 18, few people are enrolled in

upper secondary education.

In other countries, upper secondary education can be structured quite differently from the comprehensive, general credential-granting high schools of the

United States. In Germany, for instance, the secondary education system is

differentiated according to students postsecondary plans (i.e., university,

technical school, or employment), beginning with lower secondary school; and

students may earn credentials in a variety of fields. When students enter upper

secondary school, they enroll in one of three types. Students who plan to

attend a universityapproximately 25 percent of youth in a given age cohort2are usually already enrolled in Gymnasien, general academic high

schools that prepare students to take the rigorous university entrance examination, the Abitur. Students not attending Gymnasien may enroll in full-time

vocational schools, but the vast majority of students enroll in part-time vocational schools to participate in the dual system.

The dual system is Germanys system of apprenticeship.3 It combines part-time

study with part-time work in a specific occupational field. The dual system is

the sole means of entry into over 400 occupations, ranging from highly techni1U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of

Education, 1994, Washington, D.C.: 1994, Indicator 23.

2Federal Ministry of Education and Science, Basic and Structural Data: 199293 (Bonn: 1992).

3The states of the former Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) have retained the dual

system described here; the newly formed states of the former German Democratic Republic

(East Germany) have begun to adopt this system.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

28

cal fields such as electronics, to white-collar fields such as sales and administration, to traditionally blue-collar occupations such as mechanic, machinist,

and craftsman.4

Because the certification offered by the dual system is a prerequisite for so

many fields, not only do large numbers of students enter it directly after

completing lower secondary school (i.e., approximately two-thirds of lower

secondary school completers), but significant numbers of students enter it

even after having earned secondar y certification, either in another type of

schooling or in a different occupational field within the dual system. Approximately 90 percent of lower secondary completers participate in the dual system

at some point, although not all earn certification.5 Thus, unlike in the United

States, upper secondary education in Germany offers a variety of credentials

necessary for employment in certain occupations. In order to earn those

credentials, people outside the typical age range will enroll or re-enroll in

upper secondary school.

As in many states in the United States, school attendance in the United Kingdom is compulsory until the age of 16. However, school attendance in the

United States remains fairly high at age 16, whereas in the United Kingdom

attendance drops substantially. One explanation for this difference may be

found in the certification process. In the United States, the first opportunity for

students to receive secondary certification is upon completing high school,

usually at age 18. At age 16 in the United Kingdom, students take an examination for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). After receiving this certification, students may continue in the same school, usually for 2

more years (1 year in Scotland), ultimately earning the General Certificate of

Education (GCE) Advanced (A') level after passing the examination for that

level. This is the standard for entrance to higher education and many types of

professional training. Other options for those completing the GCSE include

entering the workforce or transferring to either a college of further education

providing technical training or a technical college, both of which offer a wide

range of vocational and academic courses, both full- and part-time.6

4Federal Ministry of Education and Science, Report on Vocational Education (Bonn: 1991).

5Ibid.

6Neville T. Postlethwaite, ed., The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National

Systems of Education (New York: Pergamon Press, 1988).
Participation and Student Flows

29

Strategies for preparing youth for employment1

Many countries have formalized strategies to prepare non-college-bound youth

for employment. Japan, Germany, and Sweden are some of the countries that

employ such strategies, including combining schooling with work experience

and on-the-job training, providing students with extensive occupational

information in school, and offering job placement assistance. While the

methods that these countries adopt to meet the needs of non-college-bound

youth may differ, the U.S. General Accounting Office reports that the Japanese,

German, and Swedish systems share a common underlying featureeach has a

national policy focused on preparing non-college-bound youth for employment. While the United States offers its upper secondary students a wide

range of educational opportunities (including academic and vocational

courses), it does not have a comprehensive strategy or set of programs to

facilitate students transition from school to work. The school-to-work transition strategies utilized by Japan, Germany, and Sweden are described in the

following paragraphs.

Japan

Japanese youth who wish to enter the labor force after completing secondar y

school obtain employment almost exclusively through school-based job

referral programs. The system is a cooperative effort between employers,

schools, and the Public Employment Security Office (PESO) operated by the

Ministry of Labor.

The process begins with companies determining their manpower needs and

preparing a recruitment card for each job to be filled. The card describes the

job, the company, and the terms and conditions of employment. PESO reviews

the card for compliance with applicable standards, such as wages and benefits,

and approved cards are used by the schools as the basis for job referral assistance. Many companies also send representatives to visit the schools and to

meet with placement counselorsbut not with the students, since direct

communication between a company offering positions and students seeking

employment is prohibited.

The schools take an active role in the job referral system. They maintain

placement offices where students can review employer information and recruitment cards. The schools also have full- and part-time placement counselors who assist students with job preferences and advise them on interview and

1The primary source of information for this sidebar is the U.S. General Accounting Office

report, Training Strategies: Preparing Noncollege Youth for Employment in the U.S. and Foreign

Countries (Washington, D.C.: 1990). Other sources include P. Cappelli, British Lessons for

School-to-Work Transition Policy in the U.S. (Philadelphia: National Center on the Educational

Quality of the Workforce, 1993); The Federal Minister for Education and Science, Vocational

Training in the Dual System in the Federal Republic of Germany (Bonn: 1992); U.S. Department

of Education, Japanese Education Today (Washington, D.C.: 1987); Central Statistical Office,

Regional Trends 28 (Great Britain: Crown, 1993); and Central Statistical Office, Social Trends 22

(Great Britain: Crown, 1992).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

30

entrance examination strategies. If two or more students from a school are

interested in the same position, school staff will confer and decide on the order

in which students will apply and take the companys exam. School staff consider grades and behavioral characteristics important to an employer, such as

tardiness and absenteeism, when making such decisions. Those students who

are not hired by the first company at which they interview may take entrance

examinations in a second or third company.

Students who participate in this system have a better chance of getting a job

after graduation than those who do not participate. Nonparticipants and those

whom the school does not feel comfortable recommending to a company often

end up in temporary or low-wage jobs. After graduation, about 55 percent of

students go on to higher education institutions, about 40 percent go into the

labor market (the majority have participated in the job referral system), and

about 5 percent are unemployed.

Participants in higher education also receive job refer ral assistance. PESO is

not as significant a factor in placing university graduates, since graduates may

also apply to companies directly. However, the traditional pattern of direct

employer to university faculty or department contact continues to be dominant where prestigious institutions, companies, and fields are concerned.

Students also take company examinations and have interviews, but these

basically are rituals to confirm decisions reached earlier about a particular

student.

Germany

In Germany, schools and employers are linked primarily through an upper

secondary education system in which students divide their time between

school-based instruction and on-the-job training (apprenticeship) in a chosen

occupational area. This approach is often referred to as the dual system.

Students who participate in this type of education program generally spend

3 years in the dual system after completing compulsory full-time schooling

(i.e., age 15 or 18)including 1 to 2 days each week studying vocational and

academic subjects and the remainder of the week receiving on-the-job training

with employers. The main goal of the apprenticeship system is to develop a

high-quality skilled workforce; trainees are typically taught more than they

may actually use on a specific job. Apprenticeships are available for over 400

skilled occupations.

Approximately two-thirds of all students completing lower secondary education directly pursue training in the dual system and approximately 90 percent

do so eventually. A May 1992 report on Germanys dual system released by the

Federal Ministry for Education and Science indicates that 6 months after

completing training, approximately 60 percent of trainees had received unlimited contracts2 of employment either in the occupation in which they were

2Unlimited contracts of employment generally last 3 to 4 years and can be renewed or made

permanent if both parties so desire.
Participation and Student Flows

31

trained or in another field; 10 percent were unemployed; 17 percent either

went into the military or received a limited contract3 of employment (either in

the trained occupation or another field); and 13 percent were pursuing additional training.

Sweden

Swedens approach to preparing youth for the workplace begins early in a

childs education. Swedish students aged 715 are required to complete between 6 and 10 weeks of work orientation in school. They receive an educational and vocational orientation in school and visit workplaces to gain

knowledge of different fields of employment, working environments, and

occupations.

Unlike students who participate in Germanys employer-driven apprenticeship

system, high school students in Sweden who major in vocational fields receive

most of their training in school, spending only 10 percent of the first 2 years of

high school at a work site. For those who are enrolled in a 3-year upper

secondar y vocational education program, work experiences extend to 60

percent of the time in the third year. In addition to emphasizing assistance to

students in the transition from school to work, Sweden demonstrates its

investment in jobless youth by providing guaranteed training or work for all

jobless teenagers.

3Limited contracts can last from 6 weeks to 4 or 5 years. Participants generally go on to

permanent jobs.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

32

Indicator 4: Nonuniversity Enrollment

Nonuniversity higher education institutions typically provide occupationally

oriented programs that may also allow students to proceed to university degree

programs. The percentage of individuals in different age groups (1821,

2225, and 2629) who are enrolled in nonuniversity higher education reflects

(1) the role of nonuniversity higher education in the training process, (2) the

duration of nonuniversity higher education programs, and (3) the classification of programs as upper secondary, nonuniversity, or university higher

education. In countries with relatively high nonuniversity higher education

enrollment rates, nonuniversity higher education institutions may provide

training and certification for a large number of occupations, whereas in countries with low rates, similar training may occur at other levels in the system.

■ Nonuniversity higher education enrollment rates for 18- to 21-yearolds were clustered into two groups in the G7 countries for which

data were available. The United States had relatively high full-time

enrollment rates in 1992 (13.8 percent), as did France and Canada,

with 8.8 and 8.1 percent, respectively. The former West Germany

and the United Kingdom had comparatively low enrollment rates

(between 2 and 4 percent). In two other countries, Australia and

Belgium, nonuniversity full-time enrollment among 18- to 21-yearolds exceeded 10 percent.

■ In most countries, nonuniversity enrollment rates declined to less

than 5 percent as students progressed into their late twenties. The

highest full-time rate among 26- to 29-year-olds11 percentwas

found in Australia, which is known for its system of continuing

education and training. In Canada, France, Belgium, Greece, Hungary, and Turkey, enrollment rates for this age cohort were less than

1 percent.
Participation and Student Flows

33

Table 4: Percentage of young adults enrolled1 in public

and private nonuniversity higher education, by

age group and country: 1992

Age

Country 1821 2225 2629

G72

Canada3 8.1 2.7 0.8

France 8.8 2.3 0.3

West Germany (former) 2.3 1.7 1.4

United Kingdom 3.9 2.0 1.1

United States 13.8 6.5 4.1

Other

Australia 22.9 9.2 11.4

Belgium 14.0 2.5 0.1

Czech Republic 0.8  

Denmark 0.7 2.7 1.4

Finland 4.6 5.9 2.0

Greece 8.2 3.3 0.5

Hungary 4.7 1.4 0.5

New Zealand 4.2 4.2 3.0

Norway 5.7 5.1 2.5

Poland 3.5 1.2 

Russia 9.5 4.6 

Spain 0.3  

Sweden 6.3 4.6 2.7

Switzerland 2.4 5.4 3.0

Turkey 1.1 0.3 0.1

Not available.

1Head counts.

2No data available for Italy and Japan.

31991 data.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 4 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Poland, and Russia and for information on the

calculation of enrollment rates and full-time equivalents.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

34

Figure 4: Percentage enrolled in nonuniversity higher education, by age

group and G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for Italy and Japan

2Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 18- to 21-year-olds enrolled in nonuniversity

higher education.

3

1991 data.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

West Germany

(former)

United Kingdom

Canada

France

United States

Age 18–21

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

West Germany

(former)

United Kingdom

Canada

France

United States

Age 22–25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

West Germany

(former)

United Kingdom

Canada

France

United States

Age 26–29

3

3

3

Percen

Percen

Percen
Participation and Student Flows

35

Indicator 5: University Enrollment

The percentage of students in different age groups (1821, 2225, and 2629)

who are enrolled in any type of university or 4-year college (including undergraduate and graduate education) reflects the availability of university education and the extent to which that education provides necessary training for

different occupations. A high rate of university enrollment in a country

suggests that university education is highly valued and widely available.

Enrollment rates may be low in another country, if admission to universities

is restricted or if university education is not vital to employment and success

in a large number of occupations.

■ In the G7 countries for which data were available, the United

States, Canada, and France had the highest enrollment rates for

18- to 21-year-olds in 1992. Furthermore, the rates in the United

States and Canada were higher than all other countries with data

available.

■ Even though the former West Germany had the lowest full-time

enrollment rate for 18- to 21-year-olds among this set of G7

countries, it had the highest rate for 22- to 25-year-olds and 26- to

29-year-olds.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

36

Table 5: Percentage of young adults enrolled1 in public

and private university higher education, by age

group and country: 1992

Age

Country 1821 2225 2629

G72

Canada 23.9 13.9 5.6

France 20.2 11.6 3.8

West Germany (former) 7.4 15.2 9.6

United Kingdom 14.2 4.7 1.8

United States 25.0 12.1 5.4

Other

Australia 18.8 6.2 5.4

Austria 13.1 15.4 9.0

Belgium 16.9 7.1 1.5

Denmark 7.8 17.2 8.7

Finland 10.3 16.6 8.7

Greece 15.6 1.6 0.3

Hungary 6.0 5.0 1.6

Netherlands 20.1 15.9 4.8

New Zealand 18.8 7.8 3.6

Norway 8.4 15.3 6.5

Poland 8.1 12.1 

Spain 22.5 14.9 5.4

Sweden 4.3 8.1 3.8

Switzerland 4.8 7.8 4.0

Turkey 7.0 4.9 2.3

 Not available.

1Head counts.

2No data available for Italy and Japan.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 5 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Belgium, Denmark, France, and Poland and for information on the calculation of enrollment

rates.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Participation and Student Flows

37

Figure 5: Percentage enrolled in university education, by age group and

G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for Italy and Japan.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 18- to 21-year-olds enrolled in university education.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

16 18 20 22 24 26

West Germany

(former)

United Kingdom

France

Canada

United States

Age 18–21

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

16 18 20 22 24 26

West Germany

(former)

United Kingdom

France

Canada

United States

Age 22–25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26

16 18 20 22 24 26

West Germany

(former)

United Kingdom

France

Canada

United States

Age 26–29

Percen

Percen

Percen
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

38

Differences in programs offered across education levels*

Education programs in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development (OECD) member countries are classified as belonging to one of

seven levels, which in the United States correspond to the following:

preprimary (including kindergarten), elementary school, middle or junior high

school, high school, nonbaccalaureate higher education (e.g., 2-year higher

education institutions or community colleges), baccalaureate education (e.g.,

4-year degree programs at colleges and universities), and graduate school.

While the education systems of many other countries are structured similarly

to that of the United States in terms of these levels, the training and education

offered at them can vary significantly, particularly at the high school level and

above. For example, training offered at the nonbaccalaureate higher education

level in one country may be offered at the high school level in another, thus

contributing to variation in enrollment rates across the levels.

The profession of nursing is just one example of a case where comparable

training takes place at different education levels in different countries. In the

United States, most nurses (licensed practical nurses and registered nurses)

receive their qualifying training in either a nonbaccalaureate or a baccalaureate

higher education program. Posthigh school vocational training programs,

junior college programs, and programs offered at technical institutions are

considered nonbaccalaureate higher education programs, while 4-year or

longer college programs are considered baccalaureate programs. Comparable

training in other countries does, in some cases, take place in nonbaccalaureate

higher education programs, but rarely in baccalaureate programs. In France,

nurse training occurs in nonbaccalaureate higher education programs offered

at public and private schools of nursing. The program is 33 months long and

its competitive entrance examination is open to students who have completed

their final year of lycée, a school roughly comparable to American high school.

In Austria and Germany, however, nurse training occurs at the high school

level in full-time nurse training schools. Although the nursing program is

considered a high school-level program, in Germany students entering the

3-year program must be at least 17 years old and must have already completed

10 years of general education. In Belgium, the 4-year nursing program requires

9 years of compulsory education, and some schools prefer students who have

received the maturity certificate, which is typically required of students entering higher education.

Consideration of these situations is especially pertinent when examining

enrollments at the high school and nonbaccalaureate higher education levels.

Upper-secondary-level apprenticeship and vocational programs in several

OECD countries, including Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark,

*The primary sources for this sidebar include: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, How Workers Get Their Training: A 1991 Update (Washington, D.C.: 1992) and

American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Belgium, Federal

Republic of Germany, Austria, and France, World Education Series (Washington, D.C.: 1985,

1986, 1987, and 1988).
Participation and Student Flows

39

provide the type of specialized occupational training that in the United States

does not take place until after high school.

Even at the baccalaureate and graduate school levels, there are significant

differences in the types of programs offered. In the United States, people

wishing to become doctors or dentists must usually possess a 4-year undergraduate degree before pursuing specialized training in medicine or dentistry.

Thus, doctors and dentists possess two university degrees. In contrast, the

certificate to practice medicine or dentistry is often the first university degree

in many countries and may come after anywhere between 5 years of study (as

in the case of dentistry in Belgium, Germany, and France) and 8 years of study

(as in the case of medicine in France).

Enrollment rates are also influenced by the availability and accessibility of

education at different levels. To illustrate, higher education enrollment rates in

the United States are elevated compared with other countries in part because

higher education is much more accessible in the United States than in other

countries, both in terms of the number of openings and the range of admission

standards for entering students.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

40

Indicator 6: Enrollment in Upper Secondary or Higher Education

The percentage of 17- to 24-year-olds enrolled in upper secondary or higher

education not only indicates the extent to which these cohorts of young adults

participate in noncompulsory formal education, but also reveals how educational participation varies among these age groups. Cross-country variations in

educational participation for these cohorts reflect, among other things, differences in the structure of upper secondary and higher education and in programs offered at these levels. For instance, previous indicators of student

enrollment revealed that the former West Germany had a higher enrollment

rate in upper secondary education but a lower enrollment rate in higher

education than did the United States. However, when upper secondary and

higher education are combined, the relatively high enrollments in U.S. higher

education are overshadowed by the relatively high upper secondary enrollments in the former West Germany. Consequently, Indicator 6 shows a consistently higher level of educational enrollment in the former West Germany than

in the United States across all the cohorts aged 1724.

■ In the United States, about 74 percent of 17-year-olds were enrolled

in high school or higher education in 1992. The enrollment rate

gradually declined with age; the corresponding enrollment rate for

24-year-olds was about 8 percent. With few exceptions, this pattern

of decline with age in enrollment rates existed for almost every

country reported.

■ The enrollment rates for upper secondary or higher education in the

former West Germany, Canada, and France were consistently higher

than the corresponding enrollment rates for the United States across

all the age cohorts. In the United Kingdom, the corresponding

enrollment rates were significantly lower than those of their counterparts in the United States.
Participation and Student Flows

41

Table 6: Percentage enrolled1 in upper secondary or higher education,2

by age and country: 1992

Age

Country 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

G73

Canada 80.2 60.8 47.0 47.6 28.4 21.4 14.3 9.6

France 84.9 77.9 64.6 46.6 33.5 23.8 15.8 10.1

West Germany (former) 81.7 82.8 61.1 41.2 31.1 36.8 18.7 18.4

United Kingdom 56.7 33.6 23.9 19.5 13.7 8.1 5.2 3.7

United States 74.0 54.0 42.4 32.9 28.3 19.6 12.6 8.4

Other

Australia 72.0 42.5 29.9 23.0 13.6 9.0 6.3 4.6

Belgium 90.6 75.2 59.6 43.9 31.1 20.0 11.5 6.6

Czech Republic 39.4 17.0 14.4 12.4 12.4 9.6 1.4 1.4

Denmark 73.8 68.5 53.1 41.2 34.7 31.2 26.3 24.2

Finland 85.2 81.7 39.5 36.3 40.3 40.1 33.2 27.0

Hungary 45.4 18.2 14.2 12.9 10.0 7.8 5.4 3.2

Ireland 76.5 57.5 39.1 29.6 19.4 11.1 6.1 4.0

Netherlands 74.7 73.4 61.5 48.5 38.7 28.0 21.6 16.2

New Zealand 65.2 38.8 29.6 24.8 19.3 12.1 7.5 5.2

Norway 86.7 77.7 48.6 36.9 33.4 30.3 26.0 21.1

Spain 67.3 53.8 44.8 42.7 34.0 27.9 19.3 14.0

Sweden 86.9 60.8 24.3 16.5 16.1 27.9 13.7 12.5

Switzerland 77.8 74.7 52.6 29.5 20.5 17.0 14.6 12.4

Turkey 32.2 26.1 18.2 15.1 8.8 7.2 5.6 4.1

1Full-time students only. The indicator does not reflect overall rates of education participation for those countries

that distinguish part-time from full-time enrollments.

2Includes nonuniversity and university higher education.

3No data available for Italy and Japan.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

42

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

United States

United Kingdom

West Germany (former)

Canada France

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Percent

Age

Figure 6: Percentage enrolled in upper secondary or higher education,

by age and G7 country:* 1992

*

No data available for Italy and Japan.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTAINMENT

ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTAINMENT

The United States is currently devoting considerable attention to establishing

high standards for student achievement. The performance of students in other

countries can provide valuable information toward establishing these standards. During the past several years, international assessments have been

conducted in reading, science, geography, and mathematics.

U.S. students perform well in comparison with their peers in other countries in

reading (Indicator 7). They perform less well in science and geography (Indicators 8 and 9). Their weakest area relative to students in other countries is

mathematics on a mathematics assessment. Both 9- and 13-year-olds scored

lower than their counterparts in the vast majority of participating countries

(Indicator 8). Only about 10 percent of U.S. 13-year-olds scored as well as the

top 50 percent in Taiwan, the highest performing country (Indicator 8).

When interpreting the results of international assessments, it is important to

remember that there is always variation in student performance within countries. Compared with other participating countries, this variation in the United

States is generally relatively large. For example, whereas 9-year-olds in the

United States performed relatively well on average on the science assessment,

scores of the students in the bottom 10 percent were lower than those of the

bottom 10 percent in many countries (Indicator 8).

Also, test performance is the ultimate result of many factors, and test score

differences should not be interpreted as direct indicators of differences in

school quality. They may also reflect differences in time spent on subjects, the

match between curriculum and test items, and differences in curricular styles.

For example, the Second International Mathematics Study of 1982 (SIMS)

found that the U.S. eighth grade mathematics curriculum was devoted largely

to arithmetic, while in Japan the focus was on algebra. Also, while mathematics content areas tend to be divided among several grades in the United States,

instruction in major content areas is concentrated in a single grade in France

and Japan (see the sidebar entitled Curricular requirements: mathematics).

Countries educational accomplishments can also be compared by looking at

the educational attainment of adults. On these measures, the United States

consistently compares favorably with other countries. For example, the United

States had one of the highest concentrations of adults scoring at the highest

levels of literacy (Indicator 10). Adults ages 2564 in the United States have

completed higher levels of schooling than adults in most other countries. The

United States and Canada stand out particularly for the high percentage of

their populations in this group who have completed higher education

(Indicator 11). However, as in all the other countries reported, females ages

2564 are underrepresented among higher education graduates in these two

countries (Indicator 13). This is not true, however, for females ages 2534.

The percentage of males and females in this age cohort who have completed

45
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

46

higher education is very similar (see supplemental table 3). Examination of the

upper secondary level completion rates of different age cohorts suggests that

attainment of this level is increasing in all countries (Indicator 12). Science and

engineering degrees comprised a smaller percentage of all university degrees

awarded in the United States than in most other countries in 1992 (Indicator 14).
Achievement and Attainment

47

Using data from sample surveys

Two important sources of data for this report provide estimates based on

sample surveys. Figures from the International Assessment of Educational

Progress (IAEP) are derived from samples of students and school administrators. Figures from the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA) Reading Literacy Study are derived from samples of

students and teachers. Because data on the entire population are not collected

in sample surveys, the resulting estimates may differ somewhat from estimates

that would have been obtained from the whole population using the same

instruments, instructions, and procedures.

The samples used in surveys are selected from a large number of possible

samples of the same size that could have been selected using the same sample

design. Estimates derived from the different samples would differ from each

other. The difference between a sample estimate and the average of all possible

samples is called the sampling deviation. The standard or sampling error of a

survey estimate is a measure of the variation among the estimates from all

possible samples and, thus, is a measure of the precision with which an estimate from a particular sample approximates the average result of all possible

samples.

The estimated standard errors for two sample statistics can be used to estimate

the precision of the difference between the two statistics and to avoid concluding there is an actual difference when the difference in sample estimates may

only be due to sampling error. The need to be aware of the precision of differences arises, for example, when comparing mean proficiency scores between

countries in the IAEP. The standard error, sA B− , of the difference between

sample estimate A and sample estimate B (when A and B do not overlap) is

s ss AB A B − = +2 2

where sA and sB are the standard error of sample estimates A and B, respectively. When the ratio (called a t-statistic) of the difference between the two

sample statistics and the standard error of the difference as calculated above is

less than 2, one cannot be sure the difference is not due only to sampling error

and caution should be taken in concluding there is a difference. In this report,

for example, if the t-statistics were less than 1.96, we would not conclude there

is a difference. Some analysts, however, use the less restrictive criterion of 1.64,

which corresponds to a 10 percent significance level.

To illustrate this further, consider the data on reading proficiency of 14-yearolds in table 7a and the associated standard error table 7b. The estimated

average overall reading proficiency score for the sample of 14-year-olds in the

United States was 535. For the sample in France, the estimated average was

549. Is there enough evidence to safely conclude that this difference is not due

only to sampling error and that the actual average reading proficiency of 14-

year-olds in the United States is lower than for their counterparts in France?

The standard errors for these two estimates are 4.8 and 4.3, respectively. Using
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

48

the above formula, the standard error of the difference is calculated as 6.4. The

ratio of the estimated difference of 14 to the standard error of the difference of

6.4 is 2.19. Using the table below, it can be seen that there is less than 5 percent chance that the 14 point difference is due only to sampling error and one

may safely conclude that the average proficiency score of 14-year-olds in the

United States is lower than of their counterparts in France.

Percent chance that a difference is due only to sampling error:

t-statistic 1.00 1.64 1.96 2.00 2.57

Percent chance* 32 10 5 4.5 1

The above procedure applies if one is only comparing students in France and

the United States. However, most readers draw conclusions after making

multiple comparisons within a table. In these circumstances, the chance that

one of the many differences examined is only a result of sampling error increases (accumulates) as the number of comparisons increases. The Bonferroni

procedure can be used to ensure that the likelihood of any of the comparisons

being only a result of sampling error stays less than 5 percent is to reduce this

risk for each of the comparisons being made. If N comparisons are being made

then divide 5 percent by N and ensure that the risk of a difference being due

only to sampling error is less than 5/N for each comparison. The table below

provides critical values for the t-statistic for each comparison when it is a part

of N comparisons.

Number of comparisons 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 40

Critical value* 1.96 2.24 2.39 2.50 2.58 2.81 3.02 3.23

For example, a reader might examine table 7a not for the purpose of comparing the United States to France but to compare the United States to, say, other

G7 countries, which includes three of the countries in the table. After making

three comparisons, the reader may want to draw the conclusion: Fourteenyear-olds in only one of the three countries, France, had higher average reading proficiency scores than 14-year-olds in the United States. However,

because the reader is now making three comparisons and not just one, the

critical value of t is 2.39 and not 1.96. Thus, since 2.19 (the t-statistic for the

United States-France comparison) is not larger than 2.39, the conclusion is not

safe to make.

It should be noted that most of the standard error estimates presented in

subsequent sections and in the original documents are approximations. That

is, to derive estimates of standard errors that would be applicable to a wide

variety of items and could be prepared at a moderate cost, a number of approximations was required. As a result, the standard error estimates provide a

general order of magnitude rather than the exact standard error for any

specific item.

*Based on a 2-tailed test.
Achievement and Attainment

49

In addition to such sampling errors, all surveys, both universe and sample, are

subject to design, reporting, and processing errors and errors due to

nonresponse. To the extent possible, these nonsampling errors are kept to a

minimum by methods built into the survey procedures. In general, however,

the effects of nonsampling errors are more difficult to gauge than those produced by sampling variability.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

50

Indicator 7: Reading Literacy

Reading literacy is a fundamental academic skill that students must possess

before they can benefit from the rest of their education, participate effectively

in labor markets that require increasingly sophisticated training, and meet

their civic responsibilities. Measures of the reading proficiency of 9- and

14-year-old students provide an indication of the extent to which students

can read, comprehend, and use written language. Since the overall scores

reflect average performance within a country, they do not provide information

about differences in literacy among subpopulations. For example, in the

United States, differences in race and ethnicity, home language, urbanicity,

sex, and the availability of books are all associated with differences in reading

literacy scores.

■ During the 199192 school year, 9-year-old students in the United

States on average performed at or above the level of their peers in all

the participating countries, except Finland, on overall and domainspecific* measures of reading literacy. (Students in Finland achieved

the highest scores in almost every reading domain at age 9.)

■ At age 14, students in the United States achieved higher levels of

reading literacy (overall and domain-specific) than their peers in

many of the other participating countries. None of the participating

G7 countries outperformed U.S. students in this age group.

■ There is greater variation in the reading literacy of students within

each country than exists across the highly industrialized countries.

To illustrate, in the narrative domain there was a difference of 235

scale points between the 10th and 90th percentiles for 9-year-olds in

the United States, compared with a difference of 62 scale points

between the United States and the former West Germany.

*The three major domains or types of reading literacy materials assessed at both age levels (9-

and 14-year-old students) were: narrative prose, expository prose, and documents. See Sources

of Data for details on these domains of reading literacy.
Achievement and Attainment

51

Table 7a: Average reading literacy scale scores, by domain, age, and

country: 199192

Average domain scale score

Average overall score Narrative Expository Documents

Country Age 9 Age 14 Age 9 Age 14 Age 9 Age 14 Age 9 Age 14

G7*

France 531 549 532 556 533 546 527 544

West Germany (former) 503 522 491 514 497 521 520 532

Italy 529 515 533 520 538 524 517 501

United States 547 535 553 539 538 539 550 528

Other

Belgium 507 481 510 484 505 477 506 483

Botswana  330  340  339  312

British Columbia, Canada 500 522 502 526 499 516 500 522

Cyprus 481 497 492 516 475 492 476 482

Denmark 475 525 463 517 467 524 496 532

Finland 569 560 568 559 569 541 569 580

East Germany (former) 499 526 482 512 493 523 522 543

Greece 504 509 514 526 511 508 488 493

Hong Kong 517 535 494 509 503 540 554 557

Hungary 499 536 496 530 493 536 509 542

Iceland 518 536 518 550 517 548 519 509

Ireland 509 511 518 510 514 505 495 518

Netherlands 485 514 494 506 480 503 481 533

New Zealand 528 545 534 547 531 535 521 552

Norway 524 516 525 515 528 520 519 512

Portugal 478 523 483 523 480 523 471 523

Singapore 515 534 521 530 519 539 504 533

Slovenia 498 532 502 534 489 525 503 537

Spain 504 490 497 500 505 495 509 475

Sweden 539 546 536 556 542 533 539 550

Switzerland 511 536 506 534 507 525 522 549

Thailand  477  468  486  478

Trinidad/Tobago 451 479 455 482 458 485 440 472

Venezuela 383 417 378 407 396 433 374 412

Zimbabwe  372  367  374  373

Country did not participate at this age level.

*No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Proficiency scores range from 0 to 1000. The mean proficiency score for all participating populations (9- to

14-year-olds taken together) is 500 and the standard deviation is 100. Characteristics of country populations are

described in the supplemental note to Indicator 7.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education,

1994, Washington, D.C.: 1994, tables 16-1, 16-2, and 16-3.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

52

Table 7b: Standard errors for estimated averages in Table 7a

Average domain scale score

Average overall score Narrative Expository Documents

Country Age 9 Age 14 Age 9 Age 14 Age 9 Age 14 Age 9 Age 14

G71

France 4.0 4.3 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.3 3.9 4.2

West Germany (former) 3.0 4.4 2.8 4.9 2.9 4.5 3.2 3.9

Italy 4.3 3.4 4.0 3.6 4.0 3.2 4.9 3.3

United States 2.8 4.8 3.1 4.9 2.6 5.6 2.7 4.0

Other

Belgium 3.2 4.9 3.3 5.1 2.8 4.8 3.5 4.7

Botswana  2.0  1.6  1.9  2.4

British Columbia, Canada 3.0 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.7

Cyprus 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.0

Denmark 3.5 2.1 3.4 2.0 3.5 2.2 3.6 2.1

Finland 3.4 2.5 3.0 2.8 3.1 2.2 4.0 2.5

East Germany (former) 4.3 3.5 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.5 5.0 2.9

Greece 3.7 2.9 3.8 2.9 3.6 3.1 3.8 2.6

Hong Kong 3.9 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.4 3.8 4.2 3.8

Hungary 3.1 3.3 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.5 3.2

Iceland2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Ireland 3.6 5.2 3.7 5.3 3.2 5.3 3.8 4.9

Netherlands 3.6 4.9 3.3 4.8 3.4 4.7 3.9 5.3

New Zealand 3.3 5.6 3.5 5.7 3.1 5.7 3.3 5.3

Norway 2.6 2.3 2.8 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.4

Portugal 3.6 3.1 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.4 4.5 3.4

Singapore 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1

Slovenia 2.6 2.3 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.5 2.2

Spain 2.5 2.5 2.4 3.0 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.0

Sweden 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.4 3.2 2.4

Switzerland 2.7 3.2 2.6 3.4 2.7 3.2 2.8 3.0

Thailand  6.2  6.6  5.9  6.2

Trinidad/Tobago 3.4 1.7 3.6 1.7 3.4 1.8 3.3 1.7

Venezuela 3.4 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.0

Zimbabwe  3.8  3.3  3.6  4.6

Not available.

1No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

2All students were tested in Iceland.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 7 for details on population exclusions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education,

1994, Washington, D.C.: 1994, tables 16-1, 16-2, and 16-3.
Achievement and Attainment

53

Table 7c: Percentile scores for the narrative domain, by age and country:

1991

Percentile scores

Age 9 Age 14

Country 1st 10th 90th 99th 1st 10th 90th 99th

G7*

France 335 411 640 701 362 447 639 748

West Germany (former) 226 372 594 690 323 411 622 736

Italy 303 411 627 701 324 413 616 727

United States 330 420 655 708 324 410 673 764

Other

Belgium 293 385 612 695 242 360 572 685

Botswana     121 247 411 452

British Columbia, Canada 186 389 619 697 290 394 635 750

Cyprus 283 373 601 686 282 378 601 705

Denmark 186 299 592 682 295 411 636 741

Finland 353 466 649 708 354 453 628 699

East Germany (former) 219 361 590 686 315 408 633 708

Greece 303 400 622 699 322 401 602 711

Hong Kong 273 383 601 677 343 434 621 718

Hungary 299 390 588 661 326 420 640 748

Iceland 297 390 627 700 316 413 660 748

Ireland 301 390 631 701 282 384 630 725

Netherlands 311 382 591 688 291 395 593 694

New Zealand 299 403 647 707 290 410 660 757

Norway 186 390 629 702 313 413 609 713

Portugal 300 386 587 670 341 429 606 698

Singapore 306 395 623 701 367 434 629 735

Slovenia 296 389 648 700 360 441 607 700

Spain 291 389 597 687 308 391 581 688

Sweden 239 406 644 706 324 420 637 749

Switzerland 237 391 602 696 307 412 632 722

Thailand     239 363 573 662

Trinidad/Tobago 232 343 567 696 255 358 600 729

Venezuela 186 220 474 554 220 330 526 629

Zimbabwe     139 291 453 551

Not available.

*No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Characteristics of country populations are described in the supplemental note to

Indicator 7.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education,

1994, Washington, D.C.: 1994, tables 16-1, 16-2, and 16-3.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

54

Figure 7: Average reading literacy scale scores, by domain,

age, and G7 country:1,2 199192

1No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by average domain scale score.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1994, Washington, D.C.: 1994, Indicator 16.

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

90th–99th percenti

Average scale score 

1st–10th percentile +/− 2 standard errors

West Germany

(former)

France

Italy

United States

West Germany

(former)

Italy

United States

France

Narrative domain, 9-year-olds

Narrative domain, 14-year-olds

Average

score:

Below

the U.S

Below

the U.S

Average

score:

Same as

the U.S
Achievement and Attainment

55

Comparing reading scores from the International Association

for the Evaluation of Educational Achievements (IEA) Reading

Literacy Study and the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP)

In contrast to the positive results provided by the IEA Reading Literacy Study,

where American 4th- and 9th-grade students do well when compared with

students from other countries, the picture of American students reading

proficiency provided by the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP) is less optimistic. For example, in 1992 NAEP reported that less than

30 percent of 4th- and 8th-graders and only 40 percent of 12th-graders met or

exceeded the Proficient level in reading.1 Proficient is the central level and

represents solid academic performance and competency over challenging

subject matter relevant for each grade level. The Advanced achievement level

is the highest level, signifying superior performance beyond Proficient. Very

few students at any of the three grades assessed attained the Advanced level

(only 3 to 6 percent). By 1994, the NAEP picture was slightly worse, as the

average reading proficiency of 12th-grade students declined significantly from

199294.2 It should be noted that the setting of achievement levels for the

national assessment is relatively new and in transition.

This contrast between the positive results reported by IEA and the less

positive results reported by NAEP could imply that IEA and NAEP report

or measure different things. This question is addressed in the following

discussion.

Differing points of comparison

One of the first things to consider is that although both studies provide descriptions of reading performance of analogous samples of students, the basis

for reporting differs considerably.

In the case of IEA, reporting is based on comparisons of the performance of

groups of students within and across countries. Student performance in one

country is compared with that of students in the other participating countries.

Or, students in one subgroup within a country are compared with other

students in other subgroups within the same country. These comparisons

address issues such as mean performance of each country or the distribution of

scores within a country as compared with the distribution of scores in other

countries. As such, the point of comparison is a relative or normative comparison rather than an absolute comparison. In other words, students are always

1

I.V. Mullis, J.R. Campbell, and A.E. Farstrup, NAEP 1992 Reading Report Card for the Nation

and the States (Washington, D.C.: 1993).

2

J.R. Campbell, P.L. Donahue, C.M. Reese, and G.W. Phillips, NAEP 1994 Reading Report Card

for the Nation and the States (Washington, D.C.: 1996).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

56

being compared against other students and not against a standard set of

criteria on knowledge.

Much of the NAEP reporting, on the other hand, is based on comparisons

between actual student performance and desired performance. It is a comparison against an absolute standard or criterion that is defined independently of

what students do. As such, the reporting is referenced to a description of the

tasks that students are expected to be able to do, or that someone or some group

thinks they should be able to do. This is a criterion-referenced comparison.

Success or failure in either context does not necessarily imply success or

failure in the other context. Consequently, American students do ver y well

based on the relative comparisons used by IEA, but within the NAEP context,

they do not do as well as the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)

believes they should be doing.

Differing emphases

In addition, NAEP and IEA assess different aspects of reading. More than

90 percent of the IEA items assess tasks covered in only 17 percent of NAEP

items. Further, virtually all the IEA items are aimed solely at literal comprehension and interpretation. Items of that kind make up only one-third of

NAEP reading assessments.

Both IEA and NAEP expect literal comprehension and the development of

understanding. Both define domains of reading literacy. However, there is a

major difference between IEA and NAEP in what students must do to demonstrate their comprehension. While success in IEA depends on reaching and

correctly answering more questions directly related to a reading passage, to

reach NAEPs advanced level, more interpretive and higher level thinking is

required. Fourth-grade students in NAEP, for example, had to interpret text,

summarize information across text, develop ideas about textual information,

and formulate more complex questions about text.3 Eighth-graders were

required to show an even greater level of competency. They had to compare

and contrast information across multiple texts, connect inferences with

themes, understand underlying meanings, integrate prior knowledge with text

interpretations, and demonstrate some ability to evaluate the limitations of

documents.4

Equally important is the fact that NAEP requires students to generate answers

in their own words much more frequently than IEA, which mainly asks

students to respond to the test designers options. Thus the skills required by

IEA reading tasks can be seen as a subset of those required by NAEP. Moreover,

the IEA test items did not cover the entire expected ability range. Many

American students got every item correct, creating a ceiling effect. Thus,

distinguishing between abilities of students in the upper range is not possible.

3Mullis, Campbell, and Farstrup, op. cit.

4Ibid.
Achievement and Attainment

57

In contrast, the range of item difficulty on the NAEP reading assessment

exceeds the ability of most American students. Few, if any, students would

correctly answer all items. Thus, differences in the abilities of students in the

upper range can be distinguished easily.

One might wonder whether students in the other participating countries

would do better than American students on the standards set by NAGB. There

is a high probability that the rank ordering or relative performance of countries would remain pretty much the same.5 Therefore, it seems reasonable to

conclude that American students would do well as compared with students in

other countries even if the NAEP test were administered.

5This statement is derived from the theoretic underpinnings of item response theory and its

application to the test scaling used for both the IEA Reading Literacy Study and the NAEP

Reading Assessment.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

58

Indicator 8: Achievement in Mathematics and Science

To meet the challenges of the technological age, U.S. policymakers have

focused increasing attention on developing a mathematically and scientifically

literate populace beginning with early education. Comparing the scores of 9-

and 13-year-old students in different countries on an assessment of mathematics and science proficiency enables the United States to gauge its performance

in these crucial areas against that of its economic competitors and predict the

competency of students emerging from our schools. Factors that may contribute to differences in scores across countries include time spent studying the

subjects, both in and out of school; correspondence of the test questions with

the curriculum to which students are exposed; and quality and method of

instruction.

■ U.S. students compared more favorably with their counterparts in

other countries on the assessment of science achievement than they

did on the mathematics assessment. Among 9-year-olds, students

from no other country but Korea scored significantly higher, on

average, than U.S. students on the science assessment.1, 2 Among 13-

year-olds, the average science proficiency score of U.S. students was

comparable to those of students in Canada, France, Ireland, Israel,

Scotland, and Spain, and higher than the scores for Jordan.

■ In the 1991 mathematics assessment, only 9-year-olds in Slovenia

and 13-year-olds in Jordan and Spain scored approximately the same

or lower than their U.S. counterparts. Nine- and 13-year-olds in the

United States scored below students in the same age groups in the

other participating countries. Korean students scored highest among

the 9-year-olds, and Taiwanese, Korean, and Swiss students scored

highest among the 13-year-olds.

■ The difference in scores between the highest scoring students (the

99th percentile) and the lowest scoring students (the 1st percentile)

was either similar or, in most cases, greater in the United States than

in other countries on both assessments. According to this measure,

however, Taiwan and Korea, high-scoring countries on both assessments for both age groups, had similar disparities.

1Tests of significance were performed with the Bonferroni procedure using 9 comparisons at the

age 9 level and 13 comparisons at the age 13 level based on the number of countries with data

available at the different age levels.

