Education at a Glance
2009
OECD INDICATORS

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION
AND DEVELOPMENT
The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to
address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at
the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and
concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an
ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy
experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate
domestic and international policies.
The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of
the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD.
OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and
research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and
standards agreed by its members.

This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.

Also available in French under the title:

Regards sur l’éducation 2009
LES INDICATEURS DE L’OCDE

Revised version September 2009
Details of revisions available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/34/43541373.pdf.
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.

© OECD 2009
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia
products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source
and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for
permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC)
at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

Foreword
Governments are paying increasing attention to international comparisons as they search for
effective policies that enhance individuals’ social and economic prospects, provide incentives for
greater efficiency in schooling, and help to mobilise resources to meet rising demands. As part
of its response, the OECD Directorate for Education devotes a major effort to the development
and analysis of the quantitative, internationally comparable indicators that it publishes annually
in Education at a Glance. These indicators enable educational policy makers and practitioners alike
to see their education systems in the light of other countries’ performances and, together with
OECD’s country policy reviews, are designed to support and review the efforts that governments
are making towards policy reform.
Education at a Glance addresses the needs of a range of users, from governments seeking to learn
policy lessons to academics requiring data for further analysis to the general public wanting
to monitor how its nation’s schools are progressing in producing world-class students. The
publication examines the quality of learning outcomes, the policy levers and contextual factors
that shape these outcomes, and the broader private and social returns that accrue to investments
in education.
Education at a Glance is the product of a long-standing, collaborative effort between OECD
governments, the experts and institutions working within the framework of the OECD’s indicators
of education systems (INES) programme and the OECD Secretariat. The preparation of the
publication was co-ordinated by the Indicators and Analysis Division of the OECD Directorate
for Education with input from the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, under
the responsibility of Andreas Schleicher, in co-operation with Etienne Albiser, Tracey Burns,
Eric Charbonnier, Michael Davidson, Bo Hansson, Corinne Heckmann, David Istance, Karinne Logez,
Koji Miyamoto, Sophie Vayssettes, Patrick Werquin, and Jean Yip. Administrative support was
provided by Sandrine Meireles, and additional advice as well as analytical and editorial support
were provided by Pedro Lenin García de León, Niccolina Clements, Diana Toledo Figueroa,
Elisabeth Villoutreix and Alexandra Wise. The development of the publication was steered by
member countries through the INES Working Party and facilitated by the INES Networks. The
members of the various bodies as well as the individual experts who have contributed to this
publication and to OECD INES more generally are listed at the end of the book.
While much progress has been accomplished in recent years, member countries and the
OECD continue to strive to strengthen the link between policy needs and the best available
internationally comparable data. In doing so, various challenges and trade-offs are faced. First,
the indicators need to respond to educational issues that are high on national policy agendas, and
where the international comparative perspective can offer important added value to what can
be accomplished through national analysis and evaluation. Second, while the indicators need to
be as comparable as possible, they also need to be as country-specific as is necessary to allow for
historical, systemic and cultural differences between countries. Third, the indicators need to be
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

3

Foreword

presented in as straightforward a manner as possible, while remaining sufficiently complex to
reflect multi-faceted educational realities. Fourth, there is a general desire to keep the indicator
set as small as possible, but it needs to be large enough to be useful to policy makers across
countries that face different educational challenges.
The OECD will continue to address these challenges vigorously and to pursue not just the
development of indicators in areas where it is feasible and promising to develop data, but also to
advance in areas where a considerable investment still needs to be made in conceptual work. The
further development of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)
and its extension through the OECD Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC), as well as OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS)
are major efforts to this end.
The report is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.

4

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Table of Contents
Foreword.................................................................................................................................................... 3

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition

Editorial................................................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction. ........................................................................................................................................ 17
Reader’s Guide..................................................................................................................................... 21
Chapter A		The Output of Educational Institutions
and the Impact of Learning........................................................... 25
Indicator A1 	To what level have adults studied?......................................................... 26
Table A1.1a.
Educational attainment: adult population (2007)......................................... 37
Table A1.2a.
Population with at least upper secondary education (2007)........................... 38
Table A1.3a.
Population with tertiary education (2007)..................................................... 39
Table A1.4.
Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population
(1997-2007)............................................................................................................. 40
Table A1.5.
Annual average growth in 25-64 year-old population between 1998
and 2006.................................................................................................................... 42
Table A1.6.
Proportion of age cohorts in skilled jobs (ISCO 1-3) by educational
attainment (2006, 1998). ..................................................................................... 43
Indicator A2 	How many students finish secondary education and access
tertiary education?.......................................................................................... 44
Table A2.1.
Upper secondary graduation rates (2007)...................................................... 56
Table A2.2.
Trends in graduation rates (first-time) at upper secondary level
(1995-2007)............................................................................................................. 57
Table A2.3.
Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2007)................................. 58
Table A2.4.
Entry rates to tertiary education and age distribution
of new entrants (2007). ........................................................................................ 59
Table A2.5.
Trends in entry rates at tertiary level (1995-2007)..................................... 60
Indicator A3		How many students finish tertiary education ?.............................. 62
Table A3.1.
Graduation rates in tertiary education (2007). ............................................. 73
Table A3.2.
Trends in tertiary graduation rates (1995-2007).......................................... 74
Table A3.3.
Graduation rate at different tertiary levels (2007)....................................... 75
Table A3.4.
Completion rates in tertiary education (2005)............................................. 76

A1

A2

A3, A4

Indicator A4		 What is the profile of 15-year-old top performers in science?...... 78
Table A4.1a.
Mean score and percentage of top performers in science, reading
and mathematics...................................................................................................... 89
Table A4.1b.
Percentage of top performers in science, reading and mathematics,
by gender.................................................................................................................... 90
Table A4.2a.
Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics....... 91
Table A4.2b.
Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics,
by gender................................................................................................................... 92
Table A4.3.
Students’ socio-economic background, by performance group.............. 94
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

5

Table of Contents

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition

Table A4.4.
Table A4.5.

Percentage of students by performance group, according to the
immigrant status...................................................................................................... 95
Percentage of students by performance group, according to the
language spoken at home...................................................................................... 96

Indicator A5		 What are the top performers’ attitudes and motivations
for science in PISA 2006?. ............................................................................. 98
Table A5.1a.
Index of enjoyment of science for strong performers and
top performers...................................................................................................... 109
Table A5.2a.
Index of students’ science-related activities for strong performers
and top performers.............................................................................................. 110
Table A5.3.
Regular science lessons in school and out-of-school lessons
in science for strong performers and top performers............................... 111
Table A5.4a.
Indices of instrumental motivation and future-oriented motivation
to learn science for strong performers and top performers................... 113
Table A5.5.
Importance of doing well in science, mathematics and reading
for strong performers and top performers................................................... 114
Table A5.6a.
Indices of school preparation of science-related careers and student
information on science-related careers for strong performers and
top performers...................................................................................................... 116
Table A5.7a.
Enjoyment of learning science.......................................................................... 117
Table A5.7b.
Science-related activities.................................................................................... 117
Table A5.7c.
Instrumental motivation to learn science...................................................... 117
Table A5.7d.
Importance of doing well in science............................................................... 117
Table A5.7e.
Future-oriented motivation to learn science............................................... 117
Indicator A6 How does participation in education affect participation
in the labour market?................................................................................... 118
Table A6.1a.
Employment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2007)....... 129
Table A6.2a.
Trends in employment rates of 25-64 year-olds by educational
attainment (1997-2007)..................................................................................... 130
Table A6.3a.
Unemployment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2007)....... 132
Table A6.4a.
Trends in unemployment rates by educational attainment
(1997-2007)........................................................................................................... 133

A8

Indicator A7 What are the economic benefits of education?............................. 136
Table A7.1a.
Relative earnings of the population with income from employment
(2007 or latest available year)........................................................................... 144
Table A7.2a.
Trends in relative earnings: adult population (1997-2007)..................... 146
Table A7.2b.
Trends in relative earnings: male population (1997-2007)..................... 147
Table A7.2c.
Trends in relative earnings: female population (1997-2007).................. 148
Table A7.3.
Trends in differences in earnings between females and males
(1997-2007)........................................................................................................... 149

A9

Indicator A8		 What are the incentives to invest in education?........................... 152
Table A8.1.
Private net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education as part of initial education,
ISCED 3/4 (2005)................................................................................................ 165

A10

6

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Table of Contents

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition

Table A8.2.
Table A8.3.
Table A8.4.

Private net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education
as part of initial education, ISCED 5/6 (2005)............................................. 166
Public net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education as part of initial education
(2005)........................................................................................................................ 167
Public net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education
as part of initial education (2005). .................................................................. 168

Indicator A9		 What are the social outcomes of education?. ................................. 170
Table A9.1.
Marginal effects of education on self-reported health and
political interest..................................................................................................... 180
Table A9.2.
Marginal effects of education on self-reported health (with and
without controls for age, gender and income)............................................ 180
Table A9.3.
Marginal effects of education on political interest (with and
without controls for age, gender and income)............................................ 181
Table A9.4.
Marginal effects of education on interpersonal trust (with and
without controls for age, gender and income)............................................ 181
Table A9.5.
Predicted shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health,
political interest and interpersonal trust, by gender................................. 182
Table A9.6.
Predicted shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health,
political interest and interpersonal trust, by age........................................ 183
Table A9.7.
Predicted shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health,
political interest and interpersonal trust, by income................................ 184
Chapter B		 Financial and Human Resources Invested In
Education....................................................................................................... 185
Indicator B1		How much is spent per student?............................................................ 188
Table B1.1a.
Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services (2006).......................................................................................... 202
Table B1.2.
Annual expenditure per student on core services, ancillary services
and R&D (2006). .................................................................................................. 203
Table B1.3a.
Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services over the theoretical duration of primary and
secondary studies (2006).................................................................................... 204
Table B1.3b.
Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services over the average duration of tertiary studies (2006)........ 205
Table B1.4.
Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student
for all services relative to GDP per capita (2006)...................................... 206
Table B1.5.
Change in expenditure on educational institutions for all services
per student relative to different factors, by level of education
(1995, 2000, 2006).............................................................................................. 207
Indicator B2		 What proportion of national wealth is spent on education?...... 208
Table B2.1.
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by level of education (1995, 2000, 2006)..................................................... 218
Table B2.2.
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by level of education (2006).............................................................................. 219
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

B1

B2

7

Table of Contents

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition

Table B2.3.

Table B2.4.

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2006),
proportion of the population at basic ages of primary to tertiary
education (school year 2006/2007) and demographic trends
(2000-2015)........................................................................................................... 220
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP,
by source of fund and level of education (2006)......................................... 221

Indicator B3		 How much public and private investment is there
in education?..................................................................................................... 222
Table B3.1.
Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions for all levels of education (2000, 2006).................................. 231
Table B3.2a.
Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions, as a percentage, by level of education (2000, 2006). ........ 232
Table B3.2b.
Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational
institutions, as a percentage, for tertiary education (2000, 2006)........ 233
Table B3.3.
Trends in relative proportions of public expenditure on educational
institutions and index of change between 1995 and 2006 (2000=100),
for tertiary education (1995, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)....... 234
Indicator B4		 What is the total public spending on education?........................ 236
Table B4.1.
Total public expenditure on education (1995, 2000, 2006)................... 241
Indicator B5		 How much do tertiary students pay and what public
subsidies do they receive?. ........................................................................ 242
Table B5.1a.
Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A
educational institutions for national students
(academic year 2006/2007).............................................................................. 255
Table B5.2.
Distribution of financial aid to students compared to amount of tuition
fees charged in tertiary-type A education (academic year 2006/2007)..... 257
Table B5.3.
Financial support to students through public loans in tertiary-type A
education (academic year 2004/2005).......................................................... 258
Table B5.4.
Public subsidies for households and other private entities
as a percentage of total public expenditure on education and GDP,
for tertiary education (2006)............................................................................ 260

B3

B4

B5

Indicator B6		 On what resources and services is education funding spent?....... 262
Table B6.1.
Expenditure on educational institutions by service category
as a percentage of GDP (2006)........................................................................ 270
Table B6.2a.
Expenditure on educational institutions by resource category
in primary and secondary education (2006)................................................ 271
Table B6.2b.
Expenditure on educational institutions by resource category
and level of education (2006). .......................................................................... 272

B6

Indicator B7		 Which factors influence the level of expenditure?..................... 274
Table B7.1.
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at primary
level of education (2006).................................................................................... 285
Table B7.2.
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at lower
secondary level of education (2006)............................................................... 287
Table B7.3.
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at upper
secondary level of education (2006)................................................................. 289

B7

8

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Table of Contents

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition

Chapter C		Access to Education, Participation and
Progression.................................................................................................. 291
Indicator C1		 Who participates in education?.............................................................. 292
Table C1.1.
Enrolment rates, by age (2007)........................................................................ 301
Table C1.2.
Trends in enrolment rates (1995-2007)........................................................ 302
Table C1.3.
Transition characteristics from age 15-20, by level of education
(2007)....................................................................................................................... 303
Table C1.4.
Upper secondary enrolment patterns (2007).............................................. 304
Table C1.5.
Students in primary and secondary education by type of institution
or mode of study (2007)..................................................................................... 305
Table C1.6.
Students in tertiary education by type of institution or mode
of study (2007)...................................................................................................... 306

C2

Indicator C2		 Who studies abroad and where?............................................................. 308
Table C2.1.
Student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education
(2000, 2007). ......................................................................................................... 327
Table C2.2.
Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,
by country of origin (2007)............................................................................... 328
Table C2.3.
Citizens studying abroad in tertiary education, by country
of destination (2007)........................................................................................... 330
Table C2.4.
Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,
by level and type of tertiary education (2007)............................................ 332
Table C2.5.
Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education,
by field of education (2007).............................................................................. 333
Table C2.6.
Trends in the number of foreign students enrolled outside
their country of origin (2000 to 2007).......................................................... 334

C3

Indicator C3		How successful are students in moving from education
to work?................................................................................................................ 336
Table C3.1a.
Expected years in education and not in education
for 15-29 year-olds (2007)................................................................................ 347
Table C3.2a.
Percentage of the youth population in education and
not in education (2007)...................................................................................... 349
Table C3.3.
Percentage of the cohort population not in education
and unemployed (2007)...................................................................................... 351
Table C3.4a.
Trends in the percentage of the youth population in education
and not in education (1995, 1997-2007)...................................................... 353
Table C3.5.
Proportion of long-term unemployed among unemployed
25-34 year-olds (2003 and 2007).................................................................... 355
Table C3.6.
Part-time and involuntary part-time work among 25-34 year-olds,
by educational attainment (2007).................................................................... 356
Chapter D		The Learning Environment and Organisation
of Schools...................................................................................................... 357
Indicator D1		How much time do students spend in the classroom?.............. 358
Compulsory and intended instruction time in public institutions (2007)...... 366
Table D1.1.

C4

D1

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

9

Table of Contents

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition

Table D1.2a.
Table D1.2b.

Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory
instruction time for 9-11 year-olds (2007).................................................. 367
Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory
instruction time for 12-14 year-olds (2007)................................................ 368

Indicator D2		 What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?........ 370
Table D2.1.
Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2007)..... 382
Table D2.2.
Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2007).......... 383
Table D2.3.
Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2007)................. 384
Table D2.4a.
Teaching staff and non-teaching staff employed in primary and secondary
educational institutions (2007)............................................................................ 385
Table D2.4b.
Teaching staff and non-teaching staff employed in tertiary educational
institutions (2007).................................................................................................. 386

D2

Indicator D3		 How much are teachers paid?.................................................................. 388
Table D3.1.
Teachers’ salaries (2007).................................................................................... 399
Table D3.2.
Change in teachers’ salaries (between 1996 and 2007)............................ 401
Table D3.3a.
Decisions on payments for teachers in public institutions (2007). ....... 402

D3

Indicator D4		 How much time do teachers spend teaching?............................... 404
Table D4.1.
Organisation of teachers’ working time (2007).......................................... 412
Table D4.2.
Number of teaching hours per year (1996, 2007)..................................... 413

D4

Indicator D5		 How much appraisal and feedback do teachers receive,
and what is the impact?............................................................................... 414
Table D5.1.
Frequency and type of school evaluations (2007-08)................................ 423
Table D5.2.
Outcomes of teacher appraisal and feedback (2007-08).......................... 424
Table D5.3.
Teacher perceptions of the appraisal and/or feedback they received
(2007-08)................................................................................................................ 425
Table D5.4.
Teacher perceptions of the personal impact of teacher appraisal
and feedback (2007-08)...................................................................................... 426
Table D5.5.
Teacher appraisal and feedback and school development (2007-08)....... 427
Indicator D6		 How do teacher practices, beliefs and attitudes
measure up?........................................................................................................ 428
Table D6.1.
Correlation between time on task and classroom disciplinary climate
about teaching (2007-08)................................................................................... 443
Annex 1 		 Characteristics of Educational Systems................... 445
Table X1.1a.
Upper secondary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and
method used to calculate graduation rates (2007)..................................... 446
Table X1.1b.
Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rate: typical graduation ages
and method used to calculate graduation rate (2007)............................... 448
Table X1.1c.
Tertiary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and method used
to calculate graduation rates (2007)............................................................... 449
Table X1.2a.
School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
OECD countries................................................................................................... 451
Table X1.2b.
School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators,
partner countries.................................................................................................. 452
Table X1.3.
Summary of completion requirements for upper secondary
programmes............................................................................................................ 453

10

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Table of Contents

Name of
the indicator
in the
2008 edition

Annex 2 		 Reference Statistics............................................................................. 455
Table X2.1.
Overview of the economic context using basic variables
(reference period: calendar year 2006, 2006 current prices)................ 456
Table X2.2.
Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year 2006,
2006 current prices)............................................................................................ 457
Table X2.3a.
Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries,
by level of education (1996, 2007)................................................................. 458
Table X2.3b.
Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries
(1996, 2007)........................................................................................................... 460
Table X2.3c.
Teachers’ salaries (2007).................................................................................... 461
Annex 3 		 Sources, Methods and Technical Notes....................... 463
References............................................................................................................................................ 465
Contributors to this Publication. ........................................................................................... 467
Related OECD Publications. ...................................................................................................... 471

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

11

Editorial
By Barbara Ischinger, Director for Education

Investing and Innovating in Education for Recovery

This year’s edition of Education at a Glance is published at a time when all eyes are focused on the
financial crisis and its economic and social fallout. Presenting data up to 2007, this edition cannot
yet assess the impact of the crisis on education systems, but it does provide indicators that inform
the debate about how investments in human capital can contribute to economic recovery.
Education has always been a critical investment for the future, for individuals, for economies
and for societies at large. Across OECD countries, the net public return from an investment
in tertiary education exceeds USD 50 000 on average for a student (Indicator A8). Moreover,
the incentives for individuals to stay on in education are likely to rise over the next years: for
instance, the opportunity costs for education decline as the difficulties of finding employment
increase and opportunity costs or lost earnings while studying tend to be the largest of all cost
components for students (except in the United States where tuition fees are high) (Indicator A8).
Declining opportunity costs also strengthen the case for more private investments in education
and, as the more educated have a stronger attachment to the labour market (Indicator A6), this
also increases the benefits of education. Last but not least, graduating and entering the labour
market in an economic downturn can be expected to become more difficult, as employers cut
jobs and young graduates compete with more experienced workers.
There are also important equity-related considerations which arise from the deteriorating job
prospects for the less-well qualified. While enrolments for 15-19 year-olds have been steadily
rising in most countries (Indicator C1), this still leaves an important minority who leave education
without acquiring a baseline qualification. Across OECD countries, over 40% with less than an
upper secondary qualification are not even employed (Indicator A6). Even those with higher
levels of education are vulnerable if they become unemployed. Around half of the unemployed
young adults aged 25-34 with lower and upper secondary attainments are long-term unemployed
(Indicator C3). Opportunities for continuing education and training are often designed to make
up for deficiencies in initial education, but the reality is that participation among individuals with
strong initial qualifications is significantly higher than among the least qualified, such that these
opportunities often do not reach those who need them most.
Moreover, if, as the data in this volume suggest, the demand for education and qualifications
continues to rise as labour market prospects weaken, the gaps in educational attainment between
the younger and older adult cohorts are likely to widen further. The vulnerability of older, often
less qualified, adults to chronic long-term economic inactivity may thus become more acute.
In contrast with much higher levels of educational participation among those in their twenties,
less than 6% (5.9%) of the 30-39 year-old population across OECD countries are enrolled fullor part-time (Indicator C1). While in some countries it is significantly higher than this, at more
than 1 in 10 (Australia, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand and Sweden), in others participation is
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

13

Editorial

less than 3% of 30-39 year-olds (France, Germany, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and
Turkey and partner country the Russian Federation), with even lower levels for over 40s in
Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and Turkey. With lifelong
learning more essential than ever, public policy needs to ask how adequately education and
training systems are addressing the learning needs of older adults who are in need of new skills.
As far-reaching as the labour market impacts of the crisis are, the potential social consequences
may last even longer. Educational attainment seems to be positively associated with such
social outcomes as better health, political interest and interpersonal trust and this is bound
to feature in public policy discussions about spending priorities (Indicator A9). Education can
therefore be a powerful lever to moderate the social consequences too.
At a time when it is so important to invest in knowledge, skills and capacities that are relevant
to economies and societies, particular pressures will be faced in those systems which rely on
a major component of work-based training as part of vocational education and training at the
secondary or tertiary levels. Companies struggling to cut costs and avoid lay-offs may well
find it increasingly hard to place trainees. Systems differ in terms of the scale of combined
work/study programmes. In Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Switzerland and the
partner country Estonia around 75% of upper secondary students in vocational educational
programmes are enrolled in programmes which involve school- and work-based elements
(Indicator C1). In Australia, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands and Switzerland, young people
are expected to spend more than 3.9 years between the ages of 15 and 29 in programmes
combining education and employment (Indicator C3). Hence, sustained policy responses
will be needed involving both education and employment authorities to avoid declining
opportunities for effective vocational education and training involving a work-based
component.
All this being said, it is inevitable that the significant public and private investments in
education are being scrutinised. OECD countries as a whole spend 6.1% of their collective
GDP on education, all levels combined. In Denmark, Iceland, Korea and the United States,
and the partner country Israel, it has reached over 7% (Indicator B2). As a share of total
public expenditure, the 2006 OECD average for education stood at 13.3%, ranging from less
than 10% in Germany, Italy and Japan to the far higher figure of 22% in Mexico. The case
for education’s role in the recovery will not simply be based on protecting these spending
levels as a privileged status quo, but will require a demonstration that education is capable of
transforming itself to do a better job and to achieve more with less. Demographic developments
may help to alleviate some of the acute budgetary problems such as in those countries where
falling rolls of around 20% are expected in schools over the next decade; these countries are
concentrated – though not exclusively – in Central and Eastern Europe and Asia (the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and partner countries Estonia and the
Russian Federation). Moreover, not all countries are expecting falling school enrolments – in
Ireland, Spain and the partner country Israel, the 5-14 year-old population is set to rise by more
than 15% by 2015 (Indicator B2) and in tertiary education it is not clear how demographic
trends will interact with rising enrolment.
14

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Editorial

This editorial identifies some of the immediate challenges likely to be faced by education,
recognising that a longer-term future needs to be built. Establishing solutions will require the
insights of many and close collaboration among countries. For this purpose, the Education
Directorate has established the online collaborative platform “educationtoday: OECD’s education
lighthouse for the way out of the crisis” where countries can share their experience and jointly
work on solutions over the years to come.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

15

Introduction: the Indicators
and their Framework
The organising framework

Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2009 provides a rich, comparable and up-to-date array
of indicators that reflect a consensus among professionals on how to measure the current state
of education internationally. The indicators provide information on the human and financial
resources invested in education, on how education and learning systems operate and evolve, and
on the returns to educational investments. The indicators are organised thematically, and each
is accompanied by information on the policy context and the interpretation of the data. The
education indicators are presented within an organising framework that:
• distinguishes between the actors in education systems: individual learners and teachers,
instructional settings and learning environments, educational service providers, and the
education system as a whole;
• groups the indicators according to whether they speak to learning outcomes for individuals
or countries, policy levers or circumstances that shape these outcomes, or to antecedents or
constraints that set policy choices into context; and
• identifies the policy issues to which the indicators relate, with three major categories
distinguishing between the quality of educational outcomes and educational provision, issues
of equity in educational outcomes and educational opportunities, and the adequacy and
effectiveness of resource management.
The following matrix describes the first two dimensions:
1. Education and
learning outputs
and outcomes
I.

Individual
participants in
education and
learning

1.I

2. Policy levers and
contexts shaping
educational
outcomes

3. Antecedents or
constraints that
contextualise
policy

The quality and
2.I Individual attitudes, 3.I Background
distribution of
engagement, and
characteristics of the
individual educational
behaviour to teaching
individual learners and
outcomes
and learning
teachers

II. Instructional
settings

1.II The quality of

2.II Pedagogy, learning

3.II Student learning

III. Providers of
educational
services

1.III The output of

2.III School environment

3.III Characteristics of the

2.IV System-wide

3.IV The national

instructional delivery

educational institutions
and institutional
performance

IV. The education
1.IV The overall
system as a whole
performance of the
education system

practices and
classroom climate

and organisation

institutional settings,
resource allocations,
and policies

conditions and teacher
working conditions

service providers and
their communities
educational, social,
economic, and
demographic contexts

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

17

Introduction

The following sections discuss the matrix dimensions in more detail:
Actors in education systems

The OECD indicators of education systems (INES) programme seeks to gauge the performance
of national education systems as a whole, rather than to compare individual institutional or other
sub-national entities. However, there is increasing recognition that many important features of
the development, functioning and impact of education systems can only be assessed through an
understanding of learning outcomes and their relationships to inputs and processes at the level of
individuals and institutions. To account for this, the indicator framework distinguishes between a
macro level, two meso-levels and a micro-level of education systems. These relate to:
• the education system as a whole;
• the educational institutions and providers of educational services;
• the instructional setting and the learning environment within the institutions; and
• the individual participants in education and learning.
To some extent, these levels correspond to the entities from which data are being collected but
their importance mainly centres on the fact that many features of the education system play
out quite differently at different levels of the system, which needs to be taken into account
when interpreting the indicators. For example, at the level of students within a classroom, the
relationship between student achievement and class size may be negative, if students in small
classes benefit from improved contact with teachers.At the class or school level, however, students
are often intentionally grouped such that weaker or disadvantaged students are placed in smaller
classes so that they receive more individual attention. At the school level, therefore, the observed
relationship between class size and student achievement is often positive (suggesting that students
in larger classes perform better than students in smaller classes). At higher aggregated levels
of education systems, the relationship between student achievement and class size is further
confounded, e.g. by the socio-economic intake of schools or by factors relating to the learning
culture in different countries. Past analyses which have relied on macro-level data alone have
therefore sometimes led to misleading conclusions.
Outcomes, policy levers and antecedents

The second dimension in the organising framework further groups the indicators at each of the
above levels:
• indicators on observed outputs of education systems, as well as indicators related to the impact
of knowledge and skills for individuals, societies and economies, are grouped under the subheading output and outcomes of education and learning;
• the sub-heading policy levers and contexts groups activities seeking information on the policy
levers or circumstances which shape the outputs and outcomes at each level; and
• these policy levers and contexts typically have antecedents – factors that define or constrain policy.
These are represented by the sub-heading antecedents and constraints. It should be noted that the
antecedents or constraints are usually specific for a given level of the education system and that
antecedents at a lower level of the system may well be policy levers at a higher level. For teachers
and students in a school, for example, teacher qualifications are a given constraint while, at the
level of the education system, professional development of teachers is a key policy lever.
18

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Introduction

Policy issues

Each of the resulting cells in the framework can then be used to address a variety of issues from
different policy perspectives. For the purpose of this framework, policy perspectives are grouped
into three classes that constitute the third dimension in the organising framework for INES:
• quality of educational outcomes and educational provision;
• equality of educational outcomes and equity in educational opportunities; and
• adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency of resource management.
In addition to the dimensions mentioned above, the time perspective as an additional dimension in
the framework, allows dynamic aspects in the development of education systems to be modelled
also.
The indicators that are published in Education at a Glance 2009 fit within this framework, though
often they speak to more than one cell.
Most of the indicators in Chapter A The output of educational institutions and the impact of learning
relate to the first column of the matrix describing outputs and outcomes of education. Even so,
indicators in Chapter A measuring educational attainment for different generations, for instance,
not only provide a measure of the output of the educational system, but also provide context for
current educational policies, helping to shape polices on, for example, lifelong learning.
Chapter B Financial and human resources invested in education provides indicators that are either
policy levers or antecedents to policy, or sometimes both. For example, expenditure per
student is a key policy measure which most directly impacts on the individual learner as it acts
as a constraint on the learning environment in schools and student learning conditions in the
classroom.
Chapter C Access to education, participation and progression provides indicators that are a mixture
of outcome indicators, policy levers and context indicators. Internationalisation of education and
progression rates are, for instance, outcomes measures to the extent that they indicate the results
of policies and practices in the classroom, school and system levels. But they can also provide
contexts for establishing policy by identifying areas where policy intervention is necessary to, for
instance, address issues of inequity.
Chapter D The learning environment and organisation of schools provides indicators on instruction
time, teachers working time and teachers’ salaries that not only represent policy levers which can
be manipulated but also provide contexts for the quality of instruction in instructional settings
and for the outcomes of learners at the individual level. It also, for the first time, presents data
from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) on teacher beliefs, practices, and job
satisfaction as well as the role of teacher appraisal and feedback and the school evaluation system.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

19

Reader’s Guide
Coverage of the statistics

Although a lack of data still limits the scope of the indicators in many countries, the
coverage extends, in principle, to the entire national education system (within the national
territory) regardless of the ownership or sponsorship of the institutions concerned and
regardless of education delivery mechanisms.With one exception described below, all types
of students and all age groups are meant to be included: children (including students with
special needs), adults, nationals, foreigners, as well as students in open distance learning,
in special education programmes or in educational programmes organised by ministries
other than the Ministry of Education, provided the main aim of the programme is the
educational development of the individual. However, vocational and technical training
in the workplace, with the exception of combined school and work-based programmes
that are explicitly deemed to be parts of the education system, is not included in the basic
education expenditure and enrolment data.
Educational activities classified as “adult” or “non-regular” are covered, provided that the
activities involve studies or have a subject matter content similar to “regular” education
studies or that the underlying programmes lead to potential qualifications similar to
corresponding regular educational programmes. Courses for adults that are primarily for
general interest, personal enrichment, leisure or recreation are excluded.
Calculation of international means

For many indicators an OECD average is presented and for some an OECD total.
The OECD average is calculated as the unweighted mean of the data values of all OECD
countries for which data are available or can be estimated. The OECD average therefore
refers to an average of data values at the level of the national systems and can be used
to answer the question of how an indicator value for a given country compares with the
value for a typical or average country. It does not take into account the absolute size of the
education system in each country.
The OECD total is calculated as a weighted mean of the data values of all OECD countries
for which data are available or can be estimated. It reflects the value for a given indicator
when the OECD area is considered as a whole. This approach is taken for the purpose of
comparing, for example, expenditure charts for individual countries with those of the entire
OECD area for which valid data are available, with this area considered as a single entity.
Note that both the OECD average and the OECD total can be significantly affected by
missing data. Given the relatively small number of countries, no statistical methods are
used to compensate for this. In cases where a category is not applicable (code “a”) in a
country or where the data value is negligible (code “n”) for the corresponding calculation,
the value zero is imputed for the purpose of calculating OECD averages. In cases where
both the numerator and the denominator of a ratio are not applicable (code “a”) for a
certain country, this country is not included in the OECD average.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

21

Reader’s Guide

For financial tables using 1995 and 2000 data, both the OECD average and OECD total
are calculated for countries providing 1995, 2000 and 2006 data. This allows comparison
of the OECD average and OECD total over time with no distortion due to the exclusion
of certain countries in the different years.
For many indicators an EU19 average is also presented. It is calculated as the unweighted
mean of the data values of the 19 OECD countries that are members of the European Union
for which data are available or can be estimated. These 19 countries are Austria, Belgium,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and
the United Kingdom.
Classification of levels of education

The classification of the levels of education is based on the revised International Standard
Classification of Education (ISCED-97). The biggest change between the revised ISCED
and the former ISCED (ISCED-76) is the introduction of a multi-dimensional classification
framework, allowing for the alignment of the educational content of programmes using
multiple classification criteria. ISCED is an instrument for compiling statistics on education
internationally and distinguishes among six levels of education. The glossary available at
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 describes in detail the ISCED levels of education, and Annex 1
shows corresponding typical graduation ages of the main educational programmes by
ISCED level.
Symbols for missing data

Six symbols are employed in the tables and charts to denote missing data:
a Data is not applicable because the category does not apply.
c There are too few observations to provide reliable estimates (i.e. there are fewer
than 3% of students for this cell or too few schools for valid inferences). However,
these statistics were included in the calculation of cross-country averages.
m Data is not available.
n Magnitude is either negligible or zero.
S.E. Standard Error.
w Data has been withdrawn at the request of the country concerned.
x Data included in another category or column of the table (e.g. x(2) means that data
are included in column 2 of the table).
~ Average is not comparable with other levels of education.
Further resources

The website www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 provides a rich source of information on the
methods employed for the calculation of the indicators, the interpretation of the indicators
in the respective national contexts and the data sources involved.The website also provides
access to the data underlying the indicators as well as to a comprehensive glossary for
technical terms used in this publication.

22

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Reader’s Guide

All post-production changes to this publication are listed at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.
The website www.pisa.oecd.org provides information on the OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA), on which many of the indicators in this publication
draw. The website www.oecd.org/edu/talis gives information on the Teaching and Learning
International Survey (TALIS), on which two indicators are based (Indicators D5 and D6).
Education at a Glance uses the OECD’s StatLinks service. Below each table and chart in
Education at Glance 2009 is a url which leads to a corresponding Excel workbook containing
the underlying data for the indicator. These urls are stable and will remain unchanged over
time. In addition, readers of the Education at a Glance e-book will be able to click directly
on these links and the workbook will open in a separate window.
Codes used for territorial entities

These codes are used in certain charts. Country or territorial entity names are used in the
text. Note that throughout the publication, the Flemish Community of Belgium and the
French Community of Belgium may be referred to as “Belgium (Fl.)” and “Belgium (Fr.)”
respectively.
AUS Australia
AUT Austria
BEL Belgium
BFL Belgium (Flemish Community)
BFR Belgium (French Community)
BRA Brazil
CAN Canada
CHL Chile
CZE Czech Republic
DNK Denmark
ENG England
EST Estonia
FIN Finland
FRA France
DEU Germany
GRC Greece
HUN Hungary
ISL Iceland
IRL Ireland
ISR Israel

ITA Italy
JPN Japan
KOR Korea
LUX Luxembourg
MEX Mexico
NLD Netherlands
NZL New Zealand
NOR Norway
POL Poland
PRT Portugal
RUS Russian Federation
SCO Scotland
SVK Slovak Republic
SVN Slovenia
ESP Spain
SWE Sweden
CHE Switzerland
TUR Turkey
UKM United Kingdom
USA United States

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

23

Chapter

A

The Output of
Educational Institutions
and the Impact of Learning

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

25

INDICATOR A1

TO WHAT LEVEL HAVE ADULTS STUDIED?
This indicator profiles the educational attainment of the adult population as
captured through formal educational qualifications. As such, it provides a proxy
for the knowledge and skills available to national economies and societies. To gauge
the evolution of available skills, trend data on growth in the number of people with
different levels of educational attainment have been added this year. This indicator
also provides data related to the supply of and demand for skilled workers across
OECD countries.

Key results
Chart A1.1. Average annual growth in the population with tertiary education
(1998-2006)

The chart depicts the annual average growth rate in the number of 25-64 year-olds
with tertiary education related to the increase in attainment levels and
to the overall population growth.
Average annual increase in the number of individuals with tertiary education due to:
Attainment rate growth
Overall population growth
The overall growth in the number of individuals who have completed tertiary education provides
a complementary picture to that of attainment levels alone. Countries with growing populations
will not only have to cope with more young individuals eager to invest in tertiary education but
also an increasing overall demand linked to a growing population. The number of individuals that
have attained tertiary education has increased by 7% per year or more in Ireland, Poland, Portugal,
Spain, and Turkey. In Ireland, Spain and Turkey the overall population growth has put additional
strains on the higher education system, whereas this has been of less concern in countries such
as Germany and Japan.
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1

Turkey
Spain
Ireland
Mexico
Slovak Republic
Korea
United States
Canada
Portugal
Czech Republic
Australia
OECD average
Greece
New Zealand
Hungary
Switzerland
Poland
France
Sweden
Austria
Belgium
United Kingdom
Italy
Denmark
Netherlands
Finland
Germany
Japan

%

Countries are ranked in descending order of the average annual increase in the number of individuals with tertiary
education due to overall population growth.
Source: OECD. Table A1.4 and Table A1.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

26

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A1

• With the exception of Germany, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Turkey and the United
States, the number of individuals available to the labour market with below
secondary education decreased between 1998 and 2006, and in some countries
substantially so.
• Upper secondary education has become the norm among younger cohorts in
almost all OECD countries. On average across OECD countries, the proportion
of 25-34 year-olds having attained upper secondary education is 22 percentage
points higher than that of 55-64 year-olds.
• Since 1998, tertiary attainment levels among young adults have also increased
significantly, to 34% among 25-34 year-olds, on average across OECD countries.
This suggests that overall tertiary attainment levels will continue to rise in
the coming years. In France, Ireland, Japan and Korea, there is a difference of
25 percentage points or more in the tertiary attainment of the oldest and youngest
age cohorts.
• Tertiary educated young individuals in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the Slovak Republic and in the partner
country Slovenia continue to have good prospects of finding a skilled job. In these
countries, 85% or more of tertiary educated 25-34 year-olds are employed in
skilled occupations, indicating that those with higher education are in strong
demand.
• Since 1998, young tertiary educated individuals in Austria, Finland, Germany
and Switzerland have improved their prospects of finding a skilled job. At the
same time, young workers without a tertiary education appear to have a good
chance relative to older workers in finding a skilled job, indicating a potential gap
between supply and demand of high-end skills in these countries.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

27

chapter A

A1

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Policy context

A well-educated and well-trained population is essential for the social and economic well-being
of countries. Education plays a key role in providing individuals with the knowledge, skills and
competencies needed to participate effectively in society and in the economy. It also contributes
to the expansion of scientific and cultural knowledge. Educational attainment is a commonly
used proxy for the stock of “human capital”, that is, the skills available in the population and
the labour force. International comparisons of educational attainment assume that the skills and
knowledge taught at each level of education are similar among countries.
In fact, the skill composition of populations varies substantially among countries, depending on
their industry structure and general level of economic development. It is important to understand
the mix of skills available, as well as changes in the skill structure among different age groups, in
order to gain an idea of the current and future supply of skills in the labour market. While the
current economic downturn makes it difficult to forecast future skill demands, it will increase
the incentives for individuals to invest in education, as worsening labour market prospects lower
the opportunity costs of education, such as earnings foregone while studying.
As overall demand for education is likely to rise, thus increasing the supply of more highly
educated individuals to the labour market, it will be crucial to track the demand for these more
skilled workers in the coming years. The International Standard Classification of Occupations
(ISCO) provides an opportunity to relate what is produced by the education system to the
demands of the labour market. In essence, occupational classifications relate to the level of
economic development and demand for skills, and as such provide a measure of the overall need
for education. A key issue for any education system is to supply the labour market with the level
and diversity of skills that employers require. The match between educational attainment and
occupations can thus be seen as a signal of demand for education.
Evidence and explanations
Attainment levels in OECD countries

On average across OECD countries, fewer than one-third of adults (30%) have attained only
primary or lower secondary levels of education, 44% of the adult population has attained an
upper secondary education and more than one-quarter (27%) have attained a tertiary level
qualification (Table A1.1a). However, countries differ widely in the distribution of educational
attainment across their populations.
In 23 out of 29 OECD countries – as well as in the partner countries Estonia, Israel, the Russian
Federation and Slovenia – 60% or more of the population aged 25 to 64 has completed at least
upper secondary education (Table A1.2a). Some countries show a different profile, however. For
instance, in Mexico, Portugal and Turkey and the partner country Brazil, more than two thirds of
the population aged 25 to 64 has not completed upper secondary education. Overall, a comparison
of the levels of educational attainment in younger versus older age groups indicates marked progress
with regard to attainment of upper secondary education, except in the United States (Chart A1.2).
On average across OECD countries, the proportion of 25-34 year-olds having attained at least upper
secondary education is 22 percentage points higher than that of 55-64 year-olds. This increase has
been particularly dramatic in Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Portugal and Spain, as well as
in the partner country Chile, all of which have seen an increase in upper secondary attainment of
30 percentage points or more.
28

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

chapter A

Chart A1.2. Population that has attained at least upper secondary education (2007)

A1

Percentage, by age group
%

25-34 year-olds

55-64 year-olds

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0

Korea
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Poland
Canada
Sweden
Russian Federation1
Finland
Switzerland
United States
Austria
Estonia
Israel
Hungary
Denmark
Germany
Ireland
Norway
France
Netherlands
Belgium
Australia
New Zealand
OECD average
Luxembourg
Greece
United Kingdom
Iceland
Italy
Spain
Chile2
Brazil
Portugal
Mexico
Turkey

10

1.Year of reference 2002.
2.Year of reference 2004.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of the 25-34 year-olds who have attained at least upper secondary
education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

In countries where the adult population generally has a high level of educational attainment,
differences among age groups are less pronounced (Table A1.2a). In the 10 OECD countries
where more than 80% of 25-64 year-olds have at least upper secondary attainment, the difference
in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds and 55-64 year-olds having attained at least upper secondary
level is, on average, 13 percentage points. In Germany and the United States, the proportion of
population with upper secondary education and more is almost the same for all age groups. For
countries with more room for growth, the average gain in attainment between these age groups
is typically large, but situations differ widely. In Norway, the difference between 25-34 year-olds
and 55-64 year-olds is 7 percentage points; in Korea it is 59 percentage points.
In almost all countries, 25-34 year-olds have higher tertiary attainment levels than the generation
about to leave the labour market (55-64 year-olds). On average across OECD countries, 34% of
the younger cohort has completed tertiary education, compared with 20% of the oldest cohort,
while the average for the total population of 25-64 year-olds is 28%. The expansion of tertiary
education differs substantially among countries. In France, Ireland, Japan and Korea there is a
difference of 25 percentage points or more in tertiary attainment of the oldest and youngest age
cohorts (Table A1.3a).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

29

chapter A

This rapid expansion of the tertiary sector has put Japan and Korea in the top group together
with Canada and the partner country the Russian Federation with over 50% of the younger
cohort having attained tertiary education (Chart A1.3). Attainment levels between the youngest
and oldest cohorts have changed by 5 percentage points or less in Austria, the Czech Republic,
the United States and the partner country Brazil and close to zero or negative in Germany and
the partner country Israel. Attainment levels in the total population are still substantially above
the OECD average in the United States and Israel, whereas in the case of the other four countries
in this group, attainment levels are below the OECD average.
Chart A1.3. Population that has attained at least tertiary education (2007)

Percentage, by age group
25-34 year-olds

%

55-64 year-olds

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Canada
Korea
Russian Federation1
Japan
New Zealand
Ireland
Norway
Israel
France
Belgium
Australia
United States
Denmark
Sweden
Finland
Spain
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Estonia
OECD average
Iceland
Slovenia
Poland
Greece
Germany
Hungary
Portugal
Mexico
Austria
Italy
Chile2
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Turkey
Brazil

A1

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

1.Year of reference 2002.
2.Year of reference 2004.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of the 25-34 year-olds who have attained at least tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Trends in attainment levels in OECD countries

Measurements of the progress in attainment levels across age cohorts provide a rough
representation of the evolution of human capital in different countries. Trends in attainment
levels provide a more nuanced picture, enabling examination of the evolution of attainment over
time. Trends will in some circumstances reveal slight differences from analyses of attainment
levels by age cohorts, because attainment levels are not evenly distributed within an age cohort.
30

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

chapter A

Attainment levels have also risen as a consequence of 25-64 adults having acquired higher
qualifications after completing initial education. Furthermore, immigration can in some countries
make a big impact on attainment levels over time.
Trends in attainment levels over time thus provide a complementary picture of the progress of
human capital available to the economy and society. Table A1.4 presents the trends in educational
attainment in the adult population (25-64 year-olds). In 1997, on average across OECD
countries, 37% of the population had not completed upper secondary education, 43% had
completed upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education and another 20% had
completed tertiary education. These figures have changed quite dramatically over the past ten
years as a consequence of efforts to move people into higher educational levels. The proportion
of the adult population with below upper secondary education has fallen to 30%, the proportion
with tertiary attainment has risen to 27%, while the proportion of the population with upper
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education has remained unchanged at 43%.
The big change in the educational attainment of the adult population over the past decade has thus
been at the low and high ends of the skill distribution. The average annual growth rate in tertiary
attainment levels has exceeded 5% in Italy, Poland, and Portugal, although it should be noted that
overall levels of tertiary attainment in these countries were low at the beginning of the decade.The
proportion of the population with below upper secondary education decreased by 5% or more
per year in the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary and Poland. Only Portugal and Spain have seen
growth rates above 5% for upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary attainment.
Attainment levels offer good overall assessment of the skill distribution and how this distribution
has evolved over time. However, as noted in Chart A1.1 the actual production of the education
system can, in many instances, diverge quite substantially from what is apparent in measures of
attainment levels.Table A1.5 provides estimates of the average annual growth of the total number
of individuals in the adult population in different educational levels between 1998 and 2006. The
number of individuals with tertiary education available to the labour market has grown by an
average of 4.5% per year across OECD countries. Some of this growth is due to individuals in
older age cohorts, with lower levels of tertiary attainment, having retired. Nevertheless, the
total investments made in human capital and the overall change in the supply of highly educated
individuals during this period is impressive.
The average annual growth in the adult population with an upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education has been substantially below that of tertiary education. This reflects the
fact that many individuals have already achieved this level of education. The total number of
individuals who have not completed an upper secondary education has decreased by an average of
1.9% per year during this period.With the exception of Germany, Japan, Mexico, Poland,Turkey
and the United States, the number of individuals with below secondary education available to the
labour market decreased between 1998 and 2006, and in some countries substantially so.
Attainment levels and links with skilled jobs

Governments that seek to expand tertiary education have often considered that an advanced
knowledge economy needs more high-level skills and thus requires educating a much greater
proportion of the workforce beyond the secondary level. The capacity of the labour market to
accommodate increasing numbers of individuals with tertiary education depends on industry
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

31

A1

chapter A

A1

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

structure as well as the general level of economic development.The composition of occupational
categories in a country captures these factors to some extent. The distribution of occupations
reflects the importance of different sectors and of high-end skills for the economy. The ISCO
classification of occupations thus provides a further opportunity to look more closely at the
match between the education system and the labour market in different countries.
The prospect of higher educated individuals finding a skilled job depends to a large extent on
tertiary attainment levels relative to skilled jobs in the country and the change in these two
components of supply and demand over time. Table A1.6 presents the proportion of tertiary and
below tertiary educated individuals in skilled occupations, by age cohorts.The ISCO occupational
categories 1-3 are classified as skilled jobs and include: Legislators, senior officials and managers
(ISCO 1); Professionals (ISCO 2); and Technician and associate professionals (ISCO 3). For more
extensive explanations on occupational distributions see Education at a Glance 2008. Table A1.6
confirms expectations that higher education provides greater access to more skilled occupations.
On average across OECD countries, about a quarter of those without a tertiary qualification
succeed in obtaining a skilled job; for those with tertiary qualifications this figure rises to more
than 80%. The overall proportions of individuals holding skilled jobs have been relatively stable
over the period (1998 and 2006) for both tertiary and below tertiary educated individuals,
suggesting that the demand-side has kept up with the influx of more educated individuals.
Younger cohorts are typically more sensitive to changes in supply and demand for skills as they
try to get a foothold in the labour market. Column 6 in Table A1.6 shows the percentage point
change in the proportion 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education holding skilled jobs between
1998 and 2006. There has been a marginal decrease in the proportion of young individuals
who have succeeded in obtaining skilled jobs during the period, but this differs widely among
countries. Chart A1.4 shows these changes (on the right-hand side) and the percentage of the
25-34 year-old cohort currently (2006) employed in skilled jobs (on the left-hand side).
Young tertiary educated individuals in Sweden, Poland and Portugal have seen the labour market
for skilled jobs deteriorate over the period with 13, 11 and 8 percentage point decreases in the
proportion of 25-34 year-olds employed in skilled jobs. At the other extreme, tertiary educated
25-34 year-olds in Austria, Finland, Germany and Switzerland have seen their prospects of finding
a skilled job improved between 4 and 9 percentage points over the period. Both of these groups
of countries have reverted to the OECD mean, where countries now cluster just above or at the
OECD average, with 79% of the younger tertiary educated cohort employed in skilled jobs.
Higher educated young individuals in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, and the Slovak Republic and in the partner country Slovenia continue to have good
prospects for finding a skilled job. In these countries, 85% or more of the tertiary educated
25-34 year-olds are employed in skilled jobs, indicating that those with higher education are still
in strong demand. Tertiary educated individuals in Canada, Ireland, Spain and the United States
generally have more difficulty in finding jobs to match their skill levels.
Another way to look at the supply of and demand for high-end skills is to examine how access
to skilled jobs changes across age cohorts. As individuals accumulate more human capital over
time, from a lifelong learning perspective one would expect more individuals to move up into
skilled jobs progressively across age cohorts.This seems particularly true in countries with strong
vocational training systems.
32

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

chapter A

Chart A1.4. Proportion of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education employed
in skilled jobs in 2006 and change in skilled jobs for 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education
between 2006 and 1998
Proportion of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary
education (ISCED 5/6) employed in skilled
jobs (ISCO 1-3) in 2006
78%
80%
83%
74%
87%
76%
85%
79%
79%
89%
79%
73%
93%
90%
96%
59%
63%
64%
81%
75%
80%
82%
79%
81%
73%
65%
85%
77%
% 100

80

60

40

20

0

Change in skilled jobs (ISCO 1-3) for
25-34 year-olds with tertiary education
(ISCED 5/6) between 1998 and 2006
-13%
Sweden1
Poland
-11%
Portugal
-8%
France
-5%
Hungary
-4%
United Kingdom3
-3%
Netherlands2
-2%
-2%
OECD average
-1%
Norway
-1%
Slovak Republic
Italy3
-1%
-1%
Israel
Czech Republic
0%
Slovenia
0%
Luxembourg1
0%
Spain
0%
0%
United States4
Canada
1%
Denmark
1%
Belgium
2%
Austria
4%
Switzerland
5%
5%
Germany1
Finland
Turkey
Ireland
Iceland
Australia
-15
-10
-5
0
5

9%

10 %

1. 1999 instead of 1998.
2. 2000 instead of 1998.
3. Italy: change in survey methodology between 1998 and 2006 affects comparability. United Kingdom: change in
national occupation coding frame in 2000 affects comparability for ISCO.
4. ISCO groupings 3 and 9 in 2006 are not separated and thus distributed among remaining ISCO classification.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the change in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds with tertiary education in skilled
jobs between 1998 and 2006.
Source: OECD. Table A1.6. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Table A1.6, column 12 shows the difference between the proportion of 25-34 year-olds and of
45-54 year-olds with below tertiary education in skilled jobs. Consistent with the notion that
individuals acquire skills through work experience and job-related training over their life spans,
one would anticipate finding fewer younger workers than older workers in skilled jobs.
At the same time, one might argue that if too few higher educated individuals are entering
the labour market, employers will be forced to take in younger, lower educated individuals,
flattening the age advantage among lower educated individuals – or even turning the advantage
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

33

A1

chapter A

A1

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

towards the younger cohorts. The opposite applies if too many individuals with higher levels of
education are entering the labour market; young individuals with lower levels of education will
find it increasingly difficult to find skilled jobs, increasing the advantage of older cohorts.
On average across OECD countries, the proportion of the age cohort in skilled jobs among
those with below tertiary education increases by 3 percentage points between the 25-34 and
45-54 year-olds, indicating that more experienced workers have some advantage in obtaining a
skilled job. In Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland, more experienced workers do not
have an advantage, and in Austria, Finland, Germany and the partner country Israel the advantage
of finding a skilled job is tilted to those with less experience in the labour market.
Chart A1.5 combines these two approaches, plotting changes in the match of tertiary educated
25-34 year-olds to skilled jobs between 2006 and 1998 (horizontal axis) against the difference
in the proportion 25-34 year-olds and 45-54 year-olds with below tertiary education in skilled
jobs (vertical axis). The OECD average for age advantage (3% fewer younger than older workers
in skilled jobs) is used as a benchmark (indicated by the horizontal axis crossing the vertical axis
at this point).
Countries below the horizontal axis generally have a steeper age (experience) advantage than
the average across OECD countries, whereas the opposite is true for countries above this line.
Young tertiary educated individuals in countries on the left-side of the vertical axis have seen their
prospects of finding a skilled job deteriorate over the period; for individuals in countries on the
right-hand side of the chart, the prospect of finding a skilled job has improved during the period.
Young tertiary educated individuals in France, Poland, Portugal and Sweden have seen their
prospects of finding a skilled job deteriorate during the period. In addition, young individuals
who have not attained a tertiary education are disadvantaged, compared with older workers, in
finding a skilled job. This suggests that the expansion of higher education might have outpaced
demand for skilled workers in recent years. Some caution is needed in interpreting these results,
however, as some countries are still above the OECD mean in terms of matching young higher
educated individuals to skilled occupations. It is similarly difficult to assess the steepness of the
age (experience) advantage in finding a skilled job.
A stronger signal, however, that the demand for higher educated individuals has outstripped
the supply can be made for countries in the opposite corner. In Austria, Finland, Germany and
Switzerland, young tertiary educated individuals have improved their prospects in finding a skilled
job over the period. At the same time young workers without a tertiary education have had an
advantage over more experienced workers in finding skilled jobs.This suggests that employers have
fewer choices and must take in younger, less educated workers to fill these skilled positions.
Again, some caution is needed in interpreting these data as changes in education systems, shifts
in industries and overall demand for certain skills can make younger individuals more attractive
to employers than older and more experienced workers. It is therefore important to also consult
other labour market indicators such as employment and unemployment (Indicator A6), earnings
(Indicator A7), incentives to invest in education (Indicator A8), and transition from school
to work (Indicator C3). However, these indicators signal a similar message for a number of
countries, as conveyed in this section of Education at a Glance.
34

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

chapter A

Chart A1.5. Supply of and demand for young individuals (25-34 year-olds)
to skilled jobs (ISCO 1-3), 1998-2006

A1

Difference in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds
and 45-54 year-old cohort with below tertiary education
in skilled jobs (%)

8

Upper right quadrant: increasing demand for higher
educated individuals; demand tends to be satisfied by
intake of young individuals with below tertiary
education

Upper left quadrant: slowing demand for higher
educated individuals; preference towards younger
individuals over older with below tertiary education

6

Finland

4
Austria
Israel

2

Hungary

0

Germany1

Slovak
Republic

Switzerland
Slovenia

United Kingdom3
Czech Republic

-2

Luxembourg1

OECD
average

Canada

Netherlands2

-4

United States4
Belgium

Portugal
Poland

Denmark
Australia

Norway

-6

Italy3
Sweden1

-8

Spain

France

Lower left quadrant: slowing demand for higher educated
individuals; preference towards older individuals
(experience) over younger with below tertiary education

-10
-15

-10

-5

Lower right quadrant: increasing demand for higher
educated individuals; demand tends to be satisfied by
existing pool of individuals with tertiary education

0

5

10

15

Percentage point change in the proportion of 25-34 year-olds
with tertiary education in skilled jobs between 2006 and 1998 (%)

1. 1999 instead of 1998.
2. 2000 instead of 1998.
3. Italy: change in survey methodology between 1998 and 2006 affects comparability. The United Kingdom: change
in national occupation coding frame in 2000 affects comparability for ISCO.
4. ISCO groupings 3 and 9 in 2006 are not separated and thus distributed among remaining classification.
Source: OECD. Table A1.6. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Definitions and methodologies

Data on population and educational attainment are taken from OECD and Eurostat databases,
which are compiled from National Labour Force Surveys. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009)
for national sources.
Attainment profiles are based on the percentage of the population aged 25 to 64 that has completed
a specified level of education. The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED-97)
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

35

chapter A

A1

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

is used to define the levels of education. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009) for a description
of the mapping of ISCED-97 education programmes and attainment levels for each country.
Successful completion of upper secondary education means the achievement of upper secondary
programmes type A, B or C, which are of a similar length; completion of type C programmes
(labour market destination) of significantly shorter duration are not classified as upper secondary
attainment.
The data for Table A1.6 are provided by the Supply of Skills working group of INES Network on
Labour Market, Economic and Social Outcomes of Learning (formerly called INES Network B).
The information is based on collection of ISCO (International Standard Classification of
Occupations) and ISCED information from OECD countries. ISCO is the most widely used
classification system for grouping occupations according to the tasks and duties involved. The
ISCO system is maintained by the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
The ISCO system facilitates international communication regarding jobs, makes international
comparisons possible, and serves as a model for the development of national occupation
classification systems. In the ISCO system, an occupation is classified into one of nine major
groups, and then into sub-groups. The analysis in Indicator A1 is at the major group level.
Like other international classification systems, ISCO changes only when major revisions are
carried out. This means that ISCO does not fully capture changes in the labour market over time.
Occupations evolve, as do their competency requirements. Some types of occupations disappear
and others appear. The nature of these new occupations is not always fully described in the ISCO
classification system. Accordingly, time series comparisons using the ISCO system should be
interpreted with caution, considering the limitations of a static classification system.
Further references

For further information on the ISCO categories, see Education at a Glance 2008.
The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

• Table A1.1b. Educational attainment: Male population (2007)
• Table A1.1c. Educational attainment: Female population (2007)
• Table A1.2b. Population of males with at least upper secondary education (2007)
• Table A1.2c. Population of females with at least upper secondary education (2007)
• Table A1.3b. Population of males with tertiary education (2007)
• Table A1.3c. Population of females with tertiary education (2007)

36

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

chapter A

A1

Table A1.1a.
Educational attainment: adult population (2007)
Distribution of the 25-64 year-old population, by highest level of education attained

(5)
31
6
24
26
35
6
44
11
3
26
28
10
25
30
59
43
19
18
23
9
11
31
13
38
14
47
6
10
7
48

Partner countries

Below upper secondary
education

(6)
3
9
2
12
a
n
n
n
7
8
2
11
11
1
a
a
4
a
3
11
3
4
1
x(5)
n
6
3
a
n
x(5)

All levels
of education

(4)
x(5)
47
10
x(5)
41
37
a
31
50
3
31
13
x(5)
7
x(5)
x(5)
17
a
16
10
30
33
x(5)
35
8
x(5)
46
8
30
x(5)

Advanced research
programmes

ISCED 3A

(3)
x(5)
1
a
a
a
2
a
a
a
3
a
9
n
1
x(5)
a
7
a
x(4)
8
a
a
x(5)
x(4)
a
a
1
a
18
x(5)

Type A

ISCED 3C (long
programme)/3B

(2)
24
18
18
9
9
22
10
18
13
11
19
24
17
32
x(5)
12
9
20
20
21
21
14
16
12
27
10
9
10
14
8

Type B

ISCED 3C (short
programme)

(1)
8
x(2)
14
4
n
1
10
13
3
26
1
3
15
15
x(5)
11
18
47
7
x(2)
n
x(2)
56
1
22
6
3
61
n
4

Tertiary education
Post-secondary nontertiary education

Lower secondary
education

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Pre-primary and
primary education
OECD countries

Upper secondary
education

(7)
10
7
18
24
x(8)
7
15
11
9
7
n
4
11
1
18
10
9
a
2
16
2
x(8)
x(8)
1
9
9
10
x(8)
9
9

(8)
24
10
14
25
14
25
20
15
14
15
17
25
21
13
23
24
17
15
28
25
31
19
13
13
19
23
19
11
22
30

(9)
x(8)
x(8)
1
x(8)
x(8)
1
1
1
1
n
n
1
n
n
x(8)
x(8)
1
x(8)
1
x(8)
1
x(8)
1
n
1
x(8)
3
x(8)
1
1

(10)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Upper secondary level
of education

Tertiary level
of education

OECD average

30

44

27

EU19 average

29

46

24

Brazil
Chile1
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2
Slovenia

48
24
1
12
3
2

15
26
10
8
8
16

x(5)
x(5)
a
a
x(4)
a

x(5)
x(5)
5
9
16
28

27
37
44
27
18
31

a
a
7
a
x(4)
a

x(8)
3
11
15
34
11

10
10
22
27
20
10

x(8)
x(8)
n
1
n
2

100
100
100
100
100
100

Note: Due to discrepancies in the data, averages have not been calculated for each column individually.
1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2002.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

37

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A1

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table A1.2a.
Population with at least upper secondary education1 (2007)
Percentage, by age group

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

25-64
(1)
68
80
68
87
91
75
81
69
84
60
79
65
68
52
78
66
33
73
72
79
86
27
87
51
85
86
29
68
88

25-34
(2)
81
87
82
91
94
85
90
83
85
75
85
69
83
68
97
77
39
83
80
83
92
44
94
65
91
90
38
75
87

Age group
35-44
(3)
70
84
75
90
94
80
87
74
86
67
83
70
72
56
92
67
37
77
74
80
90
27
92
56
90
87
26
69
88

45-54
(4)
64
78
63
86
89
71
81
63
85
53
79
62
60
48
65
62
29
71
70
77
86
20
86
44
83
85
22
66
89

55-64
(5)
54
70
50
78
85
66
65
53
81
37
68
54
42
34
39
53
18
61
60
76
74
13
71
28
74
81
16
61
87

OECD average

70

79

74

67

57

EU19 average

71

81

75

68

57

Brazil
Chile2
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation3
Slovenia

37
50
89
80
88
82

47
64
86
85
91
92

37
52
94
83
94
84

31
44
93
77
89
78

22
32
82
71
71
71

1. Excluding ISCED 3C short programmes.
2.Year of reference 2004.
3.Year of reference 2002.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

38

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

chapter A

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table A1.3a.
Population with tertiary education (2007)
Percentage of the population that has attained tertiary-type B education or tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes, by age group

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Tertiary-type A and Advanced
Tertiary-type B education
research programmes
Total tertiary
25-64 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 25-64 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 25-64 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
10
10
9
10
9 24
31
25
22
18
34
41
34
32
27
7
6
7
8
7 10
13
12
9
7
18
19
19
17
14
18
23
19
16
13 14
18
16
12
9
32
41
36
28
22
24
26
26
23
18 25
29
26
21
21
48
56
53
45
39
x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) 14
15
14
14
11
14
15
14
14
11
7
8
7
6
5 25
32
27
24
19
32
40
34
30
24
15
8
20
18
15 21
32
22
17
14
36
39
43
36
28
11
18
12
8
5 16
24
17
12
11
27
41
29
20
17
9
6
9
10
9 16
16
16
15
14
24
23
26
25
23
7
9
9
6
4 15
19
17
14
10
23
28
26
21
14
n
1
n
n
n 18
21
17
16
16
18
22
17
16
16
4
3
4
4
2 26
28
31
23
20
30
31
35
28
23
11
14
13
9
6 21
30
22
16
11
32
44
34
25
17
1
1
1
1
n 13
18
13
11
9
14
19
14
11
9
18
25
22
16
9 23
29
24
25
15
41
54
46
41
24
10
22
10
4
1 24
34
30
17
10
35
56
40
21
11
9
12
8
7
8 18
24
19
15
11
27
36
27
22
19
1
1
1
1
1 15
18
15
14
8
16
19
16
15
9
2
2
2
2
2 29
35
29
28
24
31
37
31
30
26
16
14
15
17
17 25
33
26
22
18
41
47
41
39
35
2
2
2
3
3 32
41
34
28
24
34
43
36
31
26
x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) 19
30
18
13
12
19
30
18
13
12
x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) 14
21
14
10
7
14
21
14
10
7
1
1
1
1
1 13
17
12
13
10
14
17
13
14
11
9
13
11
6
4 20
26
22
17
12
29
39
32
23
16
9
8
9
9
8 23
31
22
20
18
31
40
31
29
26
10
9
11
10
9 21
26
23
20
17
31
35
34
30
26
x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15) 11
14
10
9
8
11
14
10
9
8
9
8
10
10
8 23
29
22
21
17
32
37
32
31
25
9
9
10
10
8 31
31
33
30
30
40
40
42
40
39

OECD average

9

10

10

9

7

20

26

21

18

14

28

34

29

25

20

EU19 average

8

9

9

9

7

18

24

19

16

13

24

31

26

22

18

x(11) x(12) x(13) x(14) x(15)
3
4
3
2
1
11
9
12
13
10
15
13
16
16
16
33
34
37
34
26
11
12
10
11
9

10
10
22
28
21
12

10
14
25
28
21
18

10
9
22
30
21
13

10
9
22
28
20
9

8
8
18
27
19
7

10
13
33
44
54
22

10
18
35
42
55
30

10
13
34
46
58
23

10
11
35
44
54
19

8
9
28
43
44
16

Brazil
Chile1
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2
Slovenia

1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2002.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

39

A1

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A1.4.
Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population (1997-2007)
Percentage, by age group

OECD countries

A1
Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

2006/1998
Average annual
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 growth rate
Below upper secondary
47 44 43 41 41 39 38 36 35 33 32
(3.4)
Upper secondary and post- 29 31 31 31 30 30 31 33 33 34 34
1.2
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
24 25 27 27 29 31 31 31 32 33 34
3.3
Below upper secondary
26 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 20 20
(3.3)
Upper secondary and post- 63 61 61 62 63 64 64 62 63 63 63
0.4
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
11 14 14 14 14 15 15 18 18 18 18
3.2
Below upper secondary
45 43 43 41 41 39 38 36 34 33 32
(3.3)
Upper secondary and post- 30 31 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 35 36
1.4
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
25 25 27 27 28 28 29 30 31 32 32
2.9
Below upper secondary
22 21 20 19 18 17 16 16 15 14 13
(4.8)
Upper secondary and post- 40 40 40 41 40 40 40 40 39 39 38
(0.6)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
37 38 39 40 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
2.6
Below upper secondary
15 15 14 14 14 12 14 11 10 10
9
(5.0)
Upper secondary and post- 74 75 75 75 75 76 74 77 77 77 77
0.3
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
11 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 14 14
3.3
Below upper secondary
m 21 20 21 19 19 19 19 19 18 25
(1.9)
Upper secondary and post- m 53 53 52 52 52 49 48 47 47 43
(1.5)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
m 25 27 26 28 30 32 33 34 35 32
4.0
Below upper secondary
32 31 28 27 26 25 24 22 21 20 19
(5.1)
Upper secondary and post- 39 39 40 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 44
1.7
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
29 30 31 32 32 33 33 34 35 35 36
1.9
Below upper secondary
41 39 38 37 36 35 35 34 33 33 31
(2.3)
Upper secondary and post- 39 40 40 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 42
0.3
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
20 21 21 22 23 24 24 24 25 26 27
3.0
Below upper secondary
17 16 19 18 17 17 17 16 17 17 16
0.4
Upper secondary and post- 61 61 58 58 59 60 59 59 59 59 60
(0.3)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
23 23 23 23 23 23 24 25 25 24 24
0.5
Below upper secondary
56 54 52 51 50 48 47 44 43 41 40
(3.3)
Upper secondary and post- 29 29 31 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 37
2.9
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
16 17 17 18 18 19 19 21 21 22 23
3.5
Below upper secondary
37 37 33 31 30 29 26 25 24 22 21
(6.2)
Upper secondary and post- 51 50 54 55 56 57 59 59 59 60 61
2.4
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
12 13 14 14 14 14 15 17 17 18 18
3.8
Below upper secondary
44 45 44 45 43 41 40 39 37 37 35
(2.4)
Upper secondary and post- 35 34 34 32 32 33 31 32 32 34 35
(0.2)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
21 21 22 23 25 26 29 29 31 30 30
4.4
Below upper secondary
50 49 45 54 45 40 38 37 35 34 32
(4.4)
Upper secondary and post- 27 30 35 28 32 35 35 35 35 35 35
2.0
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
23 21 20 19 24 25 26 28 29 31 32
4.8
Below upper secondary
m 59 58 58 57 56 52 51 50 49 48
(2.4)
Upper secondary and post- m 32 33 33 33 34 38 37 38 38 39
2.3
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
m
9
9
9 10 10 10 12 12 13 14
5.2
Below upper secondary
20 20 19 17 17
m
m
m
m
m
m
Upper secondary and post- 49 49 49 49 49 63 63 61 60 60 59
2.4
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
31 31 32 34 34 37 37 39 40 40 41
3.5
Below upper secondary
38 34 33 32 30 29 27 26 24 23 22
(4.5)
Upper secondary and post- 42 44 44 44 45 45 44 44 44 44 43
(0.1)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
20 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 32 33 35
4.9
Below upper secondary
m
m 44 44 47 38 41 37 34 34 34
Upper secondary and post- m
m 38 38 35 43 45 40 39 42 39
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
m
m 18 18 18 19 14 24 27 24 27
Below upper secondary
72 72 73 71 70 70 70 69 68 68 67
(0.8)
Upper secondary and post- 16 16 15 16 16 16 16 17 18 18 18
1.6
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
12 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 14 14 15
2.1

Note: See Annex 3 for breaks in time series.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

40

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

chapter A

OECD countries

Table A1.4. (continued)
Trends in educational attainment: 25-64 year-old population (1997-2007)
Percentage, by age group

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average

Brazil

Estonia

Israel

A1

2006/1998
Average annual
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 growth rate
Below upper secondary
m 36 45 35 35 32 31 29 28 28 27
(3.1)
Upper secondary and post- m 40 32 41 42 43 42 41 42 42 42
0.6
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
m 24 23 23 23 25 28 30 30 30 31
2.8
Below upper secondary
39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 28
(2.8)
Upper secondary and post- 34 34 34 35 36 35 35 32 30 31 31
(1.2)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
27 28 29 29 29 31 32 36 39 39 41
4.2
Below upper secondary
17 15 15 15 14 14 13 12 23 21 21
Upper secondary and post- 57 57 57 57 55 55 56 56 45 46 45
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
26 27 28 28 30 31 31 32 33 33 34
Below upper secondary
23 22 22 20 19 19 17 16 15 14 14
(5.2)
Upper secondary and post- 67 67 67 69 69 69 68 68 68 68 68
0.1
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
10 11 11 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19
6.4
Below upper secondary
m 82 81 81 80 80 77 75 74 72 73
(1.6)
Upper secondary and post- m 10 10 11 11 11 12 13 14 14 14
5.0
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
m
8
9
9
9
9 11 13 13 13 14
6.2
Below upper secondary
21 20 18 16 15 14 13 15 14 13 13
(4.7)
Upper secondary and post- 68 70 72 73 74 75 75 72 72 72 73
0.4
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
10 10 10 10 11 11 12 12 14 14 14
4.1
Below upper secondary
69 67 65 62 60 59 57 55 51 50 49
(3.6)
Upper secondary and post- 13 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 21 21 22
6.2
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
19 20 21 23 24 24 25 26 28 28 29
4.7
Below upper secondary
25 24 23 22 19 18 18 17 16 16 15
(4.9)
Upper secondary and post- 48 48 48 47 49 49 49 48 54 54 53
1.3
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
28 28 29 30 32 33 33 35 30 31 31
1.1
Below upper secondary
19 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15
(1.3)
Upper secondary and post- 59 61 61 60 60 59 60 58 57 56 56
(1.0)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
22 22 23 24 24 25 25 27 28 29 30
3.3
Below upper secondary
79 78 78 77 76 75 74 74 73 72 71
(1.1)
Upper secondary and post- 13 14 14 15 15 16 17 17 18 18 18
2.8
secondary non-tertiary
8
7
8
8
8
9 10
9 10 10 11
4.2
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
41 40 38 37 37 36 35 34 33 32 32
(2.8)
Upper secondary and post- 37 36 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 37
0.4
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
3.3
Below upper secondary
14 14 13 13 12 13 12 12 12 12 12
(1.3)
Upper secondary and post- 52 52 51 51 50 49 49 49 49 48 48
(0.8)
secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
34 35 36 36 37 38 38 39 39 39 40
1.6
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education

37
43
20
36
46
18

38
42
20
38
44
19

37
42
21
37
44
19

36
42
21
37
44
19

35
43
22
35
45
20

34
43
23
34
46
21

33
43
24
33
46
21

32
43
25
31
46
23

31
43
26
30
46
24

30
43
26
29
47
24

30
43
27
29
47
24

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
12
57
30
20
38
42

m
m
m
12
58
31
18
39
43

m
m
m
11
57
31
21
34
45

m
m
m
11
56
33
21
33
46

m
m
m
12
55
33
20
34
46

63
27
10
11
56
33
20
37
44

-3.2
1.0
3.4
-3.5
1.4
3.6

Note: See Annex 3 for breaks in time series.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

41

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A1

OECD countries

Table A1.5.
Annual average growth in 25-64 year-old population between 1998 and 2006
Percentage, by level of education

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD Average

Below
upper secondary
(1)
-2.3
-2.8
-2.8
-3.6
-3.9
-1.6
-4.9
-1.7
0.4
-2.5
-5.5
-4.2
-1.9
-2.0
0.0
-3.1
1.5
-2.9
-2.0
1.1
-0.4
-3.2
-0.8
-4.4
-0.6
2.3
-2.3

Upper secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary
(2)
2.3
0.9
1.9
0.7
1.5
-1.2
2.0
1.0
-0.3
3.8
3.1
-2.1
4.7
2.7
2.2
1.4
4.0
0.9
-0.4
-2.1
6.3
2.0
9.2
1.9
-0.4
6.3
0.9

Tertiary
education
(3)
4.5
3.7
3.4
4.0
4.5
4.3
2.2
3.7
0.5
4.5
4.6
2.5
7.7
5.7
3.4
6.4
4.4
3.1
5.1
7.1
7.5
5.7
7.7
1.6
4.1
7.8
3.7

All levels
of education
(4)
1.1
0.5
0.5
1.3
1.2
0.3
0.3
0.6
-0.5
0.9
0.8
2.1
3.0
0.5
0.0
1.4
2.3
0.4
1.2
0.6
1.2
1.6
2.9
0.5
0.7
3.4
0.5

0.1

0.6

3.0

1.4

-1.9

1.9

4.5

1.1

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

42

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter A

To What Level Have Adults Studied ? – Indicator A1

A1

Table A1.6.
Proportion of age cohorts in skilled jobs (ISCO 1-3) by educational attainment (2006, 1998)
Percentage of tertiary educated (ISCED 5/6) and below tertiary educated (ISCED 0-4) individuals in skilled jobs (ISCO 1-3)

OECD countries

Percentage of cohorts with tertiary
education (ISCED 5/6) employed in
skilled jobs

(percentage
points)

Percentage of cohorts with below
tertiary education (ISCED 0-4)
employed in skilled jobs

Difference
between
(percentage
points)

25-34
25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 25-64 and 45-54
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10) (11)
(12)
30
34
36
35
33
-6
m
m
m
m
m
33
31
29
30
31
4
24
24
22
28
24
2
22
25
27
32
26
-5
19
23
26
34
24
-7
23
26
26
26
25
-3
22
25
26
25
25
-4
29
33
29
32
31
-1
27
28
29
31
28
-2
19
24
25
25
23
-5
16
20
21
19
19
-5
29
25
23
25
25
6
27
28
27
25
27
0
19
23
27
31
24
-8
18
22
29
30
24
-11
31
30
30
31
30
1
26
27
28
28
27
-2
20
20
20
23
20
0
20
20
21
22
20
-1
25
30
30
30
29
-5
m
m
m
m
m
a
19
25
27
32
25
-9
m
m
m
m
m
a
28
32
34
40
33
-6
20
23
23
21
22
-3
25
27
27
33
27
-2
25
29
28
34
28
-3
33
36
37
34
35
-4
36
40
40
44
39
-4
20
26
26
26
25
-6
19
28
28
24
25
-9
16
18
21
22
19
-5
19
21
23
15
21
-4
14
16
19
18
17
-5
12
17
19
16
16
-7
25
26
24
25
25
0
22
25
28
26
25
-6
10
16
18
22
16
-7
14
19
20
20
18
-6
20
29
28
30
27
-8
31
34
38
34
34
-7
34
32
33
32
33
0
33
32
32
30
32
0
16
18
17
12
16
-1
m
m
m
m
m
28
30
28
26
28
-1
27
29
28
25
27
-1
15
18
19
20
18
-4
15
18
19
19
18
-4

25-34
(6)

2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998
2006
1998

25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 25-64
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
77
81
83
83
80
m
m
m
m
m
80
75
76
81
77
76
81
80
82
79
75
76
82
85
78
74
80
85
89
79
64
65
66
69
66
63
67
71
69
66
93
95
95
95
94
94
95
95
95
95
81
86
88
89
86
79
86
88
88
85
81
81
82
86
82
73
79
80
89
78
74
83
88
91
81
79
88
91
94
85
79
78
78
78
78
74
75
78
75
76
87
91
92
92
90
91
92
91
92
92
85
87
94
88
88
m
m
m
m
m
65
74
80
80
72
m
m
m
m
m
79
86
92
96
86
80
88
92
94
88
96
96
98
99
97
96
96
97
97
97
85
89
90
91
88
87
91
92
95
90
79
88
90
91
86
80
88
90
92
86
80
92
92
91
87
91
94
94
93
93
83
90
93
95
88
91
94
94
96
93
89
92
93
94
92
90
95
96
95
94
59
65
75
81
66
59
74
82
82
69
78
87
89
91
86
92
94
95
96
94
82
80
79
81
80
77
78
82
80
79
73
79
85
83
77
m
m
m
m
m
76
81
82
80
80
79
85
87
83
83
63
65
66
67
65
63
66
67
68
66

OECD average

2006
1998

79
80

82
85

85
87

86
88

82
84

-2

23
23

26
25

26
27

28
26

26
25

-3
-4

Israel

2006
1998
2006
1998

73
73
90
90

71
69
93
93

69
68
93
93

67
68
94
94

70
70
92
92

-1

26
27
23
23

24
25
25
25

24
25
23
23

23
24
21
21

25
26
23
23

2
2
-1
-1

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany1
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy3
Luxembourg1
Netherlands2
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden1
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom3
United States4

Partner
countries

Change
between 1998
and 2006

Slovenia

4
2
1
0
1
9
-5
5
-4

-1
0
-2
-1
-11
-8
-1
0
-13
5

-3
0

0

Note: The table only refers to the employed population.
1. 1999 instead of 1998.
2. 2000 instead of 1998.
3. Italy: change in survey methodology between 1998 and 2006 affects comparability. The United Kingdom: change in national occupation
coding frame in 2000 affects comparability for ISCO.
4. ISCO groupings 3 and 9 in 2006 are not separated and thus distributed among remaining classification.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664024334566

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

43

INDICATOR A2

How Many Students  Finish  Secondary Education
and Access Tertiary Education?
This indicator shows the current upper secondary graduate output of education
systems, i.e. the percentage of the typical population of upper secondary school
age that follows and successfully completes upper secondary programmes. It also
shows the percentage of the youth cohort that will enter different types of tertiary
education during their lifetime and the impact of international/foreign students.

Key results
Chart A2.1. Upper secondary graduation rates (1995, 2007)

The chart shows the estimated percentage of an age cohort that will complete upper secondary
education for the first time in 1995 and in 2007 (based on current patterns of graduation);
it gives an indication of how many young adults complete upper secondary education
compared to a decade earlier.
2007

1995

In the last twelve years, the proportion of students graduating from upper secondary programmes
has grown by seven percentage points on average in OECD countries with comparable data. In
22 of 25 OECD countries and all partner countries with comparable data, upper secondary
graduation rates exceed 70%. In Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Korea and Norway
and in the partner countries Israel and Slovenia, graduation rates equal or exceed 90%.

Germany
Finland
Greece
Japan
Israel
Norway
Slovenia
Korea
Ireland
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Iceland
Denmark
Italy
Slovak Republic
EU19 average
Hungary
Poland
OECD average
Canada1
United States
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Spain
Sweden
Chile
Portugal
Turkey
Mexico

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Note: 1995 graduation rates are calculated on a gross basis whereas 2007 are calculated as net
graduation rates (for countries with available data).
1.Year of reference 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the upper secondary graduation rates in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table A2.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

44

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A2

• Females are now more likely to complete upper secondary education than males in
almost all OECD and partner countries, a reversal of the historical pattern.Today,
graduation rates for females are below those for males only in Switzerland and
Turkey.The gender gap is greater in Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Spain and in the partner country Slovenia,
where graduation rates for females exceed those for males by 10 percentage points
or more.
• In most countries, upper secondary education is designed to prepare students
to enter university-level education (tertiary-type A). In Austria, Germany and
Switzerland and the partner country Slovenia, however, students are more likely
to graduate from upper secondary programmes that lead to vocationally oriented
tertiary education (tertiary-type B), where courses are typically shorter and focus
on the development of practical, technical or occupational skills.
• Entry rates in tertiary-type A education increased by nearly 20 percentage points
on average in OECD countries between 1995 and 2007. In 2007, in Australia,
Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Sweden,
and the partner country the Russian Federation, it is estimated that 65% and
more of young adults will enter tertiary-type A programmes.
• The proportion of students who enter tertiary-type B programmes is generally
smaller than for tertiary-typeA programmes. In OECD countries for which data are
available, 15% of young adults, on average, will enter tertiary-type B programmes,
56% will enter tertiary-type A programmes and 2.8% will enter advanced
research programmes. In Belgium, and to a lesser extent in the partner countries
Chile and Estonia, wide access to tertiary-type B programmes counterbalances
comparatively low rates of entry into tertiary-type A programmes. New Zealand
stands out as a country with entry rates at both levels that are among the highest
in the OECD countries.
• High proportions of international students influence entry rate levels. In Australia
and New Zealand, the impact of international students is so huge that their entry
rate dropped significantly when international students were excluded, causing
them to lose their top two ranking positions.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

45

chapter A

A2

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Policy context

Rising skill demands in OECD countries have made qualifications at the upper secondary level
the minimum credential for successful labour market entry. Upper secondary education serves as
the foundation for advanced learning and training opportunities, as well as preparation for direct
entry into the labour market. Although many countries allow students to leave the education
system at the end of the lower secondary level, those who leave without an upper secondary
qualification tend to face severe difficulties when entering the labour market in OECD countries
(see Indicators A6 and A7).
A high level for upper secondary graduation rates does not guarantee that an education system
has adequately equipped its graduates with the basic skills and knowledge necessary to enter
the labour market, because they do not capture the quality of educational outcomes. However,
graduation rates do give a certain indication of the extent to which education systems succeed in
preparing students to meet the minimum requirements of the labour market.
Entry rate is an estimated probability that a school leaver will enter tertiary education during
his/her lifetime. So, entry rate provides an indication of the accessibility of tertiary education as
well as the perceived value of attending tertiary programmes. It provides a partial indication of
the degree to which a population is acquiring the high-level skills and knowledge valued by the
labour market in today’s knowledge society. High tertiary entry and participation rates help to
ensure the development and maintenance of a highly educated population and labour force.
As students’ awareness of the economic and social benefits of tertiary education has increased, so
have rates of entry into both tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B programmes. Continued growth
in participation, accompanied by a widening diversity in the backgrounds and interests of those
aspiring to tertiary studies, will demand new kinds of provision. Tertiary institutions will be
challenged not only to meet growing demand through expansion of places offered, but also to
adapt programmes, teaching and learning to match the diverse needs of the new generation of
students. Moreover, the relative popularity of the various fields of study affects the demand for
courses and teaching staff.
Evidence and explanations
Graduation from upper secondary programmes

Graduation from upper secondary education is becoming the norm in most OECD countries.
Since 1995, the upper secondary graduation rate has increased by 7 percentage points on
average among OECD countries with comparable data. The highest growth occurred in the
Czech Republic, Greece, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Turkey and in the partner country Chile,
while levels in Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, and
Switzerland have been stable over the last decade. In Mexico and Turkey, the proportion of
students graduating at the upper secondary level has grown rapidly since 2000, narrowing the
gap between these and other OECD countries (Table A2.2).
In 22 of 25 OECD countries and all partner countries with comparable data, first-time upper
secondary graduation rates exceed 70%. In Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Korea and
Norway and in the partner countries Israel and Slovenia, graduation rates equal or exceed 90%
(Chart A2.1). The balance of educational attainment between males and females in the adult
46

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

chapter A

population differs in most countries. In the past, females did not have sufficient opportunities
and/or incentives to reach the same level of education as males. They have generally been
overrepresented among those not continuing to upper secondary education and consequently
were underrepresented at higher levels of education. However, these gender differences are
most evident in older age groups and have been significantly reduced or reversed among younger
age groups (see Indicator A1).
Today, upper secondary graduation rates for females exceed those for males in 23 of 25 OECD
countries and in all the partner countries for which total upper secondary graduation rates
can be compared by gender. The exceptions are Switzerland and Turkey, where graduation
rates are higher for males. The gap is greatest in Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
New Zealand, Norway, Portugal and Spain and in the partner country Slovenia, where female
graduation rates exceed those of males by 10 percentage points or more (Table A2.1).
Although graduation from upper secondary education is becoming the norm, the upper secondary
curriculum can vary depending on the type of education or occupation for which it is designed.
Most upper secondary programmes in OECD and partner countries are designed primarily
to prepare students for tertiary studies; their orientation may be general, pre-vocational or
vocational (see Indicator C1).
In 2007, the female graduation rate from general programmes was greater than the corresponding
value for males for almost all OECD and partner countries with comparable data. The OECD
average graduation rate from general programmes was 55% for females and 41% for males. The
higher proportion of females is especially noteworthy in Austria, the Czech Republic, Iceland,
Italy, Norway and the Slovak Republic and in the partner countries Estonia and Slovenia, where
they outnumber males by at least three to two. Only in Korea and Turkey do the proportions
for both sexes approach equality. Females are also, more often than in the past, graduates of
vocational programmes. On average among OECD countries, 43% of 2007 pre-vocational and
vocational programme graduates were female. This pattern can affect the entry rates in tertiarytype B programmes in the following years (Table A2.1).
Transitions following upper secondary education

The vast majority of students who graduate from upper secondary education graduate from
programmes designed to provide access to further tertiary education (ISCED 3A and 3B).
Programmes to facilitate direct entry into tertiary-type A education are preferred by students in
all countries except Austria, Germany and Switzerland and the partner country Slovenia, where
both female and male students are more likely to graduate from upper secondary programmes
leading to tertiary-type B programmes. The graduation rate for ISCED 3C (long programmes) is
16%, on average among OECD countries (Table A2.1).
It is interesting to compare the proportion of students who graduate from programmes designed as
preparation for entry into tertiary-type A programmes with the proportion who actually enter these
programmes. Chart A2.2 shows significant variation in patterns among countries. For instance, in
Belgium, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan andTurkey, and in the partner countries Chile, Estonia
and Israel, the difference between graduation rates from upper secondary programmes designed
for tertiary-type A programmes and the eventual entry rate into such programmes is relatively
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

47

A2

chapter A

large (more than 20 percentage points).This suggests that many students who achieve qualifications
designed for university level entrance do not in fact take up university studies; however, at least in
Belgium, Japan and the partner countries Estonia and Israel, such upper secondary programmes
also give access to tertiary-type B programmes. In addition, Japan has “Junior colleges” that offer
programmes that are similar to tertiary-type A programmes, but are classified as tertiary-type B
because of their shorter duration of study. In Israel, the difference may be explained by the wide
variation in the age of entry to university, which is due in part to the two to three years of military
service students undertake before entering higher education. In Finland, upper secondary level
includes vocational education where many graduates enter the labour market straight after the
completion of their studies and do not continue their studies at tertiary level.There is also a numerus
clausus system in Finnish higher education, which means that the number of entry places to higher
education is restricted. In addition to this, graduates from upper secondary general education take
a two to three year break before entering into university or polytechnic education. In Ireland,
the majority of students at second level take the Leaving Certificate examination (ISCED 3A).
Although this is an ISCED 3A course which is designed for entry to third level, not all of the
students who sit for this examination do so in order to advance to third level (college/university).
Until recently school leavers in Ireland have had alternative options, such as participation in a
strong labour market, which may also have affected this difference.

Chart A2.2. Access to tertiary-type A education for upper secondary graduates (2007)

%

Graduation rates from upper secondary
programmes designed to prepare students
for tertiary-type A education

Entry rates into tertiary-type A education

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Finland
Ireland
Israel
Poland
Italy
Estonia
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Chile
Japan
Australia1
Greece
Korea
Portugal
EU19 average
OECD average
Belgium
Czech Republic
Netherlands
Iceland
Norway
Turkey
Russian Federation
Denmark
Spain
Germany
Mexico
Austria2
Slovenia
Switzerland

A2

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

1.Year of reference for graduation rates: 2006.
2. Includes ISCED 4A programmes (“Berufsbildende Höhere Schulen”).
Countries are ranked in descending order of graduation rates from upper secondary programmes designed to prepare students for
tertiary-type A education in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table A2.1 and Table A2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

48

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

chapter A

In contrast, in Australia, Iceland, Switzerland and in the partner countries the Russian Federation
and Slovenia, the upper secondary graduation rate is markedly lower than tertiary-type A entry
rates. Australia, Iceland and Switzerland attract high proportions of international/foreign
students; their tertiary-type A entry rates are inflated by students who have completed their
upper secondary education in their own country but have decided to pursue their education
abroad (see Indicator C2).
As mentioned previously, in Switzerland and in the partner countries Slovenia and the Russian
Federation, although many students are more likely to graduate from upper secondary
programmes leading to tertiary-type B programmes, some of them may later choose to pursue
university studies instead, thanks to pathways between the two types of tertiary programmes.
Graduation from post-secondary non-tertiary programmes

Post-secondary non-tertiary programmes of various kinds are offered in 26 OECD countries and
4 partner countries. These programmes straddle upper secondary and post-secondary education
but may be considered as either upper secondary or post-secondary programmes in a particular
national context.Although the content of these programmes may not be significantly more advanced
than upper secondary programmes, post-secondary non-tertiary programmes serve to broaden the
knowledge of participants who have already gained an upper secondary qualification. Students in
these programmes tend to be older than those enrolled at the upper secondary level.
Typical examples of such programmes are trade and vocational certificates, nursery teacher
training in Austria and Switzerland, or vocational training in the dual system for holders of general
upper secondary qualifications in Germany. In most countries, post-secondary non-tertiary
programmes are vocationally oriented. In the Czech Republic and New Zealand, nearly 20% or
more of a typical age cohort complete a post-secondary non-tertiary programme (Table A2.3).
In 11 OECD countries and 1 partner country, all post-secondary non-tertiary students graduate
from ISCED 4C programmes, which are designed primarily to prepare graduates for direct
entry into the labour market. Differences in the proportion of males and females participating
in these programmes are not apparent at the level of the OECD average, but at the country level
they can be large. Among the countries in which the graduation rate exceeds 9% at this level of
education, in Australia and Poland, 40% more females have completed an ISCED 4C programme
than males, while the opposite is true in Ireland, where the proportion of female graduates is
nearly seven times lower (Table A2.3).
Apprenticeships designed for students who have already graduated from an upper secondary
programme are also included among post-secondary non-tertiary programmes. In Austria,
the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and in the partner
countries Estonia and Slovenia, 50% or more of post-secondary non-tertiary graduates have
completed programmes designed to provide direct access to either tertiary-type A or B education
(Table A2.3).
Overall access to tertiary education

Graduates from upper secondary programmes and those in the workforce who want to upgrade
their skills can choose from a wide range of tertiary programmes.The higher the upper secondary
graduation rate, the higher the expected entry rate into tertiary education.This indicator examines
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

49

A2

chapter A

A2

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

students’ orientation towards tertiary education and helps to understand the choices made by
students at the end of upper secondary education. Furthermore, this orientation is extremely
important and will affect not only dropout rates (see Indicator A3) but also unemployment rates
(see Indicator A6) if the programmes proposed are not adjusted to labour market needs.
This indicator distinguishes among different categories of tertiary qualifications: programmes
at tertiary-type B level (ISCED 5B); programmes at tertiary-type A level (ISCED 5A); and
advanced research programmes at the doctorate level (ISCED 6). Tertiary-type A programmes
are largely theory-based and designed to provide qualifications for entry into advanced research
programmes and highly skilled professions.Tertiary-type B programmes are classified at the same
level of competence as tertiary-type A programmes, but are more occupationally oriented and
provide direct access to the labour market.They tend to be of shorter duration than tertiary-type
A programmes (typically two to three years) and are generally not designed to lead to university
degrees. The institutional location of programmes can give a relatively clear idea of their nature
(e.g. university or non-university institution of higher education), but these distinctions have
become blurred and are therefore not applied in the OECD indicators.
It is estimated that 56% of young adults in OECD countries will enter tertiary-type A programmes
during their lifetime, assuming that current patterns of entry continue. In Australia, Finland,
Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Sweden, as well as in the partner
country the Russian Federation, 65% or more of young adults enter tertiary-type A programmes.
The United States has an entry rate of 65%, but both type A and type B programmes are included
in the figures for tertiary-type A. Although Turkey has had a large increase in the number of students
entering tertiary-type A programmes since 1995, its entry rate is only 29% and it remains, with
Belgium, Germany and Mexico, at the bottom of the scale (Chart A2.3).
The proportion of students entering tertiary-type B programmes is generally smaller, mainly
because these programmes are less developed in most OECD countries. In OECD countries for
which data are available, 15% of young adults, on average, enter tertiary-type B programmes. The
OECD country average differs somewhat from the EU19 country average (12%).The figures range
from 3% or less in Iceland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal and the Slovak
Republic to 30% or more in Belgium and Japan and in the partner countries Estonia, the Russian
Federation and Slovenia and to more than 45% in Korea and New Zealand and in the partner
country Chile. Although the share of tertiary-type B programmes in the Netherlands is currently
very small, it is expected to increase with the introduction of a new programme of “associate
degrees”. Finland no longer has tertiary-type B programmes in its education system (Chart A2.4).
In Belgium and to a lesser extent in the partner countries Chile and Estonia, broad access to
tertiary-type B programmes counterbalances comparatively low entry rates into tertiary-type
A programmes. Iceland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and Sweden have entry
rates well above the OECD average for tertiary-type A programmes and comparatively very
low rates for tertiary-type B programmes. Other OECD countries, most notably Korea and
the United Kingdom and the partner country Slovenia have entry rates around the OECD
average for tertiary-type A programmes and comparatively high rates of entry to tertiary-type B
programmes. New Zealand stands out, with entry rates at both levels that are among the highest
in OECD countries. However, its entry rates are, in part, inflated by a higher proportion of
international students (Box A2.1).
50

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

chapter A

Chart A2.3. Entry rates into tertiary-type A education (1995, 2000 and 2007)
%

2007

2000

A2

1995

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
0

Australia
Poland
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
Iceland
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Russian Federation1
United States2
Portugal
Hungary
Korea
Netherlands
Denmark
Israel
OECD average
United Kingdom
EU19 average
Czech Republic
Italy1
Slovenia
Japan
Ireland
Greece
Austria
Spain
Chile1
Switzerland
Estonia
Germany
Mexico
Belgium
Turkey

10

1. The entry rates for tertiary-type A programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
2. The entry rates for tertiary-type A programmes include the entry rates for tertiary-type B programmes.
Countries are ranked in descending order of entry rates for tertiary-type A education in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table A2.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

Chart A2.4. Entry rates into tertiary-type B education (1995, 2007)
%

2007

1995

60
50
40
30
20
0

Korea
Chile
New Zealand
Slovenia
Belgium
Estonia
Russian Federation1
Japan1
United Kingdom
Israel
Greece1
Denmark
Ireland
Turkey
Spain
Switzerland
OECD average
Germany1
EU19 average
Hungary
Sweden
Czech Republic
Austria
Iceland
Mexico
Slovak Republic
Poland
Portugal
Norway

10

1. The entry rates for tertiary-type B programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
Countries are ranked in descending order of entry rates for tertiary-type B education in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table A2.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

51

chapter A

A2

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

On average, in all OECD countries with comparable data, 9 percentage points more of today’s
young adults enter tertiary-type A programmes than in 2000 and 19 percentage points more
than in 1995. Entry rates in tertiary-type A education increased by more than 15 percentage
points between 2000 and 2007 in Australia, the Czech Republic, Korea and the Slovak Republic
and in the partner country Israel. New Zealand, Norway and Spain are the only OECD countries
that show a decrease in entry to tertiary-type A programmes, although in Spain, the decrease is
counterbalanced by a significant increase in entry rates into tertiary-type B programmes between
2000 and 2007. In New Zealand, the rise and fall in entry rates over the 2000 to 2007 period
mirrored the rise and fall in the number of international students over the same period.
Among OECD countries, overall net entry rates into tertiary-type B programmes between 1995
and 2007 have slightly decreased, except in Greece, Korea, New Zealand and Turkey, where they
have increased, and in Poland and the Slovak Republic, where they have remained stable. The
reclassification of tertiary-type B to tertiary-type A programmes in Austria and Denmark after 2000
partly explains the changes observed in these countries between 1995 and 2007 (Chart A2.3 and
Chart A2.4).
More than 2.8% of today’s young adults in the 20 OECD countries with comparable data will
enter advanced research programmes during their lifetime. The figures range from less than 1%
in Mexico and Turkey and in the partner countries Chile and Slovenia to 4% or more in Austria,
Greece, Portugal and Switzerland (Table A2.4).
Rates of entry into tertiary education should also be considered in light of participation in postsecondary non-tertiary programmes, an important alternative to tertiary education in some
OECD countries.
Box A2.1. The impact of international students
on entry rates at tertiary-type A level
By definition all international students enrolling for the first time in a country are
counted as new entrants, regardless of their previous education in other countries.
The reason is that countries are less likely to know about the previous education of
international students. Entry rates estimate the proportion of the population that will
enter tertiary-type A programmes during their lifetime. To highlight the impact of
international students on entry rates at the tertiary-type A level, both unadjusted and
adjusted entry rates (i.e. the entry rate when international students are excluded) are
presented in Chart A2.5.
Among countries for which data on international students are available, the impact of
international students is significant in Australia, Austria, Germany and New Zealand.
For Australia and New Zealand, with adjustments of 23 and 14 percentage points
respectively, the impact is so great that their entry rates slip from the top 2 ranking
positions to fall behind the United States. Sweden’s entry rate, with an adjustment of
11 percentage points, is also affected by the impact of international students, but this
effect may be slightly overestimated as Sweden included exchange students in the count
of international students. Among countries which report data on foreign students, a
large adjustment (12 percentage points) is also seen in Iceland (Table A2.4).
52

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

chapter A

A2

Chart A2.5. Entry rates into tertiary-type A education level:
impact of international students (2007)

Czech Republic4

Italy4, 5

Netherlands4

Iceland4

Russian Federation4, 5

Germany

Belgium

Austria

Denmark

New Zealand

Australia2

United States1

%

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Sweden3

International students
Adjusted (excluding international students)

1.The entry rate at tertiary-type A level includes the entry rate at tertiary-type B level.
2.Year of reference 2006.
3. International students include exchange students.
4. The entry rate is calculated for foreign students (defined on the basis of their country of citizenship).These
data are not comparable with data on international entry rate and are therefore presented separately.
5. The entry rates calculated on a gross basis.
Countries are ranked in descending order of adjusted entry rates for tertiary-type A education in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table A2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
12 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

The greatest impact of international students on indicators such as the entry rate and graduation
rate (see Indicator A3) is naturally observed amongst countries with the largest proportion
of international students. Since these indicators generally have a domestic focus, they can be
misinterpreted for countries with high proportions of international students (e.g. Australia and
New Zealand).Therefore, to improve the comparability of these indicators amongst countries
the impact of international students should be removed whenever possible. Unfortunately it
is still difficult for many countries to collect reliable information on international students, so
adjustments to indicators for those students are not always possible.

Pathways between tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B programmes

In some countries, tertiary-type A and B programmes are provided by different types of
institutions but this is changing. It is increasingly common for universities or other institutions
to offer programmes of both types; furthermore, the two levels are gradually becoming more
similar in terms of curriculum, orientation and learning outcomes.
Graduates from tertiary-type B programmes often have the opportunity to gain admission to
tertiary-type A programmes, either in the second or third year of the programme or even to a
master’s programme. This path is often subject to conditions (special examination, personal or
professional past achievements, completion of a “bridging” programme, etc.) depending on the
country or programme. Conversely, students who leave tertiary-type A education without having
graduated can in some cases be successfully re-oriented towards tertiary-type B programmes.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

53

chapter A

A2

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Countries with high entry rates into tertiary-level education may also be countries that have
pathways between the two types of programmes.
Age of new entrants into tertiary education

The age structure of new entrants into tertiary education varies among OECD countries. The
typical graduation age for upper secondary education may be different and/or upper secondary
graduates may have entered the labour market before enrolling in tertiary education. People
entering tertiary-type B programmes may also enter tertiary-type A programmes later in their
lives. Adding together tertiary-type A and B entry rates to obtain overall tertiary-level entry
rates would therefore result in overcounting.
Traditionally, students enter tertiary-type A programmes immediately after having completed
upper secondary education, and this remains true in many OECD countries. For example, in
Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland and in the partner
country Slovenia, 80% of all first-time entrants into tertiary-type A programmes are under
23 years of age (Table A2.4).
In other OECD and partner countries, the transition between upper secondary and tertiary
education may happen at a later age, due to time spent in the labour force for example. In these
countries, first-time entrants into tertiary-type A programmes are typically older and represent a
much wider age range at entry. In Australia, Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,
the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States and in the partner country Israel,
20% of first-time entrants are aged nearly 27 or older (Table A2.4). The proportion of older firsttime entrants into tertiary-type A programmes may reflect, among other factors, the flexibility
of these programmes and their suitability to students outside the typical age cohort. It may also
reflect a view of the value of work experience for higher education studies, which is characteristic
of the Nordic countries and common in Australia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, New Zealand,
Switzerland and the United States, where a sizeable proportion of new entrants is much older
than the typical age of entry. It may also reflect some countries’ mandatory military service, which
postpones entry into tertiary education. For example, the partner country Israel - where more than
half of the students enter the tertiary-type A level for the first time at the age of 22 or older - has
mandatory military service for males aged 18 to 21 and for females aged 18 to 20.
Definitions and methodologies

Data refer to the academic year 2006/07 and are based on the UOE data collection on education
statistics administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (Table A2.1, Table A2.2 and
Table A2.3) are calculated as net graduation rates (i.e. as the sum of age-specific graduation rates)
for the years 2005, 2006 and 2007. Net graduation rates represent the estimated percentage of
the age cohort that will complete upper secondary education or post-secondary non-tertiary
education (based on current patterns of graduation). Gross graduation rates are presented
for the years 1995 and 2000-04. Similarly, gross graduation rates are presented in the coming
years for countries that are unable to provide such detailed data. In order to calculate gross
graduation rates, countries identify the age at which graduation typically occurs. Information
on the methods used to calculate graduation rates (gross versus net rates) are presented for
each level of education in Annex 1. The number of graduates, regardless of their age, is divided
by the population at the typical graduation age. The graduation rates take into account students
54

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

chapter A

graduating from upper secondary education at the typical (modal) graduation ages, as well as
older students (e.g. those in “second chance” programmes) or younger students.
The count of first-time graduates (Columns 1-3 in Table A2.1 or Table A2.3) is calculated by
netting out students who graduated from another upper secondary programme in a previous
year (or another post-secondary non-tertiary programme). As for the others columns of the
tables, the net rate is calculated when data are available.
Graduates of ISCED 3A, 3B and 3C (or 4A, 4B and 4C) programmes are not considered as firsttime counts. Therefore, gross graduation rates cannot be added, as some individuals graduate
from more than one upper secondary programme (or post-secondary non-tertiary) and would
be counted twice. The same applies for graduation rates according to programme orientation,
i.e. general or vocational. Moreover, the typical graduation ages are not necessarily the same for
the different programme types. Pre-vocational and vocational programmes include both schoolbased programmes and combined school- and work-based programmes that are recognised as
part of the education system. Entirely work-based education and training that is not overseen by
a formal education authority is not taken into account.
In Table A2.2 (trends in graduation rates at upper secondary level) or Table A2.5 (trends in entry
rates), data for the years 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 are based on a special survey
carried out in OECD countries and four of the six partner countries in January 2007.
Table A2.4 and Table A2.5 show the sum of net entry rates for all ages. The net entry rate for a
specific age is obtained by dividing the number of first-time entrants of that age to each type of
tertiary education by the total population in the corresponding age group. The sum of net entry
rates is calculated by adding the rates for each year of age.The result represents an estimate of the
probability that a young person will enter tertiary education in his/her lifetime assuming current
age-specific entry rates continue. Table A2.4 also shows the 20th, 50th and 80th percentiles of the
age distribution of first-time entrants, i.e. the age below which 20%, 50% and 80% of first-time
entrants are found. Finally, data on the impact of international students on tertiary entry rates
are based on a special survey carried out by the OECD in December 2008.
New (first-time) entrants are students who enrol at the relevant level of education for the first
time. International/foreign students enrolling for the first time in a post-graduate programme
are considered first-time entrants.
Not all OECD countries can distinguish between students entering a tertiary programme for the
first time and those transferring between different levels of tertiary education or repeating or reentering a level after an absence. Thus first-time entry rates for each level of tertiary education
cannot be added to form a total tertiary-level entrance rate because it would result in counting
entrants twice.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

• Table A2.6. Percentage of new entrants in tertiary education and proportion of females, by field
of education (2007)
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

55

A2

chapter A

A2

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A2.1.
Upper secondary graduation rates (2007)
Sum of graduation rates for single year of age, by programme destination, programme orientation and gender

M+F

Females

Females

M+F

Females

M+F

Females

M+F

Females

Females

Females

(1)
m
m
m
79
88
85
97
m
100
96
84
86
90
85
93
91
75
43
m
74
92
84
65
85
74
74
89
58
89
78

(2)
m
m
m
75
86
78
92
m
99
93
79
69
84
82
92
90
70
39
m
66
82
80
56
82
67
72
90
63
86
77

(3)
m
m
m
83
90
93
102
m
100
99
90
104
96
88
94
93
79
46
m
84
102
88
74
87
82
77
88
54
92
78

(4)
68
17
61
76
60
55
97
52
41
66
72
59
91
77
70
66
43
39
60
x(1)
58
77
65
73
45
74
26
58
m
m

(6)
(7)
(9)
74 x(10) x(12)
21
51
44
66
a
a
81
a
a
70
n
n
66
a
a
102
a
a
60
12
11
47
58
53
74
a
a
80
a
a
76
1
2
98
a
a
83
1
1
74
1
n
67
a
a
52
10
8
43
a
a
66
a
a
x(3) x(1) x(3)
71
a
a
86
a
a
74 x(4) x(6)
80
a
a
53
a
a
76
n
n
29
66
61
54
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m

(10)
38
2
20
8
27
47
a
4
a
30
15
37
5
a
22
25
20
3
18
x(1)
39
12
x(4)
19
19
1
6
a
m
m

(12)
40
2
18
8
20
49
a
4
a
26
12
28
5
a
20
25
18
4
19
x(3)
35
8
x(6)
14
19
n
7
a
m
m

(13)
x(10)
21
11
a
a
n
a
45
1
x(10)
x(10)
19
23
22
x(10)
a
2
a
21
x(1)
m
a
x(4)
1
20
n
x(10)
m
m
m

(15) (16)
x(12)
68
18
17
14
37
a
76
a
21
n
55
a
52
45
52
n
41
x(12)
66
x(12)
72
26
62
36
68
20
34
x(12)
70
a
66
1
28
a
39
17
35
x(3) x(1)
m
58
a
58
x(6)
46
2
23
22
45
n
33
x(12)
31
m
37
m
m
m
m

(18) (19)
74
38
21
74
42
55
81
8
26
67
66
47
62
87
60
61
47
58
74
30
80
15
80
54
71
52
45
66
74
23
67
25
33
47
43
3
38
64
x(3) x(1)
71
39
69
32
55
19
28
71
53
39
39
41
36
67
37
21
m
m
m
m

(21)
40
64
57
8
64
50
95
60
53
26
12
53
68
58
20
25
46
4
64
x(3)
35
25
19
67
42
38
61
17
m
m

OECD average

82  

78  

87  

61  

67  

8

7  

16  

15  

10  

11  

48

55  

45  

43

EU19 average

85  

80  

89  

63  

70  

8

7  

14  

13  

11  

12  

43

50  

51  

50  

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
71
m
92
m
91

m
67
m
89
m
85

m
75
m
96
m
98

54
71
76
90
56
36

64
75
83
95
x(4)
43

5
a
a
a
14
44

7
a
a
a
x(7)
47

a
a
a
3
21
25

a
a
a
1
12
21

a
a
1
a
4
2

a
a
1
a
2
1

54
39
58
60
56
34

64
43
71
67
x(16)
42

5
32
19
32
38
72

7
32
13
29
x(19)
70

M+F

Males

Australia1
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

M+F

M+F
Partner countries

OECD countries

ISCED 3A
ISCED 3B
ISCED 3C
ISCED 3C
(designed to (designed to
(long)
(short)
prepare for prepare for
similar to shorter than
direct entry direct entry
duration
duration
Preto tertiary- to tertiaryof typical
of typical
vocational/
Total
type A
type B
3A or 3B
3A or 3B
General
vocational
(first-time graduates) education) education) programmes programmes programmes programmes

Note: Columns showing male graduation rates at upper secondary level (i.e. columns 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, 20) are available for consultation on line
(see StatLink below).
Please refer to Annex 1 for information on the method used to calculate graduation rates (gross rates versus net rates) and the corresponding typical ages.
Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and the graduate data mean that the graduation rates for those countries that are net exporters
of students may be underestimated (for instance Luxembourg) and those that are net importers may be overestimated.
1.Year of reference 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

56

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

chapter A

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table A2.2.
Trends in graduation rates (first-time) at upper secondary level (1995-2007)

A2

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic1
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany1
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan1
Korea1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand1
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain1
Sweden
Switzerland1
Turkey
United Kingdom1
United States

1995
m
m
m
m
78
80
91
m
100
80
m
m
m
m
91
88
m
m
m
72
77
m
67
85
62
62
86
37
m
69

2000
m
m
m
m
m
90
91
m
92
54
93
67
74
78
94
96
m
33
m
80
99
90
52
87
60
75
88
37
m
70

2001
m
m
m
77
84
91
85
m
92
76
83
67
77
81
93
100
m
34
m
79
105
93
48
72
66
71
91
37
m
71

2002
m
m
m
79
83
93
84
m
94
85
82
79
78
78
92
99
69
35
m
77
97
91
50
60
66
72
92
37
m
73

2003
m
m
m
83
88
87
90
m
97
96
87
79
91
m
91
92
71
37
m
78
92
86
59
56
67
76
89
41
m
74

2004
m
m
m
79
87
90
95
m
99
93
86
84
92
82
91
94
69
39
m
75
100
79
53
83
66
78
87
55
m
75

2005
m
m
m
80
89
82
94
m
100
100
82
79
91
81
93
94
75
40
m
72
89
85
51
83
72
78
89
48
86
75

2006
m
m
m
79
90
84
94
m
100
98
85
87
87
84
93
93
71
42
m
74
88
81
54
84
72
76
89
52
88
77

2007
m
m
m
m
88
85
97
m
100
96
84
86
90
85
93
91
75
43
m
74
92
84
65
85
74
74
89
58
89
78

OECD average

77

76

77

77

78

81

80

81

82

OECD average for countries
with 1995 and 2007 data

77

EU19 average

78

78

78

78

81

82

83

83

85

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation

m
46
m
m
m

m
63
m
m

m
m
m
m

m
61
m
90

m
64
m
89

m
66
m
93

m
73
m
90

m
71
75
90

m
71
m
92

Slovenia1

m

m
m

m
m

m
m

m
m

m
m

m
83

m
97

m
91

84

Note: Up to 2004, graduation rates at upper secondary level were calculated on a gross basis. From 2005 and for countries with available data,
graduation rates are calculated as net graduation rates (i.e. as the sum of age-specific graduation rates).
1. The graduation rates are calculated on a gross basis.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

57

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A2

Table A2.3.
Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rates (2007)
Sum of graduation rates for single year of age, by programme destination and gender

Partner countries

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

a
18.6
7.4
m
20.1
1.2
a
0.5
11.0
a
a
n
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
x(2)
1.6
a
x(2)
3.1
a
n
5.9
a
m
m

a
24.9
7.1
m
25.0
0.8
a
0.8
13.3
a
a
n
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
x(3)
0.5
a
x(3)
2.4
a
n
5.2
a
m
m

a
2.6
3.1
a
a
a
a
a
6.2
a
a
n
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
x(1)
a
a
x(1)
a
a
n
5.0
a
m
m

a
0.9
2.8
a
a
a
a
a
7.0
a
a
n
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
x(2)
a
a
x(2)
a
a
n
4.0
a
m
m

a
4.5
3.3
a
a
a
a
a
5.4
a
a
n
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
x(3)
a
a
x(3)
a
a
n
6.1
a
m
m

Females

Females

(5)

a
21.6
7.2
m
22.5
1.0
a
0.7
12.1
a
a
n
a
a
m
a
a
a
a
x(1)
1.1
a
x(1)
2.8
a
n
5.6
a
m
m

Males

Males

(4)

ISCED 4C
M+F

M+F

(3)
m
m
m
m
25.2
0.8
3.6
m
18.6
10.8
20.4
7.6
2.4
3.8
m
a
1.1
a
m
23.7
2.7
15.6
0.4
2.4
a
2.8
10.6
a
m
m

Females

(2)
m
m
m
m
20.4
1.1
3.1
m
17.9
9.6
18.5
10.7
16.1
2.3
m
a
3.4
a
m
15.8
6.3
10.1
1.0
3.1
a
1.7
9.2
a
m
m

Males

Females

(1)
m
m
m
m
22.7
1.0
3.3
m
18.3
10.1
19.4
9.3
9.3
3.0
m
a
2.3
a
m
19.9
4.5
12.8
0.7
2.8
a
2.2
9.9
a
m
m

ISCED 4B
(designed to prepare
for direct entry
to tertiary-type B
education)

M+F

Males

Australia1
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

M+F
OECD countries

Total
(first-time graduates)

ISCED 4A
(designed to prepare
for direct entry
to tertiary-type A
education)

(10)
17.2
2.3
11.4
m
0.2
a
7.1
0.8
a
10.2
24.4
9.6
9.3
3.0
m
a
2.3
a
1.1
x(1)
3.7
12.8
x(1)
a
a
2.2
a
a
m
m

(11)
14.1
1.6
9.7
m
0.2
a
6.2
0.4
a
9.6
22.4
11.2
16.1
2.3
m
a
3.4
a
1.5
x(2)
5.1
10.1
x(2)
a
a
1.7
a
a
m
m

(12)
20.3
3.1
13.2
m
0.2
a
8.1
1.1
a
10.8
26.5
7.8
2.4
3.8
m
a
1.1
a
0.7
x(3)
2.4
15.6
x(3)
a
a
2.8
a
a
m
m

OECD average

7.2  

7.2  

7.3  

3.1  

2.9  

3.3  

0.7  

0.6  

0.8  

4.9  

4.8  

5.0  

EU19 average

7.7  

7.7  

7.7  

4.0  

3.6  

4.4  

0.7  

0.6  

0.8  

5.1  

5.0  

5.3  

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

a
a
m
m
m
3.3

a
a
m
m
m
2.6

a
a
m
m
m
4.0

a
a
a
m
a
1.3

a
a
a
m
a
0.8

a
a
a
m
a
1.9

a
a
16.5
a
a
1.9

a
a
10.9
a
a
1.8

a
a
22.3
a
a
2.1

a
a
a
a
5.3
n

a
a
a
a
5.6
n

a
a
a
a
4.9
n

Note: Please refer to Annex 1 for information on the method used to calculate graduation rates (gross rates versus net rates) and the corresponding
typical ages.
Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and the graduate data mean that the graduation rates for those countries that are net
exporters of students may be underestimated (for instance Luxembourg) and those that are net importers may be overestimated.
1.Year of reference 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

58

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter A

How Many Students Finish Secondary Education and Access Tertiary Education? – Indicator A2

A2

Table A2.4.
Entry rates to tertiary education and age distribution of new entrants (2007)
Sum of net entry rates for each year of age, by gender and mode of participation
Tertiary-type B

50th
percentile2

80th
percentile2

M+F

50  

63  

55  

48

63  

m
39
32
52
x(5)
38

m
43
46
63
x(5)
63

15  

13  

17  

12  

10  

14  

m
52
24
25
x(1)
39

m
45
40
31
x(1)
37

m
41
39
57
66
50

OECD average
EU19 average
Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation3, 4, 5, 7
Slovenia

m
49
32
28
31
38

m
m
m
m
30
m

m
m
m
m
65
m

m
18.6
19.1
21.4
m
19.2

m
19.7
19.8
23.7
m
19.7

m
25.4
23.5
26.8
m
20.8

Females

20th
percentile2

56  

(5)
86
42
30
m
54
57
71
m
34
43
63
73
44
53
46
61
m
32
60
76
66
78
64
74
41
73
39
29
55
65

Males

Females

(12)
3.0
5.5
m
m
3.4
2.3
m
m
m
4.4
1.7
1.4
m
2.3
1.0
2.2
m
0.3
m
2.5
2.7
m
5.5
3.3
3.6
2.6
4.4
0.5
2.5
m

(4)
m
7
44
m
12
21
a
m
16
24
15
3
23
n
38
53
m
2
n
54
1
1
1
1
22
9
13
18
39
x(8)

Adjusted1

Males

(10) (11)
20.9 26.9
20.8 23.8
18.7 19.7
m
m
20.5 24.9
22.3 27.2
21.4 26.0
m
m
21.2 24.0
18.9 25.7
20.5 26.3
23.0 30-34
19.2 20.9
19.8 21.8
18.6 19.0
18.8 20.0
m
m
19.6 22.8
19.7 22.6
21.0 30-34
20.3 30.0
20.3 22.9
20.9 30-34
20.8 27.2
19.2 24.3
22.4 29.3
21.7 27.3
19.8 23.6
19.5 25.1
19.5 27.0

M+F

(9)
18.7
19.4
18.3
m
19.6
20.7
19.7
m
19.9
18.2
19.2
20.9
18.3
19.2
18.2
18.3
m
18.4
18.4
18.6
18.9
19.4
18.8
19.5
18.4
20.1
20.0
18.5
18.5
18.4

Females

(8)
96
45
31
m
60
71
80
m
35
55
71
92
48
61
40
59
m
32
65
90
81
85
72
87
48
85
40
26
63
72

Males

(7)
75
38
29
m
47
45
62
m
34
33
55
55
41
45
52
63
m
32
56
63
52
72
57
61
35
62
38
32
48
57

Adjusted1

(6)
62
32
30
m
49
54
m
m
29
m
m
61
m
51
m
m
m
m
56
62
m
m
m
m
m
62
m
m
m
63

(3)
m
6
30
m
5
22
a
m
10
21
7
3
19
n
23
47
m
2
n
42
n
n
1
n
19
8
19
24
21
x(7)

(1)
m
7
37
m
8
22
a
m
13
23
11
3
21
n
30
50
m
2
n
48
n
1
1
1
21
9
16
21
30
x(5)

Age at:

Adjusted1

Net entry rates

(2)
m
6
37
m
m
21
m
m
m
m
m
3
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
41
m
m
m
m
m
9
m
m
m
x(6)

M+F
Partner countries

OECD countries

Net entry rates

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic3
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany4
Greece
Hungary
Iceland3
Ireland
Italy3, 4, 5
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands3
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden6
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Advanced research
programmes
Net entry rates

Tertiary-type A

(13)
2.1
4.3
m
m
3.0
2.1
m
m
m
m
m
1.2
m
2.2
m
m
m
m
m
1.4
m
m
m
m
m
0.5
m
m
m
m

(14)
3.0
5.7
m
m
3.8
2.5
m
m
m
4.9
1.7
1.3
m
2.2
1.4
2.7
m
0.3
m
2.6
2.7
m
4.4
3.4
3.2
2.6
4.9
0.6
2.6
m

(15)
3.0
5.3
m
m
3.0
2.1
m
m
m
3.9
1.7
1.5
m
2.4
0.6
1.6
m
0.2
m
2.4
2.7
m
6.6
3.3
4.0
2.6
3.9
0.5
2.3
m

2.8  

2.8  

2.7  

3.4  

3.4  

3.4  

m
0.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
0.5

m
m
m
m
0.3
0.3
m
1.8
2.8
m
1.9
2.3
m x(12) x(12)
m
0.5
0.5

Note: Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and the new entrants data mean that the entry rates for those countries that
are net exporters of students may be underestimated and those that are net importers may be overestimated. The adjusted entry rates seek to
compensate for that.
1. Adjusted entry rates correspond to the entry rate when international students are excluded.
2. Respectively 20, 50 and 80% of new entrants are below this age.
3. The entry rates are calculated for foreign students (defined on the basis of their country of citizenship). These data are not comparable with
data on international entry rate and are therefore presented separately in Chart A2.5.
4. The entry rates for tertiary-type B programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
5. The entry rates for advanced research programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
6. International students include exchange students.
7. The entry rates for tertiary-type A programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

59

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A2

Table A2.5.
Trends in entry rates at tertiary level (1995-2007)

Partner countries

OECD countries

Tertiary-type 5A1

Tertiary-type 5B

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany2
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy2
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
m 59 65 77 68 70 82 84 86
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
27 34 34 31 34 37 37 40 42
m
m
m
m
8
9
9
7
7
m
m 32 33 33 34 33 29 30
m
m 36 34 33 35 34 35 37
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m 25 30 30 33 38 41 50 54
m
9
7
8
9 10
8
9
8
40 52 54 53 57 55 57 59 57 33 28 30 25 22 21 23 22 22
39 71 72 71 73 73 73 76 71 32
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
26 30 32 35 36 37 36 35 34 15 15 15 16 16 15 14 13 13
15 30 30 33 35 35 43 49 43
5 21 20 21 22 24
m 31 23
m 64 56 62 69 68 68 66 63
m
1
3
4
7
9 11 10 11
m 66 61 72 83 79 74 78 73
m 10 10 11
9
8
7
4
3
m 32 39 39 41 44 45 40 44
m 26 19 18 17 17 14 21 21
m 39 44 50 54 55 56 55 53
m
1
1
1
1
1
a
m
n
31 40 41 42 43 42 44 45 46 33 32 31 30 31 32 32 32 30
41 45 46 46 47 49 51 59 61 27 51 52 51 47 47 48 50 50
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m 27 27 35 29 30 30 31 32
m
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
44 53 54 54 52 56 59 58 60
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
83 95 95 101 107 86 79 72 76 44 52 50 56 58 50 48 49 48
59 67 69 75 75 72 76 67 66
5
5
4
3
1
1
n
n
n
36 65 68 71 70 71 76 78 78
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m
m
m
m
m
m
m 53 64
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
1
1
28 37 40 43 40 47 59 68 74
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
m 47 47 49 46 44 43 43 41
m 15 19 19 21 22 22 21 21
57 67 69 75 80 79 76 76 73
m
7
6
6
7
8
7 10
9
17 29 33 35 38 38 37 38 39 29 14 13 14 17 17 16 15 16
18 21 20 23 23 26 27 31 29
9
9 10 12 24 16 19 21 21
m 47 46 48 48 52 51 57 55
m 29 30 27 30 28 28 29 30
m 43 42 64 63 63 64 64 65
m 14 13 x(4) x(5) x(6) x(7) x(8) x(9)

OECD average

37

47

OECD average for
countries with 1995,
2000 and 2007 data

37

49

EU19 average

35

46

47

49

50

52

53

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2, 3
Slovenia

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
32
m
m

m
32
m
39
m
m

m
33
m
39
m
m

m
33
m
41
m
m

m
34
m
44
m
m

m
48
55
55
67
40

48

52

53

53

55

56

56

18

15

16

16

16

15

15

16

15

57

18

18

55

55

12

11

13

12

12

12

11

13

12

m
43
41
56
65
46

m
41
39
57
66
50

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
26
m
m

m
36
m
19
m
m

m
34
m
m
m
m

m
33
m
17
m
m

m
35
m
m
m
m

m
37
34
25
33
49

m
34
32
26
32
43

m
49
32
28
31
38

17

1.The entry rate for tertiary-type A programmes includes advanced research programmes for 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 (except for Belgium).
2. The entry rates for tertiary-type B programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
3. The entry rates for tertiary-type A programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664035755120

60

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

INDICATOR A3

HOW MANY STUDENTS FINISH TERTIARY EDUCATION?
Tertiary education covers a wide range of programmes and serves overall as an
indicator of countries’ production of advanced skills. A traditional university degree
is associated with completion of tertiary-type A courses; tertiary-type B generally
refers to shorter and often vocationally oriented courses. This indicator first shows
the current tertiary graduate output of education systems, i.e. the percentage of the
population in the typical age cohort for tertiary education that successfully completes
tertiary programmes, as well as the evolution of the sector since 1995. Finally, this
indicator shows current tertiary completion rates in education systems, i.e. the
percentage of students who follow and successfully complete tertiary programmes.
Although “dropping out” is not necessarily an indicator of failure from the individual
student’s perspective, high dropout rates may indicate that the education system is
not meeting students’ needs.

Key results
Chart A3.1. Tertiary-type A graduation rates by gender in 2007
(first-time graduation)

The chart shows the number of students completing tertiary-type A programmes
for the first time in 2007 by gender, as a percentage of the relevant group.
Males + Females

Males

Females

Based on current patterns of graduation, on average 39% of an age cohort is estimated to have
completed tertiary-type A education in 2007 among the 24 OECD countries with comparable data.
Differences between countries are greater when gender is taken into consideration. Significantly
more females obtain tertiary-type A qualifications than males, with graduation rates of 47% and
31%, respectively. The gender gap is more than 25 percentage points in Finland, Norway, Poland
and Sweden and nearly 50 percentage points in Iceland.

Iceland
Australia1
Poland
Finland
New Zealand
Denmark
Ireland2
Norway
Netherlands
Portugal
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Japan2
OECD average
United Kingdom
Israel
EU19 average
United States2
Italy
Czech Republic
Spain2
Switzerland
Canada1, 2
Hungary2
Germany
Austria
Slovenia
Greece2

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1. Year of reference 2006.
2. The graduation rates for tertiary-type A programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the graduation rates for tertiary-type A education, for both males
and females.
Source: OECD. Table A3.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

62

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A3

• Tertiary-type A graduation rates range from 20% or less in Greece to 45% or
more in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand and Poland.
For countries with a higher number of international students, the graduation rate
is artificially inflated; the adjusted graduation rates – when international students
are excluded – for Australia and New Zealand are at 36% and 37% respectively.
• On average in OECD countries, the tertiary-type A graduation rate has risen by
18 percentage points over the last 12 years. In every country for which comparable
data are available, tertiary-type A graduation rates increased between 1995 and
2007, often quite substantially.
• Based on current patterns of graduation, on average 9% of an age cohort is
estimated to have completed tertiary-type B education in 2007 among the
22 OECD countries with comparable data and 1.5% programmes leading to
advanced research qualifications.
• On average among the 18 OECD countries for which data are available in 2005,
30% of tertiary students fail to successfully complete a programme equivalent to
this level of education. Completion rates differ widely among OECD countries.
In Hungary and New Zealand, more than 40% of those who enter tertiary
programmes leave without tertiary qualifications (in either tertiary-type A or
tertiary-type B programmes) in contrast to their counterparts in Belgium (Flemish
Community), Denmark, France, Germany and Japan and the partner country the
Russian Federation, where the proportion is less than 25%.
• Beginning but not completing a tertiary-type A programme does not necessarily
represent a failure if students benefit from the time spent in the programme and
move successfully to the tertiary-type B education track. In France and to a lesser
extent in Denmark and New Zealand, a significant proportion of students (15%
in France and 3% in the two other countries) who do not complete the tertiarytype A programme are successfully re-oriented to a tertiary-type B programme.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

63

chapter A

A3

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Policy context

Attainment of upper secondary education has become the norm in most countries today. In
addition, most students are graduating from upper secondary programmes designed to provide
access to tertiary education, leading to increased enrolments at this higher level (see Indicator A2).
Countries with high graduation rates at the tertiary level are also those most likely to develop or
maintain a highly skilled labour force.
Tertiary level dropout and completion rates can be useful indicators of the internal efficiency of
tertiary education systems. However, students may leave a tertiary programme for many reasons:
they may realise that they have chosen a subject or educational programme that is not a good fit
for them; they may fail to meet the standards set by their educational institution, particularly
in tertiary systems that provide relatively broad access; or they may find attractive employment
before completing their programme. Dropping out is not necessarily an indication of an individual
student’s failure, but high drop out rates may well indicate that the education system is not
meeting the needs of students. Students may find that the educational programmes offered do
not meet their expectations or their labour market needs. It may also be that programmes take
longer than the number of years for which students can justify being outside the labour market.
Evidence and explanations

Tertiary graduation rates show the rate at which each country’s education system produces
advanced skills. But tertiary programmes vary widely in structure and scope among countries.
Tertiary graduation rates are influenced both by the degree of access to tertiary programmes and
by the demand for higher skills in the labour market. They are also affected by the way in which
the degree and qualification structures are organised within countries.
Graduation rates at the tertiary level

Tertiary-type A programmes are largely theory-based and are designed to provide qualifications
for entry into advanced research programmes and professions with high skill requirements. The
organisation of tertiary-type A programmes differs among countries.The institutional framework
may be universities or other institutions. The duration of programmes leading to a first tertiarytype A qualification ranges from three years (e.g. the bachelor’s degree in many colleges in Ireland
and the United Kingdom in most fields of education, and the licence in France) to five years or
more (e.g. the Diplom in Germany).
In many countries there is a clear distinction between first and second university degrees, (i.e.
undergraduate and graduate programmes), but this is not always the case. In some systems,
degrees that are internationally comparable to a master’s degree are obtained through a single
programme of long duration. To ensure international comparability, it is therefore necessary to
compare degree programmes of similar cumulative duration, as well as completion rates for first
degree programmes.
To allow for comparisons that are independent of differences in national degree structures,
tertiary-type A degrees are subdivided according to the total theoretical duration of study – the
standard (set out by law or regulations) number of years in which a student can complete the
education programme. Specifically, the OECD classification divides degrees into three groups:
medium (three to less than five years), long (five to six years) and very long (more than six years).
64

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Tertiary Education? – Indicator A3

chapter A

Degrees obtained from programmes of less than three years’ duration are not considered equivalent
to the completion of the tertiary-type A level of education and are therefore not included in this
indicator. Second degree programmes are classified according to the cumulative duration of the
first and second degree programmes. Individuals who already hold a first degree are deducted.
First-time tertiary-type A graduation rates

Based on current patterns of graduation, on average 39% of an age cohort among the 24 OECD
countries with comparable data are estimated to have completed tertiary-type A education in 2007.
This figure ranged from less than 20% in Greece to 45% or more in Australia, Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand and Poland. Note however that the graduation rates for countries with
a high proportion of international students (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) are artificially inflated
as all international graduates are by definition first-time graduates, regardless of their previous
education in other countries.Therefore, the adjusted graduation rates – when international students
are excluded - for Australia and New Zealand are at 36% and 37% respectively (Table A3.1).
Disparities among countries are greater when gender is taken into consideration. On average in
OECD countries, the number of females who obtain tertiary-type A qualifications is significantly
higher than the number of males; females’ graduation rate is 47% compared to 31% for males.
The gender gap is equal or superior to 25 percentage points in Finland, Norway, Poland and
Sweden and nearly 50 percentage points in Iceland. In Austria, Germany and Switzerland,
the sexes are quite balanced. In Japan significantly more males graduate from tertiary-type A
programmes (Chart A3.1).
Chart A3.2. Tertiary-type A graduation rates in 1995, 2000 and 2007 (first-time graduation)
%

2007

2000

1995

70
60
50
40
30
20

0

Iceland
Australia1
Poland
Finland
New Zealand
Denmark
Ireland2
Norway
Netherlands
Portugal
Sweden
Slovak Republic
Japan2
OECD average
United Kingdom
Israel
EU19 average
United States2
Italy
Czech Republic
Spain2
Switzerland
Canada1, 2
Hungary2
Germany
Austria
Slovenia
Greece2

10

1.Year of reference 2006 instead of 2007.
2. The graduation rates for tertiary-type A programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the graduation rates for tertiary-type A education in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table A3.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

65

A3

chapter A

A3

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

On average in OECD countries, tertiary-type A graduation rates increased by 18 percentage
points over the last 12 years. In every country for which comparable data are available, these
rates increased between 1995 and 2007, often quite substantially.
From 1995 to 2007, tertiary graduation rates evolved quite differently in OECD and partner
countries. In Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Spain, increases were more marked
from 1995 to 2000 than from 2000 to 2007. New Zealand has even experienced a decline in
its graduation rate since 2000, mainly due to the fluctuation of international students entering
and leaving the country. However, in the Czech Republic, Greece, Japan, Portugal, Sweden and
Switzerland the increase occurred mainly in the last seven years (Chart A3.2).
The most significant increases between 2000 and 2007 were reported in the Czech Republic
and Switzerland where the rate almost tripled over this period, and to a lesser extent in Iceland,
Italy and Portugal. In Switzerland, the striking increase at the beginning of the 21st century
reflected the 1997 creation of the Fachhochschulen (Universities of Applied Science) and the later
extension of these programmes to more institutions and programmes. Austria and Germany,
despite an increase of tertiary-type A graduation rate (courses have been shortened and numerus
clausus restrictions have been eased for Germany), are still well behind the OECD average. Firsttime graduation rates in Greece have fluctuated since 1995 and in 2007 were the lowest of
all OECD countries. The government has recently enacted a reform to improve the quality of
tertiary education outcomes (e.g. limit the duration of academic study, improve the governance
of universities). Due to the progressive expansion of the BaMa structure in the Czech Republic,
the graduation rate has grown rapidly in recent years; in 2004, 13 000 new bachelors and 7 000
new “consequential” masters in 2006 were registered. In 2005, there were 19 000 new bachelors
and 11 000 new “consequential” masters in 2007. In Italy, the large increase between 2002 and
2005 was largely due to structural change. The reform of the Italian tertiary system in 2002
allowed university students who had originally enrolled in programmes of longer duration to
obtain a degree after three years of study. Between 2000 and 2007, the graduation rate in Spain,
the United Kingdom and the United States didn’t increase as much as in other countries.
Tertiary-type A: the shorter the programme, the higher the participation and
graduation rates

The duration of tertiary studies tends to be longer in EU countries than in other OECD countries.
Two-thirds of all OECD tertiary-type A students graduate from programmes with a duration of
three to less than five years compared to less than 56 % in EU countries (Table A3.1).
Overall, tertiary-type A graduation rates tend to be higher in countries in which programmes
are mainly of shorter duration. Tertiary-type A graduation rates are around 40% or more in
Australia, Sweden and the United Kingdom, where programmes of three to less than five
years are the norm (95% or more of graduates follow programmes of three to less than five
years). In contrast, in Austria and Germany, most students complete programmes of at least
five years’ duration and tertiary-type A graduation rates are below 25%. In the future, with the
implementation of the Bologna process (see Box A3.1 in Education at a Glance 2008), there may
be fewer programmes of long duration in European countries. Poland is a notable exception:
despite typically long tertiary-type A programmes, its tertiary-type A graduation rate is over
40% (Table A3.1).
66

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Tertiary Education? – Indicator A3

chapter A

First-time tertiary-type B graduation rates

Tertiary-type B programmes are classified at the same competency level as tertiary-type A
programmes but are more occupationally oriented and usually lead to direct labour market
access. They are typically of shorter duration than tertiary-type A programmes – usually two to
three years – and are generally not intended to lead to university-level degrees. Graduation rates
for tertiary-type B programmes average some 9% of an age cohort for the 22 OECD countries
with comparable data. In fact, graduation from tertiary-type B programmes is a significant feature
of the tertiary system in only a few countries, most notably Ireland, Japan and New Zealand
and the partner country Slovenia, where over 20% of the age cohort obtained tertiary-type B
qualifications in 2007 (Table A3.1).
Trends in provision of and graduation from tertiary-type B programmes vary even though the
OECD average has been stable over the past 12 years. For instance, in Spain, the sharp rise in
tertiary-type B graduation rates between 1995 and 2007 is attributable to the development of
new advanced level vocational training programmes. In contrast, in Finland these programmes
are being phased out and the proportion of the age cohort graduating from them has thus fallen
rapidly (Table A3.2).
Chart A3.3. Tertiary-type B graduation rates in 1995, 2000 and 2007 (first-time graduation)
2007

%

2000

1995

40
35
30
25
20
15
10

Finland

Poland

Slovak Republic

Norway

Iceland

Hungary1

Czech Republic1

Sweden

Portugal

Austria

EU19 average

OECD average

United States1

Germany1

Denmark

Turkey

Greece

Spain

United Kingdom

Switzerland1

New Zealand

Ireland

Slovenia

0

Japan1

5

1. The graduation rates for tertiary-type B programmes are calculated on a gross basis.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the graduation rates for tertiary-type B education in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table A3.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

Advanced research qualification rates

For the 29 OECD countries with comparable data, 1.5% of the population obtained an advanced
research qualification (such as a Ph.D.) in 2007.The proportion ranges from 0.1% in the partner
country Chile to more than 2% in Finland, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the
United Kingdom (Table A3.1).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

67

A3

chapter A

Graduation rates: first and second degrees and advanced research qualifications

Graduation rates for first degrees are available for all countries; however, this is not the case
for first-time graduation rates, as in some countries educational data reporting systems do not
include sufficient information on first-time graduates.
In 2007, on average among OECD countries, more than one third of an age cohort are estimated
to have completed their first degree at tertiary-type A level. The proportion exceeds 50% in
Australia, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand. By contrast, the graduation rate is less than 20%
in Mexico and Turkey and in the partner country Chile. The partner country Slovenia is the only
country in which more people obtained their first degree from more occupationally oriented
programmes (tertiary-type B) than from the largely theory-based programmes (tertiary-type A).
In Korea and the partner country Chile, the rates of graduation from both types of programmes
are similar (Table A3.3).
International students’ contribution to graduate output

International students make a significant contribution to the tertiary graduate output in a number
of countries and these students have a marked impact on estimated graduation rates. In order to
compare graduation rates across countries it is important to examine the impact of international
students on the graduate output.

Chart A3.4. Graduation rate at tertiary-type A level (first degree):
impact of international students (2007)
International students
Adjusted (excluding international students)

%

70
60
50
40
30
20
0

Iceland3
Poland3
Russian Federation3
Netherlands3
Portugal3
Slovak Republic3
Korea3
Hungary3
Italy3
Belgium3
France3
Turkey3

10

Finland1
Australia2
New Zealand
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Japan
United States
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Canada2
Estonia
Switzerland
Germany
Slovenia
Austria

A3

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

1. First degrees programmes include second degrees.
2.Year of reference 2006.
3. The graduation rates at tertiary-type A first degree level are calculated for foreign students (defined on the basis
of their country of citizenship). These data are not comparable with data on international graduates and are therefore
presented separately.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the adjusted graduates in tertiary-type A first degree programmes.
Source: OECD. Table A3.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

68

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Tertiary Education? – Indicator A3

chapter A

In Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom, the impact of international
students on the graduation rate at tertiary-type A first degrees level is represented by a drop of
15, 10 and 5 percentage points respectively. This pattern implies that the true domestic graduate
output is significantly overestimated as a proportion of overall graduation rates. This is most
significant for tertiary-type A second degree programmes in Australia and the United Kingdom,
where graduation rates drop by 10 and 9 percentage points when international graduates are
excluded. International graduates in advanced research programmes represent more than 40%
of the graduate output in Switzerland and the United Kingdom.The contribution of international
students to the graduate output is also significant at tertiary-type A first degree – although to a
lesser extent (around 10% of the graduate output) – in Austria and Switzerland. Among countries
for which data on student mobility are not available, the contribution of foreign students is 10%
or more in Belgium and France (Chart A3.4).
Completion rate in tertiary education

Overall tertiary completion rates count as “completing” students who enter a tertiary-type A
programme and who graduate with either a tertiary-type A or a type B qualification, or those who
enter a tertiary-type B programme and who graduate with either a tertiary-type A or a tertiarytype B qualification. On average among the 18 OECD countries for which data are available in
2005, some 30% of tertiary students fail to successfully complete a programme equivalent to
this level of education. Completion rates differ widely among OECD and partner countries.
In Hungary and New Zealand, more than 40% of those who enter a tertiary programme leave
without a tertiary qualification (either tertiary-type A or tertiary-type B) in contrast to their
counterparts in Belgium (Flemish Community), Denmark, France, Germany and Japan and the
partner country the Russian Federation, where the proportion is less than 25% (Chart A3.5).
The difference between the proportion of skilled jobs and the proportion of people with tertiary
education (see Indicator A1) suggests that most countries may benefit from further increase
in the output of tertiary graduates. Increasing the proportion of students who enter a tertiary
programme and leave with a tertiary qualification can help to improve the internal efficiency of
tertiary education systems, especially when a small proportion of upper secondary graduates
enter tertiary education or when the graduation rate is relatively low compared to the OECD
average. In terms of three variables (entry, graduation and completion rates), two countries may
have similar graduation rates but significant differences on the two other variables, so that they
should adopt different strategies to improve their internal efficiency. For example, Japan and
Sweden had similar first-time graduation rates in 2007 (39% and 40%, respectively) but also
significant differences in the level of entry and completion rates in tertiary-type A education.
Whereas Japan counterbalances below-average entry rates into tertiary-type A programmes
(41% in 2001 against 48% on average) with, at 91%, the highest completion rates among OECD
and partner countries, Sweden had an entry rate well above the average in 2001 (69%) but a
below-average completion rate (69%) (see Indicator A2).
Completion rates in tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B education

On average among the 24 OECD countries for which data are available, some 31% of tertiary-type
A students fail to successfully complete the programme they enter. However completion rates
differ widely among OECD countries. In Hungary, Italy, New Zealand and the United States, less
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

69

A3

chapter A

than 60% of those who enter tertiary-type A programmes go on to successfully complete their
programme, in contrast to their counterparts in Denmark, the United Kingdom and the partner
country the Russian Federation where the completion rates are around 80%, and in Japan where
it is 91%. Tertiary-type B completion rates are, at 64% on average, somewhat lower than those
for tertiary-type A programmes, and again there is wide variation among countries. Tertiarytype B completion rates range from above 80% in Belgium (Flemish Community), Denmark and
Japan to below 40% in New Zealand and the United States (Table A3.4).
OECD countries with low tuition fees in tertiary-type A education often debate whether they
should increase those fees in order to improve completion rates. In fact, some OECD countries
have already increased tuition fees (while exempting some students for academic merit), based on
the idea that higher fees will increase students’ incentives to finish their studies quickly. However,
it is difficult to see a relationship between completion rates in tertiary-type A programmes and
the level of tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A institutions. The countries in which tuition
fees charged by tertiary-type A public educational institutions exceed USD 1 500 and with
available completion rate data are Australia, Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom and the United States (see Indicator B5). Completion rates are significantly
lower than the OECD average (69%) in New Zealand and the United States but above 70% in
the others. By way of contrast, Denmark does not charge tuition fees and provides a high level of
public subsidies for students but has completion rates (81%) above the OECD average.This is not
surprising because all indicators on tertiary education and especially on rates of return show that
compared to upper secondary attainment, tertiary-type A educational attainment significantly
benefits individuals in terms of earnings and employment. This can create a sufficiently big
incentive, independently of the level of tuition fees, for students to finish their studies (see
Indicator A10 in Education at a Glance 2008).

Chart A3.5. Proportion of students who enter a tertiary programme and leave without
at least a first tertiary degree (2005)
%

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Italy1
New Zealand
Hungary
Mexico
Estonia
United Kingdom
Poland
Norway
Slovenia
Czech Republic1
Portugal
Sweden
Iceland
Slovak Republic
Switzerland1
OECD average
Austria1
Netherlands
EU19 average
Australia1
Canada (Quebec)
Finland
Germany
Russian Federation
France
Belgium (Fl.)
Denmark
Japan

A3

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

1. Tertiary-type A programmes only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of students who enter into a tertiary programme and leave without at
least a first tertiary degree.
Source: OECD. Table A3.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

70

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Tertiary Education? – Indicator A3

chapter A

Beginning a tertiary-type A programme but not graduating is not necessarily linked to failure if
students can be successfully re-oriented towards tertiary-type B education. Thus, in France and
to a lesser extent in Denmark and New Zealand, a significant proportion of students (15% in
France and 3% in the other two) who have not completed tertiary-type A level are successfully
re-oriented to tertiary-type B level. In other words, in France, out of 100 students who start a
tertiary-type A programme, 64 will receive at least a first tertiary-type A qualification, 15 will be
re-oriented to a tertiary-type B programme and only 21 will leave without a tertiary qualification.
Re-orientation is more frequent in tertiary-type B education; in Iceland and New Zealand, 22%
and 9%, respectively, of students who do not complete this level are re-oriented to a tertiarytype A programme. Among these countries, only New Zealand has a large proportion of students
enrolled in tertiary-type B education (Table A3.4).
In addition, in some countries not all students follow courses offered in tertiary-type A
education in order to obtain a degree. For instance, an individual might attend courses in a given
programme on a part-time basis for professional development, with no intention of completing
the associated degree. Some other tertiary students (generally mature students) may also follow
courses that are not part of a programme leading to a degree to increase their lifelong learning
perspectives.
Lastly, in some countries many students successfully complete some parts of a qualification
but do not finish the whole programme. Non-completion of a degree does not mean that the
acquired skills and competencies are lost and not valued by the labour market in these countries.
In Sweden, students can leave a tertiary-type A programme before completing it, be employed
for some time, and later decide to continue their studies. They do not lose the benefit of the
modules that they successfully completed in the past. In some other countries, students may
successfully complete all modules they undertake, yet never enrol in enough modules to complete
the qualification. For example, in New Zealand, where part-time study is more common, it is
estimated that around one in five students complete all modules they enrol in, yet never enrol
in enough modules to complete the qualification. This tends to mask the performance of more
traditional full-time students which in 2005 was 73% at tertiary-type A level (see Table A4.2 in
Education at a Glance 2008).
Thus, the extent to which non-completion of tertiary education is a policy problem will vary
between countries and completion rates should be interpreted with caution. It will be interesting
to see if changes in the labour market over the next decades in OECD and partner countries
will have an effect on the incentives for individuals to complete tertiary studies. If there is
further expansion of tertiary education over the next decade (which is a feasible option in most
countries), completion of tertiary programmes will be more highly valued on the labour market
and the benefit of entering tertiary education without graduating with at least a first degree will
be eroded (see Indicator A1).
Definitions and methodologies

Data refer to the academic year 2006/07 and are based on the UOE data collection on education
statistics administered by the OECD in 2007 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Tertiary graduates are those who obtain a tertiary qualification in the specified reference year.
This indicator distinguishes among different categories of tertiary qualifications: i) tertiary-type B
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

71

A3

chapter A

A3

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

qualifications (ISCED 5B); ii) tertiary-type A qualifications (ISCED 5A); and iii) advanced research
degrees of doctorate standard (ISCED 6). For some countries, data are not available for these
categories. In such cases, the OECD has assigned graduates to the most appropriate category (see
Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 for a list of programmes included for each country at the
tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B levels). Tertiary-type A degrees are also subdivided by their
corresponding total theoretical duration of studies, to allow for comparisons that are independent
of differences in national degree structures.
In Table A3.1 to Table A3.3 (from 2005 onwards), graduation rates for tertiary programmes
(tertiary-type A, tertiary-type B and advanced research programmes) are calculated as net
graduation rates (i.e. as the sum of age-specific graduation rates). Net graduation rates represent
the estimated percentage of the age cohort that will complete tertiary-type A/B education
(based on current patterns of graduation). Gross graduation rates are presented for countries
that are unable to provide such detailed data. In order to calculate gross graduation rates,
countries identify the age at which graduation typically occurs (see Annex 1). The number of
graduates, regardless of their age, is divided by the population at the typical graduation age. In
many countries, defining a typical age of graduation is difficult, however, because graduates are
dispersed over a wide range of ages.
In Table A3.2, data on trends in graduation rates at tertiary level for the years 1995, 2000, 2001,
2002, 2003 and 2004 are based on a special survey carried out in OECD countries and four of
the six partner countries in January 2007.
Data on completion rates (Table A3.4) were collected through a special survey undertaken in
2007. The completion rate is calculated as the ratio of the number of students who graduate from
an initial degree during the reference year to the number of new entrants in this degree n years
before, with n being the number of years of full-time study required to complete the degree. The
calculation of the completion rate is defined from a cohort analysis in one-half of the countries
listed in Table A3.4 (true cohort method).The estimation for the other countries assumes constant
student flows at the tertiary level, owing to the need for consistency between the graduate cohort
in the reference year and the entrant cohort n years before (cross-section method).This assumption
may be an oversimplification (see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Drop outs are defined as students who leave the specified level without graduating from a first
qualification at that level. The first qualification refers to any degree, regardless of the duration
of study, obtained at the end of a programme that does not have a previous degree at the same
level as a pre-requisite.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

• Table A3.5. Percentage of tertiary graduates, by field of education (2007)
• Table A3.6. Percentage of tertiary qualifications awarded to females at tertiary level, by field of
education (2007)
• Table A3.7. Science graduates among 25-34 year-olds in employment, by gender (2007)
• Table A3.8. Trends in net graduation rates at advanced research qualification level (1995-2007)

72

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Tertiary Education? – Indicator A3

chapter A

A3

Table A3.1.
Graduation rates in tertiary education (2007)
Sum of graduation rates for single year of age by programme destination and duration

10.6
8.8

38.7
36.7

m
m
m
m
m
19.2

m
m
m
m
m
30.3

m
m
m
36.9
m
20.2

m
m
m
m
m
m

M+F

8.3
6.6

M+F

(5)
49.8
22.1
m
30.6
34.9
47.3
48.5
m
23.4
17.7
29.4
63.1
45.0
35.0
38.8
m
m
m
42.8
47.6
43.4
49.0
42.6
38.9
32.4
39.9
31.4
m
38.7
36.5

M+F

(4)
m
7.6
m
m
6.9
10.4
n
m
13.0
13.6
5.7
2.6
23.1
m
35.5
m
m
m
n
23.9
1.1
0.2
7.9
1.4
15.4
6.4
13.4
11.2
20.2
13.0

M+F

m
m
m
m
m
24.6

(3)
m
6.7
m
m
2.8
11.5
0.2
m
7.8
10.7
2.3
2.2
24.2
m
20.4
m
m
m
n
16.7
0.8
n
4.3
0.5
12.7
4.4
23.2
13.1
10.5
7.4

Females

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

(2)
m
m
m
m
4.7
10.4
0.1
m
m
m
m
2.4
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
16.6
m
m
m
m
m
5.3
m
m
m
m

Males

9.4
7.7

M+F

OECD average
EU19 average

Females

(1)
m
7.1
m
m
4.8
10.9
0.1
m
10.4
12.1
3.9
2.4
23.7
m
27.7
m
m
m
n
20.4
1.0
0.1
6.1
0.9
14.0
5.4
18.3
12.1
15.3
10.1

Males

Australia2
Austria
Belgium
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy3
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom4
United States

Adjusted1

M+F
Partner countries

OECD countries

Tertiary-type B
programmes (first-time
graduation)

Advanced
research
programmes
(Ph.D or
equivalent)

Adjusted1

Tertiary-type A programmes (first-time graduation)
Proportion of first-time
graduation rates by duration
of programmes (in %)
3 to
More
less than
5 to
than
All programmes
5 years
6 years
6 years

(6)
35.8
20.0
m
m
33.7
44.1
m
m
21.7
m
m
61.6
m
34.3
m
m
m
m
m
37.3
m
m
m
m
m
37.2
m
m
m
m

(7)
41.1
20.4
m
23.1
29.8
36.9
36.1
m
22.2
11.9
19.7
39.5
36.5
28.2
43.1
m
m
m
37.9
38.6
30.8
36.2
32.3
27.2
24.9
27.8
32.1
m
33.0
30.1

(8)
58.8
23.9
m
38.5
40.4
57.9
61.4
m
24.6
23.9
39.5
88.7
53.6
42.0
34.4
m
m
m
47.9
56.4
56.3
62.3
53.2
51.0
40.4
52.6
30.7
m
44.6
43.4

(9)
95
35
m
m
48
57
56
m
41
m
69
83
54
71
84
m
m
m
m
85
82
28
51
29
46
96
63
85
97
55

(10)
5
65
m
m
43
42
43
m
59
m
31
17
46
29
16
m
m
m
m
15
12
72
49
71
53
4
24
14
3
39

(11)
n
n
m
m
10
n
1
m
n
m
n
n
n
n
1
m
m
m
m
n
5
n
n
n
1
n
13
1
1
6

(12)
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.3
2.9
1.4
2.3
1.4
0.7
0.2
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.1
m
0.2
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.0
3.7
1.6
0.9
3.3
3.3
0.3
2.1
1.5

30.8
28.8

46.9
44.9

64
56

34
43

2
1

1.5
1.7

m
m
m
29.8
m
13.4

m
m
m
44.1
m
27.4

m
m
m
100
m
67

m
m
m
n
m
33

m
m
m
n
m
n

0.4
0.1
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.4

m
m
m
m
m
m

Note: Please refer to Annex 1 for information on the method used to calculate graduation rates (gross rates versus net rates) and the corresponding
typical ages.
Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and the graduate data mean that the graduation rates for those countries that are net exporters
of students may be underestimated, and those that are net importers may be overestimated.The adjusted graduation rates seek to compensate for that.
1. Adjusted graduation rates correspond to the graduation rate when international students are excluded. International students are defined on
the basis of their country of citizenship for the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands and the Russian Federation. International students
include exchanges students in Sweden.
2. Year of reference 2006.
3. Advanced research programme graduates refer to 2006.
4. The graduation rates for tertiary-type B programmes include some graduates who have previously graduated at this level and therefore
overestimate first-time graduation.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

73

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A3

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table A3.2.
Trends in tertiary graduation rates (1995-2007)
Sum of graduation rates for single year of age, by programme destination

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom1
United States

Tertiary-type A
Tertiary-type B
1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
m 36 44 49 50 51 50 50
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
10 15 17 18 19 20 20 21 22
m
m
m
m
m
7
8
7
7
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
27 27 27 27 28 29 35 31
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
13 14 14 15 17 20 25 29 35
6
5
5
4
4
5
6
6
5
25 37 39 41 43 44 46 45 47
8 10 12 13 14 11 10 10 11
20 41 45 49 48 47 48 48 48 34
7
4
2
1
n
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
14 18 18 18 18 19 20 21 23 13 11 11 10 10 10 11 11 10
14 15 16 18 20 24 25 20 18
5
6
6
7
9 11 12 12 12
m
m
m
m
m 29 36 30 29
m
m
m
m
m
3
4
4
4
m 33 38 41 45 51 56 63 63
m
6
8
6
7
5
4
4
2
m 30 29 32 37 39 38 39 45
m 15 20 13 19 20 24 27 24
m 19 21 25
m 36 41 39 35
m
n
1
1
m
n
n
n
m
25 29 32 33 34 35 36 39 39 28 29 27 27 26 26 27 28 28
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
29 35 35 37 38 40 42 43 43
m
m
m
m
m
m
n
n
n
33 50 51 46 49 50 51 52 48 12 17 17 18 20 21 21 24 20
26 37 40 38 39 45 41 43 43
6
6
6
5
5
3
2
1
1
m 34 40 43 44 45 45 47 49
m
m
m
n
n
n
n
n
n
15 23 28 30 33 32 32 33 43
6
8
8
7
7
8
9
9
6
15
m
m 23 25 28 30 35 39
1
2
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
24 30 31 32 32 33 33 33 32
2
8 11 13 16 17 17 15 14
24 28 29 32 35 37 38 41 40
m
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
9 12 19 21 22 26 27 30 31 13 14 11 11 12 12
8 10 18
6
9
9 10 11 11 11 15
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m 11 12
m 37 37 37 38 39 39 39 39
m
m 12 12 14 16 17 15 15
33 34 33 32 32 33 34 36 37
9
8
8
8
9
9 10 10 10

OECD average

20

OECD average for
countries with 1995
and 2007 data

18

EU19 average

18

27

29

30

32

33

35

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
m
m
m
m
m

10
m
m
m
m
m

10
m
m
m
m
m

13
m
m
29
m
m

15
m
m
31
m
m

m
m
m
32
m
m

m
m
m
35
m
18

28

30

31

33

35

36

37

39

11

9

10

9

10

9

9

9

10

36

11

35

37

9

7

8

7

8

8

8

8

8

m
m
m
36
m
21

m
m
m
37
m
20

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
24

m
m
m
m
m
26

m
m
m
m
m
25

11

Note: Up to 2004, graduation rates at the tertiary-type A or B levels were calculated on a gross basis. From 2005 and for countries with available
data, graduation rates are calculated as net graduation rates (i.e. as the sum of age-specific graduation rates).
Please refer to Annex 1 for information on the method used to calculate graduation rates (gross rates versus net rates) and the corresponding
typical ages.
1. The graduation rates for tertiary-type B programmes include some graduates who have previously graduated at this level and therefore
overestimate first-time graduation.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

74

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Many Students Finish Tertiary Education? – Indicator A3

chapter A

A3

Table A3.3.
Graduation rate at different tertiary levels (2007)
Sum of graduation rates for single year of age (including or excluding international/foreign students) by programme destination

Adjusted graduation
rate (excluding
international/foreign
students)

Graduation rate
(all students)

Adjusted graduation
rate (excluding
international/foreign
students)

Graduation rate
(all students)

Adjusted graduation
rate (excluding
international/foreign
students)

Advanced research
programmes

Graduation rate
(all students)

Tertiary-type A
programmes
(second degree)

Adjusted graduation
rate (excluding
international/foreign
students)

Tertiary-type A
programmes
(first degree)

Graduation rate
(all students)
Partner countries

OECD countries

Tertiary-type B
programmes
(first degree)

Australia1, 2
Austria1
Belgium3
Canada1, 2
Czech Republic1
Denmark1
Finland4
France3
Germany4
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland3
Ireland
Italy3, 5
Japan1
Korea3
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands3
New Zealand1
Norway1
Poland3
Portugal3
Slovak Republic3
Spain
Sweden1
Switzerland4
Turkey3
United Kingdom1
United States1

(1)
16.7
7.1
30.9
m
4.8
12.0
0.1
25.2
10.4
12.8
4.5
2.6
23.7
0.7
27.7
34.4
m
1.3
n
24.9
1.0
1.0
6.1
0.9
14.0
5.5
25.0
12.1
15.3
10.1

(2)
m
7.0
28.8
m
m
11.5
0.1
24.4
m
m
4.5
2.6
m
0.7
26.9
34.3
m
m
n
20.4
1.0
m
6.0
m
m
5.4
m
12.1
14.2
10.0

(3)
60.6
22.1
36.3
35.4
35.3
47.3
59.8
35.1
23.4
20.3
36.1
62.9
45.0
35.0
38.8
36.9
m
18.6
46.6
54.8
44.4
49.0
42.6
38.9
28.6
40.2
29.1
17.0
38.7
36.5

(4)
46.1
20.0
32.7
33.3
34.0
44.9
57.5
31.5
21.7
m
34.8
61.7
m
34.3
38.0
36.8
m
m
44.4
44.9
44.0
48.8
41.3
38.6
m
38.6
26.3
16.9
33.6
35.4

(5)
17.9
1.7
10.6
8.5
10.9
17.2
0.8
13.9
2.0
5.0
5.7
14.0
17.8
19.1
5.5
3.8
m
2.8
13.5
15.9
12.0
33.9
2.9
11.7
1.0
3.7
9.4
2.6
22.3
16.1

(6)
7.7
1.5
8.2
7.4
10.3
15.4
x(4)
11.0
1.4
m
5.6
13.5
m
18.6
5.1
3.7
m
m
12.9
13.2
11.7
33.8
2.8
11.6
m
3.1
7.6
2.6
13.8
14.5

(7)
1.9
1.8
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.3
2.9
1.4
2.3
1.4
0.7
0.2
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.1
m
0.2
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.0
3.7
1.6
0.9
3.3
3.3
0.3
2.1
1.5

(8)
1.5
1.4
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.2
2.6
1.0
2.0
m
0.7
0.2
m
1.2
0.9
1.0
m
m
m
1.1
1.4
m
3.4
1.6
m
3.1
1.9
0.3
1.2
1.0

OECD average

11.8

38.5

10.4

1.5

EU19 average

11.3

37.9

8.7

1.6

Brazil
Chile
Estonia1
Israel
Russian Federation3
Slovenia1

m
15.3
22.9
0.0
27.2
28.5

m
m
22.9
m
27.1
28.3

24.6
15.7
29.0
36.9
48.5
21.1

m
m
28.7
m
48.2
21.0

1.1
2.9
10.9
13.9
0.5
3.6

m
m
10.5
m
m
3.5

0.4
0.1
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.4

m
m
0.8
m
m
1.3

Note: Please refer to Annex 1 for information on the method used to calculate graduation rates (gross rates versus net rates) and the corresponding
typical ages.
Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and the graduate data mean that the graduation rates for those countries that are net exporters
of students may be underestimated and those that are net importers may be overestimated.The adjusted graduation rates seek to compensate for that.
1. International graduates are defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Year of reference 2006.
3. The graduation rates are calculated for foreign students (defined on the basis of their country of citizenship). These data are not comparable
with data on international graduates and are therefore presented separately in the Chart A3.4.
4. International graduates are defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
5. Advanced research programme graduates refer to 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

75

chapter A

A3

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A3.4.
Completion rates in tertiary education (2005)
Calculated separately for tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B programmes: Number of graduates from these programmes divided
by the number of new entrants to these programmes in the typical year of entrance.

5A completion rates
(at least first 5A
programme) 2

Not completed
5A level but reoriented with
success at 5B level

5B completion rates
(at least first 5B
programme) 3

Not completed
5B level but reoriented with
success at 5A level

Tertiary-type B
education

Leaving without
tertiary
qualification

Tertiary-type A
education

Completion rates
(at least first 5B or
5A programme) 1

Partner countries

OECD countries

Tertiary
education

(1)
m
m
82
72
m
85
72
79
77
m
55
70
m
m
90
m
m
61
71
54
65
64
69
70
m
69
m
m
64
47

(2)
m
m
18
28
m
15
28
21
23
m
45
30
m
m
10
m
m
39
29
46
35
36
31
30
m
31
m
m
36
m

(3)
72
71
76
75
68
81
72
64
77
m
57
66
m
45
91
m
m
61
71
58
67
63
73
70
m
69
70
m
79
56

(4)
m
m
m
n
m
3
a
15
n
m
m
1
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
3
m
m
m
m
m
1
m
m
m
m

(5)
m
m
88
63
m
88
a
78
77
m
44
55
m
m
87
m
m
64
m
30
66
71
59
72
m
m
m
m
43
33

(6)
m
m
m
n
m
3
a
2
n
m
m
22
m
m
m
m
m
a
m
9
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

OECD average

69  

30  

69  

~

64  

~

EU19 average

71  

29  

69  

~

62  

~

m
m
63
m
77
65

m
m
37
m
23
35

m
m
67
m
79
64

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
59
m
76
67

m
m
m
m
m
m

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Canada (Quebec)
Czech Republic
Denmark4
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States4

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

Year used
for new entrants
5A
5B
Method
Cross-section
2003-05
m
Cross-section
2000-03
m
Cross-section 1998-2001
2003-04
True cohort
2000
2000
Cross-section
m
m
True cohort
1995-96
1995-96
True cohort
1995
1995
True cohort
1996-2003
1996-2003
Cross-section
2001-02
2003-04
m
m
m
Cross-section
2001-04
2004-05
True cohort
1996-97
1996-97
m
m
m
True cohort
1998-99
1998-99
Cross-section 2000 and 2002
2004
m
m
m
m
m
m
Cross-section
2002-03
2004-05
True cohort
1997-98
1997-98
True cohort
1998
1998
True cohort
1994-95
1994-95
Cross-section
2001-04
2003-04
Cross-section
2001-06
2004
Cross-section
2000-03
2003-04
m
m
m
True cohort
1995-96
1995-96
True cohort
1996-2001
1996-2001
m
m
m
Cross-section
2003-04
2003-04
True cohort
1999
2002

m
m
Cross-section
m
Cross-section
Cross-section

m
m
2003
m
2001-02
2001-02

m
m
2003
m
2002-03
2001-02

Note: The cross section method refers to the number of graduates in the calendar year 2005 and is calculated according to the traditional OECD approach,
taking into account different durations.True section method is defined from a cohort analysis and based on Panel data.
1. Completion rates in tertiary education represent the proportion of those who enter a tertiary-type A or a tertiary-type B programme, who go on to
graduate from either at least a first tertiary-type A or a first tertiary-type B programme.
2. Completion rates in tertiary-type A education represent the proportion of those who enter a tertiary-type A programme, who go on to graduate from at
least a first tertiary-type A programme.
3. Completion rates in tertiary-type B education represent the proportion of those who enter a tertiary-type B programme, who go on to graduate from at
least a first tertiary-type B programme.
4. Only full-time students.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664042306054

76

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

INDICATOR A4

What is the profile of 15-year-old 
top performers in science?
The rapidly growing demand for highly skilled workers has led to a global
competition for talent. High-level skills are critical for the creation of new
knowledge, technologies and innovation and therefore an important determinant
of economic growth and social development. Drawing on data from the OECD’s
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), this indicator takes an
in-depth look at top-performing students in science.

Key results
Chart A4.1. Percentage of top performers on the science scale in PISA 2006

The chart depicts the proportion of top performers in science defined as those
15-year-old students who are proficient at Levels 5 and 6 on the PISA 2006 science scale,
and indicates in bold the score in science for each country.
Level 6

Level 5

Compared to the OECD average (9%) the proportion of top performers varies widely across
countries. Some countries have more than 13% of top performers, such as Australia, Canada,
Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the partner economies
Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong – China, while in other countries it is less than 5% such as in
Greece, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, Spain and Turkey, and the partner countries Argentina, Brazil,
Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Jordan, Latvia, Montenegro, Qatar, Romania, the Russian Federation,
Serbia, Thailand, Tunisia and Uruguay.

Finland 563
New Zealand 530
Hong Kong-China 542
Japan 531
Chinese Taipei 532
Australia 527
Canada 534
United Kingdom 515
Netherlands 525
Slovenia 519
Liechtenstein 522
Germany 516
Czech Republic 513
Estonia 531
Switzerland 512
Korea 522
Belgium 510
Austria 511
Ireland 508
United States 489
OECD average 500
France 495
Sweden 503
Hungary 504
Denmark 496
Poland 498
Iceland 491
Norway 487
Luxembourg 486

%

20
15
10
5
0

Slovak Republic 488
Macao-China 511
Israel 454
Croatia 493
Lithuania 488
Spain 488
Italy 475
Russian Federation 479
Latvia 490
Greece 473
Portugal 474
Bulgaria 434
Chile 438
Uruguay 428
Turkey 424
Serbia 436
Jordan 422
Brazil 390
Romania 418
Argentina 391
Thailand 421
Qatar 349
Montenegro 412
Mexico 410
Colombia 388
Tunisia 386
Azerbaijan 382
Indonesia 393
Kyrgyzstan 322

%

20
15
10
5
0

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database,Table A4.1a.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

78

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A4

• On average across OECD countries, 18% of students are top performers in at
least one of the subject areas of science, mathematics or reading. However, only
4% are top performers in all three areas. This highlights that excellence is not
simply a question of some students performing strongly in all subject areas, but
that many students have different strengths in different subject areas.
• Across subject areas and countries, female students are as likely to be top
performers as male students. On average across OECD countries, the proportion
of top performers across subject areas is very similar between males and females:
4.1% of females and 3.9% of males are top performers in all three subject
areas and 17.3% of females and 18.6% of males are top performers in at least
one subject area. However, while the gender gap among students who are top
performers is small only in science (1.1% of females and 1.5% of males), it is
significant among top performers in reading only (3.7% of females and 0.8% of
males) as well as in mathematics (3.7% of females and 6.8% of males).
• A socio-economically disadvantaged background is not an insurmountable
barrier to achieving excellence in science performance. In the typical OECD
country about a quarter of top performers in science come from a socioeconomic background below the country’s average. In some systems, students
from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds have even greater chances to be top
performers: in Austria, Finland, Japan, and the partner economies Hong KongChina and Macao-China, a third or more of the top performers in science have
a socio-economic background signalling greater disadvantage than is the case on
average in the country.
• In some countries students with an immigrant background or linguistic minorities
excel as well, though in other countries, most notably Germany, the Netherlands
and the partner country Slovenia performance differences between students with
and without an immigrant background are large.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

79

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A4

Defining and comparing top performers in PISA
Definitions used in this indicator

Top performers in science – students proficient at Levels 5 and 6 in the PISA 2006 science assessment
(i.e., higher than 633.33 score points)
Top performers in reading – students proficient at Level 5 in the PISA 2006 reading assessment (i.e.,
higher than 625.61 score points)
Top performers in mathematics – students proficient at Levels 5 and 6 in the PISA 2006 mathematics
assessment (i.e., higher than 606.99 score points)
Note that this indicator uses the term ‘top performers’ as shorthand for students proficient at Levels 5
and 6 in science in PISA 2006. Unless otherwise specified,‘top performers’ does not necessarily comprise
top performers in reading and mathematics. The cutoff points for each level varies by subject area and
the levels of proficiency are not equivalent across subject areas. In other words, it is not the same to
be proficient at Levels 5 and 6 in science, mathematics or reading. Because of the different nature and
content of the three testing areas the cutoff points for Levels 5 and 6 for each subject area are different
and can therefore result in different proportions of top performers.
Top performers can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific knowledge and knowledge about
science in a variety of complex life situations.They can link different information sources and explanations
and use evidence from those sources to justify decisions. They clearly and consistently demonstrate
advanced scientific thinking and reasoning, and they demonstrate use of their scientific understanding
in support of solutions to unfamiliar scientific and technological situations. Students at this level can use
scientific knowledge and develop arguments in support of recommendations and decisions that centre
on personal, social, or global situations.
Comparing top performers in science to strong performers

Another performance group has been used for this indicator to compare top performers in science
with students performing just below them, the “strong performers”. Strong performers are in the
performance group from which the most likely future top performers might emerge.
Strong performers in science, reading and mathematics are students proficient at Level 4 of the
PISA 2006 science, reading and mathematics assessment.

Policy context

While basic competencies are generally considered important for the absorption of new
technologies, high-level competencies are critical for the creation of new knowledge, technologies
and innovation. For countries near the technology frontier, this implies that the share of highly
educated workers in the labour force is an important determinant of economic growth and social
development. There is also mounting evidence that individuals with high level skills generate
relatively large amounts of knowledge creation and ways of using it, which in turn suggests
that investing in excellence may benefit all. This happens, for example, because highly skilled
80

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

individuals create innovations in various areas (for example, organisation, marketing, design)
that benefit all or that boost technological progress at the frontier. Research has also shown that
the effect of the skill level at one standard deviation above the mean in the International Adult
Literacy Study on economic growth is about six times larger than the effect of the skill level at
one standard deviation below the mean.
Evidence and explanations
Distribution of top performers in science among countries

As shown in Chart A4.1, the proportion of top performers in science varies widely across
countries and, interestingly, scientific excellence is only weakly related to average performance
in countries. Although on average across OECD countries, 9% of 15-year-olds reach Level 5 in
science, and slightly more than 1% reach Level 6, these proportions vary substantially across
countries. For example, among the OECD countries, seven have at least 13% of top performers
in science, whereas there are six with 5% or less. Among the partner countries and economies, the
overall proportions of these top performers also vary considerably from country to country with
several countries almost absent from representation at Level 6 in science. Of the 57 participating
countries, 25 have 5% or fewer of their 15-year-olds reaching Level 5 or Level 6, whereas four
countries have at least 15%, i.e. three times as many. Twenty per cent and 18% of all students are
top performers in science in Finland and New Zealand respectively.
Among countries with similar mean scores in PISA there is a remarkable diversity in the
percentage of top-performing students. For example, France has a mean score of 495 points in
science in PISA 2006 and a proportion of 8% of students at high proficiency levels in science
(both very close to the OECD average), and the partner country Latvia is also close to the OECD
average in science with 490 points but has only 4% of top performers, which is less than half the
OECD average of 9%. Although Latvia has a small percentage of students at the lowest levels, the
result could signal the relative lack of a highly educated talent pool for the future. The variability
of the proportion of students who are top performers across countries suggests a difference in
countries’ potential capacities to staff future knowledge-driven industries with home-grown
talent. Similar variability is shown in reading and mathematics with only slight differences in the
patterns of these results among countries (Table A4.1a).
Top performers in science, reading and mathematics

To what extent does the talent that top performers in science demonstrate extend to other
subject areas? Chart A4.2 examines the proportion of top performers in science who are also top
performers in reading and mathematics.
Chart A4.2 provides a picture of the top performers in the three subject areas across OECD
countries. The parts in the diagram shaded in blue represent the percentage of 15-year-old
students who are top performers in just one of the three assessment subject areas, that is, in either
science, reading or mathematics. The parts in the diagram shaded in grey show the percentage
of students who are top performers in two of the assessment subject areas. The white part in the
middle of the diagram shows the percentage of the 15-year-old students who are top performers
in all three assessment subject areas.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

81

A4

chapter A

A4

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Chart A4.2. Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics
on average in the OECD
Science and
reading 0.8%
Science 9%

Science only
1.3%
Science and
mathematics 2.8%

Science,
reading and
mathematics
4.1%

Reading
only 2.3%

Reading and
mathematics 1.4%
Mathematics only 5.3%

Note: Non top performers in any of the three domains: 82.1%
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A4.2a.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

Across OECD countries, 4% of 15-year-old students are top performers in all three assessment
subject areas: science, reading and mathematics. About 3% of students are top performers in both
science and mathematics but not in reading, while just under 1% of students are top performers
in both science and reading but not in mathematics and more than 1% are top performers in both
reading and mathematics but not in science. The percentage of students who are top performers
in both science and mathematics is greater than the percentages who are top performers in
science and reading or in reading and mathematics.
It is noteworthy that not all countries show the same patterns (Table A4.2a).There was substantial
variation among countries, for example, in the percentages of top performers in science who
are also top performers in both reading and mathematics. Such students comprised 9.5% of
15-year-old students in Finland, 8.9% in New Zealand, 7.8% in Korea, 7.0% in Canada, 7.7% in
the partner economy Hong Kong-China, and 7.2% in the partner country Liechtenstein, while
in four OECD countries and 17 partner countries and economies, less than 1% of students are
top performers in all three domains.
Male and female representation among top performers

Across three subject areas and countries, female students are as likely to be top performers as
male students. On average across OECD countries, the proportion of top performers across
subject areas is very similar between males and females: as shown in Table A4.2b, 4.1% of
82

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

females and 3.9% of males are top performers in all three subject areas and 17.3% of females
and 18.6% of males are top performers in at least one subject area. These averages, however,
hide significant cross country variation and some significant gender gaps across subject areas.
While the gender gap among students who are top performers only in science is small (1.1%
of females and 1.5% of males), the gender gap is significant among top performers in reading
only (3.7% of females and 0.8% of males) as well as in mathematics only (3.7% of females
and 6.8% of males).
While there is no difference in the average performance in science of males and females, males
tend to show a marked advantage among the top performers. In eight of the 17 OECD countries
with at least 3% of both males and females among the top performers in science, there are
significantly higher proportions of males among the top performers in science (Table A4.2b).

Chart A4.3. Different strengths of males and females
Percentage of top performers in science,
who are top performers in reading and mathematics as well
Percentage of top female performers in science,
who are top performers in reading and mathematics as well
Percentage of top male performers in science,
who are top performers in reading and mathematics as well
Percentage of top performers
in science who are top performers
in reading and mathematics as well

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Korea

Belgium

Sweden

New Zealand

Ireland

Canada

Hong Kong-China

Switzerland

Czech Republic

Finland

Australia

Germany

Austria

Netherlands

Japan

United Kingdom

France

Estonia

0

Chinese Taipei

10

Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of top performers in science.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A4.2b.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

83

A4

chapter A

There are no countries where there are significantly higher proportions of females among the top
performers in science. On average across OECD countries, almost half of the top performers in
science (44%) were also top performers in reading and mathematics, but this was the case for 50%
of females and 37% of males (Table A4.2a and Table A4.2b). Chart A4.3 shows the percentages
of male and female top performers who are top performers in reading and mathematics as well,
for countries with comparable data.
Socio-economic background of top performers

The PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) provides a comprehensive measure of
student socio-economic background. This index was derived from information comprising the
highest educational level of parents, the highest occupational status of parents and possessions
in the home. The average OECD student was given an index value of zero and about two-thirds
of the OECD student population were given index values between -1 and 1 (i.e. the index has
a standard deviation of 1). The PISA data from all three administrations to date have shown that
socio-economic background and performance are closely related.
Socio-economic background is related to performance for at least two reasons. First, students
from families with more educated parents, higher income and better material, educational and
cultural resources are better placed to receive superior educational opportunities in the home
environment as well as richer learning opportunities outside of the home relative to students
from less-advantaged backgrounds. Second, such families often have much more choice over
where they can enrol their children and choose schools where the student body is drawn from a
more advantaged socio-economic background.
Chart A4.4. Difference in socio-economic background between top performers
and strong performers
PISA index of economic,
social and cultural status

Strong performers

Top performers

1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-0.5
-1.0

Portugal
Croatia
Slovak Republic
Poland
Hungary
Czech Republic
Spain
Slovenia
Greece
Lithuania
Italy
Denmark
New Zealand
France
Estonia
Chinese Taipei
Germany
Switzerland
Netherlands
OECD average
Korea
Bulgaria
United States
United Kingdom
Liechtenstein
Latvia
Australia
Finland
Luxembourg
Russian Federation
Belgium
Ireland
Hong Kong-China
Sweden
Macao-China
Canada
Iceland
Israel
Japan
Norway
Austria

A4

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference in the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) between
top and strong performers.
Note: Significant differences are highlighted with darker tone.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A4.3.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

84

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

Top performers tend to come from a relatively advantaged socio-economic background
(Table A4.3). In virtually every country for which there are comparable data, students in the
top performing category come from families with comparatively advantaged socio-economic
backgrounds. Across the OECD, the average socio-economic background of top performers is
around two thirds of a standard deviation above the average OECD socio-economic background.
Chart A4.4 shows that even when comparing top performers to strong performers (the
performance group from which the most likely future top performers might emerge), the
differences in socio-economic background in favour of top performers are statistically significant
in all OECD countries (on average across the OECD countries the difference is 0.26 standard
deviations). For each country, on average, top performers tend to come from significantly more
advantaged socio-economic backgrounds than students who are not among the top performers,
but are closest to reaching those levels. In general, differences in the socio-economic background
of different performance groups are marked - the more advantaged the socio-economic
background, the higher the performance. These differences range from more than half of a
standard deviation in Portugal to more than a tenth in Austria.
Chart A4.5. Percentage of top performers with socio-economic background (ESCS)
“below” or “equal to or above” the OECD average of ESCS

Iceland
Luxembourg
Israel
Norway
Germany
Denmark
United States
Sweden
Netherlands
Lithuania
Canada
Belgium
Liechtenstein
United Kingdom
Bulgaria
Australia
Slovenia
Switzerland
Greece
OECD average
New Zealand
Czech Republic
France
Estonia
Hungary
Latvia
Austria
Finland
Italy
Russian Federation
Croatia
Slovak Republic
Ireland
Korea
Portugal
Spain
Japan
Poland
Chinese Taipei
Hong Kong-China
Macao-China

Percentage of top performers

100
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100

Equal to or above the OECD average
Below the OECD average

Countries are ranked in ascending order of the percentage of top performers with socio-economic background below the OECD average.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A4.3.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

Yet, not all top performers come from an advantaged socio-economic background. Chart A4.5
shows that more than a fifth of top performers across the OECD countries come from a socioeconomic background that is less advantaged than at the OECD on average. In Japan, Poland,
Portugal or Spain, the proportion of top performers in science whose socio-economic background
is more disadvantaged than at the OECD average level exceeds 30% and that proportion reaches
64% and 75% in partner economies Hong Kong-China and Macao-China.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

85

A4

chapter A

A4

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

While a disadvantaged background is not an insurmountable barrier to excellence, how much
of an obstacle it becomes varies from country to country. Looking at a country’s average socioeconomic background in each country, in the typical OECD country about a quarter of top
performers in science come from a socio-economic background below their country’s average
(Table A4.3). In some countries the chances for students from a relatively disadvantaged
background to become top performers are even greater. For example, in Austria, Finland,
Japan, and the partner economies Hong Kong-China and Macao-China, one-third or more of
top performers come from a socio-economic background that is more disadvantaged than the
average in their country. On the other hand, in France, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and the
United States, as well as the partner countries Bulgaria, Israel and Lithuania, 80% or more of top
performers come from a socio-economic background that is more advantaged than the average
level in their country.
Immigrant background of top performers

In some countries, significant proportions of students (or their parents) were born outside of
the country. Students who do not speak the language of instruction at home constitute another
important minority. As the report Where Immigrant Students Succeed: A Comparative Review of
Performance and Engagement in PISA 2003 (OECD, 2005a) shows, an immigrant background can
have a significant impact on student performance. While the proportion of students with an
immigrant background does not seem to relate to the average performance of countries, from
an equity perspective it is important to understand the effect of these background characteristics
on the proportion of top performers.
This section analyses the percentages of top performers by their immigrant status and the
language they speak at home in the countries and economies where these groups of students
represent more than 30 students or 3% of the student population. Native students are students
who were born in the country of assessment and have at least one parent who was also born in
the country of assessment. Students with an immigrant background are students whose parents
were born in a foreign country.
As shown in Chart A4.6, there are more top performers in science among native students than
among students with an immigrant background, but in part this just reflects differences in socioeconomic backgrounds. Indeed, in half of the countries being compared, this difference is no
longer significant after accounting for students’ socio-economic background. A comparison of
top performers between students with an immigrant background and native students shows
different results across countries. In some countries, students with an immigrant background
are as likely to be top performers as native students. For example, in Australia, Canada, Greece,
Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and Portugal, as well as in the partner countries and economies
Hong Kong-China, Israel, Jordan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Macao-China, Montenegro, the Russian
Federation and Serbia, there are no significant differences in the proportion of top performers
among native students and students with an immigrant background.
The excellence gap between students from an immigrant background and native students reflects
in part different immigration patterns and policies. Top performing immigrants are generally
found in countries with relatively selective immigrant policies favouring more educated and
resource-endowed families. For example, families moving to Australia, Canada and New Zealand
86

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

are often selected according to characteristics that are considered important for integration, such
as educational qualifications and language skills (OECD, 2005a). Other countries however do not
or cannot impose such restrictions. Another reason for the gap is differences in socio-economic
backgrounds. In fact, in most countries the difference between native students and students
with an immigrant background is not significant once students’ socio-economic backgrounds are
taken into account.

Chart A4.6. Percentage difference of top performers by immigrant status
Percentage difference
of top performers

Higher proportion of top
performers for native students

Higher proportion of top performers
for first and second-generation students

Percentage difference
of top performers

If students’ ESCS were equal to the national average ESCS
Higher proportion of top
performers for native students

Higher proportion of top performers
for first and second-generation students

Germany
Slovenia
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Switzerland
United States
Denmark
Estonia
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
OECD average
Luxembourg
Spain
Italy
Croatia
Hong Kong-China
Norway
Canada
Russian Federation
Portugal
Greece
Liechtenstein
Serbia
Montenegro
Israel
Jordan
Macao-China
Latvia
New Zealand
Australia
Ireland

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6

Without taking the ESCS into account

Germany
Slovenia
Netherlands
Belgium
Austria
Switzerland
United States
Denmark
Estonia
France
Sweden
United Kingdom
OECD average
Luxembourg
Spain
Italy
Croatia
Hong Kong-China
Norway
Canada
Russian Federation
Portugal
Greece
Liechtenstein
Serbia
Montenegro
Israel
Jordan
Macao-China
Latvia
New Zealand
Australia
Ireland

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage difference of top performers among native students and among students
with an immigrant background.
Note: Significant differences are highlighted with darker tone.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A4.4.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

87

A4

chapter A

A4

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

In countries, speaking the national language or an official language recognised by schools is
clearly an advantage in learning and testing. In these cases, the student’s home language is aligned
with the medium of instruction. Thus, it is no surprise that students in homes where a different
language is spoken than the national or an official language face additional learning challenges and
a smaller proportion of these students tend to be top performers. To a large extent, this pattern
follows the distinctions between native students and students with an immigrant background. In
most of the countries with available data there are significantly fewer students who do not speak
the language of assessment at home represented among science top performers. The largest
differences in favour of both native students and students who speak the language of assessment
at home occur in Germany, the Netherlands and the partner country Slovenia (Table A4.4 and
Table A4.5). In Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, and the partner countries Israel and
Tunisia there are similar proportions of students not speaking the language of assessment at
home and students who do speak the language of assessment at home represented among the top
performers.
Some countries succeed better than others in promoting excellence among linguistic and
immigrant minorities. There are lessons to be learnt from these countries that may help improve
excellence and equity in educational outcomes.
Definitions and methodologies

The achievement scores are based on assessments administered as part of the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The most recent and available PISA data were collected
during the 2006 school year.
The target population studied for this indicator was 15-year-old students. Operationally, this referred
to students who were from 15 years and 3 (completed) months to 16 years and 2 (completed)
months at the beginning of the testing period and who were enrolled in an educational institution
at the secondary level, irrespective of the grade levels or type of institutions in which they were
enrolled, and irrespective of whether they participated in school full-time or part-time.
Further references

For further information about PISA 2006, see OECD (2007a) PISA 2006: Science Competencies
for Tomorrow’s World, OECD, Paris, and OECD (2009a) Top of the Class: High Performing Learners in
PISA 2006, OECD, Paris. PISA data are also available on the PISA website: www.pisa.oecd.org.

88

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

A4

Table A4.1a.
Mean score and percentage of top performers in science, reading and mathematics

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Science

Reading
Mathematics
Top
Top
Top
performers
performers
performers
Level 5
Level 6
Level 5
Level 5
Level 6
(from 633.33
(above
(above
(from 606.99 (above
to 707.93 707.93 score
625.61 score
to 669.30 669.30 score
Mean score score points) points) Mean score points) Mean score score points) points)
Mean S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E. Mean S.E.
%
S.E. Mean S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
Australia
527 (2.3) 11.8 (0.5) 2.8 (0.3) 513 (2.1) 10.6 (0.6) 520 (2.2) 12.1 (0.5) 4.3 (0.5)
Austria
511 (3.9) 8.8 (0.7) 1.2 (0.2) 490 (4.1) 9.0 (0.7) 505 (3.7) 12.3 (0.8) 3.5 (0.5)
Belgium
510 (2.5) 9.1 (0.5) 1.0 (0.2) 501 (3.0) 11.3 (0.6) 520 (3.0) 16.0 (0.7) 6.4 (0.4)
Canada
534 (2.0) 12.0 (0.5) 2.4 (0.2) 527 (2.4) 14.5 (0.7) 527 (2.0) 13.6 (0.6) 4.4 (0.4)
Czech Republic
513 (3.5) 9.8 (0.9) 1.8 (0.3) 483 (4.2) 9.2 (0.8) 510 (3.6) 12.3 (0.8) 6.0 (0.7)
Denmark
496 (3.1) 6.1 (0.7) 0.7 (0.2) 494 (3.2) 5.9 (0.6) 513 (2.6) 10.9 (0.6) 2.8 (0.4)
Finland
563 (2.0) 17.0 (0.7) 3.9 (0.3) 547 (2.1) 16.7 (0.8) 548 (2.3) 18.1 (0.8) 6.3 (0.5)
France
495 (3.4) 7.2 (0.6) 0.8 (0.2) 488 (4.1) 7.3 (0.7) 496 (3.2) 9.9 (0.7) 2.6 (0.5)
Germany
516 (3.8) 10.0 (0.6) 1.8 (0.2) 495 (4.4) 9.9 (0.7) 504 (3.9) 11.0 (0.8) 4.5 (0.5)
Greece
473 (3.2) 3.2 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 460 (4.0) 3.5 (0.4) 459 (3.0) 4.2 (0.5) 0.9 (0.2)
Hungary
504 (2.7) 6.2 (0.6) 0.6 (0.2) 482 (3.3) 4.7 (0.6) 491 (2.9) 7.7 (0.7) 2.6 (0.5)
Iceland
491 (1.6) 5.6 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2) 484 (1.9) 6.0 (0.5) 506 (1.8) 10.1 (0.7) 2.5 (0.3)
Ireland
508 (3.2) 8.3 (0.6) 1.1 (0.2) 517 (3.5) 11.7 (0.8) 501 (2.8) 8.6 (0.7) 1.6 (0.2)
Italy
475 (2.0) 4.2 (0.3) 0.4 (0.1) 469 (2.4) 5.2 (0.4) 462 (2.3) 5.0 (0.4) 1.3 (0.3)
Japan
531 (3.4) 12.4 (0.6) 2.6 (0.3) 498 (3.6) 9.4 (0.7) 523 (3.3) 13.5 (0.8) 4.8 (0.5)
Korea
522 (3.4) 9.2 (0.8) 1.1 (0.3) 556 (3.8) 21.7 (1.4) 547 (3.8) 18.0 (0.8) 9.1 (1.3)
Luxembourg
486 (1.1) 5.4 (0.3) 0.5 (0.1) 479 (1.3) 5.6 (0.4) 490 (1.1) 8.2 (0.5) 2.3 (0.3)
Mexico
410 (2.7) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0
a 410 (3.1) 0.6 (0.1) 406 (2.9) 0.8 (0.2) 0.1 (0.0)
Netherlands
525 (2.7) 11.5 (0.8) 1.7 (0.2) 507 (2.9) 9.1 (0.6) 531 (2.6) 15.8 (0.8) 5.4 (0.6)
New Zealand
530 (2.7) 13.6 (0.7) 4.0 (0.4) 521 (3.0) 15.9 (0.8) 522 (2.4) 13.2 (0.7) 5.7 (0.5)
Norway
487 (3.1) 5.5 (0.4) 0.6 (0.1) 484 (3.2) 7.7 (0.6) 490 (2.6) 8.3 (0.7) 2.1 (0.3)
Poland
498 (2.3) 6.1 (0.4) 0.7 (0.1) 508 (2.8) 11.6 (0.8) 495 (2.4) 8.6 (0.7) 2.0 (0.3)
Portugal
474 (3.0) 3.0 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 472 (3.6) 4.6 (0.5) 466 (3.1) 4.9 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2)
Slovak Republic
488 (2.6) 5.2 (0.5) 0.6 (0.1) 466 (3.1) 5.4 (0.5) 492 (2.8) 8.6 (0.7) 2.4 (0.4)
Spain
488 (2.6) 4.5 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1) 461 (2.2) 1.8 (0.2) 480 (2.3) 6.1 (0.4) 1.2 (0.2)
Sweden
503 (2.4) 6.8 (0.5) 1.1 (0.2) 507 (3.4) 10.6 (0.8) 502 (2.4) 9.7 (0.6) 2.9 (0.4)
Switzerland
512 (3.2) 9.1 (0.8) 1.4 (0.3) 499 (3.1) 7.7 (0.7) 530 (3.2) 15.9 (0.7) 6.8 (0.6)
Turkey
424 (3.8) 0.9 (0.3) 0.0
a 447 (4.2) 2.1 (0.6) 424 (4.9) 3.0 (0.8) 1.2 (0.5)
United Kingdom
515 (2.3) 10.9 (0.5) 2.9 (0.3) 495 (2.3) 9.0 (0.6) 495 (2.1) 8.7 (0.5) 2.5 (0.3)
United States
489 (4.2) 7.5 (0.6) 1.5 (0.2)
m
m
m
m 474 (4.0) 6.4 (0.7) 1.3 (0.2)
OECD average
500 (0.5) 7.7 (0.1) 1.3 (0.0) 492 (0.6) 8.6 (0.1) 498 (0.5) 10.0 (0.1) 3.3 (0.1)
Argentina
391 (6.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.0
a 374 (7.2) 0.9 (0.2) 381 (6.2) 0.9 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1)
Azerbaijan
382 (2.8) 0.0
a
a
a 353 (3.1) 0.1 (0.1) 476 (2.3) 0.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1)
Brazil
390 (2.8) 0.5 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 393 (3.7) 1.1 (0.3) 370 (2.9) 0.8 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1)
Bulgaria
434 (6.1) 2.6 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 402 (6.9) 2.1 (0.5) 413 (6.1) 2.5 (0.6) 0.6 (0.3)
Chile
438 (4.3) 1.8 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 442 (5.0) 3.5 (0.6) 411 (4.6) 1.3 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1)
Colombia
388 (3.4) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0
a 385 (5.1) 0.6 (0.2) 370 (3.8) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0)
Croatia
493 (2.4) 4.6 (0.4) 0.5 (0.1) 477 (2.8) 3.7 (0.4) 467 (2.4) 4.0 (0.5) 0.8 (0.2)
Estonia
531 (2.5) 10.1 (0.7) 1.4 (0.3) 501 (2.9) 6.0 (0.6) 515 (2.7) 10.0 (0.6) 2.6 (0.4)
Hong Kong-China
542 (2.5) 13.9 (0.8) 2.1 (0.3) 536 (2.4) 12.8 (0.8) 547 (2.7) 18.7 (0.8) 9.0 (0.8)
Indonesia
393 (5.7) 0.0
a
a
a 393 (5.9) 0.1 (0.0) 391 (5.6) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0
a
Israel
454 (3.7) 4.4 (0.5) 0.8 (0.2) 439 (4.6) 5.0 (0.5) 442 (4.3) 4.8 (0.5) 1.3 (0.2)
Jordan
422 (2.8) 0.6 (0.2) 0.0
a 401 (3.3) 0.2 (0.1) 384 (3.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0
a
Kyrgyzstan
322 (2.9) 0.0
a
a
a 285 (3.5) 0.1 (0.1) 311 (3.4) 0.0 (0.1) 0.0
a
Latvia
490 (3.0) 3.8 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1) 479 (3.7) 4.5 (0.5) 486 (3.0) 5.5 (0.5) 1.1 (0.3)
Liechtenstein
522 (4.1) 10.0 (1.8) 2.2 (0.8) 510 (3.9) 9.8 (1.8) 525 (4.2) 12.6 (2.1) 5.8 (1.2)
Lithuania
488 (2.8) 4.5 (0.6) 0.4 (0.2) 470 (3.0) 4.4 (0.5) 486 (2.9) 7.3 (0.8) 1.8 (0.4)
Macao-China
511 (1.1) 5.0 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 492 (1.1) 3.0 (0.3) 525 (1.3) 13.6 (0.6) 3.8 (0.4)
Montenegro
412 (1.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0
a 392 (1.2) 0.4 (0.2) 399 (1.4) 0.8 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1)
Qatar
349 (0.9) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 312 (1.2) 0.6 (0.1) 318 (1.0) 0.5 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0)
Romania
418 (4.2) 0.5 (0.1) 0.0
a 396 (4.7) 0.3 (0.1) 415 (4.2) 1.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1)
Russian Federation 479 (3.7) 3.7 (0.5) 0.5 (0.1) 440 (4.3) 1.7 (0.3) 476 (3.9) 5.7 (0.6) 1.7 (0.3)
Serbia
436 (3.0) 0.8 (0.2) 0.0
a 401 (3.5) 0.3 (0.1) 435 (3.5) 2.4 (0.4) 0.4 (0.1)
Slovenia
519 (1.1) 10.7 (0.6) 2.2 (0.3) 494 (1.0) 5.3 (0.5) 504 (1.0) 10.3 (0.8) 3.4 (0.4)
Chinese Taipei
532 (3.6) 12.9 (0.8) 1.7 (0.2) 496 (3.4) 4.7 (0.6) 549 (4.1) 20.1 (0.9) 11.8 (0.8)
Thailand
421 (2.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.0
a 417 (2.6) 0.3 (0.1) 417 (2.3) 1.1 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1)
Tunisia
386 (3.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0
a 380 (4.0) 0.2 (0.1) 365 (4.0) 0.5 (0.2) 0.0
a
Uruguay
428 (2.7) 1.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 413 (3.4) 3.1 (0.4) 427 (2.6) 2.6 (0.4) 0.6 (0.2)
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

89

chapter A

A4

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A4.1b.
Percentage of top performers in science, reading and mathematics, by gender

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Science

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Reading
Mathematics
Difference
Difference
Difference
in the
in the
in the
percentages
percentages
percentages
of top
of top
of top
performers
performers
performers
between
between
between
females and
females and
females and
Females
Males
males
Females
Males
males
Females
Males
males
% S.E. % S.E. Dif. S.E. % S.E. % S.E. Dif. S.E. % S.E. % S.E. Dif. S.E.
13.6 (0.8) 15.6 (1.0) -2.1 (1.3) 13.4 (0.8) 7.9 (0.8) 5.5 (1.2) 13.2 (0.8) 19.5 (1.3) -6.3 (1.4)
8.6 (0.9) 11.3 (1.0) -2.6 (1.2) 12.4 (1.2) 5.7 (0.6) 6.7 (1.2) 12.0 (0.9) 19.4 (1.4) -7.4 (1.4)
8.9 (0.7) 11.2 (0.7) -2.3 (0.9) 14.1 (1.0) 8.7 (0.6) 5.4 (1.2) 19.5 (1.1) 24.9 (1.1) -5.4 (1.5)
13.2 (0.7) 15.7 (0.7) -2.5 (0.9) 17.7 (1.0) 11.3 (0.8) 6.5 (1.1) 14.8 (0.9) 21.0 (1.0) -6.2 (1.1)
11.2 (1.3) 11.9 (1.1) -0.7 (1.4) 12.9 (1.3) 6.3 (0.7) 6.6 (1.3) 17.1 (1.8) 19.2 (1.3) -2.0 (2.0)
5.8 (0.6) 7.8 (1.0) -2.0 (1.0) 7.6 (0.8) 4.1 (0.7) 3.5 (0.9) 12.3 (1.0) 15.1 (1.0) -2.8 (1.2)
20.2 (1.0) 21.6 (1.1) -1.4 (1.4) 23.7 (1.3) 9.6 (0.8) 14.1 (1.4) 21.1 (1.1) 27.8 (1.4) -6.7 (1.4)
6.5 (0.9) 9.6 (0.9) -3.2 (1.2) 8.9 (0.9) 5.5 (0.8) 3.3 (0.9) 10.7 (1.0) 14.5 (1.2) -3.8 (1.5)
9.8 (0.8) 13.7 (1.1) -3.8 (1.3) 12.9 (1.0) 7.0 (0.8) 6.0 (1.1) 12.0 (0.9) 18.7 (1.4) -6.6 (1.4)
2.8 (0.5) 4.0 (0.5) -1.2 (0.7) 4.7 (0.7) 2.3 (0.4) 2.4 (0.7) 3.6 (0.6) 6.4 (0.7) -2.8 (0.8)
5.2 (0.8) 8.4 (1.0) -3.3 (1.2) 6.5 (0.8) 3.1 (0.5) 3.4 (0.8) 7.9 (1.0) 12.6 (1.2) -4.6 (1.3)
6.0 (0.7) 6.6 (0.7) -0.6 (1.0) 8.3 (0.8) 3.6 (0.6) 4.7 (0.9) 11.9 (1.0) 13.4 (0.9) -1.5 (1.3)
8.5 (0.8) 10.3 (1.0) -1.8 (1.1) 14.6 (1.1) 8.7 (1.0) 5.9 (1.4) 8.3 (1.0) 12.3 (1.1) -4.0 (1.4)
3.8 (0.4) 5.4 (0.5) -1.6 (0.6) 6.7 (0.6) 3.7 (0.4) 3.0 (0.7) 4.1 (0.5) 8.4 (0.7) -4.3 (0.7)
13.1 (1.0) 17.0 (1.1) -3.8 (1.6) 10.7 (1.2) 8.1 (1.0) 2.5 (1.7) 13.9 (1.3) 22.7 (1.5) -8.8 (2.0)
9.5 (1.1) 11.1 (1.4) -1.6 (1.3) 27.3 (2.0) 16.3 (1.3) 11.0 (2.3) 24.2 (2.0) 29.9 (2.1) -5.7 (2.6)
4.4 (0.5) 7.3 (0.6) -2.9 (0.9) 7.1 (0.7) 4.2 (0.5) 2.9 (0.8) 7.9 (0.7) 13.2 (0.8) -5.3 (1.0)
0.2 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) -0.1 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3) -0.6 (0.3)
11.2 (0.8) 15.0 (1.1) -3.7 (1.1) 11.1 (0.8) 7.2 (0.8) 3.9 (0.9) 18.6 (1.2) 23.6 (1.3) -5.0 (1.3)
16.9 (1.1) 18.4 (1.1) -1.5 (1.6) 19.1 (1.2) 12.4 (0.9) 6.7 (1.5) 16.1 (1.3) 21.9 (1.3) -5.8 (1.8)
5.5 (0.7) 6.7 (0.7) -1.2 (1.0) 10.4 (1.0) 5.2 (0.7) 5.2 (1.2) 8.6 (0.9) 12.1 (1.0) -3.4 (1.2)
5.4 (0.6) 8.1 (0.7) -2.7 (0.8) 14.5 (1.1) 8.7 (0.8) 5.8 (1.1) 8.6 (0.7) 12.6 (1.1) -4.0 (1.1)
2.3 (0.3) 4.0 (0.6) -1.8 (0.6) 5.7 (0.7) 3.5 (0.6) 2.1 (0.8) 3.7 (0.5) 7.9 (0.8) -4.2 (0.9)
4.8 (0.5) 6.7 (0.8) -2.0 (0.9) 7.3 (0.8) 3.6 (0.5) 3.7 (0.8) 8.9 (1.2) 13.0 (1.2) -4.1 (1.4)
4.1 (0.5) 5.6 (0.5) -1.5 (0.6) 2.4 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3) 1.3 (0.5) 5.4 (0.6) 9.0 (0.7) -3.7 (0.7)
7.2 (0.8) 8.6 (0.7) -1.4 (1.1) 14.5 (1.1) 7.0 (0.8) 7.5 (1.0) 11.6 (0.9) 13.5 (1.0) -1.9 (1.3)
9.8 (1.0) 11.1 (0.9) -1.3 (0.9) 10.4 (1.0) 5.1 (0.6) 5.3 (0.9) 20.3 (1.5) 24.8 (1.2) -4.5 (1.3)
0.9 (0.4) 0.9 (0.4) 0.0 (0.4) 2.9 (0.8) 1.4 (0.5) 1.5 (0.6) 3.2 (1.0) 5.0 (1.4) -1.7 (0.7)
11.5 (0.8) 16.0 (0.9) -4.5 (1.1) 10.6 (0.8) 7.5 (0.6) 3.1 (0.8) 8.4 (0.7) 13.9 (0.8) -5.6 (1.0)
8.2 (0.9) 10.0 (1.0) -1.7 (1.1)
m
m
m
m
m
m 6.6 (0.9) 8.6 (1.0) -1.9 (0.9)
8.0 (0.1) 10.0 (0.2) -2.0 (0.2) 11.0 (0.2) 6.2 (0.1) 4.8 (0.2) 11.2 (0.2) 15.5 (0.2) -4.4 (0.2)
0.5 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (0.3) 1.3 (0.4) 0.6 (0.3) 0.7 (0.5) 1.1 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 0.1 (0.6)
a
a 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) -0.2 (0.1) 0.9 (0.3) 0.9 (0.4) 0.0 (0.5)
0.4 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3) -0.4 (0.3) 1.3 (0.4) 0.9 (0.3) 0.4 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 1.4 (0.5) -0.7 (0.4)
2.8 (0.6) 3.3 (0.8) -0.6 (0.6) 2.9 (0.7) 1.3 (0.4) 1.6 (0.6) 2.4 (0.7) 3.7 (1.0) -1.3 (0.6)
1.3 (0.5) 2.4 (0.6) -1.1 (0.8) 3.7 (0.7) 3.4 (0.8) 0.3 (0.9) 0.5 (0.2) 2.3 (0.7) -1.7 (0.8)
0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) -0.1 (0.2) 0.8 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 0.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) -0.3 (0.2)
4.8 (0.6) 5.4 (0.5) -0.7 (0.7) 5.6 (0.8) 1.9 (0.4) 3.7 (0.9) 3.0 (0.5) 6.4 (0.7) -3.4 (0.7)
11.2 (1.0) 11.8 (1.0) -0.6 (1.2) 9.2 (1.1) 3.0 (0.4) 6.2 (1.1) 11.1 (1.0) 13.9 (1.1) -2.9 (1.2)
14.3 (1.2) 17.6 (1.3) -3.2 (1.7) 16.8 (1.4) 8.8 (1.1) 8.0 (1.9) 24.6 (1.8) 30.9 (1.6) -6.4 (2.5)
0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.3) -0.4 (0.3)
3.9 (0.5) 6.6 (0.9) -2.8 (0.9) 5.4 (0.7) 4.6 (0.7) 0.8 (0.9) 4.2 (0.6) 7.9 (0.8) -3.7 (0.9)
0.7 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 0.1 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) -0.2 (0.3)
0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1)
3.9 (0.5) 4.3 (0.6) -0.5 (0.7) 6.5 (0.8) 2.5 (0.5) 4.1 (0.9) 5.6 (0.7) 7.6 (0.9) -2.1 (1.1)
12.3 (2.5) 12.2 (2.6) 0.1 (3.8) 14.4 (3.3) 4.6 (2.1) 9.8 (4.3) 19.2 (2.9) 17.7 (3.1) 1.5 (4.5)
5.4 (0.8) 4.6 (0.7) 0.8 (0.7) 6.5 (0.8) 2.3 (0.4) 4.2 (0.8) 8.3 (1.0) 9.8 (1.0) -1.5 (1.0)
4.0 (0.5) 6.6 (0.6) -2.5 (0.8) 3.7 (0.5) 2.4 (0.4) 1.3 (0.8) 14.2 (0.9) 20.6 (1.1) -6.4 (1.5)
0.2 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) -0.1 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) -0.2 (0.5)
0.2 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) -0.2 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) -0.6 (0.2)
0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.3) -0.5 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3) 1.8 (0.5) -1.1 (0.5)
3.4 (0.5) 5.1 (0.7) -1.7 (0.7) 2.3 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3) 1.2 (0.5) 6.3 (0.9) 8.6 (0.9) -2.3 (0.8)
0.6 (0.2) 1.0 (0.3) -0.5 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.3) 2.0 (0.5) 3.7 (0.6) -1.7 (0.7)
13.1 (1.0) 12.7 (1.0) 0.5 (1.6) 7.8 (0.9) 2.7 (0.5) 5.0 (1.1) 12.5 (0.8) 14.8 (1.0) -2.3 (1.3)
13.4 (1.3) 15.8 (1.3) -2.4 (2.0) 6.1 (1.0) 3.5 (0.6) 2.6 (1.2) 28.8 (2.1) 34.7 (1.7) -5.9 (2.6)
0.4 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2) -0.1 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 1.1 (0.3) 1.6 (0.4) -0.5 (0.5)
0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2) 0.7 (0.4) -0.4 (0.4)
1.0 (0.3) 1.9 (0.4) -0.9 (0.5) 3.7 (0.5) 2.4 (0.5) 1.3 (0.6) 2.1 (0.5) 4.3 (0.6) -2.1 (0.6)

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

90

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

A4

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

top performers in all
three domains

top performers
in reading and
mathematics but not in
science

top performers
in science and
mathematics but not in
reading

top performers in
science and reading but
not in mathematics

top performers only in
mathematics

top performers only in
reading

top performers only in
science

not top performers
in any of the three
domains

15-year-old students who are:

Percentage of top performers
in science, who are top
performers in reading and
mathematics as well

Table A4.2a.
Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics

% S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E.
78.0 (0.8) 2.8 (0.2) 1.6 (0.2) 4.5 (0.4) 1.2 (0.2) 4.0 (0.3) 1.2 (0.1) 6.6 (0.4) 45.4 (1.8)
79.7 (1.2) 1.1 (0.3) 2.3 (0.3) 6.7 (0.6) 1.1 (0.3) 3.4 (0.4) 1.2 (0.3) 4.4 (0.4) 44.1 (3.2)
74.4 (0.8) 0.6 (0.2) 2.2 (0.2) 10.6 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) 3.2 (0.3) 2.8 (0.3) 5.8 (0.4) 57.5 (2.4)
74.3 (0.8) 2.5 (0.3) 3.6 (0.4) 5.6 (0.4) 1.7 (0.2) 3.2 (0.3) 2.1 (0.3) 7.0 (0.4) 48.8 (2.1)
78.2 (1.2) 1.2 (0.2) 1.6 (0.2) 7.1 (0.6) 0.6 (0.2) 4.2 (0.5) 1.4 (0.3) 5.5 (0.6) 47.4 (3.2)
84.0 (0.8) 0.6 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3) 6.7 (0.5) 0.4 (0.1) 2.8 (0.5) 1.3 (0.3) 3.0 (0.5) 43.7 (5.2)
67.2 (1.0) 2.9 (0.3) 3.3 (0.4) 6.9 (0.6) 2.1 (0.3) 6.3 (0.5) 1.7 (0.3) 9.5 (0.5) 45.6 (2.0)
82.7 (1.0) 1.3 (0.2) 2.7 (0.5) 5.6 (0.5) 0.8 (0.2) 3.1 (0.4) 0.9 (0.2) 2.8 (0.4) 35.3 (3.8)
79.6 (1.1) 1.8 (0.2) 2.3 (0.4) 4.9 (0.6) 0.9 (0.2) 3.9 (0.4) 1.4 (0.3) 5.2 (0.5) 44.2 (3.1)
91.8 (0.6) 1.0 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) 2.8 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 1.0 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 25.9 (5.2)
86.9 (1.0) 1.1 (0.2) 1.1 (0.3) 4.3 (0.5) 0.4 (0.2) 2.9 (0.4) 0.7 (0.2) 2.4 (0.4) 35.2 (3.8)
84.6 (0.7) 0.9 (0.2) 1.5 (0.3) 6.3 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 2.3 (0.4) 1.3 (0.3) 2.8 (0.3) 44.4 (4.9)
82.7 (0.9) 1.5 (0.3) 3.9 (0.5) 2.7 (0.4) 1.7 (0.3) 1.5 (0.3) 1.3 (0.2) 4.8 (0.5) 50.5 (3.8)
89.3 (0.6) 1.2 (0.1) 2.7 (0.3) 2.8 (0.3) 0.6 (0.1) 1.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1) 1.3 (0.2) 27.4 (2.7)
76.0 (1.1) 3.0 (0.3) 1.5 (0.3) 6.3 (0.6) 1.2 (0.2) 5.3 (0.5) 1.1 (0.2) 5.5 (0.5) 36.8 (2.2)
66.4 (1.5) 0.2 (0.1) 5.7 (0.6) 10.0 (0.8) 0.6 (0.2) 1.7 (0.4) 7.6 (0.7) 7.8 (0.8) 75.8 (3.2)
86.6 (0.6) 0.7 (0.1) 1.5 (0.2) 5.0 (0.4) 0.6 (0.1) 2.1 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2) 2.5 (0.3) 42.4 (4.0)
98.6 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
c
c
75.8 (1.0) 1.3 (0.3) 1.2 (0.3) 8.3 (0.8) 0.5 (0.2) 5.5 (0.5) 1.6 (0.3) 5.8 (0.5) 44.0 (3.1)
73.2 (1.0) 2.2 (0.3) 3.5 (0.4) 4.5 (0.4) 2.2 (0.3) 4.2 (0.5) 1.2 (0.3) 8.9 (0.6) 50.8 (2.7)
85.1 (0.9) 0.8 (0.2) 2.9 (0.5) 4.5 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2) 1.8 (0.3) 1.3 (0.3) 2.7 (0.3) 45.1 (3.6)
82.6 (0.9) 0.8 (0.2) 5.1 (0.4) 3.6 (0.4) 0.9 (0.2) 1.4 (0.3) 1.9 (0.3) 3.7 (0.4) 54.1 (4.3)
91.5 (0.6) 0.4 (0.1) 2.1 (0.3) 2.6 (0.3) 0.4 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2) 46.4 (4.8)
86.2 (0.9) 0.8 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) 5.4 (0.7) 0.5 (0.1) 2.2 (0.3) 1.0 (0.2) 2.3 (0.3) 40.6 (3.5)
90.5 (0.6) 1.5 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1) 3.8 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 2.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.8 (0.2) 15.6 (2.8)
81.9 (1.0) 0.9 (0.3) 3.8 (0.5) 4.5 (0.6) 0.8 (0.2) 2.1 (0.4) 1.9 (0.4) 4.1 (0.3) 51.8 (3.4)
75.5 (1.2) 0.7 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 11.7 (0.6) 0.3 (0.1) 4.4 (0.4) 1.5 (0.2) 5.0 (0.5) 48.0 (2.8)
94.6 (1.3) 0.1 (0.1) 1.1 (0.3) 2.8 (0.8) 0.1 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2)
c
c
81.8 (0.7) 3.5 (0.3) 1.7 (0.2) 2.2 (0.3) 1.9 (0.3) 3.4 (0.4) 0.5 (0.1) 4.9 (0.3) 35.9 (1.9)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
82.1 (0.2) 1.3 (0.0) 2.3 (0.1) 5.3 (0.1) 0.8 (0.0) 2.8 (0.1) 1.4 (0.1) 4.1 (0.1) 44.1 (0.7)
98.1 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3) 0.1 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
c
c
99.0 (0.3)
a
a 0.1 (0.1) 0.9 (0.3)
a
a 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
a
a
c
c
98.1 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.7 (0.2) 0.4 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1)
c
c
94.4 (1.0) 1.1 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 1.4 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 1.0 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 18.3 (5.7)
94.9 (0.8) 0.8 (0.2) 2.4 (0.5) 0.5 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1)
c
c
99.0 (0.4) 0.1 (0.0) 0.5 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
c
c
91.7 (0.7) 1.4 (0.2) 1.4 (0.3) 1.6 (0.3) 0.8 (0.2) 1.6 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 1.3 (0.2) 26.4 (3.8)
83.3 (1.0) 2.5 (0.4) 1.0 (0.3) 3.8 (0.4) 0.7 (0.2) 4.4 (0.4) 0.4 (0.2) 3.9 (0.5) 34.0 (3.2)
68.5 (1.1) 1.1 (0.3) 2.2 (0.3) 10.9 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) 6.6 (0.5) 2.5 (0.4) 7.7 (0.6) 48.3 (2.3)
99.6 (0.2)
a
a 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
a
a
c (0.0)
89.6 (0.9) 1.6 (0.4) 1.8 (0.3) 2.7 (0.4) 0.9 (0.2) 1.1 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 1.7 (0.2) 31.7 (3.9)
99.1 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
c
c
99.9 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)
a
a 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
a
a
c
c
90.3 (0.8) 0.8 (0.2) 1.9 (0.3) 3.0 (0.3) 0.4 (0.2) 1.4 (0.3) 0.8 (0.2) 1.5 (0.2) 35.8 (5.6)
79.2 (2.1) 1.0 (0.6) 1.1 (0.8) 6.5 (1.6) 0.5 (0.5) 3.7 (1.3) 1.1 (0.7) 7.2 (1.4) 59.4 (11.2)
88.5 (0.9) 0.7 (0.2) 1.4 (0.3) 4.5 (0.5) 0.3 (0.1) 2.0 (0.4) 0.6 (0.2) 2.0 (0.3) 40.8 (4.9)
81.2 (0.7) 0.5 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 11.9 (0.8) 0.1 (0.0) 3.4 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2) 1.3 (0.2) 24.2 (3.6)
98.8 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
c
c
99.0 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
c
c
98.3 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.9 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.3 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
c
c
90.6 (0.9) 1.2 (0.3) 0.6 (0.1) 4.4 (0.6) 0.2 (0.1) 2.2 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 15.3 (3.4)
96.8 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 2.2 (0.4) 0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.2) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0)
c
c
81.9 (0.6) 2.8 (0.3) 0.6 (0.2) 4.3 (0.5) 1.0 (0.2) 5.8 (0.5) 0.3 (0.1) 3.3 (0.4) 25.7 (2.8)
67.0 (1.4) 0.8 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1) 17.7 (0.9) 0.1 (0.1) 9.8 (0.6) 0.5 (0.1) 3.9 (0.5) 26.9 (2.4)
98.4 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 1.0 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)
c
c
99.3 (0.3) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
c
c
94.2 (0.5) 0.4 (0.1) 2.0 (0.4) 2.0 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1)
c
c

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

91

chapter A

A4

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A4.2b.
Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics, by gender

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Percentage
of female top
performers
in science,
who are top
performers in
reading and
mathematics
as well
% S.E.
%
S.E.
6.9 (0.5) 50.8 (2.9)
4.6 (0.4) 53.6 (4.8)
6.0 (0.6) 67.4 (3.5)
6.9 (0.5) 52.7 (2.9)
6.5 (0.9) 58.3 (3.7)
3.3 (0.5) 57.3 (6.2)
11.4 (0.8) 56.2 (2.8)
2.7 (0.6) 42.2 (6.5)
5.5 (0.6) 55.8 (4.6)
0.8 (0.2) 28.8 (7.8)
2.6 (0.5) 50.4 (7.1)
1.2 (0.3) 53.4 (9.0)
3.2 (0.5) 52.5 (6.2)
0.1 (0.1) 30.0 (4.8)
5.3 (0.7) 40.0 (3.4)
8.1 (1.1) 84.7 (4.4)
2.3 (0.4) 52.2 (5.9)
0.0 (0.0) 17.3 (16.2)
6.0 (0.6) 53.1 (4.2)
8.8 (0.7) 52.0 (3.2)
2.8 (0.6) 50.6 (6.8)
3.3 (0.4) 60.1 (5.5)
1.2 (0.2) 51.8 (8.4)
2.5 (0.4) 52.8 (5.6)
0.8 (0.2) 20.5 (4.8)
4.6 (0.5) 64.5 (5.3)
6.0 (0.7) 61.5 (4.4)
0.4 (0.2) 42.8 (14.3)
4.6 (0.5) 40.3 (3.5)
m
m
m
m
4.1 (0.1) 50.1 (1.2)
0.1 (0.1) 17.1 (21.0)
a
a
a
a
0.2 (0.1) 41.3 (18.0)
0.5 (0.2) 19.4 (5.2)
0.2 (0.1) 13.7 (7.8)
0.0 (0.0) 29.9 (46.6)
1.4 (0.3) 30.2 (6.8)
5.2 (0.8) 46.5 (4.9)
8.9 (0.9) 61.9 (3.7)
4.5 (0.7)
0.0 (0.0)
1.1 (0.2) 30.7 (6.7)
a
a
4.6 (9.5)
a
a
0.0 (0.0)
1.7 (0.4) 43.5 (7.1)
9.7 (2.4) 78.8 (11.7)
2.7 (0.5) 49.9 (5.1)
1.1 (0.3) 28.2 (6.6)
0.1 (0.1) 40.4 (35.8)
0.1 (0.1) 35.0 (20.8)
0.0 (0.0)
3.4 (10.2)
0.7 (0.2) 21.5 (5.5)
0.1 (0.1)
9.2 (11.2)
4.3 (0.6) 32.5 (3.9)
4.8 (0.8) 36.1 (4.0)
0.1 (0.1) 19.8 (14.6)
a
a
0.0 (0.0)
0.3 (0.1) 28.2 (15.0)
top performers
in all three
domains

top performers
in reading and
mathematics but
not in science

top performers
in science and
mathematics but
not in reading

% S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E.
79.1 (0.9) 2.7 (0.4) 3.0 (0.4) 2.7 (0.4) 2.0 (0.3) 2.0 (0.3) 1.6 (0.2)
81.0 (1.4) 0.9 (0.4) 4.3 (0.7) 4.2 (0.6) 1.7 (0.4) 1.4 (0.3) 1.8 (0.4)
75.6 (1.2) 0.5 (0.2) 3.7 (0.5) 8.1 (0.7) 0.7 (0.2) 1.7 (0.3) 3.7 (0.4)
74.9 (1.0) 2.0 (0.4) 5.8 (0.8) 3.6 (0.4) 2.5 (0.4) 1.7 (0.2) 2.6 (0.3)
77.6 (1.8) 1.1 (0.3) 3.1 (0.5) 5.9 (0.9) 1.0 (0.3) 2.5 (0.5) 2.2 (0.5)
84.8 (1.0) 0.4 (0.2) 2.0 (0.4) 5.5 (0.8) 0.5 (0.2) 1.6 (0.4) 1.8 (0.5)
66.7 (1.3) 2.5 (0.4) 6.1 (0.8) 4.4 (0.7) 3.6 (0.5) 2.8 (0.4) 2.6 (0.4)
83.4 (1.2) 0.9 (0.2) 4.2 (0.8) 4.7 (0.6) 0.8 (0.4) 2.1 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3)
81.2 (1.1) 1.3 (0.4) 4.2 (0.6) 2.8 (0.5) 1.3 (0.3) 1.7 (0.3) 1.9 (0.6)
92.2 (0.8) 0.8 (0.3) 2.6 (0.4) 1.8 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)
88.6 (1.2) 0.7 (0.3) 2.1 (0.4) 2.9 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4) 1.1 (0.3)
84.2 (1.1) 1.2 (0.4) 2.5 (0.5) 5.3 (0.6) 0.6 (0.3) 1.4 (0.5) 2.0 (0.6)
82.2 (1.2) 0.8 (0.4) 6.2 (0.8) 1.4 (0.5) 2.3 (0.5) 0.7 (0.3) 1.7 (0.4)
90.0 (0.7) 0.5 (0.2) 4.0 (0.4) 1.6 (0.3) 0.9 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 0.6 (0.1)
79.0 (1.6) 2.9 (0.4) 2.5 (0.5) 4.2 (0.7) 1.8 (0.3) 3.2 (0.5) 1.2 (0.3)
65.8 (2.1) 0.1 (0.1) 9.1 (1.1) 6.2 (0.8) 0.8 (0.3) 0.5 (0.2) 9.4 (1.1)
88.1 (0.7) 0.6 (0.2) 2.7 (0.4) 3.4 (0.6) 0.7 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2) 1.4 (0.3)
98.7 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0)
77.3 (1.1) 1.2 (0.4) 2.2 (0.5) 7.1 (0.9) 0.7 (0.2) 3.3 (0.6) 2.2 (0.4)
72.9 (1.5) 2.2 (0.5) 5.5 (0.6) 3.2 (0.6) 3.3 (0.5) 2.6 (0.6) 1.6 (0.4)
84.9 (1.0) 0.6 (0.2) 4.8 (0.9) 3.0 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 1.1 (0.4) 1.8 (0.6)
82.1 (1.2) 0.4 (0.2) 7.7 (0.7) 2.4 (0.4) 1.2 (0.4) 0.6 (0.2) 2.3 (0.4)
92.3 (0.8) 0.3 (0.1) 3.2 (0.5) 1.4 (0.4) 0.5 (0.2) 0.3 (0.2) 0.8 (0.3)
87.3 (1.1) 0.5 (0.2) 2.7 (0.6) 3.9 (0.8) 0.7 (0.2) 1.1 (0.2) 1.4 (0.4)
92.0 (0.7) 1.4 (0.3) 0.9 (0.2) 2.6 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 1.6 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1)
80.6 (1.3) 0.6 (0.3) 6.1 (0.8) 3.4 (0.8) 1.1 (0.3) 0.9 (0.3) 2.7 (0.6)
77.0 (1.5) 0.6 (0.2) 1.6 (0.3) 9.3 (0.7) 0.5 (0.2) 2.7 (0.4) 2.4 (0.4)
94.9 (1.3) 0.1 (0.1) 1.7 (0.6) 1.7 (0.6) 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.8 (0.4)
83.8 (0.9) 2.6 (0.4) 2.6 (0.3) 1.4 (0.3) 2.7 (0.4) 1.6 (0.3) 0.7 (0.2)
m
m m m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
82.7 (0.2) 1.1 (0.1) 3.7 (0.1) 3.7 (0.1) 1.2 (0.1) 1.5 (0.1) 1.9 (0.1)
97.7 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.3) 0.7 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.2)
99.1 (0.3)
a
a 0.0 (0.0) 0.8 (0.3)
a
a
a
a 0.1 (0.0)
98.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 1.0 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1)
94.5 (1.1) 1.0 (0.4) 1.6 (0.5) 1.0 (0.4) 0.5 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1)
95.5 (0.9) 0.6 (0.3) 2.9 (0.6) 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1)
99.0 (0.5) 0.1 (0.1) 0.7 (0.4) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)
91.8 (0.9) 1.3 (0.3) 2.5 (0.5) 0.7 (0.3) 1.4 (0.4) 0.6 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2)
83.4 (1.3) 2.3 (0.4) 2.0 (0.5) 2.6 (0.4) 1.2 (0.3) 2.4 (0.5) 0.8 (0.4)
70.1 (1.9) 1.0 (0.4) 3.6 (0.5) 8.4 (1.1) 0.7 (0.3) 3.7 (0.5) 3.6 (0.8)
99.7 (0.2) 1.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)
a
a 0.0 (0.0)
91.0 (1.1) 1.0 (0.2) 2.5 (0.6) 1.9 (0.4) 1.0 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.7 (0.3)
99.0 (0.2)
a
a 0.2 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)
99.9 (0.1)
a
a 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)
a
a 0.0 (0.0) 0.0 (0.0)
90.0 (1.0) 0.8 (0.3) 3.0 (0.5) 2.0 (0.5) 0.6 (0.2) 0.7 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3)
77.5 (3.2) 0.8 (0.7) 2.0 (1.5) 6.3 (2.0) 0.8 (0.8) 1.2 (0.9) 2.0 (1.4)
88.0 (1.1) 0.8 (0.3) 2.4 (0.6) 3.2 (0.7) 0.4 (0.2) 1.5 (0.4) 1.0 (0.4)
83.8 (0.9) 0.6 (0.3) 1.3 (0.3) 9.8 (1.1) 0.1 (0.1) 2.2 (0.4) 1.1 (0.2)
98.7 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
99.1 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)
98.8 (0.4) 0.1 (0.1) 0.4 (0.2) 0.6 (0.3) 0.1 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
91.5 (0.9) 0.9 (0.2) 1.0 (0.2) 3.8 (0.6) 0.2 (0.1) 1.5 (0.4) 0.3 (0.1)
97.5 (0.5) 0.2 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 1.6 (0.5) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
81.7 (1.0) 2.8 (0.4) 1.1 (0.4) 3.5 (0.7) 1.9 (0.4) 4.2 (0.6) 0.5 (0.2)
70.0 (2.1) 0.8 (0.2) 0.3 (0.1) 15.6 (1.2) 0.2 (0.1) 7.6 (0.8) 0.8 (0.3)
98.5 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1) 0.9 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
99.5 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2) 0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1) 0.0 (0.0)
94.6 (0.6) 0.3 (0.3) 2.7 (0.5) 1.2 (0.4) 0.3 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2)

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

92

top performers
in science and
reading but not
in mathematics

top performers
only in
mathematics

top performers
only in reading

top performers
only in science

not top
performers in
any of the three
domains

Females who are:

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

A4

Table A4.2b. (continued)
Overlapping of top performers in science, reading and mathematics, by gender
Males who are:

OECD countries
Partner countries and economies

0.5 (0.0)

top performers
in all three
domains)

6.8 (0.1)

0.3 (0.3) 0.7 (0.3)
0.2 (0.1) 0.9 (0.4)
0.4 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2)
0.4 (0.2) 1.8 (0.5)
2.0 (0.6) 0.8 (0.3)
0.3 (0.2) 0.4 (0.3)
0.3 (0.1) 2.5 (0.5)
0.1 (0.1) 4.9 (0.6)
0.7 (0.2) 13.5 (1.3)
0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.3)
1.1 (0.3) 3.5 (0.7)
0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.2)
0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)
0.7 (0.4) 4.0 (0.6)
1.1 (1.0) 6.7 (2.6)
0.5 (0.2) 5.7 (0.7)
0.3 (0.2) 14.0 (1.2)
a
a 0.7 (0.3)
0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1) 1.3 (0.3)
0.2 (0.1) 5.0 (0.7)
0.0 (0.0) 2.8 (0.6)
0.1 (0.1) 5.0 (0.8)
0.0 (0.0) 19.6 (1.0)
0.1 (0.1) 1.3 (0.4)
0.1 (0.1) 0.6 (0.4)
1.2 (0.4) 2.8 (0.4)

top performers
in reading and
mathematics but
not in science

0.8 (0.1)

0.2 (0.1)
a
a
0.2 (0.1)
1.3 (0.4)
0.9 (0.3)
0.1 (0.1)
1.5 (0.3)
2.7 (0.5)
1.2 (0.3)
a
a
2.0 (0.5)
0.4 (0.2)
0.0 (0.1)
0.8 (0.2)
a
a
0.5 (0.2)
0.5 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.2 (0.1)
1.6 (0.5)
0.3 (0.2)
2.7 (0.6)
0.9 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.5 (0.2)

top performers
in science and
mathematics but
not in reading

1.5 (0.1)