2Students in Taiwan also scored higher than U.S. students, but the difference was not great

enough to be considered statistically significant.
Achievement and Attainment

59

Table 8a: Average proficiency scores1 in mathematics and

science, by age and country: 1991

Mathematics Science

Country Age 9 Age 13 Age 9 Age 13

G72

Canada 430 (1.5) 513 (1.4) 437 (1.9) 533 (1.6)

France  519 (1.8)  532 (2.5)

United States 420 (3.2) 494 (2.9) 446 (4.6) 521 (4.4)

Other

Hungary 452 (1.9) 529 (2.0) 438 (2.4) 553 (2.5)

Ireland 426 (2.3) 509 (2.0) 401 (3.4) 510 (2.5)

Israel 442 (2.1) 517 (1.8) 431 (3.1) 534 (2.8)

Jordan  458 (2.6)  473 (3.3)

Korea 473 (1.8) 542 (1.9) 460 (2.3) 571 (2.3)

Scotland  511 (2.0)  530 (2.8)

Slovenia 413 (1.4) 504 (1.7) 403 (2.2) 537 (2.2)

Soviet Union (former) 447 (3.3) 533 (2.2) 434 (5.1) 541 (3.5)

Spain 432 (2.9) 495 (1.8) 430 (3.6) 525 (2.3)

Switzerland  539 (2.7)  562 (3.6)

Taiwan 454 (2.2) 545 (2.0) 456 (2.7) 563 (1.9)

Did not participate in assessment or were excluded (see NOTE).

1Standard errors are in parentheses.

2

No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Proficiency scores range from 0 to 1000. The mean proficiency score for all participating

populations (9- and 13-year-olds together) is 500 and the standard deviation is 100.

Only countries in which the test-taking samples represented comprehensive student populations

were included. Brazil, China, England, Portugal, and Scotland (9-year-olds only) were not

reported since they either excluded groups or had participation rates below .70.

See supplemental note to Indicator 8 for details on population exclusions.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress, 1992.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

60

Table 8b: Percentile scores in mathematics, by age and country: 1991

Percentile scores

Age 9 Age 13

1st 10th Median 90th 99th 1st 10th Median 90th 99th

G7*

Canada 296 363 435 490 537 400 462 515 564 608

France      404 460 521 574 616

United States 278 333 427 492 549 366 430 495 554 616

Other

Hungary 312 379 455 520 573 401 465 531 588 639

Ireland 273 345 433 493 545 381 449 514 565 614

Israel 310 373 445 504 555 396 462 520 567 607

Jordan      345 390 459 520 568

Korea 334 407 475 534 586 390 470 545 609 665

Scotland      400 454 513 564 604

Slovenia 303 355 417 467 508 407 445 507 556 599

Soviet Union (former) 310 374 450 514 579 413 477 536 584 629

Spain 287 353 437 499 551 390 446 496 542 577

Switzerland      443 491 542 586 631

Taiwan 304 384 457 521 571 368 454 550 631 694

Did not participate in assessment or were excluded (see NOTE for Table 8a).

*No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Proficiency scores range from 0 to 1000. The mean proficiency score for all participating populations

(9- and 13-year-olds together) is 500 and the standard deviation is 100.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education,

1995, Washington, D.C.: 1995, Indicator 18.
Achievement and Attainment

61

Ta b l e

8c:

Pe r ce n tile

scores

i n

science,

b y

age

and

country:

1991

 Percen

tile

scores

Age 9

Age 13

1 s t1 0 t h

Median

90th

9 9 t h1 s t

10th

Median

90th

99th

G7*

Canada 257 346 443 517 582 384 460 534 606 670

France      370 442 534 611 677

United States 235 328 453 543 605 334 436 523 601 665

Other

Hungary 270 360 441 511 567 386 467 555 639 717

Ireland 221 289 408 496 561 334 418 511 594 668

Israel 247 337 430 524 595 379 449 536 614 676

Jordan      292 375 480 557 628

Korea 303 383 460 541 609 395 490 575 648 710

Scotland   436   363 441 532 611 674

Slovenia 262 325 405 478 528 398 461 539 615 671

Soviet Union (former) 284 356 433 515 588 383 465 545 612 661

Spain 250 334 435 522 567 380 453 524 596 663

Switzerland      408 491 566 637 701

Taiwan 254 359 458 553 627 339 463 572 655 715

Did not participate or were excluded (See NOTE for Table 8a).

*No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Proficiency scores range from 0 to 1000. The mean proficiency score for all participating populations

(9- and 13-year-olds together) is 500 and the standard deviation is 100.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education,

1995, Washington, D.C.: 1995, Indicator 19.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

62

Figure 8a: Average proficiency scores in mathematics, by

age and selected country:* 1991

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

United States

Canada

Taiwan

Korea

Mathematics, 13-year-olds

Mathematics, 9-year-olds

United States

Canada

France

Korea

Taiwan

Average

score:

Above

the U.S

Above

the U.S

Average

score:

90th–99th percentil

Average scale score 

1st–10th percentile +/− 2 standard errors

*Countries are sorted in descending order by average proficiency score.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1995, Washington, D.C.: 1995, Indicator 18.
Achievement and Attainment

63

Figure 8b: Average proficiency scores in science, by age

and selected country:* 1991

*Countries are sorted in descending order by average proficiency score.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1995, Washington, D.C.: 1995, Indicator 19.

Canada

United States

Taiwan

Korea

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

200 300 400 500 600 700 800

United States

France

Canada

Taiwan

Korea

Science, 13-year-olds

Science, 9-year-olds

90th–99th percentil

Average scale score 

1st–10th percentile +/− 2 standard errors

Same as

the U.S

Above

the U.S

Average

score:

Same as

the U.S

Above

the U.S

Average

score:
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

64

Curricular requirements: mathematics1

Curriculumincluding the types of classes offered and the material presented

in these classesaffects what students learn in mathematics.2 Mathematics

curricula vary significantly between the United States and other nations. In the

United States, mathematical content areas tend to be divided among several

grades and taught numerous times in an effort to deepen student understanding. This approach builds in repetition in successive grades. In addition, the

share of time devoted to various mathematical topics is fairly equally divided

in the U.S curriculum.

In contrast, France and Japan typically utilize a cur ricular structure in which

the major piece of a content area is concentrated in a single grade and taught

once. There is little room for repetition of concepts across grade levels. Further, these countries tend to place a clear emphasis on selected topics at a

given point in a childs education (e.g., Japans upper-secondary-level curriculum emphasizes calculus), and students receive indepth instruction in these

topics at the time they are introduced. Although no research to date has

systematically identified which content areas are best taught by each approach,

an advantage of the curricular structure adopted by France and Japan is that

goals and expectations for each topic are clearly defined. Because in the U.S.

cur riculum topics are constantly revisited, goals and expectations may have

become obscured.

The following example illustrates these differing curricular styles. French

students are given intensive instruction in the decimal system at the elementary level and intensive instruction in fractions at the eighth-grade level.

However, U.S. students are taught fragments of each topic throughout elementary and junior high school, diminishing the overall curricular intensity and

potentially obscuring the basic ideas found in each. Although Japan relies

primarily on the concentration approach to teaching mathematical concepts,

this reliance is not exclusive. For instance, in Japan decimals and common

fractions are taught in grades 3 through 6.

This variation in a countrys approach to the coverage of mathematical topic

areas is reflected in the results of the Second International Mathematics Study

of 1982 (SIMS). While all of the French and U.S. students participating in

SIMS were taught fractions by the end of the eighth grade, 40 percent of

1Unless otherwise noted, the discussion and examples contained in this sidebar are based upon

two primary sources: (1) the results of the Second International Mathematics Study of 1982

(SIMS) as reported in the following publication: International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement, The Underachieving Curriculum: Assessing U.S. School Mathematics

from an International Perspective (Champaign, IL: 1989); and (2) Tatsuro, Miwa, School

Mathematics in Japan and the U.S.: Focusing on Recent Trends in Elementary and Lower

Secondary School, in National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Developments in School

Mathematics Education Around the World: Volume 3 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press,

1992).

2SIMS collected information from teachers that described their students opportunity to learn

the material covered in the SIMS test.
Achievement and Attainment

65

American eighth-graders could add fractions at the beginning of the school

year (fractions are introduced at the elementary level and repeated throughout

junior high school in the United States), and only 5 percent of French students

could do so at that time. However, by the end of the school year, 73 percent of

French eighth-grade students could add fractions, while only 59 percent of

U.S. eighth-graders could do so. (In France, fractions receive little attention

until that year, when they are covered with a high level of intensity.)

Moreover, SIMS found that in 1982 the United States also differed from France

and Japan in terms of the subjects taught to students at a given grade level.

While the U.S. eighth-grade-level curriculum was largely devoted to arithmetic

with some instruction in algebra, the Japanese focus was on algebra. Similarly,

while the U.S. high school curriculum was focused on algebra, the Japanese

one was focused on calculus.

Differences in cur ricular styles also are reflected in textbook formats. For

example, while Japanese texts begin with a brief review of the previous years

work, they are based on the assumption that since the material has been

covered, it has been learned. In contrast to U.S. textbooks, Japanese texts are

short, focus only on key topics, and contain very few worked examples (it is

expected that the teacher will supplement the materials with extra explanations and problems).3

3Askey, R. Japanese Grade 79 Mathematics. College Mathematics Journal 23 (November

1992): 445448.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

66

Indicator 9: Geography Achievement

Basic literacy in geography provides individuals with an understanding of the

geographical context in which all political, environmental, and social events

take place. This indicator measures basic geographic skills and knowledge in

three areas: geographic skills and tools (e.g., use of maps, charts, globes);

physical geography (e.g., locations of physical and topographical features); and

cultural geography (e.g., interactions between people and their environment).

The assessment reported here provides a rough indication of competencies

among 13-year-olds in a limited number of primarily European and North

American countries.

■ Students in the United States performed in the mid-range of countries participating in a 1991 assessment of geographic knowledge

and skills. Student performance ranged from 70 percent correct in

Hungary to about 58 percent correct in Scotland and Ireland.

■ In all countries,* including the United States, male students outperformed their female counterparts, with differences in Korea ranging

up to 7 percentage points.

■ In the United States, as in the other participating countries, students

scored highest on questions involving map- or chart-reading skills

(i.e., skills component). They did less well in identifying physical,

topographical, and climatic features (i.e., physical component), and

on cultural geography items that required a knowledge of countries,

regions, and language groups and an understanding of the interactions between people and their environment.

*The differences were not significant in the former Soviet Union.
Achievement and Attainment

67

Table 9: Average percent correct1 for 13-year-olds on geography items,

by sex, content area, and country: 1991

Total Content areas

Country Total Male Female Skills Physical Cultural

G72

Canada 63.0 (0.5) 65.5 (0.6) 60.5 (0.5) 69.5 (0.4) 61.0 (0.6) 58.2 (0.6)

United States 61.9 (0.8) 64.6 (0.8) 59.4 (1.0) 69.4 (0.6) 58.3 (1.0) 58.1 (1.0)

Other

Hungary 69.8 (0.6) 72.7 (0.7) 67.0 (0.7) 76.3 (0.5) 67.8 (0.7) 65.0 (0.7)

Ireland 58.5 (0.6) 61.4 (0.9) 55.7 (0.7) 62.7 (0.6) 59.5 (0.8) 52.3 (0.8)

Korea 59.7 (0.5) 63.0 (0.7) 55.7 (0.8) 67.8 (0.5) 52.1 (0.7) 60.3 (0.6)

Scotland 58.3 (0.6) 61.0 (0.6) 55.6 (0.8) 66.2 (0.5) 57.1 (0.8) 50.6 (0.8)

Slovenia 65.3 (0.6) 67.8 (0.6) 62.6 (0.8) 67.9 (0.5) 63.6 (0.7) 64.3 (0.9)

Soviet Union (former) 62.6 (1.1) 64.1 (1.1) 61.1 (1.2) 72.2 (0.9) 61.2 (1.0) 53.4 (1.8)

Spain 60.1 (0.7) 63.0 (0.8) 57.3 (0.9) 62.4 (0.9) 58.9 (0.7) 58.9 (1.1)

1Standard errors are in parentheses.

2No data available for France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: There were three categories of geography items: geographic skills and tools included the use of maps,

charts, and globes; physical geography included the location of physical and topographical features and concepts of

climate; and cultural geography included the location of cultural entitles (regions, countries, large groups) and

interactions between people and their environment.

See supplemental note to Indicator 9 for details on population exclusions.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Learning About the

World, 1992.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

68

Figure 9a: Average percent correct for 13-year-olds on geography items,

by sex and country:* 1991

Figure 9b: Average percent correct for 13-year-olds on geography items,

by content area and country:* 1991

*Countries are sorted in descending order by average percent correct for the total sample.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, the International Assessment of Educational progress, Learning About the

World, 1992.

*Countries are sorted in descending order by percent correct on the skills subsection.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, The International Assessment of Educational Progress, Learning About the

World, 1992.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total Male Female

United Spain Korea IrelandScotland

States

Soviet Union

(former)

HungarySloveniaCanada

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Skills Physical Cultural

United Korea SloveniaScotlandIreland Spain

States

Soviet Union Canada

(former)

Hungary

Percent
Achievement and Attainment

69

Indicator 10: Adult Literacy

In recent years, adult literacy has come to be seen as one of the fundamental

tools necessary for successful economic performance in industrialized societies. Literacy is no longer defined merely in terms of a basic threshold of

reading ability. As society becomes more complex and low-skill jobs continue

to disappear, the concern about adults ability to use written information to

function in society continues to rise. For the purpose of this indicator, literacy is defined as the ability to understand and employ printed information

in daily activitiesat home, at work, and in the communityto achieve ones

goals and to develop ones knowledge and potential. Within countries, literacy

levels are affected by both the quality and quantity of the populations formal

education, as well as their participation in informal learning activities throughout their lives.

■ In 1994, compared with most of the countries assessed, the United

States had a greater concentration of adults at the lowest levels of

literacy across the prose, document, and quantitative literacy domains. Only in Poland did a greater proportion of the population

score at level 1 across all three literacy domains. The United States

also had one of the higher concentrations of adults at or above level

4 in all three literacy domains, but most noticeably in the prose

domain.

■ The proportion of adults at each literacy level was similar across the

prose, document, and quantitative domains in Canada and the

United States. In Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland, however, the proportion of adults scoring at the highest literacy level was

greater on the quantitative domain than on the prose domain.

■ While in many other countries young adults had higher literacy

levels than older adults, distribution of literacy proficiency across

different age groups was fairly uniform in the United States, except

for adults aged 56 to 65, who scored slightly below other groups. For

example, the percentage of U.S. adults aged 26 to 35 scoring at or

above level 4 on the prose domain was similar to the percentage of

U.S. adults aged 46 to 55 scoring at that level (22 and 24 percent,

respectively). In Germany, the younger group was almost twice as

likely to score at or above level 4 as the older group (20 percent and

11 percent, respectively). Differences by age in Switzerland, Sweden,

and the Netherlands were similar to those of Germany.

■ As the level of education increases, the proportion of the population

within each country at or above level 4 grows, and the proportion at

level 1 decreases. For example, in Canada, 8 percent of those with a

lower secondary level of education reached level 4 or above, compared with almost 60 percent of those with a university level of

education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

70

Table 10a: Percentage distribution of the population across

literacy levels, by country: 1994

Country Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4/5

Prose scale

G7*

Canada 16.6 25.6 35.1 22.7

Germany 14.4 34.2 38.0 13.4

United States 20.7 25.9 32.4 21.1

Other

Netherlands 10.5 30.1 44.1 15.3

Poland 42.6 34.5 19.8 3.1

Sweden 7.5 20.3 39.7 32.4

Switzerland (French) 17.6 33.7 38.6 10.0

Switzerland (German) 19.3 35.7 36.1 8.9

Document scale

G7*

Canada 18.2 24.7 32.1 25.1

Germany 9.0 32.7 39.5 18.9

United States 23.7 25.9 31.4 19.0

Other

Netherlands 10.1 25.7 44.2 20.0

Poland 45.4 30.7 18.0 5.8

Sweden 6.2 18.9 39.4 35.5

Switzerland (French) 16.2 28.8 38.9 16.0

Switzerland (German) 18.1 29.1 36.6 16.1

Quantitative scale

G7*

Canada 16.9 26.1 34.8 22.2

Germany 6.7 26.6 43.2 23.5

United States 21.0 25.3 31.3 22.5

Other

Netherlands 10.3 25.5 44.3 19.9

Poland 39.1 30.1 23.9 6.8

Sweden 6.6 18.6 39.0 35.8

Switzerland (French) 12.9 24.5 42.2 20.4

Switzerland (German) 14.2 26.2 40.7 19.0

*No data available for France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 10 for descriptions of the literacy scales and

proficiency levels for the International Adult Literacy Sur vey.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics Canada,

Literacy, Economy, and Society: Results of the first International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995.
Achievement and Attainment

71

Table 10b: Percentage distribution of the population across literacy

levels, by educational attainment and country: 1994

Prose scale Document scale Quantitative scale

Level 4 Level 4 Level 4

Country Level 1 or above Level 1 or above Level 1 or above

Lower secondary

G7*

Canada 22.2 8.1 23.2 10.3 23.1 7.8

Germany 17.5 7.9 10.5 12.0 7.6 17.2

United States 44.7 2.8 45.2 5.9 44.7 4.5

Other

Netherlands 11.9 4.9 11.2 8.8 11.9 10.9

Poland 42.5 1.8 46.9 4.0 39.4 4.1

Sweden 7.0 25.0 68.0 30.8 7.1 31.1

Switzerland (French) 28.9 0.0 31.1 2.1 22.6 4.0

Switzerland (German) 34.2 4.2 31.6 10.3 22.0 12.7

Upper secondary

G7*

Canada 10.0 19.5 10.5 24.1 8.8 16.6

Germany 7.9 14.0 4.7 25.1 4.1 25.7

United States 16.9 13.9 21.2 12.6 18.4 14.5

Other

Netherlands 2.7 18.8 2.9 26.5 2.7 23.2

Poland 24.9 2.3 27.8 6.8 20.9 10.1

Sweden 5.7 31.1 3.9 34.9 4.8 34.8

Switzerland (French) 11.1 9.1 9.0 14.8 5.6 22.0

Switzerland (German) 11.0 9.8 9.7 16.5 6.9 19.2

Higher education (nonuniversity)

G7*

Canada 4.4 27.7 4.2 39.1 4.2 26.4

Germany 4.1 32.6 4.7 26.8 2.7 26.9

United States 9.5 25.8 11.7 24.0 8.8 26.8

Other

Netherlands 

Poland 11.8 8.6 16.4 12.1 15.5 11.1

Sweden 1.4 45.8 1.1 50.1 0.6 46.3

Switzerland (French) 7.0 10.7 2.0 30.6 3.2 31.2

Switzerland (German) 6.8 9.0 5.1 20.9 3.7 27.9
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

72

Table 10b: Percentage distribution of the population across literacy

levels, by educational attainment and country: 1994

Continued

Prose scale Document scale Quantitative scale

Level 4 Level 4 Level 4

Country Level 1 or above Level 1 or above Level 1 or above

Higher education (university)

G7*

Canada 0.2 59.1 3.3 48.1 2.2 64.0

Germany 4.0 39.6 1.1 46.2 2.0 56.2

United States 4.9 47.5 6.7 41.1 4.9 51.8

Other

Netherlands 1.3 34.5 1.3 34.9 1.7 39.3

Poland 11.2 16.4 15.6 22.0 9.1 26.5

Sweden 0.7 60.7 0.7 61.4 1.0 63.7

Switzerland (French) 4.8 32.4 4.9 40.1 4.2 41.4

Switzerland (German) 6.7 25.5 6.8 38.4 6.8 38.9

Data not available.

*No data available for France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 10 for descriptions of the literacy scales and proficiency levels for the

International Adult Literacy Sur vey.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics Canada, Literacy, Economy, and

Society: Results of the first International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995.
Achievement and Attainment

73

Table 10c: Percentage distribution of the population across literacy

levels, by age and country: 1994

Prose scale Document scale Quantitative scale

Level 4 Level 4 Level 4

Country Level 1 or above Level 1 or above Level 1 or above

Age 1625

G7*

Canada 10.7 19.9 10.4 31.0 10.1 16.7

Germany 8.9 15.4 5.2 22.8 4.4 22.0

United States      

Other

Netherlands 8.3 19.5 6.1 26.0 7.7 21.1

Poland 26.7 5.9 32.2 8.5 29.6 6.7

Sweden 3.8 39.7 3.1 40.7 4.9 38.4

Switzerland (French) 10.5 15.4 8.7 26.0 6.2 25.4

Switzerland (German) 7.3 13.8 7.1 26.3 6.9 22.9

Age 2635

G7*

Canada 12.3 26.1 13.5 27.5 12.0 27.5

Germany 12.4 19.7 5.9 24.9 4.9 28.9

United States 19.6 21.6 21.6 21.0 20.1 23.5

Other

Netherlands 6.4 22.5 5.9 29.3 6.7 28.2

Poland 35.0 3.7 39.2 7.4 32.7 8.7

Sweden 4.9 41.7 3.9 47.6 4.0 45.4

Switzerland (French) 11.1 13.0 11.5 21.6 8.8 22.9

Switzerland (German) 16.6 12.0 17.4 23.1 13.1 25.4

Age 3645

G7*

Canada 13.3 31.3 13.8 27.4 11.9 30.1

Germany 14.5 14.5 9.5 21.4 6.5 26.3

United States 19.5 29.2 23.5 25.4 18.2 31.6

Other

Netherlands 8.6 14.3 9.2 17.1 10.1 18.9

Poland 42.0 2.8 42.6 5.7 36.1 8.4

Sweden 7.1 31.7 6.6 35.4 7.0 35.2

Switzerland (French) 22.1 8.9 19.2 13.7 16.6 21.8

Switzerland (German) 24.2 9.1 21.5 12.0 19.0 16.9
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

74

Table 10c: Percentage distribution of the population across literacy

levels, by age and country: 1994Continued

Prose scale Document scale Quantitative scale

Level 4 Level 4 Level 4

Country Level 1 or above Level 1 or above Level 1 or above

Age 4655

G7*

Canada 20.6 18.4 23.0 22.4 23.9 19.0

Germany 14.2 10.9 7.4 14.5 7.0 24.7

United States 18.3 23.8 21.4 17.3 19.0 23.6

Other

Netherlands 13.9 9.8 12.6 13.7 12.8 16.4

Poland 53.5 1.0 55.6 4.1 47.7 5.9

Sweden 8.2 28.2 6.8 30.3 5.8 34.0

Switzerland (French) 20.9 7.9 18.0 9.7 16.1 18.0

Switzerland (German) 19.4 4.2 21.0 10.2 14.8 15.5

Age 5665

G7*

Canada 37.6 8.1 43.8 8.7 39.7 7.4

Germany 22.1 4.7 17.7 8.8 10.8 13.5

United States 23.6 14.7 29.3 11.7 22.4 16.0

Other

Netherlands 20.1 4.7 22.6 6.8 17.6 9.3

Poland 69.5 0.2 70.1 1.4 60.8 2.2

Sweden 15.9 16.2 12.2 18.5 12.9 22.6

Switzerland (French) 27.7 2.3 27.5 4.6 19.2 11.0

Switzerland (German) 30.4 4.1 22.8 6.7 15.8 10.8

Data is inaccurate due to problems with sampling this age group and nonresponse.

*No data available for France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 10 for descriptions of the literacy scales and proficiency levels for the

International Adult Literacy Sur vey.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics Canada, Literacy, Economy, and

Society: Results of the first International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995.
Achievement and Attainment

75

Figure 10a: Percentage distribution of the population across literacy

levels, by country:1,2 1994

1Data not available for France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by percentage of the population at literacy levels 4/5 (prose scale only).

NOTE: This chart reads as follows: on the prose scale, 32 percent of adults in Sweden reached level 4 or higher, 72

percent reached level 3 or higher, 92 percent reached level 2 or higher, and 100 percent reached level 1 or higher. For

cor responding numbers, see table 10a.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics Canada, Literacy, Economy, and

Society: Results of the first International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995.

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Level 4/5 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1

Poland

Switzerland (Ger.)

Switzerland (Fr.)

Germany

Netherlands

United States

Canada

Sweden

Prose Scale

Quantitative Scale

Percen

Percen

Percen

Level 1 Level 2

Level 3

Level 4/5

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Poland

Switzerland (Fr.)

Germany

Netherlands

United States

Canada

Sweden

Switzerland (Ger.)

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4/5

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Poland

Switzerland (Ger.)

Switzerland (Fr.)

Germany

Netherlands

United States

Canada

Sweden

Document Scale
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

76

1Data not available for France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by percentage of the 26- to 35-year-olds population in literacy levels

4 and 5 (prose scale only).

NOTE: The chart reads as follows: Almost 42 percent of adults aged 2635 from Sweden attained level 4 or higher on

the prose literacy scale, and another 53 percent reached levels 2 or 3. For corresponding numbers, see table 10c.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics Canada, Literacy, Economy,

and Society: Results of the first International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995.

Figure 10b: Percentage distribution of the population across literacy

levels (prose scale), by age and country:1,2 1994

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Poland

Switzerland (Ger.)

Switzerland (Fr.)

Germany

United States

Netherlands

Canada

Sweden

Age 26–35

Age 46–55

Percen

Levels 4 and 5 Levels 2 and 3
Achievement and Attainment

77

International adult literacy

The information contained in this sidebar is taken from

the Introduction and Chapter 2 of: Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development and Statistics

Canada, Literacy, Economy, and Society: Results of the

first International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995.

This indicator reports the results of a wide-ranging test of literacy skills given

to a large sample of adults (ranging from 1,500 to 1,800 per country) in

Europe and North America during the autumn of 1994. The International

Adult Literacy Survey (IALS) was a collaborative effort by seven governments

and three intergovernmental organizations. Each country was required to draw

a probability sample from which results representative of the civilian,

noninstitutionalized population aged 1665 could be derived. In six countries,

the survey was carried out in the national language; in Canada, respondents

were given a choice of English or French; in Switzerland, samples drawn from

French-speaking and German-speaking cantons were required to respond in

those respective languages.

As literacy cannot be narrowed down to a single skill suited for dealing with all

types of text, nor defined as an infinite set of skills, the IALS defined literacy in

terms of three domains, each encompassing a common set of skills relevant for

diverse tasks:

■ Prose literacythe knowledge and skills required to understand and use

information from texts including editorials, news stories, poems, and

fiction;

■ Document literacythe knowledge and skills required to locate and use

information contained in various formats, including job applications,

payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and graphics; and

■ Quantitative literacythe knowledge and skills required to apply arithmetic operations, either alone or sequentially, to numbers embedded in

printed materials, such as balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip,

completing an order form, or determining from an advertisement the

amount of interest on a loan.

In each of these three domains, rather than expressing a threshold for achieving literacy, a scale from 0 to 500 was constructed, upon which tasks of varying

difficulty were placed. These scales were developed through the item response

theory (IRT) scaling procedures. First, the difficulty of tasks was ranked on the

scale according to how well respondents actually performed on them. Then,

each scale was divided into five levels reflecting the empirically determined

progression of information-processing skills and strategies.*

 Next, individuals

were assigned scores between 0 and 500 according to how well they did on a

*I. Kirsh, A. Jungeblut, and P. Mosenthal, Moving toward the Measurement of Adult Literacy

(Washington, D.C.) U.S. Department of Labor, forthcoming.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

78

variety of tasks at different levels. Finally, the percentage of readers falling into

each skill level was calculated.

A persons literacy ability in each domain can be expressed by a score, defined

as the point at which he or she has an 80-percent chance of successfully

performing a given task. If a persons score places him or her in level 2, it

means that he or she has an 80-percent chance of successfully performing

level 2 tasks and a greater than 80-percent chance of performing level 1 tasks.

It does not mean, however, that individuals with low proficiency can never

succeed at more difficult tasks (that is, at tasks that are rated at higher skill

levels). It means only that their probability of success is relatively low.
Achievement and Attainment

79

Indicator 11: Education Attainment

The education attainment of a countrys population reflects the availability of

education in the country and provides an indirect measure of the countrys

commitment to the skills development of its citizens. Because many workingage adults completed their education years ago, the indicator is influenced by

changes over time in the characteristics of an education system. Countries that

have undergone major expansions in education only in recent years will still

have a large proportion of relatively uneducated adults.

■ Of the G7 countries for which data were available in 1992, the

United States, Canada, and Germany had the highest proportion of

adults aged 2564 having completed at least upper secondary

education (roughly equivalent to high school in the United States).*

At least 70 percent of U.S., Canadian, and German adults 2564

years of age had completed at least upper secondary education.

Among Italians aged 2564, 28 percent completed at least upper

secondary education. Of the other countries listed in the table, only

Czechoslovakian, Norwegian, Swiss, and Swedish adults attained

levels of upper secondary education comparable to those of the

United States and Germany.

■ Of the G7 countries, Canada and the United States had, by far, the

highest proportion of 25- to 64-year-olds having completed higher

education (41 and 31 percent, respectively). Less than 25 percent of

the 25- to 64-year-olds in the other G7 countries and the remaining

countries listed in the table (with the exception of Norway) had

completed this level. In fact, only 6 percent of 25- to 64-year-olds in

Italy completed higher education.

*For further explanation of the levels of education, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of

education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

80

Table 11: Percentage of the population 2564 years of age

that has completed a specific highest level of

education, by country: 1992

Lower

secondary Upper Higher

Country and below secondary education

G7

Canada 29 30 41

France 48 36 16

Germany 18 60 22

Italy 72 22 6

Japan1 30 48 21

United Kingdom 32 49 19

United States 16 53 31

Other

Australia2 47 30 23

Austria 32 61 7

Belgium 55 25 20

Czechoslovakia3 27 63 10

Denmark 41 40 19

Finland 39 43 18

Ireland 58 25 17

Netherlands 42 37 21

New Zealand 43 33 24

Norway 21 54 25

Portugal 86 7 7

Spain 77 10 13

Sweden 30 46 24

Switzerland 19 60 21

Turkey 86 9 5

11989 data. Row values do not total 100 since 1 percent were classified as other.

2

1993 data.

3

1991 data.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 11 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands,

New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the

United States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Achievement and Attainment

81

Figure 11: Percentage of the population 2564 years of age that has

completed a specific highest level of education, by G7

country:1 1992

1Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 25- to 64-year-olds having completed upper

secondar y, or higher education.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Less than

upper secondary

Higher educationUpper secondary

Italy

France

United Kingdom

Japan

Canada

Germany

United States

Percen
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

82

*For further explanation of the levels of education, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of

education.

Indicator 12: Upper Secondary Education Attainment

Completion of at least an upper secondary level of education*roughly

equivalent to completing high school in the United Statesprovides an

indirect measure of a nations total supply of citizens with specific educational

knowledge and skills and, hence, some indication of the countrys capacity for

sustained economic growth and competitiveness. Reporting the education

attainment levels of different age cohorts provides some indication of how a

countrys educational opportunities have expanded over time.

■ Of the G7 countries compared in 1992, the United States, Canada,

Germany, and the United Kingdom each reported that more than 75

percent of 25- to 34-year-olds had completed at least an upper

secondary level of education. Italy was the only G7 country reported in which fewer than 50 percent of 25- to 34-year-olds had

completed at least an upper secondary level of education.

■ The percentage of adults having completed at least an upper secondary level of education generally increased with each successively

younger age cohort. However, the magnitude of the increase differed

across countries. Of the G7 countries compared, the difference

between the youngest and oldest age groups ranged from 14 percentage points in the United States to 38 percentage points in France.

Of the remaining countries, Finland had the largest difference (51

percentage points) and New Zealand had the smallest (11 percentage

points).

■ In addition, the absolute levels of education attainment differed

considerably across countries, particularly among the older age

groups. Excluding Portugal and Turkey, there was more variation

in upper secondary education attainment across countries at ages

5564 than at ages 2534. For instance, in the United States, upper

secondary attainment for 55- to 64-year-olds was 73 percentthe

highest attainment rate for this age cohort among all the countries

reported. Within the G7 countries reported, Italy had the lowest

upper secondary education attainment for 55- to 64-year-olds, 12

percent. Thus, the difference in attainment between these two

countries at ages 5564 was 61 percentage points, and the difference

at ages 2534 was 45 percentage points.
Achievement and Attainment

83

Table 12: Percentage of the population within various age

groups having attained at least an upper

secondary level of education, by country: 1992

Age group

Country 2534 3544 4554 5564

G71

Canada 81 78 66 49

France 67 57 47 29

Germany 89 87 81 69

Italy 42 35 21 12

United Kingdom 81 71 62 51

United States 87 88 83 73

Other

Australia2 57 56 51 42

Austria 79 71 65 50

Belgium 60 52 38 24

Czechoslovakia3 87 79 68 51

Denmark 67 61 58 45

Finland 82 69 52 31

Ireland 56 44 35 25

Netherlands 68 61 52 42

New Zealand 60 58 55 49

Norway 88 83 75 61

Portugal3 21 17 10 7

Spain 41 24 14 8

Sweden 83 76 65 48

Switzerland 87 84 78 70

Turkey 21 14 9 5

1No data available for Japan.

21993 data.

31991 data.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 11 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands,

New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the

United States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

84

Figure 12: Percentage of the population within various age groups

having completed at least an upper secondary level of

education, by G7 country:* 1992

*

No data available for Japan.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

United States

Germany

Canada

United Kingdom

France

Italy

25–34 35–44 45–54 55–64

Percent

Age
Achievement and Attainment

85

*For further explanation of levels of education, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of

education.

Indicator 13: Education Attainment for Females

The percentage of females among adults aged 2564 who have attained specific levels of education provides an indication of sex differences in the levels

of education attained by adults and, consequently, the differential skill levels

that males and females bring to the workforce. A value of 50 indicates that

males and females are equally represented in the population that has attained a

specific level of education, whereas a value less than 50 indicates that there are

fewer females than males at a given level. Since education is a major determinant of labor market qualifications and participation, income, occupational

mobility, and quality of life, large sex differences in education attainment

favoring males imply that females on average are at a major disadvantage in the

world of work and in society.

■ In all of the countries reported (G7 and other), females aged 2564

were systematically underrepresented in university higher education

and were frequently overrepresented at the lower education levels as

of 1992. To illustrate, 68 percent of Germans whose highest level of

education attainment was lower secondary* or less were female, in

contrast to only 35 percent of those individuals attaining universitylevel higher education. In the United Kingdom, the figures were 59

and 36 percent, respectively. Compared with most of the countries

reported here, the sex differences in education attainment were small

in the United States (50 percent for lower secondary or less and 46

percent university education).

■ The sex difference in university-level education attainment was

relatively smaller for 25- to 34-year-olds than it was for 25- to 64-

year-olds in the G7 countries reported and was practically eliminated in the United States, Canada, France, and Italy, indicating a

narrowing of the sex difference in university-level education attainment. (See supplemental tables 2 and 3.)

■ In many countries, attaining a nonuniversity higher education was

predominantly either a male or a female achievement. In France, the

United Kingdom, the United States, Belgium, Denmark, New

Zealand, and Portugal, a substantially greater proportion of females

than males attained nonuniversity higher education, whereas in

Germany, Spain, and Switzerland, the reverse was true. Of the G7

countries for which data were available, only Canada had equal

proportions of males and females at this education level. These

patterns may be due in part to differences in the education level at

which training for traditionally male and female occupations is

concentrated.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

86

Table 13: Women as a percentage of the total population

2564 years of age who have completed specific

levels of education, by highest level of education

completed and country: 1992

Lower Higher Higher

 secondary Upper education education Population

Country and below secondary (nonuniversity) (university) aged 2564

G71

Canada 50 55 50 45 51

France 55 46 56 46 51

Germany 68 49 35 35 49

Italy 52 48 (2) 43 51

United Kingdom 59 46 60 36 50

United States 50 53 56 46 51

Other

Australia3 61 35 50 45 50

Austria 65 43 (2) 43 50

Belgium 51 47 60 34 50

Czechoslovakia4 66 46 (2) 40 51

Denmark 55 43 57 47 49

Finland 49 52 52 42 50

Ireland 47 58 54 41 50

Netherlands 56 45 (2) 21 49

New Zealand 57 39 68 40 51

Norway 51 50 51 40 49

Portugal4 52 46 74 48 52

Spain 53 46 34 48 51

Sweden 47 50 54 46 49

Switzerland 66 52 25 32 50

Turkey 52 34 (2) 30 50

1No data available for Japan.

2Data included in another category.

31993 data.

4

1991 data.

NOTE: See supplemental tables 2 and 3 for additional data on sex differences in education

attainment. See supplemental note to Indicator 13 for details on indicator calculation for

Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Achievement and Attainment

87

Figure 13: Women as a percentage of the total population

2564 years of age who have completed various

levels of education, by highest level of education

completed and G7 country:1,2 1992

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

Canada France Germany Italy United Kingdom United State

Percent Lower secondary or below

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

Canada France Germany Italy United Kingdom United State

Percent Upper secondary
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

88

Figure 13: Women as a percentage of the total population

2564 years of age who have completed various

levels of education, by highest level of education

completed and G7 country:1,2 1992

Continued

1No data available for Japan.

2Countries are reported in alphabetical order.

3Data included in another category.

NOTE: A value of 50 indicates equal proportions while a value less than 50 reveals that there

are fewer women than men at a given level of education.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

Canada France Germany Italy United Kingdom United State

Percent Nonuniversity higher education

0

20

40

60

80

0

20

40

60

80

Canada France Germany Italy United Kingdom United State

Percent University

3
Achievement and Attainment

89

*This indicator includes all university-level degrees, including the doctorate. It should be taken

into consideration that some countries award two degrees prior to the doctorate, whereas others

award only one. Moreover, some countries have a long initial degree and few possibilities for

pursuing subsequent ones.

Indicator 14: Science and Engineering Degrees

(As a Percentage of All Degrees)

The percentage of all university degrees* awarded that are in science and

engineering fields reflects the relative emphasis an education system places on

training scientists and engineers. Science and engineering degrees are conferred upon students with skills highly valued in commerce and business,

especially in a time when technological superiority is increasingly related to

international market competitiveness. Science graduates as a proportion of the

labor force aged 2534 provides a measure of the availability of scientific

resources and technical skills available to a country.

■ In the United States, science and engineering degrees comprised a

smaller percentage of all university degrees awarded than in most

other countries with available data in 1992 (G7 and other). Of the

G7 countries for which statistics on 1992 university degree awards

were available, a smaller percentage of all university degrees in the

United States, Canada, and Italy were granted in science and engineering fields (around 16 percent) than were awarded in Germany,

the United Kingdom, and Japan (between 25 and 33 percent).

■ As far as individual categories of science degrees are concerned,

among all the countries reported here, only Australia, the Czech

Republic, Denmark, and Turkey awarded fewer physical science

degrees as a percentage of all degrees than did the United States; and

only Canada, Australia, and New Zealand awarded fewer engineering

degrees as a percentage of all degrees than did the United States.

■ In all countries surveyed with the exception of Australia and New

Zealand, engineering degrees comprised the largest share of scientific

degrees awarded. A greater proportion of scientific degrees awarded

were in the biological sciences in Australia and New Zealand.

■ Science graduates as a proportion of the labor force aged 2534

varied significantly across the G7 countries for which 1992 data

were available. Italy had far fewer science graduates in 1992 per

100,000 25- to 34-year-olds in the labor force (187) than did the

other G7 countries, and Japan and the United Kingdom had far

more (974 and 989, respectively).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

90

Table 14: Science and engineering degrees as a percentage of all

university degrees awarded and science graduates as a

proportion of the labor force, by country: 1992

Science graduates

 per 100,000 persons

Biological Physical Mathematics and All scientific aged 2534

Country sciences sciences computer science Engineering degrees in the labor force

G71

Canada 3.9 2.6 3.5 6.1 16.2 668

West Germany (former) 3.3 6.2 4.2 19.2 32.9 650

Italy 3.4 2.7 3.4 7.1 16.6 187

Japan2  3.8  21.6 25.4 974

United Kingdom 4.1 5.8 6.1 13.0 29.0 989

United States 3.4 1.8 3.6 7.2 16.0 688

Other

Australia 8.4 1.1 3.9 5.1 18.5 922

Czech Republic 2.0 0.7 0.8 32.5 36.0 

Denmark 3.7 0.2 1.5 15.8 21.2 683

Finland 1.6 3.4 6.7 23.2 35.0 792

Hungary3 3.2   15.2 18.4 

Ireland 3.2 8.6 5.0 11.8 28.6 951

Netherlands 0.7 1.9 3.0 15.0 20.6 691

New Zealand 5.8  3.3 3.7 12.9 453

Norway 1.2 1.6 3.2 20.6 26.7 855

Spain 2.5 3.3 3.4 8.0 17.2 558

Sweden 2.1 3.2 5.4 15.9 26.6 458

Switzerland 6.5 6.9 3.1 7.4 23.9 302

Turkey 1.7 1.2 1.6 15.2 19.6 

Not available.

1 No data available for France.

2 Biological sciences included in physical sciences. Mathematics and computer science included in engineering.

3 Physical science, mathematics, and computer science are included in biological sciences.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Achievement and Attainment

91

Figure 14a: Science and engineering degrees as a

percentage of all university degrees awarded,

by G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for France.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by (the percentage of total) science and engineering

degrees as a percentage of all university degrees awarded.

3Mathematics and computer science included in engineering and biological sciences included in

physical sciences.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Engineering

Mathematics and computer science

Physical sciences

Biological sciences

West Germany United KingdomJapan Italy Canada United State

(former)

Percent

3
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

92

Figure 14b: Science degrees awarded per 100,000 25- to

34-year-olds in the labor force by G7

country:* 1992

*

No data available for France.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

0

200

400

600

800

1000

West GermanyItaly

(former)

United KingdomJapan United States Canada

Degrees

per 100,000
EDUCATION AND

LABOR MARKET DESTINATIONS

EDUCATION AND LABOR MARKET DESTINATIONS

Preparing students for work is an important objective of formal education

systems. From the perspective of both the individual and society, returns in the

labor market are a major goal of investment in education. In the United States,

as well as in other countries, public policy calls on the education system to

address labor market problems. Most recently in the United States, this has

been evident in the passage of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994.

The indicators presented in this section confirm the linkage between education

attainment and labor market outcomes and, in fact, reveal that labor market

returns for investing in formal education are even more pronounced in the United

States than in many other countries. In all of the countries reported, labor market

participation increased in conjunction with education (Indicator 15). Furthermore, in the United States as well as in the other countries, the unemployment rate

of labor market participants decreased as education level increased (Indicator 19).

Finally, education is also an important factor affecting earnings, with more education generally leading to higher earnings (Indicator 17).

In all of the countries reported, labor market participation and average annual

earnings of females were below those of males, even when education level was

held constant (Indicators 16 and 18). This may be due, at least in part, to the

higher incidence of part-time work among females than among males and to sex

differences in the total number of years in the labor force. Furthermore, the

relationship between education and labor market outcomes was different for

males and females, as earnings correlated more strongly to education for females

than for males, often resulting in more similar outcomes for males and females

with a university education than for those with less education. To illustrate,

females received larger returns than males for a university education in about

half of the countries reported, including the United States (Indicator 17).

The relationship between education and labor market participation was

especially marked for females in most countries, including the United States.

As a result, the gap between male and female participation decreased as educational attainment increased (Indicator 16). The same was true for the relationship between education and earnings among young adults (aged 2534).

Average annual earnings of females were closer to the earnings of males for

young adults with a university education than for those with less education

(Indicator 18). It appears, then, that there is a greater incentive for females to

pursue higher levels of education than males since the labor market payoffs

(i.e., participation and earnings) for higher levels of education are more

pronounced for females than males.

However, for more than half the countries, the labor force participation rate for

males with a university education was still from 10 to 15 percentage points

higher than the female rate (Indicator 16). In addition, females in all countries

continued to earn less than males with the same level of education. Also,

among older adults (aged 4564), education had little relationship to the ratio

of mean annual earnings of females to males (Indicator 18).