98.4 (0.5)
98.9 (0.5)
98.0 (0.6)
94.4 (1.1)
94.4 (1.1)
99.0 (0.3)
91.6 (0.8)
83.2 (1.1)
66.9 (1.7)
99.4 (0.3)
88.2 (1.2)
99.1 (0.3)
99.9 (0.1)
90.6 (1.1)
81.1 (3.1)
89.0 (1.1)
78.6 (1.1)
98.9 (0.3)
98.8 (0.2)
97.9 (0.5)
89.5 (1.1)
96.0 (0.6)
82.1 (0.9)
64.3 (1.8)
98.2 (0.4)
99.1 (0.4)
93.7 (0.7)

top performers
in science and
reading but not
in mathematics

81.4 (0.2)

Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

top performers
only in
mathematics

OECD average

top performers
only in reading

% S.E. % S.E. % S.E. % S.E.
6.3 (0.6) 0.4 (0.1) 6.0 (0.4) 0.8 (0.2)
9.2 (0.9) 0.4 (0.2) 5.3 (0.8) 0.7 (0.3)
12.8 (0.8) 0.3 (0.1) 4.6 (0.4) 1.9 (0.3)
7.5 (0.6) 1.0 (0.3) 4.7 (0.5) 1.7 (0.4)
8.1 (0.7) 0.3 (0.2) 5.6 (0.7) 0.8 (0.3)
7.9 (0.7) 0.4 (0.2) 4.0 (0.8) 0.7 (0.3)
9.4 (0.8) 0.6 (0.2) 9.9 (0.9) 0.8 (0.3)
6.5 (0.9) 0.7 (0.3) 4.3 (0.6) 0.8 (0.3)
6.8 (0.9) 0.5 (0.3) 6.0 (0.7) 0.9 (0.3)
3.8 (0.5) 0.4 (0.1) 1.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2)
5.6 (0.8) 0.3 (0.1) 4.4 (0.8) 0.3 (0.2)
7.2 (0.8) 0.2 (0.1) 3.1 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3)
3.9 (0.7) 1.1 (0.4) 2.3 (0.4) 1.0 (0.3)
4.1 (0.5) 0.4 (0.1) 2.4 (0.3) 0.6 (0.1)
8.4 (0.9) 0.6 (0.2) 7.4 (0.7) 1.1 (0.3)
13.7 (1.2) 0.5 (0.2) 2.8 (0.8) 5.9 (0.8)
6.5 (0.7) 0.4 (0.2) 3.3 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2)
0.9 (0.3) 0.0 (0.0) 0.2 (0.1) 0.1 (0.0)
9.4 (1.0) 0.3 (0.2) 7.6 (0.9) 1.0 (0.3)
5.9 (0.7) 1.1 (0.4) 6.0 (0.7) 0.9 (0.4)
5.9 (0.7) 0.4 (0.2) 2.6 (0.5) 0.8 (0.2)
4.8 (0.6) 0.6 (0.2) 2.2 (0.4) 1.6 (0.3)
3.8 (0.4) 0.2 (0.2) 1.5 (0.4) 0.7 (0.3)
6.9 (0.9) 0.3 (0.1) 3.3 (0.5) 0.6 (0.2)
4.9 (0.5) 0.1 (0.1) 3.3 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1)
5.6 (0.8) 0.6 (0.2) 3.2 (0.6) 1.2 (0.3)
13.9 (1.0) 0.2 (0.1) 6.1 (0.6) 0.7 (0.2)
3.7 (1.0) 0.1 (0.0) 0.4 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)
3.1 (0.5) 1.2 (0.3) 5.3 (0.6) 0.4 (0.2)
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

top performers
only in science

% S.E. % S.E. % S.E.
76.9 (1.3) 2.8 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1)
78.5 (1.5) 1.3 (0.3) 0.4 (0.1)
73.3 (1.1) 0.6 (0.2) 0.9 (0.2)
73.7 (1.0) 2.9 (0.4) 1.5 (0.2)
78.7 (1.4) 1.3 (0.4) 0.5 (0.3)
83.2 (1.1) 0.8 (0.4) 0.5 (0.3)
67.7 (1.4) 3.4 (0.5) 0.5 (0.3)
81.9 (1.3) 1.7 (0.3) 1.2 (0.4)
78.0 (1.5) 2.2 (0.4) 0.6 (0.2)
91.3 (0.9) 1.2 (0.3) 0.7 (0.4)
85.4 (1.2) 1.5 (0.3) 0.3 (0.2)
85.0 (1.0) 1.0 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)
83.2 (1.4) 1.9 (0.4) 1.6 (0.5)
88.6 (0.8) 1.3 (0.2) 1.4 (0.2)
73.0 (1.6) 3.1 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3)
67.0 (2.1) 0.3 (0.2) 2.4 (0.4)
85.1 (0.9) 0.9 (0.2) 0.4 (0.2)
98.5 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.1)
74.3 (1.3) 1.4 (0.3) 0.3 (0.1)
73.5 (1.3) 2.2 (0.4) 1.3 (0.4)
85.4 (1.2) 1.0 (0.2) 1.2 (0.3)
83.1 (1.2) 1.2 (0.3) 2.4 (0.4)
90.6 (0.9) 0.5 (0.2) 0.8 (0.2)
85.2 (1.2) 1.0 (0.4) 0.5 (0.2)
89.1 (0.8) 1.6 (0.3) 0.2 (0.1)
83.1 (1.2) 1.2 (0.3) 1.6 (0.4)
74.1 (1.3) 0.8 (0.2) 0.2 (0.1)
94.3 (1.5) 0.1 (0.1) 0.5 (0.3)
79.8 (0.9) 4.4 (0.5) 0.7 (0.2)
m
m m m
m
m

not top
performers in
any of the three
domains
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Percentage
of male top
performers
in science,
who are top
performers in
reading and
mathematics
as well
% S.E.
%
S.E.
6.4 (0.7) 41.0 (2.7)
4.2 (0.5) 37.1 (4.1)
5.6 (0.4) 50.4 (3.3)
7.1 (0.5) 45.5 (2.5)
4.7 (0.6) 39.5 (3.7)
2.6 (0.7) 33.4 (7.2)
7.7 (0.7) 35.6 (3.0)
2.9 (0.5) 30.4 (4.0)
5.0 (0.7) 36.3 (3.6)
1.0 (0.3) 23.9 (5.7)
2.3 (0.4) 26.8 (4.3)
2.4 (0.4) 36.5 (4.8)
5.0 (0.7) 48.8 (3.7)
1.4 (0.3) 25.5 (4.1)
5.8 (0.7) 34.4 (3.7)
7.6 (0.9) 68.4 (4.8)
2.7 (0.4) 36.6 (5.7)
0.0 (0.0)
9.4 (5.8)
5.6 (0.7) 37.4 (3.9)
9.1 (0.9) 49.6 (3.8)
2.7 (0.4) 40.8 (4.7)
4.1 (0.5) 50.1 (4.8)
1.7 (0.4) 43.1 (7.1)
2.2 (0.4) 32.3 (4.3)
0.7 (0.2) 12.1 (2.8)
3.6 (0.5) 41.7 (4.8)
4.1 (0.5) 36.8 (3.3)
0.3 (0.3) 34.3 (21.4)
5.2 (0.4) 32.7 (2.2)
m
m
m
m

4.1 (0.1)

1.0 (0.1)

3.9 (0.1)

36.9

(1.1)

0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
a
a 0.0 (0.0)
0.1 (0.1) 0.3 (0.2)
0.3 (0.2) 1.2 (0.4)
0.4 (0.2) 0.5 (0.2)
0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)
0.2 (0.2) 2.5 (0.4)
0.2 (0.2) 6.3 (0.7)
0.3 (0.1) 9.6 (0.9)
a
a 0.1 (0.0)
0.8 (0.2) 1.7 (0.4)
0.0 (0.0) 0.1 (0.1)
a
a 0.0 (0.0)
0.2 (0.1) 2.1 (0.5)
0.6 (0.6) 6.7 (2.6)
0.2 (0.1) 2.5 (0.5)
0.1 (0.1) 4.6 (0.6)
0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1)
0.0 (0.0) 0.5 (0.2)
0.1 (0.1) 2.9 (0.4)
a
a 0.7 (0.3)
0.2 (0.2) 7.4 (0.7)
0.1 (0.0) 11.7 (0.9)
a
a 0.3 (0.2)
a
a 0.1 (0.1)
0.2 (0.1) 0.6 (0.2)

0.1 (0.1)
0.0 (0.0)
0.2 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.4 (0.2)
0.0 (0.0)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
1.3 (0.4)
0.1 (0.0)
0.6 (0.3)
0.0 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
0.3 (0.1)
a
a
0.2 (0.2)
0.6 (0.3)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
a
a
0.2 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.3 (0.1)
0.0 (0.0)
0.1 (0.1)
0.4 (0.1)

0.1 (0.1)
a
a
0.3 (0.2)
0.6 (0.3)
0.6 (0.3)
0.1 (0.1)
1.3 (0.3)
2.7 (0.4)
6.5 (0.9)
a
a
2.1 (0.4)
0.0 (0.0)
a
a
1.2 (0.3)
4.3 (2.1)
1.4 (0.4)
1.4 (0.3)
0.1 (0.1)
0.2 (0.1)
0.0 (0.0)
0.6 (0.2)
0.1 (0.0)
2.4 (0.5)
3.1 (0.6)
0.1 (0.1)
0.1 (0.1)
0.6 (0.2)

13.3
a
33.4
17.2
24.3
13.3
23.0
22.7
36.9
0.0
32.2
2.8
0.0
28.6
36.6
30.6
21.8
47.1
42.1
5.1
11.0
5.4
18.6
19.8
12.2
10.4
28.9

(11.2)
a
(18.7)
(8.4)
(8.8)
(21.8)
(4.4)
(3.0)
(3.4)
(0.0)
(4.9)
(5.2)
(0.0)
(7.5)
(18.6)
(7.2)
(5.1)
(29.6)
(21.7)
(6.0)
(4.1)
(5.5)
(3.6)
(2.6)
(16.1)
(29.9)
(8.6)

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

93

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A4

Table A4.3.
Students’ socio-economic background, by performance group

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
ChineseTaipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Mean
index
0.38
0.49
0.54
0.52
0.26
0.65
0.35
0.30
0.62
0.33
0.35
1.03
0.28
0.29
0.11
0.17
0.65
0.30
0.53
0.29
0.66
0.03
0.11
0.26
0.18
0.49
0.40
-0.07
0.44
0.55
0.40
0.46
c
0.30
0.49
0.37
c
0.24
0.32
-0.53
c
0.60
0.20
c
0.33
0.50
0.46
-0.77
0.61
c
0.54
0.19
0.50
0.41
-0.14
-0.14
c
0.45

Mean
S.E. index
(0.02) 0.60
(0.04) 0.61
(0.03) 0.75
(0.02) 0.70
(0.03) 0.57
(0.04) 0.94
(0.03) 0.57
(0.04) 0.59
(0.03) 0.90
(0.05) 0.64
(0.04) 0.69
(0.04) 1.20
(0.04) 0.48
(0.03) 0.59
(0.03) 0.27
(0.03) 0.43
(0.03) 0.87
(0.08)
c
(0.04) 0.80
(0.03) 0.58
(0.04) 0.82
(0.04) 0.40
(0.07) 0.66
(0.04) 0.63
(0.05) 0.49
(0.03) 0.68
(0.03) 0.67
(0.13)
c
(0.02) 0.68
(0.05) 0.80
(0.01) 0.66
(0.11)
c
c
c
(0.12)
c
(0.07) 0.75
(0.08)
c
c
c
(0.04) 0.63
(0.04) 0.60
(0.05) -0.32
c
c
(0.04) 0.76
(0.08)
c
c
c
(0.04) 0.57
(0.10) 0.74
(0.05) 0.76
(0.04) -0.59
(0.12)
c
c
c
(0.09)
c
(0.04) 0.41
(0.07)
c
(0.03) 0.73
(0.03) 0.14
(0.11)
c
c
c
(0.06)
c

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Difference in
the percentages
between strong
performers and
top performers

Top performers

Strong
performers

Difference in
the percentages
between strong
performers and
top performers

Top performers

S.E. Dif. S.E. % S.E. % S.E. Dif. S.E. % S.E. % S.E. Dif. S.E.
(0.02) -0.22 (0.03) 39.4 (1.2) 28.3 (1.4) 11.0 (1.9) 30.3 (1.2) 19.7 (1.3) 10.6 (1.8)
(0.05) -0.12 (0.06) 37.6 (2.1) 32.6 (3.3) 5.0 (3.7) 28.7 (1.8) 23.6 (2.6) 5.1 (3.0)
(0.04) -0.21 (0.04) 33.8 (1.5) 23.4 (1.8) 10.4 (2.2) 26.2 (1.4) 17.8 (1.6) 8.4 (1.9)
(0.02) -0.18 (0.03) 40.7 (1.4) 30.5 (1.5) 10.2 (1.8) 26.3 (1.3) 17.3 (1.4) 9.0 (1.7)
(0.04) -0.32 (0.04) 38.6 (2.0) 23.0 (1.8) 15.6 (2.3) 37.5 (1.9) 21.9 (1.8) 15.6 (2.3)
(0.06) -0.29 (0.07) 33.6 (2.0) 23.0 (2.9) 10.6 (3.1) 23.4 (1.8) 14.5 (2.7) 8.9 (3.2)
(0.03) -0.22 (0.04) 43.7 (1.6) 33.5 (2.0) 10.2 (2.4) 32.6 (1.5) 24.4 (1.5) 8.2 (2.0)
(0.06) -0.28 (0.06) 30.2 (2.2) 18.6 (3.3) 11.5 (4.1) 35.9 (2.2) 22.4 (2.9) 13.5 (3.4)
(0.04) -0.28 (0.05) 37.6 (2.1) 25.8 (2.4) 11.8 (3.7) 25.6 (1.5) 13.3 (1.9) 12.3 (2.8)
(0.10) -0.31 (0.11) 32.3 (2.5) 18.2 (3.5) 14.1 (3.7) 37.5 (2.7) 21.2 (3.9) 16.3 (4.5)
(0.06) -0.34 (0.06) 34.6 (2.0) 20.3 (2.8) 14.3 (3.2) 38.6 (2.2) 22.8 (2.8) 15.8 (3.4)
(0.07) -0.17 (0.09) 35.3 (2.2) 25.6 (3.3) 9.7 (4.3) 11.5 (1.6) 6.9 (1.9) 4.7 (2.7)
(0.05) -0.21 (0.05) 38.3 (2.5) 27.7 (2.7) 10.6 (2.9) 39.4 (2.4) 28.5 (2.7) 10.9 (2.9)
(0.06) -0.30 (0.06) 34.2 (1.9) 22.4 (2.7) 11.9 (3.4) 36.9 (1.9) 25.4 (2.9) 11.5 (3.5)
(0.03) -0.17 (0.04) 44.3 (1.7) 33.7 (2.2) 10.6 (2.8) 45.5 (1.8) 34.9 (2.2) 10.6 (3.0)
(0.07) -0.26 (0.06) 41.8 (2.0) 28.7 (3.4) 13.1 (3.3) 43.0 (2.0) 29.4 (3.5) 13.6 (3.3)
(0.06) -0.22 (0.07) 23.0 (2.1) 15.0 (3.0) 8.0 (4.2) 21.4 (1.9) 12.1 (2.7) 9.3 (3.9)
c
c
c 16.5 (3.1)
c
c
c
c 35.1 (3.3)
c
c
c
c
(0.03) -0.26 (0.05) 35.1 (2.0) 24.2 (1.9) 10.9 (3.1) 26.1 (2.0) 16.3 (1.9) 9.8 (2.9)
(0.03) -0.29 (0.04) 40.0 (1.8) 25.1 (1.8) 14.9 (2.5) 34.4 (2.0) 21.6 (1.7) 12.8 (2.5)
(0.06) -0.16 (0.08) 37.4 (2.7) 26.6 (3.1) 10.8 (4.5) 17.8 (1.9) 12.8 (2.9) 5.0 (3.6)
(0.05) -0.37 (0.06) 39.4 (2.5) 25.2 (3.0) 14.3 (4.5) 54.5 (2.0) 36.2 (3.0) 18.4 (3.8)
(0.11) -0.55 (0.12) 29.1 (2.2) 18.0 (3.9) 11.1 (4.7) 46.1 (2.6) 31.3 (4.3) 14.7 (4.7)
(0.06) -0.37 (0.07) 39.4 (2.5) 23.3 (3.3) 16.0 (4.2) 45.8 (2.4) 28.4 (3.9) 17.4 (4.7)
(0.08) -0.31 (0.07) 33.3 (2.0) 22.5 (2.6) 10.8 (2.4) 43.9 (2.3) 32.2 (3.3) 11.7 (3.1)
(0.05) -0.19 (0.06) 36.6 (2.0) 24.9 (3.2) 11.8 (4.3) 25.2 (2.0) 14.7 (2.5) 10.5 (3.4)
(0.04) -0.27 (0.05) 35.3 (1.4) 23.5 (2.3) 11.9 (3.0) 32.2 (1.4) 20.7 (2.1) 11.4 (2.8)
c
c
c 17.0 (3.4)
c
c
c
c 47.4 (5.9)
c
c
c
c
(0.03) -0.25 (0.03) 36.9 (1.5) 24.9 (1.8) 11.9 (2.1) 29.0 (1.4) 19.0 (1.6) 10.0 (1.9)
(0.06) -0.25 (0.06) 29.4 (2.4) 19.2 (3.0) 10.1 (3.6) 25.1 (2.2) 14.6 (2.7) 10.5 (3.1)
(0.01) -0.26 (0.01) 36.1 (0.4) 24.6 (0.5) 11.5 (0.6) 32.9 (0.4) 21.6 (0.5) 11.3 (0.6)
c
c
c 14.9 (3.4)
c
c
c
c 27.1 (4.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c 9.0 (2.6)
c
c
c
c 29.3 (4.5)
c
c
c
c
(0.10) -0.26 (0.11) 24.1 (3.3) 15.8 (4.2) 8.3 (4.9) 30.6 (3.6) 19.6 (4.4) 11.0 (4.9)
c
c
c 16.0 (2.5)
c
c
c
c 34.7 (3.5)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
-0.39
18.1
17.6
(0.05)
(0.07) 39.4 (2.0) 21.3 (3.2)
(4.2) 45.0 (2.1) 27.5 (3.6)
(4.2)
(0.05) -0.28 (0.06) 41.5 (2.0) 27.1 (3.0) 14.4 (3.6) 36.1 (2.1) 22.6 (2.5) 13.5 (3.3)
(0.06) -0.20 (0.06) 45.0 (2.2) 37.6 (3.1) 7.4 (3.3) 73.3 (2.2) 64.4 (3.3) 8.9 (2.8)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.05) -0.17 (0.07) 26.6 (2.7) 17.0 (3.1) 9.6 (4.7) 20.3 (2.4) 12.8 (2.5) 7.5 (3.7)
c
c
c 19.1 (3.2)
c
c
c
c 34.0 (3.9)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.08) -0.23 (0.09) 35.4 (2.3) 23.1 (4.0) 12.3 (4.5) 36.4 (2.3) 23.6 (4.0) 12.9 (4.5)
(0.14) -0.24 (0.17) 37.2 (5.8) 30.2 (7.8) 7.0 (9.6) 34.4 (6.0) 18.2 (7.3) 16.2 (10.1)
(0.07) -0.30 (0.07) 33.0 (2.4) 17.8 (3.5) 15.2 (4.2) 31.6 (2.2) 17.2 (3.6) 14.5 (4.3)
(0.08) -0.18 (0.09) 44.9 (2.1) 40.6 (4.4) 4.3 (5.3) 83.4 (1.5) 74.9 (3.3) 8.5 (4.0)
c
c
c 23.8 (5.9)
c
c
c
c 23.8 (5.9)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c 16.4 (4.9)
c
c
c
c 27.8 (4.7)
c
c
c
c
(0.07) -0.22 (0.07) 36.0 (2.6) 22.7 (4.0) 13.4 (4.4) 39.5 (2.8) 26.9 (4.1) 12.6 (4.6)
c
c
c 28.2 (3.4)
c
c
c
c 33.0 (3.9)
c
c
c
c
(0.05) -0.31 (0.07) 38.4 (1.7) 24.4 (2.7) 13.9 (3.5) 32.9 (1.9) 20.6 (2.9) 12.3 (4.0)
(0.03) -0.28 (0.04) 40.4 (1.6) 28.5 (1.5) 11.8 (2.2) 57.2 (1.4) 43.0 (1.9) 14.2 (2.3)
c
c
c 16.3 (2.9)
c
c
c
c 48.1 (4.5)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c 16.6 (2.9)
c
c
c
c 31.9 (2.9)
c
c
c
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

94

Strong
performers

Difference in
the mean index
between strong
performers and
top performers

Top performers

Strong
performers

PISA index of economic, social
and cultural status (ESCS)

Percentage of students in each
Percentage of students in each
performance group with the
performance group with the
PISA index of economic, social PISA index of economic, social
and cultural status (ESCS) lower and cultural status (ESCS) lower
than the national average ESCS
than the OECD average ESCS

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

A4

Table A4.4.
Percentage of students by performance group, according to the immigrant status
If students’ ESCS were equal
Difference to the national average ESCS
in the
percentages Difference
Native students
of top
in the
(born in the
performers percentages
country of
between
of top
assessment
native
performers Increase in the
with at least
students between native logit of being
one of their
and students students and top performers
parents born
with an students with associated with
in the same
Strong
Top
Strong
Top
immigrant an immigrant students being
country) performers performers performers performers background background
native

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Students with an
immigrant background

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

%
78.1
86.8
86.7
78.9
98.1
92.4
98.5
87.0
85.8
92.4
98.3
98.2
94.4
96.2
99.6
100.0
63.9
97.6
88.7
78.7
93.9
99.8
94.1
99.5
93.1
89.2
77.6
98.5
91.4
84.8
90.7
97.3
97.6
97.6
99.8
99.4
99.6
88.0
88.4
56.2
99.8
77.0
83.2
97.4
92.9
63.2
97.9
26.4
92.8
59.5
99.9
91.3
91.0
89.7
99.4
99.7
99.2
99.6

S.E.
(1.2)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(1.2)
(0.2)
(0.8)
(0.3)
(1.0)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(0.3)
(0.2)
(0.5)
(0.3)
(0.1)
(0.0)
(0.6)
(0.3)
(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(0.1)
(0.8)
(0.1)
(0.7)
(0.9)
(0.7)
(0.4)
(0.9)
(1.2)
(0.1)
(0.3)
(0.5)
(0.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.4)
(0.1)
(1.2)
(0.9)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(2.7)
(0.4)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.0)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(0.1)

% S.E.
23.8 (1.3)
10.4 (1.7)
8.3 (1.2)
26.2 (1.6)
c
c
5.4 (1.6)
c
c
12.6 (2.3)
11.3 (1.8)
7.3 (2.6)
c
c
c
c
20.8 (3.5)
6.7 (1.9)
c
c
c
c
10.5 (0.8)
c
c
11.3 (2.2)
22.5 (1.7)
8.1 (2.8)
c
c
7.2 (2.4)
c
c
10.2 (2.1)
9.7 (1.5)
11.5 (1.2)
c
c
17.3 (2.3)
10.1 (1.6)
12.6 (0.4)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
13.7 (1.8)
17.8 (2.0)
28.8 (1.5)
c
c
14.2 (1.4)
7.5 (1.4)
c
c
16.4 (2.8)
16.1 (4.0)
c
c
23.9 (1.0)
6.7 (2.3)
4.1 (0.4)
c
c
13.2 (2.7)
5.8 (1.5)
13.4 (2.3)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

% S.E.
16.0 (1.8)
2.9 (0.8)
2.1 (0.5)
13.1 (1.3)
c
c
1.5 (0.8)
c
c
3.8 (1.6)
3.1 (0.9)
1.9 (1.1)
c
c
c
c
12.0 (2.8)
1.4 (0.8)
c
c
c
c
3.2 (0.4)
c
c
3.9 (1.2)
18.5 (1.4)
4.0 (1.6)
c
c
1.3 (0.9)
c
c
1.6 (0.8)
3.5 (1.2)
4.2 (0.8)
c
c
9.8 (1.8)
4.2 (0.9)
5.6 (0.3)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
2.5 (0.8)
7.3 (1.4)
14.7 (1.2)
c
c
5.6 (1.0)
0.7 (0.3)
c
c
4.6 (1.6)
12.2 (2.5)
c
c
5.4 (0.4)
0.6 (0.6)
0.9 (0.2)
c
c
2.4 (1.1)
0.6 (0.4)
3.5 (1.1)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

Native students

% S.E.
25.1 (0.6)
25.8 (1.2)
27.2 (0.9)
28.7 (0.8)
22.0 (0.9)
20.8 (1.0)
32.7 (0.9)
22.5 (1.1)
26.5 (1.0)
14.9 (0.9)
21.1 (0.9)
19.5 (0.8)
21.8 (0.9)
15.7 (0.6)
27.0 (1.1)
25.7 (0.9)
22.6 (1.0)
3.4 (0.4)
28.0 (1.0)
24.6 (0.8)
18.1 (0.7)
19.6 (0.8)
15.3 (0.9)
18.1 (1.0)
18.7 (0.7)
22.8 (1.0)
27.2 (1.1)
6.3 (1.2)
22.6 (0.6)
20.2 (1.0)
22.5 (0.2)
4.2 (0.7)
0.4 (0.2)
3.5 (0.4)
10.5 (1.1)
8.6 (1.0)
2.0 (0.4)
18.4 (0.9)
27.7 (1.1)
30.5 (1.4)
1.4 (0.5)
14.6 (0.9)
5.4 (0.7)
0.7 (0.2)
17.0 (1.0)
30.6 (3.3)
17.7 (0.9)
20.7 (1.5)
3.5 (0.4)
0.2 (0.1)
4.2 (0.8)
15.3 (1.1)
6.7 (0.6)
23.7 (1.2)
28.3 (1.0)
4.1 (0.4)
2.0 (0.5)
7.1 (0.6)

% S.E. Dif.
14.6 (0.6) -1.4
11.1 (0.8) 8.3
11.4 (0.6) 9.3
15.4 (0.6) 2.3
11.8 (1.0)
c
7.3 (0.7) 5.7
21.3 (0.8)
c
8.9 (0.7) 5.0
13.9 (0.8) 10.8
3.6 (0.4) 1.7
7.0 (0.6)
c
6.5 (0.5)
c
9.5 (0.7) -2.6
4.8 (0.4) 3.4
15.1 (0.8)
c
10.4 (1.1)
c
7.5 (0.5) 4.4
0.3 (0.1)
c
14.5 (0.9) 10.6
17.8 (0.8) -0.7
6.4 (0.5) 2.4
6.9 (0.5)
c
3.3 (0.4) 2.0
5.8 (0.5)
c
5.2 (0.4) 3.6
8.5 (0.6) 5.0
12.4 (0.9) 8.2
0.9 (0.3)
c
14.4 (0.6) 4.6
10.3 (0.8) 6.1
10.0 (0.1) 4.4
0.5 (0.1)
c
0.0 (0.0)
c
0.6 (0.2)
c
3.1 (0.6)
c
2.0 (0.3)
c
0.2 (0.1)
c
5.5 (0.5) 3.0
12.3 (0.8) 5.1
17.1 (1.2) 2.4
0.0 (0.0)
c
5.7 (0.7) 0.1
0.6 (0.2) 0.0
0.0 (0.0)
c
4.2 (0.4) -0.5
12.5 (2.3) 0.3
5.0 (0.7)
c
5.3 (0.8) -0.1
0.3 (0.1) 0.2
0.0 (0.0) -0.8
0.5 (0.1)
c
4.4 (0.5) 2.0
0.8 (0.2) 0.2
14.1 (0.7) 10.6
14.9 (0.9)
c
0.4 (0.1)
c
0.1 (0.1)
c
1.5 (0.2)
c

S.E.
(1.7)
(1.0)
(0.7)
(1.4)
c
(1.0)
c
(1.6)
(1.1)
(1.2)
c
c
(2.8)
(0.8)
c
c
(0.6)
c
(1.3)
(1.5)
(1.6)
c
(0.9)
c
(1.0)
(1.2)
(0.9)
c
(1.8)
(1.0)
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.9)
(1.5)
(1.5)
c
(1.1)
(0.4)
c
(1.6)
(3.3)
c
(0.9)
(0.4)
(0.2)
c
(1.2)
(0.4)
(1.3)
c
c
c
c

Dif. in %
-1.3
6.5
6.8
2.0
c
3.4
c
2.4
7.2
0.5
c
c
-1.3
2.3
c
c
1.6
c
6.6
0.1
0.8
c
1.3
c
2.5
3.4
5.5
c
2.6
2.9
2.8
c
c
c
c
c
c
1.5
4.2
-1.8
c
-1.0
0.1
c
-0.1
-0.6
c
-1.2
0.2
m
c
1.6
0.2
6.7
c
c
c
c

Logistic
regression
coefficient

-0.11
1.14
1.41
0.18
c
1.01
c
0.54
1.13
0.24
c
c
-0.17
0.94
c
c
0.40
c
0.91
0.01
0.17
c
0.99
c
1.06
0.67
0.91
c
0.27
0.53
0.61
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.50
0.56
-0.14
c
-0.23
0.23
c
-0.04
-0.07
c
-0.26
11.71
m
c
0.64
0.30
1.01
c
c
c
c

S.E.
(0.13)
(0.26)
(0.25)
(0.12)
c
(0.63)
c
(0.45)
(0.32)
(0.66)
c
c
(0.27)
(0.62)
c
c
(0.16)
c
(0.30)
(0.10)
(0.41)
c
(0.75)
c
(0.57)
(0.36)
(0.18)
c
(0.20)
(0.20)
(0.09)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.33)
(0.22)
(0.12)
c
(0.21)
(0.61)
c
(0.39)
(0.33)
c
(0.20)
(7.53)
m
c
(0.52)
(0.87)
(0.35)
c
c
c
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

95

chapter A

A4

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Table A4.5.
Percentage of students by performance group, according to the language spoken at home

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Language
Language spoken at home most Language spoken at home most
spoken at home
Language
of the time is the SAME as
most of the time spoken at home of the time is DIFFERENT from
the language of assessment,
is DIFFERENT most of the time the language of assessment,
from other official languages
other official languages
from the
is the SAME as
or another national dialect
language of
the language or from other national dialects
assessment, from of assessment,
other official
other official
languages or
languages or
from other another national
Strong
Top
Strong
Top
national dialects
dialects
performers
performers
performers
performers
% of
% of
students S.E. students S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
8.0
(0.7)
92.0
(0.7)
21.9
(2.5)
13.7
(2.5)
25.1
(0.6)
15.0
(0.7)
10.0
(1.1)
90.0
(1.1)
9.8
(2.3)
2.2
(0.7)
25.7
(1.2)
11.1
(0.8)
5.7
(0.5)
94.3
(0.5)
7.6
(1.6)
2.1
(0.9)
26.9
(0.8)
11.4
(0.6)
10.6
(0.7)
89.4
(0.7)
24.0
(2.3)
12.4
(1.7)
28.7
(0.7)
15.2
(0.6)
0.8
(0.2)
99.2
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
22.0
(0.9)
11.8
(1.0)
4.5
(0.5)
95.5
(0.5)
4.2
(1.8)
1.3
(1.1)
20.6
(1.0)
7.3
(0.7)
1.3
(0.2)
98.7
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
32.5
(0.9)
21.3
(0.8)
5.4
(0.5)
94.6
(0.5)
13.5
(2.6)
4.8
(1.7)
21.7
(1.1)
8.5
(0.7)
9.0
(0.7)
91.0
(0.7)
9.7
(2.1)
1.5
(0.8)
26.5
(1.0)
14.0
(0.8)
3.9
(0.5)
96.1
(0.5)
4.5
(2.5)
0.7
(0.6)
14.6
(0.9)
3.7
(0.4)
0.8
(0.2)
99.2
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
21.2
(0.9)
7.0
(0.7)
2.2
(0.3)
97.8
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
19.5
(0.8)
6.5
(0.5)
2.0
(0.3)
98.0
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
21.8
(0.9)
9.6
(0.7)
2.9
(0.3)
97.1
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
16.9
(0.7)
5.2
(0.4)
0.3
c
99.7
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
27.4
(1.1)
15.5
(0.8)
0.1
c
99.9
(0.0)
c
c
c
c
25.6
(0.9)
10.4
(1.1)
23.7
(0.6)
76.3
(0.6)
7.4
(0.9)
1.5
(0.5)
23.4
(1.0)
8.0
(0.5)
0.2
(0.1)
99.8
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
3.2
(0.3)
0.3
(0.1)
5.9
(0.7)
94.1
(0.7)
11.6
(3.2)
3.4
(1.4)
27.1
(1.0)
13.9
(0.9)
8.7
(0.6)
91.3
(0.6)
19.6
(2.3)
15.1
(2.0)
25.1
(0.8)
18.5
(0.8)
4.7
(0.5)
95.3
(0.5)
10.0
(2.3)
3.8
(1.6)
17.9
(0.7)
6.4
(0.5)
0.4
c
99.6
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
19.4
(0.8)
6.8
(0.5)
2.3
(0.4)
97.7
(0.4)
c
c
c
c
15.3
(0.9)
3.3
(0.4)
0.4
c
99.6
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
18.1
(1.0)
5.8
(0.5)
2.6
(0.3)
97.4
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
18.3
(0.8)
5.0
(0.4)
7.8
(0.7)
92.2
(0.7)
9.5
(2.5)
2.9
(1.1)
22.5
(1.0)
8.5
(0.6)
12.9
(0.6)
87.1
(0.6)
9.5
(1.5)
3.1
(0.9)
26.8
(1.1)
12.2
(0.9)
2.4
(0.4)
97.6
(0.4)
c
c
c
c
6.3
(1.2)
0.9
(0.3)
3.8
(0.6)
96.2
(0.6)
15.2
(2.8)
7.1
(2.0)
22.4
(0.6)
14.3
(0.6)
10.7
(1.0)
89.3
(1.0)
6.7
(1.3)
2.8
(0.9)
20.0
(1.1)
10.1
(0.8)
5.1
(0.1)
94.9
(0.1)
11.5
(0.6)
4.9
(0.3)
21.4
(0.2)
9.6
(0.1)
0.5
c
99.5
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
4.2
(0.6)
0.5
(0.1)
2.2
(0.7)
97.8
(0.7)
c
c
c
c
0.4
(0.2)
0.0
(0.0)
0.3
(0.1)
99.7
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
3.4
(0.4)
0.6
(0.2)
4.7
(0.9)
95.3
(0.9)
0.9
(0.8)
0.3
(0.4)
11.0
(1.2)
3.2
(0.6)
0.2
c
99.8
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
8.4
(1.1)
1.9
(0.4)
0.5
c
99.5
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
1.9
(0.4)
0.2
(0.1)
0.4
c
99.6
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
17.8
(0.9)
5.1
(0.5)
0.5
c
99.5
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
26.4
(0.9)
11.6
(0.8)
2.7
(0.7)
97.3
(0.7)
c
c
c
c
30.4
(1.0)
16.4
(1.0)
1.5
(0.3)
98.5
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
1.4
(0.6)
0.0
(0.0)
11.4
(1.1)
88.6
(1.1)
15.3
(2.4)
6.2
(1.5)
14.4
(0.9)
5.5
(0.7)
2.9
(0.3)
97.1
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
5.7
(0.7)
0.6
(0.2)
1.2
(0.3)
98.8
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
0.7
(0.2)
0.0
(0.0)
0.5
c
99.5
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
16.8
(1.0)
4.1
(0.4)
12.2
(1.6)
87.8
(1.6)
10.2
(5.4)
3.6
(3.4)
28.2
(2.9)
12.9
(2.0)
0.1
c
99.9
(0.0)
c
c
c
c
17.6
(0.9)
5.1
(0.7)
3.9
(0.3)
96.1
(0.3)
16.3
(3.9)
2.0
(1.4)
23.2
(0.8)
5.5
(0.4)
2.4
(0.2)
97.6
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
3.6
(0.4)
0.3
(0.1)
4.1
(0.2)
95.9
(0.2)
10.1
(2.1)
3.1
(1.2)
1.3
(0.1)
0.2
(0.1)
0.6
c
99.4
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
4.3
(0.8)
0.5
(0.1)
9.5
(2.0)
90.5
(2.0)
4.8
(1.8)
0.4
(0.5)
16.2
(1.1)
4.6
(0.5)
0.5
c
99.5
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
6.6
(0.6)
0.8
(0.2)
5.6
(0.4)
94.4
(0.4)
9.7
(2.9)
2.2
(1.1)
23.6
(1.2)
13.8
(0.6)
0.6
(0.1)
99.4
(0.1)
c
c
c
c
28.5
(1.0)
15.2
(0.9)
1.6
(0.2)
98.4
(0.2)
c
c
c
c
4.1
(0.4)
0.4
(0.1)
4.7
(0.5)
95.3
(0.5)
3.1
(1.9)
0.6
(0.6)
1.9
(0.5)
0.1
(0.1)
(0.3)
98.6
(0.3)
c
c
c
c
7.1
(0.6)
1.5
(0.2)
1.4

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

96

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Profile of 15-year-old Top Performers in Science? – Indicator A4

chapter A

A4

Table A4.5. (continued)
Percentage of students by performance group, according to the language spoken at home
If students’ ESCS were equal to the national average ESCS

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Difference in the percentages Difference in the percentages
of top performers between
of top performers between
students who do not speak the students who do not speak the Increase in the logit of being
language of assessment at home language of assessment at home top performers associated with
and students who speak the
and students who speak the students speaking the language
language of assessment at home language of assessment at home
of assessment at home
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Dif.
1.2
8.9
9.3
2.9
c
6.0
c
3.7
12.4
3.5
c
c
c
c
c
c
6.5
c
10.6
3.5
2.6
c
c
c
c
5.6
9.1
c
7.2
7.3
6.3
c
c
c
3.1
c
c
c
c
c
c
-0.7
c
c
c
9.3
c
3.5
c
-2.9
c
4.3
c
11.6
c
c
-0.1
c

S.E.
(2.3)
(1.0)
(1.1)
(1.8)
c
(1.2)
c
(1.8)
(1.0)
(0.6)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.7)
c
(1.4)
(2.0)
(1.6)
c
c
c
c
(1.3)
(1.0)
c
(2.1)
(1.0)
(0.4)
c
c
c
(0.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(1.7)
c
c
c
(3.8)
c
(1.5)
c
(1.2)
c
(0.7)
c
(1.3)
c
c
(0.5)
c

Dif. in %
-0.5
7.2
6.6
1.8
c
4.1
c
1.5
9.6
2.5
c
c
c
c
c
c
3.3
c
7.1
1.7
1.6
c
c
c
c
4.1
6.0
c
4.4
3.7
4.0
c
c
c
1.9
c
c
c
c
c
c
-1.9
c
c
c
3.4
c
3.6
c
m
c
0.2
c
0.5
c
c
0.0
c

Logistic regression
coefficient

-0.05
1.39
1.33
0.16
c
1.44
c
0.30
1.97
11.72
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.97
c
1.07
0.14
0.35
c
c
c
c
0.90
1.05
c
0.50
0.75
1.50
c
c
c
6.41
c
c
c
c
c
c
-0.41
c
c
c
0.64
c
1.05
c
m
c
7.29
c
1.39
c
c
9.11
c

S.E.
(0.20)
(0.34)
(0.47)
(0.17)
c
(1.10)
c
(0.42)
(0.54)
(6.41)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.32)
c
(0.42)
(0.17)
(0.47)
c
c
c
c
(0.43)
(0.27)
c
(0.31)
(0.34)
(0.42)
c
c
c
(7.54)
c
c
c
c
c
c
(0.31)
c
c
c
(1.12)
c
(0.81)
c
m
c
(7.54)
c
(0.53)
c
c
(9.58)
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664076271473

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

97

INDICATOR A5

What are the top performers’ attitudes and
motivations for  science in PISA 2006?
Students’ attitudes and motivations tend to be closely associated with their
performance, as shown in previous analysis by the OECD’s Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA). Fostering interest and motivation in
science, as well as preparing and informing students about science-related careers,
are thus important policy goals related to conveying scientific knowledge and
competencies to students, engaging them in science-related issues and fostering
their career aspirations in science. This indicator shows how top performers in
science tend to be dedicated and engaged learners who aspire to a career in science
and feel well informed about potential career opportunities in science. At the same
time, in a number of countries there are significant proportions of top performers
who show comparatively low levels of interest in science.

Key results
Chart A5.1. Enjoyment of science for strong performers and top performers

This chart shows the difference in enjoyment of science between top performers and strong
performers among the 15-year-old students assessed in PISA 2006, measured on an index
that has a mean of zero and a standard deviation of one.
Strong performers

Top performers

While across the OECD countries strong performers (i.e. students achieving at proficiency Level 4
on the PISA science scale) score one-quarter above the OECD average on an index measuring
enjoyment of science, top performers (i.e. students reaching proficiency Levels 5 and 6) show
an even higher level of enjoyment, two-thirds above the OECD average on the same index of
enjoyment. The difference in favour of top performers is statistically significant in all OECD
countries, with more than 0.45 index points in Australia, Canada, Germany, Sweden and
Switzerland. The smallest differences are in the Czech Republic and Italy with 0.27 and 0.25 index
points of difference respectively. Partner countries and economies also show statistically significant
differences in favour of top performers except in three countries, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein and the
Russian Federation.

Slovenia
Latvia
Poland
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Estonia
Japan
Russian Federation
Liechtenstein
Croatia
Austria
Finland
United Kingdom
Ireland
Chinese Taipei
Korea
New Zealand
Belgium
OECD average
Israel
Italy
Germany
United States
Lithuania
Australia
Spain
Denmark
Bulgaria
Sweden
Switzerland
Hungary
Luxembourg
Greece
Canada
Macao-China
Hong Kong-China
Norway
France
Portugal
Iceland

Index points

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2

Countries are ranked in ascending order of the value of the index of enjoyment of science for the top performers.
Note: Significant differences are highlighted with darker tone.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A5.1a.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

98

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A5

• Top performers in science are involved in science-related activities outside
school. More than a third of top performers regularly or very often watch science
programmes on TV and read science magazines or science articles in newspapers.
A somewhat smaller proportion of top performers regularly or very often visit
science-related websites (21%) or borrow or buy science books (14%). A few top
performers attend science clubs (7%) or listen to radio programs on science (5%).
The index of science-related activities is significantly higher for top performers
than strong performers.
• Moreover, top performers tend to spend more time studying science at school
and less time on out-of-school lessons. On average, top performers receive
four hours of instruction in science at school, half an hour more than strong
performers. Conversely, they spend less time than strong performers in out-ofschool lessons in science.
• Top performers in science care about studying their school science and about
making an effort in science subjects, in part because they believe that it will pay
off in their future academic and professional careers. With a score of 0.44 for the
index of instrumental motivation, top performers have a significant advantage
of 0.30 index point on strong performers. But reporting doing well in science
seems to be less important than in mathematics.
• On average across the OECD, top performers, with 0.55 index points in the
index of future-oriented motivation, report more often than strong performers
that they actually intend to cultivate their interest in science, either by pursuing
further scientific studies or by working in a science-related field.
• With respect to their aspirations, top performers in science report feeling well
prepared for science-related careers. Across OECD countries, for instance, more
than 80% of top performers agree that the subjects they study and their teachers
provide them with the basic skills and knowledge for a science-related career.
However, only few top performers in science report being well informed about
science-related careers, or about where to find information on science-related
careers.The difference in the index of student information on science-related
careers between top performers and strong performers is not very wide.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

99

chapter A

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Comparing top performers with strong performers using PISA indices
This indicator compares top performers (students achieving at proficiency Levels 5 and 6 on the
PISA science scale) with strong students (students proficient at Level 4) using a range of different
measures, known as PISA indices. Students completed a questionnaire on themselves and their learning.
The information reported by students is summarised into several PISA indices. On each index, the
average OECD student was given an index value of zero and about two-thirds of the OECD student
population were given index values between -1 and 1 (i.e. the index has a standard deviation of 1). It is
therefore possible to have both negative and positive mean index values. It should be noted that when
a performance group has a negative mean index value, this does not necessarily mean that students in
that group responded negatively to the underlying questions, but rather that these students responded
less positively on average to such questions compared to the average OECD student. Likewise, groups
with a positive mean index responded more positively than the average for the OECD countries. The
percentages of students associated with each question contained within an index contribute to the
calculation of the mean index value. For example, the index of enjoyment of science was derived from
students’ level of agreement with the following statements: i) I generally have fun when I am learning
<broad science> topics; ii) I like reading about <broad science>; iii) I am happy doing <broad science>
problems; iv) I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in <broad science>; and v) I am interested in learning
about <broad science>. A four-point scale with the response categories “strongly agree”, “agree”,
“disagree” and “strongly disagree” was used. All items were inverted for IRT scaling and positive values
on this new index for PISA 2006 indicate higher levels of enjoyment of science.

Policy context

High-level competencies are critical for the creation of new knowledge, technologies and
innovation. For countries near the technology frontier, this implies that the share of highly
educated workers in the labour force is an important determinant of economic growth
and social development. Students’ attitudes and motivations tend to be closely related to
performance. The link between attitudes and motivations is strengthened by evidence
suggesting that motivation among top performers is unrelated to socio-economic factors but
is rather a reflection of their enjoyment and active engagement in science learning inside and
outside school. At the same time, in a number of countries there are significant proportions
of top performers who show comparatively low levels of interest in science. While these
education systems have succeeded in conveying scientific knowledge and competencies to
students, they have been less successful at engaging them in science-related issues and fostering
their career aspirations in science. These countries may thus not fully realise the potential of
these students. Fostering interest and motivation in science thus seems to be an important
policy goal in its own right. The potential payoff is significant: a large and diverse talent pool
ready to take up the challenge of a career in science.
Evidence and explanations
Top performers’ engagement in science

Enjoyment of science
Top performers in science are engaged science learners, reporting that they enjoy learning science,
that they want to learn more, that their science lessons are fun and that they are motivated to do
100

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

well in science. On average, 68% of top performers report being happy doing science problems
(only 53% of strong performers did so) and 75% like reading about science (compared with
60% of strong performers). Over 80% of top performers report that they enjoy acquiring new
knowledge in science, are interested in learning about science and generally have fun when
learning science (Table A5.1b and Table A5.7a).
As shown in Chart A5.1, across OECD countries, the top performers’ index of enjoyment is
two-thirds above the OECD average and the difference between top performers and strong
performers is statistically significant in all OECD countries, with more than 0.45 index point in
Australia, Canada, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland - the smallest difference being in Italy with
0.25 index point. Partner countries and economies also have statistically significant differences
in favour of top perfomers except in three countries where these differences are not significant.
In France, Iceland, Norway and Portugal, top performers show a mean index higher than 0.9
index point while the Netherlands and Poland, and the partner countries Latvia and Slovenia,
have a mean index lower than 0.3 index point.

Science-related activities outside of school
Top performers actively engage in science-related activities outside of school. About a third
of top performers regularly or very often watch science programmes on TV (32%) and read
science magazines or science articles in newspapers (38%). A somewhat smaller proportion
of top performers regularly or very often visit science-related websites (21%) or borrow or
buy science books (14%). A few top performers attend science clubs (7%) or listen to radio
programs on science (5%), however these two activities are not very popular as regular activities
(less than 10% of all students, whatever their performance level) (Table A5.7b).
Chart A5.2. Students' science-related activities for strong performers and top performers

1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75

Strong performers

Top performers

Iceland
Australia
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Canada
Hong Kong-China
Sweden
Netherlands
Belgium
Norway
United States
Finland
Japan
France
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Hungary
OECD average
Korea
Denmark
Germany
Austria
Ireland
Spain
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Italy
Croatia
Macao-China
Liechtenstein
Greece
Portugal
Chinese Taipei
Latvia
Poland
Bulgaria
Israel
Russian Federation
Estonia
Lithuania
Slovak Republic

Index points

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference in the mean index between top performers and strong performers.
Note: Significant differences are highlighted with darker tone.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A5.2a.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

101

A5

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Chart A5.3. Regular science lessons in school and out-of-school science lessons
for strong performers and top performers

A5

Strong performers

Top performers

Hours per week taking
out-of-school lessons in science

Hours per week taking
science lessons in school

Portugal
Russian Federation
Macao-China
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Hong Kong-China
Spain
Canada
France
Greece
United States
Slovak Republic
Estonia
Germany
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Australia
Liechtenstein
OECD average
Israel
Latvia
Korea
Belgium
Switzerland
Hungary
Austria
Finland
Chinese Taipei
Denmark
Lithuania
Italy
Netherlands
Poland
Iceland
Japan
Luxembourg
Ireland
Sweden
Norway
Croatia
6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Number of hours

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of hours

Countries are ranked in descending order of the average number of hours per week for top performers taking science lessons in school.
Note: Significant differences are highlighted with darker tone.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A5.3.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

102

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

As illustrated in Chart A5.2, the index of students’ science-related activities is, on average and
across OECD countries, equal to 0.42 for the top performers (i.e. a quarter or more of a standard
deviation above the strong performers) - a difference that is moderately large and statistically
significant. Significantly more top performers than strong performers reported pursuing sciencerelated activities on a regular basis in all countries, except Greece, the Slovak Republic, and the
partner countries Bulgaria, Israel, Liechtenstein and the Russian Federation.
Given the strong link between science performance and socio-economic status and the
strong and direct relationship between science performance and frequency of participation in
student-initiated science activities in each of the OECD countries, an adjustment was made for
students’ socio-economic background. Even after accounting for socio-economic background
(Table A5.2a), it was found that all countries for which there are adequate data, except the
partner economy Chinese Taipei, continue to show a statistically significant difference between
top performers and strong performers.
Time in learning science: in school and out-of-school lessons

Previous PISA analysis has shown that student time spent in regular lessons at school is positively
related to student performance (OECD, 2007a). The percentage of top performers taking regular
science lessons is greater than the percentage of strong performers in all the countries except in
Italy, with 2.2 percentage points in favour of strong performers, and in Iceland and Poland where
this difference is less than 0.5 percentage point.
On average, top performers receive four hours of instruction in science at school, half an hour
more than strong performers (Chart A5.3). This type of difference is even found in countries
with the largest proportions of top performers such as Australia, Canada, Finland, Japan and
New Zealand. In the Czech Republic, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, and the
partner countries and economies Hong Kong-China and Liechtenstein, the top performers
received about an hour or more of science lessons per week than the strong performers.
Conversely, across the OECD countries only 26.4% of top performers take out-of-school
lessons compared with 30.6% of strong performers. Furthermore, top performers spend less
time than strong performers in out-of-school lessons in science, although the absolute levels and
differences among these performance groups are modest (but still significant). At the country
level, this difference on time spent in out-of-school lessons between the two performance groups
is more than 10 minutes only in France, the Netherlands and Spain (Chart A5.3).
Top performers’ motivations in science

Instrumental motivation to learn science and the importance of doing well
Top performers in science report being motivated to learn science because they believe it will
help them with their future studies or career. Top performers report that they study science
because they know it is useful for them (81%), because what they learn will improve their career
prospects (76%) or that they need it for what they want to study later on (70%) (Table A5.7c).
Values on the index of instrumental motivation are calculated from students’ levels of agreement
with each of five statements concerning their motivation to learn science. On average across
OECD countries, the index of instrumental motivation is higher for top performers (0.44) than
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

103

A5

chapter A

for strong performers (0.14). There are significant differences between top performers and
strong performers in all OECD countries except Greece and Portugal (Table A5.4a).
The proportion of top performers in science reporting that doing well in science is very important
to them can also be an indicator of the academic importance of science to students, beyond
whether the subject is of interest to them or whether they enjoy their science lessons. Taken
together with the degree of importance they attribute to mathematics and test language subjects,
this can also indicate the relative importance of science to top performers. Students were asked
to report how important it is in general for them to do well in science, mathematics and test
language subjects. They could give one of four possible answers: “very important”, “important”,
“of little importance” or “not important at all”.
Chart A5.4. Importance of doing very well in science, mathematics and reading
for top performers
Science

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Mathematics

Reading

Portugal
Spain
Greece
Iceland
France
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Hong Kong-China
Sweden
Australia
New Zealand
Israel
Ireland
Lithuania
Macao-China
Norway
OECD average
Chinese Taipei
Italy
Luxembourg
Poland
Bulgaria
Korea
Denmark
Japan
Germany
Netherlands
Switzerland
Estonia
Slovenia
Austria
Hungary
Belgium
Slovak Republic
Latvia
Croatia
Russian Federation
Finland
Czech Republic
Liechtenstein

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of top performers reporting that doing well in science is very important.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A5.5.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Chart A5.4 shows that among science top performers in all the countries but Portugal, the
most important subject for them to do well in is mathematics. Across the OECD countries,
64% of science top performers on average reported that doing well in mathematics is very
important to them. This compared with 47% indicating that science is very important to them
and 41% indicating that test language subjects were very important to them. Countries with the
largest proportions of top performers reporting that doing well in science is very important to
them include Portugal (78%), Spain (70%), Greece (65%), Iceland (63%), France (61%), the
United States (61%) and Canada (60%).1
1. Note however that for both Portugal and Greece, we are talking about a small proportion of all students as only 3% of
all students are top performers. The evidence in this case for these two countries should be interpreted with caution.

104

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

A5

Chart A5.5. Index of future-oriented motivation to learn science
for strong performers and top performers, by gender
Strong performers

Top performers

Females

1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

Males

Czech Republic
Estonia
Latvia
Finland
Austria
Poland
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Bulgaria
Russian Federation
Lithuania
Japan
Germany
Liechtenstein
Korea
Netherlands
Norway
Croatia
Macao-China
Slovenia
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Ireland
Australia
Hungary
Switzerland
OECD average
Sweden
Luxembourg
Belgium
Chinese Taipei
United States
Italy
Hong Kong-China
Canada
Iceland
Israel
Greece
France
Spain
Portugal
0 -0.2 -0.4
-0.4 -0.2 0

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

Index points

Index points

Countries are ranked in ascending order of the index of future-oriented motivation to learn science for top performers.
Note: Significant differences are highlighted with darker tone.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A5.4d, available on line.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

105

chapter A

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Future-oriented motivation to learn science
The index of future-oriented motivation seeks to ascertain students’ aspirations with regard to
study beyond secondary school and active involvement in scientific careers or projects.
On average across the OECD countries, 61% of top performers reported that they would like to
work in a career involving science and 56% reported that they would like to study science after
secondary school. In contrast, top performers showed less enthusiasm for working on science
projects as adults or spending their lives doing advanced science (47% and 39% on average across
OECD countries, respectively) (Table A5.7e).
Among the OECD countries, the difference in the index of future-orientated motivation to
learn science between top performers and strong performers is 40% of a standard deviation, a
substantively large and significant difference between the two adjacent performance groups. For
example, on average across OECD countries only 39% of the strong performers reported that
they would like to study science after secondary school – this compares to 56% of top performers.
These index differences are observed in all OECD countries except the Slovak Republic, ranging
from 22% of a standard deviation in Poland to 54% in France (Table A5.4a).
It is therefore instructive to compare future-oriented science aspirations according to gender
given that in the past, females have been much less likely to choose scientific study and science
careers than males. Chart A5.5 shows a male index value of 0.61 in contrast to the female
index value of 0.47 on average across the OECD countries. The difference between genders is
statistically significant. Of the 28 OECD countries included in this comparison, 12 show that
male top performers in science have significantly higher aspirations to use science in the future
than females. Only in the Czech Republic and Poland do female top performers report higher
aspirations to use science in the future than male top performers. In the partner countries and
economies, Hong Kong-China and Chinese Taipei also have significant differences in favour of
males. Yet, the overall aspiration pattern among science top and strong performers is the same
for both males and females in these countries. As is the case for males, female top performers
report higher aspirations to use science in the future than female strong performers. So, the goal
of increasing the number of adults engaged in the study and pursuit of scientific activities by
fostering aspirations is valid for both males and females.
Science-related careers: school preparation and student information

As shown in Chart A5.6, across the OECD countries, for instance, top performers agree that
the subjects they study (82%) and their teachers (81%) and the subjects available at their school
(88%) provide them with the basic skills and knowledge for a science-related career.
The index of school preparation for science-related careers shows that top performers in
science report being significantly better prepared for science-related careers than the strong
performers (index values of 0.31 for top performers and 0.10 for strong performers, on average
across the OECD, Table A5.6a). However, at the country level, some differences appear. Top
performers in Australia, Canada, France and the United Kingdom have an index value higher
than 0.71 (more than 0.4 index point above the OECD average for top performers) while other
countries, Greece, Japan, Korea and the partner economy Macao-China, have an index value
smaller than -0.21 (more than 0.5 index point below the OECD average for top performers).
106

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter A

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

Chart A5.6 Science-related careers for strong performers and top performers:
school preparation and student information
Top performers

A5

Strong performers

Percentage of students agreeing or strongly agreeing with the following statements:
The subjects available at my school provide
students with the basic skills and knowledge
for a science-related career
The science subjects at my school provide
students with the basic skills and knowledge
for many different careers
The subjects I study provide me with
the basic skills and knowledge for
a science-related career
My teachers equip me with
the basic skills and knowledge I need for
a science-related career
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 %

Percentage of students who reported that they were very well informed or fairly informed about
the following topics:

Where to find information
about science-related careers
The steps a student needs to take if they
want a science-related a career
Science-related careers that
are available in the job market
Employers or companies that hire people
to work in science-related careers
0
10 20 30 40 50
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database, Table A5.6b and Table A5.6c, available on line.

60

70

80

90

100 %

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

The largest differences between top performers and strong performers are found in Australia,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom with more than 0.31 index
point in favour of top performers. On the other end, among the OECD countries, Germany,
Greece, Korea, Luxembourg, Poland and Portugal do not have significant differences between
top performers and strong performers.
But Chart A5.6 also shows that only around half of top performers in science report being
well informed about science-related careers available in the job market, about where to find
information on science-related careers or about the steps they need to take if they want a sciencerelated career. And only around a third of top performers feel well informed about employers or
companies that hire people to work in science-related careers.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

107

chapter A

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

As shown inTable A5.6a, there are few differences between top performers and strong performers
on the index of student information on science-related careers. Top performers have an index
value of 0.15, a small advantage compared with strong performers who have an index value of
0.06. The only countries where there is a significant advantage in favour of top performers are
Australia, Canada, Iceland, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom
and the partner economy Chinese Taipei.
Definitions and methodologies

The achievement scores are based on assessments administered as part of the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) undertaken by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD). The most recent and available PISA data were collected during the 2006
school year.
The target population studied for this indicator was 15-year-old students. Operationally, this referred
to students who were from 15 years and 3 (completed) months to 16 years and 2 (completed)
months at the beginning of the testing period and who were enrolled in an educational institution
at the secondary level, irrespective of the grade levels or type of institutions in which they were
enrolled, and irrespective of whether they participated in school full-time or part-time.
Further references

For further information about PISA 2006, see OECD (2007a) PISA 2006: Science Competencies for
Tomorrow’s World, OECD, Paris, and OECD (2009a) Top of the Class: High Performing Learners in PISA
2006, OECD, Paris. PISA data are also available on the PISA website: www.pisa.oecd.org.
The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

• Table A5.1b. Enjoyment of science: percentage of strong performers and top performers
• Table A5.2b. Science-related activities: percentage of strong performers and top performers
• Table A5.4b. Instrumental motivation to learn science: percentage of strong performers and top
performers
• Table A5.4c. Future-oriented motivation to learn science: percentage of strong performers and
top performers
• Table A5.4d. Index of future-oriented motivation to learn science for strong performers and top
performers, by gender
• Table A5.6b. School preparation of science-related careers: percentage of strong performers and
top performers
• Table A5.6c. Student information on science-related careers: percentage of strong performers
and top performers

108

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

A5

Table A5.1a.
Index of enjoyment of science for strong performers and top performers
Index of enjoyment of science

OECD countries

Top performers
Mean index
S.E.
0.68
(0.03)
0.48
(0.07)
0.64
(0.03)
0.85
(0.03)
0.32
(0.05)
0.70
(0.08)
0.54
(0.03)
0.92
(0.05)
0.65
(0.05)
0.81
(0.11)
0.74
(0.07)
0.99
(0.06)
0.61
(0.05)
0.65
(0.10)
0.38
(0.03)
0.62
(0.06)
0.78
(0.08)
c
c
0.29
(0.04)
0.63
(0.04)
0.91
(0.06)
0.27
(0.06)
0.97
(0.06)
0.33
(0.06)
0.69
(0.05)
0.72
(0.05)
0.73
(0.05)
c
c
0.57
(0.04)
0.68
(0.06)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average

0.26

(0.01)

0.65

(0.01)

-0.39

(0.01)

0.59

(0.00)

Partner countries and economies

Strong performers
Mean index
S.E.
0.23
(0.02)
0.10
(0.04)
0.24
(0.03)
0.39
(0.03)
0.05
(0.04)
0.31
(0.04)
0.21
(0.03)
0.49
(0.03)
0.16
(0.04)
0.51
(0.05)
0.42
(0.04)
0.58
(0.04)
0.21
(0.04)
0.40
(0.06)
-0.05
(0.03)
0.18
(0.04)
0.35
(0.04)
0.86
(0.05)
-0.14
(0.03)
0.20
(0.03)
0.50
(0.04)
-0.09
(0.04)
0.62
(0.03)
0.15
(0.04)
0.29
(0.03)
0.24
(0.04)
0.25
(0.04)
1.02
(0.06)
0.14
(0.03)
0.29
(0.04)

Correlation between
Difference in the mean the index of enjoyment
index between strong of science and the index
performers and top
of students’ scienceperformers
related activities
Dif.
S.E.
Correl.
S.E.
-0.45
(0.04)
0.60
(0.01)
-0.38
(0.09)
0.66
(0.01)
-0.39
(0.04)
0.59
(0.01)
-0.46
(0.04)
0.59
(0.01)
-0.27
(0.05)
0.62
(0.01)
-0.39
(0.10)
0.62
(0.01)
-0.33
(0.04)
0.58
(0.01)
-0.43
(0.06)
0.59
(0.01)
-0.49
(0.06)
0.63
(0.01)
-0.30
(0.12)
0.60
(0.01)
-0.33
(0.08)
0.62
(0.01)
-0.41
(0.08)
0.63
(0.01)
-0.39
(0.06)
0.60
(0.01)
-0.25
(0.13)
0.56
(0.01)
-0.43
(0.05)
0.60
(0.01)
-0.44
(0.05)
0.57
(0.01)
-0.43
(0.09)
0.59
(0.01)
c
c
0.46
(0.02)
-0.44
(0.04)
0.60
(0.01)
-0.44
(0.05)
0.60
(0.01)
-0.41
(0.08)
0.58
(0.01)
-0.36
(0.07)
0.44
(0.01)
-0.34
(0.07)
0.59
(0.01)
-0.18
(0.07)
0.60
(0.01)
-0.40
(0.06)
0.57
(0.01)
-0.48
(0.07)
0.57
(0.01)
-0.48
(0.08)
0.59
(0.01)
c
c
0.63
(0.01)
-0.42
(0.05)
0.57
(0.01)
-0.39
(0.06)
0.57
(0.01)

Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

0.11
c
0.58
0.50
0.65
c
0.24
0.13
0.55
c
0.37
1.16
c
0.09
-0.03
0.41
0.67
0.32
c
0.64
0.23
0.08
-0.05
0.35
1.11
c
0.28

(0.10)
c
(0.08)
(0.04)
(0.06)
c
(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.03)
c
(0.02)
(0.06)
c
(0.04)
(0.12)
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.11)
c
(0.08)
(0.03)
(0.06)
(0.04)
(0.02)
(0.05)
c
(0.07)

c
c
c
0.70
c
c
0.43
0.38
0.87
c
0.65
c
c
0.26
0.41
0.68
0.86
c
c
c
0.38
c
0.20
0.61
c
c
c

c
c
c
(0.08)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.05)
(0.03)
c
(0.05)
c
c
(0.07)
(0.21)
(0.07)
(0.09)
c
c
c
(0.07)
c
(0.06)
(0.03)
c
c
c

c
c
c
-0.20
c
c
-0.19
-0.25
-0.32
c
-0.28
c
c
-0.17
-0.44
-0.27
-0.19
c
c
c
-0.15
c
-0.26
-0.27
c
c
c

c
c
c
(0.10)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.06)
(0.04)
c
(0.05)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.25)
(0.09)
(0.10)
c
c
c
(0.08)
c
(0.07)
(0.03)
c
c
c

0.57
0.39
0.50
0.48
0.56
0.46
0.60
0.57
0.60
0.32
0.61
0.42
0.48
0.54
0.61
0.49
0.57
0.52
0.51
0.47
0.53
0.49
0.59
0.57
0.49
0.35
0.53

(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.04)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.03)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.01)
(0.02)
(0.01)

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

109

chapter A

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A5.2a.
Index of students’ science-related activities for strong performers and top performers

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Index of students’ science-related activities

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Strong performers
Mean index
S.E.
-0.12
(0.02)
0.19
(0.04)
0.19
(0.03)
-0.04
(0.03)
0.11
(0.03)
0.17
(0.04)
-0.11
(0.02)
0.26
(0.03)
0.27
(0.03)
0.57
(0.04)
0.46
(0.04)
0.18
(0.04)
-0.14
(0.04)
0.44
(0.03)
-0.52
(0.03)
0.05
(0.04)
0.34
(0.04)
0.86
(0.05)
-0.14
(0.03)
-0.16
(0.03)
0.21
(0.04)
0.71
(0.03)
0.70
(0.04)
0.36
(0.03)
0.13
(0.03)
-0.19
(0.04)
0.19
(0.03)
1.03
(0.06)
-0.20
(0.03)
0.07
(0.04)

Top performers
Mean index
S.E.
0.25
(0.03)
0.45
(0.05)
0.51
(0.04)
0.31
(0.03)
0.33
(0.05)
0.44
(0.06)
0.18
(0.03)
0.55
(0.05)
0.53
(0.04)
0.75
(0.08)
0.74
(0.06)
0.58
(0.06)
0.12
(0.05)
0.63
(0.04)
-0.23
(0.03)
0.32
(0.07)
0.63
(0.05)
c
c
0.19
(0.03)
0.21
(0.03)
0.52
(0.05)
0.87
(0.04)
0.88
(0.07)
0.45
(0.05)
0.38
(0.05)
0.15
(0.05)
0.47
(0.04)
c
c
0.17
(0.04)
0.37
(0.05)

Difference in the
mean index between
strong performers and
Difference in the mean
top performers after
index between strong accounting for the PISA
performers and top index of economic, social
performers
and cultural status
Dif.
S.E.
Dif.
S.E.
-0.37
-0.34
(0.04)
(0.04)
-0.26
-0.25
(0.07)
(0.07)
-0.31
-0.29
(0.05)
(0.05)
-0.34
-0.32
(0.04)
(0.04)
-0.22
-0.20
(0.06)
(0.06)
-0.27
-0.24
(0.08)
(0.07)
-0.30
-0.28
(0.04)
(0.04)
-0.29
-0.26
(0.06)
(0.06)
-0.26
-0.22
(0.06)
(0.06)
-0.18
(0.09)
-0.14
(0.09)
-0.28
-0.26
(0.07)
(0.07)
-0.40
-0.38
(0.07)
(0.07)
-0.26
-0.24
(0.06)
(0.06)
-0.20
-0.18
(0.05)
(0.05)
-0.29
-0.27
(0.04)
(0.04)
-0.27
-0.22
(0.06)
(0.06)
-0.28
-0.25
(0.07)
(0.07)
c
c
c
c
-0.33
-0.29
(0.04)
(0.04)
-0.36
-0.32
(0.05)
(0.05)
-0.31
-0.29
(0.06)
(0.06)
-0.16
-0.13
(0.05)
(0.05)
-0.18
-0.17
(0.07)
(0.07)
-0.08
(0.06)
-0.10
(0.06)
-0.25
-0.23
(0.06)
(0.06)
-0.34
-0.31
(0.07)
(0.07)
-0.29
-0.25
(0.05)
(0.05)
c
c
c
c
-0.36
-0.33
(0.04)
(0.04)
-0.30
-0.28
(0.07)
(0.07)

OECD average

0.14

(0.01)

0.42

(0.01)

-0.28

(0.01)

-0.25

(0.01)

Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

0.35
c
0.53
0.87
0.67
c
0.52
0.41
0.37
c
0.20
1.00
c
0.32
-0.05
0.30
0.46
0.80
c
0.84
0.58
0.71
0.55
0.51
1.33
c
0.19

(0.10)
c
(0.09)
(0.03)
(0.04)
c
(0.03)
(0.03)
(0.03)
c
(0.07)
(0.06)
c
(0.04)
(0.10)
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.07)
c
(0.06)
(0.03)
(0.05)
(0.04)
(0.02)
(0.05)
c
(0.08)

c
c
c
1.00
c
c
0.71
0.52
0.71
c
0.31
c
c
0.48
0.14
0.40
0.65
c
c
c
0.69
c
0.74
0.68
c
c
c

c
c
c
(0.07)
c
c
(0.06)
(0.03)
(0.03)
c
(0.10)
c
c
(0.06)
(0.16)
(0.07)
(0.07)
c
c
c
(0.07)
c
(0.04)
(0.02)
c
c
c

c
c
c
-0.13
c
c
-0.19
-0.11
-0.34
c
-0.11
c
c
-0.17
-0.19
-0.09
-0.19
c
c
c
-0.11
c
-0.20
-0.17
c
c
c

c
c
c
(0.08)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.04)
(0.05)
c
(0.13)
c
c
(0.07)
(0.19)
(0.08)
(0.09)
c
c
c
(0.08)
c
(0.07)
(0.04)
c
c
c

c
c
c
-0.10
c
c
-0.18
-0.10
-0.31
c
-0.11
c
c
-0.16
-0.13
-0.09
-0.16
c
c
c
-0.11
c
-0.17
-0.12
c
c
c

c
c
c
(0.08)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.04)
(0.05)
c
(0.13)
c
c
(0.07)
(0.19)
(0.09)
(0.09)
c
c
c
(0.09)
c
(0.07)
(0.04)
c
c
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.

Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

110

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Table A5.3.
Regular science lessons in school and out-of-school lessons in science for strong performers and top performers

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Regular science lessons in school
Percentage of students taking lessons
Hours per week taking science lessons in school
Difference in hours
between strong
performers and top
Strong performers Top performers Strong performers Top performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
Mean
S.E.
Mean
S.E.
Dif.
S.E.
-0.52
90.5
(0.8)
95.6
(0.7)
3.67
(0.04)
4.18
(0.05)
(0.06)
-0.61
91.7
(1.3)
96.4
(1.2)
3.14
(0.09)
3.82
(0.14)
(0.13)
-0.58
97.3
(0.5)
99.1
(0.4)
3.36
(0.06)
3.97
(0.07)
(0.10)
-0.46
94.0
(0.7)
96.4
(0.6)
4.45
(0.06)
4.86
(0.07)
(0.09)
-1.18
93.2
(1.4)
97.3
(1.3)
3.77
(0.10)
4.93
(0.11)
(0.13)
-0.23
99.0
(0.5)
99.7
(0.4)
3.51
(0.06)
3.76
(0.11)
(0.11)
-0.49
98.0
(0.5)
99.1
(0.3)
3.28
(0.05)
3.80
(0.06)
(0.08)
-0.87
98.7
(0.4)
99.8
(0.5)
4.02
(0.08)
4.82
(0.09)
(0.14)
-0.74
96.3
(0.9)
98.2
(0.8)
3.69
(0.07)
4.48
(0.10)
(0.12)
-0.56
99.5
(0.3)
100.0
(0.0)
4.23
(0.07)
4.77
(0.15)
(0.19)
-0.82
91.9
(1.5)
94.4
(2.1)
3.13
(0.09)
3.92
(0.14)
(0.19)
98.7
(0.6)
98.6
(0.9)
3.27
(0.05)
3.37
(0.10)
-0.13
(0.14)
-0.28
92.7
(1.1)
95.9
(1.4)
2.80
(0.05)
3.15
(0.08)
(0.11)
90.8
(2.1)
88.6
(3.5)
3.57
(0.09)
3.64
(0.18)
-0.15
(0.14)
-0.32
97.7
(0.9)
99.2
(0.5)
2.88
(0.07)
3.23
(0.08)
(0.07)
98.6
(0.6)
99.3
(0.5)
3.87
(0.09)
4.03
(0.23)
-0.09
(0.18)
95.4
(0.9)
98.7
(1.0)
2.93
(0.07)
3.17
(0.11)
-0.30
(0.16)
87.0
(2.7)
c
c
3.76
(0.15)
c
c
c
c
-0.86
85.0
(1.2)
91.9
(1.5)
2.72
(0.06)
3.58
(0.12)
(0.13)
-0.48
96.0
(0.7)
97.9
(0.6)
4.49
(0.05)
5.01
(0.05)
(0.08)
99.5
(0.3)
99.6
(0.7)
2.82
(0.04)
2.88
(0.05)
-0.02
(0.07)
-0.29
99.2
(0.4)
98.7
(0.7)
3.24
(0.06)
3.55
(0.09)
(0.12)
-1.00
86.7
(1.7)
94.1
(2.2)
4.55
(0.09)
5.53
(0.15)
(0.21)
-1.03
96.6
(1.1)
99.6
(0.4)
3.59
(0.13)
4.69
(0.14)
(0.22)
-0.83
95.0
(0.7)
97.6
(0.9)
4.08
(0.06)
4.86
(0.11)
(0.16)
98.5
(0.7)
99.1
(0.7)
2.98
(0.04)
3.11
(0.06)
-0.10
(0.08)
-1.00
93.5
(0.9)
98.4
(0.7)
2.96
(0.06)
3.95
(0.10)
(0.13)
97.8
(2.3)
c
c
5.57
(0.14)
c
c
c
c
-0.49
99.1
(0.3)
99.4
(0.2)
4.69
(0.04)
5.20
(0.06)
(0.08)
-0.35
96.3
(1.0)
97.1
(1.1)
4.31
(0.06)
4.74
(0.09)
(0.13)
-0.53
95.3
(0.2)
97.5
(0.2)
3.57
(0.01)
4.11
(0.02)
(0.03)
96.8
(1.6)
c
c
3.94
(0.23)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
99.4
(0.7)
c
c
4.13
(0.13)
c
c
c
c
97.3
(1.0)
97.5
(1.5)
3.68
(0.13)
4.25
(0.22)
-0.42
(0.22)
96.7
(0.9)
c
c
3.77
(0.13)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
91.5
(1.1)
95.1
(1.7)
2.62
(0.07)
2.77
(0.14)
-0.21
(0.18)
-0.83
98.9
(0.5)
99.3
(0.4)
3.74
(0.06)
4.54
(0.10)
(0.11)
-1.20
71.7
(1.6)
82.8
(1.8)
3.81
(0.10)
4.90
(0.11)
(0.16)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
-0.69
85.9
(2.4)
91.1
(3.0)
3.31
(0.12)
4.11
(0.15)
(0.21)
98.0
(1.4)
c
c
4.70
(0.15)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
-0.62
97.6
(0.8)
97.9
(1.5)
3.63
(0.09)
4.07
(0.21)
(0.29)
-1.21
100.0
(0.0)
100.0
(0.0)
2.81
(0.17)
4.15
(0.27)
(0.44)
-0.42
99.3
(0.4)
99.9
(0.2)
3.26
(0.07)
3.70
(0.10)
(0.16)
-0.62
90.4
(1.0)
93.0
(1.9)
4.59
(0.07)
5.27
(0.14)
(0.26)
98.8
(1.0)
c
c
4.48
(0.17)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
97.9
(1.0)
c
c
4.17
(0.17)
c
c
c
c
-0.49
97.6
(0.7)
99.3
(0.7)
4.60
(0.10)
5.28
(0.12)
(0.21)
98.6
(0.8)
c
c
4.43
(0.10)
c
c
c
c
-0.88
96.1
(1.0)
98.4
(0.9)
3.43
(0.07)
4.40
(0.09)
(0.15)
-0.36
94.2
(1.2)
97.8
(0.8)
3.43
(0.07)
3.79
(0.06)
(0.09)
100.0
(0.0)
c
c
5.81
(0.13)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
92.7
(1.8)
c
c
3.59
(0.13)
c
c
c
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

111

A5

chapter A

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Table A5.3. (continued)
Regular science lessons in school and out-of-school lessons in science for strong performers and top performers

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Out-of-school lessons in science
Percentage of students taking lessons Hours per week taking out-of-school lessons in science
Difference in hours
between strong
performers and top
Strong performers Top performers Strong performers Top performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
Mean
S.E.
Mean
S.E.
Dif.
S.E.
0.07
21.9
(1.0)
17.8
(1.1)
0.34
(0.02)
0.26
(0.02)
(0.03)
4.7
(0.8)
3.8
(1.2)
0.07
(0.02)
0.05
(0.02)
0.01
(0.03)
0.08
14.4
(0.9)
9.1
(1.2)
0.21
(0.02)
0.14
(0.02)
(0.03)
0.14
30.3
(1.2)
23.3
(1.6)
0.50
(0.03)
0.36
(0.03)
(0.04)
32.4
(1.8)
33.1
(2.3)
0.53
(0.04)
0.51
(0.05)
0.02
(0.06)
53.8
(2.1)
48.9
(4.4)
0.78
(0.04)
0.72
(0.08)
0.06
(0.09)
20.5
(1.6)
13.7
(1.7)
0.27
(0.03)
0.19
(0.03)
0.08
(0.05)
0.17
32.6
(2.0)
21.7
(3.3)
0.51
(0.04)
0.34
(0.06)
(0.08)
0.11
20.6
(1.6)
15.7
(1.7)
0.32
(0.03)
0.22
(0.03)
(0.04)
77.3
(2.1)
75.2
(4.8)
2.41
(0.10)
2.52
(0.25)
-0.11
(0.26)
49.8
(2.3)
52.6
(3.6)
0.91
(0.05)
1.00
(0.08)
-0.09
(0.09)
14.5
(1.5)
9.2
(2.2)
0.20
(0.03)
0.13
(0.03)
0.08
(0.04)
15.6
(1.3)
11.3
(2.2)
0.22
(0.02)
0.17
(0.04)
0.05
(0.05)
20.7
(1.4)
17.9
(2.8)
0.36
(0.03)
0.32
(0.06)
0.04
(0.08)
15.4
(1.2)
12.8
(1.5)
0.20
(0.02)
0.15
(0.02)
0.05
(0.03)
59.3
(2.6)
59.1
(4.6)
1.29
(0.07)
1.39
(0.18)
-0.10
(0.16)
18.0
(1.6)
14.0
(2.5)
0.26
(0.03)
0.22
(0.05)
0.04
(0.06)
31.3
(3.2)
c
c
0.61
(0.09)
c
c
c
c
0.20
29.4
(1.6)
19.3
(2.3)
0.46
(0.03)
0.25
(0.03)
(0.05)
21.8
(1.6)
19.3
(1.7)
0.34
(0.03)
0.29
(0.03)
0.05
(0.04)
52.8
(2.2)
47.3
(3.6)
0.71
(0.04)
0.67
(0.08)
0.04
(0.08)
37.7
(1.9)
40.2
(2.9)
0.55
(0.04)
0.66
(0.07)
-0.11
(0.09)
26.7
(2.2)
21.3
(3.9)
0.57
(0.05)
0.47
(0.11)
0.10
(0.12)
50.1
(2.7)
50.4
(2.8)
0.89
(0.06)
0.92
(0.09)
-0.03
(0.10)
0.19
21.5
(1.5)
13.9
(2.3)
0.47
(0.05)
0.28
(0.06)
(0.07)
0.13
25.5
(1.9)
16.7
(2.8)
0.33
(0.03)
0.20
(0.04)
(0.04)
21.0
(1.4)
16.4
(1.8)
0.32
(0.02)
0.28
(0.05)
0.04
(0.06)
75.4
(5.6)
c
c
2.90
(0.18)
c
c
c
c
29.8
(1.5)
24.2
(1.9)
0.42
(0.03)
0.33
(0.03)
0.08
(0.04)
39.1
(2.2)
29.8
(2.6)
0.66
(0.06)
0.47
(0.06)
0.18
(0.10)
0.06
30.6
(0.3)
26.4
(0.5)
0.54
(0.01)
0.48
(0.01)
(0.02)
14.5
(4.4)
c
c
0.24
(0.09)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
42.4
(2.3)
43.2
(4.9)
0.83
(0.07)
0.69
(0.12)
0.13
(0.13)
57.1
(4.9)
c
c
1.09
(0.15)
c
c
c
c
44.1
(3.4)
c
c
0.77
(0.07)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
36.6
(1.7)
27.8
(2.8)
0.55
(0.04)
0.43
(0.05)
0.13
(0.08)
43.4
(1.7)
49.4
(2.3)
1.06
(0.06)
1.17
(0.09)
-0.11
(0.11)
0.14
19.7
(1.3)
14.2
(2.2)
0.33
(0.03)
0.19
(0.04)
(0.05)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
46.4
(2.7)
41.7
(4.0)
0.93
(0.08)
0.73
(0.11)
0.20
(0.14)
59.3
(4.6)
c
c
1.43
(0.16)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
20.7
(5.4)
12.0
(4.5)
0.35
(0.11)
0.19
(0.10)
0.17
(0.15)
26.1
(2.5)
23.4
(4.9)
0.36
(0.04)
0.29
(0.06)
0.07
(0.07)
33.1
(2.3)
35.9
(5.3)
0.54
(0.05)
0.63
(0.14)
-0.09
(0.16)
46.3
(2.2)
51.1
(3.6)
0.97
(0.08)
1.14
(0.19)
-0.17
(0.24)
39.8
(5.1)
c
c
0.73
(0.15)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
54.8
(6.7)
c
c
1.02
(0.13)
c
c
c
c
54.9
(2.0)
61.2
(4.2)
1.08
(0.06)
1.33
(0.14)
-0.25
(0.15)
37.3
(3.3)
c
c
0.72
(0.11)
c
c
c
c
40.1
(2.0)
36.3
(3.0)
0.64
(0.04)
0.52
(0.05)
0.12
(0.08)
38.4
(1.5)
37.4
(1.7)
0.95
(0.04)
1.01
(0.05)
-0.06
(0.07)
68.2
(4.8)
c
c
2.33
(0.25)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
23.2
(2.8)
c
c
0.43
(0.08)
c
c
c
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

112

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

A5

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Table A5.4a.
Indices of instrumental motivation and future-oriented motivation to learn science for strong performers
and top performers

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Index of instrumental motivation to learn science Index of future-oriented motivation to learn science
Difference in
Difference in
the mean index
the mean index
between strong
between strong
Strong
Top
performers and
Strong
Top
performers and
performers
performers
top performers
performers
performers
top performers
Mean
Mean
Mean
Mean
index S.E. index S.E.
Dif.
S.E.
index S.E. index S.E.
Dif.
S.E.
0.31 (0.03)
0.65 (0.03) -0.33
(0.05)
0.13 (0.02)
0.54 (0.03) -0.41
(0.03)
-0.33 (0.06) -0.13 (0.07) -0.20
(0.09)
-0.15 (0.05)
0.18 (0.07) -0.33
(0.09)
-0.10 (0.03)
0.18 (0.04) -0.29
(0.05)
0.19 (0.03)
0.62 (0.04) -0.43
(0.05)
0.46 (0.03)
0.79 (0.04) -0.33
(0.04)
0.36 (0.02)
0.79 (0.03) -0.44
(0.04)
-0.21 (0.04) -0.02 (0.05) -0.19
(0.05)
-0.09 (0.04)
0.16 (0.05) -0.25
(0.05)
0.25 (0.04)
0.50 (0.08) -0.24
(0.10)
0.10 (0.05)
0.51 (0.09) -0.40
(0.12)
-0.15 (0.03)
0.24 (0.03) -0.39
(0.04)
-0.11 (0.03)
0.29 (0.04) -0.39
(0.05)
0.22 (0.03)
0.68 (0.05) -0.46
(0.07)
0.28 (0.04)
0.83 (0.06) -0.54
(0.08)
-0.01 (0.04)
0.27 (0.05) -0.27
(0.06)
-0.01 (0.04)
0.38 (0.06) -0.38
(0.09)
0.28 (0.06)
0.50 (0.11) -0.22
(0.14)
0.43 (0.05)
0.81 (0.12) -0.38
(0.13)
-0.07 (0.05)
0.23 (0.08) -0.30
(0.09)
0.17 (0.04)
0.56 (0.09) -0.39
(0.09)
0.49 (0.05)
0.86 (0.07) -0.37
(0.09)
0.39 (0.04)
0.81 (0.08) -0.42
(0.09)
0.42 (0.04)
0.71 (0.05) -0.29
(0.07)
0.24 (0.04)
0.64 (0.06) -0.39
(0.08)
0.30 (0.03)
0.48 (0.05) -0.17
(0.06)
0.39 (0.03)
0.69 (0.06) -0.30
(0.06)
-0.27 (0.03)
0.16 (0.04) -0.42
(0.05)
-0.10 (0.03)
0.32 (0.04) -0.42
(0.05)
-0.06 (0.04)
0.23 (0.10) -0.29
(0.09)
-0.05 (0.04)
0.33 (0.10) -0.38
(0.08)
-0.02 (0.04)
0.27 (0.08) -0.28
(0.09)
0.15 (0.04)
0.55 (0.08) -0.39
(0.09)
0.60 (0.06)
c
c
c
c
0.66 (0.06)
c
c
c
c
-0.18 (0.04)
0.18 (0.05) -0.36
(0.06)
-0.15 (0.03)
0.36 (0.05) -0.52
(0.07)
0.31 (0.04)
0.64 (0.04) -0.33
(0.07)
0.14 (0.04)
0.56 (0.04) -0.41
(0.05)
0.09 (0.05)
0.44 (0.07) -0.35
(0.10)
0.05 (0.04)
0.43 (0.07) -0.38
(0.08)
0.18 (0.04)
0.36 (0.05) -0.18
(0.07)
0.21 (0.03)
0.44 (0.06) -0.22
(0.07)
1.02 (0.04)
1.19 (0.09) -0.18
(0.11)
0.73 (0.05)
1.16 (0.10) -0.43
(0.11)
-0.12 (0.04)
0.03 (0.06) -0.16
(0.07)
0.18 (0.05)
0.34 (0.08) -0.16
(0.11)
0.44 (0.04)
0.79 (0.05) -0.35
(0.06)
0.50 (0.03)
0.95 (0.05) -0.45
(0.05)
0.17 (0.04)
0.62 (0.06) -0.45
(0.07)
0.03 (0.03)
0.51 (0.05) -0.48
(0.06)
-0.12 (0.03)
0.26 (0.04) -0.38
(0.05)
-0.06 (0.04)
0.46 (0.05) -0.52
(0.07)
0.78 (0.08)
c
c
c
c
1.14 (0.09)
c
c
c
c
0.30 (0.03)
0.64 (0.04) -0.35
(0.05)
0.04 (0.04)
0.49 (0.04) -0.45
(0.05)
0.44 (0.03)
0.65 (0.06) -0.22
(0.07)
0.37 (0.04)
0.68 (0.06) -0.31
(0.07)

OECD average

0.14 (0.01)

0.44 (0.01)

-0.30

(0.01)

0.16 (0.01)

0.55 (0.01)

-0.39

(0.01)

Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

0.44
c
0.50
0.32
0.72
c
0.08
0.04
0.22
c
-0.68
1.12
c
0.05
-0.35
0.42
0.54
0.29
c
0.44
0.11
0.14
0.09
0.35
1.07
c
0.26

c
c
c
0.40
c
c
0.19
0.19
0.48
c
-0.87
c
c
0.18
0.14
0.57
0.76
c
c
c
0.18
c
0.28
0.56
c
c
c

c
c
c
-0.08
c
c
-0.12
-0.14
-0.26
c
0.19
c
c
-0.13
-0.48
-0.15
-0.22
c
c
c
-0.07
c
-0.19
-0.21
c
c
c

c
c
c
(0.12)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.05)
(0.05)
c
(0.08)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.22)
(0.08)
(0.09)
c
c
c
(0.07)
c
(0.08)
(0.04)
c
c
c

0.43
c
0.47
0.36
0.56
c
0.31
-0.07
0.38
c
0.60
1.46
c
0.00
-0.26
0.24
0.26
0.30
c
0.57
0.26
0.45
0.10
0.25
1.09
c
0.29

c
c
c
0.47
c
c
0.52
0.17
0.70
c
0.86
c
c
0.23
0.22
0.46
0.51
c
c
c
0.40
c
0.46
0.50
c
c
c

c
c
c
-0.11
c
c
-0.21
-0.23
-0.32
c
-0.25
c
c
-0.23
-0.47
-0.22
-0.25
c
c
c
-0.14
c
-0.35
-0.25
c
c
c

c
c
c
(0.13)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.05)
(0.05)
c
(0.09)
c
c
(0.09)
(0.26)
(0.07)
(0.08)
c
c
c
(0.08)
c
(0.08)
(0.04)
c
c
c

(0.12)
c
(0.10)
(0.05)
(0.08)
c
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.04)
c
(0.06)
(0.05)
c
(0.04)
(0.13)
(0.04)
(0.04)
(0.11)
c
(0.09)
(0.04)
(0.08)
(0.04)
(0.02)
(0.07)
c
(0.06)

c
c
c
(0.10)
c
c
(0.07)
(0.04)
(0.04)
c
(0.07)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.16)
(0.07)
(0.08)
c
c
c
(0.06)
c
(0.06)
(0.03)
c
c
c

(0.11)
c
(0.10)
(0.06)
(0.08)
c
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.04)
c
(0.06)
(0.06)
c
(0.05)
(0.11)
(0.04)
(0.03)
(0.13)
c
(0.07)
(0.04)
(0.07)
(0.04)
(0.02)
(0.09)
c
(0.07)

c
c
c
(0.12)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.04)
(0.03)
c
(0.07)
c
c
(0.08)
(0.20)
(0.07)
(0.07)
c
c
c
(0.07)
c
(0.06)
(0.04)
c
c
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

113

chapter A

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Table A5.5.
Importance of doing well in science, mathematics and reading for strong performers and top performers

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Students reporting
doing well in science
is very important
Strong
Top
performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
38.7
(1.3)
52.2
(1.3)
22.8
(1.8)
33.9
(2.8)
22.7
(1.2)
31.9
(2.0)
46.4
(1.2)
60.3
(1.6)
16.1
(1.7)
22.9
(2.1)
29.6
(2.1)
39.1
(3.7)
11.8
(1.0)
25.0
(1.6)
37.9
(1.8)
60.6
(3.1)
28.6
(1.6)
36.9
(2.4)
49.9
(2.2)
64.5
(4.0)
18.3
(1.7)
33.4
(3.0)
51.1
(2.1)
63.4
(3.0)
39.8
(2.0)
51.4
(3.0)
34.1
(2.0)
44.3
(3.0)
29.2
(1.4)
39.1
(1.6)
30.3
(1.8)
39.1
(3.9)
31.4
(1.9)
43.3
(3.5)
48.2
(3.6)
c
c
25.3
(1.9)
35.9
(2.8)
36.8
(1.9)
52.0
(2.3)
37.0
(2.9)
47.1
(4.8)
31.1
(1.6)
41.2
(3.1)
66.6
(2.5)
78.8
(4.5)
20.0
(1.7)
31.9
(2.7)
54.0
(2.3)
69.8
(2.5)
34.0
(1.8)
53.1
(3.2)
20.4
(1.7)
35.0
(2.4)
61.0
(3.6)
c
c
43.6
(1.7)
57.5
(2.0)
50.3
(1.7)
60.6
(2.7)
34.2 (0.3)
46.6 (0.6)
45.4
(4.9)
c
c
c
c
c
c
45.7
(4.1)
c
c
35.5
(2.4)
39.5
(5.8)
57.2
(3.9)
c
c
c
c
c
c
22.0
(1.7)
29.2
(3.4)
26.8
(1.7)
34.5
(2.5)
40.3
(1.7)
56.9
(2.1)
c
c
c
c
45.3
(2.8)
52.0
(3.9)
79.1
(2.6)
c
c
c
c
c
c
18.3
(1.7)
29.9
(4.1)
23.3
(6.4)
20.0
(6.0)
39.7
(2.6)
50.4
(4.6)
36.5
(2.3)
47.8
(5.2)
36.8
(7.3)
c
c
c
c
c
c
35.3
(5.3)
c
c
23.7
(1.9)
29.1
(4.2)
30.0
(3.9)
c
c
22.5
(1.6)
34.3
(2.8)
32.8
(1.3)
45.5
(2.0)
85.4
(3.4)
c
c
c
c
c
c
44.0
(3.1)
c
c

Students reporting
doing well in mathematics
is very important
Strong
Top
performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
66.2
(1.3)
68.4
(1.4)
54.4
(1.9)
55.2
(3.0)
51.5
(1.4)
59.8
(2.1)
70.1
(1.3)
75.3
(1.4)
51.7
(2.1)
49.6
(2.2)
67.8
(2.4)
72.2
(3.9)
34.0
(1.4)
50.6
(1.6)
55.1
(2.3)
62.7
(3.7)
62.3
(1.6)
63.3
(2.4)
64.4
(2.0)
71.4
(4.3)
35.7
(2.3)
45.9
(3.5)
83.6
(1.8)
88.2
(2.8)
71.3
(1.8)
75.2
(2.6)
56.4
(2.2)
58.9
(3.3)
58.5
(1.8)
67.2
(1.9)
68.5
(1.6)
74.6
(2.5)
49.9
(2.1)
58.9
(3.8)
82.7
(2.2)
c
c
40.2
(1.7)
42.4
(2.4)
67.0
(1.5)
70.5
(1.9)
67.0
(2.4)
74.5
(4.2)
48.4
(2.0)
52.4
(3.2)
68.9
(2.2)
76.6
(4.1)
55.2
(2.4)
58.1
(3.2)
67.0
(1.4)
74.5
(2.5)
58.5
(2.0)
66.6
(3.4)
55.0
(1.7)
50.6
(3.1)
78.6
(3.3)
c
c
66.3
(1.8)
67.2
(1.8)
71.0
(2.1)
75.6
(2.5)
59.5 (0.4)
64.5 (0.6)
59.3
(4.8)
c
c
c
c
c
c
63.5
(4.5)
c
c
71.8
(2.6)
73.7
(3.3)
81.7
(2.6)
c
c
c
c
c
c
40.7
(2.4)
40.8
(3.6)
61.5
(1.9)
68.4
(2.8)
59.7
(1.9)
67.2
(1.7)
c
c
c
c
75.6
(2.4)
74.2
(3.1)
80.3
(2.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
64.4
(2.6)
70.1
(4.7)
48.2
(5.9)
43.2
(7.4)
72.6
(1.9)
75.4
(4.9)
41.1
(2.1)
41.1
(5.7)
41.9
(6.6)
c
c
c
c
c
c
59.8
(5.7)
c
c
58.9
(2.4)
63.2
(3.9)
44.3
(3.4)
c
c
46.5
(2.0)
52.3
(2.8)
52.1
(1.3)
60.8
(1.6)
82.8
(3.2)
c
c
c
c
c
c
68.7
(3.8)
c
c

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

114

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Students reporting
doing well in reading
is very important
Strong
Top
performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
66.3
(1.1)
62.6
(1.6)
49.8
(2.2)
46.3
(3.3)
30.0
(1.5)
23.0
(2.0)
52.4
(1.4)
48.2
(1.6)
47.7
(1.9)
37.7
(2.2)
67.0
(1.6)
60.2
(2.9)
28.2
(1.5)
30.6
(1.8)
32.8
(1.8)
25.6
(2.7)
49.9
(1.7)
39.6
(2.0)
45.1
(2.3)
39.0
(5.1)
39.2
(1.8)
33.8
(3.3)
57.2
(2.1)
53.8
(3.8)
59.3
(2.4)
51.0
(3.5)
49.9
(1.6)
42.2
(3.4)
50.2
(1.6)
47.7
(2.3)
59.7
(1.9)
62.0
(4.8)
42.8
(2.0)
44.0
(4.4)
58.2
(3.7)
c
c
30.3
(2.0)
17.0
(1.8)
59.2
(2.0)
57.0
(2.0)
44.8
(2.3)
38.6
(3.5)
47.9
(1.9)
39.4
(3.1)
25.9
(2.0)
16.4
(5.7)
53.9
(2.6)
40.5
(4.0)
42.9
(1.2)
39.5
(3.1)
58.7
(2.5)
54.5
(3.2)
44.9
(1.5)
31.7
(2.1)
32.3
(3.6)
c
c
66.3
(1.2)
55.4
(1.9)
59.3
(2.4)
55.1
(3.0)
48.6 (0.4)
42.6 (0.6)
38.8
(4.1)
c
c
c
c
c
c
58.7
(4.3)
c
c
68.1
(3.2)
55.0
(8.2)
60.7
(3.3)
c
c
c
c
c
c
41.2
(2.2)
34.4
(3.5)
56.1
(1.9)
51.4
(3.0)
55.4
(1.8)
48.7
(1.8)
c
c
c
c
40.0
(2.6)
33.2
(3.6)
41.8
(4.5)
c
c
c
c
c
c
46.6
(2.4)
42.2
(3.6)
36.0
(6.0)
36.2
(8.2)
64.0
(2.3)
58.8
(3.9)
58.3
(2.4)
55.7
(4.8)
53.4
(6.5)
c
c
c
c
c
c
57.1
(4.7)
c
c
53.2
(2.3)
47.1
(3.9)
37.8
(3.4)
c
c
44.2
(1.7)
41.0
(2.6)
45.7
(1.2)
45.3
(1.6)
32.3
(5.9)
c
c
c
c
c
c
38.4
(4.1)
c
c

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Table A5.5. (continued)
Importance of doing well in science, mathematics and reading for strong performers and top performers

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Students reporting doing
well in science is very
important or important
Strong
Top
performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
82.2
(1.0)
91.3
(0.9)
70.0
(2.2)
76.5
(2.7)
72.2
(1.3)
84.3
(1.4)
88.8
(0.9)
94.1
(0.8)
60.1
(2.3)
71.3
(2.4)
78.3
(1.7)
86.5
(2.4)
67.9
(1.5)
81.7
(1.7)
79.3
(1.6)
89.5
(1.5)
80.2
(1.6)
88.7
(1.8)
85.6
(1.6)
92.0
(3.3)
68.5
(2.2)
78.8
(3.3)
83.8
(1.7)
93.3
(2.2)
86.2
(1.4)
92.1
(1.4)
87.7
(1.0)
93.0
(1.3)
76.3
(1.4)
84.7
(1.4)
82.2
(1.5)
85.9
(2.2)
73.2
(1.7)
84.0
(2.3)
93.4
(1.3)
c
c
76.4
(1.8)
85.1
(2.3)
82.8
(1.9)
90.5
(1.1)
87.9
(1.4)
94.2
(1.6)
81.5
(1.6)
84.0
(2.1)
94.8
(1.2)
97.0
(1.7)
72.3
(2.2)
80.9
(2.9)
87.4
(1.3)
95.1
(1.2)
80.5
(1.6)
91.7
(1.6)
72.6
(1.5)
86.8
(1.6)
92.1
(1.7)
c
c
89.5
(1.2)
93.7
(1.1)
88.7
(1.2)
93.6
(1.5)
79.9 (0.3)
87.9 (0.4)
90.1
(3.5)
c
c
c
c
c
c
93.7
(1.9)
c
c
88.3
(2.2)
90.7
(2.8)
93.4
(1.2)
c
c
c
c
c
c
69.0
(2.1)
78.2
(3.4)
85.1
(1.4)
89.6
(1.4)
74.8
(1.5)
87.5
(1.4)
c
c
c
c
79.8
(2.0)
86.6
(3.0)
98.7
(0.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
78.3
(1.9)
83.5
(4.0)
73.0
(5.9)
85.5
(6.8)
88.5
(1.3)
90.6
(2.2)
86.8
(2.0)
93.7
(3.5)
80.2
(4.9)
c
c
c
c
c
c
91.2
(2.4)
c
c
76.3
(2.0)
81.5
(3.5)
79.8
(2.4)
c
c
75.2
(1.6)
81.9
(2.0)
82.8
(0.9)
89.4
(0.9)
99.0
(0.8)
c
c
c
c
c
c
89.2
(2.8)
c
c

Students reporting doing
well in mathematics is very
important or important
Strong
Top
performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
95.6
(0.5)
96.3
(0.6)
91.5
(1.1)
92.2
(1.2)
93.3
(1.0)
93.3
(1.2)
96.0
(0.6)
97.0
(0.7)
90.3
(1.2)
89.1
(1.3)
97.6
(0.7)
97.6
(1.3)
88.7
(1.0)
93.3
(0.9)
91.0
(1.0)
92.5
(1.4)
94.4
(0.7)
95.2
(1.2)
89.7
(1.3)
95.0
(1.9)
85.7
(1.4)
87.1
(2.3)
98.8
(0.5)
99.0
(0.7)
96.0
(0.8)
95.3
(1.1)
92.3
(1.1)
95.7
(1.1)
91.6
(0.9)
94.2
(1.0)
91.4
(0.9)
94.4
(1.3)
84.8
(1.4)
89.3
(2.5)
98.8
(0.6)
c
c
92.5
(1.0)
94.6
(1.3)
96.2
(0.9)
97.0
(0.8)
95.4
(0.8)
98.0
(1.1)
90.6
(1.1)
90.2
(2.1)
97.0
(1.0)
98.3
(1.5)
91.0
(1.1)
91.4
(1.9)
94.2
(0.9)
95.1
(1.7)
95.0
(0.9)
96.9
(1.1)
91.0
(0.9)
89.1
(1.9)
96.4
(1.7)
c
c
96.3
(0.6)
96.8
(0.6)
95.3
(0.9)
97.0
(0.8)
93.0 (0.2)
94.3 (0.3)
92.0
(2.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
93.2
(2.3)
c
c
93.6
(1.6)
93.0
(2.5)
98.1
(0.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
79.8
(2.1)
85.2
(3.0)
93.1
(1.0)
95.2
(1.1)
95.1
(0.8)
97.2
(0.7)
c
c
c
c
95.8
(1.1)
93.2
(2.4)
97.8
(1.1)
c
c
c
c
c
c
95.0
(1.0)
95.4
(1.6)
89.7
(3.8)
91.9
(4.8)
97.6
(0.6)
96.7
(1.6)
87.7
(2.2)
85.2
(5.8)
79.4
(4.6)
c
c
c
c
c
c
91.7
(3.2)
c
c
92.3
(1.6)
93.8
(1.8)
82.9
(2.5)
c
c
90.1
(1.1)
93.5
(1.2)
88.1
(0.8)
91.6
(0.9)
99.4
(0.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
96.2
(1.2)
c
c

Students reporting doing
well in reading is very
important or important
Strong
Top
performers
performers
%
S.E.
%
S.E.
95.1
(0.6)
94.8
(0.7)
87.0
(1.4)
83.2
(2.4)
78.1
(1.2)
68.2
(2.2)
90.3
(0.7)
86.8
(1.2)
89.9
(1.0)
83.0
(1.7)
95.2
(0.9)
93.4
(2.4)
81.2
(1.3)
80.1
(1.6)
76.4
(1.5)
69.6
(2.8)
90.7
(1.1)
84.8
(1.6)
78.6
(1.9)
75.5
(5.1)
81.9
(1.8)
76.8
(3.4)
89.0
(1.4)
90.8
(1.9)
92.0
(1.1)
86.3
(1.9)
90.9
(0.9)
87.9
(1.5)
88.5
(1.0)
86.2
(1.4)
93.4
(1.0)
91.8
(2.1)
82.1
(1.3)
81.1
(2.6)
93.5
(1.7)
c
c
83.4
(1.7)
70.7
(2.3)
93.1
(0.8)
91.8
(0.9)
84.7
(2.1)
84.7
(3.3)
87.7
(1.2)
82.7
(2.5)
80.4
(2.2)
73.6
(4.5)
90.8
(1.3)
80.6
(2.7)
81.1
(1.2)
79.0
(2.2)
93.2
(1.2)
91.9
(1.8)
86.9
(1.2)
81.1
(1.9)
81.8
(2.6)
c
c
95.1
(0.9)
90.9
(1.3)
89.7
(1.4)
87.3
(1.8)
87.4 (0.2)
83.4 (0.5)
83.5
(3.4)
c
c
c
c
c
c
91.5
(2.6)
c
c
95.4
(1.2)
86.4
(5.2)
89.2
(1.7)
c
c
c
c
c
c
81.2
(1.5)
74.3
(2.8)
92.9
(0.9)
91.0
(1.4)
91.1
(1.0)
89.8
(1.2)
c
c
c
c
81.8
(1.9)
72.2
(3.2)
85.5
(2.6)
c
c
c
c
c
c
89.3
(1.2)
80.1
(3.3)
82.9
(4.8)
86.1
(5.7)
92.5
(1.1)
90.9
(2.1)
91.6
(1.3)
93.0
(2.5)
85.5
(4.6)
c
c
c
c
c
c
89.1
(3.1)
c
c
92.3
(1.2)
90.2
(2.3)
77.7
(2.8)
c
c
86.1
(1.5)
83.7
(1.7)
86.5
(0.8)
85.2
(1.3)
83.3
(3.5)
c
c
c
c
c
c
79.7
(3.0)
c
c

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

115

A5

chapter A

A5

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Partner countries and economies

OECD countries

Table A5.6a.
Indices of school preparation of science-related careers and student information on science-related careers
for strong performers and top performers

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average
Argentina
Azerbaijan
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
Colombia
Croatia
Estonia
Hong Kong-China
Indonesia
Israel
Jordan
Kyrgyzstan
Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Macao-China
Montenegro
Qatar
Romania
Russian Federation
Serbia
Slovenia
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Tunisia
Uruguay

Index of school preparation
of science-related careers
Difference in
the mean index
between strong
Strong
Top
performers and
performers
performers
top performers
Mean
Mean
index S.E. index S.E.
Dif.
S.E.
-0.33
0.41 (0.03)
0.74 (0.03)
(0.04)
-0.15
-0.08 (0.06)
0.07 (0.08)
(0.07)
-0.23
0.03 (0.03)
0.26 (0.04)
(0.05)
-0.29
0.45 (0.03)
0.74 (0.03)
(0.04)
-0.26
-0.17 (0.04)
0.09 (0.05)
(0.06)
-0.21
0.15 (0.05)
0.36 (0.07)
(0.09)
-0.16
0.19 (0.03)
0.35 (0.04)
(0.06)
-0.27
0.44 (0.04)
0.71 (0.07)
(0.07)
0.20 (0.04)
0.31 (0.06)
-0.11
(0.06)
-0.19 (0.04) -0.24 (0.12)
0.06
(0.14)
-0.23
0.03 (0.05)
0.26 (0.09)
(0.10)
-0.18
0.33 (0.04)
0.52 (0.07)
(0.09)
-0.17
0.40 (0.04)
0.57 (0.05)
(0.07)
-0.20
-0.05 (0.04)
0.15 (0.07)
(0.06)
-0.27
-0.47 (0.04) -0.21 (0.06)
(0.08)
-0.28 (0.03) -0.21 (0.09)
-0.07
(0.09)
-0.10 (0.05) -0.02 (0.08)
-0.07
(0.09)
0.61 (0.08)
c
c
c
c
-0.31
-0.15 (0.02)
0.16 (0.04)
(0.04)
-0.34
0.35 (0.03)
0.68 (0.03)
(0.05)
-0.15
-0.15 (0.04)
0.00 (0.06)
(0.08)
-0.07 (0.03) -0.01 (0.06)
-0.06
(0.06)
0.41 (0.05)
0.63 (0.10)
-0.22
(0.12)
-0.18
-0.14 (0.05)
0.04 (0.09)
(0.09)
-0.14
0.25 (0.03)
0.40 (0.06)
(0.07)
-0.22
0.04 (0.05)
0.26 (0.08)
(0.10)
-0.36
0.23 (0.03)
0.59 (0.05)
(0.05)
0.02 (0.11)
c
c
c
c
-0.37
0.38 (0.04)
0.75 (0.04)
(0.05)
-0.23
0.44 (0.04)
0.67 (0.05)
(0.05)
-0.20
0.10 (0.01)
0.31 (0.01)
(0.01)
0.05 (0.11)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.40 (0.09)
c
c
c
c
0.40 (0.06)
0.51 (0.08)
-0.11
(0.10)
0.39 (0.07)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.19 (0.04)
0.31 (0.07)
-0.12
(0.07)
-0.10
0.25 (0.03)
0.35 (0.04)
(0.05)
-0.08 (0.04)
0.03 (0.05)
-0.11
(0.07)
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.00 (0.06)
0.05 (0.09)
-0.05
(0.11)
0.44 (0.07)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.25 (0.04)
0.26 (0.08)
-0.01
(0.10)
0.31 (0.13)
0.56 (0.21)
-0.26
(0.24)
-0.12
0.53 (0.04)
0.66 (0.06)
(0.07)
-0.23 (0.04) -0.23 (0.07)
0.00
(0.09)
0.17 (0.09)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.33 (0.08)
c
c
c
c
0.28 (0.04)
0.40 (0.08)
-0.13
(0.08)
0.01 (0.08)
c
c
c
c
0.12 (0.03)
0.24 (0.04)
-0.12
(0.06)
0.22 (0.02)
0.28 (0.03)
-0.06
(0.04)
0.75 (0.06)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.28 (0.06)
c
c
c
c

Note: Values that are statistically significant are indicated in bold.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information on the abbreviations used in this table.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

116

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Index of student information
on science-related careers
Difference in
the mean index
between strong
Strong
Top
performers and
performers
performers
top performers
Mean
Mean
index S.E. index S.E.
Dif.
S.E.
-0.18
0.29 (0.02)
0.48 (0.03)
(0.04)
-0.05 (0.03) -0.05 (0.05)
0.00
(0.06)
-0.25 (0.02) -0.21 (0.03)
-0.04
(0.04)
-0.13
0.32 (0.02)
0.44 (0.04)
(0.05)
-0.11 (0.05) -0.03 (0.05)
-0.07
(0.08)
0.03 (0.04)
0.13 (0.08)
-0.10
(0.09)
0.13 (0.03)
0.21 (0.03)
-0.09
(0.06)
0.15 (0.04)
0.23 (0.06)
-0.08
(0.08)
0.06 (0.03)
0.14 (0.05)
-0.08
(0.07)
0.43 (0.05)
0.45 (0.10)
-0.02
(0.11)
-0.05 (0.03)
0.04 (0.06)
-0.09
(0.07)
-0.17
0.15 (0.04)
0.32 (0.06)
(0.07)
0.08 (0.04)
0.22 (0.07)
-0.13
(0.09)
0.05 (0.02)
0.06 (0.05)
-0.01
(0.06)
-0.37 (0.03) -0.34 (0.03)
-0.02
(0.04)
-0.17
-0.27 (0.03) -0.10 (0.06)
(0.06)
-0.05 (0.03) -0.05 (0.07)
0.00
(0.08)
-0.14 (0.08)
c
c
c
c
-0.29
-0.32 (0.03) -0.03 (0.04)
(0.05)
-0.15
0.17 (0.04)
0.32 (0.04)
(0.05)
-0.16
-0.14 (0.04)
0.02 (0.06)
(0.08)
0.29 (0.04)
0.39 (0.07)
-0.10
(0.09)
0.50 (0.04)
0.48 (0.09)
0.02
(0.10)
-0.07 (0.05) -0.01 (0.06)
-0.06
(0.08)
0.20 (0.03)
0.24 (0.05)
-0.04
(0.06)
-0.08 (0.04) -0.05 (0.06)
-0.02
(0.07)
0.13 (0.03)
0.18 (0.05)
-0.05
(0.06)
1.03 (0.07)
c
c
c
c
-0.19
-0.02 (0.03)
0.17 (0.04)
(0.05)
0.35 (0.04)
0.43 (0.07)
-0.07
(0.09)
-0.09
0.06 (0.01)
0.15 (0.01)
(0.01)
-0.42 (0.10)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.21 (0.05)
0.23 (0.10)
-0.02
(0.11)
0.47 (0.08)
c
c
c
c
0.38 (0.06)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.12 (0.03)
0.27 (0.07)
-0.14
(0.08)
-0.13 (0.03) -0.16 (0.04)
0.03
(0.05)
0.22 (0.03)
0.25 (0.03)
-0.03
(0.05)
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.29 (0.06)
0.31 (0.08)
-0.03
(0.09)
0.38 (0.09)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
-0.04 (0.04)
0.00 (0.08)
-0.04
(0.09)
0.10 (0.12) -0.07 (0.18)
0.17
(0.24)
0.30 (0.04)
0.37 (0.07)
-0.06
(0.09)
-0.11 (0.03)
0.00 (0.10)
-0.11
(0.12)
-0.16 (0.09)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0.06 (0.08)
c
c
c
c
0.39 (0.05)
0.41 (0.06)
-0.02
(0.09)
0.19 (0.07)
c
c
c
c
0.00 (0.03)
0.06 (0.05)
-0.06
(0.07)
-0.09
0.14 (0.02)
0.23 (0.03)
(0.04)
0.42 (0.06)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
-0.17 (0.07)
c
c
c
c

What Are The Top Performers’ Attitudes and Motivations for Science in PISA 2006? – Indicator A5

chapter A

A5

Table A5.7a.
Enjoyment of learning science
Average percentage of students in OECD countries agreeing or
strongly agreeing with the following:
I enjoy acquiring new knowledge in science.
I am interested in learning about science.
I generally have fun when I am learning science topics.
I like reading about science.
I am happy doing science problems.

Strong
performers
(%)
77.6
73.4
72.4
60.2
52.7

Top
performers
(%)
87.5
84.6
83.1
74.8
67.6

Strong
performers
(%)
25.8
23.5
14.6
8.3
5.3
3.5

Top
performers
(%)
38.1
31.9
21.4
13.8
6.8
4.9

Strong
performers
(%)
73.3

Top
performers
(%)
81.4

66.7

76.4

65.6

75.0

58.5

69.7

59.0

67.2

Strong
performers
(%)
59.5
34.2
48.6

Top
performers
(%)
64.5
46.6
42.6

Strong
performers
(%)
45.4
38.9
24.4
31.4

Top
performers
(%)
60.8
56.0
38.6
46.6

Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Table A5.7b.
Science-related activities
Average percentage of students in OECD countries who do the following activities
regularly or very often:
Read science magazines or science articles in newspapers
Watch TV programmes about science
Visit web sites about science topics
Borrow or buy books on science topics
Listen to radio programmes about advances in science
Attend a science club
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Table A5.7c.
Instrumental motivation to learn science
Average percentage of students in OECD countries agreeing or
strongly agreeing with the following:
I study science because I know it is useful for me.
Studying my science subject(s) is worthwhile for me because what I learn will
improve my career prospects.
Making an effort in my science subject(s) is worth it because this will help me
in the work I want to do later on.
What I learn in my science subject(s) is important for me because I need this
for what I want to study later on.
I will learn many things in my science subject(s) that will help me get a job.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Table A5.7d.
Importance of doing well in science
Average percentage of students in OECD countries reporting that
it is VERY IMPORTANT to do well in the following subjects:
Mathematics
Science
Reading
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Table A5.7e.
Future-oriented motivation to learn science
Average percentage of students in OECD countries agreeing or
strongly agreeing with the following:
I would like to work in a career involving science.
I would like to study science after secondary school.
I would like to spend my life doing advanced science.
I would like to work on science projects as an adult.
Source: OECD, PISA 2006 Database.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664103188707

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

117

INDICATOR A6

HOW DOES PARTICIPATION IN EDUCATION AFFECT
PARTICIPATION IN THE LABOUR MARKET?
This indicator examines the relationship between educational attainment and labour
force status for both males and females. Together, information on employment
and unemployment provides a complete picture of labour market participation.
Similarly, trend data show changes in labour force status over time, as well as the
variation in employment and unemployment risks among groups with different
levels of educational attainment.

Key results
Chart A6.1. Difference between highest and lowest unemployment rate for
below upper secondary and tertiary educated 25-64 year-olds (1997-2007)

The chart shows the differences in unemployment rates over economic cycles for tertiary
and below upper secondary educated individuals over the past decade.
Below upper secondary education

Tertiary education

Education is generally good insurance against unemployment, particularly in the context of
economic downturns. In all countries except Greece and Mexico, unemployment rates for those
with below upper secondary education vary more than for those with tertiary education, and
substantially so in many countries. Higher education improves job prospects in general, and also
ensures stronger attachment to the labour market in times of economic hardship. For some
countries, most notably the Czech Republic, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the partner country
Estonia, structural changes of the economies also contribute to magnifying the differences in
unemployment risk between lower and higher educated individuals.
%

27%

14
12
10
8
6
4
0

Slovak Republic
Poland
Czech Republic
Estonia
Spain
Ireland
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Hungary
OECD average
New Zealand
Norway
France
Netherlands
Belgium
Korea
Australia
Italy
Portugal
Turkey
Switzerland
Luxembourg
Denmark
Canada
United Kingdom
Israel
United States
Austria
Iceland
Slovenia
Japan
Greece
Mexico

2

Source: OECD. Table A6.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

118

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A6

• Employment rates rise for both males and females with higher levels of educational
attainment. With few exceptions, the employment rate for tertiary graduates is
markedly higher than for upper secondary graduates. For males and females, the
gap between upper secondary graduates and those without an upper secondary
qualification is particularly wide.
• Those with low educational attainment are both less likely to be labour force
participants and more likely to be unemployed. Differences in employment rates
between males and females are also wider among less educated groups. The
chance of being employed is close to 23 percentage points higher for males than
for females among those without upper secondary qualifications but falls to less
than 10 points for the most highly qualified.
• On average across OECD countries, more than 40% of individuals with below
upper secondary education are not employed. In Belgium, the Czech Republic,
Hungary, the Slovak Republic, Turkey and the partner country Israel more than
half of the population with below upper secondary education is not employed.
• From 1997-2007 unemployment rates have, on average across OECD countries,
improved by 1.8 percentage points for those with upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education, 1.1 percentage points for those with below
upper secondary education, and 0.8 percentage point for those with tertiary
education. Although differences in unemployment rates between educational
groups have narrowed somewhat, it is likely that these differences will widen
once again as the current economic downturn effects labour markets.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

119

chapter A

A6

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Policy context

OECD countries’ economies and labour markets depend upon a stable supply of well-educated
workers to further their economic development. Indicators related to labour market outcomes
by educational attainment show how well the supply of skills is matched to demand. However,
most educational programmes have a long investment horizon, while shifts in labour demand can
occur rapidly. These and other factors need to be considered when interpreting the outcomes of
the current labour market.
In times of economic downturn, governments play an important role in cushioning hardship
and preparing the workforce for jobs that will become available when economic activity picks
up. A key objective for any government is to ensure that cyclical unemployment does not turn
into structural unemployment, or worse, that a large part of the population is forced outside the
labour market. Once large portions of the population are outside the workforce it has proven
difficult to reverse this negative trend.
Higher levels of educational attainment typically lead to higher employment rates. This is
principally because those with higher levels of education have made a larger investment in their own
human capital and they need to recoup their investment. However, between-country variations
in employment rates often also reflect cultural differences and, most notably, differences in the
labour participation rates among female workers. Similarly, unemployment rates are generally
lower for higher-educated individuals, but this is typically because higher educational attainment
makes an individual more attractive in the labour market. Unemployment rates therefore include
information both on the individual’s desire to work and on the individual’s attractiveness to
potential employers.
In a sense, employment rates are more closely tied to supply while unemployment rates are
more closely tied to demand. Time series on both measures thus carry important information
for policy makers about the supply, and potential supply, of skills available to the labour market
and about employers’ demand for these skills.
There is a link, however, between these two measures as the supply of labour also depends
on the prospects of actually finding a job. High unemployment rates typically discourage new
entrants to the labour market and this is particularly true if unemployment rates have been high
over long periods of time. Active education and training policies are thus important to reducing
unemployment by making the individual more attractive to employers and helping to ensure that
they are not forced out of the labour market.
Evidence and explanations
Employment

The OECD labour market forecast suggests that unemployment rates will exceed 10% in
many OECD countries by the end of 2010 (OECD, 2009b). The figures on unemployment and
employment for 2007 published in this year’s Education at a Glance will likely be the most positive
observed for some time to come. The benefits of education in terms of employment prospects
are likely to strengthen, as labour market outcomes for higher and lower educated groups are
posed to widen in the coming years.
120

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Does Participation in Education Affect Participation in the Labour Market? – Indicator A6

chapter A

Employment rates for males as well as for females across OECD countries increase from an
average of 73.7% for males and 50.8% for females with lower secondary qualifications, to an
average of 89.7% for males and 79.9% for females with tertiary type-A qualifications (Table
A6.1a). Employment rates for females with a lower secondary education are particularly low,
and in Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Turkey and the partner country Chile employment
rates are below 40%. Employment rates for females with tertiary-type A attainment equal or
exceed 75% everywhere except Japan, Korea, Mexico and Turkey, but remain below those of
males in all countries.
Apart from education, variations in the female employment rate are thus a contributing factor in
differences in overall employment rates among countries. The countries with the highest overall
rate of employment for 25-64 year-olds – Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – also have among the highest female
employment rates. The overall employment rate for males aged 25 to 64 ranges from 78% or
less in Belgium, France, Hungary, Poland, and Turkey and the partner countries Chile and Israel
to over 88% in Iceland, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Switzerland (Table A6.1a). In contrast,
employment rates among females range from 55% or less in Greece, Italy, Mexico and Turkey
to above 78% in Iceland, Norway and Sweden, a potential indication of different cultural and
social patterns.
As is apparent in Chart A6.2, there is a marked difference in employment rates between
different educational groups and between males and females. With few exceptions, education
clearly improves the prospects of being employed. This is particularly true for females where
an upper secondary education improves the prospects of employment by 19 percentage points
and a tertiary education by almost 32 percentage points over those with no upper secondary
education.
In Hungary, Italy, the Slovak Republic and the partner country Israel employment rates for
25-64 year-old females with an upper secondary education are at least 30 percentage points
higher than for those with below upper secondary education. Females with a tertiary education
appear to be particularly advantaged in Turkey where their employment rates are 35 percentage
points higher than for females with an upper secondary education (Table A6.2c).
Similarly, in the group of males aged 25 to 64, there is a particularly wide gap in employment
rates between those who are upper secondary graduates and those who are not. The extreme
cases are the Czech Republic, Hungary and the Slovak Republic, where employment rates for
males who have completed upper secondary education are at least 29 percentage points higher
than for males who have not. The gap in employment rates between males with and without an
upper secondary education is 4 percentage points or less in Iceland, Mexico, Portugal and the
partner country Brazil (Chart A6.2 and Table A6.2b).
Employment rates for male tertiary graduates are also higher – around 5 percentage points
on average for OECD countries – than for male upper secondary graduates. In 2007, the
difference between these two groups ranges from a few percentage points to 9 percentage
points or more in Germany, Hungary, Poland, the United States and the partner country Israel
(Table A6.2b).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

121

A6

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

122
Slovak Republic
Turkey
Israel
Poland
Hungary
Italy
Belgium
Greece
Czech Republic
Ireland
Mexico
Spain
United States
Canada
Germany
Estonia
OECD average
Slovenia
Netherlands
Luxembourg
France
Austria
Finland
Brazil
Australia
Sweden
United Kingdom
Korea
Switzerland
Denmark
Norway
Portugal
New Zealand
Iceland

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Turkey
Greece
Poland
Korea
Mexico
Japan
Israel
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Italy
Luxembourg
Belgium
Ireland
Czech Republic
Spain
Brazil
OECD average
United States
Slovenia
Germany
Australia
Austria
Canada
France
Finland
Estonia
Netherlands
Switzerland
New Zealand
Iceland
United Kingdom
Portugal
Sweden
Denmark
Norway

A6

Korea
Turkey
Japan
Mexico
Italy
Hungary
Czech Republic
New Zealand
United States
Greece
Slovak Republic
Australia
OECD average
Spain
Israel
Canada
France
Germany
Luxembourg
Poland
Brazil
Belgium
Austria
Ireland
Finland
Portugal
Switzerland
Estonia
Netherlands
Denmark
Iceland
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Sweden
Norway

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Chart A6.2. Employment rates, by gender and educational attainment (2007)

Percentage of the 25-64 year-old population that is employed
Males

%

%

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Females

Below upper secondary education

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Tertiary education

Countries are ranked in ascending order of the employment rate of females.
Source: OECD. Table A6.2b and Table A6.2c, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).

How Does Participation in Education Affect Participation in the Labour Market? – Indicator A6

chapter A

On average among OECD countries, the difference between the employment rates of males
and females decreases significantly at successively higher levels of educational attainment from
22.5 percentage points at the below upper secondary level to less than 10 percentage points at
the tertiary level (Table A6.2b and Table A6.2c, available on line). The gap in the employment
rates of tertiary educated males and females is 5 percentage points or less in Denmark, Finland,
the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the partner country Slovenia.
While there have been some large changes over time in employment rates of educational groups
within countries, the differences between educational groups have narrowed marginally in recent
years (Table A6.2a). As employment prospects for lower educated individuals are more sensitive to
changes in economic conditions and business cycles, these differences are likely to widen once again.
Unemployment rates fall with higher educational attainment

The employment prospects of individuals with different levels of educational attainment depend
largely on the requirements of labour markets and on the supply of workers with different skills.
Unemployment rates therefore signal the match between what the education system produces
and the skills demanded in the labour market. Those with lower educational qualifications are
at particular risk of economic marginalisation since they are both less likely to be labour force
participants and more likely to be without a job even if they actively seek one.
Table A6.3a shows unemployment rates for different educational groups, by gender. On average
across OECD countries, unemployment rates decrease as educational attainment increases for
both males and females. Unemployment rates for those with a tertiary type-A qualification
are less than 4% in most OECD countries (on average 3.0% and 3.7% for males and females
respectively). Unemployment rates for those with lower secondary education jump to 8.8%
for males and 10.2% for females. Females and males with a lower secondary education are
particularly vulnerable in the Czech Republic, Germany, Poland and the Slovak Republic where
their unemployment rates are 15% or more. This is also the case for females in Greece and for
males in Hungary.
Among OECD countries, an upper secondary education is typically considered the minimum for
a competitive position in the labour market. On average, the rate of unemployment among those
who have completed an upper secondary education is 4 percentage points lower than among
those who have not completed this level (Table A6.4a). The unemployment risk associated with
the lack of an upper secondary level of education depends upon a country’s industry composition
and level of economic development. The risk is high in the Czech Republic, Hungary (10% or
more) and particularly high in the Slovak Republic (32.8%). Only in Greece, Korea, Mexico,
Turkey and the partner country Brazil is the lack of upper secondary education not associated
with a higher risk of unemployment; in these countries the unemployment rate is lower for those
with below upper secondary education than for those with upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education.
On average among OECD countries, male labour force participants aged 25 to 64 with below
the upper secondary level are more than twice as likely to be unemployed as males in this age
group with upper secondary education (Table A6.4b, available on line). The negative association
between unemployment and educational attainment is similar but somewhat smaller for females
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

123

A6

chapter A

A6

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

(Table A6.4c, available on line). Differences in unemployment rates for males and females generally
decrease with higher levels of educational attainment (Chart A6.3). Among females with tertiary
education, unemployment rates are 2 percentage points higher than that for males only in Greece,
Italy, Spain, Portugal and Turkey. In 11 OECD countries, unemployment rates for males with less
than upper secondary education are higher than for females with the same education level.

Chart A6.3. Difference between unemployment rates of females and males,
by level of educational attainment (2007)
Tertiary education
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Below upper secondary education

Turkey
Greece
Portugal
Italy
Spain
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Germany
Austria
Mexico
Poland
Switzerland
Brazil
Luxembourg
Israel
OECD average
Hungary
Australia
Finland
Japan
New Zealand
France
Denmark
Belgium
Netherlands
Ireland
Czech Republic
United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Norway
Estonia
Korea
Sweden

Unemployment rate
higher for males

-10

-8

-6

Unemployment rate
higher for females

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Percentage points

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference in unemployment rates of females and males who have completed tertiary
education.
Source: OECD. Table A6.4b and Table A6.4c, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

124

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Does Participation in Education Affect Participation in the Labour Market? – Indicator A6

chapter A

Between 1997 and 2007, on average among OECD countries, unemployment rates for those with
upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education decreased by 1.8 percentage points
(Table A6.4a). Unemployment rates for those with upper secondary and post-secondary nontertiary education have improved by 5 percentage points or more in Finland, Spain and Sweden.
Unemployment rates for those with less than upper secondary education have also decreased by
over 6 percentage points in Finland, Ireland and Spain. However, unemployment rates for those
with less than upper secondary education have risen dramatically in the Czech Republic and the
Slovak Republic. Overall unemployment rates for this group have improved by 1.1 percentage
points over this period. For those with tertiary education, the decrease in the unemployment
rate is 0.8 percentage point.
Although the differences in unemployment rates between educational groups have narrowed
somewhat over the past decade and especially between those with upper secondary and tertiary
attainment, it also reflects the sensitivity of different educational groups to shifts in overall demand
for labour. As shown in Chart A6.1, unemployment rates for those with below upper secondary
education are more cyclical in nature than for those with tertiary education. On average across
OECD countries, unemployment rates for individuals with tertiary attainment have stayed at or
below 4.1% over the past decade. The most vulnerable group of individuals are thus the lower
educated and it is likely that unemployment rates for those with below upper secondary education
will once again increase sharply as the economic downturn starts to affect the labour force.
Higher unemployment rates in general, and widening unemployment rates between educational
groups in particular, provide greater incentives for individuals to invest in education. First, because
foregone earnings while in study will be lower as a consequence of higher unemployment. Second,
because better employment prospects among more educated groups will add to the benefit-side
of the investment equation. As incentives for individuals to invest in education improve, it is also
important for education systems to respond by increasing access to and resources for educational
institutions.
Links between unemployment and employment rates

Since the risk of being unemployed in difficult economic times is typically larger for lower
educated individuals, it is also among this group that cyclical unemployment can become a
structural problem, where large parts of the working age population are not in the labour market
and not actively seeking any employment. Once an individual is outside the labour force for
an extended period it is, in many instances, difficult to reverse this situation because of skill
obsolescence, deteriorating incentives to seek employment, and other barriers to labour market
re-entry. Chart A6.4 shows the unemployment and non-employment rates for 25-64 year-olds
with below upper secondary education.
The non-employment rate (the opposite of employment rate, and includes those who are
unemployed as well as those who have dropped out of the labour market) for individuals with below
upper secondary education is substantial, at more than 40% on average across OECD countries. In
Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, the Slovak Republic and Turkey and the partner country
Israel more than half of the population with below upper secondary education is in the category
of non-employed. A portion of this group is actively seeking employment, as reflected in the
unemployment rate in the chart. While unemployment rates are substantially higher among those
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

125

A6

chapter A

with below upper secondary education than among more educated groups, unemployment rates
are typically only a fraction of the non-employed population. Note however, that employment rates
are based on the total population whereas calculations of unemployment rates are based on the total
labour force (employed and unemployed). The smaller base for calculating unemployment rates
inflates the number of individuals actively seeking employment relative to those who are not.

Chart A6.4. Unemployment and non-employment1 rates among 25-64 year-olds
with below upper secondary education (2007)
Unemployment rate

%

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Non employment rate

OECD Non employment rate
at tertiary level

Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Germany
Hungary
Poland
Israel
Belgium
France
Canada
Spain
OECD average
Finland
Estonia
United States
Turkey
Portugal
Austria
Greece
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Italy
Ireland
Brazil
Australia
Denmark
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Iceland
Norway
New Zealand
Korea
Mexico

A6

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

1. The non-employment refers to 1 minus the employment rate.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the unemployment rates of those who have completed below upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table A6.2a and Table A6.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

Nevertheless, the proportion of the labour force with below upper secondary education actively
seeking employment is in some countries sizable. In the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary
and the Slovak Republic unemployment rates exceed average non-employment rates for tertiary
educated individuals in OECD countries. In a few countries unemployment rates are marginal,
while non-employment rates are still high. In Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands and Norway
unemployment rates among those with below upper secondary education are at 4% or below,
whereas non-employment rates still exceeds 30%. Some of these differences can, as noted earlier,
be linked to female labour force participation rates, and may be explained to some extent, by
differences in cultural and social patterns among countries.
Another explanation is, of course, that the lack of jobs, as measured in unemployment rates,
discourages females as well as males from trying to enter the labour market. Differences in
employment rates between those with below upper secondary education and tertiary education do,
to some extent, support the notion of non-employment as a forced choice. Chart A6.5 examines
the question of whether those with lower levels of education are forced out of the labour market by
relating employment rates to unemployment rates for 25-64 year-olds with below upper secondary
education and utilizing the fact that the unemployed are only a fraction of the non-employed.
126

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Does Participation in Education Affect Participation in the Labour Market? – Indicator A6

chapter A

A6

Chart A6.5. Relationship between employment and unemployment rates
for 25-64 year-olds with below upper secondary education (2007)
Employment rate (%)

90
Iceland

80
New
Zealand

Denmark
Portugal
Brazil

70

Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
Korea
Australia
United Kingdom
Luxembourg
Mexico
Spain
Greece
60 Netherlands
Ireland
Austria
Slovenia
Finland
Canada
Italy
Estonia

50

Turkey

OECD average

Israel

France

Germany
Belgium

United
States

Czech Republic

Poland

40
Hungary

30

R2 = 0.6572

0

5

10

15

20

25

Unemployment rate (%)

Note: The Slovak Republic has been excluded from the chart to preserve legibility.
Source: OECD. Table A6.2a and Table A6.4a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

Employment rates for those with below upper secondary education are strongly dependent
on unemployment rates. As unemployment increases, employment decreases. It seems that a
large part of this relationship is due to a lack of suitable jobs, which increases the number of
individuals outside the labour market (non-employed). The relationship between employment
and unemployment is substantially stronger for those who have not completed an upper secondary
education (R2= 66%) than for those who have completed upper secondary and tertiary education.
Not being employed thus appears to be more of a forced choice among those with below upper
secondary education than among more educated groups.
Some caution is needed in interpreting the chart as part of the relationship is driven by the
difference in the base population used to calculate the two rates. (i.e. total population and labour
force). However, the pattern is qualitatively similar when using unemployed to total population
instead of unemployed to labour force. For tertiary educated individuals some ceiling effects
come into play, but overall these cross country correlations indicate that a substantial portion of
employment and non-employment results from the lack of suitable jobs.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

127

chapter A

A6

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Definition and methodologies

Under the auspices of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and their conferences of
labour statisticians, concepts and definitions for measuring labour force participation were
established and are now used as a common reference (ILO, 1982).
The employment rate refers to the number of persons in employment as a percentage of the
population of working age.
The unemployment rate refers to unemployed persons as a percentage of the civil labour force.
The unemployed are defined as individuals who are, during the survey reference week, without
work, actively seeking employment and currently available to start work. The employed are
defined as those who, during the survey reference week: i) work for pay (employees) or
profit (self-employed and unpaid family workers) for at least one hour; or ii) have a job but
are temporarily not at work (through injury, illness, holiday, strike or lock-out, educational or
training leave, maternity or parental leave, etc.).
Further references

OECD (2009b), OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report, March 2009, OECD, Paris.
The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

• Table A6.1b. Employment rates and educational attainment (2007)
• Table A6.2b. Trends in employment rates of 25-64 year-old males, by educational attainment
(1997-2007)
• Table A6.2c. Trends in employment rates of 25-64 year-old females, by educational attainment
(1997-2007)
• Table A6.2d. Trends in employment rates for 55-64 year-olds, by educational attainment
(1997-2007)
• Table A6.3b. Unemployment rates and educational attainment (2007)
• Table A6.4b. Trends in unemployment rates of males, by educational attainment (1997-2007)
• Table A6.4c. Trends in unemployment rates of females, by educational attainment (1997-2007)

128

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Does Participation in Education Affect Participation in the Labour Market? – Indicator A6

chapter A

Table A6.1a.
Employment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2007)
Number of 25-64 year-olds in employment as a percentage of the population aged 25 to 64, by level of education attained and gender

Partner countries

OECD countries

ISCED 3A

ISCED 3C
Long/ 3B

ISCED 3C
Short

Upper secondary
education
Tertiary education
PostPresecondary
primary
Type A
nonand
Lower
and advanced All levels
tertiary
of
primary secondary
research
education Type B programmes education
education education
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Australia
Males
64.7
81.1
x(5)
x(5)
87.9
86.8
90.5
91.5
85.7
Females
36.2
59.9
x(5)
x(5)
68.7
78.9
76.0
80.8
67.7
Austria
Males
x(2)
68.1
83.1
82.1
81.0
89.8
86.8
92.8
82.5
Females
x(2)
51.4
61.2
67.9
69.1
79.8
83.8
81.2
67.2
Belgium
Males
49.5
70.1
a
81.2
82.2
84.1
87.4
88.9
77.5
Females
28.4
45.9
a
63.3
65.7
73.3
81.0
83.5
62.1
Canada
Males
54.7
71.1
a
x(5)
81.4
82.5
86.5
86.4
81.6
Females
33.5
53.6
a
x(5)
69.5
73.2
79.7
80.1
72.5
Czech Republic
Males
c
58.1
a
83.2
88.5
x(5)
x(8)
91.4
84.4
Females
c
40.9
a
61.4
70.7
x(5)
x(8)
77.9
64.6
Denmark
Males
52.5
75.4
79.5
86.1
80.8
c
89.3
90.6
84.5
Females
43.4
58.0
72.0
80.0
74.3
c
84.1
86.0
76.1
Finland
Males
51.8
73.3
a
a
79.0
c
83.6
89.8
78.2
Females
45.4
61.3
a
a
72.6
c
82.3
84.5
73.9
France
Males
51.5
74.4
a
80.1
82.1
c
88.6
86.0
77.6
Females
39.4
60.7
a
69.1
73.3
c
82.9
78.7
67.1
Germany
Males
56.0
68.0
a
80.4
63.3
84.8
88.1
89.6
80.7
Females
33.6
50.2
a
68.3
54.8
77.6
80.1
80.9
67.3
Greece
Males
75.4
86.3
85.3
89.7
85.2
88.2
84.6
88.0
83.8
Females
35.7
46.7
62.6
60.1
50.6
68.1
75.7
79.7
53.7
Hungary
Males
18.8
49.6
a
74.9
79.6
81.2
86.5
86.5
73.3
Females
5.9
34.6
a
58.6
65.7
64.5
81.7
75.4
58.1
Iceland
Males
68.9
87.7
87.0
89.3
80.8
93.5
91.8
91.8
88.8
Females
61.0
75.8
78.3
79.7
72.6
71.7
80.6
86.5
78.6
Ireland
Males
62.1
82.7
c
a
88.4
90.4
91.1
91.6
84.1
Females
31.6
48.7
c
a
63.9
69.4
78.3
85.0
64.2
Italy
Males
51.9
78.3
81.3
84.6
84.2
86.9
81.5
86.7
78.5
Females
16.9
42.8
53.7
60.3
65.2
71.1
70.0
75.1
51.5
Japan
Males
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
88.2
a
93.9
93.2
90.4
Females
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
61.2
a
64.7
68.8
63.1
Korea
Males
74.0
81.6
a
x(5)
84.8
a
89.7
88.7
85.3
Females
58.1
57.8
a
x(5)
56.5
a
61.9
60.9
58.3
Luxembourg
Males
69.4
86.0
82.7
81.0
85.3
77.6
84.8
89.2
81.9
Females
51.0
50.2
53.2
57.3
68.8
73.0
78.6
82.1
63.8
Mexico
Males
88.7
93.4
a
92.0
92.6
a
92.1
91.4
90.9
Females
38.6
47.6
a
59.7
59.1
a
77.3
72.6
48.4
Netherlands
Males
66.9
81.6
x(4)
82.5
88.3
85.4
86.9
90.2
85.2
Females
35.3
53.6
x(4)
70.1
77.2
77.4
84.9
85.1
70.0
New Zealand
Males
x(2)
77.6
88.6
89.9
92.3
92.3
91.1
91.4
88.5
Females
x(2)
59.7
73.0
74.2
75.5
75.1
77.4
78.6
73.0
Norway
Males
c
72.7
a
87.3
86.2
91.7
93.7
92.2
85.9
Females
c
60.5
a
79.6
78.7
88.3
93.6
88.6
78.9
Poland
Males
x(2)
51.8
a
70.8
77.6
84.7
x(8)
88.3
73.3
Females
x(2)
31.6
a
50.1
59.4
64.6
x(8)
81.7
58.0
Portugal
Males
78.4
85.6
x(5)
x(5)
82.2
87.0
x(8)
89.3
81.4
Females
60.0
73.3
x(5)
x(5)
78.0
64.3
x(8)
83.7
68.2
Slovak Republic
Males
c
31.7
x(4)
77.6
87.8
a
76.9
90.1
78.4
Females
c
21.3
x(4)
57.1
68.3
a
74.6
79.3
58.7
Spain
Males
68.0
84.9
a
87.8
84.5
91.5
89.3
89.0
82.7
Females
32.4
52.2
a
65.6
67.2
69.6
74.7
81.5
58.8
Sweden
Males
65.7
78.3
a
x(5)
86.6
87.8
87.0
90.1
85.3
Females
43.9
65.1
a
x(5)
78.8
80.2
85.5
89.0
79.2
Switzerland
Males
73.6
81.1
c
89.6
82.7
85.9
94.8
93.0
89.6
Females
51.8
59.7
63.1
74.5
72.8
80.0
87.8
82.4
73.9
Turkey
Males
73.4
78.8
a
83.6
80.6
a
x(8)
82.9
77.1
Females
22.0
20.6
a
29.4
27.4
a
x(8)
63.5
26.4
United Kingdom
Males
c
60.4
83.0
84.6
86.2
c
88.6
90.2
82.8
Females
c
43.2
69.0
76.1
75.8
c
84.3
86.5
72.8
United States
Males
71.9
67.7
x(5)
x(5)
79.7
x(5)
86.0
89.9
81.9
Females
42.1
47.3
x(5)
x(5)
67.6
x(5)
77.8
78.2
69.6
OECD average
Males
63.1
73.7
82.4
84.4
83.7
85.9
88.1
89.7
82.7
Females 38.5
50.8
63.6
65.6
67.0
73.5
79.2
79.9
64.9
EU19 average
Males
58.4
70.8
80.8
82.6
82.8
84.7
86.3
89.4
80.8
Females 35.9
49.0
60.2
65.4
68.4
71.6
80.1
81.9
65.0
Brazil
Males
83.8
86.8
x
x
88.5
x
x(8)
91.0
86.1
Females
52.2
57.7
x
x
67.3
x
x(8)
81.9
60.4
Chile1
Males
24.4
63.2
x(5)
x(5)
71.8
a
81.1
84.3
74.3
Females
8.8
26.8
x(5)
x(5)
59.6
a
69.5
80.0
60.8
Estonia
Males
c
67.2
a
69.8
86.6
88.5
89.2
92.5
83.9
Females
c
49.4
a
60.2
73.1
80.3
79.3
88.0
75.7
Israel
Males
52.2
66.0
a
81.9
74.0
a
85.9
87.5
76.8
63.4
Females
17.8
40.1
a
64.4
60.5
a
73.1
83.2
Slovenia
Males
35.8
70.1
a
77.4
83.6
a
86.7
90.7
79.5
Females
30.6
51.1
a
65.7
70.4
a
83.8
89.5
69.3
1.Year of reference 2004.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for a description of ISCED-97 levels, ISCED-97 country mappings and national data sources (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

129

A6

chapter A

A6

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

OECD countries

Table A6.2a.
Trends in employment rates of 25-64 year-olds by educational attainment (1997-2007)
Number of 25-64 year-olds in employment as a percentage of the population aged 25 to 64, by level of educational attainment
Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
59.5 59.5 59.1 60.8 59.9 60.0 61.0 60.6 62.9 63.5 63.9
76.1 75.9 76.2 76.7 78.0 77.8 78.7 78.8 79.8 80.4 80.5
83.4 83.8 82.0 82.9 83.1 83.5 83.2 83.3 84.4 84.4 84.8
52.8 52.6 53.3 53.7 53.5 54.4 55.0 52.2 53.3 55.7 57.9
75.6 75.0 75.6 74.8 74.8 75.3 75.6 73.9 74.3 75.8 76.9
86.0 85.8 86.2 87.5 86.6 86.0 85.0 82.5 84.5 85.9 86.8
47.5 47.5 49.1 50.5 49.0 48.8 48.9 48.8 49.0 49.0 49.8
73.4 72.0 74.5 75.1 73.9 73.8 72.8 73.1 74.0 73.2 74.2
83.9 84.3 85.4 85.3 84.5 83.7 83.6 83.9 84.2 83.6 84.9
52.5 53.5 54.4 55.0 54.4 55.3 56.4 57.1 56.4 56.9 57.3
73.9 74.5 75.4 76.1 75.4 75.9 76.3 76.7 76.3 76.0 76.5
81.7 82.3 82.4 82.7 81.9 82.0 82.0 82.2 82.2 82.6 82.9
51.1 49.5 46.9 46.9 46.7 45.3 46.0 42.3 41.2 43.9 45.7
79.7 78.2 76.4 75.5 75.7 76.2 75.8 74.8 75.5 75.6 76.1
89.3 88.7 87.4 86.8 87.8 87.1 86.5 86.4 85.8 85.1 85.2
m 60.9 61.7 62.2 61.5 61.2 62.6 61.7 61.5 62.8 66.6
m 79.1 80.7 81.0 81.0 80.3 79.8 79.9 79.9 81.3 82.5
m 87.5 87.9 88.6 87.2 86.0 85.2 85.5 86.4 87.4 87.8
54.7 56.2 58.6 57.3 58.2 57.7 57.9 57.1 57.9 58.4 58.6
72.2 73.1 74.3 74.9 75.5 74.4 74.4 74.4 75.2 75.6 76.2
82.6 83.2 84.7 84.4 85.1 85.1 85.0 84.2 84.1 85.0 85.2
56.3 56.3 56.4 57.0 57.7 57.8 58.9 59.1 58.6 58.1 58.0
75.0 75.0 75.1 75.8 76.5 76.7 76.3 75.7 75.7 75.6 75.8
81.3 81.6 81.8 83.1 83.7 83.3 83.3 82.9 83.0 83.0 83.5
45.7 46.1 48.7 50.6 51.8 50.9 50.2 48.6 51.6 53.8 54.6
68.2 67.9 69.9 70.4 70.5 70.3 69.7 69.5 70.6 72.5 74.4
82.3 82.2 83.0 83.4 83.4 83.6 83.0 82.7 82.9 84.3 85.5
57.4 57.3 57.1 57.9 57.6 58.5 59.7 58.2 59.2 59.5 59.9
63.3 64.6 64.7 64.7 65.2 65.7 66.8 68.0 69.1 69.7 69.6
80.2 80.8 81.1 81.4 80.4 81.3 81.9 82.0 82.0 83.3 82.9
36.2 36.2 35.8 35.8 36.6 36.7 37.4 36.9 38.1 38.2 38.5
70.7 70.9 72.1 72.1 71.9 71.7 71.4 70.9 70.4 70.4 70.2
81.4 81.0 82.1 82.4 82.6 82.0 82.7 82.9 83.0 81.8 80.4
83.8 85.6 87.2 87.3 87.2 86.4 83.7 81.6 83.0 83.6 80.5
88.0 88.6 90.5 89.0 89.7 89.4 88.7 87.8 88.2 88.6 83.2
94.6 94.7 95.1 95.0 94.7 95.4 92.7 92.0 92.0 92.0 88.6
50.3 53.4 54.4 60.7 58.4 56.7 56.6 57.5 58.4 58.7 58.7
68.7 71.7 74.8 77.0 77.3 76.6 75.6 75.9 76.7 77.3 77.1
81.9 85.2 87.2 87.2 87.0 86.3 86.1 86.2 86.8 86.5 86.7
m 47.8 48.0 48.6 49.4 50.5 50.7 51.7 51.7 52.5 52.8
m 70.1 70.3 71.2 72.1 72.3 72.4 73.5 73.5 74.4 74.5
m 80.8 80.7 81.4 81.6 82.2 82.0 81.2 80.4 80.6 80.2
69.6 68.8 68.2 67.1 67.5
m
m
m
m
m
m
75.3 75.8 74.2 73.8 74.4 71.9 71.8 72.0 72.3 73.1 74.3
80.7 79.5 79.2 79.0 79.8 79.1 79.2 79.3 79.4 79.8 80.0
71.2 66.1 66.9 68.0 67.8 68.4 66.5 66.4 65.9 66.2 66.0
71.7 66.5 66.4 68.7 69.3 70.5 69.6 70.1 70.1 70.3 70.7
80.2 76.1 74.6 75.4 75.7 76.1 76.4 76.7 76.8 77.2 77.2
m
m 56.5 58.3 60.0 59.3 60.3 59.1 61.8 60.8 62.3
m
m 73.9 74.6 74.8 73.6 73.3 72.6 71.7 73.4 73.9
m
m 85.0 84.3 85.5 85.2 82.3 84.1 84.0 85.2 84.5
61.8 61.3 61.4 60.7 60.5 61.3 60.9 62.2 61.8 62.8 63.0
70.5 69.8 69.9 71.2 70.4 70.4 70.3 71.0 71.9 73.6 73.9
84.0 83.7 82.4 83.1 81.6 81.4 81.8 82.1 82.0 83.3 83.1
m 55.3 60.7 57.6 58.8 60.7 59.4 59.4 59.5 60.6 61.9
m 76.8 79.5 79.4 80.0 79.8 78.8 77.9 77.9 79.1 80.3
m 85.4 87.2 86.3 86.3 86.5 85.9 85.3 85.6 86.4 87.7

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

130

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Does Participation in Education Affect Participation in the Labour Market? – Indicator A6

chapter A

A6

OECD countries

Table A6.2a. (continued)
Trends in employment rates of 25-64 year-olds by educational attainment (1997-2007)
Number of 25-64 year-olds in employment as a percentage of the population aged 25 to 64, by level of educational attainment
New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average

Brazil

Estonia

Israel

Slovenia

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
63.6 63.0 64.1 65.2 66.4 67.4 67.8 69.3 70.4 70.4 71.4
80.5 79.4 80.0 80.2 80.4 81.4 81.6 82.9 84.5 84.5 84.8
82.4 81.6 82.0 82.3 83.8 83.0 82.7 83.4 84.3 84.6 83.8
66.7 67.7 67.1 65.3 63.3 64.2 64.1 62.1 64.3 64.7 66.3
83.3 83.9 82.9 82.7 82.7 81.5 79.6 78.8 82.4 83.1 84.0
90.2 90.2 90.2 89.9 89.6 89.5 88.8 89.3 88.8 89.2 90.4
50.3 49.1 46.6 42.8 41.5 39.1 38.2 37.5 37.7 38.6 41.0
70.7 71.1 69.7 66.6 64.8 62.5 61.6 61.3 61.7 62.9 65.2
86.7 87.2 86.6 84.5 84.1 83.1 82.6 82.3 82.7 83.5 84.5
m 71.6 71.9 72.8 73.0 72.8 72.2 71.9 71.5 71.7 71.6
m 80.0 81.9 83.2 82.6 82.3 81.6 80.3 79.3 80.2 79.8
m 89.3 90.0 90.7 90.8 88.5 87.3 88.0 87.3 86.4 85.9
38.9 37.4 33.2 30.9 30.5 28.2 28.5 22.0 21.7 23.5 23.7
75.9 75.1 72.5 70.6 70.2 70.5 71.2 70.3 70.8 71.9 73.2
89.8 88.6 87.0 85.6 86.7 86.6 87.1 83.6 84.0 84.9 84.1
48.2 49.5 51.0 53.8 55.1 55.7 56.6 57.6 58.6 59.8 60.5
66.6 67.5 69.6 72.1 71.8 71.6 72.4 73.2 74.7 75.9 76.3
75.5 76.3 77.6 79.7 80.7 80.8 81.6 81.9 82.4 83.4 84.4
67.2 66.4 66.5 68.0 68.8 68.2 67.5 67.0 66.1 66.9 66.6
78.6 79.3 79.6 81.7 81.9 81.8 81.3 80.7 81.3 81.9 83.1
85.0 85.5 85.6 86.7 86.9 86.5 85.8 85.4 87.3 87.3 88.6
68.0 68.8 68.3 64.5 69.6 68.2 66.3 65.4 65.3 64.5 66.0
79.6 80.8 80.9 81.4 81.3 81.1 80.5 79.9 80.0 80.2 81.1
89.1 90.3 90.7 90.4 91.3 90.6 89.7 89.7 90.0 90.2 90.0
56.9 57.4 55.8 53.1 51.9 50.5 49.1 50.1 49.1 49.0 48.7
66.8 66.0 63.9 64.0 62.4 61.8 61.1 61.5 63.2 62.7 62.4
81.7 81.3 79.0 78.5 78.3 76.3 74.9 75.2 76.1 75.5 75.6
64.7 64.5 65.0 65.3 65.5 65.3 66.0 65.4 65.5 65.2 64.9
79.2 80.1 80.5 81.1 80.9 81.1 81.5 81.2 81.6 81.3 80.9
87.2 87.1 87.7 87.8 88.1 87.6 87.8 87.7 88.0 88.1 87.8
55.2 57.6 57.8 57.8 58.4 57.0 57.8 56.5 57.2 58.0 58.3
75.7 75.8 76.2 76.7 76.2 74.0 73.3 72.8 72.8 73.3 73.6
85.4 85.3 84.6 85.0 84.4 83.2 82.2 82.0 82.5 82.7 83.3
57.2 57.5 57.7 57.8 58.0 57.5 57.5 56.7 57.2 57.8 58.4
74.4 74.6 75.1 75.4 75.4 75.1 74.8 74.6 75.2 75.8 76.2
84.3 84.5 84.5 84.7 84.8 84.4 83.9 83.8 84.1 84.4 84.5
51.5 53.2 53.8 54.2 54.4 54.1 54.4 53.4 53.8 54.6 55.4
72.7 73.7 74.5 74.8 74.8 74.5 74.3 74.1 74.4 75.2 75.8
83.8 84.5 85.0 85.1 85.2 84.8 84.5 84.1 84.5 84.8 85.1
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m 68.8
m
m
m
m
m
m 76.9
m
m
m
m
m
m 85.8
m 44.1 49.0 50.9 50.0 56.5 56.7
m 71.9 72.9 72.6 73.6 78.1 79.4
m 81.6 80.3 82.4 84.5 87.7 87.4
m 43.5 42.7 40.4 41.2 41.8 42.7
m 66.6 65.9 66.4 66.6 67.5 69.2
m 79.1 79.3 79.2 80.3 81.2 83.0
m 55.6 54.2 55.9 56.1 55.9 56.2
m 74.0 72.7 74.4 74.6 74.1 75.1
m 86.1 86.1 86.8 87.0 88.2 87.7

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

131

chapter A

A6

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average
Brazil
Chile1
Estonia
Israel
Slovenia

ISCED 3A

Austria

ISCED
3C Long/
3B

Australia

Preprimary
and
Lower
primary secondary
education education
(1)
(2)
Males
5.6
4.4
Females
9.3
4.7
Males
x(2)
7.8
Females
x(2)
7.6
Males
13.7
7.9
Females
14.9
13.1
Males
10.6
9.2
Females
12.1
8.4
Males
c
19.2
Females
c
18.9
Males
c
3.2
Females
c
5.1
Males
8.8
8.0
Females
9.1
10.2
Males
10.1
9.6
Females
12.6
9.8
Males
25.3
18.0
Females
25.9
15.0
Males
4.5
4.6
Females
10.5
15.3
Males
38.1
16.0
Females
56.9
14.1
Males
c
c
Females
c
c
Males
7.9
5.5
Females
c
4.9
Males
6.4
4.6
Females
9.7
8.9
Males
x(5)
x(5)
Females
x(5)
x(5)
Males
3.2
3.4
Females
1.3
1.9
Males
c
5.9
Females
c
c
Males
2.1
2.4
Females
2.0
2.9
Males
5.0
2.7
Females
5.6
4.8
Males
x(2)
3.3
Females
x(2)
3.5
Males
c
3.4
Females
c
3.2
Males
x(2)
15.1
Females
x(2)
16.0
Males
6.5
6.6
Females
9.6
10.5
Males
c
41.8
Females
c
38.9
Males
7.6
5.8
Females
14.1
12.9
Males
6.5
5.7
Females
11.1
7.6
Males
c
4.9
Females
c
7.7
Males
9.0
8.1
Females
5.2
11.5
Males
c
9.0
Females
c
8.0
Males
c
9.1
Females
c
c
Males
10.1
8.8
Females 13.1
10.2
Males
11.7
10.4
Females 16.4
12.3
Males
3.7
4.9
Females
7.1
10.4
Males
5.8
6.9
Females
6.1
8.9
Males
c
8.7
Females
c
8.8
Males
14.3
8.5
Females
16.1
13.4
Males
c
5.5
Females
c
5.7

Upper secondary
education
ISCED 3C
Short

OECD countries

Table A6.3a.
Unemployment rates and educational attainment, by gender (2007)
Number of 25-64 year-olds in unemployment as a percentage of the labour force aged 25 to 64, by level of education attained and gender

(3)
x(5)
a
c
c
a
a
a
a
a
a
c
c
a
a
a
a
a
a
c
c
a
a
c
c
c
c
8.2
12.0
x(5)
x(5)
a
a
c
c
a
a
x(4)
x(4)
1.8
2.2
a
a
a
a
x(5)
x(5)
x(4)
x(4)
c
c
a
a
c
c
a
a
5.4
5.3
x(5)
x(5)
5.1
6.5
6.8
8.6
a
a
x(5)
x(5)
a
a
a
a
0.0
0.0

(4)
x(5)
a
3.0
4.0
6.3
8.2
x(5)
x(5)
3.9
8.6
1.6
3.1
a
a
4.9
7.2
8.5
9.0
c
c
6.3
8.6
c
c
a
a
2.3
6.0
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
x(5)
2.4
c
2.3
2.4
2.6
3.7
c
3.0
c
c
9.4
12.3
x(5)
x(5)
9.7
15.0
4.5
10.0
x(5)
x(5)
2.3
3.6
6.4
15.0
4.0
4.0
x(5)
x(5)
4.7
7.3
5.0
7.7
7.4
c
x(5)
x(5)
c
c
5.2
9.4
3.1
5.8

(5)
2.5
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.5
7.9
5.6
5.2
1.9
3.7
4.7
3.7
5.5
6.9
5.6
6.7
9.0
7.8
3.8
11.7
4.0
4.9
c
c
3.7
3.5
3.0
5.3
4.4
3.8
3.8
2.5
c
3.4
2.5
2.9
2.1
3.0
1.8
1.8
c
c
5.9
8.7
5.7
7.7
4.3
7.2
5.3
8.7
3.9
4.5
c
5.6
8.1
16.9
3.4
3.6
5.1
3.9
4.4
5.7
4.5
6.0
4.6
9.5
6.8
9.2
4.5
4.9
6.4
8.4
2.8
6.5

Tertiary education
Postsecondary
Type A and
nonadvanced
All
tertiary
research
levels of
education Type B programmes education
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
c
2.5
1.8
2.9
c
3.2
2.1
3.7
c
c
2.3
3.3
c
c
3.6
4.3
c
3.2
c
5.7
c
2.9
c
7.2
5.6
4.4
3.5
5.3
5.4
4.1
3.5
4.8
x(8)
x(8)
1.5
3.7
x(8)
x(8)
1.5
6.4
c
2.8
2.9
2.6
c
3.1
3.0
3.5
c
3.6
3.2
5.3
c
4.0
3.6
5.8
c
4.5
4.9
6.2
c
3.9
5.7
7.3
5.8
3.1
3.6
8.1
4.6
4.5
4.5
8.6
5.9
4.1
c
4.3
12.6
10.3
c
11.1
5.6
c
2.1
6.3
9.6
c
2.8
6.9
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
3.1
2.5
c
4.1
3.9
3.1
c
3.4
8.0
5.1
3.0
3.9
9.9
6.0
5.2
6.7
a
3.8
2.5
3.7
a
3.4
2.8
3.5
a
4.8
2.5
3.4
a
3.1
2.3
2.3
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
a
1.1
3.4
2.5
a
2.0
4.5
2.8
c
2.2
1.7
2.3
c
c
1.8
3.1
1.1
1.9
2.1
2.0
c
2.4
2.3
2.6
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
5.3
x(8)
3.3
7.7
7.3
x(8)
4.3
8.8
c
x(8)
5.1
6.3
c
x(8)
7.6
9.1
a
c
c
8.5
a
c
c
11.7
2.9
3.9
3.8
5.3
14.3
7.9
5.2
9.5
4.0
4.3
3.6
4.2
5.8
3.3
3.0
4.4
c
c
2.1
2.4
c
c
2.9
4.1
x(8)
x(8)
5.4
8.0
x(8)
x(8)
9.9
8.4
c
2.5
2.3
4.2
c
2.2
2.1
3.9
x(5)
3.2
1.9
4.3
x(5)
2.9
1.8
3.4
4.7
3.3
3.0
4.7
8.1
4.0
3.7
5.8
5.1
3.5
3.1
5.1
8.5
4.6
3.8
6.8
c
x(8)
2.6
4.1
c
x(8)
3.8
7.9
a
12.6
6.0
6.6
a
10.7
7.1
8.4
c
c
c
4.5
c
4.1
c
c
a
3.7
3.1
5.8
3.4
6.5
a
5.6
0.0
2.7
2.5
3.4
0.0
3.1
4.3
5.5

1.Year of reference 2004.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for a description of ISCED-97 levels, ISCED-97 country mappings and national data sources (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182

132

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Does Participation in Education Affect Participation in the Labour Market? – Indicator A6

chapter A

A6

OECD countries

Table A6.4a.
Trends in unemployment rates by educational attainment (1997-2007)
Number of 25-64 year-olds unemployed as a percentage of the labour force aged 25 to 64, by level of educational attainment
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Below upper secondary
9.6 9.0 8.4 7.5 7.6 7.5 7.0 6.2 6.3 5.6 5.1
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 6.1 5.8 5.1 4.5 4.7 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.4 3.8 3.0
Tertiary education
3.5 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.2
Below upper secondary
6.6 6.8 5.9 6.2 6.2 6.7 7.8 7.8 8.6 7.9 7.4
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 3.3 3.7 3.2 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.3
Tertiary education
2.5 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.9 2.6 2.5 2.4
Below upper secondary
12.5 13.1 12.0 9.8 8.5 10.3 10.7 11.7 12.4 12.3 11.3
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 6.7 7.4 6.6 5.3 5.5 6.0 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.7 6.2
Tertiary education
3.3 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.7 3.7 3.3
Below upper secondary
12.9 11.9 10.8 10.2 10.5 11.0 10.9 10.2 9.8 9.3 9.5
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 8.1 7.5 6.7 5.9 6.3 6.7 6.5 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.4
Tertiary education
5.4 4.7 4.5 4.1 4.7 5.1 5.2 4.8 4.6 4.1 3.9
Below upper secondary
12.1 14.5 18.8 19.3 19.2 18.8 18.3 23.0 24.4 22.3 19.1
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 3.4 4.6 6.5 6.7 6.2 5.6 6.0 6.4 6.2 5.5 4.3
Tertiary education
1.2 1.9 2.6 2.5 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.5
Below upper secondary
m 7.0 7.0 6.9 6.2 6.4 6.7 8.2 6.5 5.5 4.2
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
m 4.6 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.7 4.4 4.8 4.0 2.7 2.5
Tertiary education
m 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.9 4.7 4.4 3.7 3.2 2.9
Below upper secondary
15.6 13.8 13.1 12.1 11.4 12.2 11.2 11.3 10.7 10.1 8.9
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 11.9 10.6 9.5 8.9 8.5 8.8 8.3 7.9 7.4 7.0 6.1
Tertiary education
6.5 5.8 4.7 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.5 4.4 3.7 3.6
Below upper secondary
15.0 14.9 15.3 13.9 11.9 11.8 10.4 10.7 11.1 11.0 10.2
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 9.6 9.6 9.2 7.9 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.6 5.9
Tertiary education
7.0 6.6 6.1 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.7 5.4 5.1 4.9
Below upper secondary
15.4 15.4 15.9 13.9 13.5 15.3 18.0 20.4 20.2 19.9 18.0
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 9.9 10.3 8.8 8.1 8.2 9.0 10.2 11.2 11.0 9.9 8.3
Tertiary education
5.7 5.5 5.0 4.2 4.2 4.5 5.2 5.6 5.5 4.8 3.8
Below upper secondary
6.5 7.5 8.4 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.1 8.2 8.2 7.2 7.1
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 9.6 10.7 11.4 11.3 10.2 10.1 9.5 10.0 9.3 8.7 8.0
Tertiary education
7.3 6.3 7.8 7.4 6.9 6.7 6.1 7.2 7.0 6.1 5.8
Below upper secondary
12.6 11.4 11.1 9.9 10.0 10.5 10.6 10.8 12.4 14.8 16.0
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 6.9 6.2 5.8 5.3 4.6 4.4 4.8 5.0 6.0 6.1 5.9
Tertiary education
1.7 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.2 2.6
Below upper secondary
4.4 3.2 2.0 2.6 2.6 3.2 3.3 2.5 2.3
c 3.5
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 2.7
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c 3.4
Tertiary education
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c 2.2
Below upper secondary
14.5 11.6 9.2 5.6 5.2 5.9 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.7 6.1
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 6.5 4.5 3.5 2.3 2.4 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.5
Tertiary education
4.0 3.0 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.2 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.3
Below upper secondary
m 10.8 10.6 10.0 9.2 9.0 8.8 8.2 7.8 6.9 6.3
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
m 8.1 7.9 7.2 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.4 5.2 4.6 4.1
Tertiary education
m 6.9 6.9 5.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.7 4.8 4.2
Below upper secondary
3.9 4.4 5.6 5.9 5.9
m
m
m
m
m
m
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 3.4 3.3 4.5 4.6 4.8 5.6 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.6 4.2
Tertiary education
2.3 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.1 3.0 2.9
Below upper secondary
1.4 6.0 5.4 3.7 3.1 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.4
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 2.4 6.8 6.4 4.1 3.6 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.3
Tertiary education
2.3 4.9 4.7 3.6 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Below upper secondary
m
m 3.4 3.1 1.7 3.8 3.3 5.7 5.1 4.9 4.1
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
m
m 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.2 2.6 3.7 3.2 3.8 2.8
Tertiary education
m
m
c
c
c 1.8 4.0 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.0
Below upper secondary
2.6 2.3 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 4.2 3.2 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.7
Tertiary education
2.9 3.1 3.4 2.4 2.6 3.0 3.1 3.7 3.8 3.0 3.8
Below upper secondary
m 0.9 4.3 3.9 2.9 3.0 4.5 5.5 5.8 4.8 4.0
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
m 1.7 2.3 2.3 1.6 2.0 2.8 3.8 4.1 3.5 2.7
Tertiary education
m
c 1.7 1.9 1.2 2.1 2.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 1.8

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182
				
					

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

133

chapter A

A6

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

OECD countries

Table A6.4a. (continued)
Trends in unemployment rates by educational attainment (1997-2007)
Number of 25-64 year-olds unemployed as a percentage of the labour force aged 25 to 64, by level of educational attainment
New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average

Brazil

Estonia

Israel

Slovenia

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Below upper secondary
7.3 8.5 7.4 6.4 5.6 4.8 4.2 3.6 3.3 3.1 2.9
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 4.3 5.0 4.8 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9
Tertiary education
3.5 4.0 3.6 3.3 2.7 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.2
Below upper secondary
4.0 2.9 2.5 2.2 3.4 3.4 3.9 4.0 7.3 4.7 3.3
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 3.1 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.6 3.8 2.6 2.1 1.3
Tertiary education
1.7 1.5 1.4 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.4
Below upper secondary
13.8 13.9 16.4 20.6 22.6 25.2 25.9 27.8 27.1 21.5 15.5
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 9.9 9.1 10.7 13.9 15.9 17.8 17.8 17.4 16.6 12.7 8.7
Tertiary education
2.1 2.5 3.1 4.3 5.0 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.2 5.0 3.8
Below upper secondary
m 4.4 4.0 3.6 3.6 4.4 5.7 6.4 7.5 7.6 8.0
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
m 5.1 4.4 3.5 3.3 4.3 5.1 5.6 6.7 7.1 6.8
Tertiary education
m 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.9 4.9 4.4 5.4 5.4 6.6
Below upper secondary
22.4 24.3 30.3 36.3 38.7 42.3 44.9 47.7 49.2 44.0 41.3
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 8.5 8.8 11.9 14.3 14.8 14.2 13.5 14.6 12.7 10.0 8.5
Tertiary education
2.8 3.3 4.0 4.6 4.2 3.6 3.7 4.8 4.4 2.6 3.3
Below upper secondary
18.9 17.0 14.7 13.7 10.2 11.2 11.3 11.0 9.3 9.0 9.0
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 16.8 15.3 12.9 10.9 8.4 9.4 9.5 9.4 7.3 6.9 6.8
Tertiary education
13.7 13.1 11.1 9.5 6.9 7.7 7.7 7.3 6.1 5.5 4.8
Below upper secondary
11.9 10.4 9.0 8.0 5.9 5.8 6.1 6.5 8.5 7.3 7.0
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 9.4 7.8 6.5 5.3 4.6 4.6 5.2 5.8 6.0 5.1 4.2
Tertiary education
5.2 4.4 3.9 3.0 2.6 3.0 3.9 4.3 4.5 4.2 3.4
Below upper secondary
6.0 5.7 4.7 4.8 3.4 4.3 5.9 7.1 7.2 7.5 6.7
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.2 2.1 2.4 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.0
Tertiary education
4.4 2.8 1.7 1.4 1.3 2.2 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.1
Below upper secondary
4.4 4.4 5.3 4.6 6.7 8.5 8.8 8.1 8.7 8.3 8.2
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 6.3 6.6 8.2 5.5 7.4 8.7 7.8 10.1 9.2 9.0 8.8
Tertiary education
3.9 4.8 5.1 3.9 4.7 7.5 6.9 8.2 6.9 6.9 6.9
Below upper secondary
8.4 7.5 7.1 6.6 6.1 6.0 5.2 5.3 5.1 6.3 6.5
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 5.5 4.4 4.4 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.1 3.8 3.9
Tertiary education
3.1 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.3
Below upper secondary
10.4 8.5 7.7 7.9 8.1 10.2 9.9 10.5 9.0 8.3 8.5
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 4.8 4.5 3.7 3.6 3.8 5.7 6.1 5.6 5.1 4.6 4.5
Tertiary education
2.3 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.1 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.1
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
Tertiary education

10.1

9.4

9.3

9.0

8.6

9.4

9.7 10.3 10.5 10.0

9.0

6.7

6.4

6.1

5.7

5.5

5.8

6.0

4.8

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

6.0

5.5

4.1 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.5 3.3
13.3 11.4 11.4 11.1 10.6 11.4 11.7 12.8 13.0 12.1 11.1
8.4

7.4

6.9

6.6

6.3

6.5

6.8

7.1

6.8

6.2

5.4

4.7

4.4

4.1

3.8

3.5

3.8

4.1

4.3

4.2

3.7

3.5

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m 5.6
m
m
m
m
m
m 7.0
m
m
m
m
m
m 3.3
m 19.0 14.8 15.4 13.0 11.7 8.6
m 10.5 9.5 9.5 8.4 5.7 4.6
m 5.8 6.5 5.0 3.8 3.2 2.4
m 14.0 15.2 15.6 14.0 12.8 12.4
m 9.8 10.3 10.6 9.5 8.7 7.2
m 6.4 6.4 6.1 5.1 4.5 3.8
m 8.4 8.7 8.4 8.7 7.0 6.5
m 5.2 5.5 5.3 5.7 5.6 4.3
m 2.3 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.2

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664108032182				

134

6.3

			

INDICATOR A7

WHAT ARE THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF EDUCATION?
This indicator examines the relative earnings of workers with different levels of
educational attainment in 25 OECD countries and the partner countries Brazil,
Israel and Slovenia. Differences in pre-tax earnings between educational groups
provide a good indication of supply and demand for education. Combined with
data on earnings over time, these differences provide a strong signal of whether
education systems are aligned with labour market demands.

Key results
Chart A7.1. Average relative earnings growth at the tertiary level of education
between 1997 and 2007 and average relative earnings at the tertiary level
of education deviation from the OECD average (2007)
Growth in percentage point between 1997 and 2007 average
Deviation from OECD-19 average 2007
Earnings for those with tertiary education relative to upper secondary education provide a good
gauge of the supply and demand for individuals with higher education, as well as the incentives
to invest in higher education. Some countries have experienced a large increase in the earnings
premium for tertiary educated individuals over the period. In Germany, Hungary, and Italy,
relative earnings have increased by over 20 percentage points and consequently placed all three
countries above the average earnings premium across OECD countries.Tertiary educated individuals
in Canada, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden, have seen their relative earnings fall and this has
pulled their earnings premium further below the OECD average. Those with tertiary education
in the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal, and the United States continue to experience high
rewards for obtaining higher education.
%

90
60
30
0

New Zealand

Denmark

Sweden

Norway

Australia

Canada

France

Finland

Netherlands

OECD average

Ireland

Italy

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Germany

Poland

United States

Portugal

Czech Republic

-60

Hungary

-30

Note: Difference between relative earnings at the tertiary level of education average for years
1997/1998/1999 and average for years 2005/2006/2007.
Difference between relative earnings at the tertiary level of education average for years 2005/2006/2007
for each country and the OECD average based on 19 countries with available data.
Countries are ranked in descending order of deviation from the OECD average.
Source: OECD. Table A7.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

136

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A7

• Earnings increase with each level of education. Those who have attained upper
secondary, post-secondary non-tertiary or tertiary education enjoy substantial
earnings advantages compared with those of the same gender who have not
completed upper secondary education. The earnings premium for tertiary
education is substantial in most countries and exceeds 50% in 17 out of 28
countries.
• Males with a degree from a tertiary-type A or advanced research programme
have a significant earnings premium in Hungary and the partner country Brazil,
where the earnings premium exceeds 100% with a substantial margin; and in
the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal and the United States, and the partner
country Israel where these individuals earn 80% or more than those with upper
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education. In Hungary, Ireland, Korea,
the United Kingdom and the partner country Brazil, females have a similar
advantage.
• The educational earnings advantage increases with age. Tertiary earnings are
relatively higher at an older age in all countries except Australia, Italy, New
Zealand, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the partner country Israel. For those
with below upper secondary education the earnings disadvantage generally
increases with age.
• With few exceptions, females earn less than males with similar levels of
educational attainment. For all levels of education, average earnings of females
between the ages of 30 and 44 range from 51% of those of males in Korea to
88% in the partner country Slovenia. However, for females with below upper
secondary education in New Zealand and the United States and for those with an
upper secondary education in the Czech Republic, the earnings gap has closed by
more than 10 percentage points over the past decade.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

137

chapter A

A7

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Policy context

One way in which markets provide incentives for individuals to develop and maintain appropriate
skills is through wage differentials, in particular through the higher earnings of persons with
higher levels of education. At the same time, education involves costs that must be balanced
against these higher earnings. This indicator examines relative earnings associated with different
levels of education and the variation in these earnings over time.
The earnings premium for different educational levels not only provides incentives to invest in
education but also carries information on the supply of and demand for education. High and
rising earnings premiums can, in many circumstances, indicate that higher educated individuals
are in short supply, and of course the reverse is the case for low and falling premiums. The
consequence of having too few higher educated individuals in the labour market is rising income
inequalities and if sustained, a short supply could eventually price those with higher education
out of the global high-end skills market.
Nevertheless, in a longer-term perspective, either price signal will eventually lead to adjustments
of the supply of educated individuals to that of the demand-side. Relative earnings, and trend
data on the earnings premium in particular, are thus important indicators of the match between
the education system and the labour market.
Evidence and explanations
Earnings differentials and educational attainment

Earnings differentials are key measures of the financial incentives available for an individual
to invest in further education. They may also reflect differences in the supply of educational
programmes at different levels (or barriers to access to those programmes). The earnings benefit
of completing tertiary education can be seen by comparing the average annual earnings of those
who graduate from tertiary education with the average annual earnings of upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary graduates. The earnings disadvantage resulting from not completing
upper secondary education is apparent in a similar comparison of average earnings.
Variations among countries in relative earnings (before taxes) reflect a number of factors,
including the demand for skills in the labour market, minimum wage legislation, the strength of
unions, the coverage of collective bargaining agreements, the supply of workers at various levels
of educational attainment, and the relative incidence of part-time and seasonal work.
Still, earnings differentials are among the more straightforward indications as to whether the
supply of educated individuals meets demand, particularly in the light of changes over time.
Chart A7.2 shows a strong positive relationship between educational attainment and average
earnings. In all countries, graduates of tertiary education earn more overall than upper secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary graduates.
Earnings differentials between those with tertiary education – especially tertiary-type A and
advanced research programmes – and those with upper secondary education are generally more
pronounced than the differentials between upper secondary and lower secondary or below. This
suggests that in many countries, upper secondary (and, with a small number of exceptions,
post-secondary non-tertiary) education forms a dividing line beyond which additional education
attracts a particularly high premium. As private investment costs beyond upper secondary
education typically rise considerably in most countries, a high premium assures an adequate
supply of individuals willing to invest time and money in further education.
138

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Economic Benefits of Education? – Indicator A7

chapter A

Males with a degree from a tertiary-type A or advanced research programme have a substantial
earnings premium in Hungary and the partner country Brazil, where the earnings premium
exceeds 100% with a substantial margin. In the Czech Republic, Poland, Portugal and the
United States, and the partner country Israel tertiary educated individuals earn 80% or more
than those with upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education. Females have a
similar advantage in Hungary, Ireland, Korea, the United Kingdom and the partner country
Brazil.
Chart A7.2. Relative earnings from employment (2007 or latest available year)

By level of educational attainment and gender for 25-64 year-olds
(upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100) latest available year
Below upper secondary education
Tertiary-type B education
Tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes
Index

Males

Brazil
Hungary
Czech Republic
Poland1
Portugal1
United States
Israel
Luxembourg1
Finland1
France
Italy1
Canada1
Austria
Germany
OECD average
Ireland2
Turkey2
Belgium2
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Netherlands1
Spain3
Sweden
Australia2
New Zealand
Denmark1
Korea4
Norway1
Slovenia1

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Index

Females

Brazil
Ireland2
Korea4
United Kingdom
Hungary
Portugal1
Canada1
Israel
Germany
United States
Czech Republic
Austria
Poland1
Switzerland
OECD average
Turkey2
France
Finland1
Netherlands1
Australia2
Spain3
Belgium2
Luxembourg1
New Zealand
Italy1
Norway1
Sweden
Denmark1
Slovenia1

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

1.Year of reference 2006.
2.Year of reference 2005.
3.Year of reference 2004.
4.Year of reference 2003.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the relative earnings of the population with a tertiary-type A (including advanced
research programmes) level of educational attainment.
Source: OECD. Table A7.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

139

A7

chapter A

A7

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Females with below secondary education are particularly disadvantaged in Canada, Ireland,
Portugal, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States and the partner countries Brazil and
Israel, with only 70% or less of upper secondary earnings. In Portugal, the United Kingdom, the
United States and the partner country Brazil males with below upper secondary education are
in a similar situation.
The relative earnings premium for those with tertiary education has been on the rise in most
countries over the past ten years, indicating that the demand for more educated individuals still
exceeds supply in most countries (Table A7.2a). In Germany, Hungary and Italy, the earnings
premium has increased substantially during this period. At the same time, in these countries
tertiary attainment levels are also low compared to the OECD average (see Indicator A1).
Some countries have seen a decline in the earnings premium over the past ten years. New Zealand,
Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom have seen a decrease in the earnings premiums for
those with tertiary education. Whether this is an indication of weakening demand or whether
these figures reflect the fact that younger tertiary educated individuals with relatively low starting
salaries have entered the labour market, is difficult to know.
Education and earnings over age

Table A7.1a shows how relative earnings vary with age. The difference in relative earnings for those
with a tertiary education at age 55 to 64 compared with the total population (25-64 year-olds) is
generally larger; on average, the earnings differential increases by 13 index points. These
benefits of education are shown in Chart A7.3. While employment opportunities at an older
age improve for those with tertiary education in most countries (see Indicator A6), the
earnings advantages also increase. Earnings are relatively higher for older individuals in all
countries except Australia, Italy, New Zealand, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the partner
country Israel.
Earnings relative to upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

For those with below upper secondary education, the earnings disadvantage increases with
age in all countries except Finland, Germany, Sweden, the United States and the partner
country Israel. The increasing earnings disadvantage, for those at an older age with below
upper secondary education is less marked than the earnings advantage for those with a tertiary
education, which indicates that tertiary education is a key to higher earnings at an older age.
In most countries, then, tertiary education not only increases the prospect of being employed
at an older age, but is also associated with improving earnings and productivity differentials
throughout the working life.
Education and gender disparity in earnings

For 25-64 year-olds, financial rewards from tertiary education benefit females more than
males in Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The reverse is true in the remaining countries, with the
exception of Turkey, where – relative to upper secondary education – the earnings of males and
females are equally enhanced by tertiary education (Table A7.1a).
140

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Economic Benefits of Education? – Indicator A7

chapter A

A7

Chart A7.3. Difference in relative earnings for the 55-64 year-olds and 25-64 year-olds
(2007 or latest available year)

Earnings relative to upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
Below upper secondary education

Korea1
Ireland2
France
Canada3
Poland3
Norway3
Spain4
Luxembourg3
Austria
Slovenia3
Finland3
Portugal3
Sweden
OECD average
Hungary
Denmark3
Brazil
Switzerland
Czech Republic
United States
Netherlands3
Belgium2
Germany
Israel
Australia2
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Italy3
Turkey2

Tertiary education

Relative earnings
lower with age

30

20

Relative earnings
higher with age

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percentage points

1.Year of reference 2003.
2.Year of reference 2005.
3.Year of reference 2006.
4.Year of reference 2004.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference in relative earnings for the 55-64 year-old population and total
population (25-64 year-olds) at the tertiary level of education.
Source: OECD. Table A7.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

Both males and females with upper secondary, post-secondary non-tertiary or tertiary attainment
have substantial earnings advantages (compared with those of the same gender who do not complete
upper secondary education), but earnings differentials between males and females with the same
educational attainment remain substantial. In all countries, considering all levels of educational
attainment, females in the 30-44 year-old age group earn less than their male counterparts
(Table A7.1b, available on line). For all levels of education taken together (i.e. dividing total earnings
by the total number of income earners, by gender), average earnings of females between the ages of
30 and 44 range from 51% of those of males in Korea, to 88% in the partner country Slovenia.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

141

chapter A

This relative differential must be interpreted with caution, however, since in most countries earnings
data include part-time work, which is often a major characteristic of female employment and is
likely to vary significantly from one country to another. In Hungary, Luxembourg and Poland,
where part-time work and part-year earnings are excluded from the calculations, earnings of
females between the ages of 30 and 44 reach 82%, 85% and 78%, respectively, of those of males.
Chart A7.4. Differences in earnings between females and males
(2007 or latest available year)

Average earnings of females as a percentage of those of males (55-64 year-olds),
by level of educational attainment

%

Below upper secondary education
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
Tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes

120
100
80
60
40
20
0

Turkey1
Czech Republic
Poland2
Hungary
Spain3
United Kingdom
Belgium1
Finland2
France
Sweden
Portugal2
OECD average
Denmark2
Norway2
Korea4
Australia1
Luxembourg2
Ireland1
United States
New Zealand
Germany
Israel
Netherlands2
Austria
Switzerland
Brazil
Canada2
Italy2
Slovenia2

A7

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

1.Year of reference 2005.
2.Year of reference 2006.
3.Year of reference 2004.
4.Year of reference 2003.
Note: Data on earnings for individuals in part-time work are excluded for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg,
Poland, Portugal and Slovenia while data on part-year earnings are excluded for Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal
and Slovenia.
Source: OECD. Table A7.1b, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

The gap in earnings between males and females presented in Chart A7.4 is due in part to
differences in occupations, in the amount of time spent in the labour force, and in the incidence
of part-time work. However, among 55-64 year-olds, the gap between male and female earnings
is wide in most countries. Notable exceptions are females with an upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education in Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland and the partner country
Slovenia and females with below upper secondary education in Luxembourg who earn as much
as their male counterparts.
142

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Economic Benefits of Education? – Indicator A7

chapter A

While the overall earnings gap between males and females is generally more pronounced for the
oldest age cohort, the earnings differentials between males and females in general have narrowed
in some countries in recent years (Table A7.3). The most noticeable changes have taken place
for females with below upper secondary education in New Zealand and the United States and
for those with an upper secondary education in the Czech Republic, where the earnings gap has
closed by more than 10 percentage points over the past decade.
Definitions and methodologies

Earnings data in Table A7.1a are based on an annual reference period in Austria, Canada, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States, and in the partner countries Brazil and
Slovenia. Earnings are reported weekly in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom,
and monthly in Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Poland and Switzerland, and the partner
country Israel. Data on earnings are before income tax, while earnings for Belgium, Korea and
Turkey are net of income tax. Data on earnings for individuals in part-time work are excluded
for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg Poland, Portugal and Slovenia, while data on
part-year earnings are excluded for Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland and Slovenia.
The earnings data shown in this indicator differ across countries in a number of ways. The
results should therefore be interpreted with caution. In particular, in countries reporting annual
earnings, differences in the incidence of seasonal work among individuals with different levels
of educational attainment will have an effect on relative earnings that is not reflected in the data
for countries reporting weekly or monthly earnings. Similarly, the prevalence of part-time and
part-year earnings in most countries suggest that caution is needed in interpreting earnings
differentials in countries, particularly between males and females.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

• Table A7.1b.  Differences in earnings between females and males (2007 or latest available year)
• Table A7.4a.  Distribution of the 25-64 year-old population, by level of earnings and educational
attainment (2007 or latest available year)
• Table A7.4b. Distribution of the 25-64 year-old male population, by level of earnings and
educational attainment (2007 or latest available year)
• Table A7.4c. Distribution of the 25-64 year-old female population by level of earnings and
educational attainment (2007 or latest available year)

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

143

A7

chapter A

A7

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A7.1a.
Relative earnings of the population with income from employment (2007 or latest available year)
By level of educational attainment and gender of 25-64 year-olds, 25-34 year-olds and 55-64 year-olds
(upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100)

OECD countries

Below upper
secondary
education

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Korea

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary-type B
education

All tertiary
education

25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
2005 Males
86
90
81 105 107 104 115 116 113 143 127 143 136 124 133
2005 Females 86
82
85 104
99 105 120 115 123 156 149 154 146 142 143
2005 M+F
81
88
74
96
98
94 110 112 106 139 131 134 131 126 124
2007 Males
72
71
70 132 113 140 122 111 118 170 137 220 151 129 177
2007 Females 73
69
62 125 128 132 143 118 155 169 160 176 160 149 167
2007 M+F
67
68
60 122 114 131 130 113 127 170 143 212 155 134 177
2005 Males
91
95
82
98
95 108 116 111 113 155 135 156 137 124 139
2005 Females 81
85
68 108 105 103 124 122 117 151 144 147 134 131 128
2005 M+F
89
95
78 100
98 102 115 112 112 155 137 160 133 123 138
2006 Males
76
84
70 111 118 106 112 123 124 173 152 212 142 137 175
2006 Females 66
67
67 101 106 106 119 122 117 177 177 166 146 151 139
2006 M+F
75
83
69 110 113 108 111 118 118 171 155 206 140 137 164
2007 Males
78
81
77
m
m
m 132 125 136 195 162 200 192 158 198
2007 Females 74
78
70
m
m
m 123 117 135 170 155 176 165 148 173
2007 M+F
73
79
71
m
m
m 122 114 132 187 157 194 183 151 191
2006 Males
82
80
83
92
44
94 112 118 111 140 112 152 133 113 143
2006 Females 84
77
81
85
40
92 115 127 111 127 122 134 126 123 131
2006 M+F
82
81
81
97
45 104 115 122 112 128 110 142 125 112 136
2006 Males
91
89
92
m
m
m 132 129 133 179 140 216 162 138 181
2006 Females 97
90
95
m
m
m 129 128 126 160 148 193 146 144 155
2006 M+F
94
93
95
m
m
m 124 116 128 167 133 212 149 130 170
2007 Males
87
91
82 125
94 157 125 122 132 178 150 196 158 138 182
2007 Females 82
96
73
88 104
73 129 132 132 161 154 185 147 144 166
2007 M+F
84
94
76
94
94
81 123 122 127 168 147 197 150 136 178
2007 Males
90
91
93 109 118 111 133 127 131 167 152 160 158 148 151
2007 Females 84
74
68 114 112 121 109 120 110 174 159 169 159 153 161
2007 M+F
91
89
93 107 109 103 131 119 148 172 151 169 162 146 164
2007 Males
74
77
71 128 121 132 118
99 103 248 217 255 247 216 255
2007 Females 71
75
61 115 113 114 147 116 182 185 177 187 185 177 187
2007 M+F
72
76
65 120 117 122 134 106 154 211 193 223 211 193 223
2005 Males
84
88
76
96 124
76 104
95 140 165 136 204 147 125 187
2005 Females 67
55
82
93 113
93 131 121 126 201 183 240 178 166 201
2005 M+F
86
84
81
95 122
80 110 102 124 175 150 210 155 137 184
2006 Males
73
88
65
m
m
m
m
m
m 178 130 189 178 130 189
2006 Females 74
81
57
m
m
m
m
m
m 143 130 104 143 130 104
2006 M+F
76
91
61
m
m
m
m
m
m 155 124 146 155 124 146
2003 Males
73
87
71
m
m
m 103
99
64 138 127 182 127 117 169
2003 Females 75 126
62
m
m
m 138 121 131 201 165 219 176 148 206
2003 M+F
67 100
58
m
m
m 111 105
70 156 138 195 141 125 181
2006 Males
74
80
62
m
m
m 135 129 140 184 154 236 158 142 183
2006 Females 73
71
60
m
m
m 123 124 110 150 146 138 134 133 121
2006 M+F
74
78
62
m
m
m 132 127 136 177 152 225 153 139 175
2006 Males
87
92
82 100 100 100 152 150 148 151 136 157 151 136 157
2006 Females 75
76
71 100 100 100 147 157 137 159 151 159 159 151 159
2006 M+F
85
91
77 100 100 100 153 151 159 154 140 160 154 140 160
2007 Males
75
83
66 104 111
93 109 103
89 142 140 139 130 128 121
2007 Females 82
76
87
95 111
88 106 101 115 145 140 150 127 126 128
2007 M+F
75
80
67 115 119 106
98
95
86 137 133 140 121 120 113

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

144

Tertiary-type A
and advanced
research
programmes

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter A

What Are the Economic Benefits of Education? – Indicator A7

A7

Table A7.1a. (continued)
Relative earnings of the population with income from employment (2007 or latest available year)
By level of educational attainment and gender of 25-64 year-olds, 25-34 year-olds and 55-64 year-olds
(upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100)

OECD countries

Below upper
secondary
education

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

Partner countries

OECD average

Brazil
Israel
Slovenia

Post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary-type B
education

Tertiary-type A
and advanced
research
programmes

All tertiary
education

25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64 25-64 25-34 55-64
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
2006 Males
79
76
77 116 109 123 139 124 142 133 106 153 134 107 151
2006 Females 81
76
77 117 113 129 146 143 149 134 127 148 134 127 148
2006 M+F
78
76
77 122 117 129 149 126 165 127 107 151 129 108 152
2006 Males
86
85
79 114 110 119
m
m
m 194 169 216 194 169 216
2006 Females 76
82
60 116 115 112
m
m
m 165 157 168 165 157 168
2006 M+F
84
86
73 109 106 114
m
m
m 173 155 197 173 155 197
2006 Males
66
74
49
95
97
92 158 148 161 190 170 201 183 165 192
2006 Females 67
73
51 105 109 105 152 150 147 178 173 194 173 169 179
2006 M+F
68
76
50
99 103
95 155 148 157 182 168 206 177 164 194
2004 Males
84
94
76
83 100
m 107 111 143 144 130 155 132 123 153
2004 Females 78
86
64
95 103 177
97 106 120 156 154 170 141 139 162
2004 M+F
85
94
74
89 104 133 104 108 138 144 135 158 132 126 155
2007 Males
83
79
83 123
85 125 106
97 113 144 117 159 135 113 147
2007 Females 84
77
86 109
85 127 114
94 121 132 126 148 127 121 138
2007 M+F
84
79
86 122
83 133 105
95 112 134 116 153 126 112 140
2007 Males
77
81
68 109
84 134 125 118 113 154 126 165 144 123 147
2007 Females 76
74
70 118 104 160 135 144 137 164 161 167 156 157 158
2007 M+F
75
78
64 113
91 149 140 132 133 168 140 185 159 138 168
2005 Males
72
77
60
m
m
m 128 154 121 162 178 133 153 171 129
2005 Females 43
37
49
m
m
m 131
93
m 162 150 307 154 133 307
69
70
59
m
m
m 125 131 128 157 166 138 149 156 135
2005 M+F
2007 Males
69
68
70
m
m
m 124 112 115 153 148 147 145 140 137
67
74
m
m
m 139 131 149 199 191 200 181 179 183
2007 Females 70
2007 M+F
70
72
70
m
m
m 127 116 123 169 160 161 157 151 148
2007 Males
63
69
69 111 108 106 113 119 112 188 171 188 180 165 181
2007 Females 61
59
59 109 106 114 120 121 112 173 169 171 167 165 165
2007 M+F
65
69
68 109 105 110 114 117 113 180 164 188 172 160 181
79

83

74

108

102

113

123

119

122

167

145

181

156

139

168

Females 75

Males

76

70

105

104

114

128

123

130

164

155

175

153

146

163

M+F

78

83

71

107

102

111

123

118

127

162

144

178

152

138

164

2007 Males
2007 Females
2007 M+F
2007 Males
2007 Females
2007 M+F
2006 Males
2006 Females
2006 M+F

51
44
51
80
67
83
75
72
74

58
50
58
77
55
79
77
77
79

38
32
37
83
76
83
67
54
64

m
m
m
125
138
127
m
m
m

m
m
m
122
159
130
m
m
m

m
m
m
120
173
132
m
m
m

m
m
m
124
117
115
m
m
m

m
m
m
123
120
115
m
m
m

m
m
m
125
111
112
m
m
m

284
270
268
186
174
172
m
m
m

251
268
248
170
176
160
m
m
m

282
261
277
182
177
175
m
m
m

284
270
268
165
155
153
210
188
193

251
268
248
155
161
147
173
169
162

282
261
277
163
151
152
228
192
215

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

145

chapter A

A7

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

OECD countries

Table A7.2a.
Trends in relative earnings: adult population (1997-2007)
By educational attainment, for 25-64 year-olds (upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom

Partner countries

United States
Brazil
Israel
Slovenia

Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary

1997
79
124
m
m
m
m
m
m
68
179
85
123
97
148
84
149
81
133
68
179
75
146
m
m
m
m
m
m
83
141
77
148
85
138
m
m
62
176
76
149
90
129
70
155
m
m
69
158
70
168

1998
m
m
m
m
m
m
77
143
68
179
86
124
96
148
84
150
78
130
68
184
79
142
58
127
78
135
m
m
m
m
76
136
84
132
84
156
62
177
80
144
89
130
73
155
m
m
66
157
67
173

1999
80
134
m
m
m
m
80
144
68
179
86
124
96
153
84
150
79
135
70
200
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
76
139
84
133
82
161
62
178
m
m
89
131
75
153
m
m
69
162
65
166

2000
m
m
m
m
92
128
79
145
m
m
m
m
95
153
m
m
75
143
71
194
89
153
78
138
m
m
m
m
m
m
74
133
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
75
152
m
m
69
160
65
172

2001
77
133
m
m
m
m
76
146
m
m
87
124
95
150
m
m
m
m
71
194
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
74
133
79
131
81
166
m
m
78
129
86
131
76
155
m
m
70
160
m
m

2002
m
m
m
m
91
132
77
139
m
m
88
124
95
150
84
150
77
143
74
205
76
144
78
153
m
m
78
145
84
148
m
m
79
130
81
172
m
m
m
m
87
130
75
154
m
m
68
157
66
172

2003
m
m
m
m
89
130
78
140
m
m
82
127
94
148
84
146
87
153
74
219
m
m
m
m
67
141
m
m
m
m
76
127
78
131
m
m
m
m
m
m
87
128
74
156
m
m
69
162
66
172

2004
m
m
m
m
90
134
78
139
73
182
82
126
94
149
85
147
88
153
73
217
85
169
79
165
m
m
m
m
m
m
74
121
78
130
82
179
67
178
85
132
87
127
74
156
65
141
69
157
65
172

2005
81
131
71
152
89
133
77
138
72
181
82
125
m
m
86
144
88
156
73
215
86
155
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
78
125
78
129
m
m
67
177
m
m
86
126
75
155
69
149
71
158
67
175

2006
m
m
66
157
m
m
75
140
74
183
82
125
94
149
85
149
90
164
73
219
m
m
76
155
m
m
74
153
85
154
78
115
78
129
84
173
68
177
m
m
85
126
74
156
m
m
71
160
66
176

2007
m
m
67
155
m
m
m
m
73
183
m
m
m
m
84
150
91
162
72
211
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
75
121
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
84
126
75
159
m
m
70
157
65
172

Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
73
198

m
m
79
151
m
m

m
m
78
151
74
193

51
268
83
153
m
m

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).

Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

146

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Economic Benefits of Education? – Indicator A7

chapter A

A7

OECD countries

Table A7.2b.
Trends in relative earnings: male population (1997-2007)
By educational attainment, for 25-64 year-olds (upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom

Partner countries

United States
Brazil
Israel
Slovenia

Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary

1997
87
136
m
m
m
m
m
m
75
178
86
130
94
159
88
158
88
131
74
213
72
131
m
m
m
m
m
m
86
139
82
148
85
138
m
m
60
178
78
154
88
135
79
135
m
m
77
147
69
168
m
m
m
m
m
m

1998
m
m
m
m
m
m
77
143
75
178
87
132
93
159
88
159
77
126
72
218
78
131
54
138
88
132
m
m
m
m
76
137
85
133
86
175
61
178
82
152
87
136
80
136
m
m
75
149
65
176
m
m
m
m
m
m

1999
86
139
m
m
m
m
80
144
75
178
87
133
93
167
88
159
80
138
73
238
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
76
140
85
135
85
182
60
180
m
m
87
138
80
134
m
m
76
155
63
167
m
m
m
m
m
m

2000
m
m
m
m
93
128
80
151
m
m
m
m
92
169
m
m
80
141
75
232
84
138
71
143
m
m
m
m
m
m
76
130
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
79
135
m
m
74
152
64
178
m
m
m
m
m
m

2001
84
142
m
m
m
m
76
150
m
m
87
132
92
163
m
m
m
m
75
232
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
76
130
80
134
85
185
m
m
79
138
84
141
84
140
m
m
73
147
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

2002
m
m
m
m
92
132
79
143
m
m
87
131
92
163
88
159
84
140
78
245
71
141
74
162
m
m
79
149
84
143
m
m
80
133
84
194
m
m
m
m
85
139
79
137
m
m
72
147
63
178
m
m
m
m
m
m

2003
m
m
m
m
90
132
79
143
m
m
82
134
92
160
88
151
90
150
77
255
m
m
m
m
73
127
m
m
m
m
m
137
79
134
m
m
m
m
m
m
85
137
78
140
m
m
71
152
63
177
m
m
m
m
m
m

2004
m
m
m
m
91
137
78
140
79
193
82
133
91
161
89
154
91
149
76
253
85
171
78
188
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
129
79
134
86
204
64
183
84
132
85
135
78
139
67
139
70
146
62
179
m
m
m
m
74
217

2005
86
136
76
149
91
137
78
140
79
190
82
133
m
m
90
152
93
151
76
253
84
147
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
131
78
134
m
m
64
183
m
m
84
135
80
140
72
153
72
146
64
183
m
m
74
159
m
m

2006
m
m
72
155
m
m
76
142
81
194
82
133
91
162
89
157
92
163
75
259
m
m
73
178
m
m
74
158
87
151
76
120
79
134
86
194
66
183
m
m
83
135
78
138
m
m
73
148
63
183
m
m
76
166
75
210

2007
m
m
72
151
m
m
m
m
78
192
m
m
m
m
87
158
90
158
74
247
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
75
130
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
83
135
77
144
m
m
69
145
63
180
51
284
80
165
m
m

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).

Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

147

chapter A

A7

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

OECD countries

Table A7.2c.
Trends in relative earnings: female population (1997-2007)
By educational attainment, for 25-64 year-olds (upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education = 100)
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Luxembourg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom

Partner countries

United States
Brazil
Israel
Slovenia

Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary

1997
85
137
m
m
m
m
m
m
72
170
88
122
100
143
80
146
87
129
66
154
57
156
m
m
m
m
m
m
71
143
69
143
84
140
m
m
62
168
64
145
89
125
72
154
m
m
69
180
62
166

1998
m
m
m
m
m
m
68
147
72
170
89
124
99
143
79
145
85
128
67
159
59
145
61
115
69
141
m
m
m
m
74
129
84
136
77
145
62
171
66
137
89
125
73
150
m
m
67
176
63
163

1999
89
146
m
m
m
m
68
145
72
170
90
123
99
145
79
145
83
123
68
167
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
75
129
83
135
76
148
63
170
m
m
88
126
72
146
m
m
68
178
61
163

2000
m
m
m
m
82
132
69
145
m
m
m
m
99
146
m
m
72
137
71
164
65
163
84
137
m
m
m
m
m
m
72
136
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
72
144
m
m
69
176
62
164

2001
84
146
m
m
m
m
66
149
m
m
90
124
98
146
m
m
m
m
71
164
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
72
136
81
135
74
155
m
m
64
125
87
129
73
148
m
m
73
187
m
m

2002
m
m
m
m
83
140
65
141
m
m
90
123
98
146
81
146
73
137
71
176
60
153
78
147
m
m
74
131
72
155
m
m
81
135
73
159
m
m
m
m
87
129
74
148
m
m
69
177
63
165

2003
m
m
m
m
81
132
68
144
m
m
85
127
97
146
81
146
81
145
72
192
m
m
m
m
75
176
m
m
m
m
m
129
81
137
m
m
m
m
m
m
88
128
76
151
m
m
69
182
66
167

2004
m
m
m
m
82
137
69
147
73
160
85
126
97
146
82
145
81
148
71
190
68
168
73
138
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
126
81
136
74
166
66
173
78
141
87
127
77
153
46
164
72
180
62
166

2005
86
146
74
156
81
134
68
144
72
161
84
126
m
m
81
142
77
151
72
188
67
178
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
128
81
135
m
m
66
173
m
m
86
126
76
148
43
154
71
181
63
167

2006
m
m
71
158
m
m
66
146
73
163
84
126
97
146
82
146
83
153
72
189
m
m
74
143
m
m
73
134
75
159
88
123
81
134
76
165
67
173
m
m
85
126
76
159
m
m
70
182
63
170

2007
m
m
73
160
m
m
m
m
74
165
m
m
m
m
82
147
84
159
71
185
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
82
127
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
84
127
76
156
m
m
70
181
61
167

Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Tertiary

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
71
190

m
m
72
157
m
m

m
m
67
150
72
188

44
270
67
155
m
m

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).

Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

148

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter A

What Are the Economic Benefits of Education? – Indicator A7

A7

Table A7.3.
Trends in differences in earnings between females and males (1997-2007)
Average annual earnings of females as a percentage of earnings of males by level of educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds
OECD countries

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Czech Republic

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Korea

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary

60
62
62
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
66
69
66
73
72
68
78
74
66
68
75
69
63
64
63
79
88
64
46
59
70
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
46
56
57
52
62
60

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
52
59
61
66
69
65
73
71
66
77
72
65
68
75
69
74
67
68
80
86
63
48
63
70
70
62
52
56
70
75
m
m
m
m
m
m
61
63
59

66
64
67
m
m
m
m
m
m
51
60
60
66
69
65
73
71
66
77
72
62
68
75
69
70
68
60
84
89
62
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
65
67
61

m
m
m
m
m
m
64
72
74
52
60
58
m
m
m
m
m
m
76
71
61
m
m
m
56
63
61
83
88
62
46
60
71
76
65
62
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
61
64
67

62
62
63
m
m
m
m
m
m
51
59
58
m
m
m
74
71
67
76
71
63
m
m
m
m
m
m
83
88
62
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
61
64
67

m
m
m
m
m
m
65
72
76
50
61
60
m
m
m
75
73
68
76
72
64
70
77
70
53
61
60
85
93
67
48
57
62
70
66
60
m
m
m
80
86
75
49
58
62
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
66
74
74
52
60
61
m
m
m
73
71
67
76
72
66
68
75
72
54
60
58
89
95
71
m
m
m
m
m
m
48
47
65
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
64
60

m
m
m
m
m
m
66
74
74
52
59
61
74
80
67
74
71
67
76
72
65
68
74
70
54
60
60
89
96
72
49
61
60
67
71
52
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
63
62

61
60
65
57
60
62
67
75
73
53
60
62
74
80
68
73
71
67
m
m
m
68
75
70
52
62
62
88
93
69
44
55
67
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
62
61

m
m
m
58
59
60
m
m
m
53
61
62
73
80
67
73
71
67
77
72
64
68
74
69
56
62
58
93
96
70
m
m
m
67
66
53
m
m
m
87
88
75
48
55
58
72
63
64

m
m
m
60
58
62
m
m
m
m
m
m
75
79
68
m
m
m
m
m
m
70
75
70
55
59
59
87
91
68
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
69
63
61

Note: Data on earnings for individuals in part-time work are excluded for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and
Slovenia while data on part-year earnings are excluded for Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal and Slovenia.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

149

chapter A

A7

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

OECD countries

Table A7.3. (continued)
Trends in differences in earnings between females and males (1997-2007)
Average annual earnings of females as a percentage of earnings of males by level of educational attainment of 25-64 year-olds
Norway

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

Partner countries

United States

Brazil

Israel

Slovenia

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
60 60 61
m 63 64 66 66 65 65
m
61 61 62
m 62 63 64 64 63 63
m
63 62 62
m 63 64 65 65 63 63
m
m 73 72
m 72 73
m 73
m 71
m
m 81 81
m 83 84
m 84
m 81
m
m 68 66
m 69 68
m 68
m 69
m
72 71 71
m
m
m
m 73 73 73
m
69 69 69
m
m
m
m 70 71 71
m
66 66 65
m
m
m
m 67 67 67
m
60 61
m
m 58
m
m 63
m
m
m
72 76
m
m 71
m
m 68
m
m
m
68 69
m
m 64
m
m 73
m
m
m
73 74 74
m 74 74 75 75 74 74 73
72 72 73
m 71 72 73 73 73 73 72
67 66 67
m 65 67 68 69 68 68 68
49 51 50 53 51 53 55 55 54 55 57
54 55 56 58 58 56 56 56 57 56 57
61 61 61 62 61 60 61 62 60 65 62
m
m
m
m
m
m
m 52 47
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m 75 78
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m 89 78
m
m
47 48 49 50 52 53 53 55 55 53 56
53 54 54 54 52 55 55 54 56 56 55
65 64 62 63 66 67 66 66 69 56 69
53 60 59 59
m 63 67 63 63 65 64
59 62 61 60
m 63 64 63 65 65 66
59 58 59 56
m 58 61 59 59 60 61

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary and post-secondary non tertiary
Tertiary

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
84
88
77

m
m
m
57
59
58
m
m
m

m
m
m
56
64
57
82
86
77

49
58
55
52
63
59
m
m
m

Note: Data on earnings for individuals in part-time work are excluded for the Czech Republic, Hungary, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and
Slovenia while data on part-year earnings are excluded for Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal and Slovenia.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664140647056

150

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

INDICATOR A8

WHAT ARE THE INCENTIVES TO INVEST IN EDUCATION?
This indicator examines incentives to invest in education by estimating the value
of education across 21 OECD countries. The financial returns to education are
calculated for investments undertaken as a part of initial education, and account for
the main costs and benefits associated with this investment decision.The discounted
values of private and public investments in education are given for upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary and tertiary education.

Key results
Chart A8.1. Economic returns for an individual obtaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education, ISCED 3/4, and for an individual
obtaining tertiary education, ISCED 5/6, as part of initial education (2005)

The chart shows the net present value of investments in education discounted at a 5% interest rate.
Private net present value of investing in upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education
Private net present value of investing in tertiary education
Investments in tertiary education generate substantial financial rewards in most OECD countries.
Male students in Portugal, Italy and the United States investing in tertiary education can expect
to gain more than USD 150 000 over their working life. The returns for female tertiary students
exceed USD 100 000 in Korea and Portugal. With few exceptions, the returns for investing in a
tertiary education are higher than for upper secondary or post-secondary non- tertiary education.
On average across OECD countries, tertiary education generates a net present value approximately
twice that of upper secondary or post-secondary non tertiary education. For males the returns
are USD 82 000 compared with USD 40 000, and for females USD 52 000 USD compared with
USD 28 000. Incentives to continue education at the tertiary level are thus strong for males and
females in most countries.
Thousands USD equivalent

Denmark

Sweden

Norway

New Zealand

France

Turkey

Germany

Australia

Spain1

Austria

Belgium

Finland1

Canada

OECD average

Korea2

Ireland1

Hungary

Poland1

Czech Republic

United States

Italy1

MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF MF

Portugal

195
180
165
150
135
120
105
90
75
60
45
30
15
0
-15

M: Male; F: Female
1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Countries are ranked by descending order of the net present value for males immediately acquiring a tertiary
level of education. Cash flows are discounted by 5% interest rate.
Source: OECD. Table A8.1 and Table A8.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

152

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A8

• Both public and private returns are typically higher for tertiary education than
upper secondary education or post-secondary non-tertiary education, reflecting
the fact that an upper secondary level education has become the norm among
OECD countries. However, the value of an upper secondary education or postsecondary non-tertiary education is still substantial in Norway for males and
in the United States for both males and females where the net discounted gain
exceeds USD 80 000.
• At the upper secondary level of education, the social safety net in some countries
works against females investing in further education. Social transfers remove some
of the income differences between those who have obtained an upper secondary
education and those who have not. The negative effects of social transfers are
particularly strong in Denmark and New Zealand where the returns for females
are reduced by 25 000 USD or more.
• Tertiary education brings substantial rewards in most countries and the present
value of the gross earnings premium for males exceeds USD 300 000 in Italy
and the United States over the working life. The rewards for investing in tertiary
education are typically lower for females, except in Australia, Denmark, Korea,
Norway, Spain and Turkey where the returns on the overall investment are higher
for females than for males.
• On average across OECD countries, the value invested in tertiary education for an
individual male is USD 67 000, taking into account public and private spending,
as well as indirect costs in the form of private and public foregone earnings and
taxes. In Austria, Germany and the United States these investment costs exceed
USD 100 000.
• The net public return from an investment in tertiary education for a male student
exceeds, on average across OECD countries, USD 50 000. This is almost twice
the amount of the investment made by the public side, and as such, provides a
strong incentive to expand higher education in most countries through either
public or private financing.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

153

chapter A

A8

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Policy context

Economic returns to education are a key driver for individuals’ decisions to invest time and
money in education beyond compulsory schooling. The monetary benefits of completing higher
levels of education motivate individuals to postpone consumption today for future rewards.
From a policy perspective, awareness of economic incentives is crucial to understanding the
flow of individuals through the education system.
A problem facing policy makers is the fact that changes in education policies generally take some
time to have an impact on the labour market. Large shifts in the demand for education can drive
earnings and returns up considerably before the supply catches up. This provides a strong signal
both to individuals and to the education system about the need for additional investment.
Apart from the earnings differentials, which are largely determined by the labour market, major
components of the returns to education are directly linked to policy: access to education, taxes
and the costs of education for the individual. Very high private returns suggest that education
may need to be expanded by increasing access and by making loans more readily available to
individuals, rather than by lowering the costs of education. On the other hand, low returns
indicate that there are not enough incentives for the individual to invest in education, either
because education is not rewarded in the labour market, or because costs, in terms of tuition
fees, foregone earnings and taxation, are relatively high.
Economic benefits of education flow not only to the individual but also to society through lower
social transfers and through the additional taxes individuals pay when they enter the labour
market. The public returns to education, which take into account the costs and benefits of
education for governments, provide additional information on the overall returns to education.
In shaping policies, it is important to consider the balance between private and public returns.
This indicator takes a closer look at individual and public incentives to invest in education, as well
as incentives for males and females at different educational levels.
Evidence and explanations
Financial returns to investment in education

The relationship between education and earnings can be evaluated in an investment analysis
framework. An individual incurs costs when investing in education (direct costs such as tuition
fees and indirect costs such as foregone earnings while in school). The overall benefits of this
investment can be assessed by estimating the economic value of the investment, which essentially
measures the degree to which the costs of attaining higher levels of education translates into
higher levels of earnings.
The approach used here is the Net Present Value (NPV) of the total investment, or the Present
Value (PV) when referring to different components or cash flow streams. In this framework,
costs and benefits in different periods are transferred back in time to the start of the investment.
This is done by discounting all cash flows back to the beginning of the investment with a required
rate of interest (discount rate). The choice of interest rate is generally a difficult issue as it should
reflect not only the overall time horizon of the investment, but also the cost of borrowing, or the
perceived risk of the investment. To keep things simple, and to make the interpretation of results
easier, the same discount rate is applied across all OECD countries.
154

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Incentives to Invest in Education? – Indicator A8

chapter A

The discount rate used here is set to 5%, which largely reflects the interest one can expect,
under normal circumstances, to obtain by investing in long-term government bonds in most
OECD countries. Discounting the cost and benefits to the present value with this interest rate
makes the financial returns on the overall investment and values of the different components
comparable across time and countries.
A positive net present value of an educational investment represents the additional value one can
expect to gain over an investment in government bonds. A negative net present value suggests
that one would be better off investing in bonds rather than enrolling in education. However, many
governments have schemes which provide grants and loans to students with interest rates below
those used in this exercise. These subsidies can, in many cases, turn the investment and value for
the individual positive even if negative returns are sometimes documented in this indicator.
Net present value (NPV) calculations are based on the same method as internal rate of return
(IRR) calculations used in previous editions of Education at a Glance; the main difference between
these two methods is in how the interest rate is set. For calculations developed within the IRR
framework, the interest rate is raised to the level at which the economic benefits equal the
cost of the investment; for calculations developed with the NPV approach, the discount rate
is fixed at the start of the analysis and the economic benefits and costs are then valued in line
with the chosen interest rate. The net present value has a couple of advantages over IRR in that
it is easier to communicate and better suited for long-term investments. IRR typically favours
short-term investments with large cash flows close in time with the investment, and thus ranks
investments differently from those evaluated by NPV. The net present value is thus more suited
for educational investments that typically span several decades.
This indicator is analysed from two points of view: financial returns to the individual, which
reflect only the individual’s earnings and costs, and financial returns to government (public
net present value). The returns to government include the collection of higher income taxes
and social contributions, lower social transfers to individuals, as well as the costs borne by the
government for educating the individual. These private and public returns are calculated for
21 OECD countries.
Incentives for the individual to invest in education

Upper secondary education or post-secondary non-tertiary education
The different costs and benefits make up the components of the value of education, and as such,
describe the key drivers of the returns in different countries. In order to visualize the main
factors influencing the returns to education, each cost and benefit is discounted back in time
with a discount rate of 5%. Table A8.1 shows the value of each component and the net present
value of the overall investment for an individual attaining upper secondary education or postsecondary non-tertiary education.
Chart A8.2 shows these components for a female investing in an upper secondary education or
post-secondary non-tertiary education. At this level of education the direct cost for education are
typically negligible (with the exception of Germany where the direct costs exceeds USD 5 000)
and the main investment cost consists of foregone earnings. Depending on salary levels and the
possibility of finding a job, foregone earnings vary substantially between countries. In Spain and
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

155

A8

chapter A

A8

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Poland the earnings foregone are less than USD 10 000, while in Austria foregone earnings exceed
USD 35 000. Good labour market prospects for young individuals without an upper secondary
education thus have the consequence of reducing the incentives to invest in further education.
Gross earnings effects and unemployment effects make up the benefit side. In Austria,
Germany and the United States the discounted gross earnings effect exceeds USD 100 000
over the working life of a female attaining an upper secondary education or post-secondary
non-tertiary education. Unemployment effects play an important role in Belgium, the Czech
Republic and Germany where the better employment prospects over working life are valued
at USD 30 000 or more.
Chart A8.2. Components of the private net present value for a female obtaining
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, ISCED 3/4 (2005)
Transfers effect
Social contribution effect
Income tax effect
Direct cost

United States
Czech Republic
Portugal
Spain1
Canada
Belgium
Ireland1
Austria
Germany
Poland1
Italy1
OECD average
Norway
Australia
Sweden
Hungary
Turkey
New Zealand
France
Denmark
Finland1
Korea2
-250 000

Foregone earnings
Gross earnings benefits
Unemployment effect

Net present value,
in USD equivalent
81 889

55 584
50 158
48 136
37 540
37 145
35 058
33 435
32 039
31 933
30 417
28 223
27 123
25 782
23 900
19 029
15 126
11 511
8 081
2 828
-2 020
-12 011

-150 000

-50 000

0

50 000

150 000

250 000

350 000
USD equivalent

1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
Countries are ranked by descending order of the net present value.
Source: OECD. Table A8.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

156

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Incentives to Invest in Education? – Indicator A8

chapter A

Income taxes, social contributions, and transfer effects bring down the benefit side, and on
average across countries, a female investing in upper secondary education or post-secondary
non-tertiary education can expect to gain approximately USD 28 000 over her working life.
However, this varies significantly between countries; in the United States attaining this level
of education generates over USD 80 000 whereas in Finland and Korea the expected value is
negative when discounting the cash flow streams at 5%.
Males generally have better financial returns on their upper secondary education or postsecondary non-tertiary education than females. The impact of the different components making
up the investment is typically stronger, except for transfer effects where the safety net of countries
works against females investing in further education. Social transfer removes some of the income
differences between those who have obtained an upper secondary education and those who have
not. Social transfers make the economic incentives for investing in further education particularly
low in Denmark and New Zealand where the female returns are reduced by USD 25 000 or
more. Strong social safety nets can in some countries thus have the consequence of lowering the
incentives to invest in further education.

Tertiary education
Chart A8.3 shows the components of the returns to tertiary education for males in different
countries. Relative to upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, the impact
of unemployment benefits is less pronounced than the earnings differential, and taxes and direct
costs of education play a substantially larger role.
As with upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, the returns to tertiary
education are largely driven by earnings premiums; other components are less important in
explaining differences among OECD countries. This suggests that education policy needs to
monitor and match the supply of and demand for education. The components illustrated in
Chart A8.3 show, however, the importance of specific factors in different countries and thus
indicate areas in which policy could help to improve incentives.
Tertiary education brings substantial rewards in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,
Poland, Portugal and the United States where an investment generates over USD 100 000
indicating strong incentives to continue education. The present value of the gross earnings
premium exceeds USD 300 000 in Italy and the United States.The rewards for tertiary education
are substantially lower in Denmark, France, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden where returns
are USD 40 000 or below. The rewards for investing in tertiary education are typically lower for
females, except in Australia, Denmark, Korea, Norway, Spain and Turkey where the returns are
higher for females than for males (Table A8.2).
There is some trade-off between taxes and the direct costs of education (tuition fees).
Countries with low or no tuition fees typically let individuals pay back public subsidies later in
life through progressive tax schemes. In countries in which a larger portion of the investment
falls on the individual (in the form of tuition fees) a larger portion of the earnings differential
is also accrued by the individual. In general there is a positive link, although weak, between
the private direct costs for education and the overall value of the education (net present value
of the investment).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

157

A8

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Chart A8.3. Components of the private net present value for a male
obtaining tertiary education, ISCED 5/6 (2005)

A8

Transfers effect
Social contribution effect
Income tax effect
Direct cost

Foregone earnings
Gross earnings benefits
Unemployment effect

Portugal
Italy1
United States
Czech Republic
Poland1
Hungary
Ireland1
Korea2
OECD average
Canada
Finland1
Belgium
Austria
Spain1
Australia
Germany
Turkey
France
New Zealand
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
-250 000

Net present value,
in USD equivalent
186 307
173 889
169 945
146 673
146 539
127 691
104 410

85 586
82 007
69 235
64 664
63 414
60 519
55 695
48 714
48 024
41 090
40 260
40 036
23 306
18 802
7 342

-150 000

-50 000 0 50 000

150 000

250 000

350 000

450 000
USD equivalent

1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
Countries are ranked by descending order of the net present value.
Source: OECD. Table A8.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

Public rate of return to investments in education

Public returns are one way of examining the effect on public-sector accounts of individuals’
decisions to invest in education and the effect of policies that affect these investments. Similarly,
to warrant an intervention by governments to improve private rates of return to education, it
is important to consider public returns in order to have a complete picture of overall returns to
education.
For the public sector, the costs of education include direct expenditures on education (such
as direct payments of teachers’ salaries or for the construction of school buildings, purchase
of textbooks, etc.) and public-private transfers (such as public subsidies to households for
158

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Incentives to Invest in Education? – Indicator A8

chapter A

scholarships and other grants and to other private entities for provision of training at the
workplace, etc.).The public costs of education also include lost income tax revenues on students’
foregone earnings. The benefits include increased revenue from income taxes on higher wages
and social insurance payments as well as lower social transfers due to the higher income.
In practice, raising levels of education will give rise to a complex set of fiscal effects on the
benefit side, beyond the effects of revenue growth based on wages and payments to government.

Box A8.1. Estimating returns to education
There are essentially two main approaches to estimating the financial returns to education,
founded either on investment theory, from the finance literature, or on an econometric
specification, from the labour economics literature.
The basis for an investment approach is the discount rate (the time-value of money), which
makes it possible to compare costs or payments (cash flows) over time. The discount rate
can be estimated either by raising it to the level at which financial benefits equal costs,
which is then the internal rate of return, or by setting the discount rate at a required rate
that takes into consideration the risk involved in the investment, which is then a net present
value calculation with the gains expressed in monetary units.
The econometric approach taken in labour economics originates from Mincer (1974)
in which returns to education are estimated in a regression relating earnings to years of
education, labour market experience and tenure. This basic model has been extended
in subsequent work to include educational levels, employment effects and additional
control variables such as gender, work characteristics (part-time, firm size, contracting
arrangements, utilisation of skills, etc.) to arrive at a “net” effect of education on earnings.
The main difference between the two approaches is that the investment approach is forwardlooking (although historical data are typically used) whereas an econometric approach tries
to establish the actual contribution of education to earnings by controlling for other factors
that can influence earnings and returns.This difference has implications for the assumptions
and for interpretations of returns to education. As the investment approach focuses on the
incentives at the time of the investment decision, it is prudent not to remove the effect of
(controlling for) other factors as these are part of the returns that an individual can expect
to receive when deciding to invest in education. In other words, it is difficult to foresee
what one’s labour market experience or tenure with a specific firm will be, whether one
will work part-time, for a big firm, in the public sector, or in a job that does not draw upon
one’s skills. Gender is, of course, known at the time of the investment decision, and is an
important component in investment analysis.
Depending on the impact of the control variables, how steep the earnings curves are, and
how cash flows are distributed over time, the results of the two approaches can diverge
quite substantially. Depending on other underlying assumptions, returns may differ
between and within a class of models as well. For instance, cash flows can be calculated
differently and, depending on the method chosen, returns will vary to some degree. It is
therefore generally not advisable to compare rates of return from different studies. The use
of data systematically extracted from comparable sources allows a reliable cross country
comparison, even though the rates of return might differ slightly with another approach.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

159

A8

chapter A

A8

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

For instance, better educated individuals generally have better health, which lowers public
expenditure on provision of health care and thus public expenditure. As earnings generally
increase with educational attainment, those with higher levels of education consume more goods
and services, and this leads to fiscal effects beyond income tax and social security contributions.
However, tax and expenditure data on these indirect effects of education are not readily available
for inclusion in rate-of-return calculations.
Chart A8.4. Public versus private investment for a male obtaining tertiary education (2005)
Private foregone earnings
Private direct cost
Public direct cost
Public forgone earnings

Private cost

Public cost

United States
Austria
Germany
Denmark
Norway
Canada
Sweden
Italy1
Finland1
France
Australia
OECD average
Ireland1
New Zealand
Belgium
Hungary
Portugal
Poland1
Czech Republic
Spain1
Korea2
Turkey
-100 000

Total investment
private + public
in USD equivalent

124 699
110 580
102 170
99 238
91 304
86 747
78 432
78 184
74 394
73 660
68 993
67 439
62 537
57 188
57 099
47 370
43 504
36 895
35 129
33 878
30 121
24 095

-80 000

-60 000

-40 000

-20 000

0

20 000

40 000

1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
Countries are ranked by descending order of the total cost private + public.
Source: OECD. Table A8.2 and Table A8.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).