95
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

96

Indicator 15: Labor Force Participation and Education

The percentage of 25- to 64-year-olds who are either employed or actively

seeking work provides an indication of participation in a countrys labor force.

Participation rates differ among countries for several reasons, including the

social and economic organization of labor markets and cultural attitudes

regarding work. Workforce participation is also related to the age structure and

education attainment levels of the population, with older adults and those with

less education typically joining the labor force at lower rates. Also, full-time

enrollment in an education program limits labor force participation.

■ Of the G7 countries for which 1992 data were available, five had

similar labor force participation rates, ranging from 75 percent in

France to 79 percent in the United States. The one exception was

Italy, whose rate was a much lower 65 percent.

■ In all the countries reported, labor force participation rates increased

with the level of education attainment. For instance, 60 percent of

U.S. 25- to 64-year-olds with a lower secondary education* or below

were in the labor force. For 25- to 64-year-olds with an upper

secondary education, nonuniversity higher education, or university

education, the labor force participation rates in the United States

were 80, 87, and 88 percent, respectively. At the university level,

almost all of the countries had labor force participation rates that

approached or exceeded 90 percent.

■ Compared with the United States, whose labor force participation

rates at lower secondary and below and at upper secondary education were 60 and 80 percent, respectively, France (65, 84), the

United Kingdom (65, 82), Portugal (65, 88), and the Nordic countries (e.g., Sweden, with rates of 86 and 93) had slightly higher rates.

* For further explanation of education levels, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of education.
Education and Labor Market Destinations

97

Table 15: Labor force participation rate for 25- to 64-yearolds, by highest level of education completed and

country: 1992

Lower Higher Higher Higher

secondary Upper education education education

Country and below secondary (nonuniversity) (university) total

G71

Canada 62.4 79.9 85.5 89.6 77.8

France 64.9 83.5 89.4 86.9 75.3

Germany 57.0 76.7 86.5 89.8 75.6

Italy 58.2 79.8 (2) 90.7 65.1

United Kingdom 64.5 82.1 84.0 90.3 77.5

United States 60.3 79.7 86.7 88.4 79.2

Other

Australia 65.1 80.2 83.2 89.2 74.4

Austria 52.8 73.9 (2) 88.4 68.1

Belgium 56.1 78.8 85.3 88.9 68.0

Denmark 73.0 88.9 93.4 93.7 83.3

Finland 69.8 84.7 85.7 91.8 79.8

Ireland 57.3 70.7 81.9 87.9 65.2

Netherlands 55.4 77.0 (2) 85.5 69.7

New Zealand 67.0 79.1 80.9 89.5 75.2

Norway 65.0 83.2 88.8 93.3 81.4

Portugal 65.1 88.4 91.0 95.2 68.8

Spain 57.6 80.2 89.0 86.4 63.7

Sweden 86.2 93.0 94.3 95.2 91.4

Switzerland 71.7 82.2 91.9 92.7 82.3

Turkey 58.3 74.7 (2) 90.2 61.3

1No data available for Japan.

2Data included in another category.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 15 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand,

Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

98

Figure 15: Labor force participation rate of persons 2564

years of age who have attained various levels

of education, by the highest level of education

completed and G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for Japan.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by overall labor force participation rate.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Higher education (university)

Higher education (nonuniversity)

Upper secondary

Lower secondary

United States Canada United Kingdom Germany France Italy

Percent
Education and Labor Market Destinations

99

Indicator 16: Labor Force Participation of Males and Females

Indicator 16 shows labor force participation rates by education level separately

for men and women. The continued prevalence in many countries of the

tradition of women not working outside the home because of family responsibilities and differing cultural attitudes toward women in the workforce are two

factors that influence their labor force participation rates.

■ For all the countries reported, female labor force participation rates

were lower than comparable rates for males in 1992. In the United

States, the labor force participation rate for 25- to 64-year-old males

was 89 percent, while the participation rate for females was 70

percent, a gap of 19 percentage points. In the G7 countries, this gap

between male and female participation ranged from 18 percentage

points in Canada to 38 percentage points in Italy.

■ The relationship between education and labor force participation

the higher the level of education, the higher the level of participationwas especially marked for women. In the United States, for

example, the participation rates were 36 percentage points higher for

women who completed university-level higher education than for

women with only a lower secondary education* or below. The

cor responding difference for men was 19 percentage points. In Italy,

the differences were even more pronounced: a 50 percentage point

spread for women at opposite ends of the educational spectrum

versus 12 percentage points for men.

■ As a result of the stronger relationship between education and labor

force participation for women, the gap between male and female

participation tended to decrease as education attainment increased.

For example, the sex difference in labor force participation was

about 30 percentage points at the lower secondary level, and about

12 percentage points at the university level in the United States.

*For further explanation of education levels, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

100

 Table 16: Labor force participation rate for individuals 2564 years of

age, by highest level of education attainment, sex, and

country: 1992

Lower secondary Upper Higher education

and below secondary (nonuniversity) (university) Total

Country Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

G71

Canada 76.2 48.5 89.4 72.0 91.4 79.6 93.8 84.3 86.8 68.9

France 77.4 54.6 90.6 74.9 95.4 84.7 91.2 81.9 85.1 65.7

Germany 80.2 46.1 85.6 67.3 89.4 80.9 93.8 82.4 86.7 64.2

Italy 81.8 36.6 89.6 69.3 (2) (2) 93.9 86.4 84.5 46.2

United Kingdom 79.4 54.2 91.1 71.4 93.2 77.7 94.2 83.6 88.6 66.4

United States 75.2 45.6 89.8 70.7 94.1 81.0 93.8 82.2 88.7 70.0

Other

Australia 82.9 53.4 89.8 62.2 90.7 75.7 94.8 82.3 88.0 60.8

Austria 71.6 42.8 83.6 61.1 (2) (2) 93.1 82.0 81.7 54.7

Belgium 73.4 39.7 88.9 67.5 92.5 80.4 91.8 83.4 81.3 54.6

Denmark 78.8 68.3 90.8 86.6 94.1 92.8 94.9 92.3 87.1 79.4

Finland 73.1 66.4 89.5 80.1 89.2 82.4 93.4 89.4 83.6 75.9

Ireland 82.4 29.2 93.4 54.3 94.3 71.4 93.6 79.8 86.5 43.9

Netherlands 77.1 38.4 88.5 63.2 (2) (2) 91.3 77.4 85.0 53.8

New Zealand 82.2 55.5 87.5 65.8 90.9 75.9 95.0 81.0 86.8 63.8

Norway 75.3 55.1 89.8 76.7 91.0 86.6 95.9 89.2 87.9 74.6

Portugal 83.3 48.4 91.1 85.2 91.1 91.0 96.0 94.4 84.7 54.0

Spain 82.9 34.8 92.2 65.9 95.3 76.7 90.5 81.9 85.2 42.9

Sweden 90.8 81.0 94.8 91.2 94.7 93.9 96.1 94.1 93.7 89.1

Switzerland 91.8 61.3 95.5 70.2 96.3 78.8 97.6 82.1 95.4 69.1

Turkey 87.6 31.4 92.1 41.3 (2) (2) 93.6 82.2 88.5 33.4

1No data available for Japan.

2Data included in another category.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 16 for details on indicator calculation for Australia, Austria, Belgium,

Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education and Labor Market Destinations

101

Figure 16a: Labor force participation rate of 25- to 64-year-old males

and females, by G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for Japan.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by total labor force participation rate of females.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Female Male

United StatesCanada United KingdomFrance Germany Italy

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

102

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

University Lower secondary

United France

States

United Germany

Kingdom

Italy Canada

Female

Percent

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

University Lower secondary

United France

States

United Germany

Kingdom

Italy Canada

Male

Figure 16b: Labor force participation rate of 25- to 64-year-old males

and females, by highest level of education attainment and

G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for Japan.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by labor force participation rate of females having attained a university

education.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education and Labor Market Destinations

103

Indicator 17: Education and Relative Earnings

Annual earnings not only reflect the market evaluation of the economic

contribution an individual makes to society, but are also a direct link to ones

socioeconomic status. Education is one of the most important factors determining earnings levels. By examining the average annual earnings for males

and females with various levels of education attainment, Indicator 17 informs

us about the relationship between education, sex, and annual earnings levels.

To provide relative comparisons, the average annual earnings of 25- to 64-yearolds with various levels of education attainment are expressed as a ratio

(multiplied by 100) to the average annual earnings of those for whom upper

secondary (roughly equivalent to high school) was the highest level of education. Thus, by definition, the ratio for those with a high school education is

100. Ratios that are below or above 100 reveal average annual earnings that do

not reach or that exceed the earnings of those with a high school education.

These comparisons do not take into account potential differences between

males and females in the total number of years in the labor force.

■ In the United States and all other countries reported, average annual

earnings increased with education attainment. For instance, in 1992

the average annual earnings of U.S. 25- to 64-year-old males and

females with a lower secondary education (roughly equivalent to

ninth or tenth grade)* or below were 66 and 65 percent of the

earnings of their counterparts with a high school education, respectively. In contrast, the average annual earnings of U.S. 25- to 64-yearold female university graduates were 170 percent of the earnings of

female high school graduates; and the average annual earnings of

U.S. male university graduates were 164 percent of the earnings of

male high school graduates.

■ In the United States, the payoff for having a university degree,

compared with a high school degree, was in the middle of the range

among the countries reported. Having university credentials increased average annual earnings by 64 and 70 percent for U.S. males

and females, respectively, compared with the earnings of those with

high school credentials. The comparable increases in all the other

countries surveyed ranged from 18 percent (New Zealand) to 92

percent (Finland) for males, and 16 percent (Italy) to 106 percent

(United Kingdom) for females.

■ Women received larger returns than men for a university education

in about half the countries reported, including the United States. In

some countries, such as Sweden and Switzerland, the returns for

women and men were quite similar. In France, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Finland, and Norway, men received larger returns than women

for completing a university education.

*For further explanation of education levels, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

104

G71

Canada2

France

Germany

Italy2

United Kingdom

United States

Other

Australia2

Austria

Belgium

Denmark2

Finland2

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Portugal4

Spain2

Sweden

Switzerland2

72

81

84

86

70

65

90

81

78

86

94

73

73

76

67

71

92

67

116

131

114

(

3

)

156

130

124

(

3

)

137

111

132

(

3

)

98

131

117

(

3

)

119

126

174

142

175

116

206

170

175

134

164

135

176

147

154

157

188

149

156

152

81

87

88

84

80

66

88

85

86

86

93

84

74

80

65

78

88

76

107

127

116

(

3

)

121

120

121

(

3

)

115

110

132

(

3

)

85

131

124

(

3

)

118

127

1No data available for Japan.

21991 data.

3Data included in another category.

41993 data.

NOTE: Table values represent the ratio multiplied by 100. See supplemental note to Indicator 17 for details on

indicator calculation for Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

162

174

170

134

171

164

158

146

149

146

192

132

118

165

179

138

160

152

Table 17: Ratio of mean annual earnings of 25- to 64-year-olds by

highest level of education attainment to mean annual

earnings at the upper secondary level, by sex and country:

1992

Female Male

Lower

secondary

and below

Higher

education

(nonuniversity)

Higher

education

(university)

Lower

secondary

and below

Higher

education

(nonuniversity)

Higher

education

(university)
Education and Labor Market Destinations

105

Figure 17: Ratio of mean annual earnings of 25- to

64-year-olds by highest level of education

attainment to mean annual earnings at the

upper secondary level, by sex and selected

country:1 1992

1Countries are sorted in descending order by the ratio of mean annual earnings of female

university graduates to females for whom high school is the highest level of education attained.

21991 data.

NOTE: A value of 100 indicates mean annual earnings equal to that of individuals for whom

high school is the highest level of education attained whereas a value less than 100 reveals that

mean annual earnings at a given education level are less than that of individuals for whom high

school is the highest level of education attained.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

50

100

150

200

0

50

100

150

200

Lower secondary and below Non-university higher education University higher

United Kingdom Germany Canada United States France Italy

Ratio Male

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

University

higher education

Nonuniversity

higher education

Lower secondary

and below

United Kingdom Germany Canada United States France Italy

Ratio

Female

2 2

2 2Data N/A
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

106

Indicator 18: Gender Differences in Earnings

The ratio of mean annual earnings of females to males highlights an important

aspect of equality between the sexes in the labor market. Partly due to the

unequal sex distribution in industries and occupations, and partly due to the

historical legacy of sex discrimination, mean annual earnings of female labor

force members are usually lower than those of their male counterparts.

By measuring mean annual earnings of females with various levels of education attainment as a ratio (multiplied by 100) of the mean annual earnings of

their male counterparts, Indicator 18 reveals the relationship between education and the earnings gap between males and females. By showing two age

groups (2534 and 4564), the indicator provides information about longterm trends in earnings.

■ In the United States and the other countries reported here, there was

a large gap between male and female average annual earnings at all

levels of education attainment and for all age groups (in various

years between 1989 and 1992). For example, the average annual

earnings of 25- to 64-year-old females with an upper secondary

education* credential ranged from 52 percent (New Zealand) to 78

percent (Finland) of the average earnings for their male counterparts. The corresponding ratio in the United States was 60 percent.

■ Education attainment made very little difference in the size of the

gap between male and female earnings for 25- to 64-year-old labor

force participants as a whole or for the subset aged 4564 years.

However, education attainment did make a difference for 25- to 34-

year-olds. In other words, in many countries, womens earnings

relative to mens were quite similar regardless of education level for

those in the 4564 age group. In contrast, there was generally an

increase in the ratio of mean annual earnings of females to those of

males with the level of education among 25- to 34-year-olds. For

example, in the United States, the earnings of female younger adults

with a lower secondary education or below were 63 percent of the

earnings of men with the same education level, while the corresponding figure for those with a university education was 74 percent. This pattern is found in many other countries, including

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, and Switzerland. The opposite trend is true for Germany.

* For further explanation of education levels, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of education.
Education and Labor Market Destinations

107

G7*

Canada 1991

France 1992

Germany 1992

United States 1992

Other

Australia 1991

Denmark 1991

Finland 1990

Netherlands 1989

New Zealand 1992

Norway 1992

Portugal 1993

Spain 1991

Sweden 1992

Switzerland 1992

Table 18: Ratio of mean annual earnings of females to males in the

labor force, by highest level of education attainment, age

group, and country: various years

Lower secondary Upper secondary Higher education Higher education

Country Year and below education (nonuniversity) (university)

2534

59

71

84

63

56

72

80

65

43

48

74

67

48

53

4564

51

71

51

57

58

68

79

44

56

59

71

57

72

43

2564

53

72

58

59

57

71

80

51

51

58

72

58

70

47

2534

64

79

76

65

58

75

80

73

58

59

75

73

59

66

4564

55

70

55

54

60

67

76

53

42

63

65

58

68

51

2564

59

77

62

60

56

71

78

60

52

61

69

64

68

53

2534

68

83

63

73

65

74

84

71

64

70

66



70

66

4564

62

71

65

61

59

69

79

46

58

58

67



69

45

2564

64

79

60

65

57

72

78

55

60

61

66



68

53

2534

78

77

58

74

69

72

84

74



69

80

84

69

71

4564

61

57

64

59

57

64

69

50

51

60

72

65

67

45

2564

63

63

63

62

62

66

72

58

68

58

73

69

66

53

Not available.

*No data available for Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Table values represent the ratio multiplied by 100. See supplemental note to Indicator 18 for details on

indicator calculation for France, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

108

Age 25–340 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Germany

Sweden

Switzerland

Denmark

United States

France

Canada

Finland

Percen

Age 45–640 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lower secondary and below

University

Germany

Sweden

Switzerland

Denmark

United States

France

Canada

Finland

Percen Age 45–64

Figure 18: Ratio of mean annual earnings of females to males, by

highest level of education attainment, age group, and

selected country:* various years

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the ratio multiplied by 100 of mean annual earnings of 25- to 34-yearold female university graduates to their male counterparts.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education and Labor Market Destinations

109

Indicator 19: Unemployment and Education

The unemployment rate (defined as the proportion of adults 2564 years old

who are without work but are seeking and currently available for work as a

percentage of the total labor force) is an important indicator of the overall

health of the labor market. Combatting unemployment is a key priority in the

United States, as in most industrialized countries; and some researchers

suggest that one means of improving job opportunities is through more formal

education. With the continuing advancements in technology, less-well-educated individuals may become more and more vulnerable to failure in labor

market competition. By examining the unemployment rates for persons aged

2564 at various levels of education attainment, Indicator 19 highlights the

relationship between formal education and employment.

■ In 1992, unemployment rates decreased consistently as education

attainment levels increased in the United States and in the majority

of other countries reported. In the United States, the unemployment

rate decreased almost 11 percentage points from 13.5 to 2.9 percent,

for individuals who had attained a university education compared

with those whose highest level of education was lower secondary

(roughly 9th or 10th grade)* or below.

■ In the other G7 countries for which data were available, higher

education attainment was also associated with less unemployment.

In Canada, the difference between the unemployment rates for

people with a lower secondary education or below and those with a

university education was almost 10 percentage points, close to the

difference in the United States. The corresponding differences in the

United Kingdom, France, and Germany were slightly smaller (about

9, 8, and 5 percentage points, respectively) and much smaller in Italy

(about 1 percentage point).

*For further explanation of education levels, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

110

Lower Higher Higher

secondary Upper education education

Country and below secondary (nonuniversity) (university)

G72

Canada 15.1 9.7 9.0 5.2

France 12.1 7.4 4.6 4.4

Germany 8.9 6.4 4.5 3.7

Italy 7.3 8.2 (3) 6.0

United Kingdom 12.3 8.3 3.3 3.6

United States 13.5 7.2 4.6 2.9

Other

Australia 11.2 8.9 5.7 4.4

Austria 5.6 3.2 (3) 1.3

Belgium 13.0 4.7 2.3 2.2

Denmark 15.6 9.2 5.8 4.8

Finland 14.9 12.1 5.7 3.4

Ireland 19.8 9.3 5.8 3.3

Netherlands 8.0 4.7 (3) 3.9

New Zealand 11.2 7.5 4.6 3.7

Norway 7.1 4.9 2.8 1.8

Portugal 5.3 4.5 1.9 1.8

Spain 16.0 14.1 12.5 9.9

Sweden 4.6 4.3 2.3 2.0

Switzerland 3.5 2.2 2.3 3.0

Turkey 5.1 6.7 (3) 4.1

1This indicator defines unemployment as the proportion of adults aged 25 64 who are unemployed (i.e., persons without work and who are seeking and currently available for work) as a

percentage of the total labor force. However, there are numerous ways to define unemployment.

See Sorrentino, C., International comparisons of unemployment indicators, Monthly Labor

Review, March 1993 for alternative definitions of unemployment and accompanying crossnational comparisons.

2No data available for Japan.

3Data included in another category.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 19 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand,

Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Table 19: Unemployment rates,1 by highest level of

education attainment for persons 2564 years of

age and country: 1992
Education and Labor Market Destinations

111

Figure 19: Unemployment rates for 25- to 64-year-olds, by highest level

of education attainment and G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for Japan.

2Countries are sorted in descending order according to percentage point difference in unemployment rate between

highest and lowest level of education reported.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Percent unemployed

0 5 10 15 20

0 5 10 15 20

University

Lower secondary and below

Italy

Germany

France

United Kingdom

United States

Canada
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

112

Alternative unemployment measures

Indicator 19 utilizes what is considered the conventional unemployment

ratethe proportion of 25- to 64-year-olds who are without work but are

seeking and currently available for work, as a percentage of the total labor

forceto explore the link between unemployment and education. However,

there are many different ways to compute a nations unemployment rate, and

reliance on a single indicator does not necessarily provide a complete picture

of a particular nations economy. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has

published alternative unemployment measures for the United States for over

15 years, recognizing that a single unemployment definition cannot serve all

purposes for which such data are needed.

These alternative measures were used to study unemployment in 1989 in the

United States, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the

United Kingdom, and Sweden.*

 The alternative unemployment measures range

from very narrow to very broad in scope and include:

1. Long duration unemployment rate. Persons unemployed 13 weeks or longer,

as a percentage of the civilian labor force.

2. Job loser rate. The number of persons who are unemployed because they

have involuntarily lost their last jobs, as a percentage of the civilian labor

force. (This measure follows the standard definition of unemployed but does

not include unemployed job leavers, first-time labor force entrants, or

workforce re-entrants.)

3. Adult unemployment rate. Unemployed persons (those without work,

seeking work, and currently available for work) 25 years of age and older, as a

percentage of the civilian labor force 25 years of age and older.

4. Full-time unemployment rate. The number of unemployed persons seeking

full-time employment, as a percentage of the full-time labor force (including

persons working part-time for economic reasons).

5. Conventional unemployment rate. The total number of persons not working,

who are available and seeking work, regardless of age, as a percentage of the

civilian labor force. This is considered the official U.S. unemployment rate

and is typically cited in comparisons.

6. Rate encompassing persons working part-time for economic reasons. Total

full-time-job seekers, plus half of the part-time-job seekers, plus half of the

total number of persons working part-time for economic reasons, as a percentage of the civilian labor force, less half of the part-time labor force.

7. Rate from measure 6, including discouraged workers. Discouraged workers

are people who are jobless and want work, but are not looking for work

because they believe they cannot find it. This rate uses the same formula as

measure 6, but adds the total number of discouraged workers to both the

numerator and the denominator.

*C. Sorrentino. International comparisons of unemployment indicators, Monthly Labor

Review (March 1993).
Education and Labor Market Destinations

113

Looking at the range of unemployment measures for a country is important for

comprehending how its labor market is functioning. The rates in Sweden and

Japan illustrate this point.

Sweden had the lowest unemployment rates for five of the seven measures in

1989, including the conventional unemployment rate, owing mainly to its

labor market programs that assist the unemployed in actively seeking jobs or

labor market training. In many cases these people became employed or enrolled in training before their duration of unemployment became too lengthy

or before they became discouraged workers. However, it should be noted that

Swedens unemployment rate that includes persons working part-time for

economic reasons (measure 6) was significantly larger than its conventional

unemployment rate, indicating that labor slack was channeled much more into

underemployment than into unemployment.

Japan also had very low unemployment rates in 1989. In fact, Japan had the

lowest or second lowest unemployment rates for all of the indicators. However,

Japans unemployment rate that takes into account part-time workers and

discouraged workers (measure 7) was three times that of its conventional

unemployment rate and over four times that of the full-time unemployment

rate.

These examples illustrate the importance of looking at multiple measures to

get a complete picture of a nations unemployment situation. This is also

important when making comparisons across nations. For example, if the job

loser rate was used as the measure to compare unemployment across countries,

Italy would have the second lowest unemployment rate of the nine countries

measured while the United States would be ranked seventh. If the conventional unemployment rate was used however, the United States would be

ranked third and Italy would be ranked seventh. The unemployment rate that

includes part-time workers and discouraged workers placed the United States

third again, but placed Italy last. Finally, the adult unemployment rate found

these two countries virtually tied for the third lowest unemployment rate.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

114
EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Countries throughout the world have addressed the issue of educating their

youth by establishing education institutions. Fundamentally, these institutions

are very much the same, although the details may differ. International comparisons often focus on differences that emerge between countries, although

many important similarities exist. Thus, it is not surprising that U.S. schools

are generally similar to those in most other countries on the indicators presented in this section.

Similarities among the G7 countries are evident in the matrices describing

various aspects of the education systems in these countries. At the most

general level, there are similarities in many aspects of these countries education systems, including ages of compulsory schooling, structure of the system

by levels, and school schedules. Further, in all of the G7 countries, formal

examinations play an important role in the transition from upper secondary to

higher education.

On many available indicators of school processes, the United States does not

stand out from other countries and is often in the middle range of the countries reported. For example, in terms of the number of hours of instruction

provided for 13-year-olds each year, the United States is in the middle of the

range of countries for which data are available. The United States has more

hours of instruction than the former Soviet Union, Canada, and Japan and

fewer than France and the former West Germany. Of all the countries with

data available, Taiwan has the highest number of hours of instruction per year,

almost 200 hours more than the United States (Indicator 24). With regard to

instructional practices, the United States is in the middle of the countries

reported in terms of in-school use of science experimentation (Indicator 27)

and calculators (Indicator 28).

Preprimary through secondary education institutions in the United States are

larger (as measured by the average number of students per school) than those

of many other countries, including Canada, France, and Germany. But the

average school in the United States is similar in size to schools in Japan and

about half the size of schools in Taiwan (Indicator 23). Additionally, classes of

U.S. 13-year-olds are, on average, smaller than average classes in many other

countries; however, with the exception of comparisons between the United

States and Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan, and Japan) and, to a lesser degree,

Spain, the differences are not significant (Indicator 21). Further, the average

number of years of experience for U.S. teachers of 9- and 13-year-olds is

relatively low compared with other G7 countries for which data are available,

although it is not drastically different from that of a wide range of non-G7

countries (Indicator 22).

Although in many ways the education system in the United States is generally

similar to that of other countries, in some areas it is quite different. One of the

117
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

118

most distinctive characteristics of the education system in the United States is

the decisionmaking process (Indicator 20). In the United States, the district

level plays a key role in educational decisionmaking but includes the school

level in the decisionmaking process by consulting with the school on many

decisions. While few decisions in the United States are made autonomously at

the school level, no other country relies more heavily on district level

decisionmaking or includes the school level in decisions through consultation

to the extent that exists in the United States.

The United States is also one of the few countries with primarily comprehensive high schools, often providing all academic programs and some vocational

courses within the same school. Most other countries have differentiated

schools as students get older. The United States also differs from other countries in several other specific areas, including use of computers in the schools

(Indicator 29), amount of homework performed (Indicator 25), and in-class

testing in mathematics and science (Indicator 26). In elementary schools, the

United States and France have the lowest student/computer ratio of any

country reported with the exception of Japan (Indicator 29). With regard to

homework, U.S. students (9- and 13-year-olds) are more likely to spend 1

hour or less on homework than are students in most other countries reported.

Finally, with few exceptions, more 13-year-old students in the United States

were tested at least weekly in mathematics and in science than were their

counterparts in most other countries reported.

When comparing education systems, it is important to maintain the two

perspectives. Recognizing similarities across countries helps to avoid overemphasizing differences that exist. On a basic level, countries throughout the

world have addressed the issue of educating young people by establishing

institutions that are fundamentally very much the same. At the same time,

there are also important differences between and among schools in different

countries. Understanding these differences can be a source of ideas and help

us understand our own system better.
Education Institutions

119

Similarities among national education systems

International indicators of education are intended to highlight comparisons

across nations, often by emphasizing relative differences among nations.

Consequently, what is sometimes unintentionally obscured in a collection of

indicators is the degree to which national education systems are in a broad

sense alike. Measures of how much and to what extent national school systems have converged in function and structure worldwide and speculations as

to why some aspects of these systems are becoming more similar offer a

broader context from which to consider national differences across specific

indicators.

In the early 1960s, three marked trends in schooling worldwide emerged,

which have continued to the present. These trends, listed below, are described

in the following paragraphs:

■ There has been a persistent increase in the proportion of children attending formal schooling in almost all countries, and there has been a corresponding increase in the length of the average school career worldwide.

■ The organization of formal schoolingboth structure and contenthas

become more similar across nations.

■ The supply of formal education and educational outcomes have become

primary concerns of most national governments.

Understanding the nature of these trends and why they are happening provides some insight into this international transformation of formal schooling.

In some countries, such as the United States, the proportion of children aged 6

16 attending school (enrollment rates) had reached a relatively high level by as

early as the mid-19th century, while in most other countries formal schooling

was reserved for smaller proportions of the population. But immediately following World War II there began what some call a world educational revolution

during which almost all countries, regardless of their economic and social

condition, expanded the proportion of children attending school at both the

primary and secondary levels.1 From 1950 to 1970, the primary school enrollment rates of wealthier, developed countries approached 100 percent, and

secondary school rates increased from one-third to one-half of the relevant age

cohort. Less wealthy, developing nations lagged behind developed countries in

enrollment rates, but they also ventured onto the course of increasing enrollment. This trend has continued to the present with near universal secondary

school enrollment rates in most developed countries and with high primary

school enrollment rates (60 to 80 percent) in most developing countries as well

as corresponding growth in secondary school rates.2 Although there still is

1J. Meyer, F. Ramirez, R. Rubinson, and J. Boli-Bennett, The World Educational Revolution,

195070 in National Development and the World System, Educational, Economic and Political

Change, 195070, ed. J. Meyer and M. Hannan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).

2D. Baker, The Size and Structure of Secondary Education in Developing Countries, published

report of the Population and Human Resources Department, The Education and Employment

Division, The World Bank (Washington D.C.: 1993).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

120

variation in the level of enrollment among nations, worldwide enrollment rates

have neither dropped nor remained constant.

This near universal demand for schooling has been met with increasingly

similar organizational forms for education. For example, an assessment of

national school systems reveals increased convergence on similar policies and

practices over a range of organizational and administrative dimensions, such

as the provision and duration of compulsory schooling, the structure of

school grades (or forms) with regard to age, formal testing, administrative

procedures, evaluation of instruction, coeducation, public financing, and

centralization of financing.3 Although not all national systems are exactly

alike, there is a strong historical trend toward similar systems of education.

This tendency is also evident in the curricular content of schooling. A study

of the content of elementary school curricula worldwide finds convergence

toward a standard set of subjects across national school systems starting as

early as 1920. Over the next 70 years, this core elementary school curriculum

has taken up an increasingly large share of instruction time in most national

school systems.4 Curricular convergence has been observed at higher levels of

education as well. An example is the persistent worldwide decrease in vocational training and corresponding increase in academic training in the middle/

junior high and high school curriculum.5

The main driving force behind educational enrollment and organizational

convergence is the increased control over schooling by the nation-state over

the past 50 years. Education has become a concern at a national level rather

than only at a local level. The second half of this century witnessed the end of

colonial empires and the rise of the nation-state (country) as the basic political unit worldwide, bringing the responsibility for financing, supplying, and

regulating formal schooling to the level of the nation-state. Both new and

existing nations are turning increasingly to formal education for a number of

political and economic purposes, such as the construction of a common

citizenry, the training of a competitive labor force, and the reduction of social

problems.6

Formal schooling has become a world institution. Most of the worlds

children will attend a school that is markedly similar in organization and

curricular content to schools elsewhere in the world. Although there are

interesting differences among national systems, the common logic behind

designing modern schools has resulted in increasing convergence toward

similar structures.

3A. Inkeles and L. Sirowy, Convergent and Divergent Trends in National Educational Systems,

Social Forces 62(2) (1993): 303332.

4

A. Benavot, Y. Cha, D. Kamens, J. Meyer, and S. Wong, Knowledge for the Masses: World

Models and National Curricula, 1920 1986, American Sociological Review 56 (1991): 85100.

5A. Benavot, The Rise and Decline of Vocational Education. Sociology of Education 56(2)

(1983): 6376.

6 J. Meyer, F. Ramirez, R. Rubinson, and J. Boli-Bennett, The World Educational Revolution,

195070 in National Development and the World System, Educational, Economic and Political

Change, 195070, ed. J. Meyer and M. Hannan (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
Education Institutions

121

Indicator 20: Locus and Mode of Decisionmaking in Education

Recent restructuring reforms in the United States have focused attention on

educational decisionmaking at the level of the school. This indicator provides

information about the percentage of decisions that are made at the school

level as well as at intermediate and central levels. Based on a discrete list of

decisions in four areaseducational planning and structures, personnel

management, organization of instruction, and resourcesthe indicator reports

the percentage of decisions that are made at each of four levels of governance:

the school, intermediate 1 (the level closest to the school), intermediate 2

(often the regional level), and the country. In the United States, these correspond to the school, district, state, and federal levels. The indicator also

provides additional information on the role of the school level in

decisionmaking. It distinguishes between decisions that are made autonomously at the school level, those made at the school level after consulting

another level, those made at the school level within a framework set by another level, and those for which the school is consulted by another level.

■ In contrast to all other reported countries, in the United States less

than 5 percent of all decisions were made at the country level or at

the intermediate level closest to the country (the state level) in

1991. It should be noted that these levels may still have influenced

decisionmaking through setting legal or regulatory frameworks that

constrain the decisions of others or through being consulted by

others.

■ In the United States, decisionmaking was concentrated at the district

level (71 percent). The only other instances of such a high concentration of decisionmaking at one level occurred in Ireland and New

Zealand, where a similar percentage of decisions were made at the

school level.

■ Schools in the United States were consulted by another level in

decisionmaking substantially more than schools in any other country. Without this involvement, U.S. schools were among those with

the smallest decisionmaking role. When all types of involvement are

considered, schools in the United States are involved in a comparable

percentage of decisions relative to other countries. Schools in Ireland

and New Zealand have the largest decisionmaking roles, as over 70

percent of decisions are made at the school level; 24 and 38 percent

of the school-level decisions made in Ireland and New Zealand,

respectively, are made autonomously.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

122

Locus of decisionmaking

Country School Intermediate 1 Intermediate 2 Country Total

G72

France 35 0 35 30 100

Germany 32 44 17 7 100

United States 26 71 3 0 100

Other

Austria 44 8 26 23 100

Belgium 26 50 24 0 100

Denmark 39 48 0 14 100

Finland 38 50 0 13 100

Ireland 74 8 0 18 100

New Zealand 73 0 0 27 100

Norway 31 45 0 24 100

Portugal 42 0 3 55 100

Spain 28 26 14 32 100

Sweden 47 47 0 6 100

Switzerland 9 44 46 0 100

1This table reflects the decisions for which the specified decisionmaking level has the final

decisionmaking authority. In the United States, for instance, many decisions are made within a

framework set by another level. In these instances, the decisionmaker is the level that has final

decisionmaking authority, not the level that set the framework.

2

No data available for Canada, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Decisions made at the school level are those made by the institution and/or school.

Intermediate 1 refers to decisions made closest to the school level, Intermediate 2 refers to

decisions made mainly at the regional level, and the country level refers to decisions made by

the central government.

See supplemental note for Indicator 20 for details on data collection procedures,

decisionmaking modes, and decision areas and for details concerning indicator calculation for

Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, and the United States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1993.

Table 20a: Decisions made by level of governance as a

percentage of all decisions (public lower

secondary education),1 by country: 1991
Education Institutions

123

Decisions

influenced

Decisions made by school level by school level

After Within a through consulconsultation with framework set tation with

Autonomously another level by another level Total another level

G7*

France 13 0 22 35 10

Germany 3 4 25 32 7

United States 5 2 19 26 23

Other

Austria 19 4 21 44 0

Belgium 19 3 3 26 5

Denmark 19 9 12 39 9

Finland 19 0 19 38 9

Ireland 24 20 30 74 5

New Zealand 38 3 32 73 3

Norway 14 0 17 31 8

Portugal 9 2 31 42 2

Spain 10 3 15 28 4

Sweden 15 0 32 47 4

Switzerland 0 0 9 9 10

*

No data available for Canada, Japan, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 20 for details on data collection procedures,

decisionmaking modes, and decision areas.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1993.

Table 20b: Decisions involving the school level as a

percentage of all decisions, by mode of

decisionmaking and country: 1991
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

124

Figure 20a: Decisions made by level of governance as a percentage of all

decisions (public lower secondary) in France, Germany, and

the United States: 1991

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1993.

Intermediate 2

(35%)

Country

(30%)

School

(35%)

Intermediate 1

(44%)

Intermediate 2

(17%)

Country

(7%)

School

(32%)

Intermediate 1

(71%)

Intermediate 2

(3%)

School

(26%)

France

United States

Germany
Education Institutions

125

Figure 20b: Decisions involving the school level as a

percentage of all decisions, by mode and

country:* 1991

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of decisions involving the school

level.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1993.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

At another l

through consu

with school 

At school level

within a framework 

set by another level

At school level

after consulation

with another level

Autonomously

at school level

Switzerland

Belgium

Spain

Norway

Germany

Portugal

Austria

France

Finland

Denmark

United States

Sweden

New Zealand

Ireland

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

126

Indicator 21: Class Size

The number of students a teacher faces during a period of instruction

typically referred to as class sizeis a measure of pupil load. Average class

size provides valuable information on students learning environment. In the

United States, small class sizes are valued because they increase opportunities

for students to receive personalized attention from their teachers and reduce

the burden on teachers often associated with managing large numbers of

students. However, maintaining small class sizes is often more expensive than

creating larger classes. Furthermore, large classes do not necessarily hinder

instruction. The impact of class size on the overall learning environment is

related to such factors as teaching style, student behavior, and the opportunity

for students to meet with teachers outside of class. Because the indicator

measures average class size, it does not reflect whether schools choose to have

different-sized classes for different subjects or for different types of students.

See Indicator 39 for details on a related topic, student/teacher ratio.

■ In 1991, average class sizes for 13-year-old students were between 23

and 29 in all but three countriesKorea, Taiwan, and Japan. In these

countries, class sizes were relatively large, 49, 44, and 36, respectively. The United States had an average class size of 23 students per

class.
Education Institutions

127

Figure 21: Average class size for 13-year-olds,1,2 by country:

1991

1Data refer to the modal grade of 13-year-olds in each country.

2Standard errors are presented in parentheses.

31985 data for lower-secondary-level education.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 21 for details on indicator calculation for Canada,

Scotland, Spain, and the United States.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, The International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics (1992). For Japan, U.S. Department of Education, Japanese Education

Today (Washington, D.C.: 1987) (data provided by Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, and

Culture).

0 5

10

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

0 5

10

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

United States

Scotland (U.K.)

Canada

France

Ireland

Hungary

Spain

Japan

Taiwan

Korea 49 (0.7)

44 (0.6)

36

29 (0.7)

27 (0.8)

27 (0.7)

25 (0.6)

25 (0.3)

24 (0.7)

23 (1.3)

Number of students

Average num

Above the 

Same as the

3
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

128

Class size in the United States and Japan

In the United States, class size is an important issue for policymakers and

education practitioners, some of whom argue that small class size will facilitate student achievement. Its importance can also be attributed to the desire

for more individualized student attention and a reduced workload for teachers.1 While class size has important policy implications, other important

policy questions include what type of learning and instructional activities can

take place in classrooms of differing sizes.

The average class sizes of all of the countries reported in figure 21 are similar

to or larger than those of the United States. These numbers are a reflection of

the social, cultural, and organizational factors that exist in the different countries. Class size in Japan is a case in point.

In the United States individualism is prized, while in Japan group orientation

is emphasized.2 To foster individualism, teachers in U.S. classrooms focus on

individual student needs and abilities and may develop varied lesson plans to

serve students with different abilities; with a larger class size, it would therefore mean more work for the teacher to do that.

In Japan, classrooms have a distinct group orientation which is supported by

the use of a uniform curriculum and instructional methods that minimize the

need for individual curricular requirements.3 The whole group receives the

same lesson and is expected to master it. In Japan, therefore, a larger class size

does not necessarily create more lesson planning work for the teacher.4

Teachers in Japan employ several strategies to ensure that larger class sizes do

not translate into more discipline problems or time spent on transitions

between activities in their classrooms.5 Beginning the first day of elementary

school, teachers introduce techniques and skills that will allow their students

to function effectively in a group. Students learn and practice repeatedly how

to move from one activity to another, how to organize their desks for study,

and how to come to order. Each classroom also has a rotating student class

leader who cues the students to perform the various routines. As a result,

responsibility for classroom discipline and management is not solely the

teachers burden. Rather, it is shared by the class, as students view themselves

as responsible for their own behavior.

1U.S. Department of Education, Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas

(Washington, D.C.: 1988).

2H.W. Stevenson and J.W. Stigler, The Learning Gap (New York: Summit Books, 1992).

3U.S. Department of Education, Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas, op. cit.

4U.S. Department of Education, Japanese Education Today (Washington, D.C.: 1987).

5U.S. Department of Education, Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas, op. cit.
Education Institutions

129

Indicator 22: Teaching Experience

On-the-job experience provides teachers with practical opportunities in which

to build their expertise in teaching and classroom management. Further,

average years of teaching experience are an indication of teachers maturity

and their long-term commitment to education. All of these factors can play a

role in the provision of high-quality instruction.

■ During the 199192 school year, U.S. teachers of 9- and 13-year-olds

had an average of 15 and 14 years of teaching experience, respectively. They had fewer average years of teaching experience than

their counterparts in most of the countries reported. To illustrate,

teachers of 9-year-olds in five countriesincluding the three other

G7 countries reportedhad an average of at least 20 years of

teaching experience; and for teachers of 14-year-olds, the values

were 17, 19, and 19 for these three G7 countries.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

130

Country Age 9 Age 14

G72

France 21 (0.75) 19 (0.72)

Italy 22 (0.74) 19 (0.54)

West Germany (former) 20 (0.68) 17 (0.54)

United States 15 (0.52) 14 (0.66)

Other

Belgium 18 (0.69) 20 (0.74)

Botswana   11 (0.49)

Cyprus 17 (0.70) 18 (0.47)

Denmark 18 (0.52) 18 (0.55)

Finland 15 (1.35) 15 (1.13)

Greece 13 (0.73) 12 (0.53)

Hong Kong 16 (0.86) 10 (0.74)

Hungary 17 (0.90) 17 (0.84)

Iceland 12 (0.53) 15 (0.67)

Indonesia 12 (0.58)  

Ireland 19 (0.99) 17 (0.71)

Netherlands 17 (0.70) 17 (0.65)

New Zealand 14 (0.73) 13 (0.77)

Norway 16 (0.62) 18 (0.74)

Philippines   11 (0.53)

Portugal 23 (0.76) 9 (0.57)

Singapore 19 (0.79) 14 (0.91)

Slovenia 19 (0.80) 16 (0.68)

Spain 18 (0.50) 18 (0.50)

Sweden 21 (0.60) 17 (0.78)

Switzerland 14 (0.67) 18 (0.55)

Thailand   14 (0.56)

Trinidad and Tobago 17 (0.62) 15 (0.69)

Venezuela 12 (0.63) 12 (0.63)

Zimbabwe   6 (0.58)

Not available.

1Standard er rors are in parentheses.

2No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 22 for details on indicator calculation for Belgium,

Denmark, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Hungar y, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Singapore,

Spain, and Venezuela.

SOURCE: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA

Reading Literacy Study, unpublished tabulations, 1992.

Table 22: Average years of teaching experience for teachers

of 9- and 14-year-olds,1

 by country: school year

199192
Education Institutions

131

Figure 22: Average years of teaching experience for

teachers of 9- and 14-year-olds, by G7

country:1,2 school year 199192

1No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by the average years of teaching experience.

SOURCE: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA Reading

Literacy Study, unpublished tabulations, 1992.

Average number

of years teaching

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

9-year-olds 14-year-olds

West Germany United States

(former)

Italy France
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

132

Indicator 23: Number of Schools and School Size

This indicator measures the number of public and private schools, the number

of students, and the average number of students per school at the preprimary

through secondary and higher education levels. In most education systems,

schooling is divided by level (e.g., preprimary, primary, lower secondary, upper

secondary, and so on) or by curricular program (e.g., academic, vocational).

These levels and programs may be separated by school, or they may be combined. If they are kept separate, the number of individual schools is likely to be

large, and the average school size is likely to be small. Some educators believe

there is a negative association between large school size and student achievement and therefore encourage a reduction in the number of students per

school. On the other hand, though smaller schools may have a stronger sense

of community, larger schools often can provide broader cur ricular offerings.