60 000

80 000

USD equivalent

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

Table A8.3 and Table A8.4 show the public returns for individuals who obtain upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education and tertiary education as part of initial education,
respectively. Chart A8.4 shows the public and private costs for males investing in a tertiary
education. On average across OECD countries, the value invested in a male obtaining a tertiary
education is USD 67 000, taking into account public and private spending, as well as indirect
160

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Incentives to Invest in Education? – Indicator A8

chapter A

costs in the form of public and private foregone earnings and taxes. In Austria, Germany and the
United States the present value of the investment costs exceeds USD 100 000.
Direct costs for education are generally borne by the public side with the exceptions of Australia,
Canada, Korea and the United States, where tuition fees constitute a significant share of the
overall private investment costs for tertiary education. Together with foregone public earnings
in the form of taxes and social contributions, direct and indirect public investment costs exceeds
USD 40 000 in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Norway for a male with tertiary education.
In Korea, Spain and Turkey the total public investment cost does not exceed USD 15 000. On
average among OECD countries, the total present value of public investment for a male obtaining
a tertiary qualification is USD 28 000.
Although public investments in tertiary education are large in many countries, private investment
costs exceed those of governments in most countries. In Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Italy
and the United States an individual invests over USD 50 000 to acquire a tertiary qualification,
taking into account direct and indirect costs. In the United States this figure is above USD 90 000
with direct costs such as tuition fees making up a significant part of the investment. In all other
countries, foregone earnings are the main component. The decision to continue education at a
tertiary level is thus challenging, as much is at stake, particularly for young individuals from less
affluent backgrounds.
For an individual, foregone earnings make up a substantial part of overall investment costs and
particularly in countries with long tertiary educations such as in Austria and Germany (see
Indicator B1). Earnings foregone also depend on the wage levels one can expect to receive
and most notably the probability to find a job. As the labour market for young adults is likely
to deteriorate in the coming years (Indicator C3), investment costs will fall and thereby also
increase the returns for tertiary education. The incentives to invest in education both from the
private and public perspective will thus be further advanced across most OECD countries.
Investments in education also generate public returns in the form of income taxes, increased
social insurance payments and lower social transfers as a consequence of higher income levels.
Chart A8.5 compares the costs and economic benefits for a male investing in upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education and tertiary education from a public point of view. The
public returns for investments in upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are
positive in all countries except in France and Korea, where the net present value is marginally
negative. On average across OECD countries, upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education generates a net return of USD 14 000 USD and in Austria, Denmark, Sweden and
the United States this figure is close to or above USD 30 000.The public returns for a female
investing in upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education are marginally lower,
USD 10 000 on average across OECD countries (Table A8.3).
The public returns to tertiary education are substantially higher than for upper secondary or
post-secondary non-tertiary education, in part because a larger share of the investment costs
are borne by the individuals themselves. The main factors are, however, higher taxes and social
contributions, and lower social transfers that flow from the higher income levels of those with
tertiary qualifications. In Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary and the United States
these benefits exceeds USD 100 000 over an individual’s working life (Chart A8.5).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

161

A8

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Chart A8.5. Public cost and benefits for a male obtaining upper secondary
or post-secondary non-tertiary education and tertiary education (2005)

A8

Public benefits
Public costs

Upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education

12 314
5 065
12 474
5 325
13 959
3 711
18 058
14 056
23 857
11 755
30 613
-271
11 242
14 599
-4 272
9 652
23 350
28 768
35 524
2 109

200 000

150 000

USD equivalent

100 000

50 000

Tertiary education

Czech Republic
United States
Belgium
Hungary
Ireland1
Italy1
Germany
Poland1
Finland1
OECD average
Portugal
Australia
Austria
France
New Zealand
Canada
Korea2
Spain1
Norway
Sweden
Denmark
Turkey

5 086
32 257
Net present value,
in USD equivalent

Net present value,
in USD equivalent

0

160 834
100 119
96 186
94 804
74 219
63 756
63 604
57 221
55 612
51 954
50 271
47 368
37 586
36 730
28 193
23 875
21 280
19 752
17 851
17 197
14 236
10 346

0

50 000

100 000

150 000

200 000

USD equivalent

1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
Countries are ranked by descending order of the public net present value obtaining tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table A8.3 and Table A8.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

On average across countries, the net public return from an investment in tertiary education
exceeds USD 50 000 for a male student, accounting for the main costs and benefits at this level
of education. This is almost twice the amount of public investments made in tertiary education
across OECD countries, and as such, provides a strong incentive for governments to expand
higher education.
In conclusion, there seems to be room for additional expansion of higher education in most
countries through either public or private financing. As shown in this indicator, at a discount
rate of 5%, most educational investments yield substantial private and public returns in most
countries. Financing these investments at 5% thus makes sense both from a public and private
perspective. Public investments in education and particularly at tertiary level would be rational
162

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Incentives to Invest in Education? – Indicator A8

chapter A

even in the face of running a deficit in public finances. As indicated here, issuing government
bonds to finance these investments will yield significant returns and improve public finances in
the longer term. Public as well as private returns to tertiary education will eventually drop in
many countries with high returns as supply meet demand, but from the viewpoint of equity this
may be a desirable outcome.
Definitions and methodologies

In the calculation of the private Net Present Value (NPV), private investment costs include after
tax foregone earnings adjusted for the probability of finding a job (unemployment rate) and
direct private expenditures on education. Both of these investment streams take into account
the duration of studies. On the benefit side, the age-earning profiles are used in calculating the
earnings differential between different educational groups (below upper secondary education;
upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education; and tertiary education). These gross
earnings differentials are adjusted for differences in income taxes and social contributions as well
as social transfers (transfers including housing benefits and social assistance related to earnings
level) to arrive at net earnings differentials. The cash flows are further adjusted for probability of
finding a job (unemployment rates). These calculations are done separately for male and females
to account for differences in earnings differentials and unemployment rates.
In the calculation of public NPV, public costs include lost tax receipts during the schooling years
(income tax and social contribution), and public expenditures (taking into account duration of
studies). The benefits for the public sector are additional tax and social contribution receipts
associated with higher earnings and savings from transfers, i.e. housing benefits and social assistance
that the public sector doesn’t have to pay above a certain level of earnings.
It is important to consider some of the broad conceptual limitations on the estimates of financial
returns performed here:
• The data reported are accounting based values only. The results no doubt differ from
econometric estimates that would rely, for example, on an earnings function approach, rather
than on a lifetime stream of earnings derived from average earnings. Estimates relate to levels
of formal educational attainment only. They do not reflect the effects of learning outside of
formal education.
• The approach used here estimates future earnings for individuals with different levels of
educational attainment, based on knowledge of how average present gross earnings vary by
level of attainment and age. However, the relationship between different levels of educational
attainment and earnings may differ in the future from what it is today.Technological, economic
and social changes may all alter how wage levels relate to levels of educational attainment.
• Differences in returns across countries partly reflect different institutional and non-market
conditions that bear on earnings, such as institutional conditions that limit flexibility in
relative earnings. In estimating benefits, the effect of education on increasing the likelihood
of employment when wanting to work is taken into account. However, this also makes the
estimate sensitive to the stage in the economic cycle at which the data were collected. As
higher educated individuals typically have a stronger attachment to the labour market, the
value of education generally increases in time of poor economic growth.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

163

A8

chapter A

A8

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

The calculations also involve a number of restrictive assumptions needed for international
comparability. For calculations of the investments in education, foregone earnings have been
standardised at the level of the legal minimum wage or the equivalent in countries where the
earnings data include part-time work (when no national minimum wage was available, the wage
was selected from wages set in collective agreements). This assumption seeks to counterbalance
the very low recorded earnings for 15-24 year-olds that led to excessively high estimates in
earlier editions of Education at a Glance. In the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Portugal
actual earnings are used in the calculations of foregone earnings as part-time work is excluded
in these earnings data collections.
To ensure comparability, calculations of taxes, social contributions and social transfers are based
on the assumption that the individual in question is single and childless. This restriction is largely
necessary because the rules governing eligibility for a broad range of social entitlements vary
greatly by marital or civil status (and sometimes other criteria). In order to broaden the country
coverage, when information from Table B1.3a and Table B1.3b were not available, the starting
age of education and the duration of studies have been estimated on the basis of school expectancy
(see Indicator C1) or the best estimate from the literature.
The analysis could be extended in a number of ways, subject to data availability. In particular,
more differentiated and comparable data relative to costs per student and the availability of
student loans and interest charges on these loans would be useful. Estimates of changes in value
added tax receipts resulting from the increased earnings acquired through obtaining higher levels
of education would also contribute to a more complete assessment of the impact on public
accounts. The calculations do not consider the fact that those with high earnings often generate
higher levels of income after age 64, owing to their superior pension arrangements.
For the methods employed for the calculation of the rates of return, please see Annex 3 at
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.
Further references

Mincer, J. (1974), “Schooling, experience, and earnings”, National Bureau of Economic Research
(NBER), New York.

164

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Incentives to Invest in Education? – Indicator A8

chapter A

A8

Table A8.1.
Private net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary or post-secondary
non-tertiary education as part of initial education, ISCED 3/4 (2005)
Social
Foregone Gross earnings Income tax contribution Transfers Unemployment Net present
Direct cost
earnings
benefits
effect
effect
effect
effect
value
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Finland1
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland1
Italy1
Korea2
New
Zealand
Norway
Poland1
Portugal
Spain1
Sweden
Turkey
United
States
Countries
average

-2 810
-2 032
-1 441
-2 161
-1 722

-2 810 -22 021 -22 719 73 492 70 932 -29 991 -21 803
0
0 -1 282 -16 141
-2 032 -38 001 -36 463 146 283 103 739 -35 039 -11 710 -31 945 -22 855 -7 317 -17 035
-1 441 -32 999 -28 338 63 700 91 261 -30 534 -33 010 -17 237 -25 074
0
0
-2 161 -23 450 -24 386 91 065 71 299 -27 634 -15 208 -7 546 -7 870 -1 368 -4 123
-1 722 -15 426 -14 635 44 843 50 019 -15 791 -13 086 -13 795 -12 108
0
0

32 094
30 856
32 171
25 011
65 414

18 324 49 482 25 782
19 791 62 805 33 435
33 748 13 659 37 145
19 989 53 918 37 540
47 116 63 524 55 584

-578
-138
-2 119
-5 085
-577
-599
-1 114
-2 865
-3 113

-578 -27 078 -27 534 111 279 82 278 -43 456 -23 892 -11 003 -8 422 -21 465 -30 149
-138 -22 955 -22 309 50 777 32 073 -19 850 -11 118 -4 436 -3 206 -12 018 -15 866
-2 119 -30 492 -27 181 41 450 44 826 -9 575 -6 471 -8 688 -8 892 -7 433 -13 413
-5 085 -27 421 -27 631 51 356 109 920 -21 356 -28 291 -20 773 -30 735 -5 861 -17 182
-577 -15 805 -15 024 38 406 39 545 -15 715 -12 844 -7 380 -7 415
0
0
-599 -29 199 -28 740 66 937 76 038 -25 960 -14 476 -5 552 -10 369
0
0
-1 114 -35 954 -30 570 89 302 75 509 -32 910 -26 257 -9 243 -8 934
0
0
-2 865 -11 898 -11 980 68 412 4 787 -2 892
555 -5 088 -515
0 -4 777
-3 113 -28 129 -27 056 83 873 75 997 -26 409 -15 778 -1 130 -1 026 -3 537 -27 132

15 888
19 051
22 141
48 275
16 116
25 992
11 406
5 282
9 496

11 126 23 587 2 828
18 542 10 432 -2 020
21 332 5 284 8 081
31 043 19 134 32 039
15 343 15 046 19 029
13 203 31 618 35 058
21 783 21 487 30 417
2 783 50 950 -12 011
9 620 31 051 11 511

-2 372 -2 372 -33 342 -33 625 133 548 83 842 -46 232 -23 682 -14 535 -8 476 -5 868 -13 572
-194 -194 -9 622 -8 202 31 601 40 648 -4 240 -4 697 -13 975 -15 287
0
0
-11
-11 -20 562 -16 867 123 842 88 143 -31 103 -17 324 -14 081 -10 389
0
0
-481 -481 -5 925 -4 348 52 086 45 557 -12 389 -9 490 -3 833 -4 210
0
0
-19
-19 -19 592 -21 107 93 464 69 113 -30 240 -23 335 -8 283 -6 800 -17 103 -21 409
-324 -324 -10 837 -11 750 37 719 48 598 -6 185 -5 005 -5 950 -5 624
0
0
-2 689 -2 689 -21 168 -21 572 180 543 126 069 -42 737 -27 179 -15 178 -11 526 -3 874 -5 803

53 406 25 008 84 606 27 123
23 567 19 665 27 137 31 933
4 485 6 606 62 570 50 158
8 146 21 107 37 604 48 136
25 278 27 458 43 505 23 900
1 886 -10 770 16 308 15 126
18 033 24 588 112 929 81 889

-1 545 -1 545 -22 946 -22 002 79 713 68 104 -24 297 -16 386 -10 460 -9 987 -4 149 -8 886 23 524 18 924 39 840 28 223

Note: Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
Assuming that foregone earnings for all individual refer to the minimum wage, except those countries reporting full time earnings: the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Portugal.
1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

165

chapter A

A8

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A8.2.
Private net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education as part of initial education,
ISCED 5/6 (2005)
Social
Foregone Gross earnings Income tax
contribution Transfers Unemployment Net present
Direct cost
earnings
benefits
effect
effect
effect
effect
value
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech
Republic
Denmark
Finland1
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland1
Italy1
Korea2
New
Zealand
Norway
Poland1
Portugal
Spain1
Sweden
Turkey
United
States
Countries
average

-13 901 -13 901 -35 094 -35 046 163 861 148 634
-3 249 -3 249 -51 723 -52 581 201 993 173 711
-2 054 -2 054 -27 996 -26 929 207 374 172 292
-25 266 -25 266 -27 697 -29 045 170 510 137 899

-66 312
-64 185
-91 380
-53 072

159 11 177 48 714
6 692 6 554 60 519
9 325 26 390 63 414
9 256 8 267 69 235

61 374
42 915
60 792
45 365

-49 491
-48 959 -29 009 -32 560
-68 762 -31 855 -40 146
-34 480 -4 496 -12 012

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

-1 979 -1 979 -17 106 -15 333 208 896 121 571 -35 660 -25 627 -21 519 -17 640

0

0 14 043 19 426 146 673 80 418

-31 670
-40 040
-21 435
-36 203
-64 061
-47 702
-46 797
-6 372

-9 562
-12 108
-19 792
-38 857
-28 976
-8 278
-18 529
-9 451

-7 298 -3 485 -2 059 -1 819 3 700 7 342 11 983
-7 728
0 -5 327 17 428 13 095 64 664 26 392
-14 998 -6 155 -27 301 2 097 10 928 40 260 -1 908
-26 756
0
0 37 512 18 616 48 024 10 450
-20 605
0
0 14 972 13 180 127 691 43 432
-12 219
0
0 5 441 3 896 104 410 78 158
-12 391
0
0 -6 260 -2 290 173 889 25 806
-12 071
0
0 3 420
917 85 586 129 516

-9 877 -9 877 -30 361 -30 106 126 923 102 431 -43 436 -23 223

-1 500

-1 248

-1 044
-3 459
-5 145
-4 016
-3 969
-1 024

-10 404 -9 714
-53 933 -38 026
-17 015 -23 085
-6 805 -8 051
-4 297 -5 104
-11 259 -12 398

0
0
0
0
0
0

0 1 721 5 613 23 306 34 032
0 41 089 37 279 146 539 84 266
0 -8 900 6 878 186 307 123 357
0 5 139 17 859 55 695 73 495
0 5 899 5 993 18 802 5 097
0 1 026 10 033 41 090 47 695

-56 365 -56 365 -34 886 -36 137 367 211 229 096 -104 997 -56 829 -27 382 -18 614

0

0 26 363 14 341 169 945 75 492

-1 626 -1 626 -33 883 -33 186 122 635 84 122
-1 187 -1 187 -41 149 -42 711 175 858 110 290
-4 488 -4 488 -46 325 -43 953 148 491 99 338
-5 256 -5 256 -47 631 -50 100 175 411 110 150
-3 734 -3 734 -22 248 -20 924 254 678 139 576
-3 708 -3 708 -40 309 -40 226 230 823 178 118
-6 385 -6 385 -45 482 -42 922 322 079 136 591
-10 651 -10 651 -14 726 -15 135 133 568 172 827

-1 044 -45 383 -45 330 131 511 118 313
-3 459 -13 980 -10 974 198 632 112 422
-5 145 -22 341 -17 563 287 624 219 720
-4 016 -15 522 -14 145 103 748 108 691
-3 969 -38 222 -38 463 109 112 66 853
-1 024 -9 112 -7 930 74 185 72 423

-64 918
-74 179
-33 569
-73 155
-87 002
-79 558
-71 534
-16 574

-53 094
-21 810
-47 917
-26 848
-49 721
-12 727

-33 806
-12 976
-57 449
-26 843
-20 212
-13 409

-8 018 -8 018 -31 484 -30 892 186 434 134 051 -55 793 -36 493 -17 382 -15 841

-160 -6 059 -1 553

1 654 40 036 33 571

-467 -1 940 8 717 11 119 82 007 51 986

Note: Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
Assuming that foregone earnings for all individual refer to the minimum wage, except those countries reporting full time earnings: the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Portugal.
1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

166

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Incentives to Invest in Education? – Indicator A8

chapter A

Table A8.3.
Public net present value for an individual obtaining upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary
education as part of initial education (2005)
Social
Public direct Public foregone Income tax
contribution
Transfers
Unemployment Net present
cost
revenues
revenues
revenues
revenues
effect
value
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland1
France
Germany
Hungary
Ireland1
Italy1
Korea2
New Zealand
Norway
Poland1
Portugal
Spain1
Sweden
Turkey
United States

-14 340
-33 528
-25 972
-19 181
-15 405
-27 190
-17 712
-25 960
-22 915
-12 235
-16 149
-27 152
-10 973
-17 546
-30 570
-7 837
-17 367
-5 901
-22 563
-4 599
-27 182

-5 178
-10 161
-9 486
-2 768
-9 096
-13 210
-533
-6
-11 117
-5 795
-2 900
-9 675
-1 279
-2 288
-12 714
-6 667
-3 961
-669
-4 296
-5 308
-2 350

-5 178
-10 161
-9 486
-2 768
-7 577
-13 210
-533
-6
-11 117
-5 541
-2 900
-9 675
-1 279
-2 288
-12 714
-5 802
-3 418
-669
-4 296
-5 308
-2 350

23 083
31 643
23 483
24 435
7 915
38 946
15 714
7 399
13 292
13 561
22 914
30 740
2 843
24 463
36 018
2 886
30 472
11 560
24 864
5 905
40 075

18 624
11 505
27 501
13 920
7 984
21 038
7 815
4 800
24 935
11 304
13 901
23 536
-556
13 971
20 057
3 714
16 776
8 883
17 821
6 417
24 174

0
26 410
12 939
5 845
5 655
9 132
3 257
5 695
10 793
5 213
4 337
8 200
4 725
1 016
10 398
8 022
13 590
3 319
6 530
5 667
13 809

0
19 320
22 639
6 597
6 256
6 986
2 069
6 028
24 331
5 359
10 022
6 946
325
911
6 548
10 322
9 667
2 884
4 891
7 210
9 664

1 282
7 317
0
1 368
0
21 465
12 018
7 433
5 861
0
0
0
0
3 537
5 868
0
0
0
17 103
0
3 874

16 141
17 035
0
4 123
0
30 149
15 866
13 413
17 182
0
0
0
4 777
27 132
13 572
0
0
0
21 409
0
5 803

6 907
8 931
11 349
4 900
16 017
6 381
5 315
5 168
18 045
4 322
4 272
3 214
412
2 060
14 350
7 307
1 122
1 342
7 129
444
4 031

3 179
3 740
7 945
2 561
10 954
4 290
4 440
4 536
9 760
3 597
922
4 709
190
1 921
5 553
5 948
1 270
1 933
7 423
-2 998
4 867

11 755
30 613
12 314
14 599
5 086
35 524
18 058
-271
13 959
5 065
12 474
5 325
-4 272
11 242
23 350
3 711
23 857
9 652
28 768
2 109
32 257

18 426
7 911
22 626
5 252
2 212
22 063
11 944
2 811
42 176
2 483
5 796
-1 637
-7 516
24 102
2 446
6 345
6 928
7 130
24 685
722
14 976

Countries average -19 156 -19 156

-5 688

-5 537

20 582

14 196

7 836

8 046

4 149

8 886

6 334

4 130

14 056

10 566

-14 340
-33 528
-25 972
-19 181
-15 405
-27 190
-17 712
-25 960
-22 915
-12 235
-16 149
-27 152
-10 973
-17 546
-30 570
-7 837
-17 367
-5 901
-22 563
-4 599
-27 182

Note: Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

167

A8

chapter A

A8

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Table A8.4.
Public net present value for an individual obtaining tertiary education as part of initial education (2005)
Social
Public direct Public foregone Income tax
contribution
Transfers
Unemployment Net present
cost
revenues
revenues
revenues
revenues
effect
value
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
-12 728
Australia
-42 561
Austria
-19 787
Belgium
-30 950
Canada
Czech Republic -9 224
-47 726
Denmark
-31 234
Finland1
-22 840
France
-30 501
Germany
-13 606
Hungary
-15 358
Ireland1
-14 483
Italy1
-3 210
Korea2
New Zealand -14 627
-30 242
Norway
-9 321
Poland1
-10 988
Portugal
-12 633
Spain1
-29 806
Sweden
-9 233
Turkey
United States -29 995
Countries average -21 003

-12 728
-42 561
-19 787
-30 950
-8 547
-47 726
-31 234
-22 840
-30 501
-13 606
-15 358
-14 483
-3 210
-14 627
-30 242
-9 321
-10 988
-12 633
-29 806
-9 233
-29 995
-20 970

-7 271
-13 047
-7 262
-2 834
-6 820
-16 003
-825
-8
-18 783
-7 782
-3 162
-11 834
-1 535
-2 322
-14 635
-10 134
-5 030
-1 707
-6 434
-4 726
-3 452
-6 934

-7 271 67 246
-13 047 62 721
-7 262 88 530
-2 834 51 408
-5 557 105 460
-16 003 65 470
-825 70 330
-8 33 346
-18 783 65 039
-7 285 83 331
-3 162 82 740
-11 834 72 942
-1 535 16 412
-2 322 43 843
-14 635 52 085
-8 435 18 900
-3 925 49 943
-1 707 26 253
-6 434 47 562
-4 726 12 674
-3 452 100 352
-6 716 57 933

48 855
48 018
62 569
33 442
22 936
30 576
38 061
20 177
33 048
60 670
50 459
46 791
6 388
22 973
32 960
10 616
56 682
25 049
18 852
12 126
55 429
35 080

Note: Cash flows (components) are discounted by 5% interest rate.
1.Year of reference 2004.
2.Year of reference 2003.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664146203473

168

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

0
27 964
30 552
3 981
61 528
9 769
11 252
19 513
31 770
27 254
8 544
19 255
9 216
1 520
10 079
44 864
18 771
6 571
3 830
11 273
25 741
18 250

0
31 383
36 565
11 444
15 252
6 887
7 186
13 530
22 852
18 865
13 286
12 602
12 058
1 232
9 348
29 085
22 900
7 045
4 687
11 117
17 914
14 535

0
0
0
0
0
3 485
0
6 199
0
0
0
0
0
168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
469

0
0
0
0
0
2 059
6 932
27 305
0
0
0
0
0
6 130
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 020

120
2 509
4 154
2 271
9 890
-759
6 088
521
16 079
5 607
1 454
-2 125
398
-389
565
12 912
-2 425
1 268
2 045
358
7 472
3 239

2 501 47 368 31 357
2 119 37 586 25 911
9 774 96 186 81 858
1 738 23 875 12 839
5 155 160 834 29 239
1 506 14 236 -22 702
3 883 55 612 24 003
2 739 36 730 40 903
6 938 63 604 13 554
5 277 94 804 63 921
802 74 219 46 027
-189 63 756 32 887
51 21 280 13 752
346 28 193 13 732
1 453 17 851 -1 116
11 980 57 221 33 925
2 306 50 271 66 975
3 258 19 752 21 012
1 777 17 197 -10 923
2 971 10 346 12 255
3 574 100 119 43 469
3 331 51 954 27 280

INDICATOR A9

WHAT are the social OUTCOMES of education?
This new indicator examines the relationship between educational attainment and
social measures of well-being (i.e. social outcomes) for 21 OECD countries. It
focuses on three outcomes that reflect the health and cohesiveness of society: selfassessed health, political interest and interpersonal trust. It looks at how these
outcomes vary across levels of educational attainment, with and without adjustments
made for individual differences in gender, age and income. It also describes how
social outcomes vary across gender, age and income groups, and whether these
differences change by levels of educational attainment.

Key results
Chart A9.1. Marginal effects of education on self-reported health
and political interest

The chart presents the increase in the percentage of individuals expressing
better health condition and stronger political interest associated with moving
from one level of educational attainment to the next higher level.

Statistically significant
From upper secondary to tertiary
From below upper secondary
to upper secondary

Statistically non significant
From upper secondary to tertiary
From below upper secondary
to upper secondary

An increase in educational attainment associated with moving from one level of educational
attainment to the next higher level is generally positively associated with self-reported health and
political interest. For self reported health, the association is larger and more consistent at the
lower level of education. For political interest, the association is larger and more consistent at
the higher level of education.
Self-reported health

Political interest

ALL 2003
WVS 2005

New Zealand
Canada
Italy
Korea
United States

ISSP 2004/6
WVS 2005

ESS 2004

Germany
Turkey
Greece
Czech Republic

ESS 2004

Ireland
Denmark
Sweden
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Spain
Switzerland
Belgium
Finland
Portugal
Slovak Republic

ESS 2006

Percentage 40
points

30

20

10

0

-10

ESS 2006

-10

0

10

20

30

40 Percentage
points

Countries are grouped by data source (European Social Survey [ESS] 2004, ESS 2006, Adult Literacy and
Lifeskills Survey [ALL] 2003, International Social Survey Programme [ISSP] 2004 and 2006, and World Values
Survey [WVS] 2005) and, within data source, ranked by ascending order of the marginal effects of moving
individuals from below upper secondary to upper secondary education on self-reported health.
Source: OECD. Table A9.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

170

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator

INDICATOR A9

• Educational attainment is positively associated with self-reported health, political
interest and interpersonal trust.That is, adults who have higher levels of educational
attainment are generally more likely than those with lower levels of attainment to
report that their health is at least “good”, are at least fairly interested in politics,
and believe most people try to be fair. For self-reported health, an increase in
educational attainment from below-upper secondary to upper secondary level is
associated with a stronger and more consistent increase in outcomes, compared
to an increase in educational attainment from upper secondary to tertiary level,
in all surveyed countries except Poland. For political interest and interpersonal
trust, an increase in educational attainment from upper secondary to tertiary
level is broadly associated with stronger and more consistent increases in social
outcomes, compared to an increase in educational attainment at the lower level.
• The association between educational attainment and social outcomes generally
remains after adjusting for gender and age. Thus, the relationship does not appear
to be driven by differences in education between gender or age groups. For
example, even though younger adults tend to be healthier and more educated than
older adults, the association between educational attainment and self-reported
health remains when comparing adults of the same age and gender.
• The association between educational attainment and social outcomes generally
weakens after controlling for household income, suggesting that income is
one pathway to explaining this relationship. However, in most countries, the
association between education and social outcomes remains strong after adjusting
for household income. Hence, what individuals potentially acquire through
education – e.g. competencies and psycho-social features such as attitudes and
resilience – may have an important role in raising social outcomes, independent
of education’s effect on income.
• There are differences in social outcomes across gender, age and income groups,
regardless of the level of educational attainment. While men generally report
better health status and stronger political interest, women tend to express
stronger interpersonal trust. The younger age-group (i.e. those 30-year-olds) are
more likely to express being in good health, whereas the older age-group (i.e.
those 60-year-olds) are more likely to express higher levels of political interest
and interpersonal trust. In most countries, a larger fraction of high income
individuals report better health and stronger political interest and interpersonal
trust compared with the low income individuals. More interestingly, for selfreported health, differences in gender, age and income appear to be smaller at
higher levels of educational attainment than at lower levels of attainment. This
implies that education can potentially serve to moderate gender, age and income
inequalities in health status. There is no clear reduction in disparities at higher
levels of education for political interest and interpersonal trust.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

171

chapter A

A9

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Policy context

Health is among the key policy objectives for all OECD countries. This is reflected in the
relatively high expenditures on health, which currently amount to 9 percent of the GDP in OECD
countries (OECD, 2007c). Although the added resources spent on healthcare have generally
helped people to live longer, the nature of health problems has changed, with recent increases in
chronic debilitating conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and depression. Efforts to combat
these trends depend in part on changing individuals’ lifestyle choices – choices, which may be
improved by the cognitive and psycho-social competencies developed through education.
Social cohesion, often reflected in levels of civic and social engagement, is also of high concern
among the OECD countries. Various forms of civic participation and political interest have
diminished, which poses a challenge to maintaining well-functioning democratic institutions
and political processes. Education may have an important role to play in maintaining social
cohesion by fostering the competencies, attitudes and self-confidence that undergird social
and political interaction.
The Social Outcomes of Learning project of the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation
(CERI) conducted a comprehensive assessment of policy contexts among 11 OECD countries
(OECD, 2009c).The assessment suggests that countries are concerned about both health conditions
and social cohesion, and they acknowledge the important role education can play in improving both
types of outcomes. However, this acknowledgement was generally not reflected in the scale or
contents of existing educational programmes and interventions. One of the purposes of presenting
this indicator is to stimulate debate among diverse stake-holders on the potential role that education
might play in improving the health and cohesion of our countries.
Evidence and explanations
Educational attainment and social outcomes

Education may affect people’s lives in ways that go beyond what can be measured by economic
outcomes such as labour market earnings (see Indicator A7). These potential effects include
a variety of social outcomes such as health, civic participation, political interest, crime and
happiness. For this year’s edition of the Education at a Glance, we focus on three social outcomes
for which comparable micro-data are available across a large number of countries, namely selfreported health, political interest and interpersonal trust. Each of the datasets includes measures
of educational attainment that allow us to compare these outcomes by levels of attainment.
Education can have an impact on individuals’ health conditions by helping them choose healthier
lifestyles, better manage their illness and avoid conditions detrimental to health, such as
dangerous jobs and the stress of poverty. Education’s effect may operate directly by raising
individual competencies, attitudes to risk and self-efficacy, or indirectly through income which
helps improve living conditions (e.g. nutrition) and access to healthcare. Education can directly
increase civic and political engagement by providing relevant information and experience, and
by developing competencies, values, attitudes and beliefs that encourage civic participation.
Education can also indirectly increase engagement by raising individuals’ social status which may
permit them to have better access to social and political power. Education can directly affect
interpersonal trust since it could help individuals better understand and embrace the values of
social cohesion and diversity. Education can also indirectly raise interpersonal trust since those
172

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Social Outcomes of the Education? – Indicator A9

chapter A

with higher levels of education are more likely to live and work among those with similar high
levels of education, environments in which crime and anti-social behaviour tend to be lower; the
opposite is likely to be true for those with low levels of education.
The empirical literature documents positive associations between education and both health
and “civic and social engagement” (e.g. OECD, 2007b). Chart A9.1 suggests that the relationship
between education and both self-reported health and political interest is indeed generally positive
and consistent for a large number of countries. The relationship is also generally positive but less
consistent for interpersonal trust (Chart A9.4). In Poland, Switzerland and the United States,
the relationship between education and all three indicators is strong and statistically significant.

Chart A9.2. Marginal effects of education on self-reported health
(with and without controls for age, gender and income)
Statistically significant
With controls for age, gender and income
With controls for age, gender
Without controls

Statistically non significant
With controls for age, gender and income
With controls for age, gender
Without controls

From below upper secondary
to upper secondary

From upper secondary
to tertiary

Canada
Italy
Korea
United States

ALL 2003
WVS 2005

Germany
Turkey
Greece
Czech Republic

ESS 2004

ESS 2004

Ireland
Denmark
Sweden
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Spain
Switzerland
Belgium
Finland
Portugal
Slovak Republic

ESS 2006

30
Percentage
points

ALL 2003
WVS 2005

35

20
25

10
15

ESS 2006

0
5

0
-5

-5

10
5

20
15

30
25

35

Percentage
points

Note: Calculations are based on linear regressions. Non-linear models (Probit models) have also been tested and
shown to exhibit very similar results.
Countries are grouped by data source (European Social Survey [ESS] 2004, ESS 2006, Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey [ALL]
2003) and World Values Survey (WVS) 2005 and, within data source, ranked by descending order of the marginal effects of moving
individuals from below upper secondary to upper secondary education (without using controls). Indicator for Korea is based on
WVS 2005 while Canada, Italy and the United States are based on ALL 2003.
Source: OECD. Table A9.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

173

A9

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A9

Chart A9.3. Marginal effects of education on political interest
(with and without controls for age, gender and income)
Statistically significant
With controls for age, gender and income
With controls for age, gender
Without controls

Statistically non significant
With controls for age, gender and income
With controls for age, gender
Without controls

From below upper secondary
to upper secondary

From upper secondary
to tertiary

Korea
Canada
New Zealand
Italy
United States

ISSP 2004/6
WVS 2005

Czech Republic
Greece
Turkey
Germany

ESS 2004

ESS 2004

Sweden
Norway
Finland
Slovak Republic
Belgium
Spain
Poland
Netherlands
Ireland
Denmark
Portugal
Switzerland

ESS 2006

30
Percentage
points

ISSP 2004/6
WVS 2005

35

20
25

10
15

ESS 2006

0
5

0
-5

-5

10
5

20
15

30
25

35 Percentage
points

Note: Calculations are based on linear regressions. Non-linear models (Probit models) have also been tested and
shown to exhibit very similar results.
Countries are grouped by data source (European Social Survey [ESS] 2004, ESS 2006, International Social Survey Programme
[ISSP] 2004 and 2006, and World Values Survey [WVS] 2005) and, within data source, ranked by descending order of the
marginal effects of moving individuals from below upper secondary to upper secondary education (without using controls). Indicator
for Korea is based on WVS 2005, Canada is based on ISSP 2006, and New Zealand and the United States are based on ISSP 2004.
Source: OECD. Table A9.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

One may wonder if the positive relationship between education and self-reported health is largely
driven by age, which could happen if, for example, the younger cohorts report better health
conditions and are also better educated compared to the older cohorts (Chart A1.3). Similarly,
one may also wonder if the positive relationship between education and interpersonal trust is
driven by gender differences, which could happen if women tend to trust others more and are
also more educated compared to men (which is the case in many countries including Canada
and Norway; Table A1.3b and Table A1.3c, available on line). In order to take into account these
gender and age differences, Chart A9.2, Chart A9.3 and Chart A9.4 provide regression-based
estimates adjusted for gender and age. They suggest that the relationship between educational
174

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Social Outcomes of the Education? – Indicator A9

chapter A

attainment and social outcomes generally remains strong even after accounting for gender and
age. This is the case across all three indicators in Switzerland and the United States.
Is income an important pathway to explain the relationship between educational attainment
and social outcomes? Chart A9.2, Chart A9.3 and Chart A9.4 suggest that the association
generally diminishes after controlling for household income, which points to the importance
of education’s effect on income. However, the same charts also suggest that the relationship
between educational attainment and social outcomes generally remains even when comparing
adults at the same income level, which is consistent with the direct effects of education (i.e.
competencies and psycho-social features) on social outcomes. This is the case in a large number
of countries including Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal,
the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the United States.

Chart A9.4. Marginal effects of education on interpersonal trust
(with and without controls for age, gender and income)
Statistically significant
With controls for age, gender and income
With controls for age, gender
Without controls

Statistically non significant
With controls for age, gender and income
With controls for age, gender
Without controls

From below upper secondary
to upper secondary

From upper secondary
to tertiary

ISSP 2004
WVS 2005

New Zealand
Korea
Italy
United States

ISSP 2004
WVS 2005

ESS 2004

Turkey
Germany
Greece
Czech Republic

ESS 2004

Finland
Slovak Republic
Ireland
Sweden
Denmark
Belgium
Poland
Portugal
Norway
Netherlands
Spain
Switzerland

ESS 2006

Percentage
points

20

15

10

5

0

-5

ESS 2006

-5

0

5

10

15

20 Percentage
points

Note: Calculations are based on linear regressions. Non-linear models (Probit models) have also been tested and
shown to exhibit very similar results.
Countries are grouped by data source (European Social Survey [ESS] 2004, ESS 2006, International Social Survey Programme [ISSP]
2004 and 2006, and World Values Survey [WVS] 2005) and, within data source, ranked by descending order of the marginal effects
of moving individuals from below upper secondary to upper secondary education (without using controls). Indicator for Korea
is based onWVS 2005, and New Zealand and the United States are based on ISSP 2004.
Source: OECD. Table A9.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

175

A9

chapter A

A9

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

Marginal effects of education on social outcomes

Policy-makers are ultimately interested in understanding the features of education (e.g. curriculum
contents, teaching styles and school environment) that have an impact on aspects of individual
well-being such as health and social cohesion. Although addressing this would go well beyond the
scope of what indicators can say, Chart A9.1 to Chart A9.4 present information about the levels of
education that are related to social outcomes (i.e. marginal effects), which can help shed light on
the learning experiences and/or skills that are relevant to these effects.
For self-reported health, Chart A9.1 and Chart A9.2 suggest that the marginal effects are generally
larger and more consistent at the lower level of education (i.e. moving from below upper secondary to
upper secondary education) than at the higher level of education (i.e. moving from upper secondary
to tertiary education). In Belgium, for instance, moving an individual from below upper secondary
to upper secondary education is associated with a 15 percentage point increase in the probability of
(or, share of individuals) exhibiting good health conditions, while moving an individual from upper
secondary to tertiary education is only associated with an 8 percentage point increase.This suggests
that learning experiences at the upper secondary education level may be particularly important for
raising health outcomes; this is the case even after controlling for gender, age and income.
For political interest, Chart A9.1 and Chart A9.3 suggest that the marginal effects are generally
larger and more consistent at the higher level of education than at the lower level of education. In
Italy, for instance, moving an individual from upper secondary to tertiary education is associated
with a 20 percentage point increase in the probability of expressing interest in politics, while
moving an individual from below upper secondary to upper secondary education is associated
with a 13 percentage point increase. This suggests that learning experiences at the tertiary
education level may be particularly important for stimulating political interest; again, this is the
case even after controlling for gender, age and income.
For interpersonal trust, Chart A9.4 suggests that the marginal effects are larger and more consistent
at the higher level of education than at the lower level of education. This is especially the case in
Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden.To the extent that income is associated with an individual’s
choice of residential areas and occupation, the marginal effects ”adjusted for income” reflect direct
effects of education on interpersonal trust. Chart A9.4 shows that controlling for income changes
the marginal effects very little, suggesting that learning experiences at the tertiary education level
may be especially relevant for fostering interpersonal trust. This might include, for instance, the
recognition of the importance of diversity and of challenging one’s pre-conceptions.
Education and differences by gender, age and income groups

Are there differences in social outcomes by gender, age and income? If so, can education serve
to moderate such differences? Chart A9.5 presents the gender/age/income differences in the
predicted probability of expressing positive social outcomes. The first column of this chart
suggests that there is a gender difference in these social outcomes at each level of educational
attainment. While men generally express higher self-reported health and political interest,
women tend to express higher interpersonal trust. The second column of this chart suggests that
there is also an age difference (when comparing 30- and 60-year-olds) in these social outcomes
at each level of educational attainment. While 30-year-olds are more likely to report better
health, 60 year-olds are more likely to exhibit higher political interest and interpersonal trust.
176

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter A

What Are the Social Outcomes of the Education? – Indicator A9

Chart A9.5. Predicted probabilities of expressing positive self-rated health,
political interest and interpersonal trust

A9

Trust

Political interest

Health

Differences in predicted probability in percentage points
Below upper secondary

Upper secondary

Gender difference
(Women vs Men)

Age difference
(60 vs 30 years old)

Tertiary
Income difference
(low vs high income)

Czech Republic
Germany
Greece
Turkey
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Canada
Italy
United States
Korea

ESS 2004

ESS 2006

All 2003
WVS2005

Czech Republic
Germany
Greece
Turkey
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
New Zealand
United States
Canada
Italy
Korea

ESS 2004

ESS 2006

ISSP2004
ISSP2006
WVS2005

Czech Republic
Germany
Greece
Turkey
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
Ireland
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
New Zealand
United States
Italy
Korea
Percentage
points

ESS 2004

ESS 2006

ISSP2004
WVS2005

-15

-5

5

15

25

40

20

0

20

40

60

-5

0

5

10

15

20 Percentage
points

Countries are grouped by data source (European Social Survey [ESS] 2004, ESS 2006, International Social Survey Programme
[ISSP] 2004 and 2006, and World Values Survey [WVS] 2005) and, within data source, ranked in alphabetical order.
Source: OECD. Table A9.5, Table A9.6 and Table A9.7. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

177

chapter A

A9

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

The third column of this chart suggests that there is also an income difference (when comparing
above and below median income groups) in the social outcomes at each level of educational
attainment. In most countries, the higher income group tend to report higher health, political
interest and interpersonal trust than the lower income group.
More importantly, Chart A9.5 shows how these differences vary across levels of educational
attainment. The chart shows that for political interest and interpersonal trust, these differences
generally change little. However, for self-reported health education can potentially help moderate
differences by gender, age and income.
Definitions and methodologies

This indicator is based on the developmental work by INES Network on Labour Market, Economic
and Social Outcomes of Learning (formerly called INES Network B) in collaboration with the
Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI).The methodologies adopted (i.e. marginal
effects) are based on work conducted by CERI’s Social Outcomes of Learning project. See Annex 3
at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 for details on calculation of the marginal effects.
Indicators are calculated using micro-data from the European Social Survey (ESS) 2004 and
2006, Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL) 2003, World Values Survey (WVS) 2005, and
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2004 and 2006. The choice of surveys reflects the
following aspects:
• Country coverage: an important objective was to select surveys for which a large number of
OECD countries can be presented.
• Comparability of social outcomes variables: surveys were selected based on the comparability of
variables on self-reported health, political interest and interpersonal trust.
• Comparability of educational attainment variables: only micro-data for which the distribution of
educational attainment is within 10 percentage points from those published for comparable
years in Education at a Glance are used. A few exceptions were made with the recommendation
of the INES Network’s country representatives [i.e. Canada (ISSP), Finland (ESS), Korea (WVS)
and Norway (ESS)].
• Age restriction: surveys that cover adults aged 25 to 64 were used.
• Sample size: surveys with a minimum of 1 000 observations were used.
Self-reported health is captured by percentages of adults who rate their health as at least “good.”
ESS (2004 and 2006), ALL (2003) and WVS (2005) provide this information based on the
following survey questions (bold text indicates responses counted in the outcome percentage):
ESS
(2004, 2006)

178

How is your health in general? Would you say it is very good, good, fair, bad,
very bad?

ALL
(2003)

In general, would you say your health is excellent, very good, fair, poor?

WVS
(2005)

All in all, how would you describe your health these days? Very good, good, fair,
poor?

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Social Outcomes of the Education? – Indicator A9

chapter A

Political interest is captured by percentages of adults who say they are at least “fairly interested”
in politics. ESS (2004, 2006), ISSP (2004, 2006) and WVS (2005) provide this information
based on the following survey questions (bold text indicates responses counted in the outcome
percentage):
ESS
(2004, 2006)

How interested are you in politics? Very interested, quite interested, hardly
interested, not at all interested.

ISSP
(2004, 2006)

How interested would you say you personally are in politics? Very interested,
fairly interested, somewhat interested, not very interested, not at all interested.

WVS
(2005)

How interested would you say you are in politics? Very interested, somewhat
interested, not very interested, not at all interested.

Interpersonal trust is captured by percentages of adults who believe that most people try to
be fair. ESS (2004, 2006), ISSP (2004) and WVS (2005) provide this information based on the
following survey questions (bold text indicates responses counted in the outcome percentages):
ESS
(2004, 2006)

Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance,
or would they try to be fair? (0-10 scale, with 0 = Most people would try to take
advantage and 10 = Most people would try to be fair). Responses 6-10 coded as
interpersonal trust.

ISSP
(2004)

How often do you think that people would try to take advantage of you if they got
the chance, and how often would they try to be fair? Try to take advantage almost
all of the time, try to take advantage most of the time, try to be fair most of the
time, try to be fair almost all of the time.

WVS
(2005)

Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the
chance, or would they try to be fair? (1-10 scale, with 1 = people would try to take
advantage of you and 10 = people would try to be fair). Responses 6-10 coded as
interpersonal trust.

Further references

OECD (2007b), Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2007c), Health at a Glance: OECD Indicators – 2007 Edition, OECD, Paris.
OECD, Social Outcomes of Learning – Country Questionnaires, OECD (unpublished), Paris.
The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

• Table A9.8. Observed shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health, political interest
and interpersonal trust

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

179

A9

chapter A

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

A9

OECD countries

Table A9.1.
Marginal effects of education on self-reported health and political interest

Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
Country Average

Self-reported health
Difference in
Difference in
outcome from
outcome from
below upper
below upper
secondary to
secondary to
upper secondary
tertiary
0.153
0.083
0.126
0.04
0.227
0.051
0.087
0.065
0.180
0.144
0.100
0.072
0.178
-0.012
0.055
0.016
0.135
0.032
0.148
0.063
0.114
0.032
m
m
0.117
0.100
0.127
0.261
0.225
0.005
0.303
0.076
0.133
0.066
0.106
0.030
0.152
0.079
0.135
0.101
0.182
0.089
0.149
0.070

Political interest
Difference in
Difference in
outcome from
outcome from
below upper
below upper
secondary to
secondary to
upper secondary
tertiary
0.052
0.250
0.017
0.246
0.025
0.168
0.195
0.179
0.021
0.150
0.263
0.236
0.075
0.151
0.182
0.087
0.133
0.195
-0.001
0.072
0.154
0.176
0.026
0.071
0.067
0.247
0.146
0.153
0.248
0.099
0.032
0.170
0.138
0.105
-0.004
0.215
0.336
0.180
0.159
0.178
0.199
0.132
0.117
0.165

Data Source
ESS 2006
ALL 2003 / ISSP 2006
ESS 2004
ESS 2006
ESS 2006
ESS 2004
ESS 2004
ESS 2006
ALL 2003 / WVS 2005
WVS 2005
ESS 2006
ISSP 2004
ESS 2006
ESS 2006
ESS 2006
ESS 2006
ESS 2006
ESS 2006
ESS 2006
ESS 2004
ALL 2003 / ISSP 2004

Note: Cells highlighted in grey are statistically significant and different from zero at the 5% level. Calculations are based on linear regressions.
Non-linear models (Probit models) produce similar results.				
Source: European Social Survey (ESS) 2004 and 2006; Adult Literacy and Lifeskills Survey (ALL) 2003; World Values Survey (WVS) 2005;
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) 2004 and 2006. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

OECD countries

Table A9.2.
Marginal effects of education on self-reported health
(with and without controls for age, gender and income)

Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
Country Average

Difference in outcome from below
Difference in outcome from
upper secondary to upper secondary
below upper secondary to tertiary
controls age, controls age,
controls age, controls age,
no controls
sex
sex, income no controls
sex
sex, income Data Source
0.153
0.124
0.105
0.083
0.082
0.039
ESS 2006
0.126
0.111
0.100
0.040
0.037
0.031
ALL 2003
0.227
0.169
0.148
0.051
0.020
0.014
ESS 2004
0.087
0.074
0.050
0.065
0.059
0.031
ESS 2006
0.180
0.093
0.066
0.144
0.130
0.100
ESS 2006
0.100
0.110
0.086
0.072
0.098
0.064
ESS 2004
0.178
0.115
0.092
-0.012
-0.015
-0.022
ESS 2004
0.055
0.035
0.019
0.016
0.021
0.019
ESS 2006
0.135
0.080
0.080
0.032
0.028
0.026
ALL 2003
0.148
0.023
0.015
0.063
0.056
0.014
WVS 2005
0.114
0.084
0.047
0.032
0.040
0.016
ESS 2006
0.117
0.083
0.065
0.100
0.091
0.069
ESS 2006
0.127
0.093
0.056
0.261
0.167
0.143
ESS 2006
0.225
0.101
0.089
0.005
0.054
0.047
ESS 2006
0.303
0.191
0.121
0.076
0.094
0.072
ESS 2006
0.133
0.075
0.064
0.066
0.065
0.050
ESS 2006
0.106
0.073
0.063
0.030
0.034
0.018
ESS 2006
0.152
0.148
0.130
0.079
0.079
0.063
ESS 2006
0.135
0.059
0.029
0.101
0.107
0.124
ESS 2004
0.182
0.180
0.147
0.089
0.086
0.064
ALL 2003
0.149
0.101
0.079
0.070
0.067
0.049

Note: Cells highlighted in grey are statistically significant and different from zero at the 5% level. Calculations are based on linear regressions.
Non-linear models (Probit models) produce similar results.
Source: ESS 2004 and 2006; ALL 2003; WVS 2005. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

180

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Are the Social Outcomes of the Education? – Indicator A9

chapter A

A9

OECD countries

Table A9.3.
Marginal effects of education on political interest
(with and without controls for age, gender and income)

Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
Country Average

Difference in outcome from below
Difference in outcome from
upper secondary to upper secondary
below upper secondary to tertiary
controls age, controls age,
controls age, controls age,
no controls
sex
sex, income no controls
sex
sex, income Data Source
0.052
0.065
0.051
0.25
0.266
0.246
ESS 2006
0.017
0.052
0.047
0.246
0.249
0.258
ISSP 2006
0.025
0.046
0.042
0.168
0.182
0.181
ESS 2004
0.195
0.213
0.194
0.179
0.188
0.176
ESS 2006
0.021
0.079
0.079
0.15
0.173
0.161
ESS 2006
0.263
0.25
0.234
0.236
0.209
0.181
ESS 2004
0.075
0.125
0.104
0.151
0.133
0.107
ESS 2004
0.182
0.245
0.237
0.087
0.097
0.075
ESS 2006
0.133
0.164
0.153
0.195
0.206
0.193
WVS 2005
-0.001
0.029
0.022
0.072
0.075
0.023
WVS 2005
0.154
0.179
0.154
0.176
0.165
0.128
ESS 2006
0.026
0.063
0.054
0.071
0.091
0.07
ISSP 2004
0.067
0.112
0.112
0.247
0.271
0.265
ESS 2006
0.146
0.17
0.162
0.153
0.225
0.213
ESS 2006
0.248
0.251
0.251
0.099
0.112
0.114
ESS 2006
0.032
0.049
0.004
0.17
0.17
0.156
ESS 2006
0.138
0.159
0.132
0.105
0.114
0.108
ESS 2006
-0.004
0.066
0.06
0.215
0.231
0.217
ESS 2006
0.336
0.337
0.322
0.18
0.163
0.124
ESS 2006
0.159
0.148
0.1
0.178
0.152
0.091
ESS 2004
0.199
0.227
0.21
0.132
0.128
0.111
ISSP 2004
0.117
0.144
0.130
0.165
0.171
0.152

Note: Cells highlighted in grey are statistically significant and different from zero at the 5% level. Calculations are based on linear regressions.
Non-linear models (Probit models) produce similar results.
Source: ESS 2004 and 2006; WVS 2005; ISSP 2004 and 2006. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

OECD countries

Table A9.4.
Marginal effects of education on interpersonal trust
(with and without controls for age, gender and income)

Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
Country Average

Difference in outcome from below
Difference in outcome from
upper secondary to upper secondary
below upper secondary to tertiary
controls age, controls age,
controls age, controls age,
no controls
sex
sex, income no controls
sex
sex, income Data Source
0.066
0.074
0.057
0.147
0.15
0.126
ESS 2006
0.116
0.115
0.102
-0.005
-0.005
-0.015
ESS 2004
0.054
0.057
0.042
0.113
0.114
0.107
ESS 2006
0.017
0.017
0.002
0.109
0.098
0.077
ESS 2006
0.046
0.066
0.05
0.117
0.135
0.119
ESS 2004
0.062
0.074
0.051
0.082
0.084
0.065
ESS 2004
0.038
0.085
0.087
0.094
0.113
0.081
ESS 2006
0.07
0.074
0.02
0.017
0.017
-0.03
WVS 2005
0.031
-0.032
-0.041
0.016
0.025
-0.014
WVS 2005
0.115
0.124
0.1
0.128
0.127
0.118
ESS 2006
0.018
0.057
0.048
0.045
0.065
0.053
ISSP 2004
0.072
0.094
0.089
0.113
0.106
0.098
ESS 2006
0.069
0.066
0.044
0.131
0.123
0.12
ESS 2006
0.072
0.07
0.071
0.07
0.072
0.058
ESS 2006
0.017
0.031
-0.005
0.075
0.077
0.057
ESS 2006
0.134
0.149
0.138
0.031
0.03
0.026
ESS 2006
0.044
0.049
0.043
0.159
0.16
0.145
ESS 2006
0.139
0.142
0.114
0.118
0.125
0.097
ESS 2006
0.023
0.031
0.026
0.028
0.026
0.01
ESS 2004
0.163
0.169
0.146
0.176
0.178
0.157
ISSP 2004
0.068
0.076
0.059
0.088
0.091
0.073

Note: Cells highlighted in grey are statistically significant and different from zero at the 5% level. Calculations are based on linear regressions.
Non-linear models (Probit models) produce similar results.
Source: ESS 2004 and 2006; WVS 2005; ISSP 2004 and 2006. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

181

chapter A

A9

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

OECD countries

Table A9.5.
Predicted shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health, political interest
and interpersonal trust, by gender

Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Country Average

Education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary

Self-reported health
Females
Males
0.662
0.746
0.772
0.839
0.844
0.896
0.793
0.798
0.886
0.889
0.919
0.921
0.511
0.469
0.691
0.653
0.701
0.664
0.703
0.740
0.769
0.801
0.826
0.852
0.692
0.626
0.746
0.684
0.858
0.813
0.585
0.514
0.681
0.613
0.751
0.690
0.766
0.853
0.874
0.929
0.845
0.910
0.855
0.816
0.881
0.846
0.896
0.864
0.775
0.833
0.868
0.908
0.906
0.936
0.789
0.808
0.794
0.813
0.845
0.860
0.710
0.747
0.777
0.809
0.799
0.829
m
m
m
m
m
m
0.727
0.734
0.792
0.797
0.869
0.873
0.471
0.567
0.546
0.639
0.748
0.818
0.392
0.601
0.493
0.696
0.530
0.728
0.459
0.520
0.647
0.702
0.741
0.788
0.621
0.661
0.692
0.728
0.758
0.791
0.729
0.774
0.798
0.835
0.815
0.851
0.755
0.722
0.876
0.854
0.938
0.925
0.491
0.703
0.530
0.736
0.653
0.829
0.659
0.676
0.813
0.826
0.886
0.895
0.657
0.746
0.806

0.695
0.780
0.837

Political interest
Females
Males
0.277
0.402
0.330
0.462
0.581
0.708
0.178
0.292
0.220
0.347
0.464
0.612
0.091
0.153
0.122
0.196
0.296
0.411
0.377
0.566
0.593
0.763
0.806
0.911
0.291
0.404
0.368
0.489
0.548
0.666
0.279
0.381
0.523
0.634
0.731
0.816
0.215
0.340
0.322
0.466
0.453
0.602
0.204
0.360
0.441
0.625
0.542
0.717
0.155
0.332
0.290
0.511
0.488
0.710
0.377
0.456
0.396
0.476
0.465
0.546
0.442
0.571
0.616
0.733
0.785
0.868
0.525
0.526
0.580
0.582
0.661
0.662
0.236
0.314
0.336
0.425
0.615
0.701
0.223
0.371
0.378
0.549
0.619
0.769
0.177
0.277
0.416
0.549
0.535
0.665
0.262
0.405
0.298
0.447
0.470
0.626
0.168
0.246
0.300
0.402
0.408
0.517
0.396
0.568
0.474
0.645
0.718
0.845
0.202
0.333
0.517
0.673
0.676
0.805
0.288
0.513
0.397
0.629
0.543
0.758
0.400
0.484
0.632
0.709
0.762
0.823
0.282
0.418
0.594

0.406
0.553
0.719

Interpersonal trust
Females
Males
0.460
0.464
0.526
0.530
0.658
0.661
m
m
m
m
m
m
0.322
0.340
0.437
0.455
0.418
0.436
0.804
0.704
0.844
0.755
0.933
0.880
0.798
0.713
0.802
0.718
0.873
0.808
0.501
0.410
0.556
0.464
0.673
0.586
0.155
0.143
0.215
0.200
0.297
0.279
0.468
0.475
0.551
0.558
0.660
0.666
0.509
0.435
0.555
0.481
0.548
0.474
0.733
0.672
0.692
0.627
0.700
0.636
0.639
0.574
0.746
0.688
0.850
0.807
0.677
0.605
0.725
0.657
0.778
0.717
0.747
0.609
0.833
0.719
0.913
0.834
0.285
0.226
0.336
0.272
0.446
0.375
0.313
0.249
0.384
0.315
0.455
0.381
0.300
0.260
0.307
0.267
0.371
0.327
0.388
0.369
0.527
0.507
0.553
0.533
0.640
0.632
0.686
0.678
0.829
0.823
0.597
0.549
0.713
0.670
0.813
0.778
0.234
0.212
0.268
0.244
0.298
0.273
0.502
0.427
0.664
0.593
0.829
0.777
0.476
0.545
0.625

0.434
0.505
0.592

Note: Predicted shares are determined based on Probit models relating outcome to educational attainment, gender, age and income. Calculations
were made by using country means of age and income.
Source: ESS 2004 and 2006; ALL 2003; WVS 2005; ISSP 2004 and 2006. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

182

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter A

What Are the Social Outcomes of the Education? – Indicator A9

A9

OECD countries

Table A9.6.
Predicted shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health, political interest
and interpersonal trust, by age

Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Country Average

Education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary

Self-reported health
Political interest
Interpersonal trust
Age 30 Age 45 Age 60 Age 30 Age 45 Age 60 Age 30 Age 45 Age 60
0.725 0.669 0.569 0.210 0.282 0.345 0.418 0.469 0.484
0.823 0.778 0.693 0.256 0.336 0.402 0.483 0.535 0.550
0.884 0.849 0.780 0.495 0.587 0.654 0.618 0.666 0.680
0.827 0.806 0.709 0.167 0.149 0.275
m
m
m
0.908 0.895 0.826 0.208 0.187 0.328
m
m
m
0.936 0.926 0.871 0.446 0.417 0.592
m
m
m
0.733 0.504 0.278 0.046 0.089 0.174 0.325 0.317 0.328
0.863 0.685 0.453 0.065 0.119 0.221 0.440 0.431 0.443
0.869 0.695 0.465 0.188 0.292 0.445 0.421 0.412 0.424
0.748 0.731 0.621 0.300 0.335 0.504 0.768 0.819 0.807
0.808 0.794 0.696 0.509 0.549 0.711 0.812 0.856 0.846
0.858 0.847 0.763 0.743 0.774 0.882 0.915 0.940 0.934
0.838 0.699 0.516 0.219 0.271 0.394 0.779 0.814 0.791
0.874 0.752 0.579 0.288 0.347 0.479 0.784 0.818 0.795
0.940 0.862 0.729 0.458 0.524 0.656 0.859 0.885 0.868
0.752 0.567 0.443 0.197 0.257 0.422 0.535 0.474 0.520
0.825 0.663 0.544 0.418 0.496 0.673 0.589 0.529 0.575
0.874 0.736 0.625 0.636 0.708 0.842 0.703 0.648 0.690
0.888 0.751 0.576 0.133 0.243 0.293 0.129 0.173 0.158
0.949 0.863 0.729 0.217 0.356 0.414 0.183 0.238 0.218
0.934 0.833 0.685 0.330 0.489 0.550 0.258 0.323 0.301
0.874 0.875 0.766 0.105 0.221 0.363 0.342 0.487 0.610
0.897 0.898 0.801 0.283 0.463 0.628 0.421 0.570 0.688
0.911 0.912 0.823 0.375 0.565 0.720 0.534 0.677 0.780
0.884 0.765 0.614 0.124 0.147 0.211 0.503 0.511 0.513
0.941 0.862 0.743 0.244 0.278 0.366 0.549 0.557 0.559
0.960 0.900 0.802 0.433 0.474 0.572 0.542 0.550 0.552
0.871 0.799 0.585 0.271 0.447 0.414 0.764 0.761 0.613
0.875 0.804 0.592 0.288 0.467 0.434 0.725 0.722 0.566
0.910 0.853 0.665 0.350 0.536 0.503 0.733 0.729 0.575
0.774 0.728 0.599 0.342 0.420 0.589 0.610 0.647 0.652
0.832 0.793 0.678 0.514 0.595 0.748 0.720 0.752 0.756
0.850 0.813 0.704 0.701 0.769 0.877 0.831 0.855 0.857
m
m
m 0.452 0.481 0.690 0.535 0.677 0.805
m
m
m 0.508 0.537 0.738 0.590 0.725 0.841
m
m
m 0.592 0.620 0.802 0.654 0.778 0.879
0.804 0.731 0.621 0.123 0.267 0.333 0.687 0.762 0.777
0.856 0.795 0.697 0.194 0.372 0.446 0.785 0.845 0.857
0.915 0.872 0.795 0.441 0.651 0.719 0.881 0.921 0.928
0.718 0.466 0.204 0.131 0.224 0.365 0.294 0.275 0.296
0.778 0.542 0.261 0.252 0.380 0.543 0.345 0.325 0.348
0.906 0.744 0.465 0.478 0.620 0.764 0.456 0.433 0.458
0.578 0.383 0.240 0.158 0.175 0.200 0.348 0.267 0.354
0.676 0.484 0.327 0.387 0.413 0.449 0.423 0.334 0.429
0.708 0.521 0.361 0.506 0.532 0.569 0.494 0.402 0.500
0.693 0.450 0.157 0.164 0.281 0.410 0.297 0.305 0.297
0.838 0.638 0.299 0.192 0.318 0.452 0.304 0.312 0.304
0.895 0.733 0.398 0.339 0.492 0.631 0.367 0.376 0.367
0.757 0.584 0.435 0.109 0.206 0.209 0.366 0.378 0.454
0.813 0.657 0.511 0.214 0.352 0.356 0.504 0.516 0.593
0.862 0.727 0.590 0.308 0.464 0.468 0.530 0.542 0.618
0.799 0.722 0.667 0.300 0.350 0.564 0.633 0.637 0.652
0.856 0.791 0.743 0.373 0.426 0.640 0.678 0.682 0.697
0.870 0.809 0.763 0.625 0.676 0.842 0.824 0.827 0.837
0.863 0.739 0.658 0.125 0.214 0.263 0.603 0.581 0.630
0.941 0.866 0.809 0.393 0.535 0.597 0.718 0.698 0.741
0.974 0.932 0.895 0.556 0.691 0.745 0.817 0.802 0.835
0.606 0.441 0.339 0.267 0.333 0.228 0.219 0.241 0.251
0.644 0.480 0.377 0.373 0.447 0.328 0.252 0.276 0.286
0.754 0.606 0.501 0.518 0.593 0.469 0.282 0.307 0.318
0.740 0.656 0.548 0.331 0.417 0.465 0.420 0.514 0.594
0.869 0.811 0.726 0.561 0.649 0.693 0.586 0.675 0.745
0.925 0.884 0.820 0.702 0.776 0.810 0.771 0.837 0.882

Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary

0.774
0.843
0.887

0.653
0.743
0.803

0.507
0.604
0.675

0.204
0.321
0.487

0.277
0.410
0.583

0.367
0.507
0.672

0.479
0.545
0.625

0.505
0.570
0.645

0.529
0.592
0.664

Note: Predicted shares are determined based on Probit models relating outcome to educational attainment, gender, age and income. Calculations
were made by using country means of gender and income.
Source: ESS 2004 and 2006; ALL 2003; WVS 2005; ISSP 2004 and 2006. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

183

chapter A

A9

The Output of Educational Institutions and the Impact of Learning

OECD countries

Table A9.7.
Predicted shares of individuals expressing positive self-rated health, political interest
and interpersonal trust, by income

Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States
Country Average

Education
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary
Below upper secondary
Upper secondary
Tertiary

Self-reported health
Lower
Higher
Income
Income
0.643
0.761
0.756
0.851
0.832
0.904
0.766
0.841
0.867
0.917
0.904
0.943
0.469
0.551
0.653
0.726
0.664
0.735
0.689
0.751
0.757
0.810
0.815
0.860
0.593
0.724
0.654
0.775
0.790
0.878
0.480
0.626
0.580
0.718
0.660
0.784
0.785
0.871
0.886
0.939
0.860
0.922
0.817
0.853
0.847
0.879
0.865
0.895
0.786
0.822
0.876
0.901
0.912
0.931
0.782
0.875
0.788
0.879
0.839
0.913
0.643
0.789
0.718
0.845
0.742
0.862
m
m
m
m
m
m
0.637
0.785
0.712
0.841
0.808
0.905
0.449
0.578
0.524
0.650
0.730
0.825
0.446
0.610
0.549
0.705
0.585
0.736
0.416
0.548
0.605
0.726
0.704
0.808
0.580
0.642
0.653
0.711
0.724
0.775
0.690
0.811
0.764
0.865
0.783
0.878
0.698
0.793
0.837
0.900
0.914
0.952
0.546
0.624
0.585
0.661
0.703
0.768
0.615
0.742
0.780
0.871
0.861
0.926
0.626
0.730
0.720
0.808
0.785
0.860

Political interest
Lower
Higher
Income
Income
0.303
0.374
0.359
0.433
0.611
0.682
0.227
0.227
0.276
0.276
0.533
0.533
0.129
0.136
0.168
0.176
0.370
0.383
0.430
0.517
0.645
0.723
0.841
0.889
0.361
0.341
0.444
0.423
0.624
0.603
0.275
0.396
0.519
0.649
0.727
0.826
0.225
0.299
0.335
0.421
0.466
0.557
0.258
0.286
0.511
0.545
0.612
0.644
0.254
0.262
0.420
0.431
0.627
0.636
0.413
0.472
0.432
0.492
0.502
0.562
0.437
0.578
0.611
0.739
0.781
0.872
0.478
0.568
0.534
0.623
0.617
0.700
0.258
0.294
0.362
0.402
0.641
0.680
0.287
0.335
0.456
0.511
0.692
0.739
0.232
0.220
0.493
0.477
0.612
0.596
0.323
0.377
0.362
0.419
0.541
0.598
0.189
0.258
0.328
0.416
0.439
0.531
0.509
0.457
0.537
0.588
0.769
0.807
0.241
0.312
0.570
0.652
0.722
0.789
0.325
0.439
0.438
0.557
0.584
0.696
0.426
0.429
0.657
0.660
0.782
0.785
0.311
0.363
0.450
0.505
0.624
0.672

Interpersonal trust
Lower
Higher
Income
Income
0.443
0.504
0.508
0.569
0.642
0.697
m
m
m
m
m
m
0.300
0.405
0.411
0.525
0.393
0.505
0.731
0.792
0.780
0.834
0.896
0.927
0.724
0.800
0.729
0.804
0.817
0.874
0.435
0.505
0.490
0.560
0.611
0.677
0.134
0.192
0.189
0.260
0.266
0.349
0.466
0.498
0.549
0.581
0.658
0.687
0.403
0.546
0.449
0.591
0.442
0.585
0.691
0.791
0.647
0.755
0.656
0.762
0.541
0.664
0.658
0.767
0.783
0.865
0.613
0.684
0.665
0.732
0.724
0.785
0.643
0.710
0.749
0.804
0.856
0.894
0.216
0.287
0.260
0.338
0.361
0.448
0.268
0.286
0.336
0.356
0.404
0.425
0.227
0.336
0.233
0.344
0.290
0.410
0.388
0.441
0.527
0.581
0.553
0.606
0.574
0.698
0.622
0.740
0.782
0.866
0.523
0.639
0.646
0.749
0.758
0.841
0.244
0.229
0.279
0.263
0.310
0.294
0.452
0.475
0.618
0.640
0.795
0.811
0.451
0.524
0.517
0.590
0.600
0.665

Note: Predicted shares are determined based on Probit models relating outcome to educational attainment, gender, age and income. Calculations
were made by using country means of gender and age.
Source: ESS 2004 and 2006; ALL 2003; WVS 2005; ISSP 2004 and 2006. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664176010158

184

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Chapter

B

Financial and
Human Resources
Invested In Education

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

185

Classification of educational expenditure

Educational expenditure in this chapter are classified through three dimensions:

chapter B

• The first dimension – represented by the horizontal axis in the diagram below –
relates to the location where spending occurs. Spending on schools and universities,
education ministries and other agencies directly involved in providing and supporting
education is one component of this dimension. Spending on education outside these
institutions is another.
• The second dimension – represented by the vertical axis in the diagram below –
classifies the goods and services that are purchased. Not all expenditure on
educational institutions can be classified as direct educational or instructional
expenditure. Educational institutions in many OECD countries offer various
ancillary services – such as meals, transports, housing, etc. – in addition to teaching
services to support students and their families. At the tertiary level spending on
research and development can be significant. Not all spending on educational
goods and services occurs within educational institutions. For example, families
may purchase textbooks and materials themselves or seek private tutoring for
their children.
• The third dimension – represented by the colours in the diagram below –
distinguishes among the sources from which funding originates. These include the
public sector and international agencies (indicated by the light blue colour), and
households and other private entities (indicated by the medium-blue colour).Where
private expenditure on education is subsidised by public funds, this is indicated by
cells in the grey colour.
Public sources of funds

Private sources of funds

Private funds publicly subsidised

Spending on educational
institutions
(e.g. schools, universities,
educational administration
and student welfare services)

Spending on education
outside educational
institutions
(e.g. private purchases of
educational goods and services,
including private tutoring)

Spending on e.g. public spending on instructional
educational services in educational institutions
core services
e.g. subsidised private spending on
instructional services in educational
institutions

e.g. subsidised private spending
on books
e.g. private spending on books
and other school materials
or private tutoring

e.g. private spending on tuition fees
Spending on e.g. public spending on university research
research and
development e.g. funds from private industry for
research and development in educational
institutions
Spending e.g. public spending on ancillary services
on educational such as meals, transport to schools,
services other or housing on the campus
than instruction
e.g. private spending on fees for
ancillary services

186

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

e.g. subsidised private spending
on student living costs or
reduced prices for transport
e.g. private spending on student
living costs or transport

Coverage diagrams
For Indicators B1, B2 and B3

Chapter B

For Indicators B4 and B5

For Indicator B6

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

187

hOW MUch IS SpeNt per StUDeNt?
INDICATOR B1

This indicator provides an assessment of the investment in each student. Expenditure
on educational institutions per student is largely influenced by teachers’ salaries
(see Indicators B6 and D3), pension systems, instructional and teaching hours
(see Indicators B7, D1 and D4), the cost of teaching materials and facilities, the
programme orientation provided to pupils/students (e.g. general or vocational)
and the number of students enrolled in the education system (see Indicator C1).
Policies to attract new teachers or to reduce average class size or change staffing
patterns (see Indicator D2) have also contributed to changes in the expenditure on
educational institutions per student over time.

Key results
Chart B1.1. Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student
in primary through tertiary education (2006)

Expenditure on educational institutions per student provides a measure of the unit costs of
formal education.The chart shows annual expenditure on educational institutions per student
in equivalent USD converted using purchasing power parities, based on full-time equivalents.
OECD countries as a whole spend USD 8 857 annually per student from primary through tertiary
education levels: USD 6 517 per primary student, USD 7 966 per secondary student and
USD 15 791 per tertiary student. On average, OECD countries spend nearly twice as much per
student at the tertiary level as at the primary level. However, these averages mask a broad range
of expenditure patterns across countries.
Expenditure per student
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

OECD Total

United States
Switzerland1
Norway
Austria
Denmark
Sweden
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Japan
Belgium
Iceland
Australia
France
Italy1
Ireland
Finland
Germany
Slovenia
Spain
Korea
Portugal1
Israel
New Zealand
Czech Republic
Hungary1
Estonia
Poland1
Slovak Republic
Chile
Russian Federation1
Mexico
Brazil1
Turkey1

14 000
13 000
12 000
11 000
10 000
9 000
8 000
7 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
0

1. Public institutions only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure on educational institutions per student.
Source: OECD. Table B1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

188

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• Excluding R&D activities and ancillary services, expenditure on core educational
services in tertiary institutions is, on average, USD 8 418 per student. Expenditure
ranges from USD 5 000 or less in Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic and
Turkey to more than USD 10 000 in Austria, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the
United States and the partner country Brazil.

INDICATOR B1

• OECD countries spend, on average, USD 93 775 per student over the theoretical
duration of primary and secondary studies. The cumulative expenditure for each
primary and secondary student ranges from less than USD 40 000 in Mexico
and the Slovak Republic, and the partner countries Brazil, Chile and the Russian
Federation, to USD 100 000 or more in Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Italy,
Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.
• There is a clear positive relationship between spending on educational institutions
per student and GDP per capita at the primary and secondary levels; this
relationship is less clear at the tertiary level. Nevertheless, countries with low
levels of expenditure on educational institutions per student may have similar
levels of expenditure per student in proportion of GDP per capita than countries
with high levels of spending per student. For example, at the primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary level of education, Korea and Portugal – where
expenditure on educational institutions per student and GDP per capita is below
the OECD average – spend a higher proportion per student relative to GDP per
capita than the OECD average.
• Expenditure on educational institutions per primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary student increased in every country, on average, by 40%
between 1995 and 2006, a period of relatively stable student numbers. The
pattern is different at the tertiary level where spending per student has fallen in
one third of OECD and partner countries; expenditure has not kept up with the
expansion in student numbers. However, from 2000 to 2006, expenditure on
educational institutions per student increased by 11 percentage points on average
in OECD countries after having remained stable between 1995 and 2000. This
shows governments’ efforts to deal with the expansion of tertiary education
through massive investment.
• Five out of the 11 countries (the Czech Republic, Mexico, Poland, the Slovak
Republic and Switzerland) in which student enrolments in tertiary education
increased by more than 20 percentage points between 2000 and 2006 increased
their expenditure on tertiary educational institutions by at least the same
proportion over the period, whereas Hungary, Iceland, Ireland and the partner
countries Brazil, Chile and Israel did not.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

189

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Policy context

B1

Effective schools require the right combination of trained and talented personnel, appropriate
curriculum, adequate facilities and motivated students who are ready to learn. The demand for
quality education, which can translate into higher costs per student, must be balanced against
other demands on public expenditure and the overall burden of taxation. As a result, the question
of whether the resources devoted to education yield adequate returns to the investments
made figures prominently in the public debate. Although it is difficult to assess the optimal
volume of resources needed to prepare each student for life and work in modern societies,
international comparisons of spending on educational institutions per student (see definitions
and methodologies at end of text) can provide reference points for comparisons of education
resources.
Policy makers must also balance the importance of improving the quality of educational services
with the desirability of expanding access to educational opportunities, notably at the tertiary
level. A comparative review of trends in expenditure on educational institutions per student
shows that in many OECD countries the expansion of enrolments, particularly in tertiary
education, has not always been accompanied by increased investment.
In addition, decisions regarding the allocation of funds among the various levels of education are
important. For example, some OECD countries emphasise broad access to higher education and
some invest in near-universal education for children as young as three or four years old.
Evidence and explanations
What this indicator covers and what it does not cover

The indicator shows direct public and private expenditure on educational institutions in relation
to the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled. Public subsidies for students’ living
expenses have been excluded to ensure international comparability of the data. Expenditure
data for students in private educational institutions are not available for certain countries, and
some other countries do not provide complete data on independent private institutions. Where
this is the case, only the expenditure on public and government-dependent private institutions
has been taken into account. Note that variations in expenditure on educational institutions
per student may reflect not only variations in the material resources provided to students (e.g.
variations in the ratio of students to teaching staff) but also variations in relative salary and price
levels. At the primary and secondary levels, educational expenditure is dominated by spending
on instructional services; at the tertiary level, other services – particularly those related to R&D
activities or ancillary services – can account for a significant proportion.
Expenditure on educational institutions per student in equivalent USD

Data on annual expenditure per student from primary through tertiary education provide a way
to track the financial investment made in each student. OECD countries as a whole spend, on
average, USD 8 857 annually per student enrolled in primary through tertiary education. In
2006, in 11 of 33 OECD and partner countries, spending on educational institutions ranged
between USD 7 000 and USD 9 000 per student. It ranged from USD 4 000 per student or less
in Mexico, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Turkey and the partner countries Brazil, Chile and
the Russian Federation, to more than USD 10 000 per student in Austria, Denmark, Norway,
190

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

chapter B

Switzerland and the United States (Table B1.1a). The drivers of expenditure per student vary
among countries (for more details see Indicator B7). Among the five countries with the highest
expenditure on educational institutions per student, Switzerland has the highest teachers’ salaries
at the secondary level (see Indicator D3), the United States has the highest level of private
expenditure at the tertiary level and Austria, Denmark and Norway are among the countries
with the lowest student to teaching staff ratios (see Indicator D2).
Even if overall spending per student is similar across some OECD countries, the ways in which
resources are allocated among the different levels of education vary widely. OECD countries as a
whole spend USD 6 517 per student at the primary level, USD 7 966 at the secondary level and
USD 15 791 at the tertiary level. At the tertiary level, the totals are affected by high expenditure
in a few large OECD countries, most notably Canada and the United States. Spending on
educational institutions per student in a typical OECD country (as represented by the simple
mean across all OECD countries) amounts to USD 6 437 at the primary level, USD 8 006 at the
secondary level and USD 12 336 at the tertiary level (Table B1.1a and Chart B1.2).
These averages mask a broad range of expenditure on educational institutions per student by
OECD and partner countries. At the primary and secondary levels, expenditure on educational
institutions varies by a factor of 12, ranging from USD 1 130 per student in Turkey to USD 13 676
in Luxembourg in primary education and from USD 1 538 in the partner country Brazil to
USD 18 144 in Luxembourg in secondary education. Expenditure on educational institutions per
tertiary student ranges from USD 4 063 in the partner country Estonia to more than USD 20 000
in Switzerland and the United States (Table B1.1a and Chart B1.2).
These comparisons are based on purchasing power parities for GDP, not on market exchange rates.
They therefore reflect the amount of a national currency required to produce the same basket of
goods and services in a given country as that produced by the USD in the United States.
Expenditure on educational core services per student

On average, OECD countries for which data are available spend USD 6 219 on core educational
services at primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels. This corresponds to 85%
of the total expenditure on educational institutions per student at these levels. In 14 out of the
34 OECD and partner countries for which data are available, ancillary services provided by
primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary institutions account for less than 5% of the
total expenditure per student. The proportion exceeds 10% of the total expenditure in Finland,
France, Korea, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Greater differences are observed in the proportion of total expenditure on educational institutions
per student devoted to core services at the tertiary level partly because R&D expenditure can
account for a significant proportion of educational spending.The OECD countries in which most
R&D is performed within tertiary education institutions tend to report higher expenditure per
student than those in which a large proportion of R&D is performed in other public institutions
or in industry. Excluding R&D activities and ancillary services, expenditure on core educational
services in tertiary institutions is, on average, USD 8 418 per student and ranges from USD 5 000
or less in Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Turkey, and the partner country Estonia to
more than USD 10 000 in Austria, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the United States and the
partner country Brazil (Table B1.2).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

191

B1

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Chart B1.2. Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student for all services,
by level of education (2006)

In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, based on full-time equivalents

B1

Expenditure per student
(equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

OECD average

Expenditure per student
(equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

OECD average

Expenditure per student
(equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

Secondary education
Upper secondary education
Lower secondary education

Tertiary education

25 109

OECD average

Luxembourg1
United States
Norway
Iceland
Denmark
Switzerland1
Austria
United Kingdom
Italy1
Sweden
Belgium
Japan
Netherlands
Ireland
Australia
Spain
Finland
France
Germany
Portugal1
New Zealand
Korea
Israel
Hungary1
Poland1
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Chile
Mexico
Brazil1
Turkey1
Slovenia
Russian Federation1

24 000
22 000
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

Secondary education

Luxembourg1
United States
Norway
Iceland
Denmark
Switzerland1
Austria
United Kingdom
Italy1
Sweden
Belgium
Japan
Netherlands
Ireland
Australia
Spain
Finland
France
Germany
Portugal1
New Zealand
Korea
Israel
Hungary1
Poland1
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Chile
Mexico
Brazil1
Turkey1
Slovenia
Russian Federation1

20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

Primary education

Luxembourg1
United States
Norway
Iceland
Denmark
Switzerland1
Austria
United Kingdom
Italy1
Sweden
Belgium
Japan
Netherlands
Ireland
Australia
Spain
Finland
France
Germany
Portugal1
New Zealand
Korea
Israel
Hungary1
Poland1
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Chile
Mexico
Brazil1
Turkey1
Slovenia
Russian Federation1

14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

1. Public institutions only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure on educational institutions per student in primary education.
Source: OECD. Table B1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

192

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

chapter B

On average, expenditure on R&D and ancillary services at the tertiary level is 30% and 4%
respectively of all tertiary expenditure on educational institutions per student. In 12 out of
20 OECD and partner countries for which data on R&D and ancillary services are available
separately from total expenditure – Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom – expenditure
on R&D and ancillary services in tertiary institutions is about one third or more of total tertiary
expenditure on educational institutions per student. On a per student basis this can translate
into significant amounts: in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States, expenditure for R&D and
ancillary services amounts to more than USD 5 000 per student (Table B1.2).
Expenditure on educational institutions per student at different levels
of education for all services

Throughout OECD countries expenditure on educational institutions per student rises sharply
from primary to tertiary education.The amount and pattern of expenditure is largely a reflection of
the location and mode of educational provision. Education still essentially takes place in traditional
settings with (generally) similar organisation, curriculum, teaching style and management. These
shared features have tended to result in similar patterns of unit expenditure at the primary through
post-secondary non-tertiary levels. During the last decade, however, greater use of private funds
at the tertiary level has increased the difference between the amount and pattern of expenditure at
this level and as compared to other levels of education (see Indicator B3).
Chart B1.3. Expenditure on educational institutions per student at various levels
of education for all services relative to primary education (2006)

Primary education = 100
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

657

Pre-primary education

Secondary education

Tertiary education

Brazil1
Mexico
Chile
United States
Switzerland1
Czech Republic
Germany
Australia
Netherlands
Israel
Sweden
Finland
France
United Kingdom
Japan
Portugal1
Slovak Republic2
New Zealand
Belgium
Ireland
Spain
Austria
Denmark
Korea
Norway
Poland1
Hungary1
Italy1
Estonia
Iceland

Index

Note: A ratio of 300 for tertiary education means that expenditure on educational institutions per tertiary student
is three times the expenditure on educational institutions per primary student.
A ratio of 50 for pre-primary education means that expenditure on educational institutions per pre-primary student
is half the expenditure on educational institutions per primary student.
1. Public institutions only.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure on educational institutions per student in tertiary education relative to
primary education.
Source: OECD. Table B1.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

193

B1

chapter B

B1

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Comparisons of the distribution of expenditure at different levels of education highlight the
relative emphasis placed on these levels as well as the relative costs of provision. Expenditure
on educational institutions per student rises with the level of education in almost all OECD
and partner countries, but the relative size of the differentials varies markedly (Table B1.1a
and Chart B1.3). At the secondary level, the expenditure is, on average, 1.2 times more than
at the primary level and exceeds 1.5 in the Czech Republic, France, Switzerland and Turkey.
In Switzerland, this increase is mainly due to changes in teachers’ salaries. In the other three
countries, it is due to an increase in the number of instructional hours for students and a
significant decrease in the number of teachers’ teaching hours between primary and secondary
education, as compared to the OECD average (see Indicators B7, D1, D3 and D4).
OECD countries spend, on average, two times more on educational institutions per student at
the tertiary level than at the primary level, but spending patterns vary widely mainly because
education policies vary more among countries at the tertiary level (see Indicator B5). For example,
Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Poland and the partner country Estonia spend less than 1.5 times more
on a tertiary student than on a primary student, but Mexico and the partner countries Brazil and
Chile spend more than 3 times as much (Table B1.1a and Chart B1.3).
Expenditure on educational institutions per student over the theoretical duration
of primary and secondary education

OECD countries spend on average USD 93 775 per student over the theoretical duration of
primary and secondary studies. Although this theoretical duration is quite similar – between 12
and 13 years in 30 out of 36 OECD and partner countries – cumulative expenditure on educational
institutions per student varies considerably, ranging from less than USD 40 000 in Mexico and
the Slovak Republic, and the partner countries Brazil, Chile and the Russian Federation, to
USD 100 000 or more in Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States (Table B1.3a and Chart B1.4).
Expenditure on educational institutions per student over the average duration
of tertiary studies

Both the typical duration and the intensity of tertiary education vary among OECD countries.
Therefore, the differences among countries in annual expenditure on educational services per
student (as shown in Chart B1.2) do not necessarily reflect the differences in the total cost of
educating the typical tertiary student. Today’s students can choose from a range of institutions
and enrolment options to find the best fit for their degree objectives, abilities and personal
interests. Many enrol on a part-time basis while others combine work and study. Students may
attend more than one institution before graduating. These enrolment patterns can affect the
interpretation of expenditure on educational institutions per student.
In particular, if the typical duration of tertiary studies is long, comparatively low annual expenditure
on educational institutions per student can result in comparatively high overall costs for tertiary
education. Chart B1.5 shows the average expenditure per student throughout the course of tertiary
studies.The figures account for all students for whom expenditure is incurred, including those who
do not finish their studies.Although the calculations are based on a number of simplified assumptions
and therefore should be treated with caution (see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009), there
are some striking shifts between annual and aggregate expenditure in the ranking of OECD and
partner countries.
194

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter B

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

Chart B1.4. Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student
over the theoretical duration of primary and secondary studies (2006)

Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student multiplied by the theoretical duration of studies,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
All secondary education
Upper secondary education

In equivalent USD
converted using PPPs

Lower secondary education
Primary education

250 000
OECD average
(primary and secondary)

200 000
150 000
100 000
0

Luxembourg1
Switzerland1
Norway
Iceland
United States
Denmark
Austria
Italy1
United Kingdom
Ireland
Sweden
Slovenia1
Australia
Belgium
France
Japan
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Finland
Korea
Portugal1
New Zealand
Israel
Czech Republic
Hungary1
Estonia
Poland1
Slovak Republic
Mexico
Chile
Brazil1

50 000

1. Public institutions only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the total expenditure on educational institutions per student over the theoretical
duration of primary and secondary studies.
Source: OECD. Table B1.3a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Chart B1.5. Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions
per student over the average duration of tertiary studies (2006)

Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student multiplied by the average duration of studies,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs

Mexico

Slovak Republic

Hungary1

New Zealand

Korea

Iceland

Ireland

Belgium

Italy

France

Spain

Japan

Denmark

Finland

United Kingdom

Germany

Sweden

Netherlands

Austria

OECD average

Switzerland1

90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0

Note: Each segment of the bar represents the annual expenditure on educational institutions per student.The number
of segments represents the average number of years a student remains in tertiary education.
1. Public institutions only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the total expenditure on educational institutions per student over the average duration
of tertiary studies.
Source: OECD. Table B1.3b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

195

B1

chapter B

B1

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

For example, annual spending per tertiary student in Japan is about the same as in Germany, at
USD 13 418 and USD 13 016, respectively (Table B1.1a). But because of differences in the tertiary
degree structure (see Indicator A3), the average duration of tertiary studies is slightly more than
one year longer in Germany than in Japan (5.4 and 4.1 years, respectively). As a consequence, the
cumulative expenditure for each tertiary student is more than USD 15 000 lower in Japan than in
Germany – USD 54 611 compared with USD 69 814 (Chart B1.5 and Table B1.3b).
The total cost of tertiary-type A studies in Switzerland (USD 128 647) is more than twice the amount
reported by other countries, with the exception of Austria, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands
(Table B1.3b).These figures must, of course, be interpreted in light of differences in national degree
structures as well as possible differences in the academic level of the qualifications of students leaving
university.While trends are similar in tertiary-type B studies, their total cost tends to be much lower
than those of tertiary type-A programmes, largely because of their shorter duration.
Expenditure on educational institutions per student in relation to GDP per capita

Expenditure on educational institutions per student relative to GDP per capita is a unit spending
measure that takes OECD countries’ relative wealth into account. Since education is universal at
lower levels, spending on educational institutions per student at the lower levels relative to GDP
per capita can be interpreted as the resources spent on the school-age population relative to a
country’s ability to pay. At higher levels of education, this measure is affected by a combination
of national income, spending and enrolment rates. At the tertiary level, for example, OECD
countries can rank relatively high on this measure if a large proportion of their wealth is spent on
educating a relatively small number of students.
Expenditure on educational institutions per student averages 20% of GDP per capita at the
primary level, 25% at the secondary level and 40% at the tertiary level (Table B1.4). Countries
with low levels of expenditure on educational institutions per student may nevertheless show
distributions of investment relative to GDP per capita which are similar to those of countries
with a high level of spending per student. For example, Korea and Portugal – countries with
expenditure on educational institutions per student at primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary level of education and GDP per capita below the OECD average – spend more
per student relative to GDP per capita than the OECD average. Similarly, Switzerland and the
United States spend more than 50% of GDP per capita on each tertiary student, among the
highest proportions after Brazil. Brazil has the highest proportion, spending 109% of GDP per
capita on each tertiary student, but tertiary students represent only 3% of the students enrolled
in all levels of education combined (Table B1.2 and Table B1.6).
The relationship between GDP per capita and expenditure on educational institutions per student
is a complex one. As one would expect, there is a clear positive relationship between spending on
educational institutions per student and GDP per capita at both primary and secondary levels of
education; poorer OECD countries tend to spend less per student than richer ones. Although the
relationship is generally positive at these levels, there are variations even for countries with similar
levels of GDP per capita, especially among those in which it exceeds USD 30 000. Australia and
Austria, for example, have similar levels of GDP per capita but spend very different proportions
of GDP per capita at the primary and secondary levels. In Australia, the proportions are 18% and
24% at the two levels, respectively, and are near the OECD average (20% and 25%). By contrast,
Austria’s are 24% and 30%, respectively, and are among the highest (Table B1.4 and Chart B1.6).
196

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter B

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

Chart B1.6. Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student relative
to GDP per capita (2006)

In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, by level of education
Primary education

Expenditure per student
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

POL
BRA

SVK

EST

JPN
FRA

ISR NZL

DNK
SWE

FIN

USA

ISL
AUT

CHE

88

R2 = 0.84

NLD

DEU AUS

NOR

IRL

CZE

50
00
75
00
10
00
0
12
50
0
15
00
0
17
50
0
20
00
0
22
50
0
25
00
0
27
50
0
30
00
0
32
50
0
35
00
0
37
50
0
40
00
0
42
50
0
45
00
0
47
50
0
50
00
0
52
50
0

TUR

PRT KOR

HUN

CHL
MEX

ITA
ESP

UKM
BEL

B1

GDP per capita (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
Expenditure per student
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

AUS

R2 = 0.8

USA

NLD

NOR

IRL

0

0

50

52

00

0
50

50

0
00

47

0
50

45

0
00

42

50

0

ISL

40

0
00

00

32

37

0
30

BEL

0

0
00

27

0
50

25

0
00

22

20

50

0

0
00

17

0
50

15

0
00

12

10

75

00

BRA

956

AUT

FIN SWE
DEU CAN

0

NZL

50

ISR

EST CZE
POL
CHL
SVK HUN
TUR MEX
RUS

FRA

50

ITA
ESP

KOR SVN
PRT

CHE

DNK
UKM

JPN

00
50

Secondary education

35

14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

GDP per capita (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)
Expenditure per student
(in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

USA
CHE

UKM

PRT

CHL

SVN

SVK

NZL

IRL

ITA

ISL

HUN

0

0
00

50

0
50

50

0
00

47

0
50

45

0
00

42

0

0
00

50

0
50

37

0
00

35

0
50

32

0
00

30

0
50

27

0
00

25

0
50

22

0
00

20

0

EST

50

17

NOR

FRA

0

15

R

664

0.6

NLD

DEU
BEL
JPN

00

12

10

2 =

DNK
SWE AUT AUS

40

POL

RUS

00

CZE

KOR

MEX

75

FIN
ESP

ISR

BRA

00
50

Tertiary education

52

28 000
26 000
24 000
22 000
20 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0

GDP per capita (in equivalent USD converted using PPPs)

Please refer to the Reader's Guide for the list of country codes used in this chart.
Source: OECD. Table B1.1a, Table B1.4 and Annex 2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

197

chapter B

B1

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

There is more variation in spending on educational institutions per student at the tertiary level
and the relationship between countries’ relative wealth and their expenditure levels is more
variable, as well. Iceland and Switzerland, for example, have similar levels of GDP per capita but
very different levels of spending on tertiary education (Table B1.4 and Chart B1.6).
Change in expenditure on educational institutions per student between 1995, 2000
and 2006

Expenditure on educational institutions tends to rise over time in real terms, as teachers’ salaries
(the main component of costs) rise in line with salary levels across country populations. The size
of the school-age population influences both enrolment rates and the amount of resources and
organisational effort a country must invest in its education system. The larger the size of this
population, the greater the potential demand for educational services.Table B1.5 and Chart B1.7
show the effects of changes in enrolments and total expenditure between 1995, 2000 and 2006
in indices and at constant prices.
Expenditure on educational institutions per primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
student increased in every country, on average, by 40% between 1995 and 2006 during a period
of relatively stable student enrolment at these levels. The rate of increase was quite similar over
the first and second halves of this time period; only the Czech Republic, Norway and Switzerland
showed a decrease between 1995 and 2000, followed by an increase between 2000 and 2006
(Table B1.5).
Between 2000 and 2006, in 22 out of the 30 OECD and partner countries for which data are
available, expenditure on educational institutions per primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary student increased by at least 10% and exceeded 30% in the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the United Kingdom and the
partner countries Brazil and Estonia. Even with these increases, in 2006 in all of these countries
except Iceland, Ireland and the United Kingdom, levels of expenditure on educational institutions
per primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary student were still significantly below
the OECD average. In Belgium, France, Germany, Norway and the partner countries Chile
and Israel (Table B1.5 and Chart B1.7), expenditure on educational institutions per primary,
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary student increased only by 5% or less between 2000
and 2006.
Changes in enrolments do not seem to have been the main factor behind changes in expenditure
on educational institutions per primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary student in
the majority of OECD and partner countries. However, in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Japan,
Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain and the United Kingdom and the partner country
Estonia, a more than 5% decrease in enrolments coincided with significant increases in spending
on educational institutions per student between 2000 and 2006. In Japan, Portugal and Spain the
decline in enrolments was concurrent with a slight rise in expenditure on educational institutions
in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education; in the other countries, it came
at the same time as a sharp increase in spending (Table B1.5 and Chart B1.7).
The pattern is different at the tertiary level, where spending per student between 1995 and
2006 fell in some cases, as expenditure did not keep up with expanding student numbers.
198

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

chapter B

Chart B1.7. Changes in the number of students and changes in expenditure
on educational institutions per student, by level of education (2000, 2006)

Index of change between 2000 and 2006 (2000 = 100, 2006 constant prices)

B1

Change in expenditure
Change in the number of students (in full-time equivalents)
Change in expenditure per student

190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60

Tertiary education

Chile
Brazil1, 2, 3
Hungary
Israel
Iceland
Ireland
Norway1
Netherlands
Germany
Sweden
Switzerland1, 2
United States
Estonia1
Italy2
Belgium
France
Slovak Republic3
Mexico
Japan3
Finland
Denmark3
Australia
Poland2
Spain
Czech Republic
Korea
Portugal2
United Kingdom
Austria

Index of change
(2000 = 100)

190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Belgium
France
Norway1
Chile
Germany
Israel
Switzerland1, 2
Austria
Italy2
Australia
Japan3
Portugal2
Denmark3
Sweden
United States
Netherlands
Mexico
Finland
Spain
Canada2, 3
Iceland
Poland2
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic3
Ireland
Korea
Brazil1, 2, 3
Hungary2
Estonia1

Index of change
(2000 = 100)

1. Public expenditure only.
2. Public institutions only.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of change in expenditure on educational institutions per student.
Source: OECD. Table B1.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

199

chapter B

B1

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Expenditure on educational institutions per tertiary student remained stable over the 1995 to
2000 period but then increased by 11% on average in OECD countries from 2000 to 2006, as
governments invested massively in response to the expansion of tertiary education. The Czech
Republic, Korea, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom followed this
pattern and increased their expenditure on educational institutions by more than 40% between
2000 and 2006. However, the increase in per student expenditure between 2000 and 2006 did not
completely counterbalance the decrease between 1995 and 2000 in the Czech Republic and the
Slovak Republic. Only in Hungary, Norway and the partner country Israel was there a decrease
in expenditure on educational institutions per tertiary student between the first and second half
of this time period. However, this is due for Norway to the use of the GDP deflator, which was
extremely affected by oil price changes (Table B1.5).
Between 2000 and 2006, of the 29 OECD and partner countries for which data are available,
Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden and the partner
countries Brazil, Chile and Israel recorded a decrease in expenditure on tertiary education per
student. In all of these countries except Germany, this decline was mainly the result of a rapid
increase (10% or more) in the number of tertiary students (Chart B1.7). Five of the eleven OECD
and partner countries in which the number of students enrolled in tertiary education increased by
over 20% between 2000 and 2006 (the Czech Republic, Mexico, Poland, the Slovak Republic and
Switzerland) increased their expenditure on tertiary education over the period by at least the same
proportion. The others – Hungary, Iceland, Ireland and the partner countries Brazil, Chile and
Israel – did not. Austria and Spain were the only countries in which the number of tertiary students
decreased between 2000 and 2006, and their changes in expenditure per student between 2000
and 2006 were above the OECD average of 11% (Table B1.5 and Chart B1.7).
Definitions and methodologies

Data refer to the financial year 2006 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics
administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Expenditure on educational institutions per student at a particular level of education is calculated
by dividing the total expenditure on educational institutions at that level by the corresponding
full-time equivalent enrolment. Only educational institutions and programmes for which both
enrolment and expenditure data are available are taken into account. Expenditure in national
currency is converted into equivalent USD by dividing the national currency figure by the
purchasing power parity (PPP) index for GDP.The PPP exchange rate is used because the market
exchange rate is affected by many factors (interest rates, trade policies, expectations of economic
growth, etc.) that have little to do with current relative domestic purchasing power in different
OECD countries (see Annex 2 for further details).
The OECD average is calculated as the simple average over all OECD countries for which data
are available.The OECD total reflects the value of the indicator if the OECD region is considered
as a whole (see the Reader’s Guide for details).
Table B1.5 shows the changes in expenditure on educational institutions per student between the
financial years 1995, 2000 and 2006. OECD countries were asked to collect the 1995 and 2000 data
according to the definitions and the coverage of UOE 2007 data collection. All expenditure data, as
well as the GDP for 1995 and 2000, are adjusted to 2006 prices using the GDP price deflator.
200

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

chapter B

Expenditure on educational institutions per student relative to GDP per capita is calculated by
expressing expenditure on educational institutions per student in units of national currency
as a percentage of GDP per capita, also in national currency. In cases where the educational
expenditure data and the GDP data pertain to different reference periods, the expenditure data
are adjusted to the same reference period as the GDP data, using inflation rates for the OECD
country in question (see Annex 2).
Cumulative expenditure over the average duration of tertiary studies (Table B1.3b) is calculated
by multiplying current annual expenditure by the typical duration of tertiary studies. The
methodology used to estimate the typical duration of tertiary studies is described in Annex 3
(www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009). For estimates of the duration of tertiary education, data are based
on a special survey carried out in OECD countries in 2006.
The ranking of OECD countries by annual expenditure on educational services per student is
affected by differences in how countries define full-time, part-time and full-time equivalent
enrolment. Some OECD countries count every participant at the tertiary level as a full-time
student while others determine a student’s intensity of participation by the credits which he or
she obtains for successful completion of specific course units during a specified reference period.
OECD countries that can accurately account for part-time enrolment have higher apparent
expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student than OECD countries
that cannot differentiate among different modes of student attendance.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

• Table B1.1b. Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student for core services (2006)
• Table B1.6. Distribution of expenditure (as a percentage) on educational institutions compared to
the number of students enrolled at each level of education (2006)
• Table B1.7. Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student for all services, by type of
programme (2006)

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

201

B1

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B1.1a.
Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student for all services (2006)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education, based on full-time equivalents
Primary education

Lower
secondary
education

Upper
secondary
education

All secondary
education

Post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary-type
B education

Tertiary-type
A & advanced
research
programmes

All tertiary
education

All tertiary
education
excluding R&D
activities

Primary to tertiary
education

Tertiary education
(including R&D activities)

Pre-primary
education (for
children 3 years
and older)
Partner countries

OECD countries

B1

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary2
Iceland
Ireland
Italy2
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg2
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal2
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey2
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
4 252
6 783
5 082
x(5)
3 586
5 208
4 544
4 995
5 683
m
4 516
8 154
6 569
7 083
4 389
3 393
x(2)
1 978
6 006
5 113
5 625
4 545
4 897
3 156
5 372
5 475
4 166
m
7 335
8 867

(2)
6 311
8 516
7 072
x(5)
3 217
8 798
5 899
5 482
5 362
m
4 599
9 299
6 337
7 716
6 989
4 935
13 676
2 003
6 425
4 952
9 486
3 770
5 138
3 221
5 970
7 699
8 793
1 130
7 732
9 709

(3)
8 319
10 011
x(5)
x(5)
5 399
8 909
9 241
8 265
6 632
m
4 161
8 910
8 964
8 527
8 004
5 719
18 144
1 814
9 149
5 347
10 075
3 315
6 677
2 841
x(5)
8 365
10 121
a
8 868
10 369

(4)
9 315
11 205
x(5)
x(5)
5 217
10 400
6 585
10 655
9 163
m
3 793
8 196
9 024
8 474
8 589
9 060
18 144
2 856
9 918
6 838
12 559
3 498
7 052
3 081
x(5)
8 610
16 540
1 834
8 693
11 334

(5)
8 700
10 577
8 601
7 774
5 307
9 662
7 533
9 303
7 548
m
3 978
8 493
8 991
8 495
8 305
7 261
18 144
2 165
9 516
6 043
11 435
3 411
6 846
2 963
7 955
8 496
13 268
1 834
8 763
10 821

(6)
8 113
x(4)
x(5)
x(7)
1 943
x(4,9)
x(5)
m
8 559
m
4 778
x(5)
6 212
m
x(4,9)
a
m
a
10 238
5 734
x(5)
3 586
m
x(4)
a
4 991
10 129
a
x(4)
m

(7)
8 828
13 006
x(9)
m
3 333
x(9)
n
9 714
7 352
m
4 272
x(9)
x(9)
6 920
8 634
4 653
m
x(9)
n
6 533
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)
x(4)
9 798
x(9)
4 101
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

(8)
16 070
15 284
x(9)
22 810
8 437
x(9)
12 845
12 180
13 926
m
6 469
x(9)
x(9)
8 738
15 022
10 844
m
x(9)
15 196
10 101
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)
6 056
11 342
x(9)
23 593
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

(9)
15 016
15 148
13 244
m
7 989
15 391
12 845
11 568
13 016
m
6 367
8 579
11 832
8 725
13 418
8 564
m
6 462
15 196
9 288
16 235
5 224
9 724
6 056
11 087
16 991
22 230
m
15 447
25 109

(10)
9 982
10 541
8 496
m
6 464
m
7 951
8 016
7 996
m
4 843
m
8 407
5 628
m
7 517
m
5 393
9 717
8 010
10 730
4 468
7 208
5 324
7 845
8 855
12 783
4 648
9 714
22 384

(11)
8 678
10 895
8 827
m
5 174
10 395
8 048
8 428
7 925
m
4 588
8 823
8 092
8 263
8 872
6 811
m
2 460
9 330
6 222
11 487
3 868
6 624
3 485
7 819
9 523
12 667
1 614
9 309
13 447

OECD average

5 260

6 437

7 544

8 486

8 006

4 592

~

~

12 336

8 455

7 840

OECD total

5 553

6 517

~

~

7 966

~

~

~

15 791

13 163

8 857

EU19 average

5 343

6 479

7 967

8 344

8 116

5 039

~

~

11 520

7 592

7 682

Brazil2
Chile3
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2
Slovenia

1 315
2 764
1 941
3 803
m
7 209

1 566
2 088
3 675
4 923
x(5)
x(3)

1 726
2 051
3 884
x(5)
x(5)
8 510

1 225
2 111
4 831
x(5)
x(5)
6 550

1 538
2 090
4 360
5 858
2 399
7 759

a
a
5 426
4 850
x(5)
x(4)

x(9)
3 562
3 301
8 780
2 790
x(9)

x(9)
8 130
4 462
11 680
4 838
x(9)

10 294
6 292
4 063
11 132
4 279
8 251

10 067
m
m
m
3 948
6 762

1 811
2 849
4 126
6 293
2 761
7 869

Secondary education

1.Year of reference 2005.
2. Public institutions only (for Canada, in tertiary education only. For Italy, except in tertiary education).
3.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

202

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

chapter B

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table B1.2.
Annual expenditure per student on core services, ancillary services and R&D (2006)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education and type of service, based on full-time equivalents

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark1
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland
Ireland
Italy3, 4
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg1, 3
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland3
Portugal3
Slovak Republic1
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey3
United Kingdom
United States

Primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education
Ancillary
services
(transport,
meals, housing
Educational provided by
core services institutions)
Total
(1)
(2)
(3)
7 459
7 173
286
9 910
9 466
444
7 980
7 694
286
7 774
7 343
431
4 532
4 179
353
9 270
9 270
a
6 891
6 148
743
7 712
6 719
994
6 985
6 818
167
m
m
m
4 188
3 826
363
8 877
x(3)
x(3)
7 318
7 125
194
8 204
7 917
288
7 661
x(3)
x(3)
6 089
5 465
624
15 440
x(3)
x(3)
2 072
2 072
m
8 109
8 109
n
5 589
x(3)
x(3)
10 448
x(3)
x(3)
3 568
3 550
18
5 967
5 928
39
3 032
2 631
402
7 016
6 732
284
8 123
7 296
827
11 129
x(3)
x(3)
1 286
1 249
36
8 306
6 858
1 448
10 267
9 460
808

Tertiary education
Ancillary
services
(transport,
meals, housing
Educational provided by
core services institutions)
R&D
(4)
(5)
(6)
9 321
661
5 034
10 454
88
4 606
8 153
343
4 748
15 858
1 517
5 434
6 376
88
1 524
x(7)
a
x(7)
7 951
n
4 894
7 349
667
3 552
7 339
658
5 020
m
m
m
4 579
264
1 524
x(7)
x(7)
x(7)
8 407
x(7)
3 425
5 537
256
2 932
x(7)
x(7)
x(7)
7 476
41
1 047
m
m
m
5 393
m
1 069
9 717
n
5 478
8 010
x(7)
1 278
10 638
92
5 505
4 467
1
756
7 208
x(7)
2 515
4 201
1 122
732
7 820
m
3 242
8 855
n
8 136
12 783
x(4)
9 447
4 648
x(4)
m
8 425
1 289
5 733
19 476
2 908
2 725

B1

Total
(7)
15 016
15 148
13 244
22 810
7 989
15 391
12 845
11 568
13 016
m
6 367
8 579
11 832
8 725
13 418
8 564
m
6 462
15 196
9 288
16 235
5 224
9 724
6 056
11 087
16 991
22 230
4 648
15 447
25 109

OECD average

6 219

411

7 283

8 418

526

3 765

12 336

EU19 average

6 486

403

7 364

7 302

341

3 676

11 520

Brazil1, 3
Chile5
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation3
Slovenia

x(3)
1 951
x(3)
5 080
x(3)
7 451

x(3)
138
x(3)
243
x(3)
308

1 550
2 089
4 147
5 322
2 399
7 759

10 067
x(7)
4 063
9 902
x(7)
6 736

x(4)
x(7)
x(4)
1 230
x(7)
26

227
x(7)
m
n
331
1 489

10 294
6 292
4 063
11 132
4 279
8 251

1. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to «x» code in Table B1.1a for details.
2. Tertiary-type A only and year of reference 2005.
3. Public institutions only (for Canada, in tertiary education only. For Italy, except in tertiary education).
4. Exclude post-secondary non-tertiary education.
5.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

203

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B1.3a.
Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student for all services over the theoretical duration
of primary and secondary studies (2006)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education

B1

Cumulative expenditure per student
over the theoretical duration of primary
and secondary studies (in USD)

Primary
education

Lower
secondary

Upper
secondary
education

Total
primary and
secondary
education

Primary
education

Lower
secondary

Upper
secondary
education

All secondary
education

Total
primary and
secondary
education

Partner countries

OECD countries

Average theoretical duration of primary
and secondary studies (in years)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary2
Iceland
Ireland
Italy2
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg2
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal2
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey2
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
7.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
7.0
8.0
5.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
6.0
6.0

(2)
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
a
3.0
3.0

(3)
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.5
5.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.0

(4)
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
14.0
13.5
13.0
12.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
11.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
12.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.5
11.0
12.5
12.0

(5)
44 174
34 066
42 434
x(9)
16 087
52 786
35 392
27 412
21 447
m
18 398
65 095
50 698
38 580
41 937
29 612
82 055
12 018
38 550
29 714
66 399
22 620
30 828
12 885
35 821
46 193
52 759
m
46 393
58 251

(6)
33 275
40 042
x(8)
x(9)
21 595
35 635
27 722
33 061
39 794
m
16 645
26 730
26 892
25 582
24 012
17 156
54 431
5 443
18 298
21 387
30 226
9 946
20 032
14 204
x(8)
25 095
30 363
a
26 605
31 107

(7)
18 630
44 822
x(8)
x(9)
20 867
31 200
19 754
31 966
27 489
m
15 172
32 786
22 559
42 369
25 767
27 181
72 575
8 568
29 755
20 513
37 678
13 991
21 157
12 324
x(8)
25 829
57 890
m
30 424
34 003

(8)
51 905
84 864
51 605
x(9)
42 462
66 834
47 476
65 027
67 282
m
31 817
59 515
49 451
67 951
49 779
44 337
127 006
14 011
48 052
41 900
67 904
23 937
41 189
26 528
47 731
50 924
88 253
m
56 959
65 110

(9)
96 079
118 930
94 039
93 288
58 548
119 621
82 868
92 439
88 729
m
50 215
124 610
100 149
106 531
91 716
73 950
209 060
26 029
86 603
71 614
134 303
46 557
72 017
39 413
83 552
97 116
141 013
m
103 352
123 361

OECD average

5.9

3.2

3.3

12.4

38 985

~

~

54 808

93 775

Brazil2
Chile3
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2
Slovenia2

4.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
6.0

4.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
3.0

3.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
3.0

11.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
12.0

6 265
12 526
22 050
29 535
x(9)
x(6)

6 905
4 102
11 652
x(8)
x(9)
76 588

3 675
8 445
14 493
x(8)
x(9)
19 651

10 580
12 546
26 145
35 148
x(9)
96 239

16 844
25 072
48 194
64 683
26 394
96 239

1.Year of reference 2005.
2. Public institutions only.
3.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

204

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

chapter B

OECD countries

Table B1.3b.
Cumulative expenditure on educational institutions per student for all services over the average duration
of tertiary studies (2006)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by type of programme

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France2
Germany
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland3
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey3
United Kingdom2
United States
OECD average

Method1
CM
CM
CM
AF
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM
AF
CM
CM
AF
CM
CM
CM
AF
CM
CM
CM
CM
CM

Average duration of tertiary studies
(in years)
Tertiarytype A and
Tertiaryadvanced
type B
research
All tertiary
education
programmes
education
(1)
(2)
(3)
m
m
2.87
5.30
2.78
5.60
2.99
2.41
3.67
m
m
m
m
m
m
3.70
2.10
3.84
4.85
a
4.85
4.02
3.00
4.74
5.36
2.37
6.57
5.25
5.00
5.26
4.05
2.00
4.05
3.69
x(3)
x(3)
3.24
2.21
4.02
5.01
m
5.14
4.07
2.11
4.51
3.43
2.07
4.22
m
m
m
3.42
x(3)
3.42
5.24
a
5.24
3.05
1.87
3.68
m
m
m
m
3.68
m
m
m
m
3.82
2.47
3.90
4.66
2.15
5.54
4.68
2.26
4.93
3.62
2.19
5.45
2.65
2.73
2.37
4.34
3.52
5.86
m
m
m
2.28

4.50

4.11

Cumulative expenditure per student
over the average duration of tertiary
studies (in USD)
Tertiarytype A and
Tertiaryadvanced
type B
research
All tertiary
education
programmes
education
(4)
(5)
(6)
m
46 121
m
80 283
36 156
85 590
39 599
x(6)
x(6)
m
m
m
m
m
m
56 946
x(6)
x(6)
62 298
a
62 298
46 504
29 143
57 734
69 814
17 432
91 466
m
m
m
25 786
8 544
26 201
31 655
x(6)
x(6)
38 334
x(6)
x(6)
43 711
m
44 916
54 611
18 218
67 750
29 374
9 631
45 762
m
m
m
22 100
x(6)
x(6)
79 625
a
79 625
28 327
12 216
37 171
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
23 133
m
22 555
51 665
21 065
62 835
79 517
x(6)
x(6)
80 568
8 968
128 647
x(6)
x(6)
m
67 082
x(6)
x(6)
m
m
m
~

~

50 547

1. Either the Chain Method (CM) or an Approximation Formula (AF) was used to estimate the duration of tertiary studies.
2. Average duration of tertiary studies is estimated based on national data.
3. Public institutions only.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

205

B1

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B1.4.
Annual expenditure on educational institutions per student for all services
relative to GDP per capita (2006)
By level of education, based on full-time equivalents
Primary education

Lower
secondary
education

Upper
secondary
education

All secondary
education

Post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary-type B
education

Tertiary-type A
and advanced
research
programmes

All tertiary
education

All tertiary
education excluding
R&D activities

Primary to tertiary
education

Tertiary education
(including R&D activities)

Pre-primary
education (for
children 3 years and
older)
Partner countries

OECD countries

B1

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary2
Iceland
Ireland
Italy2
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg2
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal2
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey2
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
m
19
15
x(5)
16
15
14
16
17
m
25
23
16
24
14
15
x(2)
15
16
19
11
31
23
18
18
16
11
m
21
20

(2)
18
24
21
x(5)
15
25
18
18
16
m
26
26
15
26
22
21
18
15
17
18
18
25
24
18
20
22
23
9
23
22

(3)
23
28
x(5)
x(5)
25
26
28
27
20
m
23
25
21
29
25
25
24
14
25
20
19
22
31
16
x(5)
24
26
a
26
24

(4)
26
32
x(5)
x(5)
24
30
20
34
28
m
21
23
22
29
27
39
24
21
27
26
24
24
33
17
x(5)
25
43
15
25
26

(5)
24
30
26
21
24
28
23
30
23
m
22
24
22
29
26
31
24
16
26
23
22
23
32
16
27
25
34
15
26
25

(6)
23
x(4)
x(5)
x(7)
9
x(4,9)
x(5)
m
26
m
27
x(5)
15
m
x(4,9)
a
x(5)
a
28
21
x(5)
24
m
x(4)
a
14
26
a
x(4)
m

(7)
25
37
x(9)
m
15
x(9)
n
31
22
m
24
x(9)
x(9)
24
27
20
m
x(9)
a
24
x(9)
30
x(9)
x(4)
33
x(9)
11
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

(8)
45
43
x(9)
62
38
x(9)
39
39
42
m
36
x(9)
x(9)
30
47
47
m
x(9)
41
38
x(9)
35
x(9)
34
38
x(9)
61
x(9)
x(9)
x(9)

(9)
42
43
39
m
36
44
39
37
40
m
35
24
28
30
42
37
m
48
41
35
31
35
45
34
38
49
58
m
45
57

(10)
28
30
25
m
29
m
24
26
24
m
27
m
20
19
m
33
m
40
26
30
21
30
33
30
27
26
33
38
28
51

(11)
24
31
26
m
24
30
25
27
24
m
25
25
19
28
28
30
m
18
25
23
22
26
31
19
26
28
33
13
27
31

OECD average

18  

20  

23  

26  

25  

15  

22  

42  

40  

29  

26  

EU19 average

18  

19  

22  

26  

24  

11  

24  

42  

38  

29  

24  

Brazil2
Chile3
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2
Slovenia

14
20
10
15
m
29

17
15
20
20
x(5)
x(3)

18
15
21
x(5)
x(5)
34

13
15
26
x(5)
x(5)
26

16
15
24
24
18
31

a
a
29
20
x(5)
x(4)

x(9)
26
18
36
21
x(9)

x(9)
58
24
47
37
x(9)

109
45
22
45
32
33

107
m
m
m
30
27

19
20
22
25
21
32

Secondary education

1.Year of reference 2005.
2. Public institutions only (for Canada, in tertiary education only. For Italy, except in tertiary education).
3.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

206

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Is Spent Per Student? – Indicator B1

chapter B

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table B1.5.
Change in expenditure on educational institutions for all services per student relative to different factors,
by level of education (1995, 2000, 2006)
Index of change between 1995, 2000 and 2006 (GDP deflator 2000=100, constant prices)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark1
Finland
France
Germany
Greece1
Hungary3
Iceland
Ireland
Italy3
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand4
Norway4
Poland3
Portugal3
Slovak Republic1
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3, 4
Turkey3, 4
United Kingdom
United States

Primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education
Change in
Change in
Change in
the number
expenditure
expenditure
of students
per student
(2000=100)
(2000=100)
(2000=100)
1995
2006
1995
2006
1995
2006
79
111
74
116
94
105
m
109
93
106
m
97
m
102
m
110
m
107
m
125
106
119
m
95
109
152
116
137
107
91
87
112
84
119
96
106
96
119
89
125
93
105
m
103
90
101
m
98
97
104
94
100
97
97
60
m
64
m
107
m
95
167
100
151
105
91
m
135
m
143
99
106
78
159
82
165
105
104
99
110
101
112
102
102
86
112
98
101
113
91
m
159
m
155
107
98
m
m
m
m
m
m
87
117
81
125
93
107
84
116
82
121
97
104
m
m
71
106
m
m
107
103
94
110
89
107
64
141
70
118
110
84
72
112
76
99
105
89
92
157
97
140
105
89
84
119
99
112
119
94
94
114
81
114
86
101
107
106
101
109
95
102
m
m
m
m
m
m
99
150
86
134
87
89
83
114
80
117
95
103

Tertiary education
Change in
Change in
Change in
the number
expenditure
expenditure
of students
per student
(2000=100)
(2000=100)
(2000=100)
1995
2006
1995
2006
1995
2006
110
117
91
130
83
111
107
139
97
139
91
100
104
m
110
m
105
m
75
124
m
m
m
m
159
130
101
189
64
145
95
116
91
117
96
101
101
112
90
119
89
106
105
91
110
m
105
m
91
99
95
107
104
108
97
66
m
68
m
m
128
88
74
133
58
152
90
m
139
79
154
m
66
91
57
110
86
121
80
104
79
116
99
112
88
112
88
114
99
102
134
m
144
68
107
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
101
111
77
137
77
124
99
98
95
117
96
120
104
131
m
m
m
m
106
97
107
111
100
115
107
127
59
157
55
124
96
135
73
146
77
108
113
108
81
171
72
158
72
127
72
119
100
94
98
100
81
118
83
118
78
102
74
135
95
132
m
m
m
m
m
m
109
139
97
149
89
107
77
103
70
122
92
118

OECD average

88

121  

100  

98  

89  

124  

83  

130  

84  

118  

99  

111  

EU19 average

89  

121  

101  

97  

87  

126  

82  

131  

83  

117  

101  

113  

Brazil1, 3, 4
Chile5
Estonia4
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

82
54
80
85
m
m

171
105
140
113
174
m

85
88
96
89
m
m

103
102
83
108
m
m

96
62
83
96
m
m

165
103
170
105
m
m

78
61
71
77
m
m

124
113
121
113
258
m

79
76
60
74
m
m

147
167
117
126
m
m

98
80
118
104
m
m

84
68
104
89
m
m

1. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
2.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
3. Public institutions only (for Canada, in tertiary education only. For Italy, except in tertiary education).
4. Public expenditure only.
5.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664234230084

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

207

B1

WHAT PROPORTION OF NATIONAL WEALTH IS SPENT ON
EDUCATION?
INDICATOR B2

Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP shows how a
country prioritises education in relation to its overall allocation of resources.Tuition
fees and investment in education from private entities other than households (see
Indicator B5) have a strong impact on differences in the overall amount of financial
resources that OECD and partner countries devote to their education systems,
especially at the tertiary level.

Key results
Chart B2.1. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP
for all levels of education (1995, 2000, 2006)

This chart measures educational investment through the share of national income
that each country devoted to spending on educational institutions in 1995, 2000 and 2006.
It captures both direct and indirect expenditure on educational institutions
from both public and private sources of funds.
2006

2000

1995

OECD countries spend 6.1% of their collective GDP on educational institutions. The increase
in spending on educational institutions between 1995 and 2006 fell behind growth in national
income in half of the 28 OECD and partner countries for which data are available.
% of GDP
OECD total

Iceland
Israel
United States
Korea
Denmark
Canada1
Sweden
New Zealand
Belgium
Slovenia
France
Switzerland2
United Kingdom
Finland
Mexico
Australia
Poland
Chile3
Hungary
Netherlands
Portugal
Austria
Norway2
Japan
Italy
Brazil2
Estonia2
Czech Republic
Germany
Ireland
Spain
Slovak Republic
Russian Federation2
Turkey2

9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0

1.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
2. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only).
3.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total expenditure from both public and private sources on educational
institutions in 2006.
Source: OECD. Table B2.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

208

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• About 60% of combined OECD expenditure on educational institutions, or
3.7% of the combined GDP in the OECD area, is devoted to primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary education. Relative to its GDP, Iceland spends
nearly twice as much as the Slovak Republic.

INDICATOR B2

• Tertiary education accounts for nearly one-third of the combined OECD
expenditure on educational institutions (1.9% of the combined GDP). In Canada
and the United States expenditure at this level reaches 40% of expenditure on
educational institutions.
• Canada, Korea and the United States spend between 2.5% and 2.9% of their GDP
on tertiary institutions. Korea, the United States, and the partner country Chile
(1.7%) show the highest proportions of private expenditure at the tertiary level
(between 1.4% and 1.9% of GDP). Relative to GDP, the United States spends
over three times more on tertiary education than Italy and the Slovak Republic
and nearly four times more than Turkey and the partner countries Brazil and the
Russian Federation.
• More people are completing upper secondary and tertiary education than ever
before, and in many countries this expansion has been accompanied by massive
financial investments. For all levels of education combined, public and private
investment in education increased in all countries by at least 10% between 1995
and 2006 in real terms, and increased on average by 44% in OECD countries.
In three-quarters of these countries, the increase is larger for tertiary education
than for primary to post-secondary non-tertiary levels combined.
• When comparing changes in expenditure on educational institutions to changes
in GDP, a clearer picture emerges: in 13 of 28 OECD and partner countries for
which data are available, expenditure for all levels of education as a percentage of
GDP decreased between 1995 and 2000 and then increased from 2000 to 2006.
• On average in OECD countries, expenditure for all levels of education combined
increased relatively more than GDP between 1995 and 2006. The increase in
expenditure on educational institutions as a proportion of GDP exceeded 0.7
percentage point over this decade in Denmark, Turkey, the United Kingdom and
the United States and in the partner country Brazil.
• Nine of the thirteen countries with an above average proportion of their
population at basic ages of primary and lower secondary education (Australia,
Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States
and the partner country Brazil) are also those with expenditure on educational
institutions as a percentage of GDP above the OECD average.
• Projections of the relative size of the school-age population help to forecast
changes in the number of students and resources needed. Between 2000 and
2015, the size of the population aged 5-14 years is set to decline in 28 out of 36
OECD and partner countries.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

209

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Policy context

B2

This indicator provides a measure of the proportion of a nation’s wealth that is invested in
educational institutions. Expenditure on educational institutions is an investment that can help
foster economic growth, enhance productivity, contribute to personal and social development,
and reduce social inequality. Relative to GDP, expenditure on educational institutions shows the
priority a country gives to education in terms of its overall resource allocation. The proportion
of total financial resources devoted to education in a country results from choices made by
government, enterprises, and individual students and their families, and is partially driven by
the size of the country’s school-age population and enrolment in education. Moreover, if the
social and private returns to investment in education are sufficiently large, there is an incentive
to expand enrolment and increase total investment.
The indicator also includes a comparative review of changes in educational investment over time.
In deciding how much to allocate to education, governments must assess demands for increased
spending in areas such as teachers’ salaries and educational facilities. This indicator can provide
a point of reference, as it shows how the volume of educational spending, relative to national
wealth and in absolute terms, has evolved over time in various OECD countries.
Evidence and explanations
What this indicator does and does not cover

This indicator covers expenditure on schools, universities and other public and private
institutions involved in delivering or supporting educational services (e.g. educational services
delivered by enterprises, as part of dual programmes). Expenditure on institutions is not limited
to expenditure on instructional services but also includes public and private expenditure on
ancillary services for students and families (such as housing and transport services) when these
services are provided by educational institutions. Spending on research and development can be
significant in tertiary education and is included in this indicator, to the extent that the research
is performed by educational institutions.
Not all spending on educational goods and services occurs within educational institutions. For
example, families may purchase textbooks and materials commercially or seek private tutoring
for their children outside educational institutions. At the tertiary level, students’ living costs
and foregone earnings can also account for a significant proportion of the costs of education. All
expenditure outside educational institutions is excluded from this indicator, even if it is publicly
subsidised. Public subsidies for educational expenditure outside institutions are discussed in
Indicators B4 and B5.
Overall investment relative to GDP

All OECD countries invest a substantial proportion of national resources in education. Taking into
account both public and private sources of funds, OECD countries as a whole spend 6.1% of their
collective GDP on educational institutions at the pre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary
levels. Given the tight constraints on public budgets, such a large spending item is subject to close
scrutiny by governments looking for ways to reduce or limit the growth of expenditure.
The highest spending on educational institutions is in Denmark, Iceland, Korea and the United
States and the partner country Israel, with more than 7% of GDP accounted for by public and
210

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Proportion of National Wealth Is Spent on Education? – Indicator B2

chapter B

private spending on educational institutions. Seven out of 28 OECD countries for which data
are available, as well as 3 out of 6 partner countries, spend less than 5% of GDP on educational
institutions; in Turkey and in the partner country the Russian Federation, the figure is the lowest
at 2.7% and 3.9%, respectively (Table B2.1).
Expenditure on educational institutions by level of education

Differences in spending on educational institutions are most striking at the pre-primary level. It
ranges from less than 0.1% of GDP in Australia to 0.8% or more in Hungary and Iceland, and
the partner country Israel (Table B2.2). Differences at the pre-primary level can be explained
mainly by participation rates among younger children (see Indicator C1), but are also sometimes
a result of the extent to which private early childhood education is covered by this indicator.
Chart B2.2. Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2006)

From public and private sources, by level of education and source of funds
Private expenditure on educational institutions
Public expenditure on educational institutions

% of GDP

Tertiary education

Brazil1
Norway1
Luxembourg1
Russian Federation1
Turkey1

OECD average

% of GDP

Brazil1
Norway1
Luxembourg1
Russian Federation1
Turkey1

OECD average

Iceland
Denmark
Israel
New Zealand
Korea
United Kingdom
Switzerland1
Slovenia
Sweden
Belgium
United States
Australia
France
Mexico
Finland
Canada2
Netherlands
Poland
Austria
Portugal
Ireland
Italy
Estonia
Chile3
Hungary
Germany
Czech Republic
Spain
Japan
Slovak Republic

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Iceland
Denmark
Israel
New Zealand
Korea
United Kingdom
Switzerland1
Slovenia
Sweden
Belgium
United States
Australia
France
Mexico
Finland
Canada2
Netherlands
Poland
Austria
Portugal
Ireland
Italy
Estonia
Chile3
Hungary
Germany
Czech Republic
Spain
Japan
Slovak Republic

5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0

1. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only).
2.Year of reference 2005.
3.Year of reference 2007.
Countries are ranked in descending order of expenditure from both public and private sources on educational institutions in primary,
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table B2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

211

B2

chapter B

B2

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

In Ireland, for example, the majority of early childhood education is delivered in private institutions
that are not yet covered by the Irish data. Moreover, high-quality early childhood education and care
are provided not only by the educational institutions covered by this indicator but often also in more
informal settings. Inferences on access to and quality of early childhood education and care should
therefore be made with caution.
On average, among OECD countries, 65% of expenditure on educational institutions education
(or 60% of the combined expenditure) goes to primary, secondary and post-secondary nontertiary levels. Because enrolment in primary and lower secondary education is almost universal in
OECD countries, and participation rates in upper secondary education are high (see Indicator C1),
these levels account for the bulk of expenditure on educational institutions: 3.7% of the combined
OECD GDP. At the same time, significantly higher spending on educational institutions per student
at the upper secondary and tertiary levels causes the overall investment in these levels to be higher
than enrolment numbers alone would suggest.
Nearly one-third of combined OECD expenditure on educational institutions is allocated to
tertiary education. At this level, the pathways available to students, the duration of programmes
and the organisation of teaching vary greatly among OECD countries, resulting in significant
differences in the expenditure allocated to tertiary education. On the one hand, Canada,
Korea and the United States and the partner country Israel spend between 1.8% and 2.9% of
their GDP on tertiary institutions and are among those with the highest proportion of private
expenditure on tertiary education. On the other hand, the proportion of GDP spent on
tertiary institutions in Belgium, France, Iceland, Mexico and the United Kingdom and in the
partner countries Brazil and Slovenia is below the OECD average; these countries are among
the OECD countries in which the proportion of GDP spent on primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education is above the OECD average (Table B2.1 and Chart B2.2).
Changes in overall educational spending between 1995, 2000 and 2006

More people are completing upper secondary and tertiary education than ever before (see
Indicator A1), and in many countries, this has been accompanied by massive financial investment.
For all levels of education combined, public and private investment in education increased in all
countries by at least 10% between 1995 and 2006 in real terms, and increased on average by
44% in OECD countries (see Table B2.5 available on line).
The differences between countries are partly related to the variation of the school-age population,
but are also affected by trends in national income. For example, in Ireland, spending on all
levels of education combined increased by more than 90% between 1995 and 2006, but GDP
more than doubled over the same period, leading to a decrease in expenditure on educational
institutions as a proportion of GDP (see Table B2.5 available on line).
Expenditure for all levels of education combined increased at a greater rate than GDP did in
half of the 28 countries for which data are available for 1995 and 2006. The increase exceeded
0.7 percentage point over the period in Denmark (6.2% to 7.3%), Turkey (1.7% to 2.7%), the
United Kingdom (5.2% to 5.9%), the United States (6.6% to 7.4%) and the partner country
Brazil (3.7% to 4.9%). However, the increase in spending on educational institutions tended to
lag behind the growth in national income in the other half of the 28 OECD and partner countries
for which data are available. The most notable differences are in Austria, France and Spain and
212

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Proportion of National Wealth Is Spent on Education? – Indicator B2

chapter B

in the partner countries Estonia and Israel where the proportion of GDP spent on educational
institutions decreased by 0.6 percentage point or more between 1995 and 2006 (Table B2.1),
mainly as a result of the decrease in expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of
GDP at the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels.
When comparing changes in expenditure on educational institutions to changes in GDP before
and after 2000, a clearer picture emerges: in 13 out of 28 OECD and partner countries for
which data are available, expenditure for all levels of education as a percentage of GDP decreased
between 1995 and 2000 and then increased from 2000 to 2006. Nevertheless, expenditure on
educational institutions for all levels of education as a percentage of GDP increased in both of
these periods in 6 of the 28 OECD and partner countries with comparable data – Australia,
Denmark, Poland, Portugal,Turkey and the United States – and decreased in both of these 5-year
periods in 6 other countries (Austria, France, Germany, Spain and the partner countries Estonia
and Israel). From the three remaining countries (Japan, Sweden and the partner country Chile),
only in Chile expenditure as a percentage of GDP showed a clear increase between 1995 and
2000, followed by a significant decrease after 2000.
Between 1995 and 2006, spending on the various levels of education evolved quite differently.
From primary to post-secondary non-tertiary education, expenditure on educational institutions
as a proportion of GDP decreased in 16 out of the 28 OECD and partner countries for which
data are available. In tertiary education, expenditure on educational institutions as a proportion
of GDP decreased from 1995 to 2006 only in Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands
and Norway and in the partner country Israel.
In 21 out of the 28 OECD and partner countries for which data are available, expenditure
on educational institutions (compared to GDP) for tertiary education between 1995 and
2006 increased at a greater rate than for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education. This is related to the proportionally greater increase in tertiary students compared to
the relative stability in the number of students at lower levels (Table B1.5). The only exceptions
to this pattern are Australia, Denmark, the Netherlands, Turkey, the United Kingdom and
partner countries Brazil and Chile. In Canada, the Czech Republic, Spain, Switzerland and the
United States and in the partner country Estonia, the level of the increase in spending on tertiary
education exceeded that at the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels by
more than 0.7 percentage point (Table B2.1).
Relationship between national expenditure on educational institutions and
demographic patterns

The level of national resources devoted to education depend on a number of interrelated factors
of supply and demand, such as the demographic structure of the population, enrolment rates,
income per capita, national levels of teachers’ salaries, and the organisation and delivery of
instruction. For example, OECD countries with high spending levels may enrol larger numbers
of students, while countries with low spending levels may either limit access to higher levels
of education or deliver educational services in a particularly efficient manner. The distribution
of enrolments among sectors and fields of study may also differ, as may the duration of studies
and the scale and organisation of related educational research. Finally, large differences in GDP
among OECD countries mean that similar percentages of GDP spent on educational institutions
can result in very different absolute amounts per student (see Indicator B1).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

213

B2

chapter B

B2

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

The size of a country’s school-age population determine the potential demand for initial education
and training: the larger this population, the greater the potential demand for educational services.
Among OECD countries with comparable national income, a country in which this population is
relatively large will have to spend a higher percentage of its GDP on educational institutions so
that school-age children and youth have the opportunity to receive the same quantity of education
as in other OECD countries, other things being equal. Conversely, if this population is relatively
small, the country will be required to spend less of its wealth on educational institutions in order
to achieve similar results.
Comparing expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions as a percentage
of GDP with the size of the population aged 5-14 years (broadly corresponding to the ages of
primary and lower secondary school populations) shows the following. Among countries with
data available on both these measures, 9 of the 13 countries with an above average proportion
of their population at the basic ages of primary and lower secondary education (Australia,
Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States and the partner
country Brazil) also have expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP above
the average (Chart B2.3). In contrast, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Japan and the partner
countries Estonia and Slovenia, which have the lowest proportions of the population aged 5-14
years (less than 10%), have below average expenditure on educational institutions, except in the
case of Slovenia (Table B2.3 and Chart B2.3).

Chart B2.3. Expenditure on primary and lower secondary educational institutions
as a percentage of GDP and proportion of the population aged 5-14 (2006)
Expenditure on primary to lower secondary educational institutions
as a percentage of GDP

4.0
ISL

3.5
DNK

3.0
SVN

AUS
BRA

USA

CHE SWE UKM

NLD KOR
IRL
POL
NOR
AUT
FRA
FIN
LUX
EST HUN

MEX

NZL

PRT

2.5
ITA
JPN

2.0

ISR

CHL

DEU

CZE

SVK

1.5

BEL
TUR

1.0

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22

23

24 25

Percentage of the population aged 5-14 years old

Please refer to the Reader's Guide for the list of country codes used in this chart.
Source: OECD. Table B2.2 and Table B2.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

214

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Proportion of National Wealth Is Spent on Education? – Indicator B2

chapter B

A similar relationship between expenditure and the proportion of the population is less evident
for the population aged 15-19 and 20-29 years, broadly corresponding to the ages of the upper
secondary and tertiary school populations. This may result from various factors, such as the
fact that the age of students at these levels varies much more than at lower levels of education.
Moreover, the proportion of the school-age population does not, in and of itself, determine the
level of expenditure. This is also true for primary and lower secondary education. Countries
with similar proportions of the population in education may spend different shares of their
GDP on educational institutions, according to the priority they give to education or the ways
they distribute education expenditure among levels of education (Table B2.3 and Chart B2.3).
For example, the proportion of the population at basic ages of primary and lower secondary
education is quite similar in Poland and in the Slovak Republic (11.1% and 11.3%, respectively),
but Poland spends 0.9 percentage point more of its GDP on educational institutions than the
Slovak Republic (2.6% and 1.7%, respectively).
Projections of the relative size of the school-age population give some idea of changes in the
number of students and the resources that will be necessary to support them in the coming
years. The size of the population aged 5-14 years is set to decline in 28 out of 36 OECD and
partner countries between 2000 and 2015. These trends may create difficult management
challenges such as managing surplus capacity in schools, school reorganisation and even school
closures. These challenges appear to be the greatest over the next decade in the Czech Republic,
Hungary, Korea, Poland, the Slovak Republic and the partner countries Estonia and the Russian
Federation. Student numbers in primary and lower secondary education are expected to fall in
these countries by almost 20% (Table B2.3). However, some countries may also face challenges
related to an increase in the school-age population. This is particularly the case in Ireland, Spain
and the partner country Israel, as the population aged 5-14 years is expected to increase by more
than 15% up to 2015. The partner country Israel may have particular challenges, as in 2006 it is
already among the three OECD and partner countries that spend the largest proportions of their
GDP on primary, secondary and post-secondary education (4.4% of GDP).
Among 15-19 and 20-29 year-olds, the age groups broadly corresponding to upper secondary
and tertiary education, population trends are more varied, although projections show a decline
in population numbers of respectively 6% and 3% between 2000 and 2015. However, at these
levels, the projections of population must be interpreted with caution. In fact, at lower levels of
education (primary and lower secondary) enrolment rates are close to 100% in OECD countries
(see Indicator C1) and the number of students is closely related to demographic changes. This is
not the case in upper secondary and tertiary education (Table B2.3).
Expenditure on educational institutions by source of funding

Increased expenditure on educational institutions in response to growth in enrolments implies
a heavier financial burden for society as a whole, but it does not fall entirely on public funding.
On average, of the 6.1% of the combined OECD area GDP devoted to education, more than
three-quarters comes from public sources (Table B2.4). The majority of funding is from public
sources in all countries and is nearly the sole source of funding in Finland and Sweden (more than
97% of funding from public source). However, there are greater differences among countries
in the breakdown of educational expenditure by source of funding and by level of education
(see Indicator B3).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

215

B2

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Definitions and methodologies

B2

Data refer to the financial year 2006 and are based on the UOE data collection on education
statistics administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Expenditure on educational institutions, as covered by this indicator, includes expenditure on both
instructional and non-instructional educational institutions. Instructional educational institutions
are educational institutions which directly provide instructional programmes (i.e. teaching) to
individuals directly in an organised group setting or through distance education. Business enterprises
or other institutions providing short-term courses of training or instruction to individuals on a oneto-one basis are not included. However, expenditure of business enterprises providing training or
instruction to students as part of the dual educational programmes are included. Non-instructional
educational institutions provide administrative, advisory or professional services to other educational
institutions but do not enrol students themselves. Examples include national, state and provincial
ministries or departments of education; other bodies that administer education at various levels of
government or analogous bodies in the private sector; and organisations that provide educationrelated services, such as vocational or psychological counselling, placement, testing, financial aid
to students, curriculum development, educational research, building operations and maintenance
services, transport of students, and student meals and housing.
This definition of institutions ensures that expenditure on services, which are provided in some
OECD countries by schools and universities and in others by agencies other than schools, are
covered on a comparable basis.
The distinction by source of funds is based on the initial source of funds and does not reflect
subsequent public-to-private or private-to-public transfers. For this reason, subsidies to
households and other entities, such as subsidies for tuition fees and other payments to educational
institutions, are included in public expenditure in this indicator. Payments from households and
other private entities to educational institutions include tuition and other fees, net of offsetting
public subsidies. A detailed discussion of public subsidies can be found in Indicator B5.
The OECD average is calculated as the simple average of all OECD countries for which data are
available. The OECD total reflects the value of the indicator if the OECD region is considered as
a whole (see the Reader’s Guide for details).
Table B2.1 shows expenditure on educational institutions for the financial years 1995, 2000 and
2006. The data on expenditure for 1995 and 2000 were obtained by a special survey updated
in 2008; expenditure for 1995 was adjusted to reflect the methods and definitions used in the
2008 UOE data collection. For comparisons over time, the OECD average accounts only for
those OECD countries for which data are available for all reported reference years.
The population projections are taken from the UN Population Database. The changes in the sizes
of the respective populations over the period 2000 to 2015 are expressed as percentages relative
to the size of the population in 2000 (index = 100). The statistics cover residents in the country,
regardless of citizenship and of educational or labour market status.
The projected change in student numbers is estimated from the projected population changes as
follows: 5-14 year-olds for primary and lower secondary, 15-19 year-olds for upper secondary,
20-29 year-olds for tertiary education.
216

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Proportion of National Wealth Is Spent on Education? – Indicator B2

chapter B

Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:

B2

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

• Table B2.5. Change in expenditure on educational institutions and in GDP (1995, 2000, 2006)

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

217

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B2.1.
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education
(1995, 2000, 2006)

B2

From public and private sources, by year

Partner countries

Total all levels
of education

Primary,
secondary and
post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary
education

Total all levels
of education

Primary,
secondary and
post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Tertiary
education

Total all levels
of education

1995

Tertiary
education

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Czech Republic
Denmark2
Finland
France
Germany
Greece2
Hungary
Iceland2
Ireland
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg2, 3
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway3
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic2
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey3
United Kingdom
United States

2000

Primary,
secondary and
post-secondary
non-tertiary
education
OECD countries

2006

4.0
3.7
4.1
3.7
3.0
4.4
3.8
3.9
3.1
m
3.4
5.3
3.5
3.5
2.8
4.3
3.3
3.8
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.7
3.6
2.7
2.9
4.1
4.2
1.9
4.3
4.0

1.6
1.3
1.3
2.7
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.1
m
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.5
2.5
m
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.4
0.8
1.3
2.9

5.7
5.5
6.1
6.5
4.8
7.3
5.8
5.9
4.8
m
5.6
8.0
4.7
4.9
5.0
7.3
m
5.7
5.6
6.3
5.4
5.7
5.6
4.3
4.7
6.3
5.9
2.7
5.9
7.4

4.0
3.9
4.1
3.3
2.8
4.1
3.6
4.3
3.3
2.7
2.9
4.8
2.9
3.2
3.0
3.6
m
3.5
3.4
m
3.8
3.9
3.9
2.7
3.2
4.3
4.2
1.8
3.5
3.9

1.5
1.1
1.3
2.3
0.8
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.1
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.5
0.9
1.4
2.3
m
1.0
1.4
m
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.6
1.1
0.8
1.0
2.7

5.6
5.5
6.1
5.9
4.2
6.6
5.6
6.4
4.9
3.6
4.9
7.1
4.5
4.5
5.0
6.4
m
5.0
5.1
m
5.1
5.6
5.4
4.1
4.8
6.3
5.7
2.5
4.9
7.0

3.6
4.3
m
4.3
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.5
3.4
2.0
3.5
m
3.8
3.5
3.1
m
m
3.7
3.4
m
4.3
3.6
3.6
3.1
3.8
4.1
4.6
1.2
3.6
3.8

1.6
1.2
m
2.1
0.9
1.6
1.9
1.4
1.1
0.6
1.0
m
1.3
0.7
1.3
m
m
1.0
1.6
m
1.6
0.8
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.5
0.9
0.5
1.1
2.3

5.3
6.2
m
6.7
5.1
6.2
6.3
6.6
5.1
2.6
5.3
m
5.2
4.6
5.0
m
m
5.1
5.4
m
5.9
5.2
5.0
4.7
5.3
6.0
6.0
1.7
5.2
6.6

OECD average

3.7   

1.4   

5.7   

~

~

~

~

~

~

OECD total

3.7   

1.9   

6.1   

~

~

~

~

~

~

EU19 average

3.6   

1.3   

5.5   

~

~

~

~

~

~

OECD mean for
countries with 1995, 2000
and 2006 data
(24 countries)

3.6  

1.4  

5.5  

3.5  

1.3  

5.2  

3.7  

1.3  

5.4  

Brazil3
Chile4
Estonia3
Israel
Russian Federation3
Slovenia

3.8
3.4
3.5
4.4
2.0
4.2

0.8
1.7
1.1
1.8
0.8
1.3

4.9
5.7
4.9
7.8
3.9
6.1

2.6
4.4
3.9
4.5
1.7
m

0.7
2.0
1.0
1.9
0.5
m

3.7
6.7
5.4
7.9
2.9
m

2.6
3.2
4.2
4.9
m
m

0.7
1.7
1.0
1.8
m
m

3.7
5.1
5.8
8.4
m
m

1.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only).
4.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

218

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Proportion of National Wealth Is Spent on Education? – Indicator B2

chapter B

Partner countries

All primary,
secondary and
post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

Primary &
lower secondary
education

Upper secondary
education

Post-secondary
non-tertiary
education

All tertiary
education

Tertiary-type B
education

Tertiary-type
A education
and advanced
research
programmes

All levels of education
combined (including
undistributed programmes)

Australia
Austria
Belgium2
Canada3
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg4
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway4
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4
Turkey4
United Kingdom
United States

Primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education

Pre-primary education
(for children aged 3
and older)
OECD countries

Table B2.2.
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by level of education (2006)
From public and private sources1

(1)
0.1
0.5
0.6
x(2)
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.5
m
0.8
0.9
n
0.5
0.2
0.2
x(2)
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.2
m
0.3
0.4

(2)
4.0
3.7
4.1
3.7
3.0
4.4
3.8
3.9
3.1
m
3.4
5.3
3.5
3.5
2.8
4.3
3.3
3.8
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.7
3.6
2.7
2.9
4.1
4.2
1.9
4.3
4.0

(3)
3.0
2.4
1.5
x(2)
1.8
3.1
2.4
2.5
1.9
m
2.2
3.8
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.6
1.7
x(2)
2.8
2.6
1.3
2.8
3.0

(4)
0.9
1.3
2.6
x(2)
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
m
1.1
1.5
0.7
1.4
0.9
1.5
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
x(2)
1.3
1.6
0.6
1.5
1.0

(5)
0.1
n
x(4)
x(7)
n
x(4, 6)
x(4)
n
0.2
m
0.1
x(4)
0.2
n
x(4, 6)
a
m
a
n
0.2
x(4)
n
m
x(4)
a
n
0.1
a
n
m

(6)
1.6
1.3
1.3
2.7
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.1
m
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.5
2.5
m
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.4
0.8
1.3
2.9

(7)
0.1
0.1
x(6)
1.0
n
x(6)
n
0.3
0.1
m
n
x(6)
x(6)
n
0.3
0.5
m
x(6)
a
0.2
x(6)
n
x(6)
x(4)
x(6)
x(6)
n
x(6)
x(6)
x(6)

(8)
1.5
1.2
x(6)
1.7
1.2
x(6)
1.7
1.1
1.0
m
1.1
x(6)
x(6)
0.9
1.2
2.0
m
x(6)
1.5
1.2
x(6)
1.3
x(6)
1.0
x(6)
x(6)
1.4
x(6)
x(6)
x(6)

(9)
5.7
5.5
6.1
6.5
4.8
7.3
5.8
5.9
4.8
m
5.6
8.0
4.7
4.9
5.0
7.3
m
5.7
5.6
6.3
5.4
5.7
5.6
4.3
4.7
6.3
5.9
2.7
5.9
7.4

Tertiary education

OECD average

0.5   

3.7   

2.5   

1.2   

n

1.4   

0.2   

1.3   

5.7   

OECD total

0.4   

3.7   

2.6   

1.1   

n

1.9   

0.2   

1.2   

6.1   

EU19 average

0.5   

3.6   

2.3   

1.2   

n

1.3   

0.0   

1.2   

5.5   

Brazil4

0.4
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.5
0.6

3.8
3.4
3.5
4.4
2.0
4.2

3.1
2.2
2.1
2.3
x(2)
2.8

0.6
1.2
1.2
2.0
x(2)
1.3

a
a
0.2
n
x(2)
x(4)

0.8
1.7
1.1
1.8
0.8
1.3

x(6)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
x(6)

x(6)
1.3
0.8
1.5
0.7
x(6)

4.9
5.7
4.9
7.8
3.9
6.1

Chile5
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation4
Slovenia

1. Including international sources.
2. Column 3 only refers to primary education and column 4 refers to all secondary education.
3.Year of reference 2005.
4. Public expenditure only (for Switzerland, in tertiary education only).
5.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

219

B2

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B2.3.
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2006), proportion of the population at
basic ages of primary to tertiary education (school year 2006/2007) and demographic trends (2000-2015)
Expenditure on educational institutions from public and private sources; proportion in 2006 and index of change between 2000, 2005
and 2015 of the population aged 5-14, 15-19 and 20-29

B2

Primary &
lower secondary
education

Upper secondary
education

Tertiary
education

Partner countries

OECD countries

Expenditure on
Change in the size of the population (2000=100)
Percentage
educational institutions
as a percentage
of the population
of GDP (2006)
(school year 2006/2007)
Ages 5-14
Ages 15-19
Ages 20-29

Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece1
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg1
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland1
Turkey1
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
3.0
2.4
1.5
x(2)
1.8
3.1
2.4
2.5
1.9
m
2.2
3.8
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.8
2.5
3.0
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.6
1.7
x(2)
2.8
2.6
1.3
2.8
3.0

(2)
0.9
1.3
2.6
3.7
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.0
m
1.1
x(1)
0.7
1.4
0.9
1.5
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
2.9
1.3
1.6
0.6
1.5
1.0

(3)
1.6
1.3
1.3
2.7
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.1
m
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.5
2.5
m
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.6
1.4
0.8
1.3
2.9

Ages
5-14
(4)
13.0
10.8
11.4
12.1
9.6
12.7
11.6
12.2
9.6
9.5
10.4
14.3
13.3
9.4
9.3
13.3
12.5
21.0
12.2
14.1
13.2
11.1
10.3
11.3
9.4
11.4
10.9
19.2
11.8
13.4

OECD average

2.5

1.2

1.4

12.1  

6.5  

13.8  

97

93

100

94

98

97

EU19 average

2.3

1.2

1.3

12.6  

6.7  

14.5  

96

91

97

91

99

95

Brazil1

3.1
2.2
2.1
2.3
x(2)
2.8

0.6
1.2
1.2
2.0
2.0
1.3

0.8
1.7
1.1
1.8
0.8
1.3

18.2
15.9
9.9
18.2
9.6
9.5

9.1
8.8
7.7
8.1
7.8
5.9

17.4
15.9
14.9
15.6
16.8
14.4

99
95
75
109
73
87

105
84
73
125
72
80

96
111
105
104
98
91

95
100
60
121
53
67

110
103
104
106
109
99

108
122
96
114
93
78

Chile1
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation1
Slovenia

Ages
15-19
(5)
6.9
6.0
6.1
6.7
6.3
5.9
6.2
6.4
5.8
5.3
6.2
7.5
6.8
5.0
5.0
6.6
5.9
10.0
6.1
7.6
6.6
7.3
5.5
7.4
5.1
6.8
6.0
8.7
6.6
7.1

Ages
20-29
(6)
14.0
12.7
12.4
13.8
14.8
11.4
12.6
12.8
11.9
13.8
14.4
14.5
16.9
11.5
12.0
15.1
12.6
17.6
12.0
13.2
12.1
16.8
13.9
16.9
14.6
12.0
12.2
18.4
13.2
14.0

2005
(7)
101
97
100
97
84
106
97
100
93
94
91
100
99
98
96
97
107
98
101
100
104
83
99
85
99
92
100
102
97
101

2015
(8)
99
87
94
90
76
99
91
104
80
91
77
98
120
98
88
70
107
91
96
98
98
66
101
69
116
89
87
97
93
104

2005
(9)
105
99
102
104
94
110
96
101
104
82
95
105
92
93
88
85
113
96
106
114
112
87
87
91
89
116
106
97
108
108

2015
(10)
105
93
99
98
66
125
91
99
89
73
78
105
89
90
81
81
133
100
107
111
120
59
82
65
79
98
107
101
100
109

2005
(11)
101
99
99
105
92
88
105
98
100
94
92
102
113
86
87
92
100
95
93
101
92
109
97
102
100
96
99
105
101
106

2015
(12)
111
101
99
114
74
96
105
97
101
73
76
107
101
75
69
81
121
101
95
116
106
89
76
85
72
114
112
106
111
121

1. See notes on expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP in Table B2.2.
Source: OECD and United Nations database. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.						
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

220

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Proportion of National Wealth Is Spent on Education? – Indicator B2

chapter B

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table B2.4.
Expenditure on educational institutions as a percentage of GDP, by source of fund
and level of education (2006)
From public and private sources of funds

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada3, 4
Czech Republic
Denmark4
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan4
Korea
Luxembourg4
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic4
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Primary, secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary
education
Public1
Private2
Total
(1)
(2)
(3)
4.0
3.3
0.7
3.7
3.5
0.2
4.1
3.9
0.2
3.7
3.3
0.4
3.0
2.7
0.3
4.4
4.3
0.1
3.8
3.7
n
3.9
3.7
0.2
3.1
2.7
0.4
m
m
m
3.4
3.2
0.2
5.3
5.1
0.2
3.5
3.4
0.1
3.5
3.4
0.1
2.8
2.6
0.3
4.3
3.4
0.9
3.3
m
m
3.8
3.2
0.6
3.7
3.3
0.4
4.3
3.8
0.6
3.7
m
m
3.7
3.7
n
3.6
3.6
n
2.7
2.4
0.4
2.9
2.7
0.2
4.1
4.1
n
4.2
3.7
0.5
1.9
m
m
4.3
3.9
0.3
4.0
3.7
0.3

Tertiary education
Public1
Private2
Total
(4)
(5)
(6)
1.6
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.2
0.1
1.3
1.2
0.1
2.7
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.2
1.7
1.6
0.1
1.7
1.6
0.1
1.3
1.1
0.2
1.1
0.9
0.2
m
m
m
1.1
0.9
0.3
1.1
1.0
0.1
1.2
1.0
0.2
0.9
0.7
0.2
1.5
0.5
1.0
2.5
0.6
1.9
m
m
m
1.1
0.8
0.4
1.5
1.1
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.5
1.2
m
m
1.3
0.9
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.2
1.1
0.9
0.2
1.6
1.4
0.2
1.4
m
m
0.8
m
m
1.3
0.9
0.4
2.9
1.0
1.9

B2

Total all levels of education
Public1
Private2
Total
(7)
(8)
(9)
5.7
4.1
1.6
5.5
5.2
0.4
6.1
5.9
0.2
6.5
4.8
1.7
4.8
4.2
0.6
7.3
6.7
0.6
5.8
5.7
0.1
5.9
5.5
0.4
4.8
4.1
0.7
m
m
m
5.6
5.1
0.5
8.0
7.2
0.8
4.7
4.4
0.3
4.9
4.6
0.3
5.0
3.3
1.7
7.3
4.5
2.9
m
m
m
5.7
4.6
1.1
5.6
4.8
0.8
6.3
5.0
1.3
5.4
m
m
5.7
5.2
0.5
5.6
5.1
0.4
4.3
3.6
0.6
4.7
4.2
0.5
6.3
6.2
0.2
5.4
m
m
2.7
m
m
5.9
5.2
0.7
7.4
5.0
2.4

OECD average

3.4   

0.3   

3.8   

1.0   

0.5   

1.5   

4.9   

0.8   

5.8   

OECD total

3.4   

0.3   

3.7   

0.9   

1.1   

2.0   

4.7   

1.5   

6.2   

EU19 average

3.4   

0.2   

3.6   

1.1   

0.2   

1.3   

5.0   

0.5   

5.5   

Brazil
Chile5
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

3.8
2.5
3.4
4.1
2.0
3.8

m
0.9
0.1
0.3
m
0.4

m
3.4
3.5
4.4
m
4.2

0.8
0.3
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0

m
1.4
0.2
0.8
m
0.3

m
1.7
1.1
1.8
m
1.3

4.9
3.1
4.6
6.2
3.9
5.3

m
2.5
0.3
1.6
m
0.8

m
5.7
4.9
7.8
m
6.1

1. Including public subsidies to households attributable for educational institutions, as well as including direct expenditure on educational
institutions from international sources.
2. Net of public subsidies attributable for educational institutions.
3.Year of reference 2005.
4. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
5.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664243822887

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

221

HOW MUCH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INVESTMENT IS
THERE IN EDUCATION?
INDICATOR B3

This indicator examines the proportion of public and private funding allocated
to educational institutions at each level. It also breaks down private funding by
households and expenditures by private entities other than households. It sheds some
light on the widely debated issue of how the financing of educational institutions
should be shared between public and private entities, particularly at the tertiary
level.

Key results
Chart B3.1. Share of private expenditure on educational institutions (2006)

The chart shows private spending on educational institutions as a percentage
of total spending on educational institutions.This includes all money transferred
to educational institutions through private sources, including public funding via subsidies
to households, private fees for educational services or other private spending
(e.g. on accommodation) passing through the institution.
Primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education

Tertiary education

On average over 90% of primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education in OECD
countries, and never less than 80% (except in Korea, the United Kingdom and in the partner
country Chile), is paid for publicly. However, in tertiary education the proportion funded privately
varies widely, from less than 5% in Denmark, Finland and Norway, to more than 40% in Australia,
Canada, Japan and the United States and in the partner country Israel, and to over 75% in Korea
and the partner country Chile. As with tertiary graduation and entry rates, the proportion of
private funding can be influenced by the incidence of international students which form a relatively
high proportion in Australia and New Zealand.

Chile1
Korea
Japan2
United States
Australia
Israel
Canada2, 3
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Portugal
Mexico
Poland
Italy
Estonia
Netherlands
Slovenia
Hungary
Spain
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic2
France
Austria
Germany
Ireland
Sweden
Iceland
Belgium
Finland
Denmark2
Norway
Switzerland

%

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1.Year of reference 2007.
2.Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3.Year of reference 2005.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of private expenditure on educational institutions for
tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table B3.2a and Table B3.2b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664257001651

222

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• In all countries for which comparable data are available, public funding on
educational institutions at all levels combined, increased between 1995 and
2006. Private spending increased at an even greater rate in nearly three-quarters
of these countries. Nevertheless, in 2006, 85% of expenditure, on average, for all
levels of education combined, was still from public sources.

INDICATOR B3

• The share of spending on tertiary level educational institutions from private
sources rose substantially in some countries between 1995 and 2006, but this
was not the case for other levels of education.
• On average among the 18 OECD countries for which trend data are available,
the share of public funding in tertiary institutions decreased slightly from 78%
in 1995 to 76% in 2000 and to 72% in 2005 and 2006. This trend is mainly
influenced by non-European countries in which tuition fees are generally higher
and enterprises participate more actively by providing grants to finance tertiary
institutions.
• The increase in private investment has gone hand in hand with increased public
financing. Between 2000 and 2006, in 7 out of the 11 OECD countries with the
largest increase in public expenditure on tertiary education, tertiary institutions
charged low or no tuition fees. The exceptions are Korea, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom and the United States.
• Compared to other levels of education, tertiary institutions and to a lesser extent
pre-primary institutions obtain the largest proportions of funds from private
sources, at 27% and 19%, respectively.
• In tertiary education, households account for most private expenditure in most
countries for which data are available. Exceptions are Austria, Canada and Sweden
where private expenditure from entities other than households is more significant.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

223

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Policy context

B3

Cost-sharing between participants in the education system and society as a whole is an issue
under discussion in many OECD countries. It is especially relevant for pre-primary and tertiary
education, for which full or nearly full public funding is less common.
As new client groups participate in a wider range of educational programmes and choose
among more opportunities from increasing numbers of providers, governments are forging new
partnerships to mobilise the necessary resources for education and to share costs and benefits
more equitably. As a result, public funding more often provides only a part (albeit a very large
part) of investment in education, and the role of private sources has become more important.
Some stakeholders are concerned that this balance should not become so tilted as to discourage
potential students to access to tertiary education. Thus, changes in a country’s public/private
funding shares can provide important information on changing patterns and levels of participation
within its educational system.
Evidence and explanations
What this indicator does and does not cover

Governments can direct public funds to educational institutions or provide subsidies to private
entities for the purpose of education. When reporting on the public and private proportions of
educational expenditure, it is therefore important to distinguish between the initial sources of
funds and the final direct purchasers of educational goods and services.
Initial public spending includes both direct public expenditure on educational institutions and
transfers to the private sector. Initial private spending includes tuition fees and other student
or household payments to educational institutions, minus support provided through public
subsidies. Final public spending includes direct public purchases of educational resources and
payments to educational institutions and other private entities. Final private spending includes
tuition fees and other private payments to educational institutions.
Not all spending on instructional goods and services occurs within educational institutions. For
example, families may purchase commercial textbooks and materials or seek private tutoring
for their children outside educational institutions. At the tertiary level, students’ living expenses
and foregone earnings can also account for a significant proportion of the costs of education. All
such expenditure outside educational institutions, even if publicly subsidised, is excluded from
this indicator. Public subsidies for educational expenditure outside institutions are discussed in
Indicators B4 and B5.
Public and private expenditure on educational institutions at all levels of education

Educational institutions are still mainly publicly funded, although there is a substantial and
growing level of private funding at the tertiary level. On average in OECD countries, 85% of all
funds for educational institutions come directly from public sources. In addition, 1.9% of funds
are channeled to educational institutions via public subsidies to households (Table B3.1).
In all OECD countries for which comparable data are available, private funding on educational
institutions represents around 15% of all funds, on average. This proportion varies widely
224

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Public and Private Investment Is There in Education? – Indicator B3

chapter B

among countries and only nine OECD countries and two partner countries report a share of
private funding above the OECD average. Nevertheless, in Australia, Canada and the United
Kingdom, as well as in the partner country Israel, private funds constitute around one-quarter
of all educational expenditure. They exceed 30% in Japan, Korea and the United States and the
partner country Chile (Table B3.1).
In all countries for which comparable data are available, public funding increased between 2000
and 2006 for all levels of education combined. However, private spending increased even more
in nearly three-quarters of these countries. As a result, the decrease in the share of public funding
on educational institutions was more than 5 percentage points in Canada, Mexico, Portugal, the
Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom. This decrease is mainly due to a significant increase in
tuition fees charged by tertiary educational institutions over the period 2000-2006.
It is noteworthy that decreases in the share of public expenditure in total expenditure on
educational institutions and, consequently increases in the share of private expenditure, have
not generally gone hand in hand with cuts (in real terms) in public expenditure on educational
institutions (Table B3.1). In fact, many OECD countries with the highest growth in private
spending have also shown the highest increase in public funding of education. This indicates that
an increase in private spending tends not to replace public investment but to complement it.
However, the share of private expenditure on educational institutions varies across countries and
according to the level of education.
Public and private expenditure on educational institutions in pre-primary, primary,
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Investment in early childhood education is essential for building a strong foundation for lifelong
learning and for ensuring equitable access to learning opportunities later in school. In preprimary education, the private share of total payments to educational institutions is on average
19%, which is higher than the percentage for all levels of education combined. However, this
proportion varies widely among countries, ranging from 5% or less in Belgium, France, the
Netherlands and Sweden and the partner country Estonia, to well over 25% in Australia, Austria,
Germany, Iceland and New Zealand and the partner country Chile, to over 50% in Japan and
Korea (Table B3.2a).
Public funding dominates the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of
education in OECD and partner countries. Among OECD countries it reaches 91% on average.
Nevertheless, private funding exceeds 10% in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea,
Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom, and the partner country Chile (Table B3.2a and Chart B3.2).The importance of public
funding may reflect the fact that primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education
are usually perceived as a public good. At these levels in most countries, the largest share of
private expenditure is household expenditure and goes mainly towards tuition. In Germany, the
Netherlands and Switzerland, however, most private expenditure is in the form of contributions
from the business sector to the dual system of apprenticeship at the upper secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary levels (see Box B3.1).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

225

B3

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Chart B3.2. Distribution of public and private expenditure on educational institutions
(2006)

By level of education

B3

All private sources, including subsidies for payments to educational institutions received from public sources
Expenditure of other private entities
Household expenditure
Public expenditure on educational institutions
%

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Chile1
United Kingdom
Korea
Mexico
Australia
New Zealand
Switzerland
Slovak Republic2
Netherlands
Germany
Canada2, 3
Japan2
Czech Republic
Slovenia
United States
Israel
France
Spain
Austria
Hungary
Belgium
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Denmark2
Estonia
Poland
Finland
Sweden
Portugal

Pre-primary education

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Chile1
United Kingdom
Korea
Mexico
Australia
New Zealand
Switzerland
Slovak Republic2
Netherlands
Germany
Canada2, 3
Japan2
Czech Republic
Slovenia
United States
Israel
France
Spain
Austria
Hungary
Belgium
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Denmark2
Estonia
Poland
Finland
Sweden
Portugal

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

%

Tertiary education

Chile1
United Kingdom
Korea
Mexico
Australia
New Zealand
Switzerland
Slovak Republic2
Netherlands
Germany
Canada2, 3
Japan2
Czech Republic
Slovenia
United States
Israel
France
Spain
Austria
Hungary
Belgium
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Denmark2
Estonia
Poland
Finland
Sweden
Portugal

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1.Year of reference 2007.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3.Year of reference 2005.
Countries are ranked in ascending order of the proportion of public expenditure on educational institutions in primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table B3.2a and Table B3.2b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664257001651

226

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Public and Private Investment Is There in Education? – Indicator B3

chapter B

Box 3.1. Private expenditure of the work-based component
of educational programmes

B3

Many countries have some form of combined school and work-based educational
programmes in their educational system (e.g. apprenticeship programmes). However, a
quick survey (undertaken by the Netherlands) among countries with some form of dual
educational systems has shown that 9 out of 14 OECD countries (Australia, Austria, Flemish
Community of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Iceland and
Norway), are not able to include the private expenditure of enterprises relating to these
programmes in the financial indicators published in Education at a Glance. Exceptions to this
pattern are Finland, Germany, the Netherlands (for the first time this year), Switzerland
and the United Kingdom.
The size of the work-based component varies significantly between countries and can have a
significant impact on total expenditure in some of them. Among the countries with available
data, in Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland, a significant proportion of all pupils (e.g.
about 20% in the Netherlands, 50% in Germany and 60% in Switzerland) are enrolled in
combined school and work-based programmes and the corresponding expenditure represent
between 0.3% and 0.5% of GDP (see Indicator B2). The international comparability of the
data seems to be quite good for these three countries. Further research needs to be done on
this point including also other countries and taking into account the differences that exist
between countries in the way this type of education is organised and funded.
These programmes in the Netherlands are initial vocational training programmes and have
an impact especially on expenditure reported for secondary education. The work-based
component of these programmes varies in size – accounting for between 20% and 80% of
the total curriculum, and takes place in private enterprises and non-profit organisations.
Expenditure on training of students in these firms and organisations is regarded as private
expenditure on education. It is limited to expenditure on training per se (e.g. compensation
of instructors and cost of instructional materials and equipment). Specific expenditure
to train company instructors is also included. It does not include salaries or other
compensation paid to the students or apprentices since it is assumed that these compensate
for the productive capacity of the students. The latter corresponds to the UOE guidelines.
For more information on vocational programmes see Indicator C1.

Between 2000 and 2006, 15 out of the 27 OECD and partner countries for which comparable
data are available showed a small decrease in the share of public funding at primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary levels. Among these countries, the increase in the private share
is 2 percentage points or more in Canada (7.6% to 11.3%), Korea (19.2% to 22.4%), Mexico
(13.9% to 17.3%), the Slovak Republic (2.4% to 13.2%), Switzerland (10.8% to 13.4%) and
the United Kingdom (11.3% to 23.2%). Funding shifts in the opposite direction, towards public
funding, are evident in the other nine countries; however, this share increased by 2 percentage
points or more only in Hungary (from 92.7% to 94.7%) and Poland (95.4% to 98.6%) and the
partner country Chile (68.4% to 72.8%) (Chart B3.3 and Table B3.2a).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

227

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Chart B3.3. Share of private expenditure on educational institutions (2000, 2006)

Percentage

B3

2006
%

All levels of education combined

Chile1
Korea
Japan
United States
Australia
Canada3
United Kingdom
Israel
Mexico
Netherlands
Germany
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Spain
Austria
Iceland
Hungary
Poland
France
Denmark
Portugal
Italy
Ireland
Belgium
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
Norway

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

%

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Chile1
Korea
Japan2
United States
Australia
Canada2, 3
United Kingdom
Israel
Mexico
Netherlands
Germany
Slovak Republic2
Czech Republic
Spain
Austria
Iceland2
Hungary
Poland
France
Denmark2
Portugal
Italy
Ireland
Belgium
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
Norway

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

%

Tertiary education

Chile1
Korea
Japan2
United States
Australia
Canada2, 3
United Kingdom
Israel
Mexico
Netherlands
Germany
Slovak Republic2
Czech Republic
Spain
Austria
Iceland2
Hungary
Poland
France
Denmark2
Portugal
Italy
Ireland
Belgium
Sweden
Finland
Switzerland
Norway

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2000

1.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of private expenditure on educational institutions in 2006 for all levels of
education.
Source: OECD. Table B3.1, Table B3.2a and Table B3.2b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664257001651

228

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Public and Private Investment Is There in Education? – Indicator B3

chapter B

In spite of such differences in the share of public funding at primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary levels between 2000 and 2006, public expenditure on educational institutions
increased in all countries with comparable data. In contrast with general trends, increases in
public expenditure have been accompanied by decreases in private expenditure in Germany,
Poland, Sweden and the partner country Chile, for all levels of education combined. However,
the share of private expenditure on educational institutions represents less than 5% in 2006 in
all of these countries except Germany and the partner country Chile.
Public and private expenditure on educational institutions in tertiary institutions

At the tertiary level, high private returns in the form of better employment and income
opportunities (see Indicator A7) suggest that a greater contribution by individuals and other
private entities to the costs of tertiary education may be justified so long as governments can
ensure that accessibility of funding for students irrespective of their economic background
(see Indicator B5). In all OECD and partner countries, the private proportion of educational
expenditure is far higher at the tertiary level than at the primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary levels. It represents on average 27% of total expenditure on educational institutions
at this level (Table B3.2a and Table B3.2b).
The proportion of expenditure on tertiary institutions covered by individuals, businesses and
other private sources, including subsidised private payments, ranges from less than 5% in
Denmark, Finland and Norway, to more than 40% in Australia, Canada, Japan and the United
States and the partner country Israel, and to over 75% in Korea and the partner country Chile
(Chart B3.2 and Table B3.2b). In Korea, around 80% of tertiary students are enrolled in private
universities, where more than 70% of budgets are from tuition fees. The contribution of private
entities other than households to the financing of educational institutions is on average higher for
tertiary education than for other levels of education.
In one-fifth of OECD and partner countries – Australia, Austria, Canada, Japan, Korea, the
Netherlands, Sweden and the United States, and the partner country Israel – the proportion of
expenditure on tertiary institutions covered by private entities other than households represents
10% or more.
In many OECD countries, the growth in tertiary participation (see Indicator C1) represents a
response to strong demand, both individual and social. In 2006, the share of public funding at the
tertiary level represented 73% on average in OECD countries. On average among the 18 OECD
countries for which trend data are available for all reference years, the share of public funding
in tertiary institutions decreased slightly from 78% in 1995 to 76% in 2000 and to 72% in 2005
and 2006. This trend is apparent primarily in non-European countries in which tuition fees are
generally higher and enterprises participate more actively, largely through grants to tertiary
institutions (Table B3.3, Chart B3.3 and Indicator B5).
In 12 out of the 22 OECD and partner countries with comparable data for 1995 and 2006, the
private share of educational expenditures increased by 3 percentage points or more.This increase
exceeds 9 percentage points in Australia, Austria, Italy, Mexico, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and
the United Kingdom, as well as the partner countries Chile and Israel. Only the Czech Republic
and Ireland – and to a lesser extent Norway and Spain – show a significant decrease in the
private share allocated to tertiary educational institutions (Table B3.3). In Australia, the main
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

229

B3

chapter B

B3

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

reason for the increase in the private share of spending on tertiary institutions between 1995
and 2006 was changes to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme/Higher Education Loan
Programme (HECS/ HELP) implemented in 1997. In Ireland, tuition fees in tertiary first degree
programmes were gradually eliminated over the last decade, leading to decrease in the private
share of spending at this level (for more details see Indicator B5 and Annex 3).
Increases in private expenditure on educational institutions have generally gone hand in hand
with increases (in real terms) in public expenditure on educational institutions at the tertiary
level, as they have for all levels of education combined. Public investment in tertiary education
has increased in all OECD and partner countries for which 2000 to 2006 data are available except
Japan and the partner country Chile, regardless of changes in private spending (Table B3.2b).
Notably, in 6 out of the 11 OECD countries with the highest increases in public expenditure
on tertiary education – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Poland, the Slovak Republic
and Switzerland –, tertiary institutions charge low or no tuition fees and tertiary attainment
is relatively low (see Indicators A1 and B5). By contrast, in Korea, New Zealand, the United
Kingdom and the United States where public spending has also increased significantly, there is a
high reliance on private funding of tertiary education (Table B3.2b).
Definitions and methodologies

Data refer to the financial year 2006 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics
administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
The public and private proportions of expenditure on educational institutions are the percentages
of total spending originating in, or generated by, the public and private sectors. Private spending
includes all direct expenditure on educational institutions, whether partially covered by public
subsidies or not. Public subsidies attributable to households, included in private spending, are
shown separately.
A portion of the budgets of educational institutions is related to ancillary services offered to
students, including student welfare services (student meals, housing and transport). Part of the
cost of these services is covered by fees collected from students and is included in the indicator.
Other private entities include private businesses and non-profit organisations, e.g. religious
organisations, charitable organisations and business and labour associations. Expenditure by
private companies on the work-based element of school and work-based training of apprentices
and students is also taken into account.
The data on expenditure for 1995 and 2000 were obtained by a special survey updated in 2008,
in which expenditure for 1995 and 2000 were adjusted to the methods and definitions used in
the current UOE data collection.

230

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Public and Private Investment Is There in Education? – Indicator B3

chapter B

Table B3.1.
Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions for all levels
of education (2000, 2006)
Distribution of public and private sources of funds for educational institutions after transfers from public sources, by year

Partner countries

OECD countries

2006

Index of change
between 2000 and
2006 in expenditure
on educational
institutions

2000

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Private sources
Expenditure
of other
Private:
private
All private of which, Public All private Public All private
Public Household
sources1 subsidised sources sources1 sources sources1
sources expenditure entities
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
72.4
27.6
20.7
6.8
0.2
75.3
24.7
115
134
89.2
10.8
4.8
6.0
4.4
94.0
6.0
106
202
94.4
5.6
4.5
1.1
1.7
94.3
5.7
112
109
73.8
26.2
11.7
14.5
m
79.9
20.1
108
152
88.4
11.6
7.9
3.7
m
89.9
10.1
145
170
91.9
8.1
4.5
3.5
m
96.0
4.0
115
242
97.5
2.5
x(4)
x(4)
n
98.0
2.0
122
153
90.9
9.1
6.8
2.3
1.6
91.2
8.8
103
107
85.2
14.8
x(4)
x(4)
m
85.6
14.4
103
107
m
m
m
m
m
93.8
6.2
m
m
90.5
9.5
x(4)
x(4)
n
88.3
11.7
152
121
89.8
10.2
8.9
1.3
m
90.0
10.0
144
147
94.0
6.0
5.6
0.4
m
90.5
9.5
151
92
92.3
7.7
6.0
1.7
1.2
94.3
5.7
111
141
66.7
33.3
21.8
11.5
m
71.0
29.0
101
123
58.8
41.2
31.5
9.6
2.0
59.2
40.8
151
153
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
80.2
19.8
19.6
0.2
1.0
85.3
14.7
123
176
84.3
15.7
7.5
8.2
1.7
84.1
15.9
120
118
79.9
20.1
19.7
0.4
m
m
m
111
m
m
m
m
m
m
95.0
5.0
120
m
90.5
9.5
9.5
m
m
89.0
11.0
128
109
92.0
8.0
6.7
1.4
m
98.6
1.4
101
608
85.2
14.8
10.7
4.0
0.2
96.4
3.6
127
585
88.9
11.1
10.1
1.0
0.4
87.4
12.6
121
105
97.3
2.7
0.1
2.7
n
97.0
3.0
118
106
m
m
m
m
m
92.1
7.9
112
138
m
m
m
m
m
98.6
1.4
m
m
75.3
24.7
16.0
8.7
12.3
85.2
14.8
117
220
68.0
32.0
20.3
11.8
m
67.3
32.7
120
116

OECD average

84.7

~

~

15.3

1.9

~

~

121

177

EU19 average

89.9

~

~

10.1

2.1

~

~

121

194

Brazil
Chile3
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
55.6
93.0
76.8
m
87.0

m
42.4
6.5
16.3
m
11.4

m
2.0
0.5
6.8
m
1.6

m
44.4
7.0
23.2
m
13.0

m
1.8
1.3
2.2
a
0.7

m
55.2
m
80.0
m
m

m
44.8
m
20.0
m
m

157
114
m
110
190
m

m
112
m
133
m
m

1. Including subsidies attributable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources.
2.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
3.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664257001651

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

231

B3

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B3.2a.
Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions, as a percentage,
by level of education (2000, 2006)
Distribution of public and private sources of funds for educational institutions after transfers from public sources, by year

B3

Pre-primary education
(for children 3 years and older)

Primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education
Index of change
between 2000
and 2006 in
2006
2000
expenditure
on educational
institutions

2006

Household
expenditure

Expenditure
of other private
entities

All private
sources1

Private: of which,
subsidised

Public sources

Household
expenditure

Expenditure
of other private
entities

All private
sources1

Private: of which,
subsidised

Public sources

All private sources1

Public sources

All private sources1

Private sources

Public sources
Partner countries

OECD countries

Private sources

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic3
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
63.1
63.4
96.4
x(6)
90.7
81.4
90.8
95.5
72.2
m
93.8
69.6
m
93.5
43.4
46.3
m
83.2
98.6
62.4
90.5
85.3
m
79.2
85.7
100.0
m
m
92.7
77.6

(2)
36.5
16.6
3.5
x(7)
7.7
18.6
x(4)
4.5
x(4)
m
x(4)
26.2
m
6.5
38.3
51.5
m
16.7
1.4
32.4
9.5
14.7
m
20.2
14.3
n
m
m
7.3
22.4

(3)
0.4
20.0
0.2
x(8)
1.6
n
x(4)
n
x(4)
m
x(4)
4.2
m
n
18.4
2.3
m
0.1
a
5.3
m
m
m
0.6
m
n
m
m
n
a

(4)
36.9
36.6
3.6
x(9)
9.3
18.6
9.2
4.5
27.8
m
6.2
30.4
m
6.5
56.6
53.7
m
16.8
1.4
37.6
9.5
14.7
m
20.8
14.3
n
m
m
7.3
22.4

(5)
n
17.0
0.3
x(6)
m
m
n
n
a
m
n
n
m
n
m
14.1
a
0.2
1.0
m
n
n
m
0.2
n
n
a
m
n
a

(6)
82.8
94.3
95.1
88.7
90.8
97.9
99.0
92.5
87.0
m
94.7
96.1
96.9
97.2
89.9
77.6
m
82.7
86.9
86.6
m
98.6
99.9
86.8
93.7
99.9
86.6
m
76.8
91.5

(7)
14.3
3.0
4.8
4.0
7.2
2.1
x(9)
6.2
x(9)
m
x(9)
3.6
x(9)
2.4
7.6
20.6
m
17.2
5.1
13.3
m
1.4
0.1
10.0
6.3
0.1
n
m
13.7
8.5

(8)
3.0
2.6
0.1
7.3
2.1
m
x(9)
1.3
x(9)
n
x(9)
0.2
x(9)
0.4
2.5
1.8
m
0.1
7.9
0.1
m
m
m
3.2
m
a
13.4
m
9.5
a

(9)
17.2
5.7
4.9
11.3
9.2
2.1
1.0
7.5
13.0
m
5.3
3.9
3.1
2.8
10.1
22.4
m
17.3
13.1
13.4
m
1.4
0.1
13.2
6.3
0.1
13.4
m
23.2
8.5

(10)
n
1.1
1.2
x(6)
m
m
n
1.6
m
m
n
n
m
0.3
m
1.1
m
1.3
2.2
m
m
m
m
0.2
m
a
0.7
a
15.8
a

(11)
84.4
95.8
94.7
92.4
91.7
97.8
99.3
92.6
86.3
91.7
92.7
96.4
96.0
97.8
89.8
80.8
m
86.1
85.7
m
99.0
95.4
99.9
97.6
93.0
99.9
89.2
m
88.7
91.6

(12)
15.6
4.2
5.3
7.6
8.3
2.2
0.7
7.4
13.7
8.3
7.3
3.6
4.0
2.2
10.2
19.2
m
13.9
14.3
m
1.0
4.6
0.1
2.4
7.0
0.1
10.8
m
11.3
8.4

(13)
114
104
110
114
136
119
125
101
101
m
155
142
167
115
101
149
m
120
123
106
110
122
99
124
113
114
109
144
115
117

(14)
128
144
102
176
153
115
185
102
96
m
110
152
128
148
101
181
m
156
110
m
m
35
93
776
100
95
138
m
273
118

OECD average
EU19 average

80.7
88.0

~
~

~
~

19.3
12.0

1.6
2.6

91.2
93.4

~
~

~
~

8.8
6.6

1.5
0.6

~
~

~
~

120
122

157
170

Brazil
Chile4
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
70.9
98.8
77.6
m
81.7

m
29.1
1.2
20.5
m
18.2

m
m
n
2.0
m
0.1

m
29.1
1.2
22.4
m
18.3

m
n
m
n
a
n

m
72.8
98.5
92.2
m
90.8

m
24.6
1.4
4.6
m
8.7

m
2.6
0.1
3.2
m
0.5

m
27.2
1.5
7.8
m
9.2

m
0.1
m
1.5
a
1.0

m
68.4
m
94.1
m
m

m
31.6
m
5.9
m
m

171
112
140
111
174
m

m
91
m
148
m
m

1. Including subsidies attributable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources. To calculate private funds net of subsidies,
subtract public subsidies (columns 5, 10) from private funds (columns 4, 9). To calculate total public funds, including public subsidies, add public
subsidies (columns 5, 10) to direct public funds (columns 1, 6).
2.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664257001651

232

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter B

How Much Public and Private Investment Is There in Education? – Indicator B3

Table B3.2b.
Relative proportions of public and private expenditure on educational institutions, as a percentage,
for tertiary education (2000, 2006)
Distribution of public and private sources of funds for educational institutions after transfers from public sources, by year
Tertiary education

Partner countries

OECD countries

2006

Index of change
between 2000 and
2006 in expenditure
on educational
institutions

2000

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic3
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Private sources
Expenditure
Private:
of other
Public Household
private All private of which,
1
sources expenditure
entities
sources subsidised
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
47.6
52.4
35.8
16.6
0.6
84.5
15.5
5.4
10.1
8.9
90.6
9.4
4.7
4.7
4.0
53.4
46.6
22.2
24.4
0.6
82.1
17.9
9.0
8.9
m
96.4
3.6
3.6
n
n
95.5
4.5
x(4)
x(4)
n
83.7
16.3
10.1
6.2
2.4
85.0
15.0
x(4)
x(4)
m
m
m
m
m
m
77.9
22.1
x(4)
x(4)
n
90.2
9.8
9.1
0.7
m
85.1
14.9
13.2
1.7
m
73.0
27.0
19.3
7.7
5.0
32.2
67.8
51.4
16.4
m
23.1
76.9
52.8
24.0
2.1
m
m
m
m
m
67.9
32.1
31.6
0.4
0.9
73.4
26.6
15.5
11.1
0.8
63.0
37.0
37.0
m
m
97.0
3.0
3.0
m
m
70.4
29.6
29.6
m
m
66.7
33.3
27.6
5.7
m
82.1
17.9
9.4
8.5
0.5
78.2
21.8
17.6
4.2
1.8
89.1
10.9
n
10.9
a
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
m
64.8
35.2
26.6
8.6
n
34.0
66.0
36.3
29.7
m

Public All private Public All private
sources sources1 sources sources1
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
51.0
49.0
122
139
96.3
3.7
122
580
91.5
8.5
109
122
61.0
39.0
108
148
85.4
14.6
183
233
97.6
2.4
116
174
97.2
2.8
116
195
84.4
15.6
109
114
88.2
11.8
102
135
99.7
0.3
m
m
76.7
23.3
135
127
91.8
8.2
137
165
79.2
20.8
119
79
77.5
22.5
108
138
38.5
61.5
95
125
23.3
76.7
143
144
m
m
m
m
79.4
20.6
118
214
76.5
23.5
111
131
m
m
131
m
96.3
3.7
111
88
66.6
33.4
166
139
92.5
7.5
102
624
91.2
8.8
152
345
74.4
25.6
125
102
91.3
8.7
114
146
m
m
135
m
95.4
4.6
137
m
67.7
32.3
138
157
31.1
68.9
133
117

OECD average

72.6

~

~

27.4

1.6

77.8

22.2

125

187

EU19 average

81.1

~

~

18.9

1.8

85.2

14.8

125

208

Brazil
Chile4
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
16.1
73.1
50.1
m
76.9

m
82.5
24.9
34.0
m
16.9

m
1.4
2.0
16.0
m
6.2

m
83.9
26.9
49.9
m
23.1

m
5.9
6.0
5.3
m
n

m
19.5
m
56.5
m
m

m
80.5
m
43.5
m
m

124
93
121
100
258
m

m
117
m
129
m
m

1. Including subsidies attributable to payments to educational institutions received from public sources. To calculate private funds net of
subsidies, subtract public subsidies (column 5) from private funds (column 4). To calculate total public funds, including public subsidies, add
public subsidies (column 5) to direct public funds (column 1).
2.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664257001651

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

233

B3

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B3.3.
Trends in relative proportions of public expenditure1 on educational institutions and index of change
between 1995 and 2006 (2000=100), for tertiary education (1995, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)

Partner countries

OECD countries

B3

Index of change between 1995 and 2006 in public
expenditure on educational institutions
(2000=100, constant prices)
1995 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
115
100
105
107
111
115
122
96
100
103
109
120
129
122
m
100
98
97
99
101
109
69
100
98
m
105
108
m
86
100
122
138
145
147
183
93
100
123
113
120
115
116
91
100
104
108
114
114
116
93
100
103
104
105
106
109
96
100
m
m
m
102
102
63
100
154
194
195
228
m
78
100
124
140
122
129
135
m
100
118
121
128
142
137
49
100
103
98
102
109
119
85
100
111
100
101
100
108
80
100
94
101
102
93
95
m
100
68
127
109
136
143
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
75
100
119
113
111
119
118
99
100
103
105
108
111
111
104
100
112
117
114
120
131
107
100
117
122
124
117
111
89
100
148
151
180
193
166
76
100
99
109
89
101
102
86
100
112
126
150
127
152
72
100
111
117
119
119
125
84
100
107
111
113
111
114
74
100
124
131
131
133
135
55
100
113
119
110
m
137
115
100
123
122
123
m
138
85
100
119
130
131
132
133

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark2
Finland
France
Germany
Greece2
Hungary
Iceland2
Ireland
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic2
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

1995
64.8
96.1
m
56.6
71.5
99.4
97.8
85.3
89.2
m
80.3
m
69.7
82.9
35.1
m
m
77.4
79.4
m
93.7
m
96.5
95.4
74.4
93.6
m
96.3
80.0
37.4

Share of public expenditure
on educational institutions (%)
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005
51.0 48.7 48.0 47.2 47.8
96.3 91.6 92.7 93.7 92.9
91.5 86.1 86.7 90.4 90.6
61.0 56.4
m 55.1 53.4
85.4 87.5 83.3 84.7 81.2
97.6 97.9 96.7 96.7 96.7
97.2 96.3 96.4 96.3 96.1
84.4 83.8 83.8 83.8 83.6
88.2
m
m
m 85.3
99.7 99.6 97.9 97.9 96.7
76.7 78.7 78.5 79.0 78.5
91.8 91.4 90.1 90.3 90.5
79.2 85.8 83.8 82.6 84.0
77.5 78.6 72.1 69.4 69.6
38.5 35.3 36.6 36.6 33.7
23.3 14.9 23.2 21.0 24.3
m
m
m
m
m
79.4 71.0 69.1 68.9 69.0
76.5 74.9 74.4 75.0 73.3
m 62.5 61.5 60.8 59.7
96.3 96.3 96.7
m
m
66.6 69.7 69.0 72.9 74.0
92.5 91.3 91.5 86.0 68.1
91.2 85.2 86.2 81.3 77.3
74.4 76.3 76.9 75.9 77.9
91.3 90.0 89.0 88.4 88.2
m
m
m
m
m
95.4 90.1 95.2 90.0
m
67.7 72.0 70.2 69.6 66.9
31.1 39.5 38.3 35.4 34.7

OECD average

79.7

77.8

76.0

76.5

74.2

72.8

73.3

85

100

112

120

121

124

125

OECD average for
countries with data
available for all
reference years

78.2

75.9

75.7

74.8

73.8

71.9

71.6

87

100

112

117

119

122

127

EU19 average for
countries with data
available for all
reference years

85.1

83.9

84.0

83.0

82.0

79.8

79.7

85

100

112

117

120

124

131

Brazil
Chile3
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
25.1
m
59.2
m
m

m
19.5
m
56.5
m
m

m
19.3
m
53.4
m
m

m
17.0
m
59.3
m
m

m
15.5
m
49.6
m
75.7

m
15.9
69.9
48.7
m
76.5

m
16.1
73.1
50.1
m
76.9

78
78
71
81
m
m

100
100
100
100
100
100

102
112
m
96
143
m

109
102
m
108
169
m

101
99
112
93
173
m

118
92
112
95
225
m

124
93
121
100
258
m

2006
47.6
84.5
90.6
m
82.1
96.4
95.5
83.7
85.0
m
77.9
90.2
85.1
73.0
32.2
23.1
m
67.9
73.4
63.0
97.0
70.4
66.7
82.1
78.2
89.1
m
m
64.8
34.0

1.Excluding international funds in public and total expenditure on educational institutions.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664257001651

234

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

WHAT IS THE TOTAL PUBLIC SPENDING ON EDUCATION?
INDICATOR B4

Public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public expenditure indicates
the value placed on education relative to other public areas of investment, such as
health care, social security, defence and security. It provides an important context
for the other indicators on education expenditure, particularly for Indicator B3 (the
public and private shares of educational expenditure) and is the quantification of an
important policy lever in its own right.

Key results
Chart B4.1. Total public expenditure on education as a percentage
of total public expenditure (2000, 2006)

The chart shows direct public expenditure on educational institutions plus public subsidies to
households (including subsidies for living costs) and other private entities, as a percentage of
total public expenditure, by year. It must be recalled that public sectors differ in terms of their
size and breadth of responsibility from country to country.
2006

2000

On average, OECD countries devote 13.3% of total public expenditure to education, but values
for individual countries range from 10% or less in Germany, Italy and Japan, to 22% in Mexico.
% of total public expenditure

25
20
OECD average

15
10

0

Mexico
Slovak Republic
New Zealand
Iceland
Chile1
Brazil
Norway
Denmark
Korea
United States
Ireland
Estonia
Australia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Switzerland
Sweden
Finland
Belgium
Poland
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Canada2
Portugal
Spain
Austria
France
Hungary
Czech Republic
Germany
Italy
Japan

5

1.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
2.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total public expenditure on education at all levels of education as
a percentage of total public expenditure in 2006.
Source: OECD. Table B4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366200117

236

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• Public funding of education is a social priority, even in OECD countries with
little public involvement in other areas.

INDICATOR B4

• Between 1995 and 2006, total public budgets as a percentage of GDP tended
to increase slightly. Education took a growing share of total public expenditure
in most countries, and on average, it grew as fast as GDP. In Denmark, Ireland,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic, the United States and the
partner countries Brazil and Chile, there have been particularly significant shifts
in public funding in favour of education.
• The main increase in public expenditure on education relative to total public
spending took place between 1995 and 2000 (0.9 percentage point), while from
2000 to 2006, public expenditure on education as a percentage of total public
expenditure increased by 0.3 percentage point.
• In OECD countries, public funding of primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education is on average about three times that of tertiary education,
mainly due to near universal enrolment rates below tertiary education, but also
because the private share tends to be greater at the tertiary level. This ratio varies
from less than double in Canada, Finland and Norway to five times in Korea. The
latter figure is indicative of the relatively high proportion of private funds going
to tertiary education in this country.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

237

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Policy context

B4

If the public benefits from a particular service are greater than the private benefits, markets alone
may fail to provide these services adequately and governments may need to become involved.
Education is one area where all governments intervene to fund or direct the provision of services.
As there is no guarantee that markets will provide equal access to educational opportunities,
government funding of educational services ensures that education is not beyond the reach of
some members of society.
This indicator focuses on public expenditure on education but also evaluates how public
expenditure has changed over time. Since the second half of the 1990s, most OECD countries
have made serious efforts to consolidate public budgets. Education has had to compete for public
financial support with a wide range of other government-funded areas. To track this evolution,
the indicator evaluates the change in educational expenditure in absolute terms and relative to
changes in the size of total public budgets.
Evidence and explanations
What this indicator does and does not cover

This indicator shows total public expenditure on education, which includes direct public
expenditure on educational institutions as well as public subsidies to households (e.g. scholarships
and loans to students for tuition fees and student living costs) and to other private entities
for education (e.g. subsidies to companies or labour organisations that operate apprenticeship
programmes). Unlike the preceding indicators from this chapter, this indicator also includes
public subsidies that are not attributable to household payments for educational institutions, such
as subsidies for student living costs.
OECD countries differ in the ways in which they use public money for education. Public funds
may flow directly to schools or may be channelled to institutions via government programmes
or via households; they may also be restricted to the purchase of educational services or be used
to support student living costs.
Total public expenditure on all services, excluding education, includes expenditure on debt
servicing (e.g. interest payments), which is not included in public expenditure on education.
The reason for this exclusion is that some countries cannot separate interest payment outlays
for education from those for other services. This means that public expenditure on education
as a percentage of total public expenditure may be underestimated in countries where interest
payments represent a large proportion of total public expenditure on all services.
Finally, it is important to examine public investment in education in conjunction with private
investment, as shown in Indicator B3 to get a full picture of total investment in education.
Overall level of public resources invested in education

On average, OECD countries devoted 13.3% of total public expenditure to education in 2006.
However, the share of educational expenditure for individual countries range from 10% or less
in Germany, Italy and Japan to 22% in Mexico (Chart B4.1). As in the case of spending on
education in relation to GDP per capita, these figures must be interpreted in the light of student
demography and enrolment rates.
The public-sector proportion of funding of the different levels of education also varies widely among
OECD countries. In 2006, OECD and partner countries allocated between 6.3% (Germany) and
238

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is The Total Public Spending on Education? – Indicator B4

chapter B

15.1% (Mexico) of total public expenditure to primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education, and between 1.6% (Italy) and 5.1% (New Zealand and Norway) to tertiary education.
On average in OECD countries, public funding of primary, secondary and post-secondary nontertiary education is nearly three times that of tertiary education, mainly owing to enrolment rates
(see Indicator C1) and the demographic structure of the population or because the private share of
expenditure tends to be higher at the tertiary level. This ratio varies by country, ranging from two
times in Canada, Finland and Norway to five times in Korea. The latter figure is indicative of the
relatively high proportion of private funds supporting tertiary education in Korea (Table B4.1).
Public funding of education is a social priority, even in OECD countries with little public
involvement in other areas. When public expenditure on education is considered as a proportion
of total public spending, the relative sizes of public budgets (as measured by public spending in
relation to GDP) must be taken into account.
When the size of public budgets relative to GDP in OECD countries is compared with the
proportion of public spending on education, it is evident that even in countries with relatively
low rates of public spending, education has a very high priority. For instance, the share of public
spending allocated to education in Korea, Mexico, the Slovak Republic and the partner countries
Chile and Brazil is among the highest in OECD countries (Chart B4.1), yet total public spending
accounts for a relatively small proportion of GDP in these countries (Chart B4.2).
Although the overall pattern is not clear, there is some evidence to suggest that countries with
high rates of public spending spend proportionately less on education; only one of the top ten
countries for public spending on public services overall – Denmark – is among the top ten public
spenders on education (Chart B4.1 and Chart B4.2).

Chart B4.2. Total public expenditure on all services as a percentage of GDP (2000, 2006)
% of GDP

2006

2000

60
50
40
30
20
0

Sweden
France
Hungary
Denmark
Italy
Austria
Finland
Belgium
Portugal
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Germany
Israel
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Poland
Canada1
Switzerland
Iceland
Norway
Spain
United States
Japan
Ireland
Estonia
Australia
New Zealand
Brazil
Korea
Russian Federation
Mexico
Chile2
Slovak Republic

10

Note: This chart represents public expenditure on all services and not simply public expenditure on education.
1.Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
2.Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total public expenditure as a percentage of GDP in 2006.
Source: OECD. Annex 2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366200117

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

239

B4

chapter B

B4

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

From 1995 to 2006, public expenditure on education typically grew faster than total public
spending and as fast as national income; the average proportion of public expenditure on
education increased over this period in 21 of the 27 countries with comparable data in both 1995
and 2006. At the same time, on average in these 27 countries public expenditure on education
as a percentage of GDP slightly decreased. However, the main increase in public expenditure
on education relative to total public spending took place from 1995 to 2000, while public
expenditure on education and on other public sectors increased in the same proportions from
2000 to 2006. Although budget consolidation has put pressure on education along with every
other service, the proportion of public budgets spent on education in OECD countries rose from
12.0% in 1995 to 13.3% in 2006. The figures suggest that the greatest relative increases in the
share of public expenditure on education during this period took place in Denmark (12.2% to
15.6%), Ireland (12.2% to 14.4%), the Netherlands (9.1% to 12.0%), New Zealand (16.5% to
18.9%), the Slovak Republic (14.1% to 19.5%) and the United States (12.6% to 14.8%) and the
partner countries Brazil (11.2% to 16.2%) and Chile (14.5% to 16.6%).
Definitions and methodologies

The data refer to the financial year 2006 and are based on the UOE data collection on education
statistics administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Educational expenditure is expressed as a percentage of a country’s total public sector expenditure
and as a percentage of GDP. Public expenditure on education includes expenditure on educational
institutions and subsidies for students’ living costs and for other private expenditure outside institutions.
Public expenditure on education includes expenditure by all public entities, including ministries other
than ministries of education, local and regional governments and other public agencies.
Total public expenditure, also referred to as total public spending, corresponds to the nonrepayable current and capital expenditure of all levels of government: central, regional and
local. Current expenditure includes final consumption expenditure, property income paid,
subsidies and other current transfers (e.g. social security, social assistance, pensions and other
welfare benefits). Figures for total public expenditure have been taken from the OECD National
Accounts Database (see Annex 2) and use the System of National Accounts 1993.
The glossary at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009 gives a definition of public, government-dependent
private and independent private institutions.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366200117

• Table B4.2. Distribution of total public expenditure on education (2006)
• Table B4.3a. Initial sources of public educational funds and final purchasers of educational
resources by level of government for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education (2006)
• Table B4.3b. Initial sources of public educational funds and final purchasers of educational
resources by level of government for tertiary education (2006)

240

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter B

What Is The Total Public Spending on Education? – Indicator B4

Table B4.1.
Total public expenditure on education (1995, 2000, 2006)
Direct public expenditure on educational institutions plus public subsidies to households (which include subsidies for living costs)
and other private entities, as a percentage of GDP and as a percentage of total public expenditure, by level of education and year

Tertiary education

All levels
of education
combined

All levels
of education
combined

All levels
of education
combined

Primary, secondary
and postsecondary nontertiary education

Tertiary education

All levels
of education
combined

All levels
of education
combined

All levels
of education
combined

Public expenditure1 on education as a
percentage of GDP
2006
2000
1995

Primary, secondary
and postsecondary nontertiary education
Partner countries

OECD countries

Public expenditure1 on education as a
percentage of total public expenditure
2006
2000
1995

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada2, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark3
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan3
Korea
Luxembourg3, 4
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland4
Portugal4
Slovak Republic3
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland4
Turkey4
United Kingdom
United States

10.3
7.2
8.2
7.7
6.5
9.4
7.9
7.1
6.3
m
6.5
12.4
11.0
6.9
7.0
11.3
8.8
15.1
7.8
12.7
9.8
8.6
8.0
12.5
7.2
8.1
8.7
m
8.7
10.0

3.4
3.0
2.7
4.1
2.3
4.4
4.0
2.3
2.5
m
2.0
3.3
3.4
1.6
1.7
2.2
m
3.8
3.3
5.1
5.1
2.2
2.2
4.6
2.5
3.4
3.4
m
2.4
3.9

13.9
11.0
12.4
11.8
10.1
15.6
12.6
10.6
9.7
m
10.4
18.1
14.4
9.5
9.5
15.0
m
22.0
12.0
18.9
16.2
12.0
11.3
19.5
11.1
12.6
12.8
m
11.9
14.8

13.6
10.7
12.1
12.4
9.5
15.3
12.5
11.6
9.8
7.3
14.1
15.9
13.6
9.8
9.5
16.3
m
23.4
11.2
m
14.5
12.7
12.6
14.7
10.9
13.4
15.6
m
11.0
14.4

13.6
10.8
m
12.7
8.7
12.2
11.0
11.5
8.5
5.6
12.9
m
12.2
9.0
m
m
m
22.2
9.1
16.5
15.5
11.9
11.7
14.1
10.3
10.7
13.5
m
11.4
12.6

3.4
3.6
4.0
3.3
2.8
4.8
3.9
3.8
2.8
m
3.4
5.2
3.7
3.4
2.6
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.6
4.1
4.0
3.8
3.7
2.4
2.8
4.4
3.7
1.9
4.0
3.7

1.1
1.5
1.3
1.8
1.0
2.3
1.9
1.2
1.1
m
1.0
1.4
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.7
m
0.8
1.5
1.6
2.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.9
1.5
0.9
1.1
1.4

4.6
5.4
6.0
5.1
4.4
8.0
6.1
5.6
4.4
m
5.4
7.6
4.9
4.7
3.5
4.5
m
4.8
5.5
6.0
6.6
5.3
5.3
3.8
4.3
6.8
5.5
2.9
5.5
5.5

4.7
5.6
5.9
5.1
4.0
8.3
6.0
6.0
4.4
3.4
4.8
6.7
4.3
4.5
3.6
3.9
m
4.4
5.0
6.8
5.9
5.0
5.4
3.9
4.3
7.2
5.4
m
4.3
4.9

5.0
6.1
m
6.2
4.8
7.3
6.8
6.3
4.6
2.6
5.2
m
5.0
4.7
3.6
m
m
4.2
5.1
5.6
7.9
5.2
5.1
4.6
4.6
7.1
5.7
m
5.0
4.7

OECD average

9.0

3.1

13.3

12.9

12.0

3.5

1.3

5.3

5.1

5.3

EU19 average

8.1

2.9

12.2

13.1

10.7

3.6

1.3

5.4

5.1

5.3

Brazil4

12.3
12.2
10.6
9.1
6.8
9.0

2.7
2.5
2.8
2.3
2.9
2.8

16.2
16.6
14.4
13.7
13.1
12.9

10.4
17.5
14.9
13.8
10.6
m

11.2
14.5
13.9
13.3
m
m

3.8
2.5
3.5
4.1
2.0
4.0

0.8
0.5
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.2

5.1
3.4
4.8
6.2
3.9
5.7

3.8
3.9
5.4
6.5
2.9
m

3.9
3.0
5.8
6.9
m
m

Chile5
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation4
Slovenia

1. Public expenditure presented in this table includes public subsidies to households for living costs, which are not spent on educational
institutions. Thus the figures presented here exceed those on public spending on institutions found in Table B2.1b.
2. Year of reference 2005 instead of 2006.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4. Public institutions only.
5. Year of reference 2007 instead of 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366200117

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

241

B4

HOW MUCH DO TERTIARY STUDENTS PAY AND
WHAT PUBLIC SUBSIDIES DO THEY RECEIVE?
INDICATOR B5

This indicator examines the relationships between annual tuition fees charged by
institutions, direct and indirect public spending on educational institutions, and
public subsidies to households for student living costs. It looks at whether financial
subsidies for households are provided in the form of grants or loans and raises
related questions: Are scholarships/grants and loans more common in countries
with higher tuition fees charged by institutions? Are loans an effective means for
helping to increase the efficiency of financial resources invested in education and to
shift some of the cost of education to the beneficiaries of educational investment?
Are student loans less common than grants as a means of encouraging low-income
students to pursue their education?

Key results
Chart B5.1. Average annual tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A public
institutions for full-time national students (academic year 2006/07)

This chart shows the annual tuition fees charged in equivalent USD converted using PPPs.
Countries in bold indicate that tuition fees refer to public institutions but more than
two-thirds of students are enrolled in private institutions.The net entry rate and expenditure
per student (in USD) in tertiary-type A programmes are added next to country names.
There are large differences among OECD and partner countries for which data are available in the average
tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A public institutions. In eight OECD countries public institutions charge
no tuition fees, but in one-third of countries with available data public institutions charge annual tuition fees
for national students in excess of USD 1 500.Among the EU19 countries for which data are available, only
Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom (government-dependent institutions) have annual
tuition fees that represent more than USD 1 100 per full-time student.
Average annual tuition fees in USD

5 000
4 500
4 000
3 500
3 000
2 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
0

United States (64%, 25 110)

Korea (59%, 10 844),United Kingdom1 (57%, 15 447)
Japan (45%, 15 022)
Australia (84%, 16 070)
Canada (m, 23 329)

New Zealand (72%, 10 100)
Netherlands (58%, 15 196)
Portugal (53%, 9 724), Italy (55%, 8 738)
Austria (40%, 14 001), Spain (43%, 11 342)
Belgium (Fr. and Fl.) (m, m)
France (m, 12 180)
Czech Republic (50%, 9 891), Denmark (59%, m), Finland (76%, 12 845),
Ireland (40%, 11 832), Iceland (78%, 8 579), Norway (67%, 16 235),
Sweden (76%, 16 991)

Note: This chart does not take into account grants, subsidies or loans that partially or fully offset the
student’s tuition fees.
1. Public institutions do not exist at this level of education and most students are enrolled in
government dependent institutions.
Source: OECD.Table B1.1a,Table B5.1a and Table A2.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

242

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• In most countries, tuition fees charged by tertiary-type B institutions are lower
than those charged by tertiary-type A institutions. In parallel graduates of tertiarytype A education earn substantially more than tertiary-type B graduates in all of
these countries.

INDICATOR B5

• An average of 19% of public spending on tertiary education is devoted to
supporting students, households and other private entities. In Australia, Denmark,
the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the
United States and the partner country Chile, public subsidies to households
account for some 25% or more of public tertiary education budgets.
• Low annual tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A institutions are not
systematically associated with a low proportion of students who benefit from
public subsidies. In tertiary-type A education, the tuition fees charged by public
institutions for national students are negligible in the Nordic countries and in the
Czech Republic. Yet, at the same time, more than 55% of the students enrolled
in tertiary-type A education in these countries benefit from scholarships/grants
and/or public loans. Moreover, Finland, Norway and Sweden are among the
seven countries with the highest entry rate to tertiary-type A education.
• OECD countries in which students are required to pay tuition fees and can benefit
from particularly large public subsidies do not show lower levels of access to
tertiary-type A education than the OECD average. For example, Australia (84%)
and New Zealand (72%) have among the highest entry rates to tertiary-type A
education, and the Netherlands (58%) and the United States (64%) are above the
OECD average. The higher entry rates to tertiary-type A education in Australia
and New Zealand are also due to high proportion of international students.
• Some studies conclude that loans are useful to support tertiary education study
among middle-and upper-income students, but ineffective among lower-income
students, while the converse is true for grants. Grants and loans are particularly
developed in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, the United States and the partner country Chile. Globally, the
cost to a government of providing public loans to a significant proportion of
students is greater in countries where the average level of tuition fees charged by
institutions is higher.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

243

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Policy context

B5

Decisions taken by policy makers on the tuition fees charged by educational institutions affect both
the cost of tertiary studies to students and the resources available to tertiary institutions. Subsidies
to students and their families also serve as means by which governments encourage participation in
education – particularly among students from low-income families – by covering part of the cost
of education and related expenses. In this way, governments can seek to address issues of access and
equality of opportunity. The impact of such subsidies must therefore be judged, at least in part, by
examining indicators of participation, retention and completion. Furthermore, public subsidies
play an important role in financing educational institutions indirectly.
Channeling funding for institutions through students may also help to increase competition
among institutions. Since aid for student living costs can serve as a substitute for income from
work, public subsidies may enhance educational attainment by enabling students to work less.
Public subsidies come in many forms: as means-based subsidies, as family allowances for all
students, as tax allowances for students or their parents, or as other household transfers.
Unconditional subsidies (such as tax reductions or family allowances) may provide less support
for low-income students than means-tested subsidies. However, they may still help reduce
financial disparities among households with and without children in education.
Evidence and explanations
What this indicator does and does not cover

This indicator shows average tuition fees charged in public and private institutions at tertiary-type
A level. It does not distinguish tuition fees by type of programmes but gives an overview of tuition
fees at tertiary-type A level by type of institution and presents the proportions of students who do or
do not receive scholarships/grants that fully or partially cover tuition fees. Levels of tuition fees and
associated proportions of students should be interpreted with caution as they result from the weighted
average of the main tertiary-type A programmes and do not cover all educational institutions.
This indicator also shows the proportion of public spending on tertiary education transferred to
students, families and other private entities. Some of these funds are spent indirectly on educational
institutions – for example, subsidies which are used to cover tuition fees. Other subsidies for
education do not relate to educational institutions, such as subsidies for student living costs.
The indicator distinguishes between scholarships and grants, which are non-repayable subsidies,
and loans, which must be repaid. It does not, however, distinguish among different types of
grants or loans, such as scholarships, family allowances and in-kind subsidies.
Governments can also support students and their families by providing housing allowances,
tax reductions and/or tax credits for education. These subsidies are not covered here and thus
financial aid to students may be substantially underestimated in some countries.
The indicator reports the full volume of student loans in order to provide information on the
level of support received by current students. The gross amount of loans, including scholarships
and grants, provides an appropriate measure of financial aid to current participants in education.
Interest payments and repayments of principal by borrowers should be taken into account
in order to assess the net cost of student loans to public and private lenders. However, such
244

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

chapter B

payments are not usually made by current students but by former students. In most countries,
moreover, loan repayments do not flow to the education authorities, and thus the money is not
available to them to cover other educational expenditures. Nevertheless, some information on
repayment systems for these loans is also taken into account, as these can substantially reduce the
real costs of loans. OECD indicators take the full amount of scholarships and loans (gross) into
account when discussing financial aid to current students.
It is also common for governments to guarantee the repayment of loans to students made by
private lenders. In some OECD countries, this indirect form of subsidy is as significant as, or
more significant than, direct financial aid to students. However, for reasons of comparability, the
indicator only takes into account the amounts relating to public transfers for private loans that
are made to private entities (not the total value of loans generated). Some qualitative information
is nevertheless presented in some of the tables to give some insight on this type of subsidy.
Some OECD countries also have difficulty quantifying the amount of loans attributable to
students. Therefore, data on student loans should be treated with some caution.
Annual tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A institutions for national and foreign
students

There are large differences among OECD and partner countries in the average tuition fees
charged by tertiary-type A institutions for national students. Public institutions in the five Nordic
countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and in the Czech Republic and
Ireland do not charge tuition fees. By contrast, one-third of OECD and partner countries with
available data have annual tuition fees for national students charged by public institutions (or
government-dependent private institutions) that exceed USD 1 500. In the United States, tuition
fees reach more than USD 5 000 in public institutions. Among the EU19 countries for which data
are available, only Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom have annual tuition
fees that exceed USD 1 100 per full-time national student (Table B5.1a and Chart B5.1).
National policies regarding tuition fees and financial aid to students generally cover all students
studying in the country’s educational institutions. Even if the focus of this indicator is mainly on
national students, countries’ policies also have to take international students into account. These
may include a country’s national students going abroad for their studies or students who enter
the country for the purpose of study. Differentiation between national and non-national students
in terms of the fees students pay or the financial help they may receive can have, along with other
factors, an impact on the flows of international students, either by attracting students to some
countries or by preventing students from studying in other countries (see Indicator C2).
The tuition fees charged by public educational institutions may differ among students enrolled
in the same programme. Several countries make a distinction in terms of students’ citizenship.
In Austria, for example, the average tuition fees charged by public institutions for students who
are not citizens of EU or EEA countries are twice the fees charged for citizens of these countries.
This kind of differentiation also appears in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States,
as well as the partner country Slovenia (see Indicator C2), and appeared in Denmark from the
2006/07 academic year. In these countries, the variation in tuition fees based on citizenship or
on individual’s residency is always significant (see Indicator C2).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

245

B5

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Annual tuition fees charged by private institutions

B5

Annual tuition fees charged by private institutions vary considerably across OECD and partner
countries as well as within countries themselves. In most OECD and partner countries higher
tuition fees are charged by private institutions than by public institutions. Finland, Ireland and
Sweden are the only countries with no tuition fees in either public or private institutions.Variation
within countries tends to be highest in countries with the largest proportions of students enrolled
in independent tertiary-type A private institutions. By contrast, tuition fees charged by public
as compared to government-dependent institutions differ less in most countries and, in Austria,
there is even no difference in tuitions fees charged between these types of institutions. The
greater autonomy of independent private institutions as compared to public and governmentdependent institutions partially explains this situation.
Annual tuition fees charged by tertiary-type B institutions for national students

There may also be large differences among OECD and partner countries in the average tuition
fees charged in tertiary type-B education. In Nordic countries as well as in the Czech Republic and
Ireland, there are no tuition fees in tertiary-type A institutions; and there are usually no (or small)
tuition fees charged in most tertiary-type B institutions. At the same time, the tertiary-type B
sector in these countries is relatively small (with less than 10% of tertiary full-time students).
Among other countries in which tertiary-type B institutions enrol a small proportion of full-time
students (15% or less), Austria, Denmark and Spain are the only ones in which these institutions
do not charge tuition fees or charge negligible fees. Australia is unique in that a small proportion
of tertiary full-time students are enrolled in tertiary-type B education (10%, two-thirds of them in
public institutions), but has the highest average tuition fees (about USD 2 400) among all OECD
and partner countries except Korea.These fees are nevertheless lower than those in tertiary-type A
education (about USD 4 035) (Table B5.1a, and Table B5.1b available on line).
In 15 OECD and partner countries, at least 15% of tertiary full-time students are enrolled in
type B education. In the seven of these countries for which data on tuition fees are available,
public tertiary-type B institutions charge on average between USD 1 780 and USD 3 370 for
national students, with the exception of Ireland (no tuition fees). In Japan and Korea, 25%
and 37% respectively of full-time tertiary students are enrolled in tertiary-type B institutions.
Most of these students are enrolled in private institutions with tuition fees amounting to more
than USD 5 000 on average (Table B5.1b). In these seven OECD and partner countries, tuition
fees charged by tertiary-type B institutions are lower than those charged by tertiary-type A
institutions. This is mainly because graduates of tertiary-type A education earn substantially
more than tertiary-type B graduates in all of these countries (Table A7.1 and Table B5.1a, and
Table B5.1b available on line).
Public subsidies to households and other private entities

OECD countries spend an average of 0.4% of their GDP on public subsidies to households and
other private entities for all levels of education combined.The proportion of educational budgets
spent on subsidies to households and private entities is much higher at the tertiary level than
at the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels and represents 0.3% of GDP.
246

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

chapter B

The subsidies are the largest in relation to GDP at tertiary level in Norway (0.9% of GDP),
followed by Denmark (0.7%), New Zealand (0.7%), Sweden (0.5%), Austria (0.4%), the
Netherlands (0.4%) and the United States (0.4%) (Table B5.4, and Table B5.5 available on line).
OECD countries spend, on average, 19% of their public budgets for tertiary education on
subsidies to households and other private entities (Chart B5.2). In Australia, Denmark, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States and
the partner country Chile, public subsidies account for more than 25% of public spending on
tertiary education. Only the Czech Republic and Poland spend less than 5% of total public
spending on tertiary education on subsidies (Table B5.4).
Chart B5.2. Public subsidies for education in tertiary education (2006)

Public subsidies for education to households and other private entities as a percentage
of total public expenditure on education, by type of subsidy

% of total public
expenditure on education

OECD average

Austria
Denmark
Chile
Slovenia
Finland
Italy
Estonia
Hungary
Ireland
Germany
Norway
Belgium
Slovak Republic
Australia
United States
Netherlands
New Zealand
Portugal
Sweden
Israel
Korea
France
Spain
Brazil
United Kingdom
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Canada
Mexico
Turkey
Poland
Japan
Iceland

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Student loans
Transfers and payments to other private entities
Scholarships/other grants to households

Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of scholarships/other grants to households and transfers and payments to
other private entities in total public expenditure on education.
Source: OECD. Table B5.4. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

Overall country approaches to funding tertiary education

Countries differ in their approach to funding tertiary education. This section provides a
taxonomy of approaches to funding tertiary education in OECD and partner countries along
with available data. Countries are grouped according to two dimensions. The first is the extent
of cost-sharing, that is, the level of contribution requested from the student and/or his or
her family in tertiary-type A education. The second concerns the public subsidies received by
students at this level of education.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

247

B5

chapter B

B5

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

There is no single model in OECD and partner countries for financing tertiary-type A
education. Some countries in which tertiary-type A institutions charge similar tuition fees
may have differences in the proportion of students benefiting from public subsidies and/or
differences in the average amount of these subsidies (Table B5.1a, Table B5.2, Table B5.4 and
Chart B5.3). Nevertheless, comparisons of the tuition fees charged by institutions and public
subsidies received by students, as well as other factors such as access to tertiary education,
level of public expenditure on tertiary education or the level of taxation on income, help to
distinguish four main groups of countries. In addition, tax revenue based on income (OECD,
2006a) is highly correlated with the level of public expenditure available for education and
the level of tax revenue can provide some information on the possibility of financing public
subsidies to students.

Model 1: Countries with no or low tuition fees but quite generous student support
systems
This group includes the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), the
Czech Republic and Turkey. There are no (or low) financial barriers for tertiary studies due to
tuition fees and even a high level of student aid. At 60%, the average entry rate to tertiary-type
A education for this group is above the OECD average (see Indicator A2). Tuition fees charged
by public educational institutions for national students are negligible (Nordic countries and
the Czech Republic) or low (Turkey) in tertiary-type A education. More than 55% of students
enrolled in tertiary-type A education in this group can benefit from scholarships/grants and/
or public loans to finance their studies or living expenses (Table B5.1a and Table B5.2, and
Chart B5.3).
In the Nordic countries, net entry rates in tertiary-type A education are, on average, 71%,
which is significantly higher than the OECD average. Also, in these countries the level of public
expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP and taxation on income are among the
highest among OECD and partner countries. The way tertiary education is paid for expresses a
vision of these countries’ societies. Public funding of tertiary education is seen as the operational
expression of the weight attached to such deeply rooted social values as equality of opportunity
and social equity, which are characteristic of the Nordic countries. The notion that government
should provide its citizens with tertiary education at no charge to the user is a prime feature of
these countries’ educational culture. In its current mode, the funding of both institutions and
students in these countries is based on the principle that access to tertiary education is a right,
rather than a benefit (OECD [2008b], Chapter 4).
The Czech Republic and Turkey have a different pattern: lower access to tertiary-type A education
compared to the OECD average (especially forTurkey) – despite increases of 25 and 10 percentage
points, respectively, between 2000 and 2006 – combined with low levels (compared to the OECD
average) of public spending and of tax revenue on income as a percentage of GDP compared
to the OECD average (see Indicators B4 and A2 and OECD [2006a]). In these two countries,
more than three-quarters of students enrolled in tertiary-type A programmes benefited from
scholarships/grants (the Czech Republic) or from a loan (Turkey) (see Table B5.1c in Education
at a Glance 2008), but the average amount of these public subsidies is small compared to the
Nordic countries and compared to the OECD average. This indicates that these two countries
are also close to those included in model 4.
248

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter B

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

Chart B5.3. Relationships between average tuition fees charged by public institutions
and proportion of students who benefit from public loans AND/OR scholarships/grants
in tertiary-type A education (academic year 2006/07)

For full-time national students, in USD converted using PPPs
Average tuition fees charged
by public institutions in USD

6 000

United States

4 500

Japan

Australia

3 000

New Zealand
Netherlands

1 500

Italy
Austria

Spain

France1

0
0

Belgium (Fl.)

25

Finland Iceland Norway

50

Sweden

75

100

% of students who benefit from public loans
AND/OR scholarships/grants

1. Average tuition fees from 176 to 1 173 USD for University programmes dependent from the Ministry of Education.
Source: OECD. Table B5.1a and Table B5.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

Model 2: Countries with high level of tuition fees and well developed student support
systems
A second group includes Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom
and the United States and the partner country Chile. These countries have potentially high
financial barriers for entry to tertiary-type A education, but also provide large public subsidies
to students. It is noteworthy that the average entry rate to tertiary-type A education for this
group of countries is, at 68%, slightly above the OECD average and higher than most countries
with low levels of tuition fees (except the Nordic countries).
Tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A institutions exceed USD 1 500 in all these countries
and more than 68% of tertiary-type A students receive public subsidies (in Australia, the
Netherlands, New Zealand and the United States, the four countries for which data are available;
see Table B5.1a and Table B5.2). Student support systems are well developed and mostly
accommodate the needs of the entire student population, with a proportion of public subsidies
in total public expenditure on tertiary education higher than the OECD average (19%) in six
out of the seven countries: Australia (31%), the Netherlands (30%), New Zealand (42%), the
United Kingdom (26%) and the United States (31%) and the partner country Chile (47%), and
nearly at the average for Canada (Table B5.4). Countries in this group do not have lower access
to tertiary-type A education than countries from the other groups. For example, Australia (84%)
and New Zealand (72%) have among the highest entry rates to tertiary-type A education also
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

249

B5

chapter B

B5

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

explained by a high proportion of international students enrolled in tertiary-type A education.
The Netherlands (58%), the United Kingdom (57%) and the United States (64%) are above the
OECD average (55%) in 2006, and the partner country Chile (43%) is below the OECD average,
although entry to tertiary-type A education in this country increased by about 10 percentage
points between 2000 and 2006 (Table A2.5). Finally, these countries spend more per tertiary
student on core services than the OECD average and have a relatively high level of tax revenue
based on income as a percentage of GDP compared to the OECD average. The Netherlands is an
exception in terms of the level of taxation on income, and the partner country Chile for both of
these indicators (Table B1.1b and OECD [2006a]).

Model 3: Countries with high level of tuition fees but less developed student support
systems
Japan and Korea present a different pattern: while cost sharing is extensive and broadly uniform
across students, student support systems are somewhat less developed than in Models 1 and 2.This
places a considerable financial burden on students and their families. In these two countries, tertiarytype A institutions charge high tuition fees (more than USD 4 200) but a relatively small proportion
of students benefit from public subsidies (one-quarter of students receive public subsidies in Japan,
and 13% of total public expenditure on tertiary education is allocated to public subsidies in Korea).
Tertiary-type A entry rates in these two countries are 45% and 59%, respectively, which is below
the OECD average for Japan and slightly above the average for Korea. In Japan, some students
who excel academically but have difficulty in financing their studies may benefit from reduced
tuition and/or admission fees or be entirely exempted from these fees. The below average access
to tertiary-type A education is counterbalanced by an above OECD average entry rate to tertiarytype B programmes (see Indicator A2).These two countries are among those with the lowest levels
of public expenditure allocated to tertiary education as a percentage of GDP (Table B4.1). This
partially explains the small proportion of students who benefit from public loans; tax revenue
from income as a percentage of GDP is also among the lowest in OECD countries. However,
in Japan, public subsidies for students are above the OECD average and represent 23% of total
public expenditure on tertiary education; expenditure per tertiary student is also above the OECD
average. Korea presents the opposite picture on both indicators (Table B5.4).
Model 4: Countries with a low level of tuition fees and less developed student support
systems
The fourth and last group includes all other European countries for which data are available
(Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain). These countries have relatively
low financial barriers to entry to tertiary education combined with relatively low subsidies for
students, which are mainly targeted to specific groups. There is a high level of dependence on
public resources for the funding of tertiary education and participation levels are typically below
the OECD average.The average tertiary-type A entry rate in this group of countries is a relatively
low 48% (but counterbalanced by high entry rates in tertiary-type B in Belgium). Similarly,
expenditure per student in tertiary-type A education is also comparatively low (see Indicator B1
and Chart B5.1). While high tuition fees can raise potential barriers to student participation,
this suggests that the absence of tuition fees, which is assumed to ease access to education, is not
sufficient to entirely meet the challenges of access and quality of tertiary-type A education.
250

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

chapter B

Tuition fees charged by public institutions in this group never exceed USD 1 200, and, in countries
for which data are available, the proportion of students who benefit from public subsidies is below
40% (Table B5.1a and Table B5.2). In these countries students and their families can benefit from
subsidies provided by sources other than the ministry of education (e.g. housing allowances, tax
reductions and/or tax credits for education); these are not covered in this analysis. For example,
in France housing allowances represent about 90% of scholarships/grants and about one-third
of students benefit from these allowances. In Poland, a notable feature is that cost sharing is
achieved through arrangements in which some students have their studies fully subsidised by
the public budget and the remainder pay the full costs of tuition. In other words, the burden of
private contributions is borne by part of the student population rather than shared by all (see
Indicator B3 and Education at a Glance 2008). Loan systems (public loans or loans guaranteed by
the state) are not available or only available to a small proportion of student in these countries
(Table B5.2). At the same time, the level of public spending and the tax revenue from income
as a percentage of GDP vary significantly more among this group of countries than in the other
groups, but policies on tuition fees and public subsidies are not necessarily the main drivers in
students’ decision to enter tertiary-type A education.
OECD countries use different mixes of grants and loans to subsidise students’
educational costs

A key question in many OECD countries is whether financial subsidies for households should
be provided primarily in the form of grants or loans. Governments subsidise students’ living or
educational costs through different mixes of these two types of subsidies. Advocates of student
loans argue that money spent on loans goes further: if the amount spent on grants were used
to guarantee or subsidise loans instead, more aid would be available to students and overall
access would increase. Loans also shift some of the cost of education to those who benefit most
from educational investment. Opponents of loans argue that student loans are less effective than
grants in encouraging low-income students to pursue their education. They also argue that loans
may be less efficient than anticipated because of the various subsidies provided to borrowers or
lenders and because of the costs of administration and servicing. Cultural differences among
and within countries may also affect students’ willingness to take out student loans. Thus, Usher
(2006), analysing the summary of the literature on tertiary education access in the United States
by St. John (2003), concluded that loans are useful to support tertiary study among middle and
upper-income students, but ineffective among lower-income students, while the converse is
true for grants (for more details see Education at a Glance 2008).
Chart B5.2 presents the proportion of public educational expenditure dedicated to loans, grants
and scholarships, and other subsidies to households at the tertiary level. Grants and scholarships
include family allowances and other specific subsidies, but exclude tax reductions that are part
of the subsidy system in Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community), Canada, the Czech Republic,
Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland and
the United States (see Chart B5.3 in Education at a Glance 2006). More than one-third of the
33 reporting OECD countries and partner countries rely exclusively on scholarships/ grants
and transfers/payments to other private entities. The remaining OECD countries provide both
scholarships/grants and loans to students (except Iceland, which relies only on student loans)
and both subsidies are particularly developed in Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

251

B5

chapter B

B5

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and the partner country Chile. In
general, the highest subsidies to students are provided by the countries that offer student loans;
in most cases these countries also spend an above-average proportion of their budgets on grants
and scholarships alone (Chart B5.2 and Table B5.4). Some other countries – Belgium (Flemish
Community), Finland, Hungary, Poland and the partner country Estonia – do not have public
loan systems but private loans that are guaranteed by the state (Table B5.3).
Implementation of public loan systems and amount of public loans

Public loan systems are relatively recent in most of the countries that report data; their
development occurred between the 1960s and 1980s, corresponding to the massive growth in
enrolments at the tertiary level of education. Since then, public loan systems have developed
particularly in Australia and Sweden, where some 75% or more of students benefit from a public
loan during their tertiary-type A studies. Public loan systems are also quite well developed in
Iceland (63% of students have a loan) and Norway (65%), two of the countries – along with
Sweden – where educational institutions at this level do not charge tuition fees. In contrast, the
United States has the highest tuition fees in public tertiary-type A institutions, but only 55% of
students benefit from a public loan in a given year. However, the cumulative figure for students
ever taking out a public loan during their studies will be higher.
The financial support that students receive from public loans during their studies cannot be
solely analysed in light of the proportion of students who have loans. The support for students
also depends on the amount they can receive in public loans. In countries with comparable data,
the average annual gross amount of public loan available to each student is superior to USD 4 000
in about one-half of the countries and ranges from less than USD 2 000 in Belgium (French
Community) and Turkey to more than USD 5 400 in Iceland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom and the United States (Table B5.3, reference year 2004/05).
A comparison of average tuition fees and average amounts of loans should be interpreted with
caution because, in a given educational programme, the amount of a loan can vary widely
among students, even though the programme’s tuition fees are usually similar. Nevertheless,
such a comparison can give some insight into the possibility of students receiving a loan to
cover tuition fees and living expenses. The higher the average level of tuition fees charged by
institutions, the greater the need for financial support to students through public loans, in
order to overcome financial barriers that prevent access to tertiary education. The financial
pressure on governments to support students increases with the tuition fees charged by
institutions. In all of the OECD countries for which data on annual gross amounts of loans
are available, the average amount of public loan is superior to the average tuition fees charged
by public institutions. This shows that public loans may also help to support student’s living
expenses during their studies.
Among the countries with average tuition fees above USD 1 500 in tertiary-type A public
institutions, the average amount of the loan is more than twice the average tuition fees in
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. However, in the Netherlands, the difference in
amounts should be counterbalanced by the fact that only about one-quarter of students
benefit from a loan (this information is not available for the United Kingdom). The largest
differences between average tuition fees and the average amount of loans are observed in the
252

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

chapter B

Nordic countries, in which no tuition fees are charged by institutions and a large proportion
of students benefit annually from a public loan with an average amount ranging from about
USD 2 500 in Denmark to nearly USD 7 000 in Iceland to nearly USD 9 000 in Norway
(Table B5.1a and Table B5.3).
The amount that students receive is not the only support related to public loans. Public loan
systems also offer some financial aid through the interest rate that students may have to pay, the
repayment system or even remission/forgiveness mechanisms (Table B5.3).
Financial support through interest rates

The financial help arising from reduced interest rates on public or private loans is twofold: there
may be a difference between the interest rates supported by students during and after their
studies. Comparing interest rates among countries is quite difficult as the structure of interest
rates (public and private) is not known and can vary significantly among countries, so that a given
interest rate may be considered high in one country and low in another. However, the difference
in rates during and after studies seems to aim at lowering the charge on the loan during the
student’s studies. For example, in Canada, Iceland, New Zealand and Norway, there is no nominal
interest rate on the public loan during the period of studies, but after their studies, students/
graduates may incur an interest charge that is related to the cost of government borrowing or
even higher. For example, New Zealand, which made loans interest-free for borrowers while
they reside in New Zealand in 2006/07, charges an interest rate on loans to borrowers who are
overseas. Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and the
partner country Estonia do not differentiate between the interest rate borne by student during
and after their studies. In Australia, a real interest rate is not charged on loans. Instead, the part
of a loan which has remained unpaid for 11 months or more is indexed to ensure that the real
value of the loan is maintained (Table B5.3).
Repayment of loans

Repayment of public loans can be a substantial source of income for governments and can decrease
the costs of loan programmes significantly. The current reporting of household expenditure
on education as part of private expenditure (see Indicator B3) does not take into account the
repayment of public loans by previous recipients.
These repayments can be a substantial burden on individuals and have an impact on the decision
to participate in tertiary education. The repayment period varies among countries and ranges
from less than 10 years in Belgium (French Community), New Zealand and Turkey and the
partner country Estonia, to 20 years or more in Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
Among the 13 OECD countries for which data on repayment systems are available, 4 Anglophone
countries (Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and, under specific circumstances, the
United States) as well as Iceland and the Netherlands make the repayment of loans dependent
on graduates’ level of income (with a maximum of payback time up to 15 years in the case of
the Netherlands). These are also countries in which the average tuition fees charged by their
institutions are higher than USD 1 500 and the average amount of the loan is among the highest
in the countries with a public loan system (Table B5.3).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

253

B5

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Definitions and methodologies

B5

Data refer to the financial year 2006 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics
administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009). Data
on tuition fees charged by educational institutions and financial aid to students (Table B5.1a, and
Table B5.1b available on line) were collected through a special survey undertaken in 2007 and
updated in 2008 and refer to the academic year 2006/07. Amounts of tuition fees and amounts
of loans in national currency is converted into equivalent USD by dividing the national currency
figure by the purchasing power parity (PPP) index for GDP. Amounts of tuition fees and associated
proportions of students should be interpreted with caution as they represent the weighted average
of the main tertiary-type A programmes and do not cover all the educational institutions.
Public subsidies to households include the following categories: i) grants/scholarships; ii) public
student loans; iii) family or child allowances contingent on student status; iv) public subsidies in
cash or in kind, specifically for housing, transport, medical expenses, books and supplies, social,
recreational and other purposes; and v) interest-related subsidies for private loans.
Expenditure on student loans is reported on a gross basis, that is, without subtracting or netting
out repayments or interest payments from borrowers (students or households). This is because
the gross amount of loans, including scholarships and grants, provides an appropriate measure of
the financial aid to current participants in education.
Public costs related to private loans guaranteed by governments are included as subsidies to
other private entities. Unlike public loans, only the net cost of these loans is included.
The value of tax reductions or credits to households and students is not included.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

• Table B5.1b. Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by tertiary-type B educational
institutions for national students (academic year 2006/2007)
• Table B5.5. Public subsidies for households and other private entities as a percentage of total
public expenditure on education and GDP, for primary, secondary and post-secondary nontertiary education (2006)

254

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

chapter B

Table B5.1a.
Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A educational institutions1
for national students (academic year 2006/2007)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, by type of institutions, based on full-time students

OECD countries

Independent
private

Public
institutions

Government
dependent
private
institutions

Independent
private

Annual average tuition fees
in USD charged
by institutions
(for full-time students)

Government
dependent
private
institutions

Percentage of
tertiary-type A
full-time students
enrolled in:
Public
institutions

Percentage of tertiary
full-time students enrolled
in tertiary-type A

Tuition fees and associated proportions of students should be interpreted with caution as they result from the weighted average of the main tertiary-type A
programmes and do not cover all educational institutions. However, the figures reported can be considered as good proxies and show the difference among
countries in tuition fees charged by main educational institutions and for the majority of students.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Australia

87

97

a

3

4 035

a

7 902

Austria2

84

88

12

n

825

825

n

Comment
(7)
93% of national students in public institutions are
in subsidised places and pay an average USD 3 719
tuition fee, including HECS/HELP subsidies.
Tuition fees refer to those for students enrolled
in first (bachelor) and second (master) degree
programmes. The information does not refer to
further degree programmes (for example master
after master). This information refers to students
without scholarship (student with a scholarship
benefit from lower tuition fees).