■ Of the G7 countries for which data are available for various years

between 1989 and 1992, the United States and Japan had the largest

average number of students per school at the preprimary through

secondary level (398 and 395, respectively). The average for France

(166), the G7 country with the smallest number of students per

school, was less than half that of the United States and Japan.

■ The average number of students per preprimary through secondar y

school in Taiwan (873), the country with the largest number of

students per school, was over five times higher than that of Finland

(156), the country with the smallest average school size at the

preprimary through secondary level.

■ Of the G7 countries included in various years between 1988 and

1993, the United States had a greater average number of students

per school at the higher education level (3,988) than Japan (2,188)

and Canada (3,769). Germany, Korea, and Taiwan were the only 3

countries among the 11 for which data were available with averages

above 5,000. Koreas average (5,677) was almost 8 times that of

Belgium (728), the country with the smallest number of students

per school.
Education Institutions

133

Table 23a: Number of public and private schools, number of students,

and average number of students per school in preprimary

through secondary institutions, by level and country:

various years

Number of Total Number of

Number of schools with number of preprimary Average

preprimary Number of preprimary preprimary secondary number of

primary secondary secondary secondary students (in students

Country Year schools schools combined schools thousands) per school

G71

Canada 1989    14,300 5,020 351

France 199192 62,119 11,306  73,425 12,219 166

Germany 1991 19,877 16,172 580 36,629 10,119 276

Japan 1989 39,903 16,781  56,684 22,376 395

United Kingdom 199192 25,338 4,731 2,488 32,557 9,049 278

United States 199192 78,078 26,510 3,269 107,857 42,964 398

Other

Australia 1992 7,086 1,617 1,254 9,957 3,099 311

Belgium2 199091 1,878 692  2,570 799 311

Finland 1993  820 4,610 5,430 849 156

Korea 1990 14,689 4,198  18,887 9,867 522

New Zealand 1990 2,917 253 146 3,316 692 209

Spain 199091 20,517 5,370  25,887 8,369 323

Taiwan 199192 4,432 975  5,396 4,711 873

Not available.

1No data available for Italy.

2French community only.

NOTE: Private school data included in U.S. figures for number of schools by level are adjusted using national

percentages of public school distribution by level. See supplemental note to Indicator 23 for further details.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,

1993, tables 44 and 95; Digest of Education Statistics, 1994, table 63. Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1993. United

Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Statistical Yearbook, 1992. Various country sources

see supplemental note to Indicator 23 for a listing.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

134

Table 23b: Number of public and private higher education institutions,

number of students enrolled, and average number of

students per institution, by level and country: various years

Number of Average

Total number students number of

Number of of higher enrolled in students per

nonuniversity Number of education higher education institution of

Country Year institutions universities institutions (in thousands) higher education

G71

Canada 1987 102 127 229 863 3,769

France 199091 407 77 484 1,276 2,636

Germany 1991 217 98 315 1,783 5,660

Japan 1988 63 490 1,123 2,613 2,327

United States 199192 1,444 2,157 3,601 14,360 3,988

Other

Belgium2 199091 142 9 151 110 728

Finland 1993 175 21 196 188 959

Korea 1990 151 107 258 1,491 5,779

New Zealand 1990 31 7 38 142 3,737

Spain 198990   743 1,093 1,471

Taiwan 199192 75 46 121 612 5,058

Not available.

1No data available for Italy or the United Kingdom.

2French community only.

NOTE: See Glossary for definitions of university and nonuniversity institutions.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,

1992, table 227; Digest of Education Statistics, 1993, table 192. Various country sourcessee supplemental note to

Indicator 23 for a listing.
Education Institutions

135

Figure 23a: Average number of students enrolled per

preprimarysecondary education institution, by

G7 country:*

 various years

*

No data available for Italy.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 23 for country-level sources.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of

Education Statistics, 1993, tables 44 and 95; Digest of Education Statistics, 1994, table 62.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, Statistical Yearbook, 1992.

Various countr y sourcessee supplemental note to Indicator 23 for a listing.

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

France

Germany

United Kingdom

Canada

Japan

United States

Average number of students per school
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

136

Figure 23b: Average number of students enrolled per

institution of higher education, by G7

country:* various years

*

No data available for Italy and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 23 for country-level sources.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of

Education Statistics, 1992, table 227; Digest of Education Statistics, 1993, table 192. Various

country sourcessee supplemental note to Indicator 23 for a listing.

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Japan

France

Canada

United States

Germany

Average number of students per school
Education Institutions

137

Indicator 24: Time in Formal Instruction

Time spent on instruction is a major influence on student achievement, but

equally if not more important is how that time is spent, an influence not

measured here. Time spent on mathematics and science instruction is an

indicator of a students access to learning opportunities in these subject areas.

Within countries, differences in the time spent on mathematics and science

instruction provides an indication of the priority given those subjects in

relation to each other.

■ Compared with other countries, schools in the United States provided a relatively low number of instructional days during the 1990

91 school year (178), but had a relatively high number of hours of

instruction per day (5.6). In the United States, the average number

of hours of instruction per year (997) was either similar to or higher

than the average in all but two of the countries reported, France and

Taiwan.

■ Japan provided relatively few hours of instruction per day (4.0), but

had a long school year (220 days). Taiwan had both a relatively long

school day and school year and, at 1,177 hours, had the highest

number of average hours of instruction per year of all of the countries reported.

■ The United States devoted a relatively large number of hours to both

mathematics and science instruction each week (3.8 and 3.7 hours,

respectively). These values were among the highest of the countries

reported.

■ In most of the countries for which data were available, 13-year-olds

received more hours of mathematics instruction per week than

science instruction. Students typically received between 3 and 4

hours of mathematics instruction each week, but, in half of the

countries reporting data, they received 3 hours or less of science

instruction.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

138

Table 24: Time in formal instruction for 13-year-olds,1,2 by country:

1991

 Overall Instruction Mathematics Science

Average Average Average hours Average hours Average hours

Country hours per day days per year per year per week per week

G73

Canada 5.1 (0.01) 188 (0.2) 959 (  ) 3.8 (0.03) 2.6 (0.03)

France 6.2 (0.06) 174 (1.7) 1,079 (  ) 3.8 (0.03) 2.9 (0.14)

West Germany (former)4 4.6 (  ) 2195 (  ) 1,007 (  )    

Japan 4.0 (  ) 220 (  ) 875 (  )    

United States 5.6 (0.08) 178 (0.4) 997 (  ) 3.8 (0.09) 3.7 (0.13)

Other

Hungary 3.7 (0.02) 177 (1.5) 655 (  ) 3.1 (0.04) 3.5 (X)

Ireland 5.4 (0.07) 173 (0.9) 934 (  ) 3.2 (0.04) 2.7 (0.07)

Israel 4.6 (0.11) 215 (2.2) 989 (  ) 3.4 (0.06) 3.0 (X)

Korea 4.4 (0.04) 222 (0.4) 977 (  ) 3.0 (0.03) 2.4 (0.05)

Soviet Union (former) 4.1 (0.04) 198 (2.1) 812 (  ) 4.3 (0.03) 6.5 (0.01)

Taiwan 5.3 (0.12) 222 (2.5) 1,177 (  ) 3.4 (0.04) 4.1 (X)

Not available.

X Jackknifed standard error is greater than .165. In Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of

Educational Progress Learning Science, 1992, data and the accompanying standard errors were reported in minutes.

For Hungar y, Israel, and Taiwan, these standard errors were reported as greater than 9.9. When the values were

transformed into hours, standard errors for these three countries became greater than .165 (9.9 minutes is

equivalent to .165 hours).

1The average hours of instruction per day includes only the time students spend exposed to educational instruction

and does not include time spent in lunch, extracurricular activities, homeroom, breaks between classes, and other

noninstructional activities. Thus the actual length of the school day may be considerably longer.

2Jackknifed standard errors are in parentheses.

3No data available for Italy and the United Kingdom.

4Reflects 199091 school year.

5Includes both full- and half-days.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 24 for information on indicator calculation for Canada, the former West

Germany, Israel, Japan, the former Soviet Union, and the United States.

SOURCE: All countries from Educational Testing Service, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics, 1992; Learning Science, 1992; except the former West Germany: unpublished tabulations,

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Study of Reading Literacy, 1992;

and Japan: National Institute of Educational Research, Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Government of

Japan, Monbusho, 1992.
Education Institutions

139

Figure 24a: Average hours of formal instruction per year for

13-year-olds, by selected country: 1991

*1990 91 school year.

SOURCE: All countries from Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Learning Mathematics, 1992; Learning Science, 1992; except the former West

Germany: unpublished tabulations, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement (IEA) Study of Reading Literacy, 1992; and Japan: National Institute of Education

Research, Ministry of Education, Science, and Culture, Government of Japan, Monbusho, 1992.

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200

Japan

Canada

Korea

United States

West Germany

(former)

France

Taiwan

Average number of hours

*
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

140

Figure 24b: Average hours of instruction per week in

mathematics and science for 13-year-olds, by

selected country:* 1991

*

Countries are sorted in descending order by average number of hours of mathematics instruction each

week.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Learning

Mathematics, 1992; Learning Science, 1992.

0 1 2 3 4 56

0 1 2 3 45 6

Science

Mathematics

Korea

Taiwan

Canada

France

United States

Average number of hours
Education Institutions

141

Organized instruction outside of formal schooling

For many students, classroom instruction is only one part of the total learning

experience. It does not reflect the amount of time students spend in formal and

informal organized learning situations outside of school, such as after-school

programs, supplementary instruction at other schools in the evenings and on

weekends, and private tutoring sessions.

Educational settings outside of school exist in the United States. However,

these learning opportunities are often informal, and more organized learning

activities are not uniformly available across communities. In other countries,

organized education outside of formal schooling is more extensive. Perhaps

the most widely known case is that of Japan, where large numbers of students

of all ages throughout the country attend juku after school and on weekends.

Juku are typically private schools offering instruction to help students get

ahead in their schoolwork and prepare for the large number of entrance

examinations that help determine students chances to enter particular high

schools or colleges and universities.1

Junior high school students have the highest rates of juku attendance, primarily because all students must take a rigorous entrance examination to enter

high school (among high school students, only those wishing to enter college

face similar examination pressures). One study estimates that between 60 and

70 percent of all students in the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades (the junior

high school years in Japan), attend private classes after school at least two or

three times a week for two hours a session.2

 Rates of attendance among elementary school students are also high, particularly in urban areas.

The type of instruction received in juku ranges from basic drill-and-practice

sessions, which are intended to reinforce information learned in school or

prepare students for examinations, to creative and innovative instruction not

available in the typical school. The most commonly studied subject at juku is

mathematics, although English is also very popular.3 Public opinion in Japan

is divided on whether the extra time and money spent on juku is worthwhile,

but the feeling among parents and students remains strong that attending the

schools will provide an added academic advantage, or, more typically, that not

attending the schools will result in students falling behind their peers.

Regardless of the merits of juku, attendance at them can add significantly to

the total time spent in a structured learning environment in a way not normally accounted for by most measures of learning time.

1B. Duke. The Japanese School, Lessons for Industrial America (New York: Praeger Publishers,

1986); B. Feiler, Learning to Bow: An American Teacher in a Japanese School (New York:

Ticknor and Fields, 1991); T. Rohlen, Japans High Schools (Berkeley: University of California

Press, 1983).

2Duke, The Japanese School, Lessons for Industrial America, op. cit.

3Duke, The Japanese School, Lessons for Industrial America, op. cit.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

142

Indicator 25: Time Spent on Homework

Since homework is a form of practice, most educators postulate that it improves student achievement, and, in fact, most of the empirical studies conducted on the subject suggest that the amount of time spent on homework is

positively related to student achievement. However, this relationship is influenced by such factors as differences in students grade level. Although statistics

concerning the average number of hours spent on homework provide one

indication of the role of homework, they do not address the quality of the

homework assigned, the degrees to which students actually complete homework, or the effort and care students take in completing it.

■ Overall, it appears that in 1991, 9- and 13-year-olds in the United

States were more likely to spend 1 hour or less on homework each

day than their counterparts in many of the other countries studied.

About 20 percent of 9-year-old students and 10 percent of 13-yearold students in the United States did no homework at all each day.

The corresponding percentages were much lower in all the other

countries reported, except in Canada and Scotland at ages 9 and 13

and in Spain at age 9.

■ Whereas the majority of students in all the countries reported having

completed no more than 1 hour of homework a day at age 9, by age

13 the majority of students in about half these countries completed

at least 2 hours of homework daily. In the United States, however,

the majority of students still continued to complete no more than 1

hour of homework a day at age 13.

■ Nine-year-old students in almost every country studied spent more

time on mathematics homework than science homework each week.

The same was true for 13-year-olds, with the exception of those in

the former Soviet Union, Jordan, and Hungary.
Education Institutions

143

Table 25a: Percentage of students reporting number of hours spent on

homework daily,1

 by age and country: 1991

Age 9 Age 13

1 hour 2 hours 1 hour 2 hours

Country None or less or more None or less or more

G72

Canada 29 (1.2) 58 (1.1) 13 (0.6) 8 (0.6) 65 (0.9) 27 (1.0)

France    0 (0.2) 44 (1.6) 55 (1.6)

United States 20 (1.8) 59 (2.0) 20 (1.2) 10 (1.2) 61 (1.7) 29 (1.8)

Other

Hungary 2 (0.5) 72 (1.4) 25 (1.4) 0 (0.1) 42 (1.3) 58 (1.3)

Ireland 2 (0.4) 80 (1.7) 18 (1.5) 1 (0.5) 35 (1.8) 63 (1.9)

Israel 4 (0.7) 60 (1.6) 35 (1.5) 1 (0.2) 49 (1.9) 50 (1.9)

Jordan    3 (0.5) 40 (1.9) 56 (2.0)

Korea 2 (0.4) 77 (1.1) 22 (1.1) 3 (0.5) 56 (1.6) 41 (1.7)

Scotland 18 (2.8) 78 (3.0) 4 (0.6) 16 (1.4) 70 (1.2) 14 (1.1)

Slovenia 4 (0.7) 81 (1.2) 15 (1.1) 1 (0.2) 70 (1.6) 28 (1.7)

Soviet Union (former) 2 (0.3) 68 (1.4) 31 (1.3) 0 (0.2) 47 (1.6) 52 (1.6)

Spain 15 (1.6) 55 (1.9) 29 (1.8) 1 (0.4) 33 (1.5) 64 (1.5)

Switzerland    1 (0.2) 79 (1.3) 20 (1.3)

Taiwan 2 (0.5) 67 (1.3) 31 (1.2) 4 (0.6) 55 (1.1) 41 (1.3)

Not available.

1All standard errors are in parentheses.

2No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 25 for details on indicator calculation for Canada, Israel, Scotland, the

former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Learning Mathematics,

1992.
144

 Age 9 Age 13 Mathematics Science Mathematics 

01 23 4 hours 01 23 4 hours 01 23 4 hours 

Country hours hours or more hours hours or more hours hours or more hG72 Canada 72 (0.9) 19 (0.8) 10 (0.6) 80 (0.9) 14 (0.7) 6 (0.5) 58 (1.1) 27 (0.9) 15 (0.8) 83 

France       45 (1.5) 38 (1.4) 17 (1.3) 88 United States 65 (1.7) 20 (1.1) 14 (1.1) 78 (1.4) 15 (1.3) 7 (0.8) 63 (2.1) 22 (1.5) 15 (1.3) 76 

Other

Hungary 49 (1.8) 27 (1.4) 23 (1.6) 62 (1.6) 26 (1.2) 12 (1.1) 68 (1.3) 21 (1.2) 11 (0.7) 55 Ireland 63 (2.1) 22 (1.5) 15 (1.6) 82 (1.5) 12 (1.2) 6 (0.9) 48 (1.6) 35 (1.4) 17 (1.3) 74 Israel 55 (1.4) 26 (1.2) 19 (1.0) 70 (1.3) 23 (1.1) 7 (0.6) 41 (1.4) 42 (1.3) 17 (1.1) 72 Jordan       57 (1.5) 29 (1.2) 14 (1.0) 60 Korea 51 (1.6) 32 (1.2) 17 (1.0) 69 (1.5) 24 (1.0) 7 (0.9) 29 (1.2) 38 (1.1) 33 (1.1) 56 Scotland 84 (1.4) 12 (1.3) 4 (0.7) 92 (1.2) 5 (0.8) 3 (0.6) 75 (1.6) 21 (1.4) 4 (0.6) 90 Slovenia 61 (1.7) 24 (1.4) 16 (1.1) 68 (1.7) 21 (1.2) 11 (1.0) 54 (1.5) 32 (1.4) 15 (0.9) 63 Soviet Union (former) 52 (2.9) 23 (1.4) 25 (2.3) 75 (1.5) 19 (1.3) 6 (0.5) 39 (1.9) 28 (1.0) 33 (1.5) 3 Spain 46 (2.0) 29 (1.5) 25 (1.6) 51 (2.0) 29 (1.5) 20 (1.6) 52 (1.9) 26 (1.4) 22 (1.3) 58 Switzerland       51 (1.7) 34 (1.3) 15 (1.2) 89 Taiwan 50 (1.6) 35 (1.2) 15 (1.3) 58 (1.4) 32 (1.1) 9 (1.0) 47 (1.3) 29 (1.3) 24 (1.2) 64 

Table 25b: Percentage of students reporting number of hours spent weekly on m

and science homework,1 by age and country: 1991

Not available.1All standard errors are in parentheses.2No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 25 for details on indicator calculation for Canada, Israel, Scotland, the former Soviet Unland, and the United States.SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Learning Mathematics, 1992; Learning S
Education Institutions

145

Figure 25a: Percentage of 9- and 13-year-old students who

reported doing 2 or more hours of homework

per day, by selected country:*

 1991

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 13-year-olds who reported doing

2 or more hours of homework per day.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics, 1992.

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

9-year-olds 13-year-olds

France Taiwan Korea United StatesCanada

Data

N/A
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

146

Figure 25b: Percentage of 9- and 13-year-olds who reported doing at

least 4 hours of mathematics or science homework weekly,

by selected country:* 1991

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 9- and 13-year-olds who reported doing at least 4

hours of mathematics homework weekly.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Learning Mathematics, 1992.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Canada

United States

Taiwan

Korea

Hungary

Soviet Union

(former)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10

10

20 30 40 50 60

Science

Mathematics

Hungary

Canada

United States

France

Taiwan

Korea

Soviet Union

(former)

9-year-olds Percen

13-year-olds Percen
Education Institutions

147

Indicator 26: Testing in Mathematics and Science Classes

The use of weekly tests or quizzes by teachers provides an indication of the

extent of regular monitoring of student progress, which research studies have

associated with high student achievement. Weekly tests or quizzes can also

provide students with an understanding of formalized tests and test settings,

thus preparing them to perform well on other examinations such as national

entrance or exit exams. However, as is the case with homework indicators,

statistics concerning weekly mathematics and science examinations do not

include information about the quality and applicability of the examinations

administered or the effort and care students take in completing them.

■ With few exceptions, a greater percentage of 13-year-old students in

the United States were tested in mathematics and in science on a

weekly basis than in other countries for which 1991 data were

available (68 percent of U.S. students were tested weekly in mathematics and 69 percent were tested weekly in science).

■ The variation in the percentage of 13-year-olds tested weekly in

these two subjects was quite wide among the countries surveyed,

ranging from 17 to 87 percent in mathematics (in Hungary and

Taiwan, respectively) and from 18 to 88 percent in science (18

percent in Ireland, Slovenia, and Switzerland, and 88 percent in the

former Soviet Union).

■ In most of the countries surveyed, more 13-year-old students took

weekly mathematics tests than science tests. However, in Hungary,

Jordan, the former Soviet Union, and Spain, more students took

science tests than mathematics tests; and in the United States and

Ireland, the percentages of students taking weekly examinations

were roughly equal for both subjects.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

148

Table 26: Percentage of 13-year-old students who took a

test or quiz at least once a week,1 by subject and

country: 1991

Country Mathematics Science

G72

Canada 53 (0.9) 26 (1.1)

France 64 (1.3) 47 (1.4)

United States 68 (2.1) 69 (2.0)

Other

Hungary 17 (1.3) 27 (1.6)

Ireland 19 (1.5) 18 (1.1)

Israel 36 (2.2) 28 (1.9)

Jordan 68 (1.5) 73 (1.8)

Korea 28 (1.9) 21 (1.6)

Slovenia 28 (1.5) 18 (1.0)

Soviet Union (former) 52 (1.5) 88 (1.2)

Spain 31 (1.7) 42 (2.6)

Switzerland 40 (2.5) 18 (1.2)

Taiwan 87 (1.1) 67 (1.2)

1Jackknifed standard errors are in parentheses.

2No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 26 for details on indicator calculation for Canada,

Israel, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Science, 1992; Learning Mathematics, 1992.
Education Institutions

149

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 13-year-olds who took a

mathematics test or quiz at least once a week.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics, 1992; Learning Science, 1992.

Figure 26: Percentage of 13-year-old students who took a

mathematics or science test or quiz at least once

a week, by selected country:*

 1991

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Science

Mathematics

Korea

Canada

France

United States

Taiwan

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

150

Indicator 27: Scientific Experimentation

The percentage of 9- and 13-year-old students who conduct experiments in

their science classes provides an indication of the application of scientific

knowledge through experimentation. While there is no strong evidence of a

direct link between the frequency with which students conduct experiments

in science and their performance on science achievement tests, scientific

experimentation is still valuable as it helps to develop the skills of methodological inquiry and deductive reasoning that are considered critical to the

discipline. National and local goals are currently being developed in the

United States with a strong emphasis on the importance of hands-on activities. Although this indicator provides information about the percentage of 9-

and 13-year-old students who conduct experiments in their science classes, it

does not tell us about the frequency with which students conduct scientific

experiments or about the kinds of experiments they perform.

■ In 1991, approximately 78 percent of 9-year-olds and 75 percent of

13-year-olds in the United States indicated that they conducted

experiments in science class during the school year. The variation in

the percentage of 9- and 13-year-olds who had never conducted

experiments in science was quite wide among the countries reported, ranging from 10 to 50 percent for 9-year-olds in Taiwan and

Ireland, respectively, and from 13 to 51 percent for 13-year-olds in

the former Soviet Union and Spain, respectively.
Education Institutions

151

Table 27: Percentage of students who never1 conduct

science experiments,2 by age and country: 1991

Country 9-year-olds 13-year-olds

G73

Canada 26.6 (1.0) 13.1 (0.7)

France  20.1 (1.7)

United States 21.7 (1.3) 25.5 (1.9)

Other

Hungary 40.2 (1.3) 30.6 (1.7)

Ireland 50.1 (2.0) 26.8 (2.1)

Israel 14.1 (1.1) 34.5 (1.4)

Jordan  26.3 (1.4)

Korea 18.6 (1.1) 34.9 (1.7)

Slovenia 21.4 (1.1) 22.0 (1.5)

Soviet Union (former) 43.7 (1.2) 12.7 (0.8)

Spain 40.3 (2.2) 51.0 (2.3)

Switzerland  35.8 (1.7)

Taiwan 10.4 (0.8) 25.1 (1.3)

Not available.

1Never means not during the most recent school year.

2Jackknifed standard errors are in parentheses.

3No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 27 on indicator calculation for Canada, Israel, the

former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Report 12, Background Questions and Proficiency Scores for all Populations, 1992; Report 13,

Background Questions and Proficiency Scores for all Populations, 1992.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

152

Figure 27: Percentage of students who never conduct

science experiments, by age and selected

country:* 1992

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 13-year-old students who never

conduct science experiments.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Report

12, Background Questions and Proficiency Scores for all Populations, 1992; Report 13, Background Questions and Proficiency Scores for all Populations, 1992.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

9-year-olds 13-year-olds

Korea United StatesTaiwan France Canada

Percent

Data

N/A
Education Institutions

153

*For information concerning calculator use in U.S. schools, see National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics, Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (Reston, VA:

1989), 84.

Indicator 28: Calculator Use

The use of calculators in schools has received increasing attention over the

past several years.* This indicator, the percentage of 13-year-old students who

have used calculators in school, is influenced by such factors as the availability of calculators in different countries, as well as by policies on calculator use

in schools.

■ In 1991, a relatively large percentage of 13-year-old students in

Canada (75 percent), France (94 percent), and Hungary (71 percent) used calculators in school. In contrast, a relatively small

percentage of 13-year-olds in other countries (e.g., Korea, at 4

percent) used calculators in school. With 54 percent of its 13-yearold students using calculators in school, the United States was in

the middle.

■ The percentage of 13-year-old students who used calculators in

school varied dramatically, from about 4 percent in Korea to 94

percent in France. In some cases, calculator use appeared related to

the percentage of students in each country who had a calculator; for

example, only 20 percent of 13-year-olds in Korea had a calculator,

while 98 percent of 13-year-olds in France did.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

154

Table 28: Percentage of 13-year-old students who have a

calculator and who ever use calculators in

school,1 by country: 1991

Percent of students who:

Have used

Country Have calculators calculators in school

G72

Canada 91.1 (0.5) 74.7 (1.3)

France 97.9 (0.3) 94.2 (0.5)

United States 88.5 (0.9) 53.6 (3.5)

Other

Hungary 86.7 (1.0) 71.0 (1.6)

Ireland 57.5 (1.6) 25.3 (2.2)

Israel 93.6 (0.7) 48.5 (2.3)

Jordan 52.7 (1.9) 5.4 (0.8)

Korea 20.3 (1.1) 3.7 (0.5)

Slovenia 85.6 (1.1) 46.1 (2.5)

Soviet Union (former) 46.6 (5.0) 19.2 (2.1)

Spain 85.9 (1.3) 45.0 (2.8)

Switzerland 84.9 (1.2) 51.3 (3.1)

Taiwan 57.7 (1.3) 62.2 (1.0)

1Standard errors are in parentheses.

2Data not available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 28 on indicator calculation for Canada, Israel, the

former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Report 13, Background Questions and Proficiency Scores for all Populations, 1992.
Education Institutions

155

Figure 28: Percentage of 13-year-old students who reported

ever using calculators in school, by selected

country: 1991

SOURCE: Educational Testing Service, International Assessment of Educational Progress, Report

13, Background Questions and Proficiency Scores for All Populations, 1992.

0

20

40 60 80 100

0

20

40 60 80 100

Korea

United States

Taiwan

Canada

France

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

156

* For further information on school levels, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of education.

Indicator 29: Computer Use

Information about computer use in schools is valuable as countries contemplate the role of computers in education. The percentage of schools using

computers for instructional purposes reflects, in part, national policies on the

introduction of computers into education, whereas the student/computer ratio

provides a measure of student access to computers. These data, however, do

not address the quality of computer hardware and software, the amount of

time students have access to computers, how computers are used in instruction, or the subjects or activities in which students typically use computers.

■ By 1989, all of the U.S. primary, middle or junior high, and high

schools responding to the survey had introduced computers for

instructional purposes. Of the G7 countries for which data were

available, only France had a similarly high percentage of primary

schools that used computers for these purposes. At higher levels of

education, however, the introduction of computers into schools

increased. To illustrate, in all of the G7 countries reported except

Italy, close to 100 percent of upper secondary* schools were using

computers for instructional purposes.

■ Among all of the countries reported, the United States had one of the

lowest ratios of students to computers across all education levels; the

ratios were 23, 18, and 15 for primary, middle or junior high, and

high school, respectively. The only schools with fewer students per

computer than the United States at the same education level were

Japanese primary schools. For those G7 countries for which data

were available, the student/computer ratios ranged from 14 (Japan)

to 116 (Italy) in primary school, 18 (United States) to 143 (Japan) in

lower secondary school, and 15 (United States) to 48 (former West

Germany) in upper secondary school.
Education Institutions

157

Table 29: Percentage of schools using computers for instructional

purposes and median student/computer ratio, by level of

education1 and by country: 1989

Percentage of schools using computers Student/computer ratio2

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Country Primary secondary secondary Primary secondary secondary

G73

France 92 99 99 23 31 26

West Germany (former)  94 100  47 48

Italy 43 58 80 116 90 36

Japan 12 35 94 14 143 32

United States 100 100 100 23 18 15

Other

Austria  50 100  29 46

Belgium (Flemish)  78 98  28 35

Belgium (French) 54 93 93 28 34 38

British Columbia (Canada) 99 100 100   

China   64   43

Greece  5 4  52 44

Hungary   100   27

India   8   95

Israel 62  81 25  29

Luxembourg  100   45 

Netherlands 53 87 68 63 26 34

New Zealand 78 99 100 62 34 38

Poland   75   53

Portugal 29 53 72 301 287 289

Slovenia   94   50

Switzerland  64 98  21 21

Not available.

1 For the purposes of this study, primary refers to grades 4 6, lower secondary refers to grades 79, and upper

secondary refers to the final year of secondary education.

2Median student/computer ratio in computer-using schools. Computer-using schools refers to all schools in which

computers are used for teaching and learning purposes in grades in which the modal age of students is 9, 10, and

11 for primary, and 12, 13, and 14 for lower secondary; and in the final and penultimate secondary grade for upper

secondar y.

3No data available for Canada and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: There is substantial variation across countries in the population of schools and students covered by the

study. See supplemental note to Indicator 29 for sampling information.

SOURCE: W. J. Pelgram and T. Plomp, ed., The IEA Study of Computers in Education: Implementation of an

Innovation in 21 Education Systems, (New York: Pergamon Press, 1993).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

158

Figure 29a: Percentage of schools using computers for

instructional purposes, by education level and

selected G7 country:1,2 1989

1

No data available for Canada and the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of schools using computers for

instructional purposes at the upper secondary level.

SOURCE: W. J. Pelgram and T. Plomp, ed., The IEA Study of Computers in Education: Implementation of an Innovation in 21 Education Systems, (New York: Pergamon Press, 1993).

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Primary Lower secondaryUpper secondary

West Germany France Japan Italy

(former)

United States

Percent

Data

N/A
Education Institutions

159

Figure 29b: Ratio of students to computers, by education

level and selected G7 country:1,2 1989

1No data available for Canada and the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in ascending order by student/computer ratio in upper secondary school.

SOURCE: W. J. Pelgram and T. Plomp, ed., The IEA Study of Computers in Education: Implementation of an Innovation in 21 Education Systems, (New York: Pergamon Press, 1993).

0

30

60

90

120

150

0

30

60

90

120

150

Primary Lower secondaryUpper secondary

West Germany

(former)

United StatesFrance Japan Italy

Students

per computer

Data

N/A

Data

N/A

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Much of what goes on outside of the school forms a context within which the

education system operates. For instance, a countrys education system must

accommodate the specific demographics of its population as well as economic

and other conditions affecting society.

In several ways, the United States stands out starkly from the other countries

reported in this section. With 252 million people, the United States has by far

the largest population of any of the countries to which it is typically compared. Japan, the second most populous country, has half as many people; and

Germany, the third most populous country, has about a third as many residents. In addition, the United States is one of three countries with a larger

land areaby a factor of at least 10than any of the other countries reported.

The other two countries with large land areas are Canada and Australia. The

fourth largest country, Turkey, is a tenth as large as Australia (Indicator 30).

Finally, the percentage of children living in poverty after tax and transfer

(approximately 20 percent) is more than twice as high in the United States as

in any of the other countries for which data were reported (Indicator 35).

These profound differences between the United States and many other industrialized countries have major ramifications for the education system. Governance structures in the United States must be suited to a large population and

land area, and services provided by schools must reflect the fact that a sizable

proportion of students live below the poverty level.

One area in which there was a noticeable difference between the United States

and its economic competitors 30 years ago, but no longer today, is productivitygross domestic product (GDP) per employed person. In 1961, with the

exception of Canada, all of the G7 countries as well as the other countries

for which data were available had productivity levels no greater than half as

large as that of the United States. But in recent years, the gap has narrowed

greatly. Although the United States still has the highest productivity, the index

for all of the G7 countries is 75 percent of the United States or greater (Indicator 34).

While the context within which the U.S. education system operates differs in

some ways from that of other countries, in many other areas its context is

similar to that of other countries. To illustrate, the percentage of the population that is 529 years old is similar in the United States and the other G7

countries (Indicator 31). Additionally, while the United States has the highest

GDP per capita of all the countries reported (approximately $18,000), three

other G7 countries had a GDP per capita that neared that of the United States

(at least $15,000) (Indicator 33).

The United States is also similar to other countries in the percentage of 9- and

14-year-olds who usually speak a different language at home than is spoken at

school (Indicator 32), 13-year-old students reporting having fewer than 25

163
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

164

books in their home (Indicator 36), and 13-year-old students who receive help

at home with homework (Indicator 37). Thus, in many ways, the resources available for education and the home environment of young students

are not very different in the United States than in other countries.
Contextual Factors

165

Indicator 30: Population and Land Area

A countrys population and land area influence both the organizational structure and the infrastructure of its education system. Countries with large

populations have large numbers of school-age children and face a greater

demand for educational services. Countries with large areas face greater

challenges in providing educational services, since the sources must spread

them over a wider geographical domain. High population densities may make

it more efficient to support a wider range of specialized education and training

opportunities. Although these factors influence the degree to which an education system is centralized and its ability to provide a wide range of services,

they only become critical when population, area, or density is either extremely large or extremely small. Otherwise, factors such as culture, history,

and economics have a stronger influence on the structure of an education

system.

■ With a population of over 252 million people in 1991, the United

States was by far the most populous of the countries presented. Its

population was over twice as large as that of Japan, the country with

the next largest population.

■ Canada, Australia, and the United States were by far the largest

countries. With all others smaller than 300,000 square miles, these

three countries were each about 3 million square miles or larger.

■ Related to its large size, the United States also has a relatively low

population density. The other G7 countries, with the exception of

Canada, were between nearly 4 and over 11 times more densely

populated than the United States.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

166

Table 30: Population, area, and population density, by

country: 1991

Population

density

Total population Area (persons per

Country (thousands) (square miles) square mile)

G7

Canada 26,835 3,560,219 8

France 56,596 210,668 269

Germany 79,548 135,236 588

Italy 57,772 113,521 509

Japan 124,017 152,411 814

United Kingdom 57,515 93,278 617

United States 252,502 3,539,227 71

Other

Australia 17,288 2,941,285 6

Austria 7,666 31,942 240

Belgium 9,922 11,672 850

Czechoslovakia 15,725 48,440 325

Denmark 5,133 16,359 314

Finland 4,991 117,942 42

Hungary 10,558 35,653 296

Ireland 3,489 26,598 131

Luxembourg 388 998 389

Netherlands 15,022 13,104 1,146

New Zealand 3,309 103,734 32

Norway 4,273 118,865 36

Portugal 10,388 35,382 294

Spain 39,385 192,819 204

Sweden 8,564 158,927 54

Switzerland 6,784 15,355 442

Turkey 58,581 297,591 197

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of

the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992, table 1359.
Contextual Factors

167

Figure 30a: Land area, by G7 country:1 1991

Figure 30b: Population, by G7 country:2 1991

United Kingdom (93)

Italy (114)

Germany (135)

Japan (152)

France (211)

United States

(3,539)

Canada

(3,560)

Canada (26,835)

France

(56,596)

United

Kingdom

(57,515) Italy

(57,772)

Germany

(79,548)

Japan

(124,017)

United States

(252,502)

1In thousands of square miles.

2In thousands.

SOURCE: Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1992, Table 1359.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

168

Indicator 31: Youth and Population

The percentage of a countrys population who are 529 years old is an indicator of the potential demand for school enrollments in a country. This percentage also indicates the potential demand placed on national budgets for

education funding. Thus, countries with higher proportions of youth tend to

have a greater demand for education funding, and changes in the proportion

of youth in the population over time tend to parallel trends in the demand for

such funding. The percentage is not an exact measure of the proportion of

students in a population, however, since some persons aged 529 will not be

students and some students will be outside this age range. If such variations

are considered, the percentage of persons aged 514 generally indicates current

demand for education services at the primary and middle or junior high level

and future demand for higher education services, whereas the percentage of

persons aged 1524 and 2529 reflects cur rent demand for upper secondary

and higher education resources.

■ In 1992, 5- to 29-year-olds comprised approximately one-third of the

population of all the G7 countries, including the United States. Of

the remaining countries, less than half had a higher proportion of

youth in their population than did the United States.
Contextual Factors

169

Table 31: Percentage of population 529 years of age,

by country: 1992

Age groups in population

Country 529 514 1524 2529

G7

Canada 35 13 13 8

France 36 13 15 8

Germany 32 10 13 9

Italy 35 11 15 8

Japan 35 13 16 6

United Kingdom 35 12 14 8

United States 36 14 14 8

Other

Australia 38 14 16 8

Austria 35 12 15 9

Belgium 33 12 13 8

Czech Republic 37 14 15 7

Denmark 33 11 14 8

Finland 33 13 13 8

Greece 35 13 15 8

Hungary 35 14 15 6

Ireland 43 19 17 7

Netherlands 35 12 15 9

New Zealand 39 15 16 8

Norway 35 12 15 8

Poland 38 17 14 7

Portugal 42 15 18 10

Russia 36 16 13 7

Spain 39 14 17 8

Sweden 32 11 13 7

Switzerland 33 11 13 9

Turkey 50 22 20 8

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

170

Figure 31: Percentage of the population 529 years of age

by G7 country:* 1992

*Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of the population 529 years old.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

25–29 years old

15–24 years old

5–14 years old

United Canada

Kingdom

Germany Italy France United States Japan

Percent
Contextual Factors

171

Indicator 32: Home and School Language

The percentage of 9- and 14-year-old students who report speaking a language

at home other than the one used at their school reflects the availability of

home resources for practicing the official school language. Language diversity

within an education system presents additional challenges to schools if

students who speak a different language at home are just learning the school

language. The data presented here are based on the opinions of students and

on their perception of their linguistic situation. The high percentage of Italian

and Swiss primary and secondary school students who speak a language other

than the official school language at home is likely due to several factors. In

Italy, students who speak a particular dialect at home may perceive it as a

different language than the Italian used at school. As a result of internal

migration, some students in Switzerland attend schools that provide instruction in a language other than the one spoken at home (Switzerland has four

regionally based national languages).

■ Compared with the other G7 countries for which data were available, a relatively small percentage of 9- and 14-year-olds in the

United States spoke a different language at home than at school in

1991, 3 and 4 percent, respectively. Of these countries, Italy had the

highest percentage of both 9-year-olds (27 percent) and 14-year-olds

(26 percent) who spoke a different language at home than at school.

■ The percentage of students who reported they usually speak a

language other than the official school language at home ranged

from less than 5 percent for both age groups (in the United States,

Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, and Portugal) to more than 10

percent for both age groups (in Italy, Spain, and Switzerland).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

172

Table 32: Percentage of all 9- and 14-year-olds who say

that they usually1

 speak a language other than

the official school language at home, by country:

19912

Country 9-year-olds 14-year-olds

G73

France 9 (1.4) 4 (0.5)

West Germany (former) 10 (0.9) 8 (0.9)

Italy 27 (1.5) 26 (1.1)

United States 3 (0.5) 4 (0.8)

Other

Belgium (French community) 11 (1.2) 9 (1.1)

Denmark 5 (0.6) 2 (0.5)

Finland 1 (0.3) 1 (0.2)

Greece 6 (1.0) 3 (0.9)

Iceland 3 (0.2) 0 (0.0)

Ireland 3 (0.7) 1 (0.0)

Netherlands 12 (2.1) 9 (1.3)

New Zealand 8 (1.0) 6 (0.7)

Norway 4 (0.7) 2 (0.4)

Portugal 3 (0.6) 2 (0.3)

Spain 13 (1.4) 11 (1.2)

Sweden 9 (1.2) 5 (0.6)

Switzerland 21 (1.2) 15 (0.9)

1The figures reported here represent the percentage of all 9- and 14-year-olds who sometimes,

hardly ever, or never spoke the school language at home.

2

Standard er rors are in parentheses.

3

No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 32 for information on desired target populations for

the IEA Reading Literacy Study.

SOURCE: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA

Reading Literacy Study, 1992.
Contextual Factors

173

Figure 32: Percentage of 9- and 14-year-olds who say that

they usually speak a language other than the

official school language at home, by G7

country:1,2 1991

1No data available for Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by the percentage of 9-year-olds who say that they

usually speak a language other than the official school language at home.

SOURCE: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA

Reading Literacy Study, 1992.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

9-year-olds 13-year-olds

West Germany France United States

 (former)

Italy

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

174

Home and school language differences

In both the United States and Western Europe, the number of students whose

home language is different from the language spoken at school is rapidly

increasing. The number of children in the United States whose parents are

immigrants is expected to grow from 5.1 million to 7.4 million between 1990

and 2000 and to 9.1 million in 2010.1 In Western Europe, the number of

students who are not citizens of the countrygenerally referred to in Europe

as foreignersincreased 26 percent in Germany, 17 percent in the Netherlands, and 11 percent in Switzerland between the mid-1980s and early 1990s.2

During the same period, the number of students in Norway speaking a language other than Norwegian increased 136 percent and the number in Sweden

speaking a language other than Swedish increased 30 percent.3 These increases are largely the result of increased immigration. Thus, the image of

European countries with relatively homogeneous populations is increasingly

outdated.

In addition to immigrants, there are students both in the United States and in

other countries who belong to groups who either are indigenous to the area

or have lived in the country for several generations and whose home language

is not the school language. Examples in the United States include Native

Americans and some of the Mexican-Americans in the Southwest. Similarly,

most European countries include at least one permanent group speaking a

language different from the majority language. In France, for example, there

are groups who speak Basque, Breton, Catalan, Corsican, Flemish, and a

dialect of German.4

In many Western European countries, as well as in the United States, schools

are under increasing pressure to find strategies to address the special needs of

students whose home language is not the language used in school. These

strategies have been influenced by the national and local sentiment regarding

culture and language, attitudes toward immigration, and the available education resources.

In the United States, existing state and local policies have been shaped by the

Lau vs. Nichols Supreme Court decision of 1974, which required that students

who do not speak and understand English are entitled to education programs

1M. Fix and J. Passel, Immigration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight (Washington,

D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1994).

2OECD, Trends in International Migration, 1993 (Paris: SOPEMI, 1994), 126139.

Base year is school year 199192 for Germany and Norway and 199091 for the Netherlands,

Sweden, and Switzerland.

3OECD, Trends in International Migration, 54.

4

T. Husén, A. Tuijnman, and W.D. Halls, Schooling in Modern European Society (Oxford:

Pergammon Press, 1992).
Contextual Factors

175

that teach them English and allow them to participate in the overall educational program of their schools.5 The National Bilingual Education Act of

1968 first authorized federal funds to support special programs for such

students. English-as-a-second-language is now regarded as a standard part of

the curriculum for students with limited English proficiency. Further, many

bilingual programs provide instruction in regular academic subjects in students home language in order for students to maintain grade-level standards

while developing English proficiency. However, although there are instances

in which bilingual education incorporates maintenance and enhancement of

home language skills, the dominant approach has been for bilingual programs

to be primarily transitional in nature, intended to serve students only until

they acquire English proficiency.