Belgium (Fl.)

52

50

50

m

x(5)

514 to 583

m

Belgium (Fr.)3

m

m

m

n

m

m

m

Canada

96

m

m

m

3 705

x(4)

x(4)

Czech Republic

84

m

a

m

No tuition
fees

a

m

Denmark4

89

100

n

a

No tuition
fees

m

a

Finland

100

89

11

a

No tuition No tuition
fees
fees

a

Excluding membership fees to student unions.

France

72

87

x(3)

13

176 to
1 173

m

m

Tuition fees in public institutions refer to
University programmes dependent from the
Ministry of Education.

Germany
Greece

87
59

m
100

m
a

m
a

m
m

m
m

m
m

Hungary

90

88

12

a

m

m

m

Iceland

98

79

21

a

No tuition 2 058 to
fees
6 449

Ireland

74

98

a

2

No tuition
fees

a

Italy

97

92

a

8

1 123

a

3 866

Japan

73

25

a

75

4 279

a

6 695

The average fee in public institutions is negligible
because fees are paid only by student studying
too long (more than standard length of the
programme plus 1 year) : about 4% of students.

Subsidised student loans that cover tuition fees are
available for all students. Almost no scholarships/
grants exist.
The
tuition fees charged by institutions are paid
No tuition directly
by the government and the students do
fees
not have to pay these fees.
a

The annual average tuition fees do not take into
account the scholarships/grants that fully cover
tuition fees but partial reductions of fees cannot
be excluded.
Excludes admission fee charged by the school for
the first year (USD 2 271 on average).

1. Scholarships/grants that the student may receive are not taken into account.
2. Including students in advanced research programmes.
3. Tuition fees charged for programmes are the same in public as in private institutions but the distribution of students differs between public
and private institutions, so the weighted average is not the same.
4. Weighted average for all tertiary education.
5. Tuition fees in total tertiary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

255

B5

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B5.1a. (continued)
Estimated annual average tuition fees charged by tertiary-type A educational institutions1
for national students (academic year 2006/2007)
In equivalent USD converted using PPPs, by type of institutions, based on full-time students

B5

OECD countries

Government
dependent
private
institutions

Independent
private

Public
institutions

Government
dependent
private
institutions

Independent
private

Annual average tuition fees
in USD charged
by institutions
(for full-time students)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Korea

62

22

a

78

4 717

a

8 519

Luxembourg

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

Mexico

96

66

a

34

m

a

m

Netherlands

100

100

a

n

1 707

a

m

New Zealand

78

98

2

n

2 765

m

n

n

No tuition
fees

5 124

n

Norway

Partner countries

Percentage of
tertiary-type A
full-time students
enrolled in:
Public
institutions

Percentage of tertiary
full-time students enrolled
in tertiary-type A

Tuition fees and associated proportions of students should be interpreted with caution as they result from the weighted average of the main tertiary-type
A programmes and do not cover all educational institutions. However, the figures reported can be considered good proxies and show the difference among
countries in tuition fees charged by main educational institutions and for the majority of students.

96

88

12

Poland

95

m

a

m

m

a

m

Portugal5

93

74

a

26

1 180

4 774

m

Slovak Republic

96

m

m

m

m

m

m

Spain

81

88

a

12

844

a

m

Sweden

87

93

7

n

Switzerland

84

m

m

m

m

m

m

Turkey

69

m

a

m

m

a

m

United Kingdom

88

a

100

n

a

4 694

m

United States

81

67

a

33

5 666

a

20 517

No tuition No tuition
fees
fees

m

Brazil

93

m

a

m

m

a

m

Chile

66

m

m

m

m

m

m

Estonia

62

m

m

m

a

m

m

Israel

75

a

m

m

a

m

m

Russian Federation

73

m

a

m

m

a

m

Slovenia

66

m

m

m

m

m

668

Comment
(7)
Tuition fees in first degree programme only.
Excludes admission fees to university, but
includes supporting fees.

Student fees are representative of the dominant
private ISCED 5 institution in Norway.

Excluding mandatory membership fees to student
unions.

Students from low-income households
can access non-repayable grants and bursaries.
Loans for tuition fees and living costs are
available to all eligible students.
Including non-national students.

In public and government dependent private
institutions: First and second level full-time
students do not pay tuition fees. But third-level
full-time students pay on average between
USD 3 158 and USD 4 032.

1. Scholarships/grants that the student may receive are not taken into account.
2. Including students in advanced research programmes.
3. Tuition fees charged for programmes are the same in public as in private institutions but the distribution of students differs between public
and private institutions, so the weighted average is not the same.
4. Weighted average for all tertiary education.
5. Tuition fees in total tertiary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

256

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

chapter B

Table B5.2.
Distribution of financial aid to students compared to amount of tuition fees charged
in tertiary-type A education (academic year 2006/2007)

benefit from public
loans only

benefit from
scholarships/grants
only

benefit from public
loans AND scholarships/
grants

DO NOT benefit
from public loans OR
scholarships/grants

receive scholarships/
grants that is higher than
the tuition fees

receive scholarships/
grants whose amount is
equivalent to the tuition
fees

receive scholarships/
grants that partially
cover the tuition fees

DO NOT receive
scholarships/grants in
support of tuition fees

OECD countries

Distribution of scholarships/grants in support
of tuition fees:
Percentage of students that:

Australia1
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark2
Finland2
France2
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico2
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden2
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States2

(1)
76
a
a
m
m
m
m
a
a
m
m
14
63
a
n
28
m
m
m
11
42
7
m
m
m
n
n
2
m
m
17

(2)
n
19
23
m
m
m
m
55
25
m
m
34
m
m
17
1
m
m
m
65
3
4
m
m
m
38
25
11
m
m
22

(3)
4
a
a
m
m
a
m
a
a
m
m
9
m
a
n
n
m
m
m
19
24
59
m
m
m
n
75
m
m
m
38

(4)
20
81
77
m
m
m
m
45
75
m
m
43
37
m
83
72
m
m
m
5
32
31
m
m
m
62
n
87
m
m
24

(5)
n
18.4
22.8
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
a
a
7.9
a
m
m
m
70.0
45.4
m
m
m
m
18.7
a
m
m
m
m

(6)
n
n
x(5)
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
a
a
3.2
a
m
m
m
n
x(5)
m
m
m
m
4.3
a
m
m
m
m

(7)
4.8
1.2
x(5)
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
a
a
5.4
a
m
m
m
14.0
x(5)
m
m
m
m
15.2
a
m
m
m
m

(8)
95.2
80.4
77.2
m
m
m
m
a
m
m
m
m
100.0
a
83.5
100.0
m
m
m
16.0
54.6
m
m
m
m
61.9
a
m
m
m
m

Partner countries

Distribution of financial aid to students:
Percentage of students that:

Brazil
Chile2
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
m
m
m
m
a

m
m
m
m
m
33

m
m
m
m
m
n

m
m
m
m
m
67

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

1. Excludes foreign students.
2. Distribution of students in total tertiary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

257

B5

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

80

a

a

Belgium (Fr.)3 1983

m

Canada4

1964

m

Denmark5

1970

m

Finland2

1969

a

Hungary2

2001

23

Iceland

1961

63

Japan6

1943

28

Mexico7

1970

m

Annual minimum
income threshold
(in USD)

Repayment system

Interest rate after
studies

Interest rate during
studies
(4)

(5)
(6)
(7)
No real
nominal interest rate Income
3 450 No
interest rate (indexed to contingent 25 750
CPI)
1/3 of the 1/3 of the
interest rate interest rate
supported supported
m
m
m
by the
by the
students
students
(2%)
(2%)
Mortgage
1 380
4.0%
4.0%
style
Interest
nominal rates paid by Mortgage
3 970 No
interest rate the student
style
(6.7%)
Flexible
rate set by Mortgage
2 500
4.0%
the Central
style
Bank plus
1pt of %
Full interest
rate agreed
with the
Up to
private bank; Mortgage
2 710
1.0%
interest
style
per year
assistance for
low-income
persons
1 717
11.95%
11.95% Mortgage
style
A fixed
part and a
No
nominal
6 950 interest rate
1.0%
part that
is income
contingent
Maximum
No nominal of
3%, rest Mortgage
5 950
nor real
paid by
style
interest rate government
10 480
m
m
m
m

Average debt at
graduation
(in USD)

1989

(3)

Debt at graduation
Percentage of
graduates with debt
(in %)

Belgium (Fl.)2

(2)

Repayment
Average annual
amount of repayment
(in USD)

Australia1

(1)

Subsidy through
reduced interest rate

Duration of typical
amortisation period
(in years)

OECD countries

Year of the creation of a
public loan system in the
country
Proportion of students
who have a loan (in %)
(academic year 2006/2007)

B5

Average annual gross
amount of loan available to
each students (in USD)

Table B5.3.
Financial support to students through public loans in tertiary-type A education (academic year 2004/2005)
National students, in USD converted using PPPs

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

m

m

67%
(domestic
graduates)

m

m

m

m

m

5

250

a

a

10

950

m

m

10-15

830

49

10 430

m

1 330

39

6 160

m

640

m

m

22

3.75% of income

m

m

15

1 270

m

m

m

m

m

m

1. Including commonwealth countries.
2. Loan guaranteed by the state rather than public loan.
3. Loan made to the parents of the student, and only parents have to pay back the loan.
4. Loan outside Quebec. In Quebec, there are only private loans guaranted by the government.
5. The proportion of students refers to all tertiary education. Average amount of loan includes foreign students.
6. Average amount of loan for students in tertiary-type A first qualification programme.
7. Average amount of loan for students in tertiary education.
8. Annual gross amount of loan refers to students in England.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

258

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter B

How Much Do Tertiary Students Pay and What Public Subsidies Do They Receive? – Indicator B5

Partner country

OECD countries

(1)

(2)

1986

30

New Zealand 1992

66

Norway

1947

65

Poland2

1998

m

Sweden

1965

75

Turkey

1961

m

United
Kingdom8

1990

m

United States 1970s

55

Estonia2

n

Netherlands

1995

Average debt at
graduation
(in USD)

Percentage of
graduates with debt
(in %)

Debt at graduation
Average annual
amount of repayment
(in USD)

Duration of typical
amortisation period
(in years)

Annual minimum
income threshold
(in USD)

Repayment
Repayment system

Interest rate after
studies

Subsidy through
reduced interest rate
Interest rate during
studies

Average annual gross
amount of loan available to
each students (in USD)

Year of the creation of a
public loan system in the
country
Proportion of students
who have a loan (in %)
(academic year 2006/2007)

Table B5.3. (continued)
Financial support to students through public loans in tertiary-type A education (academic year 2004/2005)
National students, in USD converted using PPPs

(3)

(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
Cost of
government
borrowing
Cost of
but government Income 17 490
5 730 (3.05%),
15
m
m
12 270
repayment borrowing contingent
delayed until (3.05%)
the end of
studies
Cost of
10% of income
57%
nominal government Income 10 990
4 320 No
6.7
amount above
(domestic 15 320
interest rate borrowing contingent
income threshold graduates)
(max. 7%)
Cost of
Mortgage
maximum No nominal government style
(with
20
1 789
m
21 316
8 960 interest rate borrowing exceptions)
+ 1%
Cost of
m (twice
maximum No nominal government
Mortgage
as long as 1 950 (+interest)
3 250 borrowing
11
3 250 interest rate (2.85% to
style
benefiting
19 510
period)
4.2%)
Income
4 940
2.80%
2.80%
25
860
83
20 590
contingent 4 290
Mortgage
1 800
m
m
1-2
1 780
20
3 560
style
No real
No real
9% of income
79% of
Income 24 240
5 480 interest rate interest rate contingent
m
amount above
eligible
14 220
(2.6%)
(2.6%)
income threshold students
5% (interest 5% (interest
subsidised subsidised Mortgage
65
19 400
6 430
for lowfor low10
m
(school year (school year
style
income
income
1999/2000) 1999/2000)
students)
students)

2 260

5%, rest
5%, rest Mortgage
paid by
paid by
style
government government

a

7-8

m

m

m

1. Including commonwealth countries.
2. Loan guaranteed by the state rather than public loan.
3. Loan made to the parents of the student, and only parents have to pay back the loan.
4. Loan outside Quebec. In Quebec, there are only private loans guaranteed by the government.
5. The proportion of students refers to all tertiary education. Average amount of loan includes foreign students.
6. Average amount of loan for students in tertiary-type A first qualification programme.
7. Average amount of loan for students in tertiary education.
8. Annual gross amount of loan refers to students in England.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

259

B5

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B5.4.
Public subsidies for households and other private entities as a percentage of total public expenditure
on education and GDP, for tertiary education (2006)
Direct public expenditure on educational institutions and subsidies for households and other private entities

B5

Direct public
expenditure
for institutions
(1)
69.0
75.1
86.4
81.9
95.2
70.5
83.3
92.0
80.5
m
84.9
76.0
85.6
83.4
76.8
87.1
m
93.3
70.4
57.7
58.3
98.3
88.4
85.4
92.1
74.2
94.6
83.1
73.6
69.1

Scholarships/ other
grants to households

Student loans

Total

Scholarships/ other
grants to households
attributable for
educational institutions

Transfers and payments to
other private entities

Total

Partner countries

OECD countries

Public subsidies for education to private entities
Financial aid to students

(2)
13.2
17.0
13.6
3.5
4.8
24.7
16.2
8.0
14.4
m
15.1
m
14.4
16.6
0.7
2.8
m
4.1
12.3
12.0
13.9
1.7
11.6
12.9
7.9
10.2
2.3
2.9
5.6
13.1

(3)
17.8
m
n
13.6
a
4.8
n
a
5.2
m
n
24.0
n
n
22.5
4.4
m
2.6
17.2
30.3
27.8
a
a
1.2
n
15.6
0.2
14.0
20.8
17.9

(4)
31.0
17.0
13.6
17.1
4.8
29.5
16.2
8.0
19.5
m
15.1
24.0
14.4
16.6
23.2
7.3
m
6.7
29.5
42.3
41.7
1.7
11.6
14.1
7.9
25.8
2.5
16.9
26.4
30.9

(5)
0.9
m
3.8
m
m
n
n
m
m
m
n
m
m
5.7
m
2.1
m
1.3
0.7
m
m
m
m
m
2.1
a
m
2.9
x(4)
m

(6)
n
7.9
n
1.0
n
n
0.4
a
n
m
n
n
n
n
n
5.6
m
n
0.1
n
n
m
m
0.5
n
a
3.0
m
n
m

(7)
31.0
24.9
13.6
18.1
4.8
29.5
16.7
8.0
19.5
m
15.1
24.0
14.4
16.6
23.2
12.9
m
6.7
29.6
42.3
41.7
1.7
11.6
14.6
7.9
25.8
5.4
16.9
26.4
30.9

Subsidies for
education to
private entities
as a percentage
of GDP
(8)
0.35
0.37
0.18
0.32
0.05
0.67
0.32
0.10
0.22
m
0.16
0.33
0.16
0.13
0.14
0.09
m
0.06
0.44
0.69
0.86
0.02
0.12
0.13
0.08
0.48
0.08
0.15
0.29
0.44

OECD average

80.9

10.2

8.9

18.4

1.6

0.7

19.1

0.27

Brazil3
Chile4
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation3
Slovenia

91.3
52.5
84.2
88.9
m
76.6

6.0
24.6
8.9
9.8
m
23.3

1.7
22.8
a
1.3
a
n

7.7
47.5
8.9
11.1
m
23.3

x(2)
19.1
m
9.5
a
m

1.0
n
6.9
n
m
n

8.7
47.5
15.8
11.1
m
23.4

0.07
0.25
0.15
0.11
m
0.29

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland3
Portugal
Slovak Republic2
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey3
United Kingdom
United States

1.Year of reference 2005.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3. Public institutions only.
4.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664366467748

260

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

ON WHAT RESOURCES AND SERVICES IS EDUCATION
FUNDING SPENT?
INDICATOR B6

This indicator compares OECD countries with respect to the division of spending
between current and capital expenditure and the distribution of current expenditure.
It is affected by teachers’ salaries (see Indicator D3), pension systems, the age
distribution of teachers, the size of the non-teaching staff employed in education
(see Indicator D2) and the degree to which expanded enrolments require the
construction of new buildings. It also compares how OECD countries’ spending is
distributed among these different functions of educational institutions.

Key results
Chart B6.1. Distribution of current expenditure on educational institutions
for primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education (2006)

The chart shows the distribution of current spending on educational institutions
by resource category. Spending on educational institutions can be broken down
into capital and current expenditure.Within current expenditure, one can distinguish
between spending on instruction compared to ancillary and R&D services.The biggest item
in current spending – teachers’ compensation – is examined further in Indicator D3.
Compensation of all staff

Other current expenditure

In primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, taken together, current
expenditure accounts for an average of 92% of total spending in OECD countries. In all but three
OECD countries, more than 70% of current expenditure on primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary educational institutions is for staff salaries.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Portugal1
Mexico1
Belgium
Chile1, 2
Poland1
Turkey1
Japan3
Luxembourg1
Switzerland1
Italy1
Netherlands
Ireland1
Spain1
Germany
France
United States
Hungary1
Slovenia
Norway
Iceland
Australia
Denmark3
United Kingdom
Canada1, 3, 4
Austria
Israel
Korea
Brazil1, 3
Sweden
Slovak Republic3
Finland
Czech Republic

% of current expenditure

1. Public institutions only.
2.Year of reference 2007.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4.Year of reference 2005.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of compensation of all staff in primary, secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table B6.2b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664447618002

262

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• At primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education,
OECD countries spend an average of 20% of current expenditure on purposes
other than the compensation of educational personnel.

INDICATOR B6

• The difference between primary and secondary education in terms of the
proportion of current expenditure for purposes other than compensation exceeds
5 percentage points only in France, Ireland, Mexico and the United Kingdom and
is mainly due to significant variations in teachers’ salaries, size of non-teaching
staff, class size, instruction hours received by pupils and teaching time given by
teachers.
• Compensation of teaching staff is a smaller share of current and capital spending
at the tertiary level than at other levels because of the higher cost of facilities
and equipment and the construction of new buildings owing to the expansion
in enrolments. At the tertiary level, OECD countries spend an average of 32%
of current expenditure on purposes other than compensation of educational
personnel.
• On average, OECD countries spend 0.2% of GDP on ancillary services provided
by primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary institutions.This represents
6% of the total spending on educational institutions. At the high end, Finland,
France, Korea, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the United Kingdom allocate some
10% or more of total expenditure on educational institutions to ancillary services.
• High spending on R&D is a distinctive feature of tertiary institutions and averages
over one-quarter of expenditure. The fact that some countries spend much more
than others on R&D (Sweden and Switzerland spend 40% or more) helps explain
wide differences in overall tertiary spending.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

263

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Policy context

B6

The distribution of spending among categories of expenditure can affect the quality of services
(such as teachers’ salaries), the condition of educational facilities (such as school maintenance)
and the education system’s capacity to adjust to changing demographic and enrolment trends
(such as construction of new schools). Comparisons of how different OECD countries
apportion educational expenditure among the various categories can also provide insight into
the organisation and operation of their educational institutions. Decisions on the allocation of
budgetary and structural resources at the system level eventually feed through to the classroom
and affect the nature of instruction and the conditions under which it is provided.
Educational institutions offer a range of services in addition to instruction, and this indicator also
compares how spending is distributed among these various functions. At the primary, secondary
and post-secondary non-tertiary levels, they may offer meals and free transport to and from
school or boarding facilities. At the tertiary level, they may offer housing. Tertiary educational
institutions also often conduct a wide range of research activities.
Evidence and explanations
What this indicator does and does not cover

This indicator breaks down educational expenditure by current and capital expenditure and
within the three main functions typically fulfilled by educational institutions. It includes costs
directly attributable to instruction, such as teachers’ salaries or school materials, and costs
indirectly related to the provision of instruction, such as administration, instructional support
services, teachers’ professional development, student counselling, or the construction and/or
provision of school facilities. It also includes spending on ancillary services such as the student
welfare services provided by educational institutions. Finally, it includes spending on research and
development (R&D) conducted at tertiary institutions, in the form either of separately funded
R&D activities or of the proportion of salaries and current expenditure in general education
budgets that is attributable to the research activities of staff.
The indicator does not include public and private R&D spending outside educational institutions,
such as R&D spending in industry. A review of R&D spending in sectors other than education is
provided in the publication Main Science and Technology Indicators (OECD, 2009d). Expenditure
on student welfare services provided by educational institutions only includes public subsidies
for those services; expenditure by students and their families on services that are provided by
institutions on a self-funding basis is not included in this indicator.
Expenditure on instruction, R&D and ancillary services

Below the tertiary level, the majority of educational funding is directed to core services, such as
instruction. At the tertiary level, other services – particularly those related to R&D activities – can
account for a significant proportion of educational spending. Differences among OECD countries
in expenditure on R&D activities therefore explain a significant part of the differences in overall
educational expenditure per tertiary-level student (Chart B6.2). For example, high levels of R&D
spending (between 0.4% and 0.8% of GDP) in tertiary educational institutions in Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and
the United Kingdom imply that spending on educational institutions per student in these countries
would be considerably lower if the R&D component were excluded (see Table B1.1a).
264

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

On What Services and Resources Is Education Funding Spent? – Indicator B6

chapter B

Chart B6.2. Expenditure on educational core services, R&D and ancillary services
in tertiary educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2006)

B6

Research and development (R&D)
Ancillary services (transport, meals, housing provided by institutions)
Educational core services
Total expenditure on educational institutions
% of GDP

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0

Chile3, 4
Denmark1, 3
Japan1, 3
Iceland3
Estonia3
Russian Federation3
Turkey

0

United States
Canada1, 2
Korea
Israel
Finland
Australia
Sweden
New Zealand
Netherlands
Switzerland
Portugal
Poland
France
Austria
Belgium
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Norway
Czech Republic
Ireland
Mexico
Hungary
Spain
Germany
Slovak Republic1
Italy
Brazil1

0.5

1. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
2. Year of reference 2005.
3. Total expenditure at tertiary level including expenditure on research and development (R&D).
4. Year of reference 2007.
Countries are ranked in descending order of total expenditure on educational institutions in tertiary institutions.
Source: OECD. Table B6.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664447618002

Student welfare services

Student welfare services (and in some cases services for the general public) are an integral
function of schools and universities in many OECD countries. Countries finance these ancillary
services with different combinations of public expenditure, public subsidies and fees paid by
students and their families.
On average, OECD countries spend 0.2% of GDP on ancillary services provided by primary,
secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary institutions. This represents 6% of total spending on
these institutions. At the high end, Finland, France, Korea, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and the
United Kingdom dedicate some 10% or more of their total spending on educational institutions
to ancillary services (Table B6.1).
At the tertiary level, ancillary services are self-financed more often than at primary or secondary
levels. On average, expenditure on subsidies for ancillary services at the tertiary level amounts to
less than 0.1% of GDP but represents 0.15% in Canada, 0.18% in the Slovak Republic and 0.2%
in the partner country Israel and up to 0.3% in the United States (Table B6.1).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

265

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Chart B6.3. Distribution of current and capital expenditure
on educational institutions (2006)

By resource category and level of education

B6

Current expenditure

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education

Portugal1
Mexico1
Belgium
Austria
Chile1, 2
Slovak Republic3
Italy1
Canada1, 3, 4
Brazil1, 3
Hungary1
Israel
Turkey1
Denmark3
Poland1
Sweden
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Switzerland1
Czech Republic
Finland
Spain1
Slovenia
Japan3
Australia
Ireland1
Korea
Iceland
United States
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg1

% of
total expenditure

Tertiary education

Portugal1
Mexico1
Belgium
Austria
Chile1, 2
Slovak Republic3
Italy1
Canada1, 3, 4
Brazil1, 3
Hungary1
Israel
Turkey1
Denmark3
Poland1
Sweden
Germany
France
United Kingdom
Switzerland1
Czech Republic
Finland
Spain1
Slovenia
Japan3
Australia
Ireland1
Korea
Iceland
United States
Norway
Netherlands
Luxembourg1

% of
total expenditure

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Capital expenditure

1. Public institutions only.
2. Year of reference 2007.
3. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
4. Year of reference 2005.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of current expenditure on primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary
education.
Source: OECD. Table B6.2b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664447618002

266

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

On What Services and Resources Is Education Funding Spent? – Indicator B6

chapter B

Current and capital expenditure and the distribution of current expenditure

Educational expenditure includes both current and capital expenditure. Capital expenditure on
educational institutions refers to spending on assets that last longer than one year and includes
spending on the construction, renovation and major repair of buildings. Current expenditure on
educational institutions comprises spending on school resources used each year for the operation
of schools.
The labour-intensive nature of the educational process explains the large proportion of current
spending in total educational expenditure. In primary, secondary, and post-secondary non-tertiary
education, taken together, current expenditure accounts on average for nearly 92% of total
spending across all OECD countries.There is significant variation among OECD countries in the
proportions of current and capital expenditure: at the primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary levels, taken together, the proportion of current expenditure ranges from 84% in
Luxembourg to 97% or more in Belgium, Mexico and Portugal (Table B6.2b and Chart B6.3).
Proportion of current expenditure on educational institutions allocated to
compensation of teachers and other staff

Current expenditure on educational institutions can be further subdivided into three broad
functional categories: compensation of teachers, compensation of other staff and other current
expenditures (teaching materials and supplies, maintenance of school buildings, preparation of
students’ meals, and rental of school facilities). The amount allocated to each of these functional
categories depends partly on current and projected changes in enrolments, on salaries of
educational personnel, and on the costs of maintenance and construction of educational
facilities.
The salaries of teachers and other staff employed in education account for the largest proportion
of current expenditure in all OECD countries. Expenditure on compensation of educational
personnel accounts on average for 80% of current expenditure at the primary, secondary and
post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education, taken together. In all countries except the
Czech Republic, Finland and the Slovak Republic, 70% or more of current expenditure at the
these levels is spent on staff salaries. The proportion devoted to the compensation of educational
personnel is 90% or more in Mexico and Portugal (Table B6.2b).
There is very little difference in the average proportion of expenditure on compensation of
personnel between primary and secondary levels of education. The only exceptions to this
pattern are France, Ireland, Mexico and the United Kingdom where the difference between the
two exceeds 5 percentage points (Table B6.2a). This is mainly due to significant variations in
teachers’ salaries, class size, size of non-teaching staff, instruction hours received by students and
teaching time provided by teachers (see Indicators B7, D1, D2, D3 and D4).
OECD countries with relatively small education budgets, such as Mexico, Portugal and Turkey,
tend to direct a larger proportion of current educational expenditure to compensation of personnel
and a smaller proportion to sub-contracts for services such as support services (e.g. maintenance
of school buildings), ancillary services (e.g. preparation of students’ meals), and rental of school
buildings and other facilities.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

267

B6

chapter B

B6

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

In Denmark, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, and the partner country
Slovenia, more than 20% of current expenditure in primary, secondary and post-secondary nontertiary education, taken together, goes towards compensation of non-teaching staff, while in
Austria, Ireland, Korea, Spain and the partner country Chile, the figure is 10% or less. These
differences are likely to reflect the degree to which educational personnel such as principals,
guidance counsellors, bus drivers, school nurses, janitors and maintenance workers are included
in this category (Table B6.2b).
OECD countries spend, on average, 32% of current expenditure at the tertiary level on purposes
other than the compensation of educational personnel. This is due to the higher cost of facilities
and equipment in higher education (Table B6.2b).
Proportions of capital expenditure

At the tertiary level, the proportion of total expenditure for capital outlays is larger than at
the primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels (9.7% versus 8.0%), generally
because of greater differentiation and sophistication of teaching facilities. In 14 out of the 31
OECD and partner countries for which data are available, the proportion directed to capital
expenditure at the tertiary level is 10% or more and among these countries in Korea, Spain and
Turkey it is above 15% (Chart B6.3). Differences are likely to reflect how tertiary education is
organised in each country as well as the degree to which the expansion in enrolments requires
the construction of new buildings.
Definitions and methodologies

Data refer to the financial year 2006 and are based on the UOE data collection on education statistics
administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 1 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
The distinction between current and capital expenditure on educational institutions is taken
from the standard definition used in national income accounting. Current expenditure refers
to spending on goods and services consumed within the current year and requiring recurrent
production in order to sustain the provision of educational services. Capital expenditure refers
to spending on assets which last longer than one year, including construction, renovation or
major repair of buildings and new or replacement equipment. The capital expenditure reported
here represents the value of educational capital acquired or created during the year in question –
that is, the amount of capital formation – regardless of whether the capital expenditure was
financed from current revenue or through borrowing. Neither current nor capital expenditure
includes debt servicing.
Calculations cover expenditure by public institutions or, where available, by both public and
private institutions.
Current expenditure on educational institutions other than on compensation of personnel
includes expenditure on sub-contracted services such as support services (e.g. maintenance of
school buildings), ancillary services (e.g. preparation of meals for students) and rental of school
buildings and other facilities. These services are obtained from outside providers, unlike the
services provided by the education authorities or by the educational institutions using their own
personnel.
268

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

On What Services and Resources Is Education Funding Spent? – Indicator B6

chapter B

Expenditure on R&D includes all expenditure on research performed at universities and other
tertiary education institutions, regardless of whether the research is financed from general
institutional funds or through separate grants or contracts from public or private sponsors. The
classification of expenditure is based on data collected from the institutions carrying out R&D
rather than on the sources of funds.
Ancillary services are those services provided by educational institutions that are peripheral to
the main educational mission.The two main components of ancillary services are student welfare
services and services for the general public. At primary, secondary and post-secondary nontertiary levels, student welfare services include meals, school health services and transport to
and from school. At the tertiary level, they include residence halls (dormitories), dining halls and
health care. Services for the general public include museums, radio and television broadcasting,
sports and recreational and cultural programmes. Expenditure on ancillary services, including
fees paid by students or households, is excluded.
Educational core services are estimated as the residual of all expenditure, that is, total expenditure
on educational institutions net of expenditure on R&D and ancillary services.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

269

B6

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B6.1.
Expenditure on educational institutions by service category as a percentage of GDP (2006)
Expenditure on instruction, R&D and ancillary services in educational institutions
and private expenditure on educational goods purchased outside educational institutions

B6

Ancillary services
(transport, meals,
housing provided by
institutions)

Total

Private payments on
instructional services/
goods outside educational
institutions

Core educational
services

Ancillary services
(transport, meals,
housing provided by
institutions)

Research &
development at
tertiary institutions

Total

Private payments on
instructional services/
goods outside educational
institutions

Tertiary education

Core educational
services
Partner countries

OECD countries

Primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education
Expenditure on educational
institutions

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2
Czech Republic
Denmark2
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg3
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland3
Portugal3
Slovak Republic2
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey3
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
3.84
3.54
3.92
3.54
2.76
x(3)
3.37
3.42
3.03
m
3.16
x(3)
3.40
3.35
x(3)
3.87
x(3)
3.79
3.73
x(3)
x(3)
3.69
3.63
2.37
2.84
3.69
x(3)
1.89
3.51
3.74

(2)
0.15
0.17
0.15
0.21
0.23
x(3)
0.41
0.51
0.07
m
0.26
x(3)
0.09
0.12
x(3)
0.44
x(3)
m
n
x(3)
x(3)
0.02
0.02
0.36
0.06
0.42
x(3)
0.05
0.74
0.31

(3)
3.99
3.71
4.06
3.75
2.99
4.43
3.77
3.93
3.11
m
3.41
5.30
3.50
3.46
2.84
4.30
3.33
3.79
3.73
4.34
3.65
3.71
3.65
2.73
2.91
4.11
4.22
1.94
4.26
4.04

(4)
0.12
m
0.11
m
0.05
0.51
m
0.18
0.14
m
m
m
m
0.37
0.78
m
m
0.20
0.20
n
m
0.15
0.06
0.41
m
m
m
m
m
a

(5)
1.05
0.91
0.80
2.17
0.96
x(8)
1.05
0.85
0.60
m
0.84
x(8)
0.83
0.56
x(8)
2.23
m
0.96
0.94
1.28
0.82
1.17
1.06
0.67
0.79
0.84
0.83
x(8)
0.71
2.34

(6)
0.07
0.01
0.03
0.15
0.01
a
a
0.08
0.05
m
0.04
x(8)
x(8)
0.03
x(8)
0.01
m
m
n
x(8)
n
n
x(8)
0.18
n
n
x(8)
x(8)
0.11
0.30

(7)
0.51
0.40
0.46
0.42
0.23
x(8)
0.65
0.40
0.41
m
0.24
x(8)
0.34
0.34
x(8)
0.30
m
0.19
0.53
0.20
0.42
0.17
0.31
0.12
0.33
0.77
0.56
m
0.48
0.28

(8)
1.63
1.31
1.29
2.75
1.20
1.66
1.70
1.33
1.07
m
1.13
1.14
1.17
0.94
1.48
2.54
m
1.14
1.46
1.49
1.24
1.34
1.37
0.96
1.12
1.61
1.38
0.76
1.29
2.92

(9)
0.14
m
0.16
0.14
0.04
0.67
m
0.07
0.08
m
m
m
m
0.13
0.04
m
m
0.05
0.07
n
m
0.05
m
0.21
m
m
m
m
0.15
a

OECD average

3.37

0.23

3.69

0.22

1.05

0.05

0.38

1.44

0.13

Brazil3
Chile4
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation3
Slovenia

x(3)
3.23
x(3)
4.17
x(3)
4.00

x(3)
0.20
x(3)
0.20
x(3)
0.17

3.77
3.43
3.46
4.37
2.00
4.16

m
0.02
m
0.26
m
m

0.75
x(8)
x(8)
1.60
x(8)
1.04

x(5)
x(8)
x(8)
0.20
x(8)
n

0.02
x(8)
n
m
x(8)
0.23

0.77
1.70
1.09
1.80
0.85
1.27

m
n
m
n
m
m

Expenditure on educational institutions

1.Year of reference 2005.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3. Public institutions only.
4.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664447618002

270

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

On What Services and Resources Is Education Funding Spent? – Indicator B6

chapter B

Table B6.2a.
Expenditure on educational institutions by resource category in primary and secondary education (2006)
Distribution of total and current expenditure on educational institutions from public and private sources
Primary education

Secondary education
Percentage
of total
Percentage of
expenditure
current expenditure

Capital

Compensation
of teachers

Compensation
of other staff

Compensation
of all staff

Other current
expenditure

Current

Capital

Compensation
of teachers

Compensation
of other staff

Compensation
of all staff

Other current
expenditure

Percentage of
current expenditure

Current
Partner countries

OECD countries

Percentage
of total
expenditure

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark1
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary2
Iceland
Ireland2
Italy2
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg2
Mexico2
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland2
Portugal2
Slovak Republic1
Spain2
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey2
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
90.2
95.0
96.3
m
88.3
93.1
91.2
93.5
91.9
m
95.0
87.5
91.6
95.1
90.4
88.4
81.6
97.6
87.2
m
88.1
91.8
98.8
96.0
91.5
92.8
89.7
94.3
89.4
88.7

(2)
9.8
5.0
3.7
m
11.7
6.9
8.8
6.5
8.1
m
5.0
12.5
8.4
4.9
9.6
11.6
18.4
2.4
12.8
m
11.9
8.2
1.2
4.0
8.5
7.2
10.3
5.7
10.6
11.3

(3)
64.4
66.2
68.8
m
47.3
51.1
57.9
52.9
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
75.4
67.8
x(5)
62.7
75.4
86.0
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
85.5
51.3
71.8
53.7
70.9
x(5)
45.1
54.7

(4)
16.4
8.8
20.7
m
18.0
27.5
9.3
23.0
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
12.0
16.1
x(5)
10.9
9.8
9.3
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
10.6
13.3
11.1
19.2
13.1
x(5)
24.3
25.6

(5)
80.7
75.0
89.5
m
65.3
78.6
67.2
75.9
82.5
m
80.5
79.3
87.4
83.9
87.2
73.7
85.2
95.3
86.2
m
78.5
71.2
96.1
64.6
82.9
72.8
84.0
87.1
69.4
80.4

(6)
19.3
25.0
10.5
m
34.7
21.4
32.8
24.1
17.5
m
19.5
20.7
12.6
16.1
12.8
26.3
14.8
4.7
13.8
m
21.5
28.8
3.9
35.4
17.1
27.2
16.0
12.9
30.6
19.6

(7)
89.9
97.3
97.7
m
91.8
93.8
90.5
90.3
92.6
m
93.7
90.1
88.7
96.0
90.1
90.1
87.0
97.2
86.3
m
86.8
93.3
97.5
95.6
90.2
92.7
92.3
92.3
92.4
88.7

(8)
10.1
2.7
2.3
m
8.2
6.2
9.5
9.7
7.4
m
6.3
9.9
11.3
4.0
9.9
9.9
13.0
2.8
13.7
m
13.2
6.7
2.5
4.4
9.8
7.3
7.7
7.7
7.6
11.3

(9)
59.4
67.8
70.4
m
47.5
52.0
52.8
59.4
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
72.5
68.1
x(11)
66.6
73.2
75.8
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
84.1
53.9
72.0
50.0
72.0
x(11)
59.4
54.7

(10)
17.2
9.9
18.0
m
12.9
24.9
12.3
23.2
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
5.2
16.1
x(11)
6.0
13.0
12.9
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
10.5
15.2
9.2
18.9
13.1
x(11)
23.1
25.6

(11)
76.5
77.7
88.4
m
60.4
76.9
65.0
82.6
81.9
m
80.0
78.5
77.8
84.2
86.6
72.6
86.2
88.7
81.6
m
79.5
70.9
94.5
69.1
81.2
68.9
85.1
86.4
82.5
80.4

(12)
23.5
22.3
11.6
m
39.6
23.1
35.0
17.4
18.1
m
20.0
21.5
22.2
15.8
13.4
27.4
13.8
11.3
18.4
m
20.5
29.1
5.5
30.9
18.8
31.1
14.9
13.6
17.5
19.6

OECD average

91.7

8.3

63.6

15.7

80.0

20.0

92.0

8.0

63.8

15.1

79.4

20.6

Brazil1, 2
Chile2, 3
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

93.3
96.6
m
92.9
m
x(7)

6.7
3.4
m
7.1
m
x(8)

x(5)
84.1
m
x(5)
m
x(9)

x(5)
5.0
m
x(5)
m
x(10)

72.9
89.1
m
74.7
m
x(11)

27.1
10.9
m
25.3
m
x(12)

95.2
96.3
m
94.4
m
90.4

4.8
3.7
m
5.6
m
9.6

x(11)
83.3
m
x(11)
m
46.9

x(11)
4.9
m
x(11)
m
32.6

72.9
88.3
m
77.9
m
79.5

27.1
11.7
m
22.1
m
20.5

1. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
2. Public institutions only.
3.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664447618002

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

271

B6

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B6.2b.
Expenditure on educational institutions by resource category and level of education (2006)
Distribution of total and current expenditure on educational institutions from public and private sources

B6

Tertiary education

Compensation
of teachers

Compensation
of other staff

Compensation
of all staff

Other current
expenditure

Current

Capital

Compensation
of teachers

Compensation
of other staff

Compensation
of all staff

Other current
expenditure

Percentage of
current expenditure

Capital

Percentage
of total
expenditure

Current
Partner countries

OECD countries

Primary, secondary and post-secondary
non-tertiary education
Percentage
of total
Percentage of
expenditure
current expenditure

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1, 2, 3
Czech Republic
Denmark2
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland
Ireland3
Italy3
Japan2
Korea
Luxembourg3
Mexico3
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland3
Portugal3
Slovak Republic2
Spain3
Sweden
Switzerland3
Turkey3
United Kingdom
United States

(1)
90.1
96.6
97.2
94.7
91.0
93.5
90.7
91.2
92.3
m
94.0
88.8
90.1
95.7
90.2
89.4
84.1
97.4
86.6
m
87.4
92.6
98.1
95.7
90.7
92.8
91.1
93.7
91.1
88.7

(2)
9.9
3.4
2.8
5.3
9.0
6.5
9.3
8.8
7.7
m
6.0
11.2
9.9
4.3
9.8
10.6
15.9
2.6
13.4
m
12.6
7.4
1.9
4.3
9.3
7.2
8.9
6.3
8.9
11.3

(3)
61.2
66.8
69.8
61.7
47.3
51.6
54.5
57.4
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
74.1
67.5
x(5)
65.1
74.4
81.6
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
84.7
53.2
71.9
51.5
71.4
x(5)
53.6
54.7

(4)
17.0
9.9
18.9
15.2
14.0
26.0
11.3
23.1
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
8.5
16.0
x(5)
8.0
11.3
10.9
x(5)
m
x(5)
x(5)
10.5
14.7
10.0
19.0
13.1
x(5)
23.6
25.6

(5)
78.2
76.7
88.8
76.9
61.3
77.7
65.8
80.6
81.6
m
80.0
78.9
82.6
83.4
86.9
73.0
85.7
92.4
83.3
m
79.0
88.0
95.2
67.8
81.9
70.5
84.6
86.9
77.2
80.4

(6)
21.8
23.3
11.2
23.1
38.6
22.3
34.2
19.4
18.4
m
20.0
21.1
17.4
16.6
13.1
27.0
14.3
7.6
16.7
m
21.0
12.0
4.8
32.2
18.1
29.5
15.4
13.1
22.8
19.6

(7)
89.4
93.4
97.0
92.5
86.5
96.5
95.5
88.5
92.2
m
88.5
93.3
93.5
89.3
86.9
83.5
m
95.7
88.2
m
93.6
85.5
89.5
90.6
81.9
96.0
91.3
78.6
93.9
88.0

(8)
10.6
6.6
3.0
7.5
13.5
3.5
4.5
11.5
7.8
m
11.5
6.7
6.5
10.7
13.1
16.5
m
4.3
11.8
m
6.4
14.5
10.5
9.4
18.1
4.0
8.7
21.4
6.1
12.0

(9)
33.6
45.9
52.5
36.7
31.0
50.8
34.7
51.8
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
49.6
45.3
x(11)
34.7
m
58.5
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
29.0
59.7
x(11)
53.0
x(11)
42.1
28.2

(10)
28.4
17.0
23.9
26.9
19.8
24.5
28.3
28.5
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
25.1
23.7
x(11)
16.4
m
14.6
x(11)
m
x(11)
x(11)
x(11)
21.2
20.8
x(11)
23.1
x(11)
30.5
36.2

(11)
62.0
62.9
76.4
63.6
50.8
75.4
63.0
80.3
67.6
m
68.2
88.2
74.7
69.0
60.2
51.1
m
73.1
68.8
m
64.6
71.0
69.3
50.2
80.6
62.8
76.1
72.6
72.5
64.4

(12)
38.0
37.1
23.6
36.4
49.2
24.6
37.0
19.7
32.4
m
31.8
11.8
25.3
31.0
39.8
48.9
m
26.9
31.2
m
35.4
28.6
30.7
49.8
19.4
37.2
23.9
27.4
27.5
35.6

OECD average

92.0

8.0

63.7

15.3

80.2

19.8

90.3

9.7

43.4

24.1

68.1

31.9

Brazil2, 3
Chile3, 4
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

94.4
96.4
m
93.7
m
90.4

5.6
3.6
m
6.3
m
9.6

x(5)
83.7
m
x(5)
m
46.9

x(5)
5.0
m
x(5)
m
32.6

72.9
88.7
m
76.2
m
79.5

27.1
11.3
m
23.8
m
20.5

94.1
92.6
m
91.1
m
89.3

5.9
7.4
m
8.9
m
10.7

x(11)
x(11)
m
x(11)
m
41.3

x(11)
x(11)
m
x(11)
m
26.8

79.9
63.2
m
76.1
m
68.1

20.1
36.8
m
23.9
m
31.9

1.Year of reference 2005.
2. Some levels of education are included with others. Refer to “x” code in Table B1.1a for details.
3. Public institutions only (for Canada, at tertiary level only).
4.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664447618002

272

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of
Expenditure?
INDICATOR B7

This indicator examines the policy choices countries make when investing their resources
in primary and secondary education, such as trade-offs between the hours that students
spend in the classroom, the number of teaching hours of teachers, class sizes (proxy
measure) and teachers’ salaries. In the first stage, the differences in the combination of
factors that influence the salary cost per student are analysed separately at primary, lower
secondary and upper secondary levels of education. In the second stage, the differences
in salary cost per student between these levels of education are compared.

Key Results
Chart B7.1. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student as a
percentage of GDP per capita, at the upper secondary level of education (2006)

This chart shows the contribution (in percentage points) of the factors to the difference
between salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) in the country and
the OECD average. For example, in Portugal, the salary cost per student is 11 percentage points
higher than the OECD average.This is because Portugal has higher salaries
(compared to GDP per capita) than the average, an above average instruction time
for students and smaller class sizes than the average. However these effects are slightly dampened
by a larger number of teaching hours for teachers than the average.
Salary as % of GDP/capita
Instruction time
1/teaching time

1/estimated class size
Difference with OECD average

Salary cost per student varies significantly between countries, from 3.6% of GDP per capita in
the Slovak Republic (less than half of the OECD average rate of 11.4%) to over six times that
rate in Portugal (22%, nearly twice the OECD average). Four factors influence these differences –
salary level, instruction time for students, teaching time of teachers and average class size – so
that a given level of salary cost per student can result from many different combinations of the
four factors. For example, in Korea and Greece the salary cost per student (as a percentage of
GDP per capita) is 15.5 and 15.2%, respectively, both notably higher than the OECD average.
However, Korea’s high salary cost results mainly from higher than average teacher salary levels
and relatively large class sizes, while Greece reaches this high salary cost through a relatively high
instruction time for students and lower than average teaching time for teachers.
Percentage points

15
10
5
0
-10

Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
Belgium (Fl.)
Korea
Belgium (Fr.)
Greece
Luxembourg
Denmark
Japan
Germany
France
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Turkey
Netherlands
Italy
Austria
Australia
Czech Republic
Iceland
Finland
Ireland
Hungary
Norway
United States
Poland
Slovak Republic

-5

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference between the salary cost in percentage of GDP per capita
and the OECD average.
Source: OECD. Table B7.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

274

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• Similar levels of expenditure among countries in primary and secondary education
can mask a variety of contrasting policy choices. This helps to explain to why
there is no simple relationship between the overall spending on education and the
level of student performance.

INDICATOR B7

• The higher the level of education analysed, the higher the impact of teachers’
salaries and the lower the impact of class size on salary cost per student as a
percentage of GDP (compared to the OECD average). The main examples of this
pattern are Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), France, Norway, Switzerland
and Turkey, where the main drivers of salary cost per student are teachers’ salaries
at the upper secondary level, and class size at the primary level.
• Together, class size and teaching time have more impact on the measure of salary
cost per student at the lower secondary level, whereas teachers’ salaries are the
main driver for salary cost per student at upper secondary level (see Box B7.2).
However, lower secondary levels of education present similar patterns to upper
secondary levels of education with respect to the main drivers of above and below
OECD average levels of salary cost per student as a percentage of GDP per capita.
• At the primary level of education, similarities and differences between countries
are less obvious than at the upper secondary level of education, but class size is the
main driver for the difference with average salary cost per student as a percentage
of GDP per capita in 16 out of the 29 OECD countries with available data.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

275

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Policy context

B7

The relationship between the resources devoted to education and the outcomes achieved has
been the focus of much education policy interest in recent years, as governments seek to
achieve more and better education for the entire population. However, given the increasing
pressures on public budgets, there is intense interest in ensuring that funding – public funding,
in particular – is well directed in order for the desired outcomes to be achieved in the most
effective way possible. Internationally, there is, of course, much attention to which education
systems achieve the most in terms of the quality and equity of learning outcomes, but there is
also considerable interest in knowing which systems achieve the most based on provided inputs.
What are the main factors that drive investment in education? Would better performance be
achieved if one of these factors were modified? Some of these questions have been addressed in
the 2008 edition of Education at a Glance (Indicator B7). This edition focuses on the way a given
level of expenditure in primary and secondary education can be reached through different
combinations of factors. If the efficiency of educational services is to increase, countries must
consider their choices carefully and improve their knowledge base of how such choices relate
to value for money.
Evidence and explanations

Many factors affect the relationship between spending per student and student performance.
They include the organisation and management of schooling within the system (e.g. layers
of management and the distribution of decision making, the geographic dispersion of the
population), the organisation of the immediate learning environment of students (e.g. class size,
hours of instruction) and the quality of the teaching workforce, as well as characteristics of the
students themselves, most notably their socio-economic backgrounds.
Countries with similar levels of spending on education may reach different performance levels.
Some results suggest that there are possibilities for reducing inputs while holding outputs
constant, or, on the contrary, for maximising outputs while holding inputs constant. In Education
at a Glance 2008, for instance, Indicator B7 showed that among OECD countries, there is the
potential for increasing learning outcomes by 22% while maintaining current levels of resources
(output efficiency).
The level of expenditure is therefore not the only factor to be taken into account when analysing
the efficiency of the resources used in education. Since a given level of expenditure can result
from various differences in education systems, analyses of differences between countries that
have an impact on the level of expenditure may elucidate differences in performance.
Teachers’ compensation usually makes up the largest part of expenditure on education and, as a
consequence, of expenditure per student. It is a function of instruction time of students, teaching
time of teachers, teachers’ salaries and the number of teachers needed to teach students, which
depends on class size (see Box B7.1). As a consequence, differences among countries in these
four factors may explain differences in the level of expenditure per student. In the same way, a
given level of expenditure may result from a different combination of these factors; for example,
teachers’ salaries may be higher in some countries than in others, or the amount of students’
instruction time may differ.
276

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of Expenditure? – Indicator B7

chapter B

Box B7.1. Relationship between salary cost per student and instruction time
of students, teaching time of teachers, teachers’ salaries and class size
One way to analyse the factors that have an impact on expenditure per student and measure
the extent of their effects is to compare the differences between national figures and the
OECD average. This analysis aims at computing the differences between expenditure per
student between countries and the OECD average, and then calculating the contribution of
different factors to this variation.
This is based on a mathematical relationship between the different factors taken into
account and follows the method presented in the Canadian publication Education Statistics
Bulletin (2005) (see some explanations given in Annex 3). Educational expenditure is
mathematically linked to many factors related to the school context of a country (number
of hours of instruction time for students, number of teaching hours for teachers, estimated
class size) and one factor relating to teachers (statutory salary):
Expenditure per student = (compensation of teachers + other expenditure)/number of
students
Expenditure is broken down into the compensation of teachers and other expenditure
(defined as all expenditure other than the compensation of teachers). The compensation
of teachers divided by the number of students, or “the salary cost per student” (CCS), is
estimated through:
CCS = SAL x instT x

1 x
1
SAL
=
teachT ClassSize Ratiostud/teacher

SAL: teachers’ salaries (estimated by statutory salary after 15 years of experience)
instT: instruction time of students (estimated as the annual intended instruction time for students)
teachT: teaching time of teachers (estimated as the annual number of teaching hours for teachers)
ClassSize: a proxy for class size

Ratiostud/teacher: the ratio of students to teaching staff

With the exception of class size (which is not computed at upper secondary level, as class
sizes are difficult to define and compare as students at this level may attend several classes
depending on the subject area), values for the different variables can be obtained from the
indicators published in Education at a Glance 2008 (chapter D). However, for the purpose
of the analysis, a “theoretical” class size or proxy class size is estimated based on the ratio
of students to teaching staff and the number of teaching hours and instruction hours (see
Box D2.1). As a proxy, this estimated class size should be interpreted with caution. To ease
the reading, the “estimated class size “ is referred to as “class size” in the text.
Using this mathematical relationship and comparing values for the four factors between
one country and the OECD average allows one to measure both the direct and indirect
contribution of each of these four factors to the variation of salary cost per student between a
country and the OECD average (for more detail see Annex 3). For example, in the case where
only two factors interact, if a worker receives a 10% increase of the hourly wage and increases
the number of hours of work by 20%, their earnings will increase by 32%, as a consequence
of the direct contribution of each of these variations (0.1 +0.2) and the indirect contribution
of these variations due to the combination of these two factors (0.1*0.2).

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

277

B7

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Difference in the combination of factors at upper secondary level of education

B7

The columns of Table B7.3 present the level of teacher salary cost, as well as the contribution
the four factors make to the difference from the OECD average at the upper secondary level
of education. Salary cost per student varies from USD 574 in the Slovak Republic to about
USD 10 065 in Luxembourg. In Luxembourg, the salary cost per student is USD 6 633 higher
than the OECD average.Teachers’ salaries account for most of this difference (USD 4 918) as the
level of salary in Luxembourg is much higher than the OECD average. In the Slovak Republic, as
well, teachers’ salaries account for the large difference from the OECD average salary cost per
student, although in the opposite direction. The salary cost per student in the Slovak Republic
is USD 2 858 lower than OECD average, and low teachers’ salaries (compared to the OECD
average) contribute USD 2 536 to this difference.
However, the level of teachers’ salaries and, as a consequence, the level of the salary cost per
student, depend on a country’s relative wealth. To control for these differences in wealth level
between countries, the analysis has also been made using levels of teachers’ salaries (and salary
cost per student) relative to GDP per capita. The second part of the Table B7.3 presents salary
cost as a percentage of GDP per capita to control for the effect of relative wealth on salary cost.
In this table, the contribution that the four factors make to the difference in the salary cost per
student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) between the country and the OECD average is
shown in percentage points.
Salary cost per student varies a great deal between countries, from 3.6% of GDP per capita
in the Slovak Republic (less than half of the OECD average rate of 11.4%) to over six times
that rate in Portugal (22.0%, nearly twice the OECD average). In Portugal, the salary cost per
student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) is 10.6 percentage points higher than the OECD
average and this difference is mainly driven by a significantly below average class size compared
to other OECD countries. However, in 15 out of the 28 OECD countries with available data,
teachers’ salaries are the main driver of the deviation of salary cost per student from the OECD
average in upper secondary education (Table B7.2, Chart B7.1 and Box B7.2).
The four factors influencing salary cost interact differently in different countries, and reflect
the range of policy choices that governments make. For example, in both Korea and Greece,
salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) is well above the OECD average
(15.5% and 15.2% respectively) but the two countries combine instruction time, teaching time,
class size and teachers’ salaries (as a proportion of GDP per capita) in very different ways. In
Korea, of the four factors, relatively large class size is the only factor acting to reduce salary
cost per student, relative to the OECD average. Here, despite the size of this effect, it is more
than counterbalanced by relatively high teacher salaries (as a proportion of GDP per capita),
which together with above-average instruction time and below-average teaching time, result in
an above average salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita). In contrast, higher
than average salary cost per student in Greece is almost entirely attributable to large instruction
time for students combined with low teaching time for teachers. These two combined effects
outweigh the counter influences of below average teachers’ salaries (as a percentage of GDP per
capita) and above average class sizes (Table B7.3).
278

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of Expenditure? – Indicator B7

chapter B

Box B7.2. Main driver of the difference with OECD average of the salary cost
per student as a percentage of GDP per capita, by level of education (2006)
Primary
education

Lower secondary
education

Upper secondary
education

Salary as %
of GDP/capita

5 countries
(Germany, Iceland,
Korea, Poland,
the Slovak Republic)

8 countries
(Germany, Hungary,
Iceland, Korea,
Norway, Poland,
the Slovak Republic,
Spain)

15 countries
( Austria, Belgium [Fl.],
Belgium [Fr.], the Czech Republic,
France, Germany, Iceland, Italy,
Korea, the Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, the Slovak Republic,
Switzerland, Turkey)

Instruction
time

7 countries
(Australia, Belgium [Fr.],
the Czech Republic,
Finland, Italy,
the Netherlands,
New Zealand)

1 country
(Ireland)

1 country
(Greece)

Teaching
time

1 country
(the United States)

Estimated
class size

9 countries
6 countries
(Australia, Austria, (Australia, Denmark, Ireland, Japan,
the Czech Republic,
New Zealand, the United States)
Denmark, Greece,
Italy, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom,
the United States)

16 countries
10 countries
(Austria, Belgium [Fl.],
(Belgium [Fl.],
Denmark, France,
Belgium [Fr.],
Greece, Hungary,
Finland, France,
Ireland, Japan,
Japan, Luxembourg,
Luxembourg, Mexico,
Mexico,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, the Netherlands,
Switzerland, Turkey,
Portugal,
the United Kingdom)
Switzerland)

6 countries
(Finland, Hungary,
Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain,
the United Kingdom)

Source: OECD. Table B7.1, Table B7.2 and Table B7.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

Alongside such contrasts, there are also striking similarities in the policy choices made by
countries. In Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the salary cost per student as
a percentage of GDP per capita in each of these countries, results from the balancing of two
opposite effects: above-average teaching time, acting to reduce salary cost per student relative to
the OECD average, and relatively low class sizes, increasing salary cost per student relative to the
OECD average. However, the salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) resulting
from this combination is above the OECD average in New Zealand and the United Kingdom
but below the average in Australia, where teaching time and class sizes are closer to the OECD
averages (Table B7.3 and Chart B7.1).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

279

B7

chapter B

B7

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

In countries with the lowest salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) at the
upper secondary level, low salary level (as a proportion of GDP per capita) is usually the main
driver. This is the case in Iceland, Norway, Poland and the Slovak Republic. In Hungary and the
United States, lower than average teachers’ salaries, as a percentage of GDP per capita, combine
with either above average class size or higher than average teaching time for teachers and result
in low levels of salary cost per student. In contrast, among countries with the highest levels of
salary cost per student (Portugal, Spain, Switzerland), no single factor dictates this position;
rather, three of the four factors act to increase costs to varying degrees, but slightly above average
teaching time leads to a decrease in the salary cost as a percentage of GDP per capita (Table B7.3
and Chart B7.1). A quite similar pattern appears in Belgium as nearly all factors act to increase
the salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita).
Difference in the combination of factors at lower secondary level of education

On the whole, class size and teaching time have more impact on the difference with the OECD
average salary cost per student at lower secondary level whereas teachers’ salaries are the main
driver of the difference with the OECD average salary cost per student at upper secondary level
(see Box B7.2). However, the lower secondary level of education presents some similarities with
the upper secondary level of education in countries with the top and bottom salary cost per
student. At the lower secondary level, the Slovak Republic and Luxembourg have, respectively,
the lowest and highest salary cost per student (USD 595 and 10 065 respectively), and relative
to GDP per capita, the Slovak Republic and Portugal have, respectively, the lowest and highest
salary cost per student (3.7% and 19.8%) (Table B7.2). In the same way, countries with above
average (and respectively below average) salary cost (as a percentage of GDP per capita) are
usually also above the OECD average (respectively below the average) at upper secondary level
of education.
For countries that have above the average salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per
capita), class size is usually below the average, and this seems to be the main factor leading to
an increase in the salary cost above the OECD average. This trend is more obvious than at the
upper secondary level, even if there are exceptions (Japan and Korea, which have above average
class sizes). For countries with below average salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP
per capita), low levels of teachers’ salaries (as a percentage of GDP per capita) are usually, as for
upper secondary levels of education, the main driver. France and the Netherlands, and to a larger
extent, Mexico, are exceptions to this pattern, as the above average class size is the main driver
of the below average salary cost per student (Table B7.2).
Nevertheless, there are some differences between upper and lower secondary levels of education
for some countries. In Austria and Finland, the salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP
per capita) moves from below to above the OECD average between upper and lower secondary
education, mainly as a result of the change of the impact of class size. In France and in the
United Kingdom, changes in the impact of class size result in the reverse pattern. In Australia and
Italy (both above the average at the lower secondary level) and the Netherlands and New Zealand
(both below the average at lower secondary level), change from below to above the OECD
average (or above to below the average, respectively) between upper and lower secondary levels
results from the fact that the four factors are closer to the average at the lower secondary level
than at the upper secondary level of education (Table B7.2).
280

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of Expenditure? – Indicator B7

chapter B

Difference in the combination of factors at primary level of education

At the primary level of education (as it is the case at upper secondary), the Slovak Republic and
Luxembourg are countries with, respectively, the lowest and highest salary cost per student
(USD 439 and USD 6 110 respectively). Relative to GDP per capita, the Slovak Republic still has,
at primary level, the lowest salary cost per student (2.8%), and Portugal the highest (15.5%), as
this is also the case at the upper secondary level of education (Table B7.1).
However, similarities between countries are less obvious at the primary level of education when
compared to the upper secondary level. At this level, class size is the main driver of the difference
with the OECD average salary cost per student as a percentage of GDP per capita in 16 out of
the 29 OECD countries with available data. In the three countries with the highest salary cost
per student as a percentage of GDP per capita, differences in the level of salary cost between
Denmark, Greece and Portugal are large; with a nearly 8 percentage points difference from the
OECD average, Portugal has nearly 4 more points of difference than Greece and 5 more points of
difference than Denmark. In these countries, the main driver for the difference with the OECD
average is the smaller than average class size. However, whereas in Greece the contribution of class
size exceeds the smaller effects of the three other factors, in Denmark, the below average teaching
time of teachers increases this effect, and in Portugal, the effect is reinforced by the above average
teachers’ salaries as a percentage of GDP per capita (Table B7.1 and Chart B7.2).

Chart B7.2. Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student as a percentage
of GDP per capita, at primary level of education (2006)

Percentage points

Salary as % of GDP/capita
Instruction time
1/teaching time

1/estimated class size
Difference with OECD average

10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-8

Portugal
Greece
Denmark
Belgium (Fl.)
Spain
Italy
Switzerland
Belgium (Fr.)
Korea
Germany
Luxembourg
Hungary
Japan
New Zealand
Netherlands
Australia
Finland
Austria
Iceland
United States
Czech Republic
United Kingdom
Poland
Turkey
Norway
Ireland
Mexico
France
Slovak Republic

-6

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference between the salary cost in percentage of GDP per capita and the OECD average.
Source: OECD. Table B7.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

281

B7

chapter B

In countries with the lowest salary cost per student as a percentage of GDP per capita, no single
factor can explain this level of salary cost compared to the average in all these countries.Whereas
in the Slovak Republic, the main driver is the below average teachers’ salaries as a percentage of
GDP per capita, in the three other countries (France, Ireland and Mexico), the main driver of
the low level of salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) is above average class
size, leading to a decrease in the salary cost per student (Table B7.1 and Chart B7.2).
Differences in the combination of factors between levels of education

The difference of salary cost per student to the OECD average usually decreases as the level of
education decreases.This pattern does not result from a single factor; it may result from a change
in the various contributions of the different factors, or even from a change in the main driver of
this difference with the OECD average levels of salary cost per student. The higher the level of
education analysed, the higher the impact of teachers’ salaries and lower is the impact of class
size on the difference with the OECD average salary cost per student as a percentage of GDP.
Main examples of this pattern are Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), France, Norway,
Switzerland and Turkey. In all of these countries, the main driver of the difference with the
OECD average salary cost per student is teachers’ salaries at upper secondary level whereas it is
class size at primary level (see Box B7.2).
Comparisons of the different levels of education show that differences between countries at the
level of the salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per capita) are largest at the upper
secondary level of education, and these differences between countries decrease with the level of
education analysed (Chart B7.3).
Chart B7.3. Difference between the salary cost per student in percentage of GDP per capita
and the OECD average, by level of education (2006)
Primary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education

Percentage points

12.5
10.0
7.5
5.0
2.5
0
-2.5
-5.0
-7.5
-10.0

Portugal
Spain
Switzerland
Belgium (Fl.)
Korea
Belgium (Fr.)
Greece
Luxembourg
Denmark
Japan
Germany
France
United Kingdom
New Zealand
Turkey
Netherlands
Italy
Austria
Australia
Czech Republic
Iceland
Finland
Ireland
Hungary
Norway
Mexico
United States
Poland
Slovak Republic

B7

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference between the salary cost in percentage of GDP per capita and the OECD
average in upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table B7.1, Table B7.2 and Table B7.3. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

282

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of Expenditure? – Indicator B7

chapter B

This trend is the most obvious in countries where the salary cost per student (as a percentage of
GDP per capita) is furthest from the OECD average. For example, Belgium, Korea, Portugal,
Spain and Switzerland have the highest levels of salary cost per student (as a percentage of
GDP per capita) at the upper secondary level of education, and the salary cost per student (as
a percentage of GDP per capita) at lower secondary levels is up to 8 percentage points lower
than at upper secondary levels of education. Salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP per
capita) at the primary level is between 0.6 to 4 percentage points lower than it is at the lower
secondary level of education. In these countries, salary cost (as a percentage of GDP per capita)
is above the OECD average in each of these levels of education.
There is a similar pattern for countries with the lowest levels of salary cost per student as a
percentage of GDP per capita, but in these countries, the level of salary cost is below the OECD
average, whatever the level of education. In countries with salary cost per student (as a percentage
of GDP per capita) closer to the average, the salary cost per student (as a percentage of GDP
per capita) may be above the OECD average at upper secondary level and decrease to lower
than the OECD average at the lower secondary or primary levels. This is the case in France and
New Zealand, for example. In a few cases (Italy and to some extent in Australia and Austria), the
trend is in the opposite direction: from below the average at the upper secondary level to above
the average at the primary level, and the difference from the OECD average increases with the
level of education (except in Italy).
However, there are a few exceptions to this general trend, which show that the differences of
salary cost per student to the OECD average increases as the level of education decreases. In
Greece and Luxembourg, there are larger differences in salary cost, as a percentage of GDP
per capita, with the OECD average at the lower secondary level than at the upper secondary
level of education. The extent of the contribution of the four factors explains these effects. In
Luxembourg, there is no clear pattern as to what extent the contribution changes between
levels of education, but the direction of the contribution can also change. In Greece, class size
contributes to an increase in the salary cost per student at the lower secondary level of education,
but it decreases the salary cost per student at the upper secondary level. This is the result of an
increase in the class size between these two levels. In Denmark, differences from the OECD
average are larger at the primary level than at the lower and upper secondary levels of education,
but no single factor explains these changes between levels of education. This results in a very
different contribution of the four factors at these three levels, with class size and teaching time
playing the main roles, whatever the level of education.
The fact that similar levels of expenditure between countries can mask contrasting policy
choices made by countries explains a bit about why simple comparisons of student performance
and expenditure levels fail to show strong correlations. Further analysis is needed to examine
what influence these different policy choices actually have on the quality and equity of learning
outcomes.
Definitions and methodologies

Salary cost per student is calculated based on the salary of teachers, the number of hours of
instruction for students, the number of hours of teaching for teachers and a proxy class size.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

283

B7

chapter B

B7

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

In most cases, the values for these variables are derived from Education at a Glance 2008, and
refer to the school year 2005/06 and the calendar year 2005 for indicators related to finance.
However, in order to compensate for missing values for some variables, some data have been
estimated on the basis of data published in previous editions of Education at a Glance. When it was
not possible to make estimates or proxy figures were not available, the missing values have been
replaced by the average for all OECD countries.
Further details on the analysis of these factors are available in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.

284

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of Expenditure? – Indicator B7

chapter B

Table B7.1.
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at primary level of education (2006)
Readers’ guide: In Australia, at USD 2 671, the salary cost per student exceeds the OECD average by USD 409. Above-average salaries and above-average
instruction time increase the difference from the OECD average by USD 436 and 522, respectively, whereas an above-average teaching time and an aboveaverage estimated class size decrease the difference from the average by USD 260 and 290. The sum of these effects results in a positive difference from the
OECD average of USD 409.

OECD countries

Contribution (in USD) of school factors to salary cost per student

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Salary cost
per student
(1)
2 671
2 626
3 209
3 071
1 411
3 500
2 385
1 625
2 678
3 012
1 439
2 642
2 508
2 744
2 558
1 973
6 110
650
2 755
2 064
3 200
932
3 095
439
2 713
3 447
530
2 169
2 909

Difference
from OECD
average
(2)
409
364
947
809
-851
1 238
123
-637
416
750
-823
380
246
482
296
-289
3 848
-1 612
493
-198
938
-1 330
833
-1 823
451
1 185
-1 732
-93
647

Contribution to the difference from the OECD average
Instruction
time
1/teaching time 1/estimated
Salary
(for students) (for teachers)
class size
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
436
522
-260
-290
53
-184
70
424
338
113
0
495
214
424
253
-82
-698
-348
-127
321
311
-480
589
818
0
-620
395
349
-256
270
-257
-394
838
-606
-42
225
-295
116
156
772
-1 701
-510
50
1 338
-605
-239
425
799
741
415
-336
-574
-507
559
203
227
782
-282
794
-998
839
-557
-13
-558
2 524
267
114
944
-871
13
-6
-749
413
429
-391
42
48
475
-462
-260
-69
-690
201
1 496
-1 895
-266
280
550
-231
220
-207
1 050
-1 627
-231
261
-227
180
1
-249
519
1 067
-306
-300
724
-1 133
118
305
-1 023
413
260
-255
-511
441
553
-801
454

Source: OECD. Data from Education at a Glance 2008 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

285

B7

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B7.1. (continued)
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at primary level of education (2006)
Readers’ guide: In Australia, at 7.9% of the GDP per capita, the salary cost per student exceeds the OECD average by 0.2 percentage point. Above-average
salaries and above-average instruction time increase the difference from the OECD average by 0.3 and 1.6 percentage points, respectively, whereas an aboveaverage teaching time and above-average class size decrease the difference from the average by 0.8 and 0.9 percentage point. The sum of these effects results
in a positive difference from the OECD average of 0.2 percentage point.

B7

OECD countries

Contribution (in percentage points) of school factors to salary cost per student as a percentage of GDP per capita

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Salary cost per
student as %
of GDP/capita
(1)
7.9
7.7
10.0
9.6
7.0
10.4
7.8
5.5
8.8
11.8
8.5
7.4
6.6
9.9
8.4
9.2
8.7
5.8
7.9
8.3
6.7
6.9
15.5
2.8
10.0
9.7
6.8
6.9
7.0

Difference
from OECD
average
(2)
0.2
0.0
2.3
1.9
-0.7
2.7
0.1
-2.2
1.1
4.1
0.8
-0.3
-1.1
2.2
0.8
1.6
1.0
-1.9
0.3
0.6
-1.0
-0.8
7.8
-4.9
2.3
2.0
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7

Contribution to the difference from the OECD average
Instruction
Salary as % of
time
1/teaching time 1/estimated
GDP/capita (for students) (for teachers)
class size
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.3
1.6
-0.8
-0.9
-1.0
-0.6
0.2
1.3
0.3
0.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
1.4
0.8
-0.3
-0.1
-1.4
-0.5
1.3
-0.2
-1.5
1.9
2.6
-0.3
-2.1
1.3
1.2
-0.9
0.9
-0.9
-1.3
2.5
-2.0
-0.1
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.6
2.8
-2.7
-2.2
0.2
5.5
-3.3
-0.7
1.3
2.5
0.4
1.2
-1.0
-1.7
-1.2
2.0
0.7
0.8
2.4
-0.9
2.7
-3.3
6.2
-2.3
-0.1
-2.3
-1.7
0.6
0.2
2.0
2.0
0.1
0.0
-3.9
0.0
1.3
-1.2
0.1
1.5
1.8
-1.7
-1.0
-3.8
-1.9
0.5
4.2
-3.2
-1.2
1.2
2.4
3.4
0.9
-0.9
4.4
-4.1
-0.9
1.0
-0.9
1.3
0.0
-0.9
1.8
1.7
-0.9
-0.9
2.2
3.1
0.7
1.7
-6.4
0.8
0.9
-0.8
-1.7
-1.3
1.6
-2.3
1.3

Source: OECD. Data from Education at a Glance 2008 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

286

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of Expenditure? – Indicator B7

chapter B

Table B7.2.
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at lower secondary level of education (2006)

OECD countries

Contribution (in USD) of school factors to salary cost per student

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Salary cost
per student
(1)
3 556
3 803
4 318
4 132
1 983
3 487
3 933
2 392
3 324
3 984
1 470
2 642
3 332
3 102
3 289
2 523
10 065
694
2 938
2 205
3 411
846
3 944
595
3 452
4 850
a
2 582
2 901

Difference
from OECD
average
(2)
637
884
1 400
1 214
-936
569
1 014
-526
405
1 065
-1 448
-276
414
183
371
-395
7 146
-2 224
19
-714
492
-2 072
1 026
-2 324
533
1 931
a
-337
-18

Contribution to the difference from the OECD average
Instruction
time (for
1/teaching time 1/estimated
Salary
students)
(for teachers)
class size
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
375
309
-457
410
75
68
530
211
183
39
142
1 037
24
290
247
653
-1 117
-125
260
47
110
-100
296
262
-25
-429
643
825
-347
315
310
-803
903
-223
-201
-74
-645
52
831
828
-2 049
35
573
-7
-888
-208
161
658
728
-107
-103
-104
-575
449
508
-199
769
-249
1 087
-1 236
886
-227
747
-1 801
4 906
-1 158
627
2 771
-808
374
-622
-1 168
549
377
-158
-749
-133
123
-785
81
-316
-407
268
948
-2 161
-182
94
177
-560
-99
-219
1 904
-2 262
-106
142
-98
360
58
-8
124
1 681
-113
-744
1 107
a
a
a
a
306
-16
-628
1
309
127
-1 242
788

Source: OECD. Data from Education at a Glance 2008 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

287

B7

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B7.2. (continued)
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at lower secondary level of education (2006)
Contribution (in percentage points) of school factors to salary cost per student as a percentage of GDP per capita

OECD countries

B7

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Salary cost per
student as %
of GDP/capita
(1)
10.5
11.1
13.5
12.9
9.8
10.4
12.9
8.1
10.9
15.6
8.6
7.4
8.8
11.2
10.9
11.8
14.4
6.1
8.5
8.9
7.2
6.2
19.8
3.7
12.7
13.7
a
8.2
7.0

Difference
from OECD
average
(2)
0.8
1.5
3.8
3.2
0.1
0.7
3.3
-1.6
1.2
6.0
-1.0
-2.2
-0.9
1.5
1.2
2.2
4.7
-3.5
-1.2
-0.8
-2.5
-3.4
10.1
-5.9
3.0
4.0
a
-1.5
-2.7

Contribution to the difference from the OECD average
Instruction
Salary as % of
time
1/teaching time 1/estimated
GDP/capita (for students) (for teachers)
class size
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
0.0
1.0
-1.4
1.3
-1.0
0.2
1.7
0.7
-0.1
0.1
0.5
3.3
-0.6
0.9
0.8
2.1
-0.6
-0.5
1.0
0.2
-0.7
-0.3
0.9
0.8
-0.2
-1.4
2.1
2.7
-1.0
1.1
1.0
-2.7
2.9
-0.7
-0.7
-0.2
-0.2
0.2
3.0
3.0
-3.4
0.1
2.3
0.0
-4.1
-0.6
0.5
2.0
0.0
-0.3
-0.3
-0.3
-1.1
1.5
1.8
-0.7
2.5
-0.8
3.6
-4.1
7.5
-0.9
3.0
-7.4
0.2
-2.2
1.2
5.5
4.1
1.8
-3.2
-6.2
0.4
1.2
-0.5
-2.3
1.3
0.4
-2.9
0.3
-4.7
-1.1
0.7
2.6
-3.8
-0.8
0.4
0.7
3.7
-0.4
-0.9
7.8
-5.7
-0.4
0.5
-0.4
2.4
0.2
0.0
0.4
3.2
-0.3
-2.2
3.3
a
a
a
a
0.6
-0.1
-2.0
0.0
-1.8
0.4
-3.5
2.3

Source: OECD. Data from Education at a Glance 2008 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

288

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Which Factors Influence the Level of Expenditure? – Indicator B7

chapter B

Table B7.3.
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at upper secondary level of education (2006)

OECD countries

Contribution (in USD) of school factors to salary cost per student

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Salary cost
per student
(1)
3 556
3 583
5 083
4 895
2 078
4 338
2 687
3 498
3 872
3 865
1 462
3 151
3 332
2 978
3 867
3 306
10 065
m
3 929
2 872
3 892
838
4 388
574
5 636
6 731
894
3 716
2 723

Difference
from OECD
average
(2)
124
151
1 651
1 462
-1 354
906
-745
65
440
433
-1 970
-281
-100
-454
435
-126
6 633
m
497
-560
459
-2 594
956
-2 858
2 204
3 299
-2 538
284
-709

Contribution to the difference from the OECD average
Instruction
time (for
1/teaching time 1/estimated
Salary
students)
(for teachers)
class size
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
180
184
-798
558
-63
273
356
-415
968
-100
88
695
792
201
320
149
-1 379
-33
176
-118
760
-311
2 337
-1 879
97
-191
541
-1 192
-654
549
194
-24
1 092
-282
-337
-34
-930
1 161
667
-465
-1 938
323
399
-755
-617
-297
500
133
570
-294
-409
34
-729
368
258
-351
663
-422
1 561
-1 366
849
169
576
-1 719
4 918
-1 762
92
3 385
m
m
m
m
1 537
350
-530
-860
-374
44
-1 204
974
-329
-471
810
450
-2 466
-199
-81
153
-900
36
-219
2 039
-2 536
-162
74
-234
319
33
-279
2 130
2 616
273
-172
583
-1 985
-371
292
-474
166
-82
-1 152
1 352
119
27
-1 574
719

Source: OECD. Data from Education at a Glance 2008 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

289

B7

chapter B

Financial and Human Resources Invested In Education

Table B7.3. (continued)
Contribution of various factors to salary cost per student at upper secondary level of education (2006)
Contribution (in percentage points) of school factors to salary cost per student as a percentage of GDP per capita

OECD countries

B7

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Salary cost per
student as %
of GDP/capita
(1)
10.5
10.5
15.8
15.3
10.2
12.9
8.8
11.8
12.7
15.2
8.6
8.9
8.8
10.7
12.8
15.5
14.4
m
11.3
11.5
8.2
6.2
22.0
3.6
20.7
19.0
11.5
11.8
6.5

Difference
from OECD
average
(2)
-0.9
-0.9
4.4
3.9
-1.2
1.5
-2.6
0.4
1.3
3.8
-2.8
-2.5
-2.6
-0.7
1.4
4.1
3.0
m
-0.1
0.1
-3.2
-5.2
10.6
-7.8
9.3
7.6
0.1
0.4
-4.9

Contribution to the difference from the OECD average
Instruction
Salary as % of
time
1/teaching time 1/estimated
GDP/capita (for students) (for teachers)
class size
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
-0.8
0.6
-2.5
1.7
-1.6
0.9
1.1
-1.3
2.3
-0.3
0.3
2.2
1.7
0.6
1.0
0.5
-1.3
-0.1
0.7
-0.5
1.0
-1.0
7.4
-5.9
0.2
-0.6
1.8
-3.9
-2.0
1.8
0.6
-0.1
3.4
-0.9
-1.1
-0.1
-1.1
4.2
2.4
-1.7
-2.6
1.3
1.6
-3.1
-3.6
-0.9
1.5
0.4
-0.7
-0.9
-1.2
0.1
-1.6
1.3
0.9
-1.2
2.1
-1.4
5.2
-4.5
8.1
0.7
2.3
-7.1
-0.7
-3.4
0.2
7.0
m
m
m
m
3.1
1.1
-1.6
-2.6
0.9
0.2
-4.4
3.5
-5.4
-1.3
2.2
1.2
-4.7
-0.8
-0.3
0.6
3.0
0.1
-0.9
8.3
-6.6
-0.6
0.3
-0.9
2.7
0.1
-1.0
7.5
5.5
0.8
-0.5
1.7
3.3
-2.1
1.6
-2.7
0.0
-0.3
-3.7
4.4
-2.6
0.1
-4.5
2.1

Source: OECD. Data from Education at a Glance 2008 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008). See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664466141103

290

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Chapter

C

Access to Education,
Participation
and Progression

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

291

WHO PARTICIPATES IN EDUCATION?

INDICATOR C1

This indicator examines access to education and its evolution using information
on enrolment rates and trends from 1995 to 2007. It also shows patterns of
participation at the secondary and tertiary levels of education, and the comparative
roles played by public and private providers of education across OECD and partner
countries.

Key results
Chart C1.1. Enrolment rates of 20-29 year-olds (1995, 2000, 2007)

Full-time and part-time students in public and private institutions
2007

2000

1995

In Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Poland and Sweden, and in the partner
country Slovenia, more than 30% of the population aged 20 to 29 is enrolled in education. From
1995 to 2007, enrolment rates of 20-29 year-olds increased by 8 percentage points.
%

Finland
Denmark
Iceland
Sweden
Australia
Slovenia
Poland
New Zealand
Norway
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
Korea
Estonia
Greece
Canada1
Hungary
OECD average
EU19 average
United States
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Austria
Spain
Israel
Brazil
Italy
Ireland
Portugal
Chile
France2
Slovak Republic
United Kingdom3
Turkey
Mexico
Luxembourg

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

1. Reference year 2006 instead of 2007.
2. Excludes overseas departments for 1995 and 2000.
3. Break in time series following methodological change from 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of enrolment rates of 20-29 year-olds in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table C1.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

292

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• In most OECD countries today, virtually everyone has access to at least 12 years
of formal education. In Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland,
Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden, at least 90% of students
are enrolled in education for 14 years or more. In contrast, enrolment rates in
Greece and Mexico exceed 90% for ten years, and for only six years in Turkey. For
partner countries Brazil and the Russian Federation, the corresponding number
of years is ten and nine years respectively.

INDICATOR C1

• In more than one-half of OECD countries, more than 70% of 3-4 year-olds
are enrolled in either pre-primary or primary programmes. Children age 4 and
under are more likely to be enrolled in a programme in one of the 19 European
Union countries that are members of the OECD than in one of the other OECD
countries. The average enrolment rate for 3-4 year-olds is 79% for the EU19
while only 71% for the OECD.
• Enrolment rates for 15-19 year-olds increased on average from 74% to 81%
from 1995 to 2007. In Belgium, the Czech Republic and Poland, and the partner
country Slovenia, they reached more than 90% in 2007 (in Belgium they had
already reached this level in 1995). The pattern is similar for 20-29 year-olds, the
age span during which most students are enrolled in tertiary education; between
1995 and 2007, their enrolment rates increased in all OECD countries except
Portugal.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

293

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Policy context

C1

A well-educated population is essential to a country’s economic and social development.
Societies therefore have an intrinsic interest in ensuring that children and adults have access to
a wide variety of educational opportunities. Early childhood programmes prepare children for
primary education; they provide opportunities to enhance and complement their educational
experiences at home and can help combat linguistic and social disadvantages. Primary and
secondary education lay the foundation for the development of a broad range of competencies
and prepare young people to become lifelong learners and productive members of society.
Tertiary education, either directly after initial schooling or later in life, provides a range of
options for acquiring advanced knowledge and skills.
Various factors, including increased risks of unemployment and other forms of exclusion for
young adults with insufficient education, have strengthened the incentive to remain in school
beyond the end of compulsory education and to graduate from upper secondary education. In
most OECD countries, graduation from upper secondary education is becoming the norm, and
most upper secondary programmes prepare students for tertiary studies (see Indicator A2).
High tertiary participation rates help to ensure the development and maintenance of a highly
educated population and labour force. Moreover, tertiary education programmes are generally
associated with better access to employment (see Indicator A6) and higher earnings (see
Indicator A7). Rates of entry into tertiary education are a partial indication of the degree to
which a population is acquiring the high-level skills and knowledge valued by the labour market
in today’s knowledge society (see Indicator A2).
As students have become more aware of the economic and social benefits of tertiary education,
graduation rates for tertiary-type A programmes have risen (see Indicator A3). Tertiary-type
A programmes dominate tertiary enrolments and absorb a large proportion of the available
resources, as they tend to be longer than other tertiary programmes (see Indicator B1).
The continuing rise in participation and the widening diversity of backgrounds and interests
among those aspiring to tertiary studies mean that tertiary institutions need to expand admissions
and adapt their programmes to the needs of new generations of students. In addition, the
internationalisation of tertiary education means that some educational institutions may also have
to adapt their curriculum and teaching methods to a culturally and linguistically diverse student
body (see Indicator C2).
Evidence and explanations

In most OECD countries today, virtually everyone has access to at least 12 years of formal
education. In Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, the Netherlands,
Norway, Spain and Sweden, at least 90% of students are enrolled in education for 14 years or
more. In contrast, enrolment rates exceed 90% in Greece and Mexico for ten years, and for only
six years in Turkey. For partner countries Brazil and the Russian Federation, the corresponding
number of years is ten and nine years respectively (Table C1.1). However, patterns of participation
in education throughout people’s lives vary widely among countries.
294

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Prevalent Are Vocational Programmes? – Indicator C1

chapter C

Participation in early childhood education

Children age 4 and under are more likely to be enrolled in a programme in one of the 19
European Union countries that are members of the OECD than in one of the other OECD
countries. The average enrolment rate for 3-4 year-olds is 79% for the EU19 while only 71%
for the OECD.
In the majority of OECD and partner countries, full enrolment (defined here as enrolment rates
exceeding 90%) begins between the ages of 5 and 6. However, in Austria, Belgium, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, and in the partner
countries Estonia, Israel and Slovenia, at least 70% of 3-4 year-olds are enrolled in either preprimary
or primary programmes. Enrolment rates for early childhood education range from less than 30%
in Greece, Korea, Switzerland and Turkey to over 90% in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,
Iceland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, and Sweden (Table C1.1).
Early childhood education and care is very valuable in building a strong foundation for lifelong
learning and in ensuring equitable access to later learning opportunities. Many countries have
recognised this by making pre-primary education almost universal for children by the time
they are 3 years of age. However, institutionally based pre-primary programmes covered by
this indicator are not the only available form of effective early childhood education and care.
Inferences about access to and quality of pre-primary education and care should therefore be
made with caution.
Participation in upper secondary education

A range of factors – including better employment outcomes for the more educated – has
strengthened the incentive for young people to remain in school beyond the end of compulsory
education and to graduate from upper secondary education. The continued rise in participation
in upper secondary education means that countries have to cater to a more diverse student
population at that level.
Countries have taken various approaches to meeting these demands. Some have comprehensive
secondary systems with non-selective general/academic programmes so that all students have
similar opportunities for learning; others provide more distinctive education programmes
(academic, pre-vocational and/or vocational programmes). Programmes at the secondary level
can be subdivided into three categories, based on the degree to which they are oriented towards
a specific class of occupations or trades and lead to a qualification that is relevant to the labour
market:
• General education programmes are not designed explicitly to prepare participants for specific
occupations or trades, or for entry into further vocational or technical education programmes
(less than 25% of programme content is vocational or technical).
• Pre-vocational or pre-technical education programmes are mainly designed to introduce
participants to the world of work and to prepare them for entry into further vocational or
technical education programmes. Successful completion of such programmes does not lead
to a vocational or technical qualification that is directly relevant to the labour market (at least
25% of programme content is vocational or technical).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

295

C1

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

• Vocational or technical education programmes prepare participants for direct entry into
specific occupations without further training. Successful completion of such programmes leads
to a vocational or technical qualification that is relevant to the labour market.

C1

Vocational and pre-vocational programmes are further divided into two categories (school-based
and combined school- and work-based programmes) on the basis of the amount of training
provided in school as opposed to the work place:
• In school-based programmes, instruction takes place (either partially or exclusively) in
educational institutions. They include special training centres run by public or private authorities
or enterprise-based special training centres if these qualify as educational institutions. These
programmes can have an on-the-job training component involving some practical work experience
at the workplace. Programmes are classified as school-based if at least 75% of the programme
curriculum is presented in the school environment; this may include distance education.
• In combined school- and work-based programmes, less than 75% of the curriculum is
presented in the school environment or through distance education. These programmes can be
organised in conjunction with educational authorities or educational institutions and include
apprenticeship programmes that involve concurrent school-based and work-based training,
and programmes that involve alternating periods of attendance at educational institutions and
participation in work-based training (sometimes referred to as “sandwich” programmes).
The degree to which a programme has a vocational or general orientation does not necessarily
determine whether participants have access to tertiary education. In several OECD countries,
vocationally oriented programmes are designed to prepare students for further study at the
tertiary level, and in some countries general programmes do not always provide direct access to
further education.
For 13 OECD countries and the partner country Slovenia, for which data are available, the
majority of upper secondary students pursue pre-vocational or vocational programmes. In most
OECD countries with dual-system apprenticeship programmes (Austria, Germany, Luxembourg,
the Netherlands and Switzerland) and in Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Italy,
Norway, the Slovak Republic and Sweden and the partner country Slovenia, 55% or more of
upper secondary students are enrolled in pre-vocational or vocational programmes. However, in
Canada, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Portugal and Turkey and the
partner countries Brazil, Chile, Estonia and Israel, 60% or more of upper secondary students are
enrolled in general programmes even though pre-vocational and/or vocational programmes are
offered (Table C1.4).
In many OECD countries, upper secondary vocational education is school-based. However, in
Austria, the Czech Republic, Iceland and the Slovak Republic, about 40% or more of students
in vocational programmes participate in programmes that combine school- and work-based
elements. In Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland and Switzerland and the partner country
Estonia, around 75% or more of students in vocational programmes are enrolled in programmes
that have both school- and work-based elements.
Upper secondary students in many education systems can enrol in vocational programmes, but
some OECD countries delay vocational training until after graduation from upper secondary
296

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Prevalent Are Vocational Programmes? – Indicator C1

chapter C

education. While vocational programmes are offered as advanced upper secondary programmes
in some OECD countries (e.g. Austria, Hungary and Spain), similar programmes are offered as
post-secondary education in others (e.g. Canada and the United States).
Apprenticeship programmes

Table C1.4 includes enrolments in apprenticeship programmes that are a recognised part of the
education system in countries. This section provides information on the typical characteristics of
these programmes and other work-based learning programmes.
In most OECD countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Turkey and the United
Kingdom) and partner countries (Israel, the Russian Federation and Slovenia), some form
of an apprenticeship system exists. In some countries (e.g. Austria, Germany and Hungary),
apprenticeship contracts are established between a student (not the vocational training school)
and a company. The majority of countries have combined school- and work-based apprenticeship
programmes. That said, apprenticeship systems do not exist in Japan, Korea, Spain and Sweden.
However, Sweden is currently piloting apprenticeship training as a complement to school-based
education. In the United States, there are apprenticeship programmes, but they generally are not
part of the formal education system.
The minimum entry requirement for apprenticeship programmes varies but is typically the
completion of lower secondary education (the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and the Slovak
Republic, and the partner countries Israel and Slovenia). In Austria, students must have completed
a minimum of nine years of compulsory schooling. In Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, the
United Kingdom and the United States, entry is governed (in full or in part) by age criteria,
while in New Zealand, participants must be employed. In Turkey, the minimum requirement is
completion of primary education, but entrants must be at least 14 years old and have a contract
with a workplace. In the partner country the Russian Federation, there is no legal framework for
entry into apprenticeship programmes.
In some countries the duration of apprenticeship programmes is standardised; it ranges from
one to four years in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand,
Norway, Poland and the United Kingdom, and the partner countries Israel and Slovenia. In other
countries (e.g. Austria and Belgium), it varies according to subject, specific qualification sought,
previous knowledge and/or experience.
In most countries, the successful completion of an apprenticeship programme usually results in
the awarding of an upper secondary or post-secondary qualification. In some countries, higher
qualifications are possible (such as an advanced diploma in Australia).
Participation towards the end of compulsory education and beyond

Several factors influence the decision to stay enrolled in school beyond the end of compulsory
education, particularly the limited prospects of young adults with insufficient education; in many
countries they are at greater risk of unemployment and other forms of exclusion than their
more educated peers. In many OECD countries, the transition from education to employment
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

297

C1

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

has become longer and more complex, providing the opportunity or the necessity to combine
learning and work to develop marketable skills (see Indicator C3).

In most OECD and partner countries, participation rates tend to be high to the end of compulsory
education. However, in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Turkey, and the United States and the partner country Chile, the rates drop below 90% before
the end of compulsory education (Table C1.1). In Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands
and the United States and the partner country Chile, this may be due, in part, to the fact that
compulsory education ends relatively late at age 18 (age 17, on average, in the United States).
In most OECD and partner countries, enrolment rates decline gradually during the last years of
upper secondary education. More than 20% of the population aged 15 to 19 is not enrolled in
education in Austria, Greece, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Turkey, the United
Kingdom and the United States, and in the partner countries Brazil, Chile, Israel and the Russian
Federation (Table C1.1 and Chart C1.2).
Chart C1.2. Enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds (1995, 2000 and 2007)

Full-time and part-time students in public and private institutions
2007

%

2000

1995

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Belgium
Poland
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Ireland
Netherlands
Hungary
Germany
Finland
Norway
Sweden
Korea
France1
Slovak Republic
Estonia
EU19 average
Switzerland
Iceland
Denmark
Australia
OECD average
Canada2
Spain
Italy
United States
Greece
Austria
Portugal
New Zealand
Brazil
Chile
Luxembourg
United Kingdom3
Israel
Mexico
Turkey

C1

The age at which compulsory education ends ranges from 14 in Korea, Portugal andTurkey and the
partner countries Brazil and Slovenia to 18 in Belgium, Germany, Hungary and the Netherlands
and the partner country Chile (Table C1.1). However, the statutory age at which compulsory
education ends does not always correspond to the age at which enrolment is universal.

1. Excludes overseas departments for 1995 and 2000.
2. Reference year 2006 instead of 2007.
3. Break in time series following methodological change from 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of enrolment rates of 15-19 year-olds in 2007.
Source: OECD. Table C1.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

298

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Prevalent Are Vocational Programmes? – Indicator C1

chapter C

There has been an average increase of 8 percentage points in the proportion of 15-19 year-olds
enrolled in education in OECD countries between 1995 and 2007. Enrolment rates for this age
group increased on average from 74% to 81% from 1995 to 2007, and amounted to more than
90% in 2007 in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Poland and the partner country Slovenia (Belgium
had already reached 90% or more in 1995) (Table C1.2). However, even though enrolment rates
for 15-19 year-olds have improved by more than 20 percentage points during the past 12 years in
the Czech Republic and Hungary, they have remained virtually unchanged in Australia, Belgium,
Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Of these, all except
Luxembourg have a high proportion of their population of 15-19 year-olds enrolled in education
(Table C1.2 and Chart C1.2).
End of compulsory education and decline in enrolment rates

An analysis of the participation rates by level of education and single year of age shows that there
is no close relationship between the end of compulsory education and the decline in enrolment
rates. In most OECD and partner countries, the sharpest decline in enrolment rates occurs not
at the end of compulsory education, but at the end of upper secondary education. After the age
of 16, however, enrolment rates begin to decline in all OECD and partner countries. Enrolment
rates in secondary education fall from 91% on average at age 16 to 83% at age 17, 53% at age
18 and 27% at age 19. In Belgium, the Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Japan,
Korea, Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Sweden and in the partner countries Israel and
Slovenia, 90% or more of all 17-year-olds are still enrolled at this level, even though compulsory
education ends at less than 17 years of age in most of these countries (Table C1.3).
Participation in tertiary education

Enrolment rates indicate the number of individuals participating in tertiary education. On average
in OECD countries, 25% of 20-29 year-olds were enrolled in education in 2007. Enrolment
rates were 30% or more in Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Poland and
Sweden and in the partner country Slovenia (Table C1.1 and Chart C1.1). However, it should
be noted that tertiary enrolment rates for countries with large proportions of international
students relative to population size may be overestimated. For example, the tertiary enrolment
rates of 20-29 year-olds in tertiary education in Australia and New Zealand fell by 27% and 22%
respectively when adjustments for the impact of international students were made.
Policies to expand education have led to greater access to tertiary education in many OECD and
partner countries. So far this has more than compensated for the declines in cohort sizes, which
until recently had led to the predictions of stable or declining demand in several OECD countries.
On average, in all OECD countries with comparable data, participation rates in tertiary education
grew by 8 percentage points from 1995 to 2007. All OECD and partner countries except Portugal
saw some degree of increase in participation rates of 20-29 year-olds. This growth was over
12 percentage points in the Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Korea, New Zealand,
Poland and Sweden, and particularly significant in the Czech Republic, Greece and Hungary, which
were previously at the bottom of the scale of OECD countries but recently moved up to the middle.
Although some OECD countries (Belgium, France, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden and the United States) show signs of a leveling of the tertiary enrolment rates, the overall
trend remains upwards (Table C1.2 and Chart C1.1).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

299

C1

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

The relative size of the public and the private sectors

C1

In OECD and partner countries, education at the primary and secondary levels is still
predominantly publicly provided. On average, 91% of primary education students in OECD
countries are enrolled in public institutions; the figures decline slightly in secondary education,
with 85% of lower secondary students and 83% of upper secondary students taught in public
institutions. Japan and Mexico are exceptions at the upper secondary level, as independent
private providers (those that receive less than 50% of their funds from government sources) take
in 31% and 20%, respectively, of upper secondary students (Table C1.5).
At the tertiary level, the pattern is quite different. Private providers generally play a more significant
role. In tertiary-type B programmes, the private sector accounts for more than one-third of students,
and in tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes it accounts for more than one-fifth of
students. In the United Kingdom, all tertiary education is provided through government-dependent
private institutions. Such providers also receive more than half of tertiary-type B students in the
partner country Israel (70%). Government-dependent private providers also take a significant
share of tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes in the partner countries Estonia (86%)
and Israel (76%). Independent private providers are more prominent at the tertiary level than at
pre-tertiary levels (an average of 14% of tertiary students attend such institutions), particularly in
Japan, Korea and partner countries Brazil and Chile (in tertiary-type B), where more than 70% of
students are enrolled in such institutions (Table C1.6).
Definitions and methodologies

Data on enrolments are for the school year 2006-2007 and based on the UOE data collection on
educational systems administered annually by the OECD.
Except where otherwise noted, figures are based on head counts; that is, they do not distinguish
between full-time and part-time study because the concept of part-time study is not recognised
by some countries. In some OECD countries, part-time education is only partially covered in
the reported data.
Net enrolment rates, expressed as percentages in Table C1.1 and Table C1.2, are calculated by
dividing the number of students of a particular age group enrolled in all levels of education by
the size of the population of that age group.
In Table C1.2, data on trends in enrolment rates for the years 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 and
2004 are based on a special survey carried out in OECD countries and four out of six partner
countries in January 2007.
Data on apprenticeship programmes are based on a special survey carried out by the OECD in
the autumn of 2007.
Data on the impact of international students on tertiary enrolment rates are based on a special
survey carried out by the OECD in December 2008.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

• Table C1.7. Education expectancy (2007)
• Table C1.8. Expected years in tertiary education (2007)

300

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Prevalent Are Vocational Programmes? – Indicator C1

chapter C

Table C1.1.
Enrolment rates, by age (2007)
Full-time and part-time students in public and private institutions

Partner countries

Number of years at
which over 90% of
the population
are enrolled

Age range at which
over 90% of the
population
are enrolled

4 and under as a
percentage of the
population
aged 3 to 4

5 to 14 as a
percentage of the
population
aged 5 to 14

15 to 19 as a
percentage of the
population
aged 15 to19

20 to 29 as a
percentage of the
population
aged 20 to 29

30 to 39 as a
percentage of the
population
aged 30 to 39

40 and over as a
percentage of the
population aged
40 and over

Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy1
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg3
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain1
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Ending age of
compulsory
education
OECD countries

Students aged:

(1)
15
15
18
16-18
15
16
16
16
18
14.5
18
16
16
15
15
14
15
15
18
16
16
16
14
16
16
16
15
14
16
17

(2)
12
12
15
m
13
13
13
15
14
10
14
14
14
13
14
12
12
10
14
12
14
13
12
12
14
16
12
6
13
11

(3)
5 - 16
5 - 16
3 - 17
m
5 - 17
3 - 16
6 - 18
3 - 17
4 - 17
6 - 15
4 - 17
3 - 16
5 - 18
3 - 15
4 - 17
6 - 17
4 - 15
5 - 14
4 - 17
4 - 15
4 - 17
6 - 18
5 - 16
6 - 17
3 - 16
3 - 18
5 - 16
7 - 12
4 - 16
6 - 16

(4)
32.2
70.1
126.0
m
80.0
94.0
46.0
111.2
99.0
27.7
82.7
96.0
23.8
104.4
84.4
27.3
81.5
60.4
49.6
90.1
91.8
40.7
72.0
76.0
125.9
98.4
27.0
6.7
89.9
49.8

(5)
99.3
98.3
99.3
m
99.8
98.0
95.3
100.9
99.2
97.7
99.8
98.3
102.6
100.3
100.5
95.7
95.9
102.1
99.5
99.7
99.2
94.5
104.2
96.8
100.7
100.3
100.4
84.3
99.3
98.3

(6)
82.3
79.0
94.4
81.1
90.1
83.3
87.9
85.7
88.1
79.7
88.8
84.4
89.7
80.0
m
86.8
73.6
50.1
89.3
75.4
87.4
93.1
77.3
85.5
80.4
87.0
84.4
47.2
71.4
79.9

(7)
33.1
21.6
28.3
25.9
21.8
38.2
43.0
19.5
28.7
26.6
25.1
36.2
20.8
21.0
m
27.8
5.7
11.1
28.0
30.2
29.9
31.0
20.6
18.5
21.5
34.5
22.7
11.9
17.3
22.8

(8)
13.5
3.5
8.5
5.5
4.4
8.1
14.4
2.6
2.5
7.6
5.9
12.4
5.6
3.5
m
2.1
0.5
3.5
2.7
12.7
6.8
4.3
3.7
3.9
4.0
12.9
3.8
1.6
5.7
5.5

(9)
5.8
0.5
3.8
1.7
0.4
1.5
3.4
n
0.1
x(8)
0.6
3.6
0.2
0.1
m
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.7
6.0
1.7
x(8)
0.6
0.6
1.1
2.9
0.4
0.2
1.7
1.4

OECD average

16

13

71.2

98.6

81.5

24.9

5.9

1.5

EU19 average

16

13

78.9

99.1

84.4

24.8

5.6

1.1

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation4
Slovenia

14
18
15
15
15
14

10
11
11
13
9
12

44.7
50.2
87.0
83.7
m
76.0

91.7
96.1
100.4
96.1
81.5
96.2

75.2
73.7
85.1
64.8
73.5
90.9

21.1
20.4
26.8
21.3
18.7
33.0

8.7
3.2
7.1
5.6
0.7
5.8

2.7
0.6
0.8
1.0
n
0.7

7 - 16
6 - 16
6 - 16
5 - 17
7 - 15
6 - 17

Note: Ending age of compulsory education is the age at which compulsory schooling ends. For example, an ending age of 18 indicates that all students
under 18 are legally obliged to participate in education. Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and the enrolment data mean that
the participation rates may be underestimated for countries such as Luxembourg that are net exporters of students and may be overestimated for
those that are net importers.
1. The rates “4 and under as a percentage of the population of 3-4 year-olds” are overestimated. A significant number of students are younger than
3 years old. The net rates between 3 and 5 are around 100%.
2. Reference year 2006.
3. Underestimated because a lot of resident students go to school in the neighbouring countries.
4. Reference year 2005.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

301

C1

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Partner countries

C1

OECD countries

Table C1.2.
Trends in enrolment rates (1995-2007)
Full-time and part-time students in public and private institutions in 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France 1
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom 2
United States

15-19 year-olds as a percentage
20-29 year-olds as a percentage
of the population aged 15 to 19
of the population aged 20 to 29
1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
81 82 81 83 82 82 82 83 82 23 28 28 33 33 33 33 33 33
75 77 77 77 77 79 80 82 79 16 18 19 17 18 19 19 20 22
94 91 91 92 94 95 94 95 94 24 25 26 27 29 30 29 29 28
80 81 81 80 80 79 80 81
m 22 23 24 25 25 25 26 26
m
66 81 87 90 90 91 90 90 90 10 14 15 16 17 19 20 20 22
79 80 83 82 85 85 85 83 83 30 35 36 36 36 36 38 38 38
81 85 85 85 86 87 87 88 88 28 38 39 40 40 41 43 43 43
89 87 86 86 87 87 86 86 86 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
88 88 90 89 89 89 89 89 88 20 24 24 26 27 28 28 28 29
62 82 74 83 83 86 97 93 80 13 16 22 25 26 28 24 32 27
64 78 79 81 83 85 87 88 89 10 19 20 21 22 24 24 25 25
79 79 79 81 83 84 85 85 84 24 31 30 32 36 37 37 37 36
79 81 82 83 84 87 89 88 90 14 16 18 19 19 23 21 20 21
m 72 73 76 78 79 80 81 80
m 17 17 18 20 20 20 20 21
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
75 79 79 80 81 84 86 86 87 15 24 25 27 27 28 27 28 28
73 74 75 75 75 75 72 73 74
m
5
6
6
6
7
6
9
6
36 42 42 44 45 47 48 49 50
8
9
9 10 10 11 11 11 11
89 87 86 87 85 86 86 89 89 21 22 23 23 25 26 26 27 28
68 72 72 74 74 74 74 74
75 17 23 25 28 30 31 30 29 30
83 86 85 85 85 86 86 86 87 25 28 26 26 29 29 29 30 30
78 84 86 87 88 90 92 93 93 16 24 26 28 29 30 31 31 31
68 71 73 71 72 73 73 73 77 22 22 22 22 23 23 22 21 21
m
m 74 76 80 83 85 85 86
m
m 12 13 13 15 16 17 18
73 77 78 78 78 80 81 80 80 21 24 23 23 22 22 22 22 22
82 86 86 86 87 87 87 88 87 22 33 33 34 34 36 36 36 35
80 83 83 83 83 83 83 84 84 15 19 20 20 21 21 22 22 23
30 28 30 34 35 40 41 45 47
7
5
5
6
6 10 10 11 12
72 75 75 77 75 79 79 70 71 18 24 24 27 26 28 29 17 17
72 73 76 75 76 76 79 78 80 19 20 22 23 22 23 23 23 23

OECD average

74  

OECD average for
countries with 1995
and 2007 data

74  

EU19 average

77  

81  

81  

82  

83  

84  

85  

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
64
m
m
m
m

75
66
m
64
71
m

71
m
m
63
71
m

74
66
m
65
74
m

80
68
m
66
m
m

79
70
m
65
m
m

80
74
87
65
74
91

77  

78  

79  

79  

81  

81  

82  

82  

18  

81  

18  

85  

84  

19  

22  

22  

23  

24  

25  

25  

25  

25  

m
72
87
65
m
91

75
74
85
65
m
91

m
m
m
m
m
m

21
m
m
m
m
m

23
m
m
m
m
m

22
m
m
21
13
m

22
m
m
21
m
m

23
m
m
20
m
m

21
m
27
20
19
32

m
m
27
21
m
33

21
20
27
21
m
33

1. Excludes overseas departments (DOM) from 1995 to 2004.
2. Break in time series following methodological change from 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

302

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

22  

22  

23  

24  

25  

25  

25  

25  
26  

chapter C

How Prevalent Are Vocational Programmes? – Indicator C1

Table C1.3.
Transition characteristics from age 15-20, by level of education (2007)
Net enrolment rates (based on head counts)

Partner countries

17
17-18
18
17-18
18-19
18-19
19
17-20
19-20
18
19
19
18-19
19
18
17
18-19
18
17-20
17-18
18-20
19-20
17-18
19-20
17
19
18-20
16
16
18

(1) (2)
98 93
95 91
102 102
94 91
100 100
97 91
99 96
98 95
97 95
92 89
100 95
99 93
99 101
93 89
99 96
99 91
92 83
65 58
99 98
96 87
100 95
98 97
96 90
99 94
99 93
95 99
97 91
60 60
98 90
98 93

Tertiary education

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Secondary
education

Age 20
Tertiary education

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Secondary
education

Age 19
Tertiary education

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Secondary
education

(4) (5) (6)
n 79
1
n 76
13
n 100
n
1 79 x(7)
n 96
n
n 84
n
n 95
n
n 88
n
n 91
n
a 75
1
n 92
n
n 85
n
n 79
6
a 83
a
a 95
a
n 92
a
m 79
n
a 44
a
n 86
n
1 70
3
n 93
n
a 95
n
a 80
a
n 90
n
n 83
a
n 97
n
n 87
1
n 37
a
n 74
n
1 81
m

Age 18
Tertiary education

(3)
n
n
n
x(4)
n
n
n
n
n
a
n
n
1
a
a
a
n
a
n
1
n
a
a
n
a
n
n
a
n
m

Secondary
education

Tertiary education

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Age 17

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

OECD countries

Graduation age at the
upper secondary level
of education
Secondary
education
Secondary
education

Age 16

Post-secondary
non-tertiary

Age
15

(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
5 38
3 28
25
3 37
20
2 38
n 46
22
5
19
13 15
8
6 22
1 47
6 36
23
7 47
13
4 48
8 33 x(10) 36
11 x(13) 50
4 x(16) 47
n 82
4
1
37
10 22
7
6 37
n 80
n
n
57
n
5
34
n 15
n 93
n
1
33
n 20
17
n 33
2 49
1 28
24
1 40
10
1 41
1 82
n
3
40
20 10
20
16 19
9 18
6 42
10
7 50
6
4 52
n 62
9 12
22
17 34
11
11 38
n 74
n
n
67
n
2
36
n 16
5 31
25 34
4
17 44
1
13 41
a 75
a
3
20
n 34
6
n 37
m
3
m m
1
m m
m
m m
1
5
a 68
n
a 76
n
a 70
m 68
n m
43
n m
24
1 m
3 18
a 13
28
a 19
3
a 20
6 61
n 21
42
n 31
28
n 36
4 25
7 27
12
6 36
9
5 38
n 88
n
n
42
1 15
20
2 29
n 92
n
1
36
9 37
12
12 45
a 45
n 19
25
n 27
13
n 30
n 80
n
4
36
n 25
7
1 35
n 41
a 28
23
a 35
13
a 38
n 93
n
1
28
1 14
17
1 23
n 78
1
2
47
3
9
20
3 16
6 23
a 19
m
a 26
m
a 26
2 26
n 24
10
n 33
6
n 33
4 26
m 39
4
m 52
n
m 48

OECD average

95

91

n

n

83

1

2

53

3

18

27

4

30

13

3

35

EU19 average

97

94

n

n

87

1

2

62

4

15

28

5

29

13

4

35

Brazil
18
Chile
18
Estonia
19
Israel
17
Russian Federation
17
Slovenia
18-19

84
93
96
96
86
95

87
91
96
94
73
98

a
a
n
n
x(2)
n

n
n
n
n
m
n

77
a
86
a
89
n
90
n
36 x(5)
96
n

1
n
n
n
m
n

55
31
73
20
13
84

a
a
1
n
x(8)
n

8
21
9
6
m
5

35
a
10
a
21
6
2
n
5 x(11)
26
3

11
32
36
12
m
48

23
a
3
a
8
7
1
1
1 x(14)
m
m

14
33
40
13
m
53

Note: Mismatches between the coverage of the population data and the student data mean that the paparticipation rates may be underestimated for
countries such as Luxembourg that are net exporters of students and may be overestimated for those that are net importers.
1.Year of reference 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

303

C1

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C1.4.
Upper secondary enrolment patterns (2007)
Enrolment in upper secondary programmes in public and private institutions by programme destination
and programme orientation
Distribution of enrolment
by programme destination

Partner countries

OECD countries

C1

Upper secondary education
Distribution of enrolment
by programme orientation
Vocational
(6)
60.4
70.7
69.6
5.5
75.2
47.7
66.7
43.8
57.4
31.7
13.2
32.4
2.2
26.5
23.4
26.8
62.3
9.4
67.6
m
57.5
44.3
14.8
73.2
43.4
56.2
64.8
36.7
41.4
x(4)

Combined
school and
work-based
(7)
m
34.3
3.4
a
34.0
47.2
11.5
12.1
42.2
a
13.2
15.7
2.2
a
a
a
14.0
a
18.5
m
14.9
6.4
m
29.8
1.9
n
59.0
n
m
x(4)

ISCED 3A
(1)
39.6
44.8
49.3
94.5
72.8
52.3
100.0
56.2
42.6
68.3
77.4
50.3
70.9
81.7
75.7
73.2
60.8
90.6
63.0
m
42.5
87.8
100.0
82.8
56.6
94.0
30.0
100.0
77.7
100.0

ISCED 3B
(2)
x(1)
46.1
a
a
0.4
a
a
11.6
57.1
a
a
0.7
a
1.4
0.9
a
15.1
a
a
m
a
a
x(1)
a
n
n
64.7
a
x(1)
x(1)

ISCED 3C
(3)
60.4
9.1
50.7
5.5
26.8
47.7
a
32.2
0.3
31.7
22.6
49.0
29.1
17.0
23.4
26.8
24.0
9.4
37.0
m
57.5
12.2
x(1)
17.2
43.4
6.0
5.3
m
22.3
x(1)

General
(4)
39.6
22.7
30.4
94.5
24.7
52.3
33.3
56.2
42.6
68.3
76.4
66.2
66.5
40.2
75.7
73.2
37.7
90.6
32.4
m
42.5
55.7
68.4
26.8
56.6
42.9
35.2
63.3
58.6
100.0

Prevocational
(5)
a
6.6
a
x(6)
n
a
a
a
a
a
10.4
1.4
31.3
33.2
0.9
a
a
a
a
m
a
a
16.7
a
n
1.0
a
a
x(6)
x(4)

OECD average

70.2  

7.9  

25.6  

54.3  

3.9  

43.8  

14.4  

EU19 average

70.5  

7.7  

23.9  

47.0  

5.5  

47.8  

15.9  

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

90.6
100.0
99.7
96.1
54.2
35.1

9.4
a
a
a
15.0
44.8

a
a
0.3
3.9
30.8
20.1

90.6
64.9
68.7
66.1
54.2
35.1

a
a
a
a
15.0
n

9.4
35.1
31.3
33.9
30.8
64.9

a
a
31.3
3.9
m
1.6

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey2
United Kingdom3
United States

1.Year of reference 2006.
2. Excludes ISCED 3C.
3. Includes post-secondary, non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

304

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Prevalent Are Vocational Programmes? – Indicator C1

chapter C

Table C1.5.
Students in primary and secondary education by type of institution or mode of study (2007)
Distribution of students, by mode of enrolment and type of institution
Mode
of enrolment
Primary
and secondary

Type of institution

Independent
private

Public

Governmentdependent
private

Independent
private

Public

Governmentdependent
private

Independent
private

Full-time

Part-time

Upper secondary

Governmentdependent
private

Lower secondary

Public
Partner countries

OECD countries

Primary

(1)
70.2
94.8
45.7
94.2
98.7
87.9
98.7
85.1
96.7
92.8
92.6
98.4
99.1
93.1
99.0
98.7
92.3
91.9
m
87.7
97.8
98.0
88.9
94.7
68.7
93.2
95.9
98.0
94.7
90.0

(2)
29.8
5.2
54.3
x(1)
1.3
12.1
1.3
14.4
3.3
a
7.4
1.6
a
a
a
a
0.6
a
m
10.2
2.2
0.6
2.6
5.3
28.0
6.8
1.3
a
a
a

(3)
a
x(2)
a
5.8
a
n
a
0.5
x(2)
7.2
a
n
0.9
6.9
1.0
1.3
7.1
8.1
m
2.2
x(2)
1.5
8.5
n
3.4
n
2.8
2.0
5.3
10.0

(4)
67.2
91.8
43.3
94.2
97.8
76.2
95.7
78.4
91.9
94.9
91.9
99.3
100.0
96.2
93.1
81.4
80.5
87.2
m
83.1
97.1
97.0
88.0
93.9
68.1
91.5
92.7
a
94.2
91.1

(5)
32.8
8.2
56.7
x(4)
2.2
23.4
4.3
21.2
8.1
a
8.1
0.7
a
a
a
18.6
11.4
a
m
11.8
2.9
0.8
6.5
6.1
28.9
8.5
2.5
a
1.0
a

(6)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

a
x(5)
a
5.8
a
0.4
a
0.3
x(5)
5.1
a
n
n
3.8
6.9
a
8.0
12.8
m
5.1
x(5)
2.2
5.5
n
3.0
n
4.8
a
4.7
8.9

(7)
78.0
88.8
42.4
94.2
86.3
97.3
85.4
69.2
91.1
95.3
82.2
88.8
98.6
94.3
69.2
52.5
84.1
80.1
m
74.0
90.7
90.2
81.2
87.8
78.3
89.6
92.8
97.4
52.9
91.4

(8)
21.9
11.2
57.6
x(7)
13.7
2.6
14.6
29.8
8.9
a
17.8
10.7
a
1.0
a
47.5
7.5
a
m
20.4
9.3
0.9
5.2
12.2
11.9
10.4
3.1
a
41.6
a

(9)
0.1
x(8)
a
5.8
a
0.1
a
1.0
x(8)
5.2
a
0.5
1.4
4.8
30.8
a
8.5
19.9
m
5.6
x(8)
8.9
13.5
n
9.8
n
4.2
2.6
5.5
8.6

(10)
78.8
m
79.8
100.0
100.0
96.7
100.0
100.0
99.7
97.9
94.9
90.3
99.9
99.2
98.8
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.1
89.9
98.7
95.4
100.0
98.9
91.6
90.2
99.8
100.0
97.3
100.0

(11)
21.2
m
20.2
a
n
3.3
a
a
0.3
2.4
5.1
9.7
0.1
0.8
1.2
a
n
a
0.9
10.1
1.3
4.6
a
1.1
8.4
9.8
0.2
n
2.7
a

OECD average

90.9  

6.7  

2.9  

84.8  

9.5  

3.0  

82.9  

12.9  

5.3  

96.4  

3.6  

EU19 average

89.8  

8.0  

2.6  

87.3  

10.9  

2.1  

83.0  

13.7  

3.7  

96.7  

3.3  

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

89.8
45.2
97.2
100.0
99.4
99.8

a
48.6
a
a
a
0.2

10.2
6.2
2.8
a
0.6
n

91.2
50.5
98.1
100.0
99.6
99.9

a
43.4
a
a
a
0.1

8.8
6.1
1.9
a
0.4
n

87.2
43.2
97.2
100.0
99.0
96.5

a
49.9
a
a
a
3.3

12.8
6.9
2.8
a
1.0
0.2

m
100.0
96.3
100.0
100.0
94.2

m
a
3.7
a
n
5.8

1. Reference year 2006.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

305

C1

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C1.6.
Students in tertiary education by type of institution or mode of study (2007)
Distribution of students, by mode of enrolment, type of institution and programme destination

OECD average

67.0  

20.5  

14.1  

EU19 average

72.1  

22.7  

6.0  

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2
Slovenia

15.3
7.3
47.0
30.2
94.9
80.4

a
2.8
16.8
69.8
a
5.9

84.7
89.9
36.2
a
5.1
13.7

Part-time

(3)
10.2
x(2)
a
m
2.2
0.6
a
20.3
x(2)
a
a
n
7.1
12.2
93.0
84.3
m
5.4
m
6.2
x(2)
21.7
19.8
n
5.5
a
30.7
2.9
n
15.9

Full-time

(2)
1.5
36.1
54.6
m
32.0
1.5
n
8.5
37.2
a
44.7
54.0
a
a
a
a
m
a
m
28.4
47.1
n
a
17.1
15.5
38.0
37.8
a
100.0
a

Part-time

Independent
private

(1)
88.2
63.9
45.4
m
65.8
97.9
100.0
71.2
62.8
100.0
55.3
46.0
92.9
87.8
7.0
15.7
m
94.6
m
65.5
52.9
78.3
80.2
82.9
79.1
62.0
31.5
97.1
a
84.1

Full-time

Governmentdependent
private

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany2
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Independent
private

Public
Partner countries

OECD countries

C1

Governmentdependent
private

Mode of study
Tertiary-type A and
Tertiary-type A and advanced Tertiary-type B advanced research
Tertiary-type B education
research programmes
education
programmes

Public

Type of institution

(4)
97.1
88.0
43.0
m
90.1
97.8
89.4
86.8
95.5
100.0
86.4
80.0
90.9
92.3
24.3
22.1
m
66.1
m
97.6
86.6
67.7
75.0
92.8
87.3
93.7
92.4
94.0
a
71.6

(5)
n
12.0
57.0
m
n
2.2
10.6
0.7
4.5
a
13.6
20.0
a
a
a
a
m
a
m
2.0
13.4
a
a
n
n
6.3
5.7
a
100.0
a

(6)
2.9
n
a
m
9.9
n
a
12.5
x(5)
a
a
n
9.1
7.7
75.7
77.9
m
33.9
m
0.4
x(5)
32.3
25.0
7.2
12.7
a
2.0
6.0
n
28.4

(7)
46.7
m
64.8
m
91.8
64.6
100.0
100.0
84.7
100.0
72.1
30.3
70.7
100.0
96.7
m
m
100.0
m
39.1
62.8
100.0
m
80.6
97.7
90.9
23.3
100.0
23.7
48.9

(8)
53.3
m
35.2
m
8.2
35.4
a
a
15.3
a
27.9
69.7
29.3
n
3.3
m
m
a
m
60.9
37.2
a
m
19.4
2.3
9.1
76.7
n
76.3
51.1

(9)
69.0
m
87.5
82.7
96.7
92.5
55.6
100.0
95.9
100.0
56.8
76.1
80.3
100.0
89.0
m
m
100.0
84.4
60.1
73.2
53.3
m
60.3
88.1
48.0
90.2
100.0
72.0
65.1

(10)
31.0
m
12.5
17.3
3.3
7.5
44.4
a
4.1
a
43.2
23.9
19.7
n
11.0
m
m
a
15.6
39.9
26.8
46.7
m
39.7
11.9
52.0
9.8
n
28.0
34.9

78.10  

9.2  

13.7  

74.6  

25.4  

79.9  

20.1  

81.0  

12.2  

7.3  

82.8  

17.2  

79.5  

20.5  

28.1
34.3
0.1
10.4
84.2
96.2

a
22.9
86.2
76.3
a
2.7

71.9
42.9
13.7
13.3
15.8
1.1

m
100.0
92.1
100.0
72.2
48.9

m
a
7.9
a
27.8
51.1

m
100.0
88.5
82.0
55.0
76.7

m
a
11.5
18.0
45.0
23.3

1.Year of reference 2006.
2. Excludes advanced research programmes.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664625546654

306

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

WHO STUDIES ABROAD AND WHERE?