The approach has been quite different in Europe, where preserving the

cultural identity of the students who belong to groups speaking a language

at home different from the language of the school has been a longstanding

educational goal. Twenty years ago, immigration was generally viewed as a

temporary phenomenon and education of immigrants children was largely

organized by their country of origin and financed privately. When it became

clear that large numbers of immigrants would remain in the host country, the

responsibility for providing education shifted to the public domain. In 1977,

a European Community directive called on host countries to take specific

measures for immigrants children and, in cooperation with the countries of

origin, to promote the teaching of the mother tongue and the culture of the

country of origin.6

For example, municipal authorities in Sweden are required to organize

home-language instruction for all pupils using a language other than Swedish for everyday communication with at least one parent. In addition to

developing their home language, this instruction aims to help students

preserve links with their families and their own language group. Depending

on the situation, the home language may also be used for instruction in

other subjects. Swedish as a second language is compulsory for all pupils

who need it.7

More recently, a viewpoint has arisen in Europepartly in response to low

achievement of foreignersthat for students whose home language is different from the school, greater emphasis should be placed on promoting a

5Up until the late 1800s, it was not unusual for schools in the United States to provide instruction in English and a second language. By the mid-1800s, public and parochial schools providing instruction in German and English operated in such cities as Baltimore, Cincinnati,

Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and St. Louis. In some cases, laws stipulated that at the request of

parents, instruction should be provided in languages other than English. (J. Crawford, Bilingual

Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice [NJ: Crane Publishing Company, 1989].)

6D. Blot, Issues Concerning the Education of Immigrants Children (Paris: OECD, 1994).

7In 1990/91, 12 percent of the students in compulsory education in Sweden had a mother

tongue other than Swedish. (Swedish Ministry of Education and Science, The Swedish Way

Towards a Learning Society [Stockholm: 1992].)
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

176

uniform scientific and technical education, presented as being culturally

neutral.8 According to this reasoning, schools should focus on giving

students the skills they will need in the workplace, rather than on preserving the culture and language of their country of origin. Furthermore,

questions have been raised in the United States and other countries about

whether public education systems are the best institutions for maintaining

these cultural links. However, in contrast to the United States in the 20th

century, the prevailing assumption in Europe is that it is not inappropriate

for public schools to contribute to the maintenance of the students home

language and culture.

8D. Blot, Issues Concerning the Education of Immigrants Children.
Contextual Factors

177

Indicator 33: GDP Per Capita

Gross domestic product (GDP) is an aggregate measure of the value of goods

and services produced in a country within a year. It is an indicator of a

countrys productive capacity or economic power. GDP per capita provides a

measure of a countrys economic power adjusted by the size of its population.

Countries with larger per capita GDPs are generally better able to provide

educational services for their residents.

■ The United States had the highest GDP per capita ($18,360) of the

G7 countries in 1992. In the remaining G7 countries, GDP per

capita ranged from $12,820 (in the United Kingdom) to $15,940 (in

Germany). The United States also had the highest GDP per capita of

the other countries reported, followed by Switzerland and Luxembourg ($17,400 and $17,080, respectively).

■ Portugal and Turkey had by far the lowest GDP per capita of the

countries reported ($7,210 and $3,960, respectively).

Figure 33: GDP per capita (in 1990 U.S. dollars), by G7 country:

1992

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

$20,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

$20,00

United

Kingdom

United Germany Japan Canada France Italy

States

GDP

per capita
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

178

Table 33: GDP per capita, by country: 1992

Country GDP per capita

G7

Canada $15,440

France 14,670

Germany 15,940

Italy 13,620

Japan 15,450

United Kingdom 12,820

United States 18,360

Other

Australia 13,900

Austria 14,240

Belgium 14,000

Denmark 14,100

Finland 12,000

Ireland 9,940

Luxembourg 17,080

Netherlands 13,630

New Zealand 11,270

Norway 13,920

Portugal 7,210

Spain 10,110

Sweden 13,650

Switzerland 17,400

Turkey 3,960

NOTE: All currencies first were converted to U.S. dollars at 1985 price levels using the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) index. The results were then converted to U.S. dollars at 1992 price

levels using implicit price deflators for gross domestic product in 1985 and 1992 listed in

Economic Report of the President, Januar y 1993. Consult the glossar y for an explanation of the

PPP index. See supplemental note to Indicator 33 for details on indicator calculations for

Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United

States.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Contextual Factors

179

Indicator 34: Productivity

Productivity, defined as the gross domestic product per employed person, is a

measure of the average productive capacity of a countrys employees. Countries with higher levels of productivity have a larger economic capacity from

which to invest in socioeconomic infrastructure, improve education, and raise

their citizens standard of living.

■ In 1961, the United States had the highest productivity level of all

countries presented (including the G7 countries), in large part due

to the impact of World War II. Productivity levels of the G7 countries ranged from 26 percent (Japan) to just under 75 percent

(Canada) of that of the United States.

■ In 1991, U.S. productivity was still above that of the other countries

reported, but productivity levels had converged considerably. For

instance, the productivity levels of the G7 countries ranged from 75

percent (United Kingdom) to 98 percent (France) of that of the

United States.

■ Between 1961 and 1991, the United States experienced the lowest

average annual increase in productivity of all the countries presented (1.05 percent). Japan achieved the highest productivity gains

of the remaining countries, with an average annual increase of 4.8

percent.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

180

Average

annual percent

increase in

productivity4

Table 34: Productivity1 as a percentage of U.S. productivity

(based on 1990 purchasing power parities,2

U.S.=100) and average annual percentage

increase in productivity, by country: 196191

Productivity as a percentage of U.S. productivity

Year

Country 1961 1971 1981 19913 196191

G7

Canada 72.4 77.1 84.2 87.3 1.68

France 52.6 69.3 86.2 98.0 3.17

West Germany (former) 55.2 68.3 82.7 90.1 2.71

Italy 46.3 65.9 85.5 94.2 3.47

Japan 26.4 47.3 64.4 79.0 4.80

United Kingdom 55.8 60.6 69.0 74.8 2.04

United States 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1.05

Other

Austria 44.6 60.9 75.3 85.6 3.27

Belgium 55.3 68.2 87.4 98.0 2.99

Denmark 56.1 61.3 67.8 74.3 2.00

Korea  17.3 25.4 43.9 

Netherlands 59.2 73.2 82.2 82.5 2.17

Norway 45.9 52.2 64.8 74.7 2.70

Sweden 54.2 62.4 66.6 69.6 1.89

Not available.

1

Productivity is defined as the gross domestic product per employed person.

2

All currencies converted to U.S. dollars at 1990 price levels using the Purchasing Power Parity

(PPP) index. Consult the glossary for an explanation of the PPP index.

3Preliminar y estimates.

4

See supplemental note to Indicator 34 for the formula used to derive the average annual

percentage increase in productivity between 1961 and 1991.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and

Technology, Comparative Real Gross Domestic Product Per Capita and Per Employed Person:

Fourteen Countries 1960 91, unpublished tables, February 1993, pp. 3132, 3738.
Contextual Factors

181

Figure 34: Productivity as a percentage of U.S. productivity,* by

country: 196191

*

Based on 1990 purchasing power parities (U.S. = 100).

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Productivity and Technology, Comparative Real Gross Domestic

Product Per Capita and Per Employed Person, Fourteen Countries, Februar y 1993, p. 31.

20

40

60

80

100

20

40

60

80

100

United States

United Kingdom

Japan

Italy

West Germany (former)

France

Canada

1961 1971 1981 1991

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

182

Indicator 35: Children in Poverty

Poverty tends to limit childrens developmental and educational opportunities;

the higher the poverty rate, the greater the number of children who are

damaged by povertys insidious effects. This indicator provides a measure of

the percentage of children living below the poverty line in industrialized

countries most similar to the United States. For this indicator, the poverty line

is set at 40 percent of adjusted median family income. The measure of children living below the poverty line, when combined with data about the

impact of taxes and government transfers on income, suggests how effective

government fiscal policies are at reducing income inequalities and poverty in a

society.

■ Before adjusting for taxes and transfers, the child poverty rate of

both France and the United Kingdom approached or exceeded that

of the United States (in various years between 1984 and 1986).

■ The United States was the only country reported with double-digit

child poverty rates (20.4 percent) after adjustment for taxes and

transfers. The posttransfer poverty rates for children in the United

States were between 2 and 10 times higher than those in the other

countries with available data.

■ Compared with children from all family backgrounds, a substantially larger percentage of those in single parent families lived in

poverty, both pretransfer and posttransfer. Even after adjusting for

taxes and transfers, one-half of U.S. children from single parent

families and approximately one-third of those in Canada and Australia lived in poverty.
Contextual Factors

183

Table 35: Percentage of children (ages 17 or younger)

whose family income is below 40 percent of

adjusted median family income, by family status,

tax and transfer status, and country: various

years

Children in single

All children parent families

Before After Before After

Country Year transfer transfer transfer transfer

G7*

Canada 1987 15.7 9.3 56.6 37.1

France 1984 21.1 4.6 43.1 13.1

West Germany (former) 1984 8.4 2.8 46.0 15.9

United Kingdom 1986 27.9 7.4 71.2 8.5

United States 1986 22.3 20.4 58.1 54.2

Other

Australia 1985 16.4 9.0 70.2 34.6

Netherlands 1987 14.1 3.8 70.3 3.8

Sweden 1987 7.9 1.6 23.2 2.0

*No data available for Italy and Japan.

NOTE: Income includes all forms of income plus food stamps and similar benefits in other

nations, minus federal income and payroll taxes. The resulting poverty rate differs slightly from

the official U.S. poverty rate produced by the Bureau of the Census because it takes into account

food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit. Income is adjusted using the U.S. Poverty Line

Equivalence scale.

SOURCE: Luxembourg Income Study, published in Timothy Smeeding, Why the U.S. antipoverty system doesnt work very well, Challenge (JanuaryFebruar y, 1992): p. 33, table 3.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

184

Figure 35: Percentage of children in poverty, before and after tax and

transfers, by country:*

 various years

*Countries are sorted in descending order by percentage of children in poverty, after tax and transfers.

SOURCE: Luxembourg Income Study, published in Timothy Smeeding, Why the U.S. antipoverty system doesnt

work very well, Challenge (JanuaryFebruary, 1992): p. 33, Table 3.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

After Before

West Sweden

Germany

(former)

United FranceNetherlands

Kingdom

United Canada Australia

States

Percent All children (17 and under)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Before transferAfter transfer

UnitedNetherlands Sweden

Kingdom

West France

Germany

(former)

United Canada Australia

States

Percent Children in single-parent homes
Contextual Factors

185

Indicator 36: Books at Home

The number of books in the home is often an indicator of social and economic

status. In addition, books provide children with opportunities for learning and

intellectual growth. In a recent study of student achievement, the number of

books in the home was positively associated with the geography, mathematics,

and science achievement of 9- and 13-year-old students within a given country. However, this characteristic did not differentiate between high- and lowperforming countries.

■ Seventeen percent of 13-year-old students in the United States

reported having fewer than 25 books in their home in 1991. In only

two other countries (Israel and Hungary) did a smaller percentage of

students report having fewer than 25 books at home, while a higher

percentage of students reported having fewer than 25 books at home

in six other countries (France, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Scotland, and

Taiwan). The remaining countries reported percentages similar to

that of the United States.

■ The percentage of students reporting fewer than 25 books at home

varied greatly across the countries reported, ranging from 10 percent

in Hungary and Israel to 51 percent in Jordan.

Figure 36: Percentage of students with fewer than 25

books in their home, by selected country: 1991

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics, 1992.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Taiwan Korea France Spain United States Canada

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

186

Table 36: Percentage of 13-year-old students who

reported having fewer than 25 books in their

home, by country: 1991

Country Total1

G72

Canada 13 (0.8)

France 24 (1.3)

United States 17 (1.3)

Other

Hungary 10 (1.0)

Ireland 24 (1.6)

Israel 10 (0.8)

Jordan 51 (1.7)

Korea 24 (1.2)

Scotland 26 (1.7)

Slovenia 19 (1.0)

Soviet Union (former) 12 (1.8)

Spain 19 (1.2)

Switzerland 16 (1.1)

Taiwan 35 (1.2)

1Jackknifed standard errors are in parentheses.

2No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Only countries in which comprehensive student populations were represented by the

survey samples are included. Questionnaire administrations in Brazil, China, England, and

Portugal either excluded groups or had participation rates below 70 percent. See supplemental

note to Indicator 36 for details on indicator calculation for Canada, Israel, Scotland, the former

Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics, 1992.
Contextual Factors

187

*The differences between mathematics and science for Jordan and Slovenia are not statistically

significant.

Indicator 37: Homework Assistance

The percentage of 13-year-old students who receive assistance at home with

their mathematics and science homework reflects assumptions held by parents

concerning their role in their childrens academic work. However, researchers

have not conclusively demonstrated the relationship between assistance at

home and student achievement. Home assistance may serve a remedial function, since children who are doing less well in school tend to receive greater

amounts of help. This indicator is also influenced by the amount of time

parents can devote to homework assistance and by parental attitudes in each

country about the contribution they can make to their childrens education.

■ In 1991, more 13-year-olds in the United States received help at

home with both their mathematics (74 percent) and science (53

percent) homework than did their counterparts in almost all of the

other countries reported. Exceptions included Hungary, where more

students received help at home in both subject areas; Spain, where

more students received help at home with science homework; and

Canada, where similar percentages received help at home with both

their mathematics (59 percent) and science (47 percent) homework.

■ The percentage of 13-year-old students who received help with

homework at home varied considerably from country to countr y,

ranging from 26 percent who received help with science homework

(in the former Soviet Union and Switzerland) to 80 percent who

received help with mathematics homework (in Hungary).

■ More 13-year-old students received help with mathematics than

with science homework in the United States and in every other

country reported with the exception of Spain, Jordan, and Slovenia.*
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

188

Table 37: Percentage of 13-year-old students who receive

help at home with homework, by subject area

and country: 19911

Country Mathematics Science

G72

Canada 69 (1.1) 47 (1.0)

France 53 (1.0) 44 (1.5)

United States 74 (1.4) 53 (1.8)

Other

Hungary 80 (1.0) 61 (1.5)

Ireland 61 (1.4) 44 (1.9)

Israel 53 (1.4) 31 (1.3)

Jordan 43 (1.3) 40 (1.7)

Korea 53 (1.4) 44 (1.1)

Scotland 65 (1.7) 47 (1.6)

Slovenia 62 (1.5) 59 (1.7)

Soviet Union (former) 32 (1.3) 26 (1.0)

Spain 58 (1.5) 61 (1.5)

Switzerland 42 (1.3) 26 (1.4)

Taiwan 51 (1.1) 45 (1.1)

1

Jackknifed standard errors are presented in parentheses.

2No data available for Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom.

NOTE: Only countries in which comprehensive student populations were represented by the

survey samples are included. Questionnaire administrations in Brazil, China, England, and

Portugal either excluded groups or had participation rates below 70 percent. See supplemental

note to Indicator 37 for details on indicator calculation for Canada, Israel, Scotland, the former

Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics, 1992; Learning Science, 1992.
Contextual Factors

189

Figure 37: Percentage of 13-year-old students who receive

help at home with mathematics or science

homework, by selected country:*

 1991

*

Countries are sorted in descending order by percentage of students receiving home assistance

with mathematics homework.

SOURCE: Educational Testing Ser vice, International Assessment of Educational Progress,

Learning Mathematics, 1992; Learning Science, 1992.

0

10

20 30 40 50

60

70 80 90 100

0

10

20 30 40 50

60

70 80 90 100

Science

Mathematics

Taiwan

Korea

France

Spain

Canada

United States

Percent

SOCIETAL SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION

SOCIETAL SUPPORT FOR EDUCATION

The indicators in this section explore U.S. investment in the human and

financial resources of education and compare this investment with that of

other industrialized countries. Overall, the United States appears supportive

of education. To illustrate, in public and private education, the United States

has a student/teacher ratio similar to the ratios of all the countries reported

(Indicator 39). Additionally, the public financial investment in education in

the United States is among the highest of the G7 countries, and of many of

the other countries reported as well (Indicators 41 and 42).

When considering spending on education, it is important to note that not all

countries education systems provide the same ser vices. Countries have

different priorities for education spending and may allocate more or less

money to such educational services as special education, in-school libraries,

and psychological counseling, among others.

Public financial investment in education

To illustrate, the U.S. devoted a greater share of public expenditure to education than all of the G7 countries except Canada (Indicator 41). Further,

relative to GDP per capita, the United States is among the highest spenders of

the G7 countries (Indicator 42). Finally, the United States outspent all of the

G7 countries except Canada on a measure of per student expenditure on

primary and secondary education in constant U.S. dollars. However, relative

to GDP per capita, U.S. per student expenditures are in the middle range for

G7 countries (Indicator 43). As with most G7 countries, in 1992 the United

States devoted approximately three-fourths of its cur rent public expenditure

to preprimary through high school education and the remaining share to

higher education (Indicator 44).

In the United States, most public funding for primary through secondary

education originated at the regional (state) or local levels in 1992, while in

France and Italy, most originated at the central level (Indicator 45). Public

expenditure does not provide the entire picture of educational spending.

Private expenditure is an important component of education financing in

some countries, including the United States, that is not considered in indicators of public investment. Private expenditure can make up 20 percent or

more of total educational spending in such countries as Germany, Japan,

Spain, and the United States. It becomes even more important at the higher

education level, where it makes up more than 40 percent of the total educational expenditure in the United States and over 55 percent in Japan. (See the

sidebar entitled Private spending plays a role in education financing.)

Cross-country comparisons of financial statistics have often been criticized for

the comparability problems in the data. However, the indicators in this section

benefit from recent improvements in comparability, particularly in the public

sector.

193
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

194

Teacher salaries

Teacher salaries are the largest component of educational cost in any country.

While the indicators described previously highlight the extent of U.S. investment in education, its spending on teachers lags behind many industrialized

nations. To illustrate, high school teachers in the United States have lower

salaries relative to GDP per capita than their counterparts in all the G7

countries except Japan (Indicator 40). The comparatively low pay of U.S.

teachers is not consistent with the high K12 spending in the United States.

One reason for the lower teacher salaries in the United States compared with

the other countries reported may be that U.S. teachers (especially high school

teachers) are required to obtain less training than their counterparts in the

other G7 countries. Whereas the United States offers a year to year teacher

training program, the other G7 countries often require 5 or more years of

training. (See the matrix entitled Elementary and secondary school teacher

training and certification requirements.)

Staff employed in education

The United States also differs in the composition of its staff employed in

education (Indicator 38). While the United States has a similar amount of

teaching staff as a percentage of the total labor force as do all of the G7

countries for which data are available except Italy, this percentage was lower in

the former West Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States

than in all of the remaining countries, except for the Netherlands and Turkey.

Additionally, the United States was the only country where nonteaching staff

made up a greater percentage of the labor force than teaching staff.

However, in the United States, support for education goes beyond providing

for instruction. The education system in the United States offers services (e.g.,

meals, transportation) that are not necessarily provided by schools in other

countries. In Australia, for instance, the education system does not employ

nurses or doctors for most of its elementary and secondar y schools. Instead,

students rely on other sources for health care. (See the sidebar entitled Staffing a countrys education system.)
Societal Support for Education

195

Indicator 38: Staff Employed in Education

The percentage of the labor force employed in a countrys education system

provides a measure of the size of the education system as an employer in

relation to other sectors of the economy. A high percentage of the labor force

employed in education reflects an extensive education system with a wide

range of personnel to support it. However, the indicator is also highly dependent on the number of employees in other sectors of the economy, which may

fluctuate with trends in the labor market. Comparing the relative sizes of the

teaching and nonteaching staff employed in education is also useful as an

indicator of the level of administrative, social service, maintenance, and

nonteaching instructional support provided by the education system. For

a more detailed discussion of the issues associated with the composition of

staff employed in education, see the sidebar entitled Staffing a countrys

education system.

■ In the United States, teaching staff comprised 2.7 percent of the total

labor force in 1992. Of the G7 countries, the former West Germany,

Japan, and the United Kingdom had similar shares of teaching staff

as a percentage of the total labor force (more than 2 percent). The

teaching staff in Italy comprised a greater proportion of the labor

force (4.2 percent).

■ The percentage of teaching staff in the labor force was lower in the

former West Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United

States than in all of the remaining countries, except for the Netherlands and Turkey.

■ In all of the countries reported, the percentage of the labor force

employed as teaching staff in primary and secondary schools was

larger than the percentage of the labor force employed as teaching

staff in higher education. To illustrate, the percentage for primary

and secondary education was four times the percentage for higher

education in the United States. In the former West Germany, the

primary and secondary teaching staff was almost three times as large

as the teaching staff in higher education, while in the United Kingdom it was seven times as large.

■ Of the eight countries for which data were available, the United

States had the largest nonteaching staff in education as a percentage

of the total labor force (3.1 percent) and also was the only country in

which nonteaching staff made up a greater percentage of the labor

force than teaching staff.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

196

Table 38: Teaching staff and nonteaching staff employed in the

education system as percentages of the total labor force,1

by level of education and country: 1992

Teaching staff Nonteaching staff All

Primary and Higher Pedagogical Support education

Country secondary education All levels2 staff3 staff4 staff

G75

France 2.4 0.4 3.3   5.5

West Germany (former) 1.6 0.6 2.4   

Italy 3.5 0.1 4.2 0.4 0.8 5.5

Japan 1.7 0.4 2.4 (6) 0.7 3.1

United Kingdom 2.2 0.3 2.5   

United States7 2.2 0.5 2.7 0.8 2.3 5.8

Other

Australia 2.3 0.6 2.9 0.3 1.2 4.2

Austria 3.0 0.5 3.8   

Belgium 3.8 0.3 4.8 0.6 0.6 6.0

Czech Republic 2.4 0.3 3.5 0.7 0.0 4.2

Denmark 2.7 0.2 3.3 1.6 0.9 5.7

Finland   3.1   5.1

Hungary 3.0 0.4 4.2 (6) 2.2 6.4

Ireland 2.8 0.4 3.6   

Netherlands 1.8 0.4 2.4   

New Zealand 2.3 0.5 3.3   

Spain 2.6 0.4 3.3   

Sweden 2.3     

Turkey 2.0 0.2 2.2   

Not available.

1Full-time equivalents.

2Includes preprimary education.

3Pedagogical staff include principals, headmasters, super visors, counselors, psychologists, librarians, etc.

4Support staff include clerical personnel, building operations and maintenance personnel, food service workers, etc.

5No data available for Canada.

6Data included in another category.

7U.S. submissions to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, March, 1996.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 38 for details on indicator calculation for Australia, Denmark, Japan,

the United Kingdom, the United States, and the former West Germany and for an explanation of the calculation of

full-time equivalents.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Societal Support for Education

197

Figure 38: Teaching and nonteaching staff employed in

education as a percentage of the labor force,

by selected country:* 1992

*Countries are sorted in descending order by teaching staff as a percentage of the total labor

force.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

012 3 4 56

012 3 4 56

Nonteaching staff employed in education

as a percentage of total labor force

Teaching staff employed in education

as a percentage of total labor force

Japan

United States

Australia

Denmark

Czech Republic

Italy

Hungary

Belgium

Percentage of total labor force
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

198

Staffing a countrys education system1

Staff are a crucial component of a countrys education system, and staff employed in education as a percentage of the total labor force is one measure of a

countrys commitment to educating its populace. Indicator 38 explores this

issue and focuses on the composition of education system staff, specifically,

the share of teaching and nonteaching staff. The relative shares of both vary

widely across countries. This variation arises both from fundamental differences in the nature of schools, particularly the services provided to students,

and from differences in who are counted as teachers.

The composition of staff employed in education will vary widely across

countries because not all countries provide the same types of services to their

students through the education system. At the elementary and secondary

levels, schools and school districts in the United States typically provide

transportation to and from schools for at least some students, maintain a

school cafeteria and offer subsidized meals, have a variety of school-based

noneducation services such as health care and counseling, and offer a wide

range of extracurricular activities. In other countries, although these services

and activities may be available to students, they are not necessarily provided

by the education system. For example, in many OECD countries,2 schools do

not have cafeterias or other types of meal services. Subsidized transportation

may be available to students, but through public transportation authorities.

Similarly, in many countries, such as Australia, most elementary and secondary schools do not employ health professionals. Although they have a close

working relationship with the schools, employers of health professionals may

be either private- or public-sector organizations or agencies. In Germany,

students receive vocational counseling, but it is provided by the Federal Labor

Ministry. In addition, elementary schools in other OECD countries are less

likely to employ specialized personnel such as librarians and media specialists

than U.S. elementary schools. Thus, the type and extent of such services

offered by the education system have a major influence on differences in the

composition of primary and secondary education staff between countries.

Similar differences in the range of services available to students exist at the

postsecondary level as well. Many colleges and universities in the United

States operate as centralized campuses and exist as communities in and of

themselves. They offer housing, meals, and comprehensive counseling and

health services and maintain extensive physical facilities. In 1989, instruction

and research faculty and assistants comprised approximately 40 percent of all

employees of U.S. institutions of higher education.3

1Except where noted, this sidebar is based on S.M. Barro, Preliminary findings from the

Expenditures Comparability Study (Washington, D.C.: SMB Economic Research, Inc., 1993).

2See the Glossary for a list of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

3U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education

Statistics, 1993 (Washington, D.C.: 1993), 224.
Societal Support for Education

199

Because universities and colleges in other countries may be less likely to offer

the wide range of services provided by many U.S. colleges and universities,

the ratio of teaching to nonteaching staff will often be larger in other countries than in the United States. In Spain, for instance, because most students

live at home while attending university, student dormitories are nowhere near

as common as they are in the United States. In Germany as well, students tend

to live off campus. A federally funded organization, the Studentenwerk,

oversees student housing, meal services, and financial aid.4 However, none of

these services are as extensive as in the United States. The Studentenwerk has

established subsidized housing for approximately 10 percent of the university

population; and, since coursework is free at German universities, student

financial aidprovided through the Studentenwerk in the form of interestfree loansis needed only to assist with living expenses. Differences in staff

composition reflect differences in the degree of noneducational ser vices

provided by universities.

Much of the variation in the composition of education system staff also

reflects differences in how personnel are classified across countries. What

factors underlie these differences in classification? One major difference

across countries is in the definition of teaching personnel. The United States

includes only classroom teachers in this category. In contrast, many other

countries, including Australia, Austria, Germany, France, and the United

Kingdom, also include personnel involved in the administration of schools. In

the case of assistant principals or other administrative personnel who have

some teaching responsibilities, this practice yields results somewhat comparable to the U.S. data. The accuracy of comparisons with the United States is

compromised when these countries include administrative staff with no

teaching responsibilities. It is unclear exactly which nonteaching administrative personnel are classified as teaching staff in those countries that have

adopted this approach; but many countries include principals and headmasters, and some may even include counselors, psychologists, and persons who

are certified as teachers but work in central offices.

In comparing the relative sizes of teaching and nonteaching staff, there is a

natural tendency to draw conclusions about the priority or emphasis of

education systems. However, these conclusions must be tempered with the

consideration that: (1) services provided by education systems in some

countries may be provided by other agencies or authorities in other countries;

and (2) education systems classify their personnel differently.

4G. Porter, World Education Series: Federal Republic of Germany, American Association of

Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, Federal Republic of Germany, World Education

Series (Washington, D.C.: 1986), 60 61.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

200

Indicator 39: Student/Teacher Ratio

The student/teacher ratio measures the number of students per teacher. It

reflects teacher workload and the availability of teachers services to their

students. The lower the student/teacher ratio, the higher the availability of

teacher services to students. The student/teacher ratio has implications not

only for the cost of education, but also for the quality. The student/teacher

ratio is not the same as class size, however. (See Indicator 21 for a discussion

of class size.) The relationship between these two measures of teacher

workload is affected by a variety of factors, including the number of classes

for which a teacher is responsible and the number of classes taken by students.

Although Indicator 39 provides student/teacher ratios both for public education and for public and private education combined, the general pattern of

cross-country variation and cross-education-level variation in student/teacher

ratios for these two sectors is similar. Discussions, therefore, focus on public

education.

■ Of the G7 countries for which 1992 data were available, Italy had

the lowest student/teacher ratio at all levels of education while the

United States had among the highest in all but primary education.*

■ Except in Hungary, Sweden, and the United States, student/teacher

ratios for public secondary education (lower and upper combined)

were lower (at least slightly) than the ratios for public primary

education.

■ Student/teacher ratios varied greatly among the countries reported.

For public schools at the primary level, they ranged from 10.5 in

Italy to 29.4 in Turkey (in 1991, the ratio for the United States was

15.5); and at the upper secondary level, they varied from 8.2 in

Norway to 19.8 in the former West Germany (the ratio for the

United States was 15.6).

■ Including the data for public and private sectors of education in the

same indicator had no appreciable effect on student/teacher ratios in

most countries, including the United States. However, in some

countries student/teacher ratios increased, while in other countries

they decreased, when public and private education were combined.

For example, at the primary level in Spain, the student/teacher ratio

increased from 18.8 for public education to 21.2 for public and

private education combined.

*For further information on the levels of education, see the sidebar entitled ISCED levels of

education.
Societal Support for Education

201

Table 39: Ratio of students to teaching staff,1 by level of education and

country: 1992

Public education Public and private education

Lower Upper All Lower Upper All

Pre- secon- secon- secon- Pre- secon- secon- seconCountry primary Primary dary dary dary primary Primary dary dary dary

G72

France 25.8 20.2   14.0 26.0 20.4   14.3

West Germany (former) 24.4 19.6 14.6 19.8 16.4 23.9 19.6 14.6 19.0 16.2

Japan 14.5 19.8 17.0 15.5 16.3 18.5 19.8 16.8 16.4 16.6

Italy 11.8 10.5 8.9 9.1 9.0 13.3 10.9 9.0 8.8 8.9

United Kingdom 38.1 21.2 16.5 14.9 15.5 38.1 20.8 15.9 14.8 15.2

United States  15.53 17.7 15.6 16.7  15.23 16.8 15.0 15.9

Other

Australia  18.0   12.8  18.4   12.9

Austria 17.3 12.2 7.9 11.4 9.4 18.3 12.2 7.7 11.6 9.4

Belgium 17.5 13.0   6.7 18.4 13.7   7.8

Czech Republic 10.9 22.9 17.0 10.6 13.3 10.9 22.9 17.0 10.5 13.2

Denmark 10.8 11.1 9.0 10.4 9.6 10.7 10.9 9.1 10.4 9.7

Finland      12.5 19.0   

Hungary 11.3 12.6 11.5 14.1 12.7 11.5 12.7 11.6 14.1 12.7

Ireland 27.5 25.8   17.1 27.2 25.6   17.1

Netherlands      25.9 23.6   18.8

New Zealand 17.0 18.5   18.0 8.8 18.5   17.7

Norway  10.6 8.5 8.2 8.3 

Spain 21.5 18.8 16.6 14.5 15.3 23.4 21.2 17.6 15.9 16.6

Sweden  11.9 10.4 16.0 12.8  11.9 10.6 16.0 13.0

Turkey 16.7 29.4 46.3 13.6 23.7 16.6 29.3 47.5 13.2 23.4

Not available.

1Students and teaching staff are full-time equivalents.

2No data available for Canada.

31991 data.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 39 for an explanation of the calculation of full-time equivalents.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

202

Figure 39: Ratio of students to teaching staff, by level of

education and G7 country:1,2,3 1992

1No data available for Canada.

2Public and private education combined.

3Countries are sorted in descending order by the ratio of students to teaching staff in primary

education.

4Primary level, 1991 data.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

Primary Secondary

United Italy

States

West Germany

(former)

United France Japan

Kingdom

Students per

teaching staff

4
Societal Support for Education

203

Indicator 40: Teacher Salaries

Teacher salaries are a measure of teachers standard of living and reflect what

society is willing to pay for the direct work of education. Expressed in units of

a common currency, they reflect the cost of teachers in an absolute sense,

irrespective of a nations wealth and the resources it can devote to teaching.*

Teacher salaries relative to GDP per capita allow for comparisons among

countries with wide income disparities. A simple index is created by dividing

a teacher salary figure by a countrys GDP per capita and multiplying by 100.

If the index equals 100, a teacher is paid the same as the per capita GDP.

Expressed in this manner, the indicator examines what each countr y spends

on its teachers relative to its ability to pay for their services. For example, a

poor country with lower teacher salaries than those of other nations may

actually be devoting a larger share of its available resources to teachers than

wealthier countries.

■ At both starting and maximum salary levels, primary and lower

secondary school teachers in the United States had among the

highest average salaries of all countries for which data were available when salaries were viewed in absolute terms (in constant U.S.

dollars). To illustrate, the 1992 average salary of the primary school

teachers at the maximum salary level was higher in the United

States than it was in all of the countries reported except Japan,

Austria, and Portugal. At the lower secondary level, the starting

salaries of U.S. teachers were among the highest in absolute terms,

at $21,787, along with those of teachers from Spain ($22,964) and

Germany ($27,444).

■ However, U.S. primary and lower secondary school teachers did not

fare as well when the salary was viewed relative to GDP per capita.

All of the G7 countries with available data equaled or exceeded the

United States on this measure (at both starting and maximum salary

levels), as did most of the remaining countries.

■ The ratio of teacher salary to per capita GDP varied considerably

across the countries presented. To illustrate, the ratio of starting

salary for primary school teachers to per capita GDP ranged from 84

in Sweden to 188 in Turkey.

*The statement is accurate as long as currencies are converted using purchasing power parity

(PPP) rates rather than market exchange rates. PPP rates isolate the current, relative domestic

purchasing powers of different currencies and are the rates used to convert the figures presented

here.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

204

Table 40a: Teacher salaries in U.S. dollars,1 by education

level, career point, and country: 1992

Primary Lower secondary

Country Starting Maximum Starting Maximum

G72

Germany $23,627 $32,464 $27,444 $36,119

Italy 18,161 27,852 19,708 30,927

Japan3 17,700 43,300 17,700 43,300

United Kingdom 16,551 34,081 16,551 39,259

 (England & Wales)

United States 21,240 35,394 21,787 37,146

Other

Austria 17,309 38,962 18,415 42,448

Belgium 17,531 28,582 17,955 31,308

Finland 17,481 22,046 20,033 25,677

Ireland 17,748 32,624 17,748 32,624

Netherlands 16,819 30,969 16,855 33,454

New Zealand 14,289 20,882 15,108 21,950

Norway 17,436 21,336 17,436 21,336

Portugal 13,784 36,078 13,784 36,078

Spain 22,964 30,632 22,964 30,632

Sweden 13,999 18,099 15,699 19,698

Turkey 6,994 12,409 7,053 12,409

1Teacher salaries were converted to U.S. dollars using purchasing power parities (PPPs).

2No data available for Canada and France.

31991 data.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Societal Support for Education

205

Table 40b: Ratio of teacher salary to per capita GDP,1 by

education level, career point, and country: 1992

 Primary Lower secondary

Country Starting Maximum Starting Maximum

G72

Germany 116 159 134 177

Italy 104 159 113 177

Japan3 93 228 93 228

United Kingdom 101 209 101 240

 (England & Wales)

United States 91 152 94 160

Other

Austria 96 215 102 235

Belgium 96 157 99 172

Finland 120 152 139 177

Ireland 143 263 143 263

Netherlands 99 182 99 197

New Zealand 99 145 105 152

Norway 98 120 98 120

Portugal 141 369 141 369

Sweden 84 109 95 119

Spain 179 238 179 238

Turkey 188 333 189 333

1The ratio of teacher salary to per capita GDP was computed by dividing the teacher salary

figure by the GDP per capita and multiplying by 100.

2No data available for Canada and France.

31991 data.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

206

Figure 40: Ratio of teacher salary to GDP per capita, by education level,

career point, and G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for Canada and France.

2Countries are sorted in ascending order by ratio of primary teachers starting salary to GDP per capita.

31991 data.

NOTE: A value of 100 indicates that teachers are paid the same as GDP per capita.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

Maximum

Starting

United StatesJapan United KingdomItaly Germany

Percent

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

Starting Maximum

United StatesJapan United KingdomItaly Germany

Percent

Primary

Lower secondary

3

3
Societal Support for Education

207

Teacher salaries are not a clear-cut marker of teacher

compensation*

Education policymakers are concerned with teacher salaries because they are

the single largest component of educational costs in a countrys education

system; they have been directly linked to recruitment and retention of teachers, and they have been indirectly linked to teacher quality. Issues of comparability associated with teacher compensation and the teaching environment

influence international comparisons of teacher salaries, however. For instance,

the structure and makeup of compensation and benefits packages can differ

dramatically from country to country. Some countries rely heavily on forms of

cash compensation other than basic salary, such as bonuses. Others have

fringe benefits that differ substantially in scope from those in the United

States. In addition, the share of gross teacher salary earmarked for retirement

and health care variesoften substantiallyacross countries. U.S. teachers,

for instance, contribute between 13 and 21 percent of their gross salary to

state retirement funds, national social security, and health care premiums

substantially more than teachers in other countries. Swedish teachers, on the

other hand, have no paycheck deductions for retirement or national social

security. As much as possible, Indicator 40 includes the bonuses, stipends,

supplements, and overtime pay generally received by teachers; but it excludes

fringe benefits and employer-paid contributions to pension funds and national

social security.

International teacher salary comparisons can be further affected by intercountr y variations in working conditions and job characteristics. Countries in

which teachers receive virtually identical salaries may not, in fact, be receiving

the same services in return or be providing teachers with the same opportunities. Teachers who face more demanding teaching conditions (e.g., larger

number of instructional hours, heavier class loads) presumably require higher

compensation to remain equally satisfied with their jobs. However, data about

the larger context surrounding teaching are not available.

International teacher salary comparisons are also affected by definitional

differences that affect most, if not all, international education comparisons.

For instance, some categories of teaching staff have no equivalent U.S. counterparts. To illustrate, the French education system, for example, utilizes at

least nine categories of teaching personnel beyond the traditional U.S. categories of primary, elementary, and secondary education. It is not always clear

which categories are included in an indicator and how they are treated.

*The primary sources for this sidebar include: American Federation of Teachers. How U.S.

Teachers Measure Up Internationally: A Comparative Study of Teacher Pay, Training, and

Conditions of Service (Washington, D.C.: July, 1993); and U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, International Comparisons of Teachers Salaries: An

Explorator y Study, Washington, D.C.: July, 1988.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

208

Indicator 41: Current Public Expenditure on Education as a

Percentage of Total Public Expenditure

The magnitude of each countrys current* public expenditure on education as a

percentage of the governments total public expenditure is a rough indicator of

the relative importance accorded to education among each countrys public

sector activities. Some of the variation in the share of total public spending

allocated to education reflects differences among countries in the division of

responsibility for financing education between the public and private sector.

In most countries, public revenues provide virtually all the money spent on

education. Exceptions include countries such as the United States and Japan,

where 20 to 25 percent of educational funding comes from private sources.

The indicator is also affected by the total amount of public expenditure, such

as public expenditures for defense or social benefits. Differences among

countries in the distribution of educational expenditures by education level

reflect differences in national educational goals and strategies. For example,

some countries are more likely to make early childhood education widely

available and inexpensive, while others devote relatively more resources to

higher education.

■ In 1992, the United States and Canada devoted a greater share of

their public expenditure to education (around 13 percent) than any

of the other G7 countries. In the remaining G7 countries, the

corresponding percentages ranged from 6 percent (former West

Germany) to 11 percent (United Kingdom). Among all of the

countries reported, Hungary spent the highest share of its public

expenditure on education (11 percent).

■ The share of public funds devoted to higher education varied a great

deal among the G7 countries, as it did among the other countries

reported. Of the G7 countries, the United States and Canada

distributed the highest percentages of total public expenditure to

higher education (3 and 5 percent, respectively), while Japan

distributed the lowest (under 1 percent).

■ None of the G7 countries devoted a larger share of their public

budget to primary and secondary school education than did the

United States (9 percent). In all countries with available data, the

share of public expenditure devoted to preprimary through secondary education ranged from 4 percent in the former West Germany to

11 percent in Hungary and Switzerland.

*Current expenditures are operating expenditures that are used each year for the operation of

schools. They do not include capital expenditure used for providing school plant and facilities

or debt service.
Societal Support for Education

209

Table 41: Current public expenditure on education as a

percentage of total public expenditure, by level of

education and country: 1992

Primary and Higher Undistributed/

Country Preprimary Secondary education other Total

G7

Canada  8.5 5.1  13.6

France 1.1 6.6 1.6 0.5 9.7

West Germany (former) 0.3 4.1 1.7 0.2 6.3

Italy  6.1 1.1  7.2

Japan 0.3 7.2 0.8 1.2 9.6

United Kingdom  8.9 2.3  11.2

United States 0.5 9.2 3.2  12.9

Other

Australia 0.1 7.8 3.9  11.9

Austria  6.4 1.9  8.3

Belgium  5.9 1.5  7.4

Czech Republic  8.5 2.0  10.5

Denmark 1.5 6.7 1.8 0.2 10.2

Finland 1.1 7.5 3.0 1.0 12.6

Hungary 2.2 11.1 3.8 0.3 17.4

Netherlands 0.5 4.9 2.3 0.4 8.1

Norway 1.3 8.7 2.2 0.7 13.0

Sweden 1.6 6.9 1.5  10.1

Switzerland 1.7 11.0 2.8  13.8

Not applicable or available.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 41 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, the former West Germany, Italy,

Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom and for information regarding methodology used for adjusting inflation rates.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

210

Figure 41: Current public expenditure on education as a

percentage of total public expenditure, by

education level and G7 country:*

 1992

*Countries are sorted in descending order by total current public expenditure on education as a

percentage of total public expenditure.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

3

6

9

12

15

0

3

6

9

12

15

Undistributed

Preprimary

Primary and secondary

Higher education

West

Germany

(former)

United France Japan Italy

Kingdom

United

States

Canada

Percent
Societal Support for Education

211

Private spending plays a role in education financing*

Indicators 41, 42, and 43 provide measures of public investment in education.

However, measures of public investment do not give a complete picture of a

countrys financial investment in education since many countries have a

substantial private investment as well. Though the amount of private expenditure on public and private schools is negligible in some countries, it can

account for 20 percent or more of total educational spending in such countries as Germany, Japan, Spain, and the United States. Expenditure from

private sources is especially important at the higher education level, where it

makes up more than 40 percent of the total educational expenditure in the

United States, over 55 percent in Japan, and around 20 percent in Spain and

Australia.

Private spending on education takes several different forms: student tuition or

fees; direct or in-kind contributions; and direct private provision of education.

The following paragraphs describe these methods of private spending on

education.

The greatest amount of private spending occurs at the higher education level,

and student tuition and fees account for most of the private spending on

education at this level in such countries as the United States, Japan, and

Spain. Generally, though, one finds some private spending on education in

most countries even in public elementar y and secondary schools. Families

may pay for their childrens school supplies and textbooks, for example.

Moreover, public provision of transportation and meals at school is less

common in other countries than it is in the United States.

Direct financial contributions to schools occur more frequently at private than

at public schools and more frequently at the higher education level. Private

universities in the United States receive over 10 percent of their revenue in the

form of private gifts and contributions to their endowment funds. Private

elementary and secondary schools in the United States also receive direct

financial support from corporations, associations, and religious denominations. Private elementar y and secondary schools in the United States and

other countries may also receive in-kind contributions of building space,

equipment, and supplies from the religious denominations or social and

cultural organizations that sponsor them.

In some countries, moreover, private groups are direct providers of education.

In the German and Austrian dual systems, for example, high school students who choose the vocational track generally spend most of each school

week inside businesses or factories where they receive instruction in a trade

from employees of the company practicing that trade. This instruction typi-

*The primary sources for this sidebar include: S.M. Barro, Preliminar y findings from the

expenditure comparability study  (Washington, D.C.: SMB Economic Research, Inc., 1993);

OECD, Education at a Glance (Paris: OECD, 1993); and J. Sherman, Report on international

comparisons of school expenditures (Washington, D.C.: Pelavin Associates, Inc., 1992).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

212

cally takes place in a classroom at the worksite, with the workplace used for

demonstrations of work practices and for direct employment of the students

after they have learned enough of the trade to be employable. Firms participating in these youth apprenticeship programs typically receive a tax

deduction, but no direct public support. Youth apprenticeship programs like

these, where students spend part of each school week in school and the other

part at a worksite, are gaining in popularity in the United States, but remain

uncommon.

In some countries, private funding of education is even more important on

the fringes of the traditional education system. Japanese jukus, for instance,

have made after-hours supplemental instruction famous (but one can find

the equivalent even in the United States in private firms training courses for

college-entry exams). Countries var y widely in their public support of early

childhood education, too. Some, such as France and the Scandinavian countries, provide it largely through public programs, while others, such as the

United States, Germany, Spain, and Canada, mostly leave its provision to the

private sector. Countries also vary widely in their public support of nondegree-granting, occupationally specific trade and vocational schoolsthose

that we refer to in the United States as proprietary schools.

It is very likely that the private share of education is generally underestimated,

however. Two factors account for this underestimation. First, education on the

fringes (in private nursery, after-hours, or proprietary schools), generally

transpires outside the jurisdiction of government education authorities and

their data collectors. Therefore, much private education financing simply

remains uncounted. Second, some countries do not collect education finance

data even from regular private elementary and secondary schools. In the

United States, for example, one measure of the independence private elementary and secondary schools enjoy is the relative freedom from state data

collection requirements.
Societal Support for Education

213

Indicator 42: Current Public Expenditure on Education as a

Percentage of GDP

Gross domestic product (GDP) is an aggregate measure of the value of goods

and servicesor national incomeproduced in a country. The percentage of

GDP spent on education from public sources corresponds to the share of a

countrys income that the public sector invests in education. Variations in this

measure across countries reflect differences in national priorities and commitment to education, but these variations are also influenced by the share of

students in the population. This indicator is not a measure of total investment

in education, since private educational expenditures account for at least 20

percent of total educational spending in some countries (e.g., the United

States and Japan).

■ In 1992, the United States devoted approximately 5 percent of its

GDP to public spending on education. Among the G7 countries,

only Canada devoted a larger share of GDP to public spending

on education than did the United States. At 3.4 and 2.7 percent,

respectively, the former West Germany and Japan spent the smallest

shares of GDP on public spending on education of all the countries

reported (G7 and other).

■ The United States also devoted a larger share of GDP (1.2 percent) to

public funding of higher education than did all of the other G7

countries except Canada (2.4 percent). Japan devoted a considerably

smaller share of GDP to funding higher education (0.3 percent) than

did all other countries reported (G7 and other).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

214

Table 42: Current public expenditure on education* as a

percentage of GDP, by level of education and

country: 1992

Primary and Higher

Country Preprimary secondary education Total

G7

Canada  4.4 2.6 7.0

France 0.6 3.4 0.8 4.8

West Germany (former) 0.2 2.0 0.8 3.0

Italy  3.3 0.6 3.9

Japan 0.1 2.3 0.3 2.7

United Kingdom  3.9 1.0 4.9

United States 0.2 3.5 1.2 4.9

Other

Australia 0.0 3.1 1.6 4.7

Austria  3.3 1.0 4.3

Belgium  3.4 0.9 4.3

Czech Republic  2.7 0.6 3.3

Denmark 0.9 4.1 1.1 6.1

Finland 0.6 4.5 1.8 6.9

Hungary 0.8 3.9 1.3 6.0

Ireland 0.4 3.5 1.0 4.9

Netherlands 0.3 2.9 1.3 4.5

New Zealand  3.2 2.0 5.2

Norway 0.7 4.8 2.0 7.5

Spain 0.3 3.0 0.7 4.0

Sweden 1.1 4.5 1.0 6.6

Switzerland  3.8 1.0 4.8

Not available.

*Undistributed expenditures are not included.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 42 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, the former West Germany,

Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom,

and the United States and for information regarding the methodology used for adjusting

inflation rates.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Societal Support for Education

215

Figure 42: Current public expenditure on education as a

percentage of GDP, by education level and G7

country:*

 1992

*Countries are sorted in descending order by total current public expenditure on education as a

percentage of GDP.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Preprimary

Primary and secondary

Higher education

West Japan

Germany

(former)

United France Italy

Kingdom

United

States

Canada

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

216

Indicator 43: Per Student Expenditure on Education

Expenditure per student is a measure of the public investment that a country

devotes annually, on average, to each students education. It allows comparisons of estimated absolute levels of support (or cost) for education. Current

public expenditure per student relative to GDP per capita places the expenditure data per student in a relative perspective. It allows for comparisons

among countries with wide differences in national wealth by examining what

each country spends on its students relative to its available resources. For

example, a wealthy country with a large per student expenditure may actually

be devoting approximately the same share of its available resources to education as a less wealthy country with a lower per student expenditure. Variations

in per student expenditures reflect differences in national wealth, national

spending priorities, the relative price of local educational resources (such as

teacher salaries), variations in the quantities of resources devoted to education

(such as teachers and administrators), and the size of the corresponding

private education sector.

■ In 1992, the United States spent more per student on primary and

secondary education (in constant U.S. dollars) than did all of the

other G7 countries. However, U.S. per student spending on higher

education ($7,097) was in the mid-range of the G7 countries.

■ Relative to GDP per capita, the United States spent more per student

on primary and secondary education than did all but three of the

other G7 countries (Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom, at

23.9, 22.9, and 21.3 percent, respectively). The United States also

spent more per student on higher education relative to GDP than

most of the G7 countries, although the United Kingdom and

Canada outspent the United States substantially according to this

measure. At the primary and secondary and the higher education

levels, Japan had the smallest expenditure relative to GDP per capita

of all the G7 countries.

■ In all of the countries presented except Italy and Japan, current

public expenditures per student were significantly larger for higher

education than for secondary education and below, whether measured in U.S. dollars or relative to GDP per capita. About half the

countries reported, including the United States, spent between 1.2

and 2 times the resources per student on higher education as on

secondary education and below, and another half spent between 2

and 5 times the resources per student on higher education.
Societal Support for Education

217

Table 43: Current public expenditure per student1,2 (in constant 1991

92 U.S. dollars) and relative to GDP per capita, by education

level and country: 1992

Current public expenditure per student

Constant 199192 U.S. dollars3 Percent of GDP per capita

Primary and Higher Primary and Higher

Country Preprimary secondary education Preprimary secondary education

G7

Canada  $4,752 $10,715  23.9 53.8

France $2,302 3,636 4,701 12.4 19.6 25.4

West Germany (former) 1,180 3,048 5,749 5.8 15.0 28.3

Italy  3,978 3,676  22.9 21.2

Japan 1,300 2,698 2,103 6.6 13.6 10.6

United Kingdom  3,473 9,154  21.3 56.2

United States 2,286 4,950 7,097 9.7 21.1 30.2

Other

Australia  2,853 6,001  16.9 35.5

Austria  4,116 5,378  22.8 29.8

Belgium  3,540 5,794  19.6 32.1

Czech Republic  1,097 3,414  15.3 47.7

Denmark 5,627 4,710 6,195 32.0 26.7 35.2

Finland 5,284 3,911 7,647 36.5 27.0 52.8

Hungary 1,424 1,613 8,171 20.7 23.4 118.6

Ireland 1,574 2,056 5,304 12.3 16.1 41.6

Netherlands 2,119 2,842 8,118 12.5 16.8 47.9

New Zealand  2,254 8,503  15.9 60.2

Norway 4,206 5,262 6,690 23.8 29.8 37.9

Spain 1,638 2,006 2,496 12.8 15.7 19.5

Sweden 6,076 5,289 7,192 35.3 30.7 41.5

Switzerland  5,855 11,396  26.3 51.2

Not available.

1Expenditure per student is calculated by dividing total expenditure for education at a given level by the number of

students enrolled in both public and private schools. Enrollment is based on headcount estimates for preprimary

through 12th grade. For higher education, it is full-time equivalent enrollment.

2Undistributed expenditures are not included.

3Purchasing power parity (PPP) indices were used to convert other currencies to U.S. dollars. Because the fiscal

year has a different starting date in different countries, within-countr y Consumer Price Indexes (CPI) were used to

adjust the PPP indices to account for inflation. See supplemental note to Indicator 43 for additional information on

PPP indices.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 43 for details on indicator calculation for Austria, Canada, the Czech

Republic, Denmark, Japan, Sweden, and Switzerland, the methodology used for adjusting inflation rates, private

expenditures, and PPP indices.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

218

Figure 43: Current public expenditure per student (in constant 199192

U.S. dollars) and relative to GDP per capita, by education

level and G7 country:*

 1992

Expenditures per student in constant 1991–92 U.

0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,00

0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,00

Primary and secondary

Higher education

Japan

West Germany (former)

United Kingdom

France

Italy

Canada

United States
Societal Support for Education

219

Figure 43: Current public expenditure per student (in constant 199192

U.S. dollars) and relative to GDP per capita, by education

level and G7 country:* 1992Continued

*Countries are sorted in descending order by current public expenditure per student in constant 1991 92 U.S.

dollars (primarysecondary).

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Expenditures per student as a percentage of GDP

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Primary and secondary

Higher education

Japan

West Germany (former)

United Kingdom

France

Italy

Canada

United States
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

220

Indicator 44: Distribution of Funds by Level of Education

The distribution of current public expenditure across different levels of education reflects national educational goals and strategies concerning priorities for

each educational level. The distribution is also influenced by the number of

students enrolled at each level, which is, in turn, influenced by the duration of

each level. To illustrate, public preprimary education is not available in all

countries. Further, some countries or subsets of students within a country

have an extra year of secondary school.1 Moreover, the indicator does not give

a complete picture of the distribution of public resources between the two

levels, since some countries did not classify all of their expenditures. This

indicator should not be interpreted as a measure of the resources devoted to

education, but rather as an indicator of the distribution of resources between

education levels.

■ In 1992, the United States devoted approximately three-fourths of its

current public education expenditure to preprimary through high

school education and the remaining share to higher education. With

the exception of Canada (which allocated a larger portion of expenditures to higher education) and Italy (which allocated a larger

portion to preprimary through high school), the remaining G7

countries also allocated approximately three-fourths of public

education expenditure to preprimary through secondary education.

The G7 countries differed in the proportion of public education

expenditure allocated to higher education. The proportion of public

education expenditure devoted to higher education among the G7

countries ranged from 36 percent in Canada to 9 percent in Japan.2

1This indicator distinguishes between two broad levels of education: the preprimary through

secondary level and the higher education level.

2In Japan, and to a lesser extent France, a significant percentage of public education expenditures were undistributed (12.5 and 8.5 percent, respectively), making interpretation of the

figures for these countries difficult.
Societal Support for Education

221

Table 44: Distribution of current public expenditure on

education, by education level and country: 1992

Percent of public education expenditure

Preprimary Higher Undistributed/

Country secondary education other

G7

Canada 62.7 37.3 

France 78.9 16.4 4.7

West Germany (former) 70.0 26.3 3.7

Italy 85.3 14.7 

Japan 78.6 8.3 13.2

United Kingdom 79.5 20.5 

United States 75.0 25.0 

Other

Australia 66.7 33.3 

Austria 77.2 22.8 

Belgium 79.2 20.8 

Czech Republic 81.2 18.8 

Denmark 80.0 17.7 2.3

Finland 68.1 24.1 7.7

Hungary 76.5 21.8 1.7

Ireland 77.4 20.3 2.3

Netherlands 66.9 28.4 4.7

New Zealand 61.5 38.5 

Norway 77.6 17.0 5.3

Spain 81.3 16.1 2.5

Sweden 85.0 15.1 

Switzerland 79.9 20.1 14.5

Not applicable or available.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 44 for details on indicator calculation for Australia,

Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, the former West Germany,

New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

222

Figure 44: Distribution of current public expenditure on

education, by education level and G7

country:1,2,3 1992

1Countries are sorted in descending order by percentage of public education expenditure

allocated to preprimarysecondar y education.

2Totals may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

3Undistributed expenditures are allocated proportionally across other levels of education.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Undistributed

Preprimary and secondary

Higher education

West Canada

Germany

(former)

United

States

United France Japan

Kingdom

Italy

Percent
Societal Support for Education

223

Indicator 45: Source of Funds for Education

Tracing the path of education expenditures back to their origin uncovers the

level or levels of government and the sources (private and public) that bear

primary responsibility for financing a countrys education system. The initial

source of money for education sometimes differs from the ultimate spender.

For example, though local school districts in the United States generally

operate and fund the local public schools, much of the financing arrives in the

form of transfers from state governments. Some of the state money, in turn,

arrives in the form of transfers from the federal government. The initial

sources of those transferred funds, then, are state and federal governments.

Likewise, the initial source of funds spent on public schools can be either

public or private. Student tuition and fees are one example of a private source

of public expenditure. Funding by private firms of youth apprenticeship

programs in Germany and Austria is another example. Moreover, the initial

source of funds spent on private schools can be either public or private.

Unlike the United States, many other industrialized countries maintain large

numbers of privately operated schools that are mostly or entirely publicly

funded.

■ In the United States, most public funding for primary through

secondary education originated at the regional (state) or local levels

in 1992; less than 10 percent originated at the central (federal)

government level. In contrast, approximately three-fourths of public

expenditure on primar y through secondary education in France and

Italy originated at the central level.

■ At the higher education level in the United States, the majority of

public funding originated at the regional (state) level. In every other

country reported except Canada, the former West Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Switzerland, the majority of public funding originated at the central level.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

224

Table 45a: Distribution of public and private expenditure

on primary and secondary education, by initial

source of funds and country: 1992

Percent of all expenditure Percent of public expenditure

Country Private sources Public sources Central Regional Local

G7

Canada 4.5 95.5 2.4 63.8 33.8

France 6.6 93.4 74.8 11.7 13.5

West Germany (former) 38.7 61.3 0.6 80.2 19.1

Italy 3.3 96.7 79.0 4.8 16.1

Japan 8.9 91.1 24.5 75.5 

United Kingdom 5.1 94.9 6.5  93.5

United States 9.1 90.9 7.6 47.9 44.5

Other

Australia   28.9 71.0 0.1

Austria 11.1 88.9 69.4 10.4 20.2

Belgium 0.4 99.6  95.7 4.3

Czech Republic 10.5 89.5 68.4  31.6

Denmark  100.0 28.4 11.4 60.2

Finland*   70.6  29.4

Hungary 6.7 93.3 71.8  28.2

Ireland 4.9 95.1 95.7  0.1

Netherlands  100.0 96.4  3.6

New Zealand   100.0  

Norway  100.0   

Spain 12.2 87.8 48.3 44.6 6.3

Sweden  100.0   

Switzerland 6.8 93.2 3.4 52.2 44.4

Not available or not applicable.

*Public proportion is 92.3 percent for all levels of education.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 45 for details on indicator calculation for Austria,

Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Community countries, Finland,

the former West Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the

United Kingdom and methodology for adjusting inflation rates.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Societal Support for Education

225

Table 45b: Distribution of public and private expenditure at

the higher education level, by initial source of

funds and country: 1992

Percent of all expenditure Percent of public expenditure

Country Private sources Public sources Central Regional Local

G7

Canada 2.6 97.4 29.4 70.6 0.0

France 8.9 91.1 91.6 4.8 3.6

West Germany (former) 0.0 100.0 16.0 83.1 0.8

Italy 29.3 70.7 99.6  0.6

Japan 60.3 39.7 86.0 14.0 

United Kingdom 0.0 100.0 93.6 0.0 6.4

United States 45.5 54.5 36.2 57.9 5.9

Other

Australia 0.0 100.0 73.5 26.4 0.0

Austria 19.2 80.8 98.8 0.3 0.9

Belgium 1.0 99.0 0.0 99.6 0.4

Czech Republic 11.4 88.6 100.0 0.0 

Denmark 1.2 98.8 87.8 1.3 10.1

Finland1   91.7 0.0 8.3

Hungary 6.0 94.0 100.0  0.0

Ireland2 16.7 83.3 77.4 0.0 0.0

Netherlands 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0

New Zealand   100.0 0.0 0.0

Norway 0.0 100.0   

Spain 16.6 83.4 49.0 50.0 0.9

Sweden 0.7 99.3   

Switzerland 19.8 80.2 44.5 54.7 0.7

Turkey 4.1 95.9   

Not available or applicable.

1Public proportion is 92.3 percent for all levels of education.

2The other source of funds for Ireland is the European Community.

NOTE: See supplemental note to Indicator 45 for details on indicator calculation for Austria,

Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the European Community countries, Finland, the

former West Germany, Hungar y, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, and the United

Kingdom and the methodology for adjusting inflation rates.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational

Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

226

Figure 45a: Distribution of public education expenditure on primary

and secondary education, by initial source of funds and

G7 country,1,2 1992

1No data available for the United Kingdom.

2Countries are sorted in descending order by percentage of funds raised at the local level.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Central/federal Regional/state Local/intermediate

Percent

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Japan

France

Italy

West Germany (former)

Canada

United States
Societal Support for Education

227

Figure 45b: Distribution of public and private education expenditure

at the higher education level, by initial source of funds and

G7 country:1,2 1992

1No data available for the former West Germany and Italy.

2Countries are sorted in ascending order by the share of expenditure from public sources.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Public Private

United Kingdom

Canada

France

United States

Japan

Percent
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

228

What is public and private education?*

In the United States, public and private schools are generally distinguished by

the distinct separation of both their governance and their funding. Typically,

public schools are governed and financed by public authorities, while private

schools are governed and financed by private authorities. In this respect, the

U.S. system is atypical among the developed countries.

Many developed countries finance both public schools and private and religious schools with public funds, and they have done so for many years. The

proportion of public expenditure used to subsidize private education amounts

to 4 percent in the United States, 7 percent in Switzerland, 10 percent in

Australia, and nearly 12 percent in France. In Belgium and the Netherlands,

private education is entirely publicly funded; thus, the proportion of funding

targeted to private-school students approximates the proportion of privateschool students in the student population. The issue of public funding in

many of these countries does not provoke the widespread controversy that it

does in the United States. In return for the funding, the private and religious

schools in some countries agree to honor government standards in matters of

curriculum, class size, and the like; and their students must still pass the same

national examinations as their public-school peers.

The education finance and governance systems in place in Germany, France,

and the Netherlands provide an interesting contrast to the system currently

existing in the United States. The following paragraphs provide an overview of

these systems.

Historically, Germany has had a variety of school types: public schools with a

Catholic character, public schools with a Protestant character, public schools

with some other distinctive world view, public schools without a religious

orientation, and private schools. As in the United States, each German state is

responsible for operating its own schools; therefore, the extent to which

certain types of schools exist and the level of religious instruction varies

among states as well as among localities within the states.

Private schools in Germany are permitted to select both their pupils and

teachers and are not rigidly tied to state regulations in regard to the choice of

teaching material or the number of weekly lessons. In return for public

funding, however, they must hold state examinations and issue reports and

*

The primary sources for this sidebar include: S.M. Barro, Preliminary findings from the

expenditure comparability study (Washington, D.C.: SMB Economic Research, Inc., 1993);

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 1986 Education in OECD countries:

A compendium of statistical information (Paris: OECD, 1989); Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1988-90 Education in OECD countries: A compendium of statistical

information (Paris: OECD, 1993); Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development,

School: A Matter of Choice (Paris: OECD, 1994); Choice of Schools in Six Nations (Washington,

D.C.: 1989); U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning, International Education Comparisons (Washington, D.C.: September, 1992). S.M. Burro, J.D. Sherman, R. Phelps,

International Expenditures Comparability Study: Draft Report (Washington, D.C.: Pelavin

Associates, Inc. and SMB Economic Research, Inc., 1994).
Societal Support for Education

229

certificates, just as would a state-run school. As long as their students perform

adequately on the state exams, the private schools are generally left alone.

The French public and private schools differ markedly from the German.

Religious instruction does not exist in French public schools, although they

are not necessarily value-neutral either, as the French state is interested in

promoting its own values and beliefs among its citizens. Like Germany,

however, France provides government funding to offset the cost of private

schooling. Nonpublic schools have several alternatives with regard to governance and funding: (1) to continue completely independent of government

intervention, subject to employing qualified teachers; (2) to be absorbed into

the national public education system; (3) to accept government requirements

as to cur riculum and testing in exchange for staff salaries (contrat simple);

and (4) to accept, in addition, some government control over pedagogy and

the selection of teachers, in exchange for operating expenses as well as salaries (contrat dassociation). Among Catholic schools, most elementary

schools, with their limited funding needs, choose the contrat simple; while

many secondary schools, having higher operating costs, choose the contrat

dassociation. Schools receiving funds from the contrat dassociation must

demonstrate that they have a distinctive character or philosophy not catered

to in the public system. Private schools without a religious orientation generally choose to remain independent of government inter vention, though they

do receive a certain amount of public funding under a different law.

The Netherlands finances public and private schools on a completely equal

basis, with the Dutch government paying directly for teachers, buildings, and

other school costs in both sectors. Given the central governments direct

financing of private schools expenditure on the same basis as schools governed by municipalities, they are not as independent as private schools in

most other countries; in fact, all schools must follow the same government

rules with respect to administration and curriculum. The most significant

difference between private and public schools is that only the former may turn

away prospective pupils under certain prescribed conditions. Another difference is that private schools may charge fees for extracurricular activities. In

1990, 31 percent of primary pupils were in public schools and the remaining

69 percent were in private schools, either Protestant, Catholic, or neutral.

Dutch education law requires a responsible authority for each school. This

may be the national government (for some secondary and higher education

institutions) or the local government (for elementary education), in which

cases the school is considered public. If the responsible authority is an association, foundation, institution, church council, or religious community, the

school is considered private. In order to start up, obtain funding, and remain

in operation, a private school must show that it will be attended by a sufficient number of students. The specific number varies according to the size of

the community. If no other school is available that provides an education of

the same denominational or pedagogical character, the specific numbers are

lowered.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

230

Public support of private elementary and secondary schools in the United

States is meager. In a few states, students enjoy publicly provided transportation to private school or their parents receive tax credits equal to the amount

of their tuition bills. Private schools can also receive federal education grants

for poor children, such as those for compensatory instruction or reduced-fee

lunches. Private universities in the United States, however, generally receive

large amounts of public funds. They take the form of federal or state student

loans, federal research grants, and state grants for academic programs that

serve state residents. All private schools in the United States at all levels also

obtain property-tax relief.
MATRICES OF COMPARATIVE

INFORMATION ON COUNTRIES

EDUCATION SYSTEMS

Primary and Secondary School Teacher Training and Certification Requirements

Duration of

postsecondary

academic and

in-school Renewal and

Country training (years) Academic program In-school training Certification examination upgrading requirements

United 4 Particular emphases are shaped by Generally included in Individual states set State policies vary regarding

States state government regulations, but postsecondar y study. minimum qualifying upgrading requirements.

usually include general study scores on the National Approximately 45%

with a concentration in the academic Teachers Exam or state of primary teachers, 55% of

subject that potential teachers plan to certification tests. lower secondary teachers,

teach (if they are preparing for secondary and 65% of upper secondary

instruction) and in pedagogical studies. teachers earn a Masters

degree by mid-career.

Canada 4 or 5 General education at the university Included in post- None. Provincial policies vary

(mostly 5) in arts or sciences, and 1-year of secondary study. regarding upgrading/renewal

professional training, which includes requirements.

instruction in curriculum and teaching

methods, classes in contextual dimensions, and student teaching. The 1-year

professional training can be done

concurrently with degree work or after

a degree has been earned.

France Primary: 5 Three years university license program. Included in the IUFM. The examination includes None.

Secondary: To prepare for competitive exam, most Future secondar y sections on academic

5 or more future teachers spend 1 year at IUFM teachers teach a class subjects and pedagogy.

(Institut Universitaire de Formation for 4 6 hours a week The exam differs for

des Mantres). After exam, 1 (additional) for the whole year. primary and secondar y

year of professional training at IUFM is Future primar y teachers teachers. The certification

required. Professeurs agrégrés must obtain do it for 8 weeks during process also takes into

a 4-year university degree in the subject the final semester of account course work and

to be taught in addition to the exam and the year. practical application.

IUFM training.

Germany1 Primary: 5 Primar y, Hauptschule, and Realschule After university phase, Must pass first and second Upon passing second state

Lower teachers spend at least 6 to 8 semesters 18 to 24 months of state examinations, examinations, teachers are

secondary: studying pedagogy and at least 2 school-based training, consisting of a thesis, two eligible for tenure-track

5 to 6.5 academic subjects. Prospective in addition to various demonstration lessons, and employment.

Upper Gymnasium teachers spend 8 to 10 lectures and the study an oral and written section.

secondary: 6.5 semesters studying pedagogy and at of pedagogy. Phase ends

least 2 academic subjects. This phase with the second state

ends with the first state examination. examination.
Duration of

postsecondary

academic and

in-school Renewal and

Country training (years) Academic program In-school training Certification examination upgrading requirements

Italy Primary: 3 to 4 Primary: Primary school teachers receive Primary and Secondary: Job placement determined Regular in-service training

Secondary: general academic and pedagogical training One year of in-school by competitive national and development courses

4 to 5 in 4-year upper secondary teacher training after qualifying by examination, consisting of a focusing on content and

preparatory programs (Instituti magistrali). competitive examination. written examination on methodology required by

Secondary: Formal education/training subject-related topics, and law and organized by

spent earning regular 4-year university an interview. regional institutes for

degree with little, if any, focus on pedagogy. research and in-ser vice

Training is followed by open competition training in education

for teaching staff and a 1-year in-school (IRRSAE) and by schools.

training program for competition winners.

Japan Advanced: 5 First class elementary: Four years of Upper secondary: Must pass prefectural Teachers required to pursue

First class: 4 postsecondary study (Bachelors degree), 2 weeks. appointment examinations, in-service training.

Second class focusing on general subjects, subject of Elementary and lower consisting of written tests in Prefectural boards of

elementary specialization, and pedagogy. secondary: 4 weeks. general education and fields; education required by law to

and lower First class secondary: Bachelors, with Induction program for skill tests in physical plan and encourage

secondary less focus on pedagogy than elementary first-year teachers includes education, music, and art; in-service training

certificate:2 2 and lower secondar y teacher candidates. 60 days of school-based and interviews. activities.

training, 30 days of

lectures, seminars, and

other training sessions.

United Primary: 3 to 4 Standard Initial Teacher Training (ITT) a) For undergraduate Certification is granted after None required by national

Kingdom Lower program consists of either: route, 32 weeks of an initial year of teaching to policy, but strong expecta-

(England secondary: a) a 3- or 4-year undergraduate program practical training and degree holders. There is no tions at school level that

and Wales) 3 to 4 leading to a Bachelors; or school experience. written test, but the process progressive/ambitious

Upper b) a 1-year postgraduate course in b) For postgraduate route, is very structured. teachers will engage in

secondary: teaching and educational methods and 24 weeks of practical appropriate in-service

4 to 5 assessment for those who have already training and school provided by local authorigained a first degree. experience. ties, universities, and others.

1Vocational and technical school teachers: The more academically oriented must complete 4 years of university study and 1 year of

specialized training and teacher training. Practice-oriented teachers are qualified practitioners who have also had further training at a

technical school as well as teacher training. Teachers at senior technical schools must have the same qualifications as gymnasium

teachers, and must also have several years of actual professional experience.

2The first class certificate is the preferred credential at all levels. Some teachers earn a second-class certificate in secondary subjects.

Primary and Secondary School Teacher Training and Certification Requirements (Continued)
Entrance and Exit Examinations

Existence of

entrance or exit

Country exams (y/n) Name and type of examination Level responsibleWho takes examination and when?Consequences

of assessment

United Y e s SAT - University entrance examination. N o n- g o v e r nm e n t a l . College-bound students in last Varies by college or

States ACT. National assessment 2 years of high

s c h o o l . university. Most 4-year

Minimum competence tests in some states. systems; administrated colleges require

exam, most

l o c a l l y . 2-year colleges do

not.

Canada Y e s Exit exams from secondary school in P r o v i n c e Secondary school

students at Varies by province.

some provinces. end of secondary school.

France Y e s a) Baccalauréat - Exit examination from National (however test a) All lycée students.

a) Passing baccalauréat

lycée (academic high schools) and content may vary by determines university

university entrance examination. region) placement.

b) Brevet des collége: non-compulsory b) Nearly all collége students b) Passage may give access

examination at the end of lower secondar y. (junior high school). to lycée, but is not required.

Designed to gauge standard

of education offered during

lower secondary education.

Germany Yes Abitur - Exit examination from State All Gymnasium students. Passage provides access to

Gymnasium (academic high schools). university-level education;

allows students to continue

studies at university-level

institutions.

Italy Yes a) Esame di licenza - Exit examination National a) All lower secondary school a) Successful students may

from lower secondary school and entrance students. enroll in any secondary

examination to upper secondary school. school.

b) Esami di maturita - High school b) Upper secondary school b) May have some bearing

graduation examination. students after the end of their on employment and

course of study (usually 4 or university placement.

5 years in duration).
Entrance and Exit Examinations (Continued)

Existence of

entrance or exit

Country exams (y/n) Name and type of examination Level responsibleWho takes examination and when?Consequences

of assessment

Japan Y e s a) Entrance examination for upper a) Prefecture (regional/ a) All students seeki n g a) Determines placement in

secondary school; district level) admission to high school.high school.

b) Entrance examination for private b) Administered by b) Students seeking admission. b) Determines placement in

secondary schools; individual schools high school.

c) All students seeking

c) Test of the National Center for c) National university admission. c) and d) Selection and

University Entrance Examination placement in university

(TNCUEE); d) Administered by d) Students seeking admission system or college of

individual universities to specific universities. technology.

d) Entrance examinations for individual

universities; and e) National for public e) Students seeking admission

national schools; local, to colleges of technology.

e) Entrance examinations for colleges public, and private

of technology. administer their own

examinations

United Yes a) General Certificate of Secondary a) and b) National a) All upper secondary school a) No standard policy

Kingdom Education (GCSE). students at age 16. regarding consequences.

(England

and Wales) b) General Certificate of Education b) All students seeking b) Major factor in higher

Advanced Level (A level) and Advanced university admission, as well education placement.

Supplementary (AS level) - for entrance as some others. Most students

to postsecondary institutions. take examinations in 23

subjects. Typically taken at

age 18.
Curriculum Standards

Highest

level at which Subjects covered

C o u n t r ystandards are set Nature of standards by curriculum standards Grade levels affected Control over textbooks

United S t a t e Standards vary across states and Language arts, mathematics, In the 41

states that have Some states have textbook

States localities and may include content, stu- science, and social studies in s t a n d a r d s ,

standards cover review committees,

dent performance (minimum competen- the 41 states that have each grade level (this

v a r i e s although they are not

cies), or school delivery standards. s t a n d a r d s . depending on the type

o f necessarily tied to standards.

standard).

Canada P r o v i n c e Specificity varies across provinces. In general, more clearly defined All grade

l e v e l s . All provinces review and

curriculum requirements are approve textbooks in

light

Provinces have curriculum statements set in mathematics, science, o f

compatibility with

and guidelines of varying detail. social studies, English and official curriculum

and

French Language Arts, and publish a list of

approved

Primary education: Grouped by level English and French as Second t e x t -

books.

and then by grade within the level. Languages. Quebec has specific

curriculum objectives for all

Secondary: Level- and course-specific. subjects.

France National Specifies aims and content of subjects All subject areas. All grade levels. Textbooks are selected at

taught. school or local level. No

national approval system.

Germany Land (state) Specifies aims, content, instruction, and Core subjects (German, one All grade levels. N/A*

assessment methods of subjects taught. foreign language, math, physics/

chemistr y, biology, geography,

histor y, world of work and social

studies, religious instruction,

music, art, politics, physical

education, and local studies).

Italy National Education objectives and content for All subject areas. Broad levels of education Textbooks are chosen by

each subject area. (e.g., primar y, junior high teachers committees based

school). on a set of national criteria.

Japan National Broad guidelines for the objectives and All subject areas. All levels of education Ministry approves textbooks

content of each subject area. (kindergarten, primar y, lower for use in schools.

secondar y, upper secondar y,

special education).

United National National curriculum specifies targets Core (mathematics, English, Ten levels of attainment Schools are responsible for

Kingdom for learning and the measurement of science) and foundation (tech- targets for each foundation selecting appropriate text

(England progress, delineates what should be nology, history, geography, subject, none of which are books.

and Wales) taught in order to meet the targets, foreign language, music, art, intended to be correlated with

and assessment arrangements. physical education, Welsh) student age or school year.

subjects.

*

Not available.
Structure and Governance of Education Systems in G7 Countries

Ages for Differentiation of schools

compulsory Structure (age at which differentiation occurs and type Degree of administrative

Country schooling of system1 of differentiation - through upper secondary) Postsecondary education and supervisory centralization

United 616 6-2-4; 6-3-3; None2 2-year community and junior Highly decentralized.

States 8-4; 6-6; colleges; 4-year undergraduate Federal government does not have

or 5-3-4 colleges; universities. the power to control schools directly.

Canada 616 6-3-3; 8-4; None2 1 2-year nondegree-granting Highly decentralized. No national

also 7-5, 6-5, community colleges. educational administrative body.

5-3-4, and 34-year degree-granting and

7-3-2 nondegree-granting community

colleges and universities.

France 616 5-4-3 Age 153 Polytechnic colleges; Highly centralized. The national

General and technological high schools - engineering and business schools; Ministry of Education controls

leading to baccalauréat and higher education universities. formal education at all levels.

Vocational schools - leading to Certificat Recently, more independence has

dAptitude Professionelle (CAP), or Brevet been given to local bodies.

dEtudes Profesionnelles (BEP) or Baccalaureat

Professionel

Germany 6164 a) 4-6-3 Age 10 Polytechnic colleges; Highly decentralized. States

b) 4-6 a) Gymnasium - leading to university universities. (Länder) have primary administrative

c) 4-5 entrance qualification and supervisory authority over

b) Realschulen - leading to vocational schools education.

or apprenticeships

c) Hauptschulen5 - leading to vocational

schools or apprenticeships

Italy 614 5-3-5 Age 14 Universities (very little provision Divided between central and

Many different types of secondar y schools exist, for degrees other than laurea, a regional authority.

each catering to a particular career orientation 45 year degree).
Structure and Governance of Education Systems in G7 Countries (Continued)

Ages for Differentiation of schools

compulsory Structure (age at which differentiation occurs and type Degree of administrative

Country schooling of system1 of differentiation - through upper secondary) Postsecondary education and supervisory centralization

Japan 615 6-3-3 Age 15 Technical colleges; junior Highly centralized - National Ministry

After completion of lower secondary school, colleges; universities. of Education, Science and Culture has

students enroll in academic, vocational, or primary responsibility for supervision

comprehensive upper secondary schools. of schools; prefectural boards of

education provide for local

administration.

United 516 6-4-2 Age 16 Colleges (not unlike community Decentralized - Responsibility for

Kingdom After completion of compulsor y education, colleges, but with strong college education shared by central and

(England students may continue at same school for 2 vocational elements); universities local governments until 1992. From

and more years (sixth form) or transfer to (autonomous) (virtually all are then on colleges joined universities in

Wales) separate institution for further academic or public and funded by national becoming incorporated (autonomous)

vocational education.6 public agencies acting for the institutions.

government).

1 Years of primary - lower secondary - upper secondar y school.

2 Secondary schools are generally comprehensive, but a small number of vocational schools exist.

3 Students may enter special classes to prepare for technical stream at age 13.

4 Students must be enrolled at least part-time through age 18.

5It is possible to transfer from the Hauptschulen to the Realschulen, and from the Realschulen to the Gymnasium.

6 Traditionally, students took examinations for admittance to selective secondary schools at age 11 (aa-plus), but this practice has almost disappeared over 25 years, though

there is some evidence of resurgence in a few areas.
Sources for Matrices

General

Canadian Education Association. An Overview of Canadian Education. Fourth

edition. Toronto: Author, 1991.

Entrance and Exit Examinations

Assefa, A.M. World Education Series: France. Washington, D.C.: American

Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1988.

National Endowment for the Humanities. National Tests: What Other Countries Expect Their Students to Know. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1991.

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Research. Education Standards in OECD Nations: A Summary

of Survey Responses. Working Paper, 1993.

U.S. Department of Education. Japanese Education Today. Washington, D.C.:

Author, 1987.

Wickremasinghe, Walter. Handbook of World Education. Houston: American

Collegiate Service, 1991.

Curriculum Standards

Elvin, Lionel, ed. The Educational Systems in the European Community: A

Guide. Windsor Banks, United Kingdom: NFER Nelson, 1981.

Holmes, Brian. International Handbook of Educational Systems. Chichester,

United Kingdom: John Wiley and Sons, 1983.

Nisbet, John, ed. Curriculum Reform Assessment in Question. Paris: OECD,

1993.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Research. Education Standards in OECD Nations: A Summary

of Survey Responses. Working Paper, 1993.

Wickremasinghe, Walter. Handbook of World Education. Houston: American

Collegiate Service, 1991.

Teacher Training

Assefa, A. M. A Study of the Educational System of France and a Guide to the

Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions of the United

States. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and

Admissions Officers, 1988.

Italian Ministry of Education. Education in Italy. Italy: Author, no date.
Kurian, G. T., ed. World Education Encyclopedia, Vol. I. New York: Facts on

File Publications, 1988.

Kurian, G. T., ed. World Education Encyclopedia, Vol. III. New York: Facts on

File Publications, 1988.

Leavitt, H. B., ed. Issues and Problems in Teacher Education: An International

Handbook. New York: Greenwood Press, 1992.

Mashiko, E. E. Japan: A Study of the Educational System of Japan and a Guide

to the Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions of the

United States. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars

and Admissions Officers, 1989.

Nelson, F. H. and T. OBrien. How U.S. Teachers Measure Up Internationally.

Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers, 1993.

Porter, G. B. Federal Republic of Germany: A Study of the Educational System

of Germany and a Guide to the Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions of the United States. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1986.

Postlethwaite, T. N. The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National

Systems of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988.

U.S. Department of Education. Japanese Education Today. Washington, D.C.:

Author, 1987.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research. Teacher Training Abroad:

New Realities. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1993.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research. Teacher Development

Outside the United States: A Selected Annotated Bibliography. Washington,

D.C.: Author, 1994.

Structure and Governance of Educational Systems

EURYDICE. Structures of the Education and Initial Training Systems in the

Member States of the European Community. Brussels: Author, 1990.

Italian Cultural Institute. The Italian Educational System: A Brief Outline. New

York, NY: Author, 1983.

Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. Statistical Abstract of

Education, Science and Culture. Research, Statistics and Planning division,

1990.

OECD. 198687 Education in OECD Countries: A Compendium of Statistical

Information. Paris, France: OECD, 1989.

OECD. 1988/891989/90 Education in OECD Countries: A Compendium of

Statistical Information. Paris, France: OECD, 1993.
Postlethwaite, T. N., ed. The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and

National Systems of Education. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988.

U.S. Department of Education. Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation: Education Profiles. Working Paper, 1992.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Research. Education Standards in OECD Nations: A Summary

of Survey Responses. Working Paper, 1993.
SUPPLEMENTAL

NOTES AND TABLES

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES AND TABLES

Indicator 1

Notes on Figures and Tables

Australia

Lower secondary education includes ungraded secondary students. Due to

difficulties in categorizing some school levels, participation figures for

nonuniversity higher education are high.

Czech Republic

Most part-time students are enrolled in adult education and their age is unknown. They experience the same curricula and take the same examinations as

full-time students.

Denmark

All formal regular education is classified as full-time. Numbers refer to persons

enrolled on October 1, 1991. Adult education is excluded.

Hungary

Disabled students are included in primary and lower secondary education. Age

distribution data are estimated at the lower secondary education level for 14-

year-olds and over, at the upper secondary education level for 19-year-olds and

over, and at the higher education level for 24-year-olds and older.

Italy and Sweden

No distinction between full-time and part-time at higher education.

Japan

There are an additional 147,500 students, whose ages are unknown, who are

not included.

Norway

Figures are estimates for primary and lower secondary education.

United States

There is no distinction between full- and part-time at upper secondary education.

245
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

246

Technical Notes

Calculation of Full-Time Equivalent Scores

For the indicators on per student expenditure and participation rates, all

part-time enrollments are converted into full-time equivalents. Full-time

equivalents were calculated using the following convention:

Preprimary-secondary levels: one part-time enrollment equals one fulltime enrollment.

Higher education levels: two part-time enrollments equal one full-time

enrollment.

In the case of preprimary, primar y, secondary, and special education, parttime students are counted as full-time without conversion. In higher education, the duration of studies is typically longer if students proceed through

at less than full-time pace. Therefore, conversions are made.

Supplemental Table 1 details the coefficients used for calculating full-time

equivalent numbers by level of education.

Calculation of Enrollment Ratio

The enrollment ratio is calculated by dividing the total number enrolled at all

levels, irrespective of age, by the population in the target age range.

Indicator 2

Notes on Figures and Tables

Austria and Denmark

Children in day care are excluded.

Czech Republic

There are no kindergartens outside the public sector.

Germany

Table 2 shows a net enrollment rate of 115.1 for 6-year-olds. This overstated figure is due to the fact that the Microcensus, which is the same for

these data, was conducted at the beginning of May while the population

data are from January 1st.

Hungary

Figures are estimates.

Japan

Only kindergartens are included. Day nurseries, which are social welfare

institutions, are excluded.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

247

Supplemental Table 1: Coefficients used for calculating full-time

equivalent numbers, by level of education and

country: 1992

Nonuniversity

Lower Upper higher University

Country Preprimary Primary secondary secondary education education

G7

Canada 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00

France 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

West Germany (former) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Italy 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Japan 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

United Kingdom 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.86 2.86

United States 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 2.82

Other

Australia 1.00 1.00 3.37 1.00 4.66 3.89

Austria 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Belgium 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Czech Republic 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Denmark 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Finland 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Hungary 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Ireland 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Luxembourg 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Netherlands 1.00 1.00 2.01 2.00 2.00 2.00

New Zealand 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Norway 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Portugal 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Spain 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Sweden 1.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00

Switzerland 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

Turkey 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Poland

Age 3 refers to ages 35.

Spain

Participation rates are higher than 100 percent because there are more

registered pupils than children according to demographic projections from

the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Developments INES

Project.

United Kingdom

Children in day-care facilities are excluded. Ages are recorded in August

rather than in December.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

248

Technical Notes

Calculation of Enrollment Rates

The enrollment rate is calculated by dividing the number of enrollments at a

given level of education and in a specified age range, by the whole population in the same age range.

Indicator 3

Notes on Figures and Tables

Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, and Norway

See notes to Indicator 1.

Finland, Greece, and Ireland

Figures broken down by single age are estimates.

Greece

Age 21 refers to ages 21 and over.

Spain

Participation rates do not take into account students whose age is unknown

(about 3 percent of full-time students enrolled in secondary education).

Sweden and the United States

See notes to Indicator 1.

Technical Notes

Calculation of Full-Time Equivalents

See supplemental note to Indicator 1 for details on the calculation of full-time

equivalents.

Calculation of Enrollment Rates

See supplemental note to Indicator 2 for details on the calculation of

enrollment rates.

Indicator 4

Notes on Figures and Tables

Australia and Denmark

See notes to Indicator 1.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

249

Belgium

University education corresponds to long tertiary courses and higher education in institutions other than universities; nonuniversity tertiary education

corresponds to short courses of higher education.

Czech Republic

Age 19 refers to ages 19 and over, so additional data is collapsed into the

1821 category.

France

The preparatory classes to the Grandes Ecoles are classified at the university

level.

Poland

All ages over 25 are included as age 25.

Russia

Age 24 refers to ages 2124 and age 29 to ages 2529.

Technical Notes

Calculation of Full-Time Equivalent Scores

See supplemental note to Indicator 1 for details on the calculation of fulltime equivalents.

Calculation of Enrollment Rates

See supplemental note to Indicator 2 for details on the calculation of

enrollment rates.

Indicator 5

Notes on Figures and Tables

See notes to Indicator 4.

Technical Notes

Calculation of Full-Time Equivalents

See supplemental note to Indicator 1 for details on the calculation of full-time

equivalents.

Calculation of Enrollment Rates

The enrollment rate is calculated by dividing the number of enrollments at a

given level of education and in a specified age range by the whole population

in the same age range.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

250

Indicator 6

See supplemental notes to Indicator 3.

Indicator 7

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments by excluding certain student

groups, such as those in private schools, schools serving handicapped children,

or schools where the language of instruction is different from the primary

national language. A description of these limitations follows:

Belgium

Includes schools in French-speaking Belgium only; students instructed in

Flemish or German were excluded.

Finland

Swedish-speaking, special education, and laboratory schools were excluded.

France

Private schools were excluded (16 percent of 9-year-olds and 21 percent of 14-

year-olds).

East Germany (former)

Students in special schools for the handicapped and institutions for specially

talented students were excluded.

West Germany (former)

Students in special schools for the handicapped and nongraded private schools

were excluded.

Greece

For 14-year-olds, 1.4 percent in evening schools were excluded.

Hong Kong

International schools, ESF Foundation schools, schools not participating in

Secondary School Places Allocation System (SSPA), and schools with class size

of less than 20 were excluded.

Hungary

Very small schools in remote areas and ungraded schools were excluded.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

251

Iceland

Schools where there were fewer than five students were excluded. Iceland

tested students in all schools, therefore no standard errors were calculated.

Ireland

Private schools and schools with fewer than five students were excluded.

Italy

Non-government schools were excluded.

Norway

Schools for Lapps were excluded.

Spain

Students from schools with fewer than 10 students in the defined grade and

from schools where medium of instruction was not Castilian/Spanish were

excluded.

Thailand

Laboratory schools and schools controlled by the Department of Fine Arts and

Culture were excluded.

United States

Students in eligible schools not capable of taking the test (4.9 percent of each

age group) were excluded.

Venezuela

Students attending private rural schools were excluded.

Technical Notes

In the Study of Reading Literacy, 32 countries assessed the reading achievement of students in the grades where most 9- and 14-year-olds were enrolled. See the Sources section of this publication for additional information

on this study.

The reading literacy scores reported in the indicator tables were scaled

using the Rausch procedure. The domain scores for each age group were

scaled to a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. The average

overall score is the mean of the domain scale scores.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

252

Indicator 8

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas,

language groups, or grade levels. A description of these limitations follows:

Canada

Age 9 includes 4 out of 10 provinces, age 13 includes 9 out of 10 provinces.

Israel

Hebrew-speaking schools.

Scotland and the United States

Combined school and student participation rate is below .80 but at least .70;

interpret with caution because of possible nonresponse bias.

Soviet Union (former)

Fourteen out of 15 republics; Russian-speaking schools.

Spain

All regions except Cataluña; Spanish-speaking schools.

Switzerland

Fifteen out of 26 cantons.

Technical Notes

The International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) surveyed the

mathematics and science performance of 13-year-old students in 20 countries,

and 9-year-old students in 14 countries during 1990 through 1991. See the

Sources section of this publication for additional information on this study.

The mathematics assessment is based on five content areas typically taught

in mathematics: (1) numbers and operations; (2) measurement, geometry;

(3) data analysis; (4) statistics and probability; and (5) algebra and functions. The science assessment is based on four content areas typically

taught in science: (1) life sciences, (2) physical sciences, (3) earth and

space sciences, and (4) natural sciences.

Indicator 8 contains mean proficiency scores and standard errors for each

population participating in the Second IAEP. Proficiency scores allow the

comparison of average proficiency across age groups within and between

countries. Mean proficiency scores and standard errors were obtained

following a series of different statistical analyses: item parameters estimation using item response theory (IRT), vertical equating of 9- and 13-yearold scales, and plausible values technology for estimation of proficiency

distributions.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

253

For more detailed technical information regarding these statistical procedures,

please refer to the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education, 1994, p. 222.

Indicator 9

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas or

language groups. A description of these limitations follows:

Canada

Eight out of 10 provinces

Scotland, Soviet Union (former), Spain, and the United States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

Technical Notes

Nine of the countries participating in the IAEP studies of mathematics and

science performance of 13-year-olds also administered a short assessment

of geography achievement. See the Sources section of this publication for

additional information on this study.

Indicator 10

Technical Notes

Below is a description of the three literacy scales in the International Adult

Literacy Survey and the tasks required at each proficiency level. This description is taken directly from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and

Development and Statistics Canada, Literacy, Economy, and Society: Results

of the first International Adult Literacy Survey, 1995, pages 3049.

Prose literacy includes text from newspapers, magazines, and brochures

accompanied by one or more questions or directives asking the reader to

perform specific tasks. These tasks represent three major aspects of information-processing: locating, integrating, and generating. Locating tasks require

the reader to find information in the text based on conditions or features

specified in the question or directive. Integrating tasks ask the reader to

pull together two or more pieces of information in the text. In the generating tasks, readers must produce a written response by processing information from the text and also by making text-based inferences or drawing on

their own background knowledge.

Prose Level 1 (Difficulty values 0225). Most of the tasks at this level require the

reader to locate and match a single piece of information in the text that is
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

254

identical or synonymous to the information given in the directive. If a plausible incorrect answer is present in the text, it tends not to be near the correct

information.

Prose Level 2 (Difficulty values 226275). Tasks at this level tend to require

the reader to locate one or more pieces of information in the text, but

several distracters may be present, or low-level inferences may be required.

Tasks at this level also begin to ask readers to integrate two or more pieces

of information, or to compare and contrast information.

Prose Level 3 (Difficulty values 276325). Tasks at this level tend to direct

readers to search texts to match information that require low-level inferences

or that meet specified conditions. Sometimes the reader is required to identify

several pieces of information that are located in different sentences or paragraphs rather than in a single sentence. Readers may also be asked to integrate

or to compare and contrast information across paragraphs or sections of text.

Prose Level 4 (Difficulty values 326375). These tasks require readers to

perform multiple-feature matching or to provide several responses where the

requested information must be identified through text-based inferences. Tasks

at this level may also require the reader to integrate or contrast pieces of

information, sometimes presented in relatively lengthy texts. Typically, these

texts contain more distracting information and the inference that is requested

is more abstract.

Prose Level 5 (Difficulty values 376500). Some tasks at this level require the

reader to search for information in dense text that contains a number of

plausible distracters. Some require readers to make high-level inferences or use

specialized knowledge.

Document literacy involves using materials such as tables, schedules, charts,

graphs, maps, and forms. Questions or directives associated with the various

document tasks are basically of four types: locating, cycling, integrating, and

generating. Locating, integrating, and generating refer to the same skills in

document literacy as in prose literacy. Cycling tasks require the reader to

locate and match one or more features of information, but differ from

locating tasks because they require the reader to engage in a series of

feature matches to satisfy conditions given in the question.

Document Level 1 (Difficulty values 0225). Most of the tasks at this level

require the reader to locate a piece of information based on a literal match.

Distracting information, if present, is typically located away from the

cor rect answer. Some tasks may direct the reader to enter personal information onto a form.

Document Level 2 (Difficulty values 226275). Document tasks at this level

are a bit more varied. While some still require the reader to match on a

single feature, more distracting information may be present or the match

may require a low-level inference. Some tasks at this level may require the

reader to enter information onto a form or to cycle through information in

a document.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

255

Document Level 3 (Difficulty values 276325). Tasks at this level appear to be

most varied. Some require the reader to make literal or synonymous matches,

but usually the matches require the reader to take conditional information into

account or to match on multiple features of information.

Document Level 4 (Difficulty values 326375). Tasks at this level, like those in

the previous levels, ask the reader to match on multiple features of information, to cycle through documents, and to integrate information; frequently,

however, these tasks require the reader to make higher order inferences to

arrive at the cor rect answer. Sometimes conditional information is present in

the document, which must be taken into account by the reader.

Document Level 5 (Difficulty values 376500). Tasks at this level require the

reader to search through complex displays of information that contain multiple distracters, to make high-level inferences, process conditional information, or use specialized knowledge.

Quantitative literacy involves using numbers and arithmetic operations to

complete a task. These numbers often must be located and extracted from

different types of documents that contain similar but irrelevant information, be

inferred from printed directions, or undergo multiple operations.

Quantitative Level 1 (Difficulty values 0225). Although no quantitative tasks

used in the International Adult Literacy Survay (IALS) fall below the score

value of 225, experience suggests that such tasks would require the reader to

perform a single, relatively simple operation (usually addition) for which

either the numbers are already entered onto the given document and the

operation is stipulated, or the numbers are provided and the operation does

not require the reader to borrow.

Quantitative Level 2 (Difficulty values 226275). Tasks at this level typically

require readers to perform a single arithmetic operation (frequently addition or

subtraction) using numbers that are easily located in the text or document.

The operation to be performed may be easily inferred from the wording of the

question or the format of the material (for example, a bank deposit form or

an order form).

Quantitative Level 3 (Difficulty values 276325). Tasks at this level typically

require the reader to perform a single operation. However, the operations

become more variedsome multiplication and division tasks are found in this

level. Sometimes two or more numbers are needed to solve the problem and

the numbers are frequently embedded in more complex displays. While

semantic relation terms such as how many or calculate the difference

are often used, some of the tasks require the reader to make higher order

inferences to determine the appropriate operation.

Quantitative Level 4 (Difficulty values 326375). With one exception, the

tasks at this level require the reader to perform a single arithmetic operation where typically either the quantities or the operation are not easily

determined. That is, for most of the tasks at this level, the question or
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

256

directive does not provide a semantic relation term such as how many or

calculate the difference to help the reader.

Quantitative Level 5 (Difficulty values 376500). These tasks require readers

to perform multiple operations sequentially; they must pull out the features of

the problem from the material provided or rely on background knowledge to

determine the quantities or operations needed.

Indicator 11

Notes on Figures and Tables

Australia

Estimates are based on self-reported information about the number of years of

schooling and the highest diploma or degree obtained.

The data do not refer to the age groups 25 to 64 (or 5564 in Indicator 12) but

to the groups 2569 (or 5569) years of age.

The gender differences in educational attainment shown in Indicator AA7 can

partly be explained as a result of the method used to allocate individuals to

levels of education. In the past, persons who transferred from lower secondary

education to apprenticeship programs (mostly male) were classified at the

upper secondary level, whereas those who transferred directly to nurse and

teacher education (mostly female) were classified at the nonuniversity higher

education level. In the new classification system nurse and teacher education

are considered as university education. Because a wide age band is examined in

11, 12, and 13, it will take a number of years before the impact of the new

classification system is fully reflected in the data.

Austria

Classifications for the upper secondary to graduate school levels of education are based on the highest diploma received; whereas those to the

preprimary to lower secondary levels refer to the number of years of

schooling obtained. Because of the data structure, nonuniversity higher

education graduates are reported at the upper secondary level.

Belgium

Estimates are based on self-reported information about the highest diploma

or degree obtained. The data are collected by means of a labor force survey.

Canada

Classifications for the primary to upper secondary school levels is based on the

average number of years of schooling; for the higher education levels, it is

based on diplomas and degrees actually obtained.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

257

Czechoslovakia

Data refer to the population 25 years of age and over. For the age group 5564

years in Indicator 12, the data actually refer to the group aged 55 years and

over.

Nonuniversity higher education is included in the upper secondary level. One

percent or less of the total is not classified by level. Missing data were proportionally redistributed.

Finland

Data are derived from the Register of Completed Education and Degrees. The

register contains information about educational qualifications at the upper

secondary to graduate school levels, as attained within the regular school and

university system. Adult education and apprenticeship programs are excluded.

France

Classification is based on diplomas for all levels except the preprimary and

primary levels. The upper secondary level is very complex as it refers to

general, vocational, and professional education. The professional programs in

the upper secondary level lead to three separate diplomas. One percent or

less of the total is not classified by level. Missing data were proportionally

redistributed.

Germany

The survey data refer to the populations living in the territory of the former

German Democratic Republic (East Germany) as well as in the former ter ritory

of the Federal R epublic of Germany (West Germany). Only obtained diplomas

or degrees are considered in classifying persons in the upper secondary

through graduate school levels. The data include 11 percent nonresponse,

which was proportionally redistributed across the education levels.

Ireland

Classification to level of education is made by level of certificate. The

exception is the preprimary and primary levels, where the number of years

of schooling is used. A significant number of people who have completed

apprenticeship programs equivalent to upper secondary education are

classified at the lower secondary level. Postsecondary vocational courses

are classified at the upper secondary level, while postsecondary academic

programs are classified as nonuniversity higher education. The proportion

of men with upper secondary education is likely to be underestimated due to

the classification of a predominantly male population with apprenticeship

qualifications at the lower secondary level. One percent or less of the total

is not classified by level. Missing data were proportionally redistributed.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

258

Netherlands

Classification is based on self-reported information, collected by means of a

labor force survey, concerning the highest diploma or degree obtained in

regular as well as in adult education.

Senior secondary vocational education is totally classified at the upper secondary level. A new scheme currently under development proposes to classify the

3- and 4-year programs Middlebaar Berueps Orderwijs (MBO) as

nonuniversity higher education.

New Zealand

The data do not refer to the age group 4554 in Indicator 12, but to the group

4564 years of age. One percent or less of the total is not classified by level.

Missing data were proportionally redistributed.

Norway

One percent or less of the total is not classified by level. Missing data were

proportionally redistributed.

Portugal

One percent or less of the total is not classified by level. Missing data were

proportionally redistributed.

Sweden

The data are based on the national register of population and educational

attainment, which contains information about issued certificates at the higher

education levels. Around 20 percent of the classifications at the

nonuniversity level and 10 percent at the university and graduate school

levels are based on self-reported information. Until 1968, persons who had

passed an examination of a general program at the upper secondary level

were awarded a diploma. The classification of persons educated at a later

date is not based on diplomas but on the completion of the lower or upper

secondary levels.

One percent or less of the total is not classified by level. Missing data were

proportionally redistributed.

Switzerland

One percent or less of the total is not classified by level. Missing data were

proportionally redistributed.

Turkey

Classification is based on the latest diploma or degree obtained. The

preprimary level is excluded.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

259

United Kingdom

Data are based on a labor force survey which does not include women older

than 60 years of age because the female retirement age is 60. Therefore, the

number of women 6064 years of age and their educational attainment is

estimated.

The upper secondary level (defined as beginning at about 1415 years of age

and lasting about three years) is interpreted for the United Kingdom as covering all persons with O level or A level examination passes, or their equivalent.

Most vocational qualifications are included in the upper secondary level.

One percent or less of the total is not classified by level. Missing data were

proportionally redistributed.

United States

Classification to levels of education is derived from the number of years of

schooling completed. Preprimaryprimary is 8 or fewer years; lower secondary

is between 9 and 11 years; upper secondary is between 12 and 13 years;

nonuniversity higher education is between 14 and 15 years; and higher

education is 16 or more years schooling completed.

Indicator 12

See supplemental notes to Indicator 11.

Indicator 13

See supplemental notes to Indicator 11 and supplemental tables 2 and 3.

Indicator 15

See supplemental notes to Indicator 11.

Indicator 16

See supplemental notes to Indicator 11.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

260

Supplemental Table 2: Percentage of men and women in the total

population 2564 years of age that has

completed a certain highest level of education,

by education level, gender, and country: 1992

Higher

Preprimary Lower Upper education Higher

primary secondary secondary (nonuniversity) education

Country M F M F M F M F M F

G71

Canada 11 11 18 18 27 33 27 26 17 13

France 24 28 20 24 40 33 5 6 11 9

Germany (2) (2) 11 25 61 60 13 7 15 8

Italy 33 41 37 32 23 21 (2) (2) 75

United Kingdom (2) (2) 28 41 54 44 5 8 12 7

United States 7 6 10 10 52 56 6 7 26 21

Other

Australia3 (

2

) (2) 37 57 39 21 11 11 13 11

Austria (2) (2) 23 43 69 52 (2) (2) 12 6

Belgium 25 31 28 25 26 24 9 14 12 7

Czechoslovakia4 (

2

) (2) 19 35 69 57 (2) (2) 12 8

Denmark (2) (2) 37 46 44 35 5 7 14 13

Finland (2) (2) 40 40 40 43 8 8 12 8

Ireland 34 30 27 25 21 29 8 9 10 7

Netherlands 14 19 22 29 40 34 (2) (2) 24 18

New Zealand 29 35 9 14 41 25 8 17 14 9

Norway (2) (2) 20 22 53 55 12 13 15 10

Portugal4 76 79 9 8 8 7 1 2 5 5

Spain 58 64 16 16 11 9 4 2 11 9

Sweden (2) (2) 32 29 45 46 11 14 12 11

Switzerland (2) (2) 13 25 57 63 19 7 11 5

Turkey 73 87 9 4 12 6 (2) (2) 73

1Data for Japan not available.

2Data included in another category.

3

1993 data.

41991 data.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, Education Statistics, 19851992.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

261

Supplemental Table 3: Percentage of men and women in the total

population 2534 years of age having

completed specific levels of education, by

highest education level, gender, and country:

1991

Higher

Preprimary Lower Upper education Higher

primary secondary secondary (nonuniversity) education

Country M F M F M F M F M F

G71

Canada 4 4 17 14 33 36 30 30 16 16

France (2) (2) 32 34 48 43 8 10 12 12

Germany (2) (2) 9 14 69 68 9 8 13 11

Italy 8 10 51 47 35 37 (2) (2) 77

United Kingdom (2) (2) 18 20 61 60 7 9 14 11

United States 4 4 10 9 57 56 6 8 23 23

Other

Australia3 (

2

) (2) 37 57 39 21 11 11 13 11

Austria (2) (2) 15 27 77 64 (2) (2) 78

Belgium 13 14 30 24 33 33 12 20 13 10

Czechoslovakia4 (

2

) (2) 11 16 75 72 (2) (2) 14 12

Denmark (2) (2) 32 34 50 45 5 7 13 14

Finland (2) (2) 20 16 60 63 8 11 12 10

Ireland 14 14 36 25 30 40 11 12 10 10

Netherlands 9 10 22 23 44 44 (2) (2) 24 23

New Zealand 24 27 12 18 43 30 7 15 14 11

Norway 2 1 12 9 59 60 14 17 13 12

Portugal4 67 64 14 14 12 12 1 3 6 8

Spain 28 29 31 30 19 18 7 5 15 18

Sweden (2) (2) 19 15 57 59 15 17 9 9

Switzerland (2) (2) 10 15 60 72 18 7 11 6

Turkey 61 79 12 6 19 11 (2) (2) 74

1No data available for Japan.

2Data included in another category.

31993 data.

41991 data.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and

Innovation, Education Statistics, 19851992.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

262

Indicator 17

Notes on Figures and Tables

Austria, France, and the Netherlands

The self-employed are not included.

Belgium

Belgiums data are based on a survey directed to 4,000 persons. For small

groups the sample estimates are sometimes not precise. Net incomes (after

taxes) from the survey have been weighted by taking into account differences

in tax rates.

France

Incomes refer to the main source of earnings for the employed persons. Incomes from other sources are not included.

Switzerland

Income data and information about labor force status refer to the last month of

1991. No information is available about incomes and labor force status during

the whole year.

Indicator 18

See supplemental notes to Indicator 17.

Indicator 19

See supplemental notes to Indicator 11.

Indicator 20

Notes on Figures and Tables

Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and the United States

In cases where two methods are reported for one decision, they are given

equal weight in the calculation.

Belgium

Results for public schools at the lower and upper secondary school levels

include commissions locales in intermediate level 1. Responses for two systems are represented proportional to their enrollment.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

263

Ireland

In cases where two methods are given for a decision at the same educational

level, they are given equal weights in the calculation. Further, a joint response

was submitted for primary and lower secondary education. In cases where

decisionmaking is reported as different for the two levels, they are represented

proportional to their enrollment.

Technical Notes

Indicator 20 presents results from a survey conducted in 1992 and 1993 under

the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) Center for Educational Research and Innovations International

Indicators INES project. The purpose of the survey was to collect information

about how education decisions were officially made during the 1991 school

year.

The survey form consisted of a list of 35 decisions that are made in education

systems and grouped into four areas: a) Planning and Structures; b) Personnel

Management; c) Organization of Instruction; and d) Resources. For details of

the 35 decisions included in the survey, see OECD, Education at a Glance:

OECD Indicators, Paris: 1993.

For each decision, persons knowledgeable about the education system were

asked to provide two items of information: the level where the decision is

made and the decisionmaking mode.

The indicators were calculated to give equal importance to each of the four

decision domains. Because there were different numbers of decisions in each

domain, each item was weighted by the inverse of the number of responses in

its domain. If responses were given for all items, the weights were as follows:

Organization of Instruction 1/8

Structures 1/8

Personnel Management 1/12

Resources 1/7

If a country did not respond to all the items in a domain, the weight was

adjusted to match the number of responses provided.

Four levels of decisionmaking were distinguished:

a. The school level, including decisions made by its own governing board, the

school principal or head teacher, teachers, parents, and students;

b. Intermediate level 1, the intermediate decisionmaking level that is institutionally closest to the school, usually the local authority (for the United

States, this is the District level);

c. Intermediate level 2, the decisionmaking level that is closest to the central

government; this may also be a regional agency of the central government

(for the United States, this is the State level); and
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

264

d. The country level, represented by the central government (e.g., national or

federal).

Three modes of decisionmaking were identified:

a. Full autonomy, subject only to the constraint of legislation that is external

to the education system or very general;

b. Jointly, or in consultation with another level (joint decisionmaking with

actors at the same level was not taken into account); and

c. Freely, but within a framework (binding legislation, regulations or finite

options, a budget, etc.) decided at a more central level.

Indicator 21

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas or

language groups. A description of these limitations follows.

Canada, Scotland, Spain, and the United States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

Indicator 22

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas or

language groups. A description of these limitations follows.

Belgium, Finland, France, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,

Spain, and Venezuela

See supplemental notes for Indicator 7.

Denmark

All Danish-speaking schools.

Indonesia

All schools in seven provinces where 75 percent of the population lives.

Singapore

Nongovernment schools were excluded.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

265

Indicator 23

Notes on Figures and Tables

All countries

Schools and students are counted at the preprimary level if they are considered

to be in education programs. Generally, programs called kindergarten or

nursery school are included, whereas programs called daycare are not.

Special education schools are excluded at the preprimarysecondary level,

except where noted, but special education students are included if they attended regular schools.

Vocational/technical colleges are included, but worksite programs, technical

training centers, and apprenticeship programs and their students are not.

Further education, adult education, and correspondence programs also are

excluded, except where noted.

Generally, free-standing art and music schools are excluded at the primary

secondary level (because it is not clear that their students attended these

schools exclusively), but included at the higher education level where it is

clear that the institutions were free-standing institutions, separate from

universities.

Higher education enrollments are headcounts. Thus, part-time students are

counted as equivalent to full-time students.

Australia

Special education schools and students are included, as there was not enough

information in sources by which to separate them out.

Technical and Further Education (TAFE) schools are considered to be higher

education.

Sources: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Schools Australia, 1992, Table 2.

UNESCO.

Belgium (French Community)

Lenseignment artistique (ex: académie de musique) et lenseignment de

promotion socio-culturelle excluded.

Source: Service des Statistiques, LEnseignement en Chiffres 199091, 1991.

Canada

At elementar ysecondary level only, private schools and their students are

excluded.

Sources: Canadian Education Statistics Council, A Statistical Portrait of

University-Level Education in Canada (see particularly Annexes 1, 2, and 3);

A Statistical Portrait of Elementary and Secondary Education in Canada, 1992,

Table 6. UNESCO.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

266

Finland

Students in vocational schools can be secondary or higher education students.

The number of vocational schools have been divided here between those two

levels of education, then, based on their relative proportion of enrollments:

two-thirds secondary and one-third higher education. Apprentices, however,

are excluded from the counts.

Source: Statistics Finland, Education in Finland 1994: Education Statistics and

Indicators, 1994, tables 3.3 and 3.6, pp. 2024.

France

Includes France Métropolitaine only. Most students who might be categorized

as special education students in other countries are taught in regular schools in

France and counted there.

Excludes classes of the CPGE and STS, which are postsecondary programs of

additional preparation for admission to the grand écoles (the CPGE) and

technical training (the STS). Classes in these programs are typically conducted

in lycées. Also excluded are schools and enrollments at écoles paramédicales et

sociales (enrollment=70,385) and autres établissements denseignment

supérieur (enrollment=103,596), including teacher training schools. Not

considering the CPGE and STS, about 82 percent of French higher education

students are included here. If one were to classify the CPGE and STS as higher

education programs, then about 70 percent of French higher education students are included here.

Higher education institutions and enrollments included here, then, include

universities, écoles dingénieurs, écoles de commerce, gestion, et comptabilité,

and their students.

Sources: Ministère de lÉducation Nationale et de la Culture, LÉducation

Nationale en Chiffres, 199192, 1992; Repères & Références Statistiques sur

les Enseignment et la Formation, 1992, pp. 1617, 2223, 2627, 3031,

3435, 5051, 6465, 130131, 138141. UNESCO.

Germany

Sources: Der Bundesminister für Bildung und Wissenschaft, Grund-Und

Strucktur Daten, 199293, pp. 4445, 154155, 167. UNESCO.

Japan

Special Training Schools, Miscellaneous Schools, and the University of the

Air are excluded, but correspondence students at regular higher education

institutions are counted. Nonuniversity institutions consist of colleges of

technology and junior colleges.

Sources: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Monbusho, 1989,

p. 17. Ellen E. Machiko, A Study of the Educational System of Japan and a

Guide to the Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions of

the United States. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate

Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1989. APEC. UNESCO.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

267

Korea

Number of universities includes 298 graduate schools. Miscellaneous Schools

are excluded.

Sources: Ministry of Education, Education in Korea, 1990, 1991, p. 11.UNESCO.

New Zealand

Includes those students enrolled in preprimary programs at primary schools

as well as those in physically separate kindergartens. Excludes subsidized

supervised playgroups, childcare services, playcentres, and Kohanga Reo.

Includes three primary-level and two secondary-level special education

schools.

Sources: Ministry of Education, Education Statistics of New Zealand, 1991,

Table 1.

Spain

Students and schools involved in the Experimental Postsecondary Education Reform program are excluded. Arts and Language schools and students

(primarysecondary level) are excluded.

Sources: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Informe Nacional de Educación,

1992, Tables 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, and 1.15 on pp. 26, 37, 38. UNESCO.

Taiwan

Supplementary Schools are excluded.

Source: Ministry of Education, Bureau of Statistics, Education in the Republic

of China, 1992, pp. 33 and 37.

United Kingdom

Includes non-maintained independent and direct-grant schools

(N=2,488), including a small number of independent special education

schools [public sector special education schools (N=1,792) and their

students (N=112,600) are excluded]. All non-maintained schools here

comprise the preprimar ysecondar y combined category. Includes Open

University students counted as part-time students.

Excludes independent nursery schools having less than five pupils of compulsory school age. Excludes further education.

Source: Government Statistical Service, Education Statistics for the United

Kingdom, 1993, Table A.

United States

Preprimaryprimary schools (a.k.a. elementary schools) begin with grade 6 or

below and end with no grade higher than 8. Secondary schools category

includes schools with no grade lower than 7. Thus, most middle schools

(grades 68) would be classified as primary, whereas most junior high schools

(grades 79) would be classified as secondary.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

268

Technical Notes

Problems in comparing the number of schools and their sizes across

countries

There exists some variation in how countries count students and schools,

and which students and schools they count, that creates problems in

comparing school sizes. The variation tends to arise chiefly at the borderlands of education.

The borderlands include: preprimary education and daycare; special education; adult education; vocational and technical education; correspondence

programs; and private schools. Some countries, for example, simply do not

consider private center-based daycare to be education. Indeed, in some

countries, even public center-based daycare is not managed by education

authorities; rather, it is the responsibility of human ser vices departments.

Programs outside the purview of the education authorities tend not to have

good statistical accounting in data collections managed by public education

authorities.

The exact location of each boundary between level and types of education

also varies from country to countr y and even within each country. In

Canada, for example, vocational/technical students in Québec who so

choose enter vocational/technical college in the 12th grade. In the other

Canadian provinces with vocational/technical colleges, entry is at the 13th

or the 14th grade. Thus, vocational/technical students in the other provinces spend more time at the upper secondary level. The more time the

average student spends in a level of education, the greater will be the

number of students at that level. This can affect school size.

In order to improve comparability in the school size statistics, the following

decisions have been made with regard to the data:

■ Countries are excluded if the exact number of schools and students could

not be determined at each level. One must be particularly careful not to

double count schools. A typical country education statistical table displays

the number of schools and students for each level of education. Not all of

the schools listed may be separate, however. The best statistical tables, for

the purpose of the construction of this indicator, provide separate counts

both for schools that are unique to a level of education and for those that

combine levels.

■ Programs are excluded if it could not be determined precisely how to

allocate students and schools between levels of education. This issue

arises particularly with vocational/technical programs, which straddle the

secondary and higher education levels in some countries, not wholly in

one level or the other.

■ Each countrys own definition for which grades or age-groups comprise

the different levels of education have been accepted, because countries

count their students and schools within their own classification systems.

It should be remembered, though, that the break point between levels of
Supplemental Notes and Tables

269

education varies across countries and even within countries. Thus, in

comparing two countries by a particular level of education, one may

actually be comparing two different grade-level groups or age groups.

■ Only those programs that each country considers to be education

programs have been counted. This issue arises particularly with

preprimary programs. What one country labels center-based daycare

might not look any different in practice from what another country

labels nursery school. But it was beyond the scope of this project to

investigate the content of preprimary programs across countries in

much detail. At one extreme, France runs its écoles maternelles

through its education ministr y, which enroll most children ages 3 through

5, and also enroll many 2-year-olds. At the other extreme, some Canadian

and Australian provinces have no programs identified as preprimary

education (most other Canadian and Australian provinces provide a year

of kindergarten in their elementary schools).

■ For similar reasons, worksite programs, technical training centers, and

apprentice programs and their students are excluded. Further education,

adult education, and correspondence programs also are excluded. Reliable

comparable data for such programs would be very difficult to uncover. In

many cases, country education authorities would not have them.

■ Where possible, free-standing special education schools are excluded,

because some countries do not count them as part of their education

statistics, whereas others do. Moreover, double-counting could emerge as

a problem if students spend part of their time at a regular school and the

other part at a special school. One could encounter the same problem

with primarysecondary level art and music schools, and for the same

reason, they have been excluded as well. Moreover, double-counting

could be a problem with apprentice programs if students are counted

once at their regular school and then again at their work site.

Comparing the elementary-school model to the preprimary-school model

There exist two basic grade-level structures for the preprimary grades, one

that adds preprimary grades onto existing elementary schools, and the

other that employs separate preprimary schools. In the elementary-school

model, a school system might expand into the preprimary grades by, first,

adding a year of kindergarten and then, perhaps, a year of prekindergarten.

In the preprimary-school model, a school system might build from scratch

or convert existing daycare programs to nursery schools with explicit

academic instructional components.

A countrys expansion of education into the preprimary years within the

elementary-school model has the potential for making larger schools, since

existing elementary schools are simply adding new grade levels. A countrys

expansion of education into the preprimary years within the preprimaryschool model has the potential for adding more schools and, probably, reducing average school size, because preprimary (or, nursery) schools tend to be

smaller than schools at other levels of education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

270

Countries in which the elementary-school model predominates include

Australia, Canada, and the United States. Countries in which the preprimaryschool model predominates include Belgium, France, Japan, Korea, Spain, and

the United Kingdom. Other countriesFinland, Germany, New Zealand, and

Taiwanemploy a mix of the two models, though the preprimary-school

model is more popular in each of them. In Taiwan, the public preprimary

programs tend to be attached to public primary schools and, thus, in the

elementary-school model. The far more numerous private preprimar y programs in Taiwan, however, are separate from primary schools.

Preprimary programs have been included here for two reasons: it is not always

possible to separate out preprimary students from elementary-school student

counts; and one wouldnt want to separate them out, anyway, because they are

students who add to the size of the school. Subtracting them from the school

population would give one an inaccurate measure of the size of the school.

Problems in calculating the number and size of higher education institutions:

branchcampuses

Generally, graduate school students are included in the counts of university

students. They would only be counted separately if they studied in schools

that were separate.

Exactly what constitutes institutional separateness in higher education,

however, is open to dispute. Consider the problem of branch campuses. At

what stage of existence does a branch campus become a separate institution?

Take, for example, the University of Californiaone university with several

campuses. The two most prominent campuses of the University are at Berkeley

(UCal), nominally the main campus, and at Los Angeles (UCLA). Legally,

these are two branches of the same university, but in many meaningful ways

they function as separate universities.

If one were to count UCal and UCLA as separate universities, however, what of

all other University of California programs that happen to be geographically

separate, for example, the nuclear weapons research facility at Los Alamos,

New Mexico, which has no students, classrooms, or teachers? One could,

perhaps, explicitly require that, in order to be classified as a higher education

institution, a facility must have students, classrooms, and some full-time

professors with offices on site. But, even that definition could suffer some

slippage in clarity. Besides, examining the individual characteristics of

different countries many higher education institutions in such detail is

beyond the scope of this report.

In this report, then, universities are counted as their countries count them. For

the United States data included here, a university counts as a single institution

no matter how large or numerous its branch campuses may be. (And, UCLA

and UCal are considered two campuses of a single university.)

In most countries universities are single institutions that exist in only one

place. Branch campuses, and the comparability problem they portend for this

indicator, seem to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. For those who would prefer
Supplemental Notes and Tables

271

that branch campuses should be counted separately, the U.S. average school

size calculated here will seem too high, but the school sizes for all the other

countries would still be comparable.

Problems in calculating the number and size of higher education institutions:

headcount versus full-time-equivalent enrollment counts

Another education statistics comparability problemthat of headcount versus

full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollmentspresents only a minor problem at

the preprimarysecondary level, but could represent a major problem at the

higher education level. A headcount enrollment counts every student as one

student regardless of the level of participation. Theoretically, a student who

takes 1 hour a week of class at a university could be counted as one student

just as a full-time student, taking 15 hours a week of class would be. In

practice, however, some education authorities impose a minimum participation threshold on the numbers in order to not count the most casual students.

All students participating, say, at least half-time, might get counted as students

in the head count.

Full-time equivalency would count some or all part-time students not as

individual students, but as partial students, their weight in the count determined by the degree of their participation in school. A half-time student would

get counted as a 0.5 student rather than 1. A quarter-time student would get

counted as a 0.25 student, and so on. FTE counts give a more accurate picture

of the size of an institution as it is practically being used.

Full-time-equivalent counts are usually lower than headcounts at the same

institution. The two methods of counting would only produce the same

number at an institution in which all students were full-time. It is not possible

that an FTE count could be higher than a headcount if the same students at

the same institution were being counted.

For this indicator, we use headcounts. That is because all but three of the

countries for which we have data publish headcounts exclusively. Three

countries, however, did publish their numbers of part-time students along with

their full-time numbers. Counting the part-time students as 0.5 students, we

can calculate an FTE enrollment for these countries, Canada, New Zealand,

and the United States. Supplemental Table 4 displays these FTE enrollments

for the average higher education institution in each country, next to the

equivalent headcount enrollment.

As Supplemental Table 4 shows, using FTE enrollments rather than

headcounts does not affect the relative ranking of school sizes across these

three countries, but it is conceivable that it could make a difference with a

larger sample of countries. Part-time students make up a larger proportion of

the student population in the United States than in Canada or New Zealand,

for example. The proportion of part-time students in a student population may

vary across other countries as well and, so long as it does, the two different

accounting methodsheadcount and FTEcan produce different school

size rankings.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

272

Supplemental Table 4: The average size of higher education

institutions, by counting method and country:

various years

Average number of students per institution of higher education...

...using a headcount ...using a full-time

Country enrollment equivalent enrollment

Canada 3,769 3,063

New Zealand 3,737 3,026

United States 3,988 3,120

Indicator 24

Notes on Figures and Tables

Canada, Israel, the former Soviet Union, and the United States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

West Germany (former)

See supplemental notes for Indicator 7.

Japan

Monbusho reports the number of hours of instruction per year for Japanese

13-year-olds as 1,050. However, the report states that one hour is equivalent to

50 minutes of instruction. Therefore, to make the Japanese figures comparable

to the hours of instruction reported in the International Assessment of Educational Progress for other countries, the number of hours in the Japanese

school day was multiplied by a ratio of 50 minutes to 60.

Indicator 25

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas or

language groups. A description of these limitations follows.

Canada, Israel, Scotland, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and

the United States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

273

Indicator 26

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas or

language groups. A description of these limitations follows.

Canada, Israel, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United

States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

Indicator 27

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas or

language groups. A description of these limitations follows.

Canada, Israel, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United

States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

Indicator 28

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas or

language groups. A description of these limitations follows.

Canada, Israel, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and the United

States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

Indicator 29

Notes on Figures and Tables

Austria

Lower secondary education

All schools of general education until grade 9. Special schools for handicapped

children are excluded.

Upper secondary education

Included are only general secondary and vocational schools which qualify for

university. Excluded are lower vocational schools (48 percent of all schools),

and some special school types (7 percent of all schools).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

274

Belgium-Flemish

Lower and upper secondary education

All (state, province/community, and catholic) schools offering comprehensive

general or comprehensive technical/arts education.

Belgium-French

Primary education

All (state, province/community, and catholic) schools, except special education

(3.7 percent of all students).

Lower secondary education

All (state, province/community, and catholic) schools offering comprehensive

general or comprehensive vocational education (technical and arts). Excluded

is vocational education (22.8 percent of all students) and special education

(3.9 percent of all students).

Upper secondary education

All general secondary and vocational schools, except special education

(3.9 percent).

Canada-British Columbia

Primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary education

All schools. For the Principal and Computer Coordinator questionnaires no

distinction was made between Population 2 and Population 3.

China

Upper secondary education

All schools in the cities/provinces of Beijing, Shanghai, Xingxiang city (Henon

province), Neimong, Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region, Jiling, Anhui,

Sichuan, Guangdong provinces.

France

Primary education

All schools except private education (15 percent of students) and special

education (less than 0.5 percent of students).

Lower secondary education

All schools except private education (students in Colléges: 20 percent of all

students) and special education.

Upper secondary education

All schools except private education (3 percent of students).
Supplemental Notes and Tables

275

West Germany (former)

Lower and upper secondary education

All schools in nine Bundesländer (58 percent of all students).

Greece

Lower and upper secondary education

All schools except private and evening schools (altogether 4 percent of

all students).

Hungary

Upper secondary education

All schools.

India

Upper secondary education

All schools in some districts of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, West

Bengal, and Tamil Nadu (which are the states with the maximum number of

computer using schools (in the regions North, West, East and South respectively). These districts (about 30 percent) have been chosen at random

within the states.

Israel

Primary education

All schools except special education (7 percent of all students).

Upper secondary education

All academic schools and technological schools with courses leading to certification. This excludes vocational education as well as independent schools

(about 4 percent of all students).

Italy

Primary education

All schools except private schools (8.3 percent of the schools and

7.8 percent of the students).

Lower secondary education

All schools except private schools (9.3 percent of the schools and

4.6 percent of the students).

Upper secondary education

All schools except private schools (25.8 percent of the schools and

12.3 percent of the students).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

276

Japan

Primary and lower secondary education

All schools except special education.

Upper secondary education

All general and vocational schools.

Luxembourg

Lower secondary education

All general and technical secondary schools.

Netherlands

Primary education

All schools except special education.

Lower secondary education

All schools except international transition year, English stream, individual

agricultural education, agricultural education and nautical education

(5 percent of all students).

Upper secondary education

All general secondary, social nursery, economical/administrative, and technical

schools. Excluded are all other vocational schools (about

6.4 percent of all students). Teachers were only sampled from general

secondary schools.

New Zealand

Primary education

All schools with students in standard 4 except the Cor respondence School and

special education.

Lower secondary education

All schools with students in form 3, except the Correspondence School and

special education.

Upper secondary education

All schools with students in form 7, except the Correspondence School and

special education.

Poland

Upper secondary education

All schools.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

277

Portugal

Primary education

All schools in the public school system of the continental territory, except

distance education.

Lower and upper secondary education

All schools in the public schools system of the continental ter ritory.

Slovenia

Upper secondary education

All schools.

Switzerland

Lower secondary education

All schools except schools in canton Argau, Geneve, Vaud.

Upper secondary education

All schools except schools in canton Geneve.

United States

The sampling frame included all U.S. schools, public and private, that

contained a fourth grade or higher, plus vocational and alternative high

schools. The frame excluded separate schools for the special education

population and also excluded schools that only exist to provide part-day or

part-year pull-out classes for students from other schools. Each school was

allocated to one or more of three sub-frames, primary, lower-secondary,

or upper-secondary, depending on whether it contained a 5th grade, 7th or

8th grade, or 10th, 11th, or 12th grade.

Sixth-grade-only schools were allocated to the primary sub-frame and 9thgrade-only schools to the lower secondary sub-frame.

Indicator 32

Notes on Figures and Tables

All countries

Ages of participating students varied. The desired target populations were all

pupils attending school on a full-time basis at the grade levels in which most

students were 9 and 14.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

278

Indicator 33

Notes on Figures and Tables

Australia

Calculated figures from OECD, National Accounts; fiscal year runs from July

1991 to June 1992.

Canada, Japan, and the United Kingdom

Calculated figures from OECD, National Accounts; 3/4 (1991) + 1/4 (1992).

Finland

Calculated figures from OECD, National Accounts; fiscal year is 1991.

New Zealand

Calculated figures from OECD, National Accounts; fiscal year runs from

April 1991 to March 1992.

Sweden and the United States

Calculated figures from OECD, National Accounts; 1/2 (1991) + 1/2 (1992).

Indicator 34

Technical Note

The following formula was used to calculate the average annual percentage

increase in productivity:

Indicator 36

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas,

language groups, or grade levels. A description of these limitations follow:

Canada, Israel, Scotland, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and

the United States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

Annual percentage increase = 1991 Productivity

1961 Productivity

- 1

30
Supplemental Notes and Tables

279

Indicator 37

Notes on Figures and Tables

In some cases, countries limited assessments to particular geographic areas,

language groups, or grade levels. A description of these limitations follow:

Canada, Israel, Scotland, the former Soviet Union, Spain, Switzerland, and

the United States

See supplemental notes for Indicator 8.

Indicator 38

Notes on Figures and Tables

Australia

Teachers include principals, deputy principals, and senior teachers mainly

involved in administrative tasks.

Denmark

The figures are estimates. Teaching staff at continuation schools are included

in other staff.

Japan

Principal and vice principals are included in Teachers while other staff is

included in Support Staff.

West Germany (former)

Most figures are estimates. The apprentice teachersi.e., the staff responsible for the teaching of apprentices in the enterprises under the dual

systemare not included among the teaching staff.

United Kingdom

Figures on teachers at lower secondary education are included in upper

secondary education.

United States

Figures on teachers in early childhood education are included in primar y

education.

Technical Notes

Calculation of full-time equivalents

See supplemental notes to Indicator 1 for details on the calculation of full-time

equivalents.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

280

Indicator 39

Notes on Figures and Tables

Australia, Denmark, Finland, West Germany (former), and the United States

See supplemental note for Indicator 38.

Technical Notes

Calculation of full-time equivalents

See supplemental note for Indicator 1 for an explanation of the calculation of

full-time equivalents.

Indicator 41

Notes on Figures and Tables

All countries

The service of public debt is included in total public expenditure.

Because the fiscal year has a different starting date in different countries,

within-country Consumer Price Indexes (CPI) were used to adjust the

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) indices to account for inflation.

Australia

Expenditure for higher education includes expenditure for vocational

secondary education, as it is taught in institutions of higher education, and are

from 1992. Expenditures for preprimary, primary, and secondary and private

higher education are from 1991.

Belgium and the Czech Republic

All education expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education

expenditure per GDP multiplied by current/total expenditure ratio for total

public and private education expenditure.

Canada

Preprimary expenditures are not calculated separately, rather, they are included

in primary-secondary and higher education.

Denmark

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital expenditures.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

281

Finland

Public/private expenditure ratio from 1991 is used to calculate education

expenditures.

Public/private ratio reported for all levels is used for both primarysecondary

and higher education.

West Germany (former)

Includes contributions to the pension funds of teachers who are civil servants.

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

Italy

All education expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education expenditure per GDP multiplied by current/total expenditure ratio for

total public and private education expenditure.

Norway

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

Total public expenditure figure is from 199091.

Sweden

Calculated figures from OECD, National Accounts; 1/2 (1991) + 1/2

(1992).

All expenditure figures include capital expenditures.

Switzerland

All education expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education expenditures per GDP, multiplied by cur rent/total expenditure ratio for

total public and private education expenditure.

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital expenditures.

Education expenditure data include only net expenditures for ancillary services.

United Kingdom

All education expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education

expenditure per GDP, multiplied by current/total expenditure ratio for total

public and private education expenditure.

Excludes expenditure on nursing and paramedical education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

282

Technical Notes

Methodology used for adjusting inflation rates

Although most countries report education expenditure for the calendar year

(CY) 1992, eight countries have provided figures for financial years starting in

April, June, or other months of 1991. Because of price inflation, the expenditure figures of the latter countries are not strictly comparable to those of

countries that report for JanuaryDecember 1992. For example, if a country

with a 6 percent annual inflation rate submits expenditure figures for the

financial year July 1991 to June 1992, that countrys outlays will be about 3

percent less, simply because of inflation over a 6-month period, than if the

same country had provided data for CY 1992. For this reason, it is important to adjust the figures of the countries that do not report by calendar

year to correct for inflation. Such adjustments affect finance indicators 41,

42, and 43. The remaining finance indicators 44 and 45, are not affected

because they consist of ratios in which the numerators and denominators

already pertain to the same period.

Indicators 41 and 42 compare educational expenditures with variables that

normally are reported for CY 1992namely, GDP in the case of indicator 42

and total public expenditure for all purposes in the case of indicator 41. To

make the numerators and denominators of these indicators compatible, it is

necessary to adjust the expenditure figures of countries that have not reported

educational spending for the 1992 calendar year. The required adjustment is:

EXPADJ = EXP (1 + INF)

where EXP and EXPADJ are unadjusted and adjusted expenditures, respectively, and INF is the inflation rate for the number of months between the

countrys financial year and CY 1992. For example, if the countrys fiscal

year begins in July 1991, INF would be the inflation rate during a 6-month

period, or one-half the annual inflation rate between 1991 and 1992.

An exception to this procedure applies to two countries, Australia and New

Zealand, for which national accounts data, including GSP and total public

expenditure, are not reported by calendar year. For these two countries only,

the educational expenditure figures have been adjusted to correspond to the

year for which GDP is reported rather than to CY 1992.

Two limitations of these adjustment procedures should be recognized. First,

the adjustments are for changes in the general (GDP) price level but not in

the price level for education. No suitable purchasing power parity (PPP)

figures are available that pertain specifically to education. Second, no allowance has been made for real growth in educational expenditure (increases in

excess of inflation) that might have taken place during the 6-month or 9-

month periods covered by the adjustments. It would only be possible to take

real growth into account retroactively, after data for the 199293 financial year

become available. Nevertheless, the adjustment for inflation does eliminate one

significant source of noncomparability of expenditure figures, thereby enhancing the validity of the international comparisons of educational spending.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

283

Indicator 42

Notes on Figures and Tables

All countries

Gross domestic product is gross national product less net property income

from abroad.

Australia

Expenditures for higher education include expenditures for vocational secondary education, as it is taught in institutions of higher education, and are

from 199192. Expenditures for preprimary, primarysecondary, and private

higher education are from 199091 (in 199192 constant dollars).

Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Italy

All expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education expenditure per GDP, multiplied by current/total expenditure ratio for total public and

private education expenditure.

Belgium

Research expenditures are included to the extent that they are covered by

funds provided by the community education authorities. Research funds

from other public and private sources are excluded.

Canada

Preprimar y expenditures are not calculated separately; rather, they are

included in primarysecondary expenditures.

Denmark and Norway

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

Finland

Public/private expenditure ratio from 1991 is used.

Public/private ratio reported for all levels is used for both primarysecondary

and higher education.

The percentage is affected by the decline in GDP between 1990 and 1992.

Expenditure for not allocated by level includes expenditure for adult

education and educational expenditure from the Ministry of Education and

the National Board of Education. Research expenditure includes general

university and business enterprise funds but not other separately identified

R&D funds.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

284

West Germany (former)

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital expenditures and contributions to the pension funds of teachers who are civil

servants. Total educational expenditures are not complete. The following

expenditures are missing: private schools (however, public grants given to

private schools are included); schools for nurses; agricultural training and

research centers: German Research Foundation; Federal Institute for Employment (expenditure for retraining, better qualification, etc.); training of apprentices in the public service; support payments for dependent children made to

persons undergoing education/training; allowances paid to teachers enjoying

the status of public official for medical treatment and health insurance; scholarships granted by private institutions; households purchases of commodities

and services for education.

Public expenditures broken down by level of education and by type of expenditure are estimates.

Almost all expenditure on research is included: there are some minor omissions.

Ireland

Expenditure includes mainstream higher education research.

Expenditures of private entities other than households are underestimated

because they are only provided for higher education. The expenditures for

the other levels of education are not available.

Japan

All separately identifiable research expenditure has not been taken into account but compensation of teaching staff (and other regular staff) in universities is included.

New Zealand

Education expenditures represent total public expenditure (i.e., include capital

expenditure and debt service) and are derived from public education expenditure per GDP figure.

Norway

Expenditures for preprimary education in government-dependent institutions (their amount is small) are included in expenditures for primary

education.

Spain

Public expenditure for education is underestimated because a large part of the

pension costs are not included.

Payments to independent private institutions for higher education are underestimated because only the payments of private entities to universities for their

activities of research and development are included.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

285

Expenditure on research has been partly taken into account. Some higher

education institutions have all R&D expenditure in their budgets; others have

only general university funds and certain types of contracts.

Sweden

Preprimary and higher education figures include capital expenditures.

Switzerland

All expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education expenditure per GDP multiplied by current/total expenditure ratio for total public and

private education expenditures.

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

Expenditure data include only net expenditures for ancillary services.

United Kingdom

All expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education expenditure per GDP multiplied by current/total expenditure ratio for total public and

private education expenditures.

Excludes expenditure on nursing and paramedical education.

Expenditure by or on behalf of independent institutions at the higher

education level has been assumed to be negligible.

Only general university funds and grants from the Department of Education

are included. All other separate R&D funds have not been taken into account.

United States

All research expenditures are included except for funds on major universityadministered federal R&D centers.

Technical Notes

This indicator does not give a complete picture of the distribution of

public resources between the three levels, since some countries did not

classify portions of their public expenditures, reporting them, instead, as

undistributed.

The indicator is also influenced by the duration of each level in different

countries. For example, if primary education lasts 4 years in one country and

6 years in another, we would expect the primary share of GDP funding to be

roughly 1.5 times as large in the latter country, other things being equal.

Countries sometimes designate different level classifications to a particular

type of education program. This is particularly true of certain types of vocational and technical education, which are considered secondary education in

some countries and higher education in others.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

286

Some countries expenditures for higher education include substantial public

subsidies for student living expenses, whereas other countries expenditures do

not. Also, the higher education expenditures of some countries include the full

costs of research conducted at higher education institutions, while the figures

of other countries include only selected portions of research outlay.

Methodology Used for Adjusting Inflation Rates

See supplemental notes for Indicator 41.

Indicator 43

Notes on Figures and Tables

Austria

Seventy percent of full-time apprentices have been excluded from the total

number of full-time equivalent enrollments. Subtracting this percentage that

represents training in firms was required to adjust the figures to data on

expenditure because figures on firms expenditure were not available. It was

assumed that apprentices spend about 30 percent of their training in public

schools and 70 percent with the employers (these are approximate figures).

Canada

At the higher education level, for public institutions, expenditures are net of

ancillar y services.

Czech Republic

Costs per student cannot be calculated by distinguishing expenditures for

primary and secondary levels because the data for lower secondary education

have been included in primary and not in upper secondary education.

Data on expenditures for nonuniversity higher education have been included

in expenditures for upper secondary education but these expenditures are

small.

Denmark

Because adult education is included in the expenditure, the following figures

for full-time equivalent enrollment have been used to calculate the participation indicators:

Lower secondary education: 12,000

Upper secondary education: 21,000

Higher education: 15,000
Supplemental Notes and Tables

287

Japan

Figures on expenditure by type of institution do not include expenditure for

textbooks and scholarships.

Sweden

Enrollments and expenditure for adult education have not been taken into

account.

Switzerland

Costs per student in secondary education and in primarysecondary education

have not been calculated because figures on apprentices and vocational education students do not cor respond to the figures for expenditure at this level.

For additional details on individual countries, see supplemental note for

Indicator 42.

Technical Notes

Calculation of full-time equivalent enrollment

Enrollment is in all institutions, public and private, and is based on

headcount estimates for preprimary through secondary education. For

higher education, it is full-time equivalent enrollment.

Methodology used for adjusting inflation rates

Indicator 43 shows expenditure per student expressed in equivalent US

dollars, converted at PPP rates. In cases where countries have reported

expenditures for CY 1991, the calculation is simply Indicator 43 = (EXP/

ENR)PPP91 where EXP/ENR is expenditure per student in units of national

currency and PPP91 is the PPP exchange rate between 1992 units of national

currency and 1992 US dollars. In cases where countries fiscal years begin

in 1991, however, this formula has to be adjusted to reflect inflation between

1991 and 1992. The adjusted formula, reflected in the tables for indicator 43,

i s

Indicator 43 = (EXP/ENR)/PPPADJ

where the adjusted PPP rate, PPP is calculated as a weighted average of the

PPPs applicable to 1991 and 1992 according to the equation,

PPPADJ = W91(PPP91) / (1 + rUS) + W92(PPP92).

In this expression, PPP90 is the PPP exchange rate between 1991 units of

national currency and 1991 US dollars, rUS is the United States inflation rate

between 1991 and 1992, and W91 and W92 are the weights applicable to

1991 and 1992, based on the starting and ending months of the countrys

school year. For example, W91 = 0.75 and W92 = 0.25 for a country with a

financial year April 1991 to March 1992, but W91 = 0.50 and W92 = 0.50 for a

country with a financial year July 1991 to June 1992).
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

288

Private expenditures

Per pupil expenditure is calculated as current public expenditure divided by

enrollment in both public and private schools. Because it does not include

investment from private sources, it is not a measure of the total resources

students receive.

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) index

A Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) index for Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

was used in this indicator. PPP indices are calculated by comparing the cost

of a fixed market basket of goods and services (e.g., living expenses, such as

housing and food) in each country. This market basket of goods and services does not include educational expenses. Thus, in countries where the

cost of education is higher relative to that of the living expenses reflected in

a PPP, the PPP may underestimate the cost of education.

Indicator 44

Notes on Figures and Tables

Australia

Expenditure for higher education includes expenditure for vocational secondary education, as it is taught in institutions of higher education, and are

from 199192. Expenditures for preprimary and secondary education and

private higher education are from 199091.

Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom

Expenditures represent total public expenditure (i.e., include capital

expenditure and debt services) and are derived from public education

expenditure per GDP figure.

Austria and the Czech Republic

See supplemental note for Indicator 43.

Canada

Expenditure for preprimary education is included in expenditure for

primary and secondary education.

Denmark

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

Finland

Public education expenditures are derived from total education expenditure

figure, using a public/private ratio from 1991.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

289

Public/private ratio reported for all levels is used for both primary-secondary

and higher education.

Figures include daycare and preschool education (and meals) provided for

36-year-olds, in daycare centers, generally 8 to 10 hours a day, 5 days a week.

West Germany (former)

Includes contributions to the pension funds of teachers who are civil

servants.

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

For preprimary, primar y, and secondar y levels, figures refer to public

institutions only.

For higher education shares of enrollments have not been calculated

because enrollments cannot be distinguished between public and private

institutions.

New Zealand

All expenditure figures are derived from figure for public education expenditure per GDP, multiplied by current/total expenditure ratio for total public and

private education expenditures.

Norway

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

Spain

Public expenditure for education is underestimated because a large part of

the pension costs is not included.

Sweden

Preprimary and higher education figures include capital expenditures.

Switzerland

Expenditure data for publicly supported private schools include capital

expenditures.

Expenditure data include only net expenditures for ancillary services.

United Kingdom

Excludes expenditure on nursing and paramedical education.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

290

Indicator 45

Notes on Figures and Tables

Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, West Germany (former), Hungary,

Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Switzerland

Public-private proportions are derived from expenditure-per-GDP table F01 in

the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for

Educational Research and Innovation, Internation Indicators Project, 1995.

Belgium

Provincial or regional sources refer to the expenditures from the three communities; local or municipality sources refer to the expenditures from provinces

and cities.

Figures on central funds are available for all levels of education combined

but they cannot be broken down by level of education.

Canada

Expenditure for preprimary education is included in expenditure for primary

and secondary education.

Denmark, Ireland, and Spain

The country mean for the three levels of governments may not add up to

100 percent, since they do not include certain percentages of funds from

international sources.

European Community countries

European Community (EC) member countries can receive funds from the EC

Social Fund for vocational education in the upper secondary through graduate

school levels. Ireland is the only country that reported these funds to the

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1995.

Finland

Data concerning households and private organizations are available.

West Germany (former)

Expenditures by regional governments include subsidies from the federal

government. The private share of primary and secondary expenditure is

influenced by the inclusion of large outlays by private firms for training and

compensating apprentices under the dual system. Other countries with

similar systems have not included such outlays in their educational expenditure figures.
Supplemental Notes and Tables

291

Hungary

There are regional governments (counties) and municipalities as well but it is

preferable to regard both as local governments because regional governments

have no significant redistributive role.

Japan

Expenditure of prefectures and municipalities cannot be provided separately.

Switzerland

See supplemental notes for Indicator 42.

United Kingdom

Expenditure by or on behalf of independent institutions at the higher education level has been assumed to be negligible.

Only general university funds and grants from the Department of Education

are included. All other separate R&D funds have not been taken into account.

SOURCES OF DATA

SOURCES OF DATA

The information presented in this report was obtained from many sources,

including federal, national, international, and state agencies, private research

organizations, and professional associations. The data were collected using

many research methods, including surveys of a universe (such as all colleges)

or of a sample (such as 15,000 eighth graders), and compilations of administrative records. In the Sources of Data section, descriptions of information

sources and data collection methods are presented, grouped by sponsoring

organization. More extensive documentation of a particular survey s procedures does not imply more problems with the data, only that more information

is available.

The accuracy of any statistic is determined by the joint effects of sampling

and nonsampling errors. Estimates based on a sample will differ somewhat

from the figures that would have been obtained if a complete census had been

taken using the same survey instruments, instructions, and procedures.

Estimation of sampling error is discussed in the sidebar entitled Using data

from sample surveys. Unless otherwise noted, all statements, cited in the text

from sample surveys were tested for statistical significance and are statistically

significant at the .05 level. Several test procedures were used. Which procedure

was used depended on the type of data being interpreted and the nature of the

statement being tested. The most commonly used procedure was multiple

t-tests with a Bonferroni adjustment to the significance level. When multiple

comparisons between more than two countries were made, even if only one

comparison is cited in the text, a Bonferroni adjustment to the significance

level was made to ensure the significance level for the tests as a group was at

the .05 level. In this report the emphasis is on comparisons between the

United States and the other G7 countries which required adjusting the

significance level for the number of other countries represented in the table.

In addition to sampling errors, all surveysboth universe and sampleare

subject to nonsampling errors. These arise, for example, when the respondents

or interviewers interpret questions differently, when respondents fail to respond (completely or partially), or when respondents who should be included

in a universe are not. Since estimating the magnitude of nonsampling errors

often would require special experiments or access to independent data, these

nonsampling errors are seldom available. Thus, estimates of survey error in

statistics usually, but not always understate total survey er ror and overstate the

precision of survey estimates.

Readers should take particular care when comparing data from different

sources. Differences in procedures, timing, phrasing of questions, and interviewer training mean that the results from the different sources may not be

strictly comparable. Readers should also be aware that countries are at different stages in the sophistication of their data development and collection

systems, and thus, have different types of data in an easily accessible form.

295
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

296

A limited number of countries (e.g., Denmark, Switzerland) have national

registers that follow student cohorts throughout their education career. Some

countries (e.g., United States, Canada) have large survey programs that collect

data regarding education based on samples of schools or students. Additionally, some countries have extensive national-level data available through

administrative records.

Center for Educational Research and Innovation

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators

The third edition of Education at a Glance (EAG), published in 1995, is

produced through the cooperation of member countries of the Organization

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Indicators of

Education Systems (INES) project. 19911992 data for 49 indicators of international education are provided for 27 nationsAustralia, Austria, Belgium,

Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany (Unified,

former West and former East Germany, as available), Greece, Hungary, Iceland,

Ireland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia,

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States.

Indicators cover the contexts of education (i.e., demographic, social and

economic, opinions and expectations); costs, resources, and school processes;

and student, system, and labor market outcomes of education. Much of the

data is broken down by education level. EAG, 1995 also provides annotated

organization charts of the countries education systems.

Most of the OECD data used in Education Indicators: An International

Perspective came from Education at a Glance (EAG), 1995, which reports

data for 1992. In the few cases where 1992 data are not available, earlier

versions of EAG were used.

Since only developed nations, mostly European, are included in OECD

studies, the range of analysis is limited. However, OECD data allow for

some detailed international comparisons of financial resources or other

education variables to be made for this selected group of countries.

The International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP)

In 199091, a total of 20 countries assessed the mathematics and science

achievement of 13-year-old students and 14 of the 20 countries assessed

9-year-old students in these same subjects. Nine of the countries participating in the evaluation of 13-year-olds also administered a geography component. Some countries assessed virtually all age-eligible children in the

appropriate age group; others confined their samples to certain geographic

regions, language groups, or grade levels. The definition of populations

often followed the structure of school systems, political divisions, and
Sources of Data

297

cultural distinctions. In some countries, significant proportions of age-eligible

children were not represented because they did not attend school. Also, in

some countries, low rates of school or student participation mean results may

be biased.

Typically, a random sample of 3,300 students from about 110 different schools

was selected from each population at each age level; half were assessed in

mathematics and half in science. A total of about 175,000 9- and 13-year-olds

(those born in calendar years 1981 and 1977, respectively) were tested in 13

different languages in March 1991.

The mathematics and science achievement tests lasted 1 hour. The tests given

to 9-year-olds included 62 questions in mathematics and 60 questions in

science. Those for 13-year-olds included 76 questions in mathematics and 72

questions in science. In addition, students of each age group spent about 10

minutes responding to questions about their backgrounds and home and

school experiences. School administrators completed a school questionnaire.

The geography component consisted of 24 content-area questions and 14

background questions.

Initial analyses involved the calculation of the percentage of correct answers

and standard errors for individual questions. For each population, the

weighted percentage of correct answers was calculated for each question. The

results of students who omitted questions at the ends of sections because they

didnt reach them were excluded from the calculations for those questions. For

each percentage correct, an estimate of its standard error was calculated using

the jackknife procedure. Percentage and standard errors were calculated for

subgroups within each population, including gender and grade. Statistics for

Canada were calculated using an appropriately weighted sample of responses

drawn from the individual Canadian populations. Results of the mathematics,

science, and geography assessments can be found in three separate publications produced by IAEP and Educational Testing Service (ETS), entitled

Learning Mathematics, Learning Science, and Learning About the World.

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational

Achievement (IEA)

Reading Literacy Study

In the period 1989 to 1992, the International Association for the Evaluation of

Educational Achievement (IEA) conducted a Reading Literacy Study in 32

systems of education. The study focused on two levels in each of these systems, the grade level where most 9-year-olds were to be found and the grade

level where most 14-year-olds were to be found.

To obtain comparable samples of students, multistage sampling was used in

each country and schools or classes were typically drawn with a probability

proportional to the size of the school or class.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

298

Three major domains or types of reading literacy materials assessed at both age

levels were as follows:

1. Narrative prose: Continuous texts in which the writers aim is to tell a story

whether fact or fiction. They normally follow a linear time sequence and are

usually intended to entertain or involve the reader emotionally. The selected

extracts ranged from short fables to lengthy stories of more than 1,000 words.

2. Expository prose: Continuous texts designed to describe, explain, or otherwise convey factual information or opinion to the reader. The tests contained,

for example, brief family letters and descriptions of animals as well as lengthy

treatises on smoking and lasers.

3. Documents: Structured information presented in the form of charts, tables,

maps, graphs, lists, or sets of instructions. These materials were organized in

such a way that students had to search, locate, and process selected facts

rather than read every word of continuous text. In some cases, students were

required to follow detailed instructions in responding to such documents.

To obtain raw scores, all correct answers were totaled for each student in each

domain. The Rausch procedure was used to produce scales for each domain.

Each scale was given a mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100.

Computers in Education Study

The Computers in Education (Comped) study, conducted by the IEA, was

designed to evaluate how computers have been introduced in education and

are being used in schools around the world. Data from 21 school systems in

the following 20 countries were included in the study: Austria, Belgium

(Flemish and French schools evaluated separately), Canada, China, France,

West Germany (former), Greece, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, and

the United States. Data collection for the first part of the two-stage study was

completed in 1989, and data collection for the second stage was conducted in

1992. The aim of stage 1to collect data at the national, school, and

teacher level focusing on how computers are used, the extent and availability of computers in schools, the nature of instruction about computers, and

estimates of the effects that computers have on studentswas achieved

through the completion of school and teacher questionnaires. The analysis

of stage 1 data is presented in the IEA publication entitled The IEA Study of

Computers in Education: Implementation of an Innovation in 21 Education

Systems. Stage 2 of the study consists of two parts; the first part is a followup of stage 1, to assess longitudinal change, and the second part involves

evaluating effects of school variables, teacher, and teaching variables on

student outcomes in the domain of computer usage in schools.
Sources of Data

299

Luxembourg Income Study

The Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) began in 1983 as a joint project sponsored by the government of Luxembourg and the Center for Population,

Poverty and Policy Studies (CEPS) in Walferdange, Luxembourg. Created to

compile and provide access to an international database containing social and

economic data, the project receives its current funding from CEPS/International Networks for Studies in Technology, Environment, Alternatives, Development (INSTEAD) and the national science foundations of its member

nations. Along with its office in Walferdange, divisions of LIS are housed at

Syracuse and Harvard Universities.

As of 1993, LIS membership consisted of 23 countries in Europe, North

America, and Australia, with applications pending for Korea, Finland, Mexico,

Portugal, and Taiwan. Data are provided by individual nations and cover the

period from 1968 to 1989. Each study conducted by LIS is produced in the

form of a working paper, of which there are more than 100. LIS reports are also

published in books, articles, and dissertations.

Bureau of the Census

U.S. Department of Commerce

Statistical Abstract of the United States

First published in 1878, the Statistical Abstract of the United States is an

annual publication containing statistics on finance, education, industry, health,

and population for the United States. Although it primarily presents national

data for the United States, each volume contains some data at the state,

regional, and metropolitan level. Current volumes also include a small

section on international comparative statistics. Most of the data used in the

publication is taken from the household survey information of the U.S.

Census. Other data is provided predominantly by other divisions of the U.S.

Department of Commerce and by other government agencies.

Bureau of Labor Statistics

U.S. Department of Commerce

Office of Productivity and Technology

The Office of Productivity and Technologys unpublished tables entitled

Comparative Real Gross Domestic Product Per Capita and Per Employed

Person present national data for 13 OECD countries and Korea. The tables

provide two sets of comparisons, based on purchasing power parities

(PPPs) benchmarked to 1985 and 1990 studies. The studies were conducted
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

300

jointly by the OECD and EUROSTAT (the Statistical Office of the European

Community) as part of the United Nations International Comparison Project

(UNICP). Information for each benchmarked year includes data for GDP, GDP

per capita, and GDP per employed per person, indexed to the United States

and in U.S. dollars. PPPs and relative prices are also given, with PPPs for GDP

and comparative price levels indexed to the United States. The tables also

present GDP trends, implicit price deflators for GDP, and population and

employment measures.

Results of the 1985 and 1990 studies differ dramatically; this is most likely

attributed to weighing patterns, the change in aggregation method, or possible

measurement errors.
GLOSSARY

GLOSSARY

Abitur: Germanys secondary school leaving certificate.

Achievement test: An examination that measures the extent to which a person

has acquired certain information or mastered certain skills, usually as a result

of specific instruction.

American College Testing Program (ACT): The ACT assessment program

measures educational development and readiness to pursue college-level

coursework in English, mathematics, natural science, and social studies.

Student performance on the tests does not reflect innate ability and is influenced by a students educational preparedness.

Apprenticeship: In calculating the indicators, youth apprenticeship programs

are classified as belonging to formal education. Such programs typically

involve an alternation between learning in an educational institution (ordinar y

or specialized) and learning through work experience programs, which may

include highly organized training in a firm or with a craftsperson. The apprentices and the firm (or craftsperson) are bound by a legal agreement. Even

though only a part of the training occurs in schools, it is considered as a fulltime activity, because it covers both theoretical and practical training. Apprenticeship programs are classified as technical or vocational programs in upper

secondary education.

Baccalauréat: French exit examination from lycée, and the university entrance

examination.

Bachelors degree: A degree granted for the successful completion of a baccalaureate program of studies, usually requiring at least 4 years (or equivalent) of

full-time college-level study. This includes degrees granted in a cooperative or

work-study program.

CAP (Certificat dAptitude au Professionelle): Frances Certificate of Vocational

Qualification. It is earned from technical schools (upper secondary).

CAPES (Certificat dAptitude au Professorat de lEnseignement Secondaire):

Frances Certificate of Qualification to Teach Secondary Education.

Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI): The CERI is an

organization within OECD that promotes and conducts cooperative educational research activities among the OECD member nations.

Class size: The number of students faced by each teacher during a period of

instruction.

Cohort: A group of individuals who have a statistical factor in common, for

example, year of birth.

303
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

304

Comprehensive schools: Schools that offer a general curriculum, rather than

a curriculum intended to prepare students for specific occupations, types of

higher education, or training. In most cases, students within a comprehensive

school may choose courses that serve such a purpose, but comprehensive

schools as a whole serve students with a variety of career and educational

plans. (See Differentiated schools.)

Compulsory education: Education mandated by law.

Confidence interval: An interval of values within which there is a specified

probability that the true value lies. For example, in the case of a 95 percent

confidence interval, there is a 95 percent probability that the true value lies

within the interval.

Constant dollars: Dollar amounts that have been adjusted by means of price

and cost indexes to eliminate inflationar y factors and allow direct comparison

across years.

Consumer price index (CPI): This price index measures the average change

in the cost of a fixed market basket of goods and services purchased by

consumers.

Current dollars: Dollar amounts that have not been adjusted to compensate

for inflation.

Current expenditures: These expenditures represent educational goods and

services whose lifespan should not, in theory, exceed the cur rent year, such

as salaries of staff, educational supplies, scholarships, minor repairs and

maintenance, and administration. Conventionally, minor items of equipment

are treated as current expenditure, even if the corresponding physical asset

lasts longer than one year. Current expenditures exclude capital expenditures, which are for assets that will be used for many consecutive years,

such as buildings, major repairs, major items of equipment, and vehicles,

even if the financing of such assets is reported in a single financial year.

Current expenditures per student: Current expenditure for the regular

school term divided by the total number of students registered in a given

school unit at a given time, generally in the fall of a year.

Differentiated schools: Schools offering a particular type of curriculum, such

as college preparatory or vocational. For example, secondary school students

in Germany enroll in differentiated schools, including those that prepare them

to enter apprenticeship programs or those that prepare them for university

education.

Diplôme dÉtudes Universitaires Générales (DEUG): Frances Diploma of

General University Studies, generally earned after the first 2 years of university.

Dual system: A system of apprenticeship which combines part-time study

with part-time work in a specific occupational field, such as the one found in

Germany.
305

Glossary

Ecoles Maternelles: Nursery schools in France.

Education at a Glance (EAG): This publication came out of CERIs (see

CERI) International Indicators Project, initiated in response to the demand for

comparative information on education in the OECD member nations. The

project develops and reports on indicators of participation, attainment, finance, learning outcomes, education and the labor market, the functioning of

schools and school systems, and attitudes toward education. The first

volume of EAG was published in 1992; subsequent volumes are being

published on a regular basis.

Educational attainment: The highest grade, year, or level of regular school

attended and completed.

Educational expenditures: The sum of expenditures on instruction, research,

public ser vice, academic support, student services, institutional support,

operation and maintenance of plant, and awards from restricted and unrestricted funds.

Employed: Includes civilian, noninstitutional persons who (1) worked during

any part of the week in which data were collected as paid employees; worked

in their own business, profession, or farm; or worked 15 hours or more as

unpaid workers in a family-owned enterprise; or (2) were not working but had

jobs or businesses from which they were temporarily absent due to illness, bad

weather, vacation, labor-management dispute, or personal reasons whether or

not they were seeking another job.

Engineering and engineering technologies: Instructional programs that focus

on the application of the mathematical and the natural sciences for practical

purposes (i.e., to develop ways to utilize the materials and forces of nature

economically). Include programs that prepare individuals to support and assist

engineers and similar professionals.

Enrollment: The total number of students registered in a given school unit at a

given time, generally in the fall of a year.

Enrollment rate: This rate is calculated by dividing the number of enrollments

at a given level of education and at a specified age range by the whole population in the same age range.

Esame di licenza: Italys exit examination from lower secondary school and

entrance examination to upper secondary school.

Esami di maturita: Italys university entrance examination. It is being implemented on an experimental basis.

Fiscal year: The yearly accounting period for the federal government, which

begins on October 1 and ends on the following September 30. The fiscal

year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example, fiscal

year 1992 begins on October 1, 1991, and ends on September 30, 1992.

(From fiscal year 1844 through fiscal year 1976, the fiscal year began on

July 1 and ended on the following June 30.)
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

306

Full-time/Part-time enrollment: Students are enrolled full-time if they attend

a program that is classified as such by the institution. Otherwise, they are

considered part-time students. In the United States, higher education

students are enrolled full-time if their total credit load is equal to at least 75

percent of the normal full-time course load. In some countries, no distinction

is made between full-time and part-time students at certain levels.

Full-time-equivalent (FTE) enrollment: For institutions of higher education,

the enrollment of full-time students, plus the full-time equivalent of parttime students as reported by institutions equals the FTE. In the absence of

an equivalent reported by an institution, the FTE enrollment is estimated by

adding one-third of part-time enrollment to full-time enrollment.

G7 countries: See Group of Seven.

Graduate: An individual who has received formal recognition for the successful completion of a prescribed program of studies.

Graduation: Formal recognition given an individual for the successful

completion of a prescribed program of studies.

Gross domestic product (GDP): The GDP is equal to the total of the gross

expenditure on the final uses of the domestic supply of goods and services

valued at price to the purchaser minus the imports of goods and services.

GDP per capita: The GDP of a country divided by its total population yields

per capita GDP.

Group of Seven (G7): This group is composed of seven industrialized

nations with large economies: Canada, France, Italy, Japan, the United States,

the United Kingdom, and Germany. Those countries are, coincidentally, all

members of the OECD. However, the G7 and the OECD are not related

organizations.

Grundschüle: Primar y school in Germany; generally includes grades 14.

Gymnasium: The German secondary school, graduation from which is a

prerequisite for study at a university. It includes grades 513.

Hauptschüle: The German general secondary school providing full-time

compulsory education in grades 59 for students not planning to enter higher

education.

High school: A secondary school offering the final years of high school work

necessary for graduation, usually including grades 10, 11, 12 (in a 6-3-3 plan)

or grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 (in a 6-2-4 plan).

Higher education: This form of education includes study beyond secondary

school at an institution that offers programs terminating in an associate,

baccalaureate, or higher degree, or equivalent degrees in other countries.

Hoikuen: Japanese daycare centers for the children of working mothers.
307

Glossary

Income: Includes all forms of income plus food stamps and similar benefits in

other nations, minus federal income and payroll taxes.

Indicators of Education Systems Project (INES): INES refers to the specific

office within CERI and the OECD that is responsible for producing the Education-at-a-Glance series of reports (see CERI and OECD).

Instituti magistrali: Four-year, upper secondary teacher preparatory programs

at which primary school teachers in Italy receive general academic and pedagogical training.

International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP): See the section

of this publication entitled Sources of Data.

IRRSAE: Regional Institutes for Research, Experimentation and Refresher

Courses found in Italy. They organize the regular in-service training and

development courses for teachers, focusing on subject-area knowledge and

teaching practice required by law.

ISCED: International Standard Classification of Education levels. See sidebar

entitled ISCED levels of education for additional details.

Juku: Found in Japan, these are typically private schools offering instruction

to help students (typically primary and lower secondary students) get ahead in

their school work and prepare for the large numbers of entrance examinations

that help determine students chances to enter particular high schools or

colleges and universities. This instruction generally takes place after school

and on weekends.

Labor force: Persons aged 1564 who are either employed or actively seeking

work comprise a labor force.

Land (plural = Länder): This is the German term for State.

Laurea: Italys higher education degree, granted after 4 or 5 years of study in a

university. It requires a dissertation.

Licence: One of the French higher education degrees. It is earned at the end of

the first year of study after earning the DEUG and the prerequisite for admission to the next year of study leading to the Maîtrise (see DEUG and Maîtrise).

Lower secondary education: Education equivalent to middle/junior high

school (grades 7, 8, and 9) in the United States.

Lycée: French academic high school.

Maîtrise: In France, this is the higher education degree earned after earning

the DEUG and the Licence (see DEUG and Licence).

Migration: Geographic mobility involving a change of usual residence between

clearly defined geographic units, that is, between countries, states, or regions.

Minimum-competency testing: Measuring the acquisition of competence or

skills to or beyond a certain specified standard.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

308

Monbusho: The Japanese Ministry of Education, Science and Culture.

Natural sciences: A group of fields of study which includes the life sciences,

physical sciences, and mathematics.

Nonuniversity higher education: Education above or beyond the secondary

school level involving programs that terminate in a less-than-4-year degree.

In some systems, the programs at this level (i.e., those not leading to a

university degree or equivalent) do not lead on to other programs in higher

education; in other systems, such programs allow students who successfully

complete their studies to proceed to university degree programs in the

same field. The former is called a terminal program while the latter is

called an articulated program. For example, the Associate Degree,

awarded after 2 years of study in the United States, is not regarded as a

university degree for international purposes. This also applies to the

diplôme détudes universitaires générales (DEUG) in France.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): The

OECD is an organization of 25 nations (as of 1995) whose purpose is to

promote trade and economic growth in both member and nonmember nations.

OECDs activities cover almost all aspects of economic and social policy. The

member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico,

the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,

Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Part-time enrollment: See Full-time/Part-time enrollment.

Pedagogy: The art, profession, or study of teaching.

Poverty: The poverty line, for the purposes of this publication, is defined as

40 percent of median income. (See Income.)

Preprimary education: Preprimary education (public and private) may either

be part-time or full-time and can cover young children participating in programs intended to foster learning and emotional and social development.

Preprimary education is not compulsory in most countries. Day nurseries,

childcare centers, and similar institutions that predominantly provide custodial care are not included. In some countries, it is difficult to distinguish

among the various programs.

Primary education: This includes all forms of education prior to secondary

education; it is equivalent to elementary education in the United States.

Private expenditures: This includes expenditures funded by private sources

mainly households, private nonprofit institutions, and firms and businesses.

Private expenditures include school fees, materials such as textbooks and

teaching equipment, transport to school (if organized by the school), meals (if

provided by the school), boarding fees, and expenditure by employers for

initial vocational training.
309

Glossary

Private schools: Private schools are normally organized independently of the

public authorities, even though they may receive a small amount of public

funding.

Private schools predominantly publicly funded: These are schools that

obtain most of their funding from public authorities, even though these

schools are not formally part of the public school sector.

Professeurs agrégés: Upper secondary level teachers in France. Distinguished

from professeurs certifiés according to their degrees. Professeurs agrégés hold

the agrégation certificate.

Professeurs certifiés: Upper secondary level teachers in France. Distinguished

from professeurs agrégés according to their degrees. Professeurs certifiés hold

one of the the following certificates: Certificat dAptitude au Professorat de

lEnseignement du Second Degré (in arts and sciences), Certificat dAptitude

au Professorat de lEnseignement Technique (in technical education), or

Certificat dAptitude Professionnelle de lEducation Physique et Sportive (in

physical education).

Public expenditures: These are expenditures funded by public authorities at

all levels. Expenditures on education by public agencies other than education departments, ministries, or boards are included. Expenditures of

education departments, ministries, or boards that are not directly related to

education are generally not included.

Public schools: Public schools are organized by public authorities. They

normally provide open access without any distinction of race, sex, or religion.

Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) index: The PPP index is composed of the

rates of currency conversion that equalize the purchasing power of different

currencies. This means that a given sum of money, when converted into

different currencies at the PPP index rates, will buy the same basket of goods

and services in all countries.

Realschule: Germanys middle school, grades 510 for those planning on

entering higher education.

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT): An examination administered by the Educational Testing Service and used to predict the facility with which an individual

will progress in learning college-level academic subjects.

Schulkindergarten/Vorschulen: In Germany, these are preschool classes for

children who are of school age but not yet ready for school.

Scuole materne: Italian nursery school.

Sources of funds: The origins of education expenditures can be found among

the several levels of government and between public and private sources.

Further, the initial sources of money for education sometimes differ from the

ultimate spender. For example, though local school districts in the United
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

310

States generally operate and fund the local public schools, much of the financing arrives in the form of transfers from state governments. Some of the state

money, in turn, arrives in the form of transfers from the federal government.

The initial source of those transferred funds, then, are state and federal governments. Moreover, the initial source of funds spent on public schools can be

public or private. Student tuition and fees are one example of a private source

of public expenditure. Funding by private firms of youth apprenticeship

programs in Germany is another example. Likewise, the initial source of funds

spent on private schools can be public or private.

Special education: Direct instructional activities or special learning experiences designed primarily for students identified as having exceptionalities in

one or more aspects of the cognitive process or as being underachievers in

relation to general level or model of their overall abilities. Such services

usually are directed at students with the following conditions: (1) physically

handicapped; (2) emotionally handicapped; (3) culturally different, including

compensatory education; (4) mentally retarded; and (5) learning disabled.

Programs for the mentally gifted and talented are also included in some special

education programs.

Standard error: An estimate of the sampling error of a reported mean, proportion, or other statistic, based in part on the number of observations. Ordinarily,

the larger the sample is, the smaller the error will be. There are several techniques used in estimating standard errors, including jackknifing and

bootstrapping.

Student: An individual for whom instruction is provided in an educational

program under the jurisdiction of a school, school system, or other education institution. A student may receive instruction in a school facility or in

another location, such as at home or in a hospital. Instruction may be

provided by direct student-teacher interaction or by some other approved

medium such as television, radio, telephone, and correspondence.

Studentenwerk: A federally funded organization in Germany that oversees

university student housing, meal services, and financial aid.

Student/teacher ratio: The enrollment of students at a given period of time,

divided by the full-time-equivalent number of classroom teachers serving these

pupils during the same period. Student-teacher ratio reflects teacher

workload and the availability of teacher services to students. However, this

measure differs from class size. The relationship between the two is affected

by a variety of factors, including the number of classes for which a teacher

is responsible and the number of classes taken by students.

Unemployment rate: The percentage of the labor force without work, actively

seeking work, and currently available for work yields the unemployment rate.

University: University education is defined here as education leading to a

4-year undergraduate degree or graduate degree.
311

Glossary

Upper secondary education: This is a level of education equivalent to grades

10, 11, and 12 in the United States. Upper secondary education may include

general, technical, or vocational education.

Vocational education: Organized educational programs, services, and activities that are directly related to the preparation of individuals for paid or unpaid

employment, or for additional preparation for a career requiring other than a

baccalaureate or advanced degree.

Vorklassen: In Germany, these are preschool classes with special emphasis on

preparation of 5-year-olds for school (in some Länder only).

Yochien: Japanese kindergarten.

Sources

The American Heritage Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983.

Assefa, A.M. France: A Study of the Educational System of France and a Guide to

the Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions of the United

States. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and

Admissions Officers, 1988.

Mashiko, E.E. Japan: A Study of the Educational System of Japan and a Guide to

the Academic Placement of Students in Educational Institutions of the United

States. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and

Admissions Officers, 1989.

The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Modern Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1975.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Center for Educational Research and Innovation, International Indicators Project, 1993.

Pearce, David W. The Dictionary of Modern Economics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1981.

Porter, G.B. Federal Republic of Germany: A Study of the Educational

System of Germany and a Guide to the Academic Placement of Students in

Educational Institutions of the United States. Washington, D.C.: American

Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1986.

Postlethwaite, T.N. The Encyclopedia of Comparative Education and National

Systems of Education. New York: Pergamon Press, 1988.

Shryock, H.S., and Siegel, J.S. The Methods and Materials of Demography.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population

Reports. Series P-20 School EnrollmentSocial and Economic Characteristics

of Students: October 1988 and 1987.
Education Indicators: An International Perspective

312

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Combined Glossary: Terms and Definitions From the Handbook of the State

Educational Records and Reports Series. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The

Condition of Education: 1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1993.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The

Condition of Education, 1994. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1994.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Education in States and Nations: Indicators Comparing U.S. States with the

OECD Countries in 1988. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1993.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Class Size and Public Policy: Politics and Panaceas. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 1988.