INDICATOR C2

This indicator provides a picture of student mobility and of the internationalisation
of tertiary education in OECD and partner countries. It shows global trends and
highlights the main destinations of international students and trends in market shares
of the international student pool. Some of the factors underlying students’ choices
of country in which to study are also examined. This indicator shows the extent of
student mobility to different destinations and presents international student intake
in terms of distribution by countries and regions of origin, types of programmes,
and fields of study. The distribution of students enrolled outside of their country of
citizenship by destination is also examined, along with the immigration implications
for host countries. The proportion of international students in tertiary enrolments
provides a good indication of the magnitude of student mobility in different
countries.

Key results
Chart C2.1. Student mobility in tertiary education (2007)

This chart shows the percentage of international students in tertiary enrolments.
According to country-specific immigration legislations and data availability constraints,
student mobility is either defined on the basis of students’ country of residence
or the country where students received their prior education.
Student mobility – i.e. international students who travelled to a country different from their own
for the purpose of tertiary study – ranges from below 1 to almost 20% of tertiary enrolments.
International students are most numerous in tertiary enrolments in Australia, Austria, New Zealand,
Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

Slovak Republic1

Slovenia1

Estonia1

Spain1

Norway1

Japan1

Hungary1

United States1

Finland2

Netherlands

Iceland2

Sweden1

Denmark1

Czech Republic1

Belgium1

Canada1, 3

Ireland2

Austria1

New Zealand1

Switzerland2

United Kingdom1

Australia1

%

22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Note: The data presented in this chart are not comparable with data on foreign students in tertiary
education presented in pre-2006 editions of Education at a Glance or elsewhere in this chapter.
1. International students are defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. International students are defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
3.Year of reference 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of international students in tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table C2.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

308

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• In 2007, over 3.0 million tertiary students were enrolled outside their country
of citizenship. This represented a 3.3% increase from the previous year in total
foreign student intake reported to the OECD and the UNESCO Institute for
Statistics.

INDICATOR C2

• France, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States receive 48% of
all foreign students worldwide. The largest absolute numbers of international
students from OECD countries are from France, Germany, Japan, Korea and the
United States. Students from China and India comprise the largest numbers of
international students from partner countries.
• International students make up 10% or more of the enrolments in tertiary
education in Australia, Austria, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
International students make up more than 20% of enrolments in advanced
research programmes in Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland,
the United Kingdom and the United States.
• Thirty percent or more of international students are enrolled in sciences, agriculture
or engineering in Canada, Finland, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and the United
States.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

309

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Policy context

C2

The general trend towards freely circulating capital, goods and services, coupled with changes in
the openness of labour markets, has translated into growing demands for an international dimension
of education and training. Indeed, as world economies become increasingly inter-connected,
international skills have grown in importance for operating on a global scale. Globally oriented
firms seek internationally-competent workers versed in foreign languages and having mastered
basic inter-cultural skills to successfully interact with international partners. Governments as well
as individuals are looking to higher education to play a role in broadening students’ horizons and
allowing them to develop a deeper understanding of the world’s languages, cultures and business
methods. One way for students to expand their knowledge of other societies and languages,
and hence leverage their labour market prospects, is to study in tertiary educational institutions
in countries other than their own. Several OECD governments – especially in countries of the
European Union (EU) – have set up schemes and policies to promote mobility as a means of
fostering intercultural contacts and building social networks for the future.
From a macroeconomic perspective, international negotiations on the liberalisation of trade
in services highlight the trade implications of the internationalisation of education services.
Some OECD countries already show signs of specialisation in education exports. The long-term
trend towards a greater internationalisation of education (Box C2.1) is likely to have a growing
impact on countries’ balance of payments as a result of revenue from tuition fees and domestic
consumption by international students. Additionally, it is worth noting that, along with student
mobility, the cross-border electronic delivery of flexible educational programmes and abroad
campuses are also relevant to the trade dimension of international tertiary education, although
no comparable data yet exist.
The internationalisation of tertiary education has many economic impacts, in addition to the
short-term monetary costs and benefits that are reflected in current account balances. It can
provide an opportunity for smaller and/or less-developed educational systems to improve the
cost efficiency of their education provision. Indeed, training opportunities abroad may constitute
a cost-efficient alternative to national provision and allow countries to focus limited resources
on educational programmes for which economies of scale can be generated, or to expand
participation in tertiary education in spite of bottlenecks in provision.
In addition, the rapid expansion of tertiary education in OECD countries – and more recently in
most emerging countries (Education at a Glance 2005) – has intensified the financial pressures on
education systems and led to greater interest in the recruitment of foreign students. As tertiary
institutions increasingly rely on revenues from foreign tuition fees, some countries actively recruit
foreign students. In other cases, education abroad is encouraged as a way to address unmet demand
resulting from bottlenecks caused by the rapid expansion of tertiary education. In the past few years,
the rise in the knowledge economy and global competition for skills has provided a new driver for
the internationalisation of education systems in many OECD countries, with the recruitment of
foreign students being part of a broader strategy for the recruitment of highly skilled immigrants.
At the institutional level, the additional revenues that foreign students may generate – either
through differentiated tuition fees or public subsidies – help drive international education. But
tertiary education institutions also have academic incentives to engage in international activities
to build or maintain their reputation in an increasingly global academic competition.
310

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

From the perspective of educational institutions, international enrolments can also constrain
instructional settings and processes, insofar as the curricula and teaching methods need to be
adapted to a culturally and linguistically diverse student body. These constraints are, however,
outweighed by numerous benefits to host institutions. The potential for an international client
base compels institutions to offer programmes that stand out among competitors and may
contribute to the development of highly reactive, client-driven quality tertiary education that
responds to changing needs. International enrolments can also help institutions to reach the
critical mass needed to diversify the range of their educational programmes and to increase
their financial resources when foreign students bear the full cost of their education (Box C2.3).
Given these advantages, institutions may favour the enrolment of international students, thereby
restricting access to domestic students. However, there is little evidence of this, except in some
prestigious programmes of elite institutions that are in high demand (OECD, 2004).
For individuals, the returns from studying abroad depend largely on both the policies of sending
countries regarding financial aid to students going abroad and the tuition fee policies of countries
of destination (Box C2.3) and their financial support for international students.The cost of living
in countries of study and exchange rates also affect the cost of international education. In addition,
the long-term returns from international education depend greatly on how international degrees
are recognised and valued by local labour markets.
The numbers of students enrolled in other countries can provide some indication of the amount
of the internationalisation of tertiary education. In the future, it will also be important to develop
ways to quantify and measure other components of cross-border education.
Evidence and explanations
Concepts and terminology used in this indicator

The concepts and terminology used in this indicator have changed from those used in editions of
Education at a Glance produced before 2006. Previously, this indicator focused on foreign students
in tertiary education, defined as non-citizens of the country in which they study. This concept was
inappropriate for measuring student mobility because not all foreign students come for the sole
purpose of studying. In particular, foreign students who are permanent residents in their country of
study as a result of immigration – their own or that of their parents – are included in the total. This
results in an overestimation of thenumbers of foreign students in countries with comparatively low
rates of naturalisation of their immigrant populations. Moreover, citizens of the country in which
they study may be mobile students (i.e. nationals who have lived abroad and return to their country
of citizenship to study). Therefore, in an effort to improve the measurement of student mobility
and the comparability of data on internationalisation, the OECD – together with Eurostat and the
UNESCO Institute for Statistics – revised in 2005 the instruments used to gather data on student
mobility. According to this new concept, the term “international students” refers to students who
have crossed borders expressly with the intention to study.
Ideally, international student mobility is deemed to measure students who have crossed borders for
the purpose of study. However, the measurement of student mobility depends to a large extent on
country-specific immigration legislation, mobility arrangements and data availability constraints.
For instance, the free mobility of individuals within the EU and the broader European Economic
Area (EEA) makes it impossible to derive numbers of international students from visa statistics.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

311

C2

chapter C

C2

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

The OECD therefore allows countries to define as international students those who are not
permanent residents of their country of study or, alternatively, those who received their prior
education in another country (regardless of citizenship), depending on which operational definition
is most appropriate in their national context. Overall, the country of prior education is considered
a better operational criterion for EU countries so as not to omit intra-EU student mobility (Kelo
et al., 2005), while the residence criterion is usually a good proxy in countries that require a student
visa to enter the country for educational purposes.
The convention adopted here is to use the term “international student” when referring to
student mobility and the term “foreign student” for non-citizens enrolled in a country (i.e.
including some permanent residents and therefore an overestimate of actual student mobility).
However since not all countries are yet able to report data on student mobility on the basis of
students’ country of residence or of prior education, some tables and charts present indicators
on both international and foreign students, albeit separately, to emphasise the need for caution
in interpreting the results.
In this indicator, data on total foreign enrolments worldwide are based on the number of foreign
students enrolled in countries reporting data to the OECD and to the UNESCO Institute for
Statistics and thus may be underestimated. In addition, all trend analyses in this indicator are based
on numbers of foreign students at different points in time, as time series on student mobility
are not yet available. Work is under way to fill this gap and develop retrospective time series on
student mobility for future editions of Education at a Glance.
Trends in foreign student numbers

In 2007, 3.0 million tertiary students were enrolled outside their country of citizenship, of
whom 2.5 million (83.5%) studied in the OECD area. This represented a 3.3% increase of
96 000 additional individuals in total foreign enrolments worldwide since the previous year. In
the OECD area the increase was very slightly larger at 3.4%. Since 2000, the number of foreign
tertiary students enrolled in the OECD area and worldwide increased by 59%, for an average
annual increase of 7% (Table C2.6).
Compared to 2000, the number of foreign students enrolled in tertiary education more than
doubled in Australia, the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Korea, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Poland and Spain and in the partner countries Chile and Estonia. In contrast, the
number of foreign students enrolled in Belgium, Turkey and the United States, grew by about
25% or less (Table C2.1). Changes in foreign student numbers between 2000 and 2007 indicate
that, on average, the number of foreign students has grown faster in the OECD area than in the
EU19 countries of the OECD, by 135% and 97%, respectively (Table C2.1).
The combination of OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics data makes it possible to examine
longer-term trends and illustrates the dramatic growth in foreign enrolments (Box C2.1). Over
the past three decades, the number of students enrolled outside their country of citizenship
has risen dramatically, from 0.8 million worldwide in 1975 to 3.0 million in 2007, a more
than threefold increase. Growth in the internationalisation of tertiary education has accelerated
during the past 12 years, mirroring the growth in the globalisation of economies and societies.
312

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

The rise in the number of students enrolled abroad since 1975 stems from various factors.
During the early years, public policies aimed at promoting and nurturing academic, cultural,
social and political ties between countries played a key role, especially in the context of the
European construction: building mutual understanding among young Europeans was a major
policy objective. North American policies of academic co-operation had similar rationales.
Over time, however, economic factors played an increasing role. Decreasing transport costs,
the spread of new technologies, and faster, cheaper communication made economies and
societies increasingly interdependent through the 1980s and 1990s. The trend was particularly
marked in the high-technology sector and in the labour market, with the internationalisation
of labour markets for the highly skilled giving individuals an incentive to gain international
experience as part of their studies. The spread of information and communication technology
(ICT) lowered the information and transaction costs of study abroad and boosted demand for
international education.

Box C2.1. Long term growth in the number of students
enrolled outside their country of citizenship
Growth in internationalisation of tertiary education (1975-2007)
1975
0.8M

1980
1.1M

1985
1.1M

1990
1.3M

1995
1.7M

2000
1.9M

2007
3.0M

Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics.

Data on foreign enrolment worldwide comes from both the OECD and the UNESCO Institute
for Statistics (UIS). UIS provided the data on all countries for 1975-1995 and most of the partner
countries for 2000 and 2007. The OECD provided the data on OECD countries and the other
partner economies in 2000 and 2007. Both sources use similar definitions, thus making their
combination possible. Missing data were imputed with the closest data reports to ensure that breaks
in data coverage do not result in breaks in time series.

Major destinations of foreign students

In 2007, five out of ten foreign students went to the four countries that host the majority of
foreign students enrolled outside of their country of citizenship. The United States received the
most (in absolute terms) with 20% of all foreign students worldwide, followed by the United
Kingdom (12%), Germany (9%) and France (8%). Although these destinations account for
the bulk of all tertiary students pursuing their studies abroad (48%), some new players on the
international education market have emerged within and outside the OECD in the past few years
(Chart C2.2). Besides these four major destinations, significant numbers of foreign students
were enrolled in Australia (7%), Canada (4%), Japan (4%) and New Zealand (2%), and in the
partner country the Russian Federation (2%) in 2007. Note that the figures for Australia, the
United Kingdom and the United States refer to international students.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

313

C2

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Chart C2.2. Distribution of foreign students in tertiary education,
by country of destination (2007)

Percentage of foreign tertiary students reported to the OECD who are enrolled in each country of destination

C2

Other partner countries 11.3%
United States1 19.7%
Other OECD countries 7.0%
Netherlands 1.3%
Switzerland 1.4%
Belgium 1.4%
China 1.4%
Sweden 1.4%
Austria 1.4%
South Africa 1.8%

United Kingdom1 11.6%

Italy 1.9%
Spain 2.0%
Russian Federation 2.0%
New Zealand 2.1%

Germany 8.6%
Japan
4.2%
Canada2
4.4%

Australia1
7.0%

France 8.2%

1. Data relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2.Year of reference 2006.
Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on partner countries. Table C2.7, available on line.
See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

Trends in market shares show the emergence of new players on the international
education market

The examination of country-specific trends in market shares of the international education
market – measured as a percentage of all foreign students worldwide enrolled in a given
destination – sheds light on the dynamics of internationalisation of tertiary education. Over
a seven-year period, the share of the United States as a preferred destination dropped from
25% to 20%. For Germany the decline was around 1 percentage point, and for Belgium,
Canada and China, it was about one-half of a percentage point. In contrast, the market shares
of France, Korea and South Africa expanded by around 1 percentage point. The impressive
growth in Australia (1.4%) and New Zealand (1.7%) keeps them among the big players in
the international education market (Chart C2.3). These changes reflect different emphases
of internationalization policies across countries, ranging from proactive marketing policies in
the Asia-Pacific region to a more passive approach in the traditionally dominant United States.
Note that the figures for Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States refer to
international students.
314

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter C

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

Chart C2.3. Trends in international education market shares (2000, 2007)

Percentage of all foreign tertiary students enrolled, by destination
OECD countries:

2007

2000

Partner countries:

2007

2000

C2

Other partner countries

Other OECD countries

Korea

Netherlands

Switzerland

Belgium

China

Sweden

Austria

South Africa

Italy

Spain

Russian Federation

New Zealand

Japan

Canada2

Australia1

France

Germany

United Kingdom1

United States1

Market share (%)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

1. Data relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2.Year of reference 2006.
Countries are ranked in descending order of 2007 market shares.
Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on partner countries. Table C2.7, available on line.
See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

Underlying factors in students’ choice of a country of study

Language of instruction: a critical factor
The language spoken and used in instruction is an essential element in the choice of a foreign
country in which to study. Therefore, countries whose language of instruction is widely spoken
and read (e.g. English, French and German) are leading destinations of foreign students, both
in absolute and relative terms. Japan is a notable exception: despite having a less widespread
language of instruction, it enrols large numbers of foreign students, 93.6% of whom are from
Asia (Table C2.2 and Chart C2.2).
The dominance (in absolute numbers) of English-speaking destinations (Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) may be largely due to the fact that
students intending to study abroad are likely to have learnt English in their home country and/
or wish to improve their English language skills through immersion and study abroad. The rapid
increase in foreign enrolments in Australia (index change of 200), Canada (140) and, most
importantly, New Zealand (791) between 2000 and 2007 can be partly attributed to linguistic
considerations (Table C2.1).
Given this pattern, an increasing number of institutions in non-English-speaking countries now
offer courses in English to overcome their linguistic disadvantage in terms of attracting foreign
students. This trend is especially noticeable in the Nordic countries (Box C2.2).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

315

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Box C2.2. OECD and partner countries
offering tertiary programmes in English (2007)

C2

Use of English in instruction
All or nearly all programmes offered
in English

OECD and partner countries
Australia, Canada1, Ireland, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, the United States

Many programmes offered in English

Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden

Some programmes offered in English

Belgium (Fl.)2, the Czech Republic, France,
Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Korea,
Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Switzerland3, Turkey

No or nearly no programmes offered in
English

Austria, Belgium (Fr.), Brazil, Chile, Greece,
Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico3, Portugal,
the Russian Federation, Spain

Note: Assessing the extent to which a country offers a few or many programmes in English is subjective. In doing so, country
size has been taken into account, hence the classification of France and Germany among countries with comparatively few
English programmes, although they have more English programmes than Sweden in absolute terms.
1. In Canada, tertiary institutions are either French- (mostly Quebec) or English-speaking.
2. Masters programmes.
3. At the discretion of tertiary education institutions.
Source: OECD, compiled from brochures for prospective international students by OAD (Austria), CHES and NARIC
(Czech Republic), Cirius (Denmark), CIMO (Finland), EduFrance (France), DAAD (Germany), Campus Hungary
(Hungary), University of Iceland (Iceland), JPSS (Japan), NIIED (Korea), NUFFIC (Netherlands), SIU (Norway), CRASP
(Poland), Swedish Institute (Sweden) and Middle-East Technical University (Turkey)

Impact of tuition fees and cost of living on foreign students’ destinations

Tuition fees and cost of living are also important factors in prospective international students’
choice of country. Among most EU countries (e.g. Austria, Belgium [Flemish Community], the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands,
the Slovak Republic, Spain and Sweden and the United Kingdom), international students from
other EU countries had the same tuition fees as domestic students. However, in the case of
Ireland, this is on condition that the EU student has been living in Ireland for three out of the
previous five years. If this condition is satisfied, then the EU student is eligible for free tuition in a
particular academic year. In Finland, Germany and Italy, this is extended to non-EU international
students as well. While there are no tuition fees in Finland and Sweden, in Germany, tuition fees
are collected at all government dependent private institutions and, in some Bundesländer, tuition
fees have now been introduced at public tertiary institutions, as well. In Denmark, students from
Nordic partner countries (Norway and Iceland) and EU countries are also treated the same as
domestic students and thus pay no fees (fully subsidised). Most international students from nonEU or non-EEA countries, however, have to pay full tuition fee, although a limited number of
talented students from non-EU/EEA countries can get scholarships covering all or parts of their
tuition fees. (Box C2.3).
Among some non-EU countries (e.g. Iceland, Japan, Korea, Norway, the United States and the
partner country the Russian Federation), all domestic and international students are treated
the same. In Norway, tuition fees are equal for domestic and international student; no fees
316

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

in public institutions, but fees in some private institutions. In Iceland, all students have to
pay registration fees, and for students in private schools, they also have to pay tuition fees. In
Japan, all students (domestic and international) are charged full tuition fee, but international
students with Japanese government scholarships don’t have to pay the tuition fees, and many
scholarships are also available for privately financed international students. In Korea, tuition
fees and subsidies for mobile students vary depending on the contract between the school which
they came from and the school they are attending. In general, most of international students in
Korea pay tuition fees which are somewhat less than for domestic students. In New Zealand,
international students generally pay full tuition fees (i.e. unsubsidised). However, international
students from Australia, a partner country of New Zealand, receive special treatment in that
they receive the same subsidies as domestic students. All other international students have to
pay the full tuition fees (i.e. unsubsidised). In Australia, Canada and the partner country the
Russian Federation, all international students pay full tuition fees.
The fact that Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden do not have tuition fees for international
students and the existence of programmes in English probably explains part of the robust growth
in the number of foreign students enrolled in some of these countries between 2000 and 2007
(Table C2.1). However, in the absence of fees, the high unit costs of tertiary education mean that
international students place a high monetary burden on their countries of destination (Table B1.1a).
For this reason, Denmark (which in the past had no tuition fees) has adopted tuition fees for non-EU
and non-EEA international students as of 2006/07. Similar options are currently being discussed in
Finland and Sweden, where foreign enrolments grew by more than 50% between 2000 and 2007.

Box C2.3. Tuition fees structure
Tuition fees structure

OECD and partner countries

Higher tuition fees for international
students than for domestic students

Australia, Austria1, Belgium1, Canada,
the Czech Republic1, Denmark1, Estonia1,
Ireland1, the Netherlands1, New Zealand,
the Russian Federation, Turkey,
the United Kingdom1, the United States3

Same tuition fees for international
and domestic students

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico2,
Spain

No tuition fees for either international
or domestic students

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden

1. For non-European Union or non-European Economic Area students.
2. Some institutions charge higher tuition fees for international students.
3. International students pay the same fees as domestic out-of-state students. However since most domestic students are
enrolled in-state, international students pay higher tuition fees than most domestic students in practice.
Source: OECD. Indicator B5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).

Countries that charge their international students the full cost of education reap significant
trade benefits. Several countries in the Asia-Pacific region have actually made international
education an explicit part of their socio-economic development strategies and have initiated
policies to attract international students on a revenue-generating or at least self-financing
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

317

C2

chapter C

C2

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

basis. Australia and New Zealand have successfully adopted differentiated tuition fees for
international students. In Japan and Korea, with high tuition fees that are the same for domestic
and international students, foreign enrolments nevertheless grew robustly between 2000 and
2007 (see Indicator B5). This shows that tuition costs do not necessarily discourage prospective
international students as long as the quality of education provided and its likely returns make the
investment worthwhile. However, in choosing between similar educational opportunities, cost
considerations may play a role, especially for students originating from developing countries.
In this respect, the comparatively low rise in foreign enrolments in the United Kingdom and
the United States between 2000 and 2007 and the deterioration of the United States’ market
share may be attributed to the comparatively high tuition fees charged to international students
in a context of fierce competition from other primarily English-speaking destinations offering
similar educational opportunities at a lower cost (Box C2.3).
A factor that might ease the cost of studying abroad is the extent to which public funding or
student support for tertiary education is portable. In Belgium (Flemish Community), Finland,
Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden and the partner country Chile, the international
portability of public funding for tuition or student support clearly eases some of the financial
constraints borne by students.

Impact of immigration policy on foreign student destinations
In recent years, several OECD countries have softened their immigration policies to encourage
the temporary or permanent immigration of their international students. Australia, Canada
and New Zealand, for example, make it easy for foreign students who have studied in their
universities to settle by granting them additional points for their immigration file. This makes
these countries more attractive to students and strengthens their knowledge economy. As a
result, immigration considerations may also affect some international students’ choice between
alternative educational opportunities abroad. In addition, the total freedom of movement of
workers within Europe explains part of the high level of student mobility in Europe compared
to that between the countries of North America, as the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) does not include the free movement of workers within a common labour market.
Other factors
Other important factors for foreign students include the academic reputation of particular
institutions or programmes; the flexibility of programmes with respect to counting time spent
abroad towards degree requirements; the limitations of tertiary education provision in the home
country; restrictive university admission policies at home; geographical, trade or historical links
between countries; future job opportunities; cultural aspirations; and government policies to
facilitate transfer of credits between home and host institutions. The transparency and flexibility
of courses and degree requirements are also important.
Extent of student mobility in tertiary education

The foregoing analysis has focused on trends in absolute numbers of foreign students and their
distribution by countries of destination since time series or global aggregates on student mobility
do not exist. It is also possible to measure the extent of student mobility in each country of
destination by examining the proportion of international students in total tertiary enrolments.
318

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

This has the advantage of taking the size of different tertiary education systems into account and
highlighting those that are highly internationalised, regardless of their size and the importance of
their absolute market share.

Wide variations in the proportion of international students enrolled in OECD and
partner countries
Among countries for which data on student mobility are available, Australia, Austria, New
Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom display the highest levels of incoming student
mobility, measured as the proportion of international students in their total tertiary enrolment.
In Australia,19.5% of tertiary students have come to the country in order to pursue their studies.
Similarly, international students represent 12.4% of total tertiary enrolments in Austria, 13.6%
in New Zealand, 14.0% in Switzerland and 14.9% in the United Kingdom. In contrast, incoming
student mobility is 1% or less of total tertiary enrolments in the Slovak Republic and the partner
country Slovenia (Table C2.1 and Chart C2.1).
Among countries where data using the preferred definition of mobile students are not available,
foreign enrolments constitute a large group of tertiary students in France (11.3%) and Germany
(11.3%), an indication of significant levels of incoming student mobility. However foreign
enrolments represent 1% or less of total tertiary enrolments in Korea, Poland, Turkey and the
partner country the Russian Federation (Table C2.1).

Student mobility at different levels of tertiary education
The proportion of international students at different levels of tertiary education in each country
of destination also sheds light on patterns of student mobility. A first observation is that, with
the exception of Japan and Spain, tertiary-type B programmes are far less internationalised
than tertiary-type A programmes, suggesting that international students are mostly attracted
to traditional academic programmes for which degree transferability is often easier. With the
exception of Italy and Portugal, this observation also holds true for countries where data using
the preferred definition of student mobility are not available (Table C2.1).
In Australia, Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Slovak Republic, Sweden and in
the partner country Estonia, the proportions of international students are roughly the same
in tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes, an indication that these countries of
destination are successful at attracting students from abroad from the start of their tertiary
education, and keeping or attracting them beyond their first degrees. Among countries where
data using the preferred definition of mobile students are not available, this can also be seen in
Turkey. In contrast, other countries display significantly higher incoming student mobility relative
to total enrolments in advanced research programmes than in tertiary-type A programmes. This
pattern is clear in Belgium, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway,
Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States and in the partner country
Slovenia, as well as in France, Italy, Korea, Poland and Portugal and in the partner country
Chile, countries where data using the preferred definition of student mobility are not available.
It may reflect the attractiveness of advanced research programmes in these countries or a
preference for recruitment of international students at higher levels of education to capitalise on
their contribution to domestic research and development or in anticipation of their subsequent
recruitment as highly qualified immigrants.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

319

C2

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Profile of international student intake in different destinations

C2

Asia leads among regions of origin
Asian students form the largest group of international students enrolled in countries reporting
data to the OECD or the UNESCO Institute for Statistics: 48.2% of the total in all reporting
destinations (46.8% of the total in OECD countries, and 55.1% of the total in partner countries).
Their predominance in OECD countries is greatest in Australia, Japan and Korea, where more
than 75% of international or foreign students originate from Asia. In OECD countries, the Asian
group is followed by Europeans (24.9%), particularly EU citizens (16.9%). Students from Africa
account for 10.5% of all international students, while those from North America account for
only 3.8%. Finally, students from South America represent 5.4% of the total. Altogether 31.2%
of international students enrolled in the OECD area originate from another OECD country
(Table C2.2).

Main countries of origin of international students
The predominance of students from Asia and Europe is also clear when looking at individual
countries of origin. Students from France, Germany, Japan and Korea represent the largest
groups of international students enrolled in OECD countries, at 2.2%, 3.2%, 2.3% and 4.4%
of the total, respectively, followed by students from Canada and the United States at 1.8% and
2.0%, respectively (Table C2.2).
Among international students originating from partner countries, students from China represent
by far the largest group, with 16.3% of all international students enrolled in the OECD area
(not including an additional 1.4% from Hong Kong, China) (Table C2.2). Their destination of
choice is the United States, followed closely by Japan, with 21.6% and 17.5%, respectively, of all
international Chinese students studying abroad. Students from China are followed by those from
India (6.2%), Malaysia (1.8%), Morocco (1.7%) and the Russian Federation (1.4%). A significant
number of Asian students studying abroad also come from Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of
Iran, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam (Table C2.3 and Table C2.7, available on line).

The proportion of international students by level and type of tertiary education
highlights specialisations
In some countries, a comparatively large proportion of international students are enrolled in
tertiary-type B programmes. This is the case in Belgium (30.6%), Japan (21.3%), New Zealand
(25.3%) and Spain (34.0%). In Greece, Korea and the partner country Chile, where data using
the preferred definition of student mobility are not available, foreign enrolments in tertiarytype B programmes also constitute a large group of foreign students (34.7%, 22.4% and 29.6%
respectively) (Table C2.4).
In other countries, a large proportion of their international students enrol in advanced research
programmes. This is particularly true in Spain (22.3%) and Switzerland (26.5%). Such patterns
suggest that these countries offer attractive advanced programmes to prospective international
graduate students. This concentration can also be observed – to a more limited extent – in
Canada (11.4%), Finland (13.4%), Japan (10.6%), the United Kingdom (11.9%) and the United
States (15.7%). Among countries where data using the preferred definition of mobile students
320

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

are not available, foreign enrolments in advanced research programmes constitute a large group
of foreign students in France (11.0%) and Portugal (10.0%). All of these countries are likely
to benefit from the contribution of these high-level international students to domestic research
and development. In addition, this specialisation can also generate higher tuition revenue per
international student in the countries charging full tuition costs to foreign students (Box C2.3).

The proportion of international students by field of education underlines magnet
centres
As shown in Table C2.5, sciences attract at least one in six international students in Canada (18.5%),
Germany (17.0%), Iceland (18.0%), New Zealand (18.2%), Switzerland (16.7%) and the United
States (18.7%), but fewer than one in fifty in Japan (1.2%). However, the picture changes slightly
when agriculture, engineering, manufacturing and construction programmes are included among
scientific disciplines. Finland receives 41.8% of its international students in these fields. The
proportion of international students enrolled in agriculture, sciences or engineering is also high in
Canada (34.5%), Germany (38.0%), Hungary (28.3%), Sweden (39.3%), Switzerland (33.5%),
the United Kingdom (29.4%), the United States (34.6%) and in the partner country Slovenia
(29.7%). Similarly, among countries where data using the preferred definition of mobile students
are not available, agriculture, sciences and engineering attract at least 28% of foreign students in
France (28.6%) and the Slovak Republic (30.3%). In contrast, few foreign students are enrolled in
agriculture, sciences and engineering in Poland (Chart C2.4).
Most countries that enrol large proportions of their international students in agriculture, sciences
and engineering deliver programmes in English. In Germany, the large proportion of foreign
students in scientific disciplines may also reflect its strong tradition in these fields.
Non-anglophone countries tend to enrol a higher proportion of their international students in
the humanities and the arts, areas that are favoured by over 20% of the international students in
Austria (22.9%), Germany (21.5%), Iceland (42.9%), Japan (25.4%) and the partner country
Slovenia (21.3%). Among countries where data using the preferred definition of mobile students
are not available, this is also the case in France (20.1%).
Social sciences, business and law programmes also attract international students in large numbers.
In Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the partner country Estonia, these fields enrol
around half of all international students (at 55.6%, 45.4%, 45.7% and 57.0%, respectively).
Among countries where data using the preferred definition of mobile students are not available,
Portugal (49.1%) has the largest proportion of their foreign students enrolled in these subjects.
The situation of health and welfare is fairly specific since it depends to a large extent on national
policies relating to recognition of medical degrees. Health and welfare programmes attract
large proportions of international students in EU countries, most notably in Belgium (41.8%)
and Hungary (32.7%). Among countries where data using the preferred definition of mobile
students are not available, health and welfare programmes are also chosen by one-fifth to onethird of foreign students in Italy (20.4%), Poland (28.2%) and the Slovak Republic (33.0%).
This pattern relates to the quotas imposed in many European countries which restrict access to
educational programmes in the medical field. This increases the demand for training in other EU
countries to bypass quotas and take advantage of EU countries’ automatic recognition of medical
degrees under the European Medical Directive.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

321

C2

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Overall, the concentration of international students in various disciplines in countries of
destination highlights magnet programmes that attract students from abroad in large numbers.
This attraction results from many factors on both the supply and demand side.

C2

On the supply side, some destinations offer centres of excellence or traditional expertise able
to attract students from other countries in large numbers (e.g. Finland and Germany in sciences
and engineering). In the humanities and arts, some destinations also have a natural monopoly
on some programmes. This is especially obvious for linguistic or cultural studies (e.g. Austria,
Germany and Japan).
Chart C2.4. Distribution of international students by field of education (2007)

Percentage of international tertiary students enrolled in different fields of education
Science, agriculture, engineering, manufacturing and construction
Health and welfare
Education
Humanities, arts, services, social sciences, business and law
Unknown

Finland1
Sweden
Germany1, 2
United States
Canada1, 3
Switzerland1
Slovenia
United Kingdom
Hungary
New Zealand2
Iceland
Austria1
Australia
Denmark
Belgium4
Norway
Japan
Spain1, 2
Netherlands2
Estonia
Slovak Republic5
France5
Portugal5
Turkey5
Czech Republic5
Italy5
Poland5
0

20

40

60

80

100 %

1. Excludes tertiary-type B programmes.
2. Excludes advanced research programmes.
3.Year of reference 2006.
4. Excludes data for social advancement education.
5. Distribution of foreign students by field of education. These data are not comparable with data on international
students and are therefore presented separately.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of international students enrolled in sciences, agriculture, engineering,
manufacturing and construction.
Source: OECD. Table C2.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

322

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

On the demand side, the characteristics of international students can help to explain their
concentration in certain fields of education. For instance, students in scientific disciplines are
usually less likely to be fluent in many different languages, which may explain their stronger
propensity to study in countries offering education programmes in English, and their lesser
propensity to enrol in countries where these are less common. Similarly, the demand of many
Asian students for business training may explain the strong concentration of international
students in social sciences, business and law in neighbouring Australia and New Zealand and to a
lesser extent in Japan. Finally, EU provisions for the recognition of medical degrees clearly drive
the concentration of international students in health and welfare programmes in EU countries.
Destinations of citizens enrolled abroad

When studying in tertiary education outside of their country of citizenship, OECD students
enrol predominantly in another country of the OECD area. On average, only 3.6% of foreign
students from OECD countries are enrolled in a partner country. The proportion of foreign
students from partner countries enrolled in another partner country is significantly higher,
with more than 22% of foreign students from Chile, Estonia, Israel and the Russian Federation
enrolled in another partner country. In contrast, students from Iceland (0.1%), Ireland (0.1%),
Luxembourg (0.1%) and the Slovak Republic (0.3%) display an extremely low propensity to
study outside of the OECD area (Table C2.3).
Language considerations, geographic proximity and similarity of education systems are all
important determinants of the choice of destination. Geographic considerations and differences
in entry requirements are likely explanations of the concentration of students from Germany
in Austria, from Belgium in France and the Netherlands, from France in Belgium, from Canada
in the United States, from New Zealand in Australia, from China in Japan, etc. Language issues
as well as academic traditions also shed light on the propensity for Anglophone students to
concentrate in other countries of the Commonwealth or in the United States, even those that are
geographically distant. Migration networks also play a role, as illustrated by the concentration
of students with Portuguese citizenship in France, students from Turkey in Germany or from
Mexico in the United States.
Finally, international students’ destinations also highlight the attractiveness of specific education
systems, whether due to considerations of academic reputation or subsequent immigration
opportunities. In this respect, it is noteworthy that students from China are mostly in Australia,
Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States,
most of which have schemes to facilitate the immigration of international students. Similarly,
students from India favour Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States; these three
destinations attract 82.6% of Indian citizens enrolled abroad (Table C2.3).
Definitions and methodologies
Data sources, definitions and reference period

Data on international and foreign students refer to the academic year 2006/07 and are based
on the UOE data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2008 (for
details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009). Additional data from the UNESCO Institute
for Statistics are also included.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

323

C2

chapter C

C2

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Students are classified as international students if they left their country of origin and moved to
another country for the purpose of study. Depending on country-specific immigration legislation,
mobility arrangements (e.g. free mobility of individuals within the EU and EEA areas) and data
availability, international students may be defined as students who are not permanent or usual
residents of their country of study or alternatively as students who obtained their prior education
in a different country (e.g. EU countries).
Permanent or usual residence in the reporting country is defined according to national legislation.
In practice, this means holding a student visa or permit, or electing a foreign country of domicile
in the year prior to entering the education system of the country reporting data. The country of
prior education is defined as the country in which students obtained the qualification required
to enrol in their current level of education, i.e. the country in which they obtained their upper
secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education for international students enrolled in
tertiary-type A and tertiary-type B programmes and the country in which they obtained their
tertiary-type A education for international students enrolled in advanced research programmes.
Country-specific operational definitions of international students are indicated in the tables as
well as in Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Students are classified as foreign students if they are not citizens of the country in which the data
are collected. While pragmatic and operational, this classification is inappropriate for capturing
student mobility because of differing national policies regarding the naturalisation of immigrants.
For instance, while Australia and Switzerland report similar intakes of foreign students relative to
their tertiary enrolments – 22.5% and 19.3%, respectively – these proportions reflect significant
differences in the actual levels of student mobility – 19.5% of tertiary enrolments in Australia
and 14.0% in Switzerland (Table C2.1). This is because Australia has a higher propensity to grant
permanent residence to its immigrant populations than Switzerland. Therefore, interpretations
of data based on the concept of foreign students in terms of student mobility and bilateral
comparisons need to be made with caution.
Methodologies

Data on international and foreign students are obtained from enrolments in their countries of
destination. The method of obtaining data on international and foreign students is therefore
the same as that used for collecting data on total enrolments, i.e. records of regularly enrolled
students in an educational programme. Domestic and international students are usually
counted on a specific day or period of the year. This procedure makes it possible to measure
the proportion of international enrolments in an education system, but the actual number of
individuals involved may be much higher since many students study abroad for less than a full
academic year, or participate in exchange programmes that do not require enrolment (e.g. interuniversity exchange or advanced research short-term mobility). Moreover, the international
student body comprises some distance-learning students who are not, strictly speaking, mobile
students. This pattern of distance enrolments is fairly common in the tertiary institutions of
Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States (OECD, 2004).
Since data on international and foreign students are obtained from tertiary enrolments in their
country of destination, the data relate to incoming students rather than to students going abroad.
Countries of destination covered by this indicator include all of the OECD countries (with the
324

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

exception of Luxembourg and Mexico) and the partner countries Chile, Estonia, the Russian
Federation and Slovenia, as well as partner countries reporting similar data to the UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, in order to derive global figures and to examine the destinations of
students and trends in market shares.
Data on students enrolled abroad as well as trend analyses are not based on the numbers of
international students, but on the number of foreign citizens on whom data consistent across
countries and over time are readily available. Yet the data do not include students enrolled in
OECD and partner countries that did not report foreign students to the OECD or to the UNESCO
Institute for Statistics. All statements on students enrolled abroad may therefore underestimate
the real number of citizens studying abroad (Table C2.3), especially in cases where many citizens
study in countries that do not report their foreign students to the OECD or UNESCO Institute
for Statistics (e.g. China, India).
Table C2.1 displays international as well as foreign enrolments as a proportion of total enrolment
at each level of tertiary education. Total enrolment, used as a denominator, comprises all persons
studying in the country (including domestic and international students), but excludes students
from that country who study abroad. The table also exhibits changes between 2000 and 2007 in
foreign enrolments for all tertiary education.
Table C2.2,Table C2.4 and Table C2.5 show the distribution of international students enrolled in
an education system – or foreign students for countries that do not have information on student
mobility – according to their country of origin in Table C2.2, according to their level and type of
tertiary education in Table C2.4, and according to their field of education in Table C2.5.
Table C2.3 presents the distribution of citizens of a given country enrolled abroad according
to their country of destination (or country of study). As mentioned above, the total number
of students enrolled abroad, which is used as a denominator, covers only students enrolled in
other countries reporting data to the OECD or the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Therefore,
the resulting proportions may be biased and overestimated for countries with large numbers of
students studying in non-reporting countries.
Table C2.6 shows trends in the absolute numbers of foreign students reported by OECD
countries and worldwide between 2000 and 2007, and the indexes of change between 2007 and
the years from 2000 to 2006.The figures are based on the number of foreign students enrolled in
countries reporting data to the OECD and to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Since data for
partner countries that did not report to the OECD were not included in the past, the figures are
not strictly comparable with those published in editions of Education at a Glance prior to 2006.
Table C2.7 (available on line) provides the matrix of foreign students’ numbers by country of
origin and country of destination.
Further references

The relative importance of international students in the education system affects tertiary entry
and graduation rates and may artificially increase them in some fields or levels of education
(see Indicators A2 and A3). It may also affect the mix recorded between public and private
expenditure (see Indicator B3).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

325

C2

chapter C

C2

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

In countries in which differentiated tuition fees are applied to international students, student
mobility may boost the financial resources of tertiary educational institutions and contribute to
the financing of the education system. On the other hand, international students may represent a
high financial burden for countries in which tertiary tuition fees are low or inexistent given the
high level of unit costs in tertiary education (see Indicator B5).
International students enrolled in a country different from their own are only one aspect of the
internationalisation of tertiary education. New forms of cross-border education have emerged
in the last decade, including the mobility of educational programmes and institutions across
borders. Yet, cross-border tertiary education has developed quite differently and in response
to different rationales in different world regions. For a detailed analysis of these issues, as well
as the trade and policy implications of the internationalisation of tertiary education see OECD
(2004).
The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

• Table C2.7. Number of foreign students in tertiary education, by country of origin and destination
(2007) and market shares in international education (2000, 2007)

326

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

Table C2.1.
Student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education (2000, 2007)
International mobile students enrolled as a percentage of all students (international plus domestic), foreign enrolments as a percentage
of all students (foreign and national) and index of change in the number of foreign students
Reading the first column: 19.5% of all students in tertiary education in Australia are international students and 14.0% of all students in tertiary education in
Switzerland are international students. According to country-specific immigration legislation and data availability constraints, student mobility is either defined
on the basis of students’ country of residence (i.e. Australia) or the country where students received their prior education (i.e. Switzerland). The data presented
in this table on student mobility represent the best available proxy of student mobility for each country.
Reading the fifth column: 22.5% of all students in tertiary education in Australia are not Australian citizens, and 19.3% of all students in tertiary education in
Switzerland are not Swiss citizens.

Partner countries

Tertiary-type B
programmes

Tertiary-type A
programmes

Advanced
research
programmes

Total tertiary

Tertiary-type B
programmes

Tertiary-type A
programmes

Advanced
research
programmes

Index of change in
the number of foreign
students, total tertiary
(2000=100)

Foreign enrolments
Foreign students as a percentage
of all tertiary enrolment

Total tertiary
OECD countries

Student mobility
International students as a percentage
of all tertiary enrolment

Australia1
Austria1
Belgium1, 2
Canada1, 3, 4, 5
Czech Republic1
Denmark1
Finland6
France
Germany6
Greece3
Hungary1
Iceland6
Ireland6
Italy
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands3
New Zealand1
Norway1
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic1
Spain1
Sweden1
Switzerland3, 6
Turkey
United Kingdom1
United States1

(1)
19.5
12.4
7.5
7.7
5.6
5.5
4.1
m
m
m
3.0
5.2
8.8
m
2.9
m
m
m
4.7
13.6
2.2
m
m
0.9
1.8
5.4
14.0
m
14.9
3.4

(2)
15.5
1.9
5.3
m
0.7
4.1
n
m
m
m
0.4
1.7
m
m
2.7
m
m
m
n
12.8
0.7
m
m
0.4
4.6
0.6
m
m
6.2
2.0

(3)
20.2
13.3
8.6
7.1
5.9
5.6
3.8
m
10.6
m
3.1
5.2
m
m
2.6
m
m
m
4.7
13.5
2.2
m
m
0.9
1.0
5.6
13.9
m
15.9
3.1

(4)
20.8
15.1
20.5
21.2
7.2
6.6
7.8
m
m
m
6.7
11.9
m
m
16.1
m
m
m
m
26.6
4.8
m
m
0.8
9.9
5.9
45.0
m
42.1
23.7

(5)
22.5
16.7
12.2
14.8
6.8
9.0
3.3
11.3
11.3
3.5
3.5
4.9
m
2.8
3.1
1.0
m
m
6.4
26.8
7.3
0.6
4.9
0.9
3.4
10.3
19.3
0.8
19.5
m

(6)
15.8
5.6
9.5
m
1.1
10.5
n
4.5
3.8
3.4
0.5
1.0
m
16.0
2.7
0.6
m
m
n
24.2
3.4
n
6.9
0.5
4.6
4.0
15.5
0.1
12.1
m

(7)
23.4
17.5
13.7
13.8
7.2
8.5
2.9
12.4
12.6
3.8
3.6
4.9
m
2.7
2.9
1.1
m
m
6.5
27.1
6.9
0.6
4.6
0.9
2.2
10.1
17.3
1.0
20.1
m

(8)
31.5
21.5
29.9
39.0
8.9
21.5
8.0
37.9
m
m
7.5
14.4
m
5.9
16.8
5.5
m
m
m
45.7
23.4
2.8
9.6
0.9
21.9
21.7
45.0
2.6
46.0
m

(9)
200
143
107
140
448
162
181
180
138
246
153
194
226
230
189
947
m
m
270
791
180
213
169
128
235
167
158
109
158
125

OECD average

7.1  

3.5  

7.3  

16.3  

8.7  

5.9  

8.8  

20.4  

235

EU 19 average

6.2  

2.2  

6.6  

12.3  

7.4  

4.9  

7.6  

17.4  

197

Brazil
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Chile
m
m
m
m
1.1
0.8
1.2
13.4
Estonia1
1.4
0.2
2.0
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.3
4.0
Israel
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Russian Federation3, 5
m
m
m
m
0.6
0.3
0.7
m
Slovenia1
1.0
0.4
1.4
7.0
1.3
0.7
1.6
7.9
1. For the purpose of measuring student mobility, international students are defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Excludes data for social advancement education.
3. Percentage in total tertiary underestimated because of the exclusion of certain programmes.
4.Year of reference 2006.
5. Excludes private institutions.
6. For the purpose of measuring student mobility, international students are defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

m
229
255
m
146
194

327

C2

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C2.2.
Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by country of origin (2007)
Number of international and foreign students enrolled in tertiary education from a given country of origin as a percentage of all
international or foreign students in the country of destination, based on head counts.
The table shows for each country the proportion of international students in tertiary education who are residents of or had their prior education in a given country of origin. When
data on student mobility are not available, the table shows the proportion of foreign students in tertiary education that have citizenship of a given country of origin.
Reading the third column: 0.7% of international tertiary students in Canada are German residents, 0.2% of international tertiary students in Canada are Greek residents, etc.
Reading the seventh column: 4.6% of international tertiary students in Ireland had their prior education in Germany, 0.3% of international tertiary students in Ireland had their
prior education in Greece, etc.
Reading the 16th column: 28.4% of foreign tertiary students in Austria are German citizens, 0.6% of foreign tertiary students in Austria are Greek citizens, etc.

OECD countries

Countries of origin
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Finland8

Czech
Republic8

United
Kingdom1
United
States1

Switzerland3,6

Foreign students

Sweden1

Spain1,3

Slovak
Republic1

New Zealand1

Netherlands7

Ireland6

Iceland6

Germany3,6,7

Denmark1

Canada1,3,4,5

Belgium1,2

Australia1

Countries of destination
OECD countries
International students

Austria3,8

C2

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
a 0.1 0.3 2.4 0.2 0.7 0.4
n 8.3
n
n 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2
n 0.3
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 2.4 2.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.2 1.6 0.9 0.4 0.1
a 0.1 0.4
n
a 0.4 1.2 0.7 1.0 0.5 1.8
n
n 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.2
n 0.2
1.9 0.2
a 1.0 0.3 2.2 2.9 0.1 1.2 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.4 1.4 4.9 0.1 0.2 0.9
n
n 0.1 0.1 0.9 1.7 0.2 0.1
n 24.9 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.3
a 0.5
0.1
n 0.1
a 0.2 5.8 0.1 0.1 0.2
n 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.2
n 0.4
n
n 0.1 0.9 0.4 3.8 0.5 0.2 0.1
n 0.1 2.8 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4
n
a
0.4 35.5 6.9 4.3 2.9 7.7 5.1 0.6 1.2 0.4 2.6 6.1 6.5 3.7 1.1 1.1 0.1 1.6
0.9 1.0 0.7 9.1
a 13.1 4.6 18.0 3.9 1.5 2.6 9.5 10.6 4.0 1.5 28.4 1.0 4.0
n 0.3 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.2
n 9.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 4.6 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6
n 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.2 0.2
n 1.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 2.8 0.1 1.1
n
n
n 7.6
n
a 0.1
n
n 0.1
n 0.1
n 0.1 0.1
n
n 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.6
a 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.4
n 4.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.1 0.4 0.3 1.2 1.8 4.0 1.7 0.3 0.1 0.3 3.1 2.3 2.8 1.7 0.6 14.2 0.1 1.6
1.5 0.1 1.4 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 2.9 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 1.6 6.1 0.7 0.1 1.0
2.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.2 10.7 0.8 0.1 0.3
n 4.3
n 0.6 1.2
n 0.1
n
n
n 0.1
n 0.4 0.3
n 1.1
n
n
n 0.6
0.2 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 6.4 0.5 0.2 0.5 2.4 0.1
0.1 8.3 0.2 0.9 0.4 1.6 0.5
a 0.2 0.1 0.4 2.1 0.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.9
n 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1
n
n
a
n
n 0.2
n 0.2 0.1
n
n 0.1
0.9
0.7
n 0.2 15.2 0.3 3.8 0.7 0.2 0.5 7.7 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.8
0.1 0.3 0.3 1.5 6.1 4.0 1.5 0.7
n 2.1 0.8 1.7 0.6 1.9 0.5 3.4 1.1 1.7
n 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1
n 0.2 7.0 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.2 1.1 0.3
n 0.1
n 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.1
n
a 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 3.0 67.4 0.2
0.1 0.3 0.2 2.8 2.0 3.0 2.1 0.5 0.1 0.3
a 4.1 0.7 1.8 0.6 1.0 0.1 1.2
0.4
n 0.1 8.9 0.3 6.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 1.8 0.2
a 0.2 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.4 5.7
0.1 0.2 0.4 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.9
a 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.0 0.3
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.4 3.5
n 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 2.0 5.2 0.2 0.8
0.8 0.1 0.9 11.7 1.0 3.5 13.6 0.4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.3
a 1.4 0.5 1.7 1.9
1.4 0.4 11.6 4.8 1.7 7.8 14.9 0.2 7.0 1.2 1.1 2.1 0.7 4.5
a 0.8 0.6 2.1

Partner countries

Total from OECD countries 13.0 52.6 26.7 79.6 34.4 77.2 52.6 24.8 28.2 56.1 29.1 44.7 27.8 40.2 35.2 67.9 76.3 29.8
Brazil
Chile
China
Estonia
India
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Main geographic regions
Total from Africa
Total from Asia
Total from Europe

0.2
0.1
23.8
n
11.6
0.1
0.3
n

0.1 0.6
0.1 0.2
2.1 17.9
n
n
0.8 2.6
0.1 0.4
0.5 0.7
n
n

0.3 0.9
0.1 0.3
7.0 11.5
0.3 0.3
1.3 1.7
0.3 0.6
0.6 5.8
n 0.1

0.7
n
2.6
0.9
0.1
n
3.0
0.1

0.1
n
7.7
0.1
2.1
0.1
0.4
n

0.1 0.2
n 0.2
3.2 41.0
n
n
0.1 7.4
0.1
n
0.3 0.8
n
n

0.1
0.1
1.0
n
0.2
7.7
1.1
0.3

2.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1

0.1
0.2
1.2
0.1
0.2
n
0.3
0.2

0.5 0.4 1.2
0.1 0.1 0.3
0.9 14.1 16.6
n 0.2
n
0.5 6.8 14.4
0.1 0.3 0.6
0.8 0.7 0.8
n 0.1
n

0.2
n
3.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
1.2
1.3

n 0.4
n 0.2
0.2 16.7
n 6.6
0.4 2.0
0.8 0.2
4.4 11.7
0.1 0.1

3.2 2.7 16.0 2.1 8.6 1.3 4.6 1.3 0.8 3.0 7.3 0.5 3.3 9.5 6.1 1.4 1.7 13.9
79.7 5.6 42.4 13.2 31.2 7.0 28.1 5.9 68.6 19.6 1.7 4.5 4.2 46.3 65.2 14.1 9.3 31.4
4.7 52.7 15.1 73.1 45.8 78.5 36.1 25.6 9.3 74.6 26.6 39.6 29.5 32.6 11.9 82.2 86.5 48.1
of which,from EU19 countries 3.4 51.0 10.7 45.6 23.7 60.6 32.4 23.5 7.6 45.6 20.5 35.9 25.0 28.1 8.1 59.1 74.1 2 2.4
Total from North America 3.3 0.6 12.1 5.8 2.0 10.1 18.0 0.3 8.3 1.5 1.1 3.4 1.1 6.0 4.9 1.0 0.8 3.0
Total from Oceania
1.9 0.1 0.4 3.1 0.3 0.9 0.6
n 12.0
n
n 1.6 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.2
n 0.4
Total from South America 1.1 0.9 8.8 1.7 4.0 2.2 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.3 29.2 1.1 2.4 2.5 11.1 1.1 0.7 2.5
Not specified
6.0 37.3 5.3 1.1 8.1
n 12.0 66.0 0.1
n 34.0 49.2 59.3 2.4
n 0.2 0.9 0.7
Total from all countries
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1. International students are defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Excludes data for social advancement education.
3. Excludes tertiary-type B programmes.
4.Year of reference 2006.
5. Excludes private institutions.
6. International students are defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
7. Excludes advanced research programmes.
8. Foreign students are defined on the basis of their country of citizenship; these data are not comparable with data on international students and
are therefore presented separately in the table.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

328

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

chapter C

Table C2.2. (continued)
Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by country of origin (2007)
Number of international and foreign students enrolled in tertiary education from a given country of origin as a percentage of all
international or foreign students in the country of destination, based on head counts.

Partner countries

OECD countries

Russian
Federation5,7,8
Total partner
country
destinations

Chile1

Slovenia1

Estonia1

Total OECD
destinations

Turkey8

Portugal8

Poland8

Norway8

Korea8

Japan8

Italy8

Hungary8

Greece8

France8

Countries of destination
OECD countries
Partner countries
Foreign students
International Foreign

Total all reporting
destinations

The table shows for each country the proportion of international students in tertiary education who are residents of or had their prior education in a given country of origin. When
data on student mobility are not available, the table shows the proportion of foreign students in tertiary education that have citizenship of a given country of origin.
Reading the third column: 0.7% of international tertiary students in Canada are German residents, 0.2% of international tertiary students in Canada are Greek residents, etc.
Reading the seventh column: 4.6% of international tertiary students in Ireland had their prior education in Germany, 0.3% of international tertiary students in Ireland had their
prior education in Greece, etc.
Reading the 16th column: 28.4% of foreign tertiary students in Austria are German citizens, 0.6% of foreign tertiary students in Austria are Greek citizens, etc.

Countries of origin
(19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35)
Australia
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4
n
n
n
m
n
0.3
Austria
0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4
n
n 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.1
m
0.1
0.4
Belgium
1.1 0.2 0.1 0.5
n
n 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1
m
n
0.4
Canada
0.5 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 2.4 0.5 0.1 1.8
n 0.3 0.2
m
0.2
1.6
Czech Republic
0.3
n 0.1 0.3
n
n 0.3 2.9 0.2
n 0.3
n 0.1 0.1
m
n
0.3
Denmark
0.1 0.1
n 0.1
n
n 5.4 0.1
n
n 0.2 0.7 0.1
n
m
n
0.2
Finland
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
n 1.9 0.1 0.1
n 0.2 45.7
n 0.1
m
0.2
0.2
France
a 0.3 0.3 1.9 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.8 3.6 0.1 2.2 0.4 0.2 0.7
m
0.1
1.9
Germany
2.8 1.9 10.1 3.6 0.3 0.2 4.2 3.1 1.7 1.4 3.2 1.4 0.3 0.7
m
0.2
2.7
Greece
0.8
a 1.0 8.8
n
n 0.1 0.2 0.2 4.6 1.3 0.2 0.1
n
m
0.6
1.2
Hungary
0.3 0.1
a 0.4 0.1
n 0.2 0.5 0.1
n 0.3 0.1 0.9
n
m
n
0.2
Iceland
n
n 0.3
n
n
n 1.6
n
n
n 0.1
n
n
n
m
n
0.1
Ireland
0.2
n 0.5 0.1
n
n 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1
n
n
m
n
0.7
Italy
1.9 0.4 0.2
a 0.1
n 0.6 0.4 1.3 0.1 1.3 0.6 10.3 0.3
m
0.1
1.1
Japan
0.8 0.1 0.2 0.6
a 3.9 0.4 0.2 0.1
n 2.3 0.3
n 0.1
m
0.1
1.9
Korea
1.0 0.1 0.2 0.6 17.6
a 0.2 0.3
n 0.2 4.4 0.1
n 0.5
m
0.3
3.7
Luxembourg
0.6
n
n 0.1
n
n
n
n 0.2
n 0.3
n
n
n
m
n
0.3
Mexico
0.7
n 0.1 0.5 0.1
n 0.3 0.1 0.1
n 1.0 0.1 0.2 1.5
m
0.3
0.9
Netherlands
n 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
m
n
0.4
0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1
New Zealand
n
n
n 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
n
n 0.2
n
n
n
m
n
0.1
n
Norway
0.1
n 4.7 0.3
n
n
a 7.0 0.1
n 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1
m
n
0.4
Poland
1.4 0.5 0.4 2.6 0.1
n 1.2
a 0.9 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.5
n
m
0.1
1.2
Portugal
1.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
n
n 0.3 0.3
a
n 0.4 0.1 0.2
n
m
0.1
0.4
Slovak Republic
0.2
n 15.2 0.3
n
n 0.2 1.1 0.1
n 1.0
n 0.6
n
m
n
0.9
Spain
1.6 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1
n 0.7 0.5 3.6
n 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.8
m
0.1
0.8
Sweden
0.2 0.1 1.8 0.2 0.1
n 8.1 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2
m
0.1
0.5
Switzerland
0.7 0.1 0.1 2.4
n
n 0.3 0.1 0.5
n 0.4 2.9
n 0.2
m
0.1
0.4
Turkey
0.9 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2
a 1.2 0.2 0.1
n
m
2.3
1.4
United Kingdom
1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.2 0.2 0.1
m
0.2
0.9
United States
1.3 0.6 1.6 0.8 1.5 1.7 2.1 6.3 0.8 0.2 2.0 1.2 0.3 0.8
m
0.8
1.8
Total from OECD countries 20.4 6.1 40.1 27.4 21.7 7.3 34.1 32.2 15.9 7.9 31.2 56.8 16.2 6.8
m
6.2 27.1
Brazil
1.0
n 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 12.3
n 0.8 0.1 0.3 2.3
m
0.5
0.8
Chile
0.3
n
n 0.4
n
n 0.5
n 0.1
n 0.2
n
n
a
m
0.4
0.2
China
7.6 0.2 1.3 2.9 63.7 72.3 4.6 3.2 0.4 0.7 16.3 9.5 0.1 0.6
m
9.8 15.2
Estonia
n
n
n 0.1
n
n 0.5 0.1
n
n 0.1
a 0.2
n 0.9
0.3
0.1
India
0.4
n 0.3 1.0 0.3 1.1 1.0 2.1 0.2
n 6.2 1.7 0.1
n
m
1.8
5.5
Israel
0.1 0.4 5.0 2.0
n
n 0.1 0.2
n 0.1 0.4
n
n 0.1
m
0.8
0.5
Russian Federation
1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.3 0.8 5.1 3.7 0.5 2.9 1.4 9.6 1.2 0.1
a
2.9
1.6
Slovenia
n
n 0.1 0.7
n
n
n 0.1 0.1
n 0.1
n
a
n
m
n
0.1
Main geographic regions
Total from Africa
43.8 4.3 1.9 9.6 0.7 0.8 9.7 4.8 64.8 2.0 10.5 0.3 0.3 0.1
m 17.3 11.6
Total from Asia
19.7 61.8 15.5 13.9 93.6 94.6 16.3 18.7 1.7 55.2 46.8 13.1 0.9 1.5 57.3 55.1 48.2
Total from Europe
21.6 32.0 79.7 62.4 2.5 1.6 43.1 66.9 16.5 27.6 24.9 84.9 96.7 3.9 31.9 15.7 23.3
of which,from EU19 countries 14.1 4.6 31.3 21.2 1.7 0.7 28.1 15.1 13.7 7.3 16.9 51.8 15.2 3.3
m
m
m
Total from North America
1.8 0.8 2.5 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.6 8.7 1.2 0.2 3.8 1.2 0.5 1.1
m
1.0
3.4
Total from Oceania
0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.8
n 0.1
n
m
0.1
0.7
Total from South America 4.8 0.3 0.3 9.1 1.0 0.5 2.5 0.7 15.7 0.1 5.4 0.4 1.0 54.5
m 10.7
6.3
Not specified
8.1 0.8
n 3.8
n
n 25.5
n
n 14.7 7.8
n 0.4 38.8 10.8
n
6.5
Total from all countries
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1. International students are defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Excludes data for social advancement education.
3. Excludes tertiary-type B programmes.
4.Year of reference 2006.
5. Excludes private institutions.
6. International students are defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
7. Excludes advanced research programmes.
8. Foreign students are defined on the basis of their country of citizenship; these data are not comparable with data on international students and
are therefore presented separately in the table.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

329

C2

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C2.3.
Citizens studying abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2007)
Number of students enrolled in tertiary education in a given country of destination as a percentage of all students enrolled abroad,
based on head counts
The table shows for each country the proportion of students studying abroad in tertiary education in a given country of destination.
Reading the second column: 6.7% of Czech citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in Austria, 15.0% of Italian citizens enrolled in tertiary education
abroad study in Austria, etc.
Reading the first row: 2.9% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in France, 27.5% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary
education abroad study in New Zealand, etc.

C2

Partner countries

OECD countries

New Zealand

Netherlands6

Mexico

Luxembourg

Korea

Japan

Italy

Ireland7,8

Iceland

Hungary

Greece

Germany6

France

Finland

Denmark

Czech
Republic

Canada2,4,5

Belgium3

Austria2

Australia1

Countries of destination
OECD countries

Country of origin
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20)
a 0.7 0.3 4.0
n 0.4 0.3 2.9 3.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.6 3.6 0.4 m m 0.5 27.5
1.6
a 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 3.3 51.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 1.6 0.3 0.1 m m 1.6 0.2
0.7 0.8
a 2.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 23.4 8.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.8 2.5 0.5
n m m 18.9 0.1
9.1 0.1 0.2
a 0.1 0.2 0.2 2.9 1.4 0.1 0.3
n 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 m m 0.3 0.9
1.3 6.7 0.5 1.7
a 0.5 0.6 9.3 27.2
n 0.2 0.2 0.4 2.2 0.5 0.1 m m 1.6
n
2.3 1.1 0.6 1.6
n
a 0.7 3.8 8.2 0.2
n 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.1 m m 2.3 0.9
0.8 1.9 0.5 0.9 0.1 2.2
a 3.5 9.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.1 m m 2.0 0.3
1.4 0.8 26.6 7.8
n 0.4 0.3
a 10.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4 1.7 0.7
n m m 1.3 0.6
2.2 14.4 0.7 1.3 0.3 1.5 0.5 8.1
a 0.5 1.8 0.1 0.9 2.4 0.5 0.1 m m 16.3 1.5
0.1 0.6 1.1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 5.1 16.0
a 0.4
n 0.1 13.3 0.1
n m m 1.6
n
0.7 15.0 1.3 1.3 0.4 1.3 1.3 8.7 30.9 0.2
a 0.1 0.3 2.5 1.0
n m m 3.0 0.1
0.8 0.5 0.2 1.2
n 46.4 0.7 1.3 3.0
n 1.3
a 0.2 0.5 0.6
n m m 2.1 0.3
0.9 0.2 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.3 2.1
n 0.4
n
a 0.2
n
n m m 0.7 0.2
0.7 15.0 4.1 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.4 11.6 18.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7
a 0.3
n m m 1.4 0.1
5.8 0.5 0.3 2.9
n 0.1 0.2 3.7 4.3
n
n
n 0.2 0.6
a 2.2 m m 0.4 1.7
5.1 0.3 0.1 0.7
n
n
n 2.3 4.9
n
n
n
n 0.3 20.6
a m m 0.3
n
0.2 6.3 20.6 0.4
n 0.1 0.1 21.0 32.6
n
n
n 0.2 0.7
n
n
a m 0.6
n
1.6 0.2 0.3 5.2
n 0.3 0.2 5.9 5.1
n
n
n 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.1 m
a 0.6 0.3
2.0 1.1 26.1 2.4 0.1 1.5 0.6 4.7 11.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.9 0.6
n m m
a 0.4
49.0 0.2
n 3.3 0.1 0.6 0.1 1.6 1.7
n 0.1
n 0.2
n 2.0 0.8 m m 0.5
a
10.8 0.4 0.2 1.3 1.7 16.4 0.6 2.7 4.3
n 5.2 0.2 0.8 1.1 0.2
n m m 2.2 1.2
0.5 3.9 1.2 1.6 0.7 1.8 0.4 8.9 40.2 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.7 3.9 0.2
n m m 2.2
n
0.4 0.6 5.1 1.7 1.9 0.3 0.2 18.4 10.7 0.1 0.1
n 0.3 0.8 0.2
n m m 1.9 0.1
0.4 5.2 0.3 0.4 66.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 6.5
n 9.2
n 0.1 0.7 0.1
n m m 0.5
n
0.5 1.6 3.4 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.4 14.4 18.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.3 1.9 0.4
n m m 3.1 0.1
6.0 1.2 0.4 1.2 0.6 10.8 3.9 3.7 4.8 0.2 1.8 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9
n m m 1.2 0.9
2.8 3.2 0.8 2.9 0.1 0.6 0.2 14.5 20.4 0.2 0.1
n 0.3 12.4 0.4
n m m 1.4 0.5
0.4 3.8 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 4.0 41.6 0.1 0.2
n 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 m m 1.2
n
6.5 0.8 1.0 8.3 1.5 1.8 0.7 9.9 7.1 0.4 0.3 0.1 8.7 1.1 1.5 0.1 m m 3.1 1.6
5.8 0.7 0.4 17.5 0.3 0.6 0.4 6.1 6.5 0.3 0.5 0.1 4.8 0.9 3.6 1.1 m m 0.9 4.5

Total from OECD countries

3.2 3.4 3.3 3.0 2.2 1.2 0.3 5.8 12.2 0.2 0.7 0.1 1.0 1.8 3.2 0.3

m

m 2.9 1.1

Brazil
Chile
China
Estonia
India
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

2.1 0.3
2.5 0.2
11.0 0.3
0.1 0.9
15.1 0.1
1.4 0.4
1.0 1.0
0.7 20.4

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

0.6
1.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.0
0.7

2.8
3.1
6.3
0.4
4.4
6.8
2.7
0.7

n
n
n
0.1
n
1.3
2.1
0.7

0.4 0.2 10.7 8.7
n
n
n 0.1 4.5 1.9
0.4 0.2 8.2 7.7
n
n
n
n 2.6 0.5
0.4 0.4 4.1 5.9
n
n
n 0.3 0.4 17.5
3.2 13.8 2.5 15.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.2 0.5
0.2 0.1 0.5 2.4
n
n
n 0.2 0.4 0.3
0.4 0.2 2.0 9.5 0.6 5.4
n 0.1 8.0 0.3
0.8 2.3 6.3 25.3 0.6 0.4
n 0.1 1.8 0.7
0.3 0.5 3.2 22.0
n 0.7
n 0.2 14.2 0.4

0.1
0.2
5.1
n
0.2
n
0.5
n

0.5
0.5
0.8
1.6
0.2
1.4
0.9
2.7

0.3
0.8
3.0
n
1.5
n
0.5
n

Note: The proportion of students abroad is based only on the total of students enrolled in countries reporting data to the OECD and UNESCO
Institute for Statistics.
1. Data by country of origin relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Excludes tertiary-type B programmes.
3. Excludes data for social advancement education.
4. Reference year 2006.
5. Excludes private institutions.
6. Excludes advanced research programmes.
7. Data by country of origin relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
8. Excludes part-time students.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

330

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter C

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

Table C2.3. (continued)
Citizens studying abroad in tertiary education, by country of destination (2007)
Number of students enrolled in tertiary education in a given country of destination as a percentage of all students enrolled abroad,
based on head counts
The table shows for each country the proportion of students studying abroad in tertiary education in a given country of destination.
Reading the second column: 6.7% of Czech citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in Austria, 15.0% of Italian citizens enrolled in tertiary education
abroad study in Austria, etc.
Reading the first row: 2.9% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary education abroad study in France, 27.5% of Australian citizens enrolled in tertiary
education abroad study in New Zealand, etc.

Countries of destination

Partner countries

OECD countries

Country of origin
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Total partner
country
destinations
Total all
reporting
destinations

Slovenia

Russian
Federation5,6

Israel

Estonia

Chile

Brazil

United
Kingdom1
United
States1
Total OECD
destinations

Partner countries

Turkey

Switzerland

Sweden

Spain

Slovak
Republic

Portugal

Poland

Norway

OECD countries

(21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38)
0.3 0.1 0.2
n 0.4 3.9 0.7 0.3 17.7 28.6 98.0 m
n
n m m
n
2.0
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.9 3.9 7.5 0.2 11.1 6.7 95.8 m
n
n m m 0.1
4.2
0.2 0.2 0.7
n 3.0 2.5 2.9 0.1 22.5 6.3 98.4 m 0.1
n m m
n
1.6
0.2 0.7 0.2
n 0.2 0.9 0.7
n 11.3 65.1 97.9 m
n
n m m
n
2.1
0.6 4.7 0.3 6.0 1.6 2.9 2.1
n 14.2 11.5 97.1 m 0.1
n m m
n
2.9
13.5 0.2 0.1
n 1.8 15.4 1.5 0.1 25.3 15.9 98.0 m
n 0.1 m m
n
2.0
3.1 0.1 0.2
n 0.9 37.8 1.3
n 17.8 6.1 91.8 m
n 4.9 m m
n
8.2
0.3 0.2 1.0
n 3.0 2.7 6.9
n 20.7 10.9 99.0 m 0.1
n m m
n
1.0
0.8 0.5 0.4
n 2.2 3.8 11.4 0.3 16.3 10.3 98.7 m 0.1
n m m
n
1.3
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 2.3 42.2 5.3 92.2 m
n
n m m
n
7.8
0.5 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.0 2.4
n 12.8 9.2 97.3 m
n
n m m 0.2
2.7
6.7 0.1
n 0.1 0.8 10.9 0.3
n 10.3 11.5 99.9 m
n
n m m
n
0.1
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.1 82.9 5.6 99.9 m
n
n m m
n
0.1
0.2 0.1 0.6
n 7.8 2.0 11.1
n 14.5 8.3 98.4 m 0.1
n m m 0.3
1.6
0.1 0.1
n
n 0.3 0.5 0.5
n 10.2 64.3 98.9 m
n
n m m
n
1.1
n
n
n
n 0.1 0.2 0.2
n 4.0 59.5 98.7 m
n
n m m
n
1.3
n
n 0.4
n 0.2 0.1 4.0
n 11.7 0.8 99.9 m
n n m m
n
0.1
0.1
n 0.1
n 13.7 0.8 0.6
n 6.0 51.2 93.9 m 0.4
n m m
n
6.1
1.2 0.1 0.5
n 2.0 5.2 2.6 0.1 21.2 12.2 98.4 m 0.1
n m m
n
1.6
0.3 0.2
n
n 0.4 1.3 0.6
n 14.1 21.7 98.9 m
n
n m m
n
1.1
a 6.6 0.1 1.1 0.6 9.6 0.7
n 22.0 8.9 98.9 m
n
n m m
n
1.1
0.5
a 0.4 0.1 2.0 2.4 1.3
n 17.7 7.5 98.7 m
n
n m m
n
1.3
0.3 0.3
a
n 19.2 1.5 7.0
n 20.8 6.0 97.9 m
n
n m m
n
2.1
0.1 0.6 0.1
a 0.4 0.2 0.7
n 3.6 2.4 99.7 m
n
n m m
n
0.3
0.4 0.2 2.4
n
a 4.5 5.6
n 23.7 13.7 98.0 m 0.2
n m m
n
2.0
8.6 3.5 0.2 0.2 1.4
a 1.6 0.1 23.0 20.3 98.3 m 0.1 0.1 m m
n
1.7
0.4 0.1 0.8
n 3.2 2.5
a 0.1 17.2 11.5 96.8 m 0.1
n m m
n
3.2
0.1 0.1
n
n 0.1 0.6 1.4
a 3.8 19.9 80.7 m
n
n m m
n 19.3
1.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 2.5 3.0 1.4 0.4
a 33.0 97.0 m
n
n m m
n
3.0
0.6 1.6 0.3
n 1.4 1.8 0.9 0.1 30.6
a 92.2 m 0.1
n m m
n
7.8

(39)
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

Total from OECD countries 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 2.2 2.4 3.2 0.2 16.5 24.4 96.4

m 0.1 0.1

m

m

n

3.6

100.0

Brazil
Chile
China
Estonia
India
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

a 0.7
n
m
a
n
m
n
n
m
n
a
m
n
n
m
n
n
m
n 2.2
m
n
n

m m
m m
m m
m 11.6
m m
a m
m
a
m m

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
a

10.9
22.7
10.7
32.9
5.5
28.3
28.9
7.5

100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

0.3
1.0
0.2
1.5
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.2

0.1
n
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.0
0.4

9.1
n 8.7 0.5
0.1
n 18.5 3.2
n
n 0.2 0.4
n
n 2.2 5.4
n
n 0.1 0.5
n 1.0 1.0 0.3
0.2
n 1.4 1.4
0.7 0.2 1.9 2.1

1.4
n 5.4 30.2 89.1
1.3
n 4.8 20.2 77.3
0.2
n 10.8 21.6 89.3
0.4
n 11.1 5.1 67.1
0.2
n 14.7 52.8 94.5
0.5 0.2 6.4 24.0 71.7
1.4 1.1 5.1 9.6 71.1
1.6
n 10.4 7.5 92.5

Note: The proportion of students abroad is based only on the total of students enrolled in countries reporting data to the OECD and UNESCO
Institute for Statistics.
1. Data by country of origin relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Excludes tertiary-type B programmes.
3. Excludes data for social advancement education.
4. Reference year 2006.
5. Excludes private institutions.
6. Excludes advanced research programmes.
7. Data by country of origin relate to international students defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
8. Excludes part-time students.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

331

C2

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Total tertiary
programmes
(4)

Partner
countries

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
m
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Brazil
Estonia1
Israel
Slovenia1

m
4.6
m
16.6

OECD countries

Australia1
Austria1, 2
Belgium1, 3
Canada1, 4, 5, 6
Czech Republic1
Denmark1
Finland7
Hungary1
Iceland7
Ireland
Japan1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands8
New Zealand1
Norway1
Slovak Republic1
Spain1
Sweden1
Switzerland4,7
United Kingdom1
United States1

Tertiary-type B
Tertiary-type A
Advanced research
programmes
programmes
programmes
(1)
(2)
(3)
International students by level and type of tertiary education
12.4
83.5
4.1
1.4
90.2
8.4
30.6
63.4
6.0
m
88.6
11.4
1.1
90.5
8.4
9.4
88.1
2.5
n
86.6
13.4
0.7
95.2
4.0
0.6
96.5
2.9
m
m
m
21.3
68.1
10.6
m
m
m
m
m
m
n
100.0
m
25.3
69.9
4.9
0.3
94.1
5.6
0.5
94.7
4.7
34.0
43.8
22.3
0.5
93.9
5.5
m
73.5
26.5
9.1
79.0
11.9
12.7
71.6
15.7

France9
Germany8, 9
Greece8, 9
Italy9
Korea9
Poland9
Portugal9
Turkey9

Foreign students by level and type of tertiary education
10.0
79.0
11.0
4.8
95.2
m
34.7
65.3
m
2.9
92.9
4.1
22.4
69.4
8.3
n
93.2
6.8
1.1
88.8
10.0
5.1
90.3
4.6

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Partner
countries

C2

OECD countries

Table C2.4.
Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by level and type
of tertiary education (2007)

Chile9
Russian Federation6, 8, 9

29.6
10.7

100
100

m
88.1
m
76.1

65.3
89.3

m
7.3
m
7.4

5.1
m

m
100
m
100

1. International students are defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Based on the number of registrations, not head-counts.
3. Excludes data for social advancement education.
4. Excludes tertiary-type B programmes.
5. Reference year 2006.
6. Excludes private institutions.
7. International students are defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
8. Excludes advanced research programmes.
9. Foreign students are defined on the basis of their country of citizenship, these data are not comparable with data on international students and
are therefore presented separately in the table and chart.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

332

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter C

Who Studies Abroad and Where? – Indicator C2

Social sciences,
business and law

Not known or
unspecified

Total all fields
of education

55.6
37.1
15.3
39.7
35.0
25.6
27.6
m
21.5
22.5
m
39.7
m
m
m
45.4
45.7
33.6
31.3
30.7
34.2
40.8
31.0

n
0.4
0.1
9.4
n
n
0.1
m
n
n
m
9.9
m
m
m
0.7
0.6
9.3
n
0.2
2.2
1.3
12.0

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
m
100
100
m
100
m
m
m
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

m
m
3.8
m
m
10.9

m
m
0.7
m
m
3.3

m
m
57.0
m
m
29.0

m
m
n
m
m
n

m
m
100
m
m
100

Foreign students by field of education
11.1
19.5
8.1
10.6
12.6
8.7
20.1
15.8
14.5
20.4
19.9
6.6
4.6
28.2
18.3
5.6
18.3
7.3
8.5
7.3
12.4
33.0
14.6
6.3
14.6
14.7
10.1
8.8

1.7
1.5
1.7
3.4
5.0
4.5
3.2

35.5
39.8
31.8
35.2
49.1
12.4
36.8

6.0
0.1
0.9
n
n
a
n

100
100
100
100
100
100
100

Sciences

1.6
1.5
2.2
1.2
0.7
3.9
1.7
m
2.6
1.3
m
2.0
m
m
m
5.8
2.8
3.6
3.3
1.8
2.1
1.3
1.8

Humanities and
arts

(10)

Health and
welfare

Services

Engineering,
manufacturing
and construction

(9)

OECD countries

Education

(8)

Australia1
Austria1, 2
Belgium1, 3
Canada1, 2, 4
Denmark1
Finland2, 5
Germany2, 5, 6
Greece
Hungary1
Iceland5
Ireland
Japan1
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands6
New Zealand1, 6
Norway1
Spain1, 2, 6
Sweden1
Switzerland2, 5
United Kingdom1
United States1

0.8
2.1
8.3
1.1
2.1
1.9
1.5
m
11.1
1.1
m
2.4
m
m
m
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.3

Partner countries

(1)

(7)

(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
International students by field of education
3.0
10.5
8.6
7.1
12.8
6.0
11.8
7.7
22.9
10.5
4.9
7.1
41.8
14.1
6.2
1.6
14.9
5.3
8.2
18.5
4.1
13.5
19.6
17.9
7.1
2.0
30.0
11.6
15.1
10.0
4.9
19.5
6.3
21.5
17.0
m
m
m
m
m
4.2
9.0
32.7
10.6
8.2
5.2
6.0
2.9
42.9
18.0
m
m
m
m
m
2.5
14.6
2.3
25.4
1.2
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
6.2
5.2
16.8
12.8
5.5
3.3
7.2
6.3
14.6
18.2
5.3
4.7
10.4
16.9
15.0
2.9
6.8
34.7
12.7
7.0
3.8
23.6
8.1
16.0
14.7
3.6
16.0
7.1
17.4
16.7
3.8
14.7
9.2
14.3
13.9
3.0
15.6
6.5
11.0
18.7

Brazil
Chile
Estonia1
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia1

m
m
7.0
m
m
2.1

m
m
0.8
m
m
5.1

OECD countries

Agriculture

Table C2.5.
Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by field of education (2007)

Czech Republic7
France7
Italy7
Poland7
Portugal7
Slovak Republic7
Turkey7

2.5
0.2
2.0
0.5
1.0
11.6
2.4

5.2
1.1
2.3
4.2
3.6
5.1
9.5

m
m
0.9
m
m
16.7

m
m
11.8
m
m
11.5

m
m
17.8
m
m
21.3

1. International students are defined on the basis of their country of residence.
2. Excludes tertiary-type B programmes.
3. Excludes data for social advancement education.
4. Reference year 2006.
5. International students are defined on the basis of their country of prior education.
6. Excludes advanced research programmes.
7. Foreign students are defined on the basis of their country of citizenship; these data are not comparable with data on international students and
are therefore presented separately in the table and chart.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

333

C2

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C2.6.
Trends in the number of foreign students enrolled outside their country of origin (2000 to 2007)
Number of foreign students enrolled in tertiary education outside their country of origin, head counts

C2

Number of foreign students
2004
2003
2002

2007

2006

2005

Foreign students enrolled
worldwide

2001

2000

3 021 106

2 924 679

2 846 423

2 697 283

2 507 551

2 267 148

1 978 507

1 901 188

Foreign students enrolled
in OECD countries

2 522 757

2 440 657

2 368 931

2 265 135

2 085 263

1 897 866

1 642 676

1 583 744

2006=100

2005=100

Index of change (2007)
2004=100 2003=100 2002=100

Foreign students enrolled
worldwide

2001=100

2000=100

103

106

112

120

133

153

159

Foreign students enrolled
in OECD countries

103

106

111

121

133

154

159

Note: Figures are based on the number of foreign students enrolled in OECD and partner countries reporting data to the OECD and UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, in order to provide a global picture of foreign students worldwide. The coverage of these reporting countries has evolved
over time, therefore missing data have been imputed wherever necessary to ensure the comparability of time series over time. Given the inclusion
of UNESCO data for partner countries and the imputation of missing data, the estimates of the number of foreign students may differ from those
published in previous editions of Education at a Glance.
Source: OECD and UNESCO Institute for Statistics for most data on non-OECD countries. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664653153762

334

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE STUDENTS IN MOVING FROM
Education TO work?
INDICATOR C3

This indicator shows the number of years that young adults are expected to spend
in education, employment and non-employment, and notes their status by gender.
Once students have completed their initial education, they may face periods of
unemployment, non-employment, or involuntary part-time work. The indicator
also tracks the length of unemployment spells and the proportion of young adults
in part-time work.

Key results
Chart C3.1. Proportion of long-term unemployed among
unemployed 25-34 year-olds (2007)

This chart shows the proportion of unemployed tertiary and below upper secondary
educated individuals with unemployment spells over 6 months.
Below upper secondary education

Tertiary education

In 2007 the proportion of long-term unemployed among young unemployed with below upper
secondary education exceeded 50% in more than half of OECD countries. In nine countries
(including partner countries) more than half of the unemployed with tertiary education were
also unemployed for periods lasting longer than six months. While unemployment rates generally
fall for those with higher levels of educational attainment, the benefit of education in finding a
job once unemployed is less clear-cut.The proportion of unemployed tertiary educated individuals
with long-term unemployment is above 60% in Greece, Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. In view
of the employment outlook for OECD countries in the coming years, the long-term unemployment
figures among young adults are likely to rise in most countries.

Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Poland
Luxembourg
Ireland
Switzerland
Slovenia
Hungary
Germany
Italy
Belgium
France
Portugal
Greece
OECD average
United Kingdom
Netherlands
Spain
Australia
Austria
Turkey
Sweden
Denmark
United States
Israel
Canada

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion long-term unemployed among those with below upper
secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table C3.5. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

336

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• On average across OECD countries, a young person aged 15 in 2007 can expect
to spend about 6.7 additional years in formal education. In addition, he or she
can expect to hold a job for 6.2 of the subsequent 15 years, to be unemployed
for a total of 0.7 years and to be out of the labour market (not employed, not in
education and not looking for a job) for 1.3 years.

INDICATOR C3

• The 15-19 year-old population that is not in education is generally associated with
being unemployed or out of the labour force. However, some countries are better
able than others to provide employment for young adults with relatively low
educational attainment. In Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, and the Netherlands, 70%
or more of individuals in this age group who are not in education are employed.
• On average, having completed upper secondary education reduces unemployment
among 20-24 year-olds by 6.7 percentage points and that of 25-29 year-olds by
6.2 percentage points. The lack of an upper secondary qualification is clearly
a serious impediment to finding employment. A tertiary qualification further
increases the likelihood of finding employment.
• Because completing an upper secondary education has become the norm among
OECD countries, young adults that have passed their teenage years are the
most vulnerable group in an economic downturn. Over the past 10 years, the
rates for not being in education nor in employment among 20-24 year-olds
have varied substantially in most countries and in Greece, Hungary, Poland and
the Slovak Republic, rates have varied by 10 percentage points or more over
economic cycles (chart C3.4).
• Involuntary part-time work is generally more prevalent among young females
than males. This difference between the genders generally decreases with higher
levels of educational attainment. Among females with below upper secondary
education in Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States and the partner country
Israel 10% or more hold a part-time job despite a preference for full-time
employment.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

337

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Policy context

C3

All OECD countries are experiencing rapid social and economic changes that make the transition
to working life more uncertain for younger individuals. In some OECD countries, education
and work are largely consecutive, while in others they may be concurrent. The ways in which
education and work are combined can significantly affect the transition process.
The transition from education to work is a complex process that depends not only on the length
and quality of the schooling received but also on a country’s general labour market and economic
conditions. High general unemployment rates make the transition substantially more difficult.
Moreover, those entering the labour market for the first time typically experience higher
unemployment rates than those with more work experience.
General labour market conditions also influence the schooling decisions of younger individuals:
when labour markets are poor, younger individuals tend to increase enrolment in education and
remain in education longer; the opposite applies when labour markets are good. Decisions to
invest in education and stay on longer in school when the labour market is poor make sense. High
unemployment rates drive down the opportunity costs of education. Moreover, by continuing
education individuals decrease their risk of being stranded with outdated skills once the labour
market picks up again.
National education systems thus play a crucial role in accommodating for increasing numbers of
students in adverse economic times. When job prospects diminish, investments in education also
make good sense from a public perspective. Opportunity costs such as foregone taxes decrease and as
government may need to provide additional unemployment benefits or social transfers, opportunity
costs can turn into opportunity benefits. In these circumstances, public investments in education can
be a sensible way to counterbalance inactivity and to invest in future economic growth.
Evidence and explanations

On average, a person who is 15 years-old in 2007 can expect to remain in school for an
additional 6.7 years (Table C3.1a). Some will continue longer than others. In Finland, Iceland,
the Netherlands, Poland and the partner country Slovenia, a 15-year-old can expect to spend an
additional eight years or more in education. By contrast, a 15-year-old in Ireland and Turkey can
expect, on average, to spend five or fewer years in education.
In addition to the average 6.7 years spent in education, a person aged 15 can expect to hold a job
for 6.2 of the subsequent 15 years, to be unemployed for a total of 0.7 years and to be out of the
labour market for 1.3 years – neither in education nor seeking work (Table C3.1a).
The average cumulative duration of unemployment varies significantly among countries, owing
to differences in general unemployment rates as well as differences in the duration of education.
The cumulative average duration of unemployment is less than six months in Australia, the
Czech Republic, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway,
but over a year in France, Greece, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic and Turkey.
The average overall number of expected years in education is higher for females (6.9 years
compared to 6.5 for males). In all countries except Germany, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands,
New Zealand, Switzerland and Turkey, females spend more years in education than males. In
Turkey, female students can expect to spend nearly one year less in education than their male
338

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

counterparts; in Denmark, Iceland, Italy and the partner countries Estonia and Slovenia, the
opposite applies (Chart C3.2). However, between the ages of 15 and 29, males are likely to have
been in the labour market one and a half years longer than females. This reflects the fact that
females are more likely to be outside the labour market when not in education (not in education,
not employed and not looking for a job).

Chart C3.2. Gender difference in expected years in education and not in education
for 15-29 year-olds (2007)
Not in education, not employed
Not in education, employed
In education

Turkey
Japan
Germany
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
EU19 average
Switzerland
Australia
Austria
Brazil
United Kingdom
Israel
Poland
Slovak Republic
OECD average
France
Belgium
Czech Republic
Portugal
Greece
United States
Finland
Spain
Luxembourg
Hungary
Ireland
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Italy
Estonia
Denmark
Slovenia
Iceland

Higher number
of years for males

5

4

3

Higher number
of years for females

2

1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of years

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference between females and males in expected years in education of the
15-29 year-olds.
Source: OECD. Table C3.1a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

339

C3

chapter C

C3

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

However, males and females differ very little in terms of the expected number of years they will
spend in unemployment, although these periods tend to be marginally longer for males (0.8 for
males, 0.7 for females). Females appear to have a particular advantage in Canada, Germany,
Luxembourg, Turkey and the United Kingdom where they can expect to spend almost five
months fewer in unemployment than their male counterparts (Table C3.1a).
Between the ages of 15 and 29, young males can expect to spend 1.5 years not in education
and not employed, and young females can expect to spend 2.6 years not in education and
not employed. In Mexico, Turkey and the partner countries Brazil and Israel, there is a much
stronger tendency for young females to leave the labour market and to spend time out of the
educational system and not working. In Canada, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway,
Sweden, Switzerland and the partner country Israel young males and young females differ with
less than half a year in this measure.
Conversely, relative to males, females between the ages of 15 and 29 in all OECD countries can
expect a shorter duration of employment after education; this is partly a consequence of the
time spent in education, but is also attributable to other factors such as time spent in childrearing
(Table C3.1a).
Unemployment and non-employment among young non-students

Young adults represent the principal source of labour with new skills. In most OECD countries,
education policy seeks to encourage youth to complete at least upper secondary education. Since
many jobs in the current labour market require ever-higher general skill levels, persons with low
attainment are often penalised.
The majority of the 15-19 year-old population is still in education.The 15-19 year-old population
that is not in education is generally associated with being unemployed or out of the labour force.
The situation of the 15-19 year-old population not in education varies substantially, from 18%
not in the labour force or unemployed in Japan to 82% in the partner country Israel. On average
among OECD countries, close to half of the 15-19 year-old population not in education were
not in the labour force or unemployed (Chart C3.3). It is worth noting that there was a slight
improvement in 2007.
Some countries are better able than others to provide employment for young adults with
relatively low levels of educational attainment (indicated by the difference between the bars and
the triangles). In Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Japan and the Netherlands, 70% or more of those
not in education find employment. Low unemployment levels among the working age population
in general (25-64 year-olds) typically contribute to a smoother transition from school to work
for young adults with low levels of education.
The group of young adults aged 15-19 years old not currently engaged in employment, education
or training (NEET) has attracted considerable attention in some countries. However, this group
receives little or no support from the welfare system in most countries. The proportion of 15-19
year-olds not in education and not in the labour force ranges from over 31% in Turkey to 1.1% in
the Czech Republic. On average across OECD countries, 4.8% of this cohort is not in education
and not in the labour force (Table C3.2a).
340

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

Chart C3.3. Percentage of 15-19 year-olds not in education and unemployed
or not in the labour force (2007)

C3

Turkey
Japan1
Brazil
Israel
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Spain
Australia
Portugal
Norway
Canada
Ireland
Italy
Iceland
OECD average
Switzerland
Denmark
United States
Austria
Estonia
Greece
Sweden
Netherlands
Slovak Republic
France
Slovenia
Belgium
Finland
Germany
Hungary
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Poland

%

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Not in education and not in the labour force
Not in education and unemployed
Not in education (total)

Note: Missing bars refer to cells below reliability thresholds.
1. Japan refers to 15-24 year-olds.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 15-19 year-olds not in education.
Source: OECD. Table C3.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Unemployment rates among young non-students differ according to their level of educational
attainment, indicating the degree to which further education improves their economic
opportunities. On average, completing upper secondary education reduces the unemployment
rate among 20-24 year-olds by 6.7 percentage points and among 25-29 year-olds by 6.2 percentage
points (Table C3.3). Since it has become the norm in most OECD countries to complete upper
secondary education, those who do not complete this level of education are much more likely
to have difficulty finding employment when they enter the labour market. In Belgium, France,
Poland and the Slovak Republic, the unemployment rate for 20-24 year-olds with less than upper
secondary education attainment is 15% or more.
In 15 OECD countries and 3 partner countries, 5% or more of 25-29 year-old upper secondary
graduates are not in education and are unemployed. In a few OECD countries, even young adults
who have completed tertiary education are subject to considerable unemployment risk when they
enter the labour market. In Greece, Italy, Portugal and Turkey more than 10% of 25-29 year-olds
with tertiary education are unemployed. In these countries, plus Denmark, Spain, and the partner
countries Israel and Slovenia, unemployment rates for upper secondary and post-secondary nontertiary graduates are lower than for those with tertiary qualifications in this age cohort.
Among 20-24 year-olds with tertiary attainment, the ratio of unemployed non-students to the
cohort population is 19% or more in Greece, Portugal and Turkey (Table C3.3). Countries with
high unemployment rates among young tertiary educated individuals are also those with high
unemployment rates for tertiary educated individuals in the general working age population
(25-64 year-olds). Unemployment rates among young adults largely mirror those of the labour
market in general (Indicator A6).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

341

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Education and economic cycles

A key constituency for support during difficult economic times is thus the age group 20-29 yearolds. Even though employment rates were substantially higher among 20-29 year-olds, the nonemployment rate (i.e. not in education and not employed) was twice as high for 20-24 year-olds
(14.9%) as for 15-19 year-olds (7.3%). Among 25-29 year-olds, the non-employment rate was
17% in 2007. Not only are non-employment rates higher among the 20-29 year-old population,
but this group is also generally more sensitive to shifts in demand for labour. To illustrate this
risk, Chart C3.4 shows the lowest, highest, and average proportion of the 20-24 year-old cohort
not in education and not employed between 1997 and 2007.
Rates for not being in education and not being employed have varied with 10 percentage points
or more in Greece, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic, indicating that the 20-24 year-old
population has experienced very different labour market conditions over the past 10 years. Although,
the proportion of non-employed youth has generally been lower in Australia, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Spain and Switzerland, the non-employment rates have varied substantially relative to the
mean in these countries as well. In most countries, a smooth transition from school to work for young
adults is highly dependent on the business cycle and economic conditions. As economic conditions
worsen, unemployment rates increases and this is particularly true among younger cohorts.
Chart C3.4. The highest and lowest proportion of the 20-24 year-old cohort not in education
and not employed between 1997 and 2007
Maximum
Average
Minimum

%

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Slovak Republic
Mexico
Italy
Poland
Brazil
Greece
Hungary
Czech Republic
Spain
OECD average
Estonia
Germany
Belgium
United Kingdom
France
Canada
United States
Finland
Australia
New Zealand
Sweden
Portugal
Slovenia
Austria
Ireland
Switzerland
Norway
Luxembourg
Denmark
Netherlands
Iceland

C3

When the labour market deteriorates, those making the transition from school to work are the
first to encounter difficulties. As employers are shedding workers it is, in many circumstances
virtually impossible for young individuals to get a foothold in the labour market as they compete
with more experienced workers for jobs. Because of the expansion of upper secondary education
over the years, few 15-19 year-olds are outside the education system. In 2007, less than 17%
were not in education, and 7.3% were not in education and not employed (Table C3.4a).

Countries are ranked in descending order of the average inactivity rate of the 20-24 year-olds.
Source: OECD. Table C3.4a. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

342

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

At the same time, as employment rates drop and the prospects of finding a job decrease, the
incentives to invest in education improve. The latest labour market forecast suggests that overall
unemployment rates are expected to rise above 10 percentage points in most OECD countries
in the coming years (OECD, 2009b). With an additional 25 million unemployed across OECD
countries, the prospect of finding a job thus appears dire not only for young adults, but also for
the workforce as a whole. The potential earnings that students forego while studying will in
many cases be close to zero, and individuals therefore have a strong incentive to pursue further
education. In this context, it is important for education systems to increase access and to make
additional resources available to educational institutions.
Investments in education also make good economic sense from a policy point of view, as the
public opportunity costs are similarly low. Part of the benefit of an active education policy
response to weak employment prospects will be immediate in terms of lower non activity rates.
Most importantly, however, the stock of human capital and the skills available in the workforce
will take a leap forward in the years to come. It is, in other words, a good time to invest in
education – not only from the private but also from the public point of view.
Long-term unemployment and prevalence of involuntary part-time work among
young adults

Education typically provides effective insurance against unemployment. However, the advantage
of an education is less clear-cut once a young individual becomes unemployed (Table C3.5). On
average across OECD countries, 55% of the unemployed 25-34 year-olds with below upper
secondary education, 50% among those with upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary,
and 42% among those with a tertiary education are in the group of long-term unemployed.These
figures have worsened somewhat since 2003, with the exception of Spain, the United States,
and the partner country Israel where the proportion of long-term unemployed has dropped by
9 percentage points or more.
In most countries an upper secondary education provides some insurance against long-term
unemployment, but this varies substantially among countries. In Denmark, Greece, Hungary,
Italy,Turkey, and the partner country Israel the long-term unemployment rates among 25-34 year
olds are higher for those with upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education than
for those with qualifications below the upper secondary level. However, the lower proportion
of long-term unemployed needs to be considered in the light of substantially higher overall
unemployment rates among those with below upper secondary education.
The long-term unemployment rate is somewhat lower for males than for females, but this varies
substantially based on the level of educational attainment and the country.There is, however, a large
difference in the prevalence of part-time work and involuntary part-time work within the 25-34
year-old male and female populations (Table C3.6). Females are significantly more likely to have
a part-time job than males, 22% compared with 4%, regardless of the educational level attained.
Involuntary part-time work is similarly higher among females than males. Females are more than
twice as more likely to hold a part-time job involuntarily than are males (5% compared to 2%).
Among females with a below upper secondary education, 10% or more hold a part-time job despite
a preference for working full-time in Austria, Belgium France, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the partner country Israel.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

343

C3

chapter C

The difference between males and females working part-time involuntarily generally drops with
increasing levels of educational attainment. Chart C3.5 shows the difference in the prevalence
of involuntary part-time work between 25-34 year-old female and male workers by educational
attainment. In all countries, except in Canada, Denmark, Italy, and Turkey the gender difference
in involuntary part-time work is lower among those with tertiary education than among those
with an upper secondary education.
Chart C3.5. Percentage point difference in the prevalence of involuntary part-time work
between 25-34 year-old female and male workers by educational attainment (2007)
Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary

Tertiary education

Percentage points

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

Turkey

Hungary

Canada

Czech Republic

Italy

Germany

Denmark

United States

Greece

OECD average

Poland

Finland

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Norway

Spain

Belgium

Austria

France

Sweden

-2

Switzerland

0

Israel

C3

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Countries are ranked in descending order of the difference between males and females in involuntary part-time work among those with
upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education.
Source: OECD. Table C3.6. See Annex 3 (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Education thus improves the prospects for females to obtain full-time work when desired. This
is particularly true for females with a tertiary education in Sweden and Switzerland where the
gender difference drops by more than 6 percentage points. Overall, and with a few exceptions,
young female workers are typically disadvantaged in finding full-time work in comparison to
males, although these differences are small in number of countries.
Definitions and methodologies

The statistics presented here are calculated from labour force survey data on age-specific proportions
of young people in each of the specified categories. These proportions are then totalled over the
15-29 year-old age group to yield the expected number of years spent in various situations. For
countries providing data only from age 16, it is assumed that all 15-year-olds are in education and
out of the labour force. The principle behind the estimation of expected years in education is that
344

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

knowledge of the proportion of young adults in or out of education is used as a basis for assumptions
about how long a typical individual will spend in different labour and educational situations.
Persons in education include part-time as well as full-time students, as the coverage should be as
close as possible to that of formal education in administrative sources on enrolment. Therefore,
non-formal education or educational activities of very short duration (for example, at the work
place) are excluded.
Data for this indicator are collected as part of the annual OECD Labour Force Survey (for certain
European countries the data are from the annual European Labour Force Survey; see Annex 3)
and usually refer to the first quarter, or the average of the first three months of the calendar year,
thereby excluding summer employment. The labour force status categories shown in this indicator
are defined according to International Labour Organisation (ILO) guidelines, with one exception.
For the purposes of this indicator, persons in work-study programmes (see below) have been
classified separately as being in education and employed, without reference to their ILO labour
force status during the survey reference week. This is because they may not necessarily be in the
work component of their programmes during the survey reference week and may therefore not
count as being employed at that point. The category other employed includes individuals employed
according to the ILO definition, but excludes those attending work-study programmes who are
already counted as employed. Finally, the category not in the labour force includes individuals who are
not working and who are not unemployed, i.e. individuals who are not looking for a job.
Work-study programmes combine work and education as part of an integrated, formal education
or training activity, such as the dual system in Germany; apprentissage or formation en alternance
in France and Belgium; internship or co-operative education in Canada; and apprenticeship
in Ireland. Vocational education and training take place both in school settings and working
environments. Students or trainees may or may not be paid, usually depending on the type of job
and the course or training.
Participation rates in education and training are estimated here on the basis of self-reports collected
during labour force surveys, which often correspond imprecisely to enrolments obtained from
administrative sources shown elsewhere in this publication for several reasons. First, age may not
be measured in the same way. For example, in OECD countries in the northern hemisphere, in
administrative data, both enrolment and age are measured on 1 January, whereas in some labour
force surveys, both participation in education and age are measured in the reference week,
which does not make a significant difference for the administrative measure. However, in other
surveys, the age recorded is the age to be attained at the end of the calendar year, even if the
survey is conducted early in the year; in this case, the rates of participation in education reflect
a population that is one year younger than the specified age range. At ages when movements
out of education may be significant, this affects the recorded rates of participation in education
and training, which are overestimated. From 2003, the French data take into account the age
measured in the reference week. Second, young people may be enrolled in several programmes
and may sometimes be counted twice in administrative statistics but only once in a labour force
survey. Moreover, not all enrolments may be captured in administrative statistics, particularly
in profit-making institutions. Third, the programme classification used in self-reports in labour
force surveys does not always correspond to the qualification standards used for administrative
data collections.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

345

C3

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

The unemployment-to-population and the employment-to-population ratios are calculated by
dividing the total number of individuals unemployed or employed by the number of individuals
in that population.

C3

With respect to Table C3.4b, available on line, there is a break in the time series for Finland. In
2004, military conscripts in Finland were not included in the data, but in previous years they
were included in the category “Not in education, not employed”.
The data on duration of unemployment and involuntary part-time work were collected in
the data collection on Monitoring Transition Systems, which was conducted by the former
Network B in 2008. Data mainly refer to the national Labour Force Surveys for the first
quarter of the years 2003 and 2007. EUROSTAT has provided data from the EU-LFS for
countries in the European Statistical System. In a few cases the EUROSTAT data have been
replaced by national data. See Annex 3 for detailed information about data sources.
Further references

OECD (2009b), OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report March 2009, OECD, Paris.
The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

• Table C3.1b. Trends in expected years in education and not in education for 15-to-29-year-olds
(1998-2007), by gender
• Table C3.2b. Percentage of young males in education and not in education (2007), by age group
and work status
• Table C3.2c. Percentage of young females in education and not in education (2007), by age group
and work status
• Table C3.4b. Trends in the percentage of young males in education and not in education
(1995, 1997-2007), by age group and work status
• Table C3.4c. Trends in the percentage of young females in education and not in education
(1995, 1997-2007), by age group and work status

346

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

Table C3.1a.
Expected years in education and not in education for 15-29 year-olds (2007)
By gender and work status

Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan1
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand

Sub-total

Denmark

Not in the
labour force

Czech Republic

Unemployed

Canada

Employed

Belgium

Sub-total

Austria

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

Employed
(including
work study
programmes)

Australia

Expected years not in education

Not employed
OECD countries

Expected years in education

(1)
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.7
4.2
4.0
6.1
6.5
6.3
3.8
3.6
3.7
4.9
5.9
5.4
2.9
3.5
3.2
6.0
5.8
5.9
5.9
6.4
6.2
5.0
4.9
4.9
5.8
6.3
6.0
6.4
6.9
6.6
3.8
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.2
4.1
5.8
6.6
6.2
5.1
4.7
4.9
6.6
7.6
7.1
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.5
3.6

(2)
3.9
4.0
3.9
2.8
2.3
2.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
2.4
3.3
2.8
1.6
1.1
1.3
4.3
5.0
4.7
2.2
2.9
2.6
1.5
1.4
1.4
3.1
2.7
2.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.6
3.9
5.6
4.8
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.3
1.5
0.9
1.2
4.9
4.7
4.8
3.2
3.2
3.2

(3)
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.6
7.0
6.8
6.1
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.9
6.7
7.2
8.5
7.8
8.2
8.8
8.5
7.4
7.8
7.6
8.0
7.7
7.9
6.2
6.6
6.4
7.0
7.6
7.3
7.8
9.2
8.5
4.6
5.4
5.0
6.2
7.2
6.7
6.1
5.6
5.8
7.1
7.8
7.5
5.2
4.9
5.1
8.0
7.9
8.0
6.8
6.7
6.8

(4)
7.1
6.1
6.6
7.3
6.6
6.9
6.8
5.7
6.3
7.1
6.2
6.6
7.7
5.3
6.5
6.9
5.3
6.1
5.6
4.4
5.0
6.0
5.0
5.5
5.4
5.1
5.3
7.2
4.9
6.1
6.3
4.4
5.4
6.8
4.6
5.7
9.1
7.7
8.4
6.3
4.3
5.3
3.3
3.5
3.4
6.5
5.9
6.2
8.5
4.6
6.5
6.2
5.8
6.0
6.9
5.7
6.3

(5)
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.6
1.3
0.9
0.6
0.8
c
c
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4

(6)
0.5
1.7
1.1
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.6
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.1
0.2
2.3
1.2
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.5
1.2
0.9
0.4
1.2
0.8
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.6
1.8
1.2
0.8
2.4
1.6
c
0.9
0.5
0.6
1.5
1.0
1.5
2.6
2.1
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.8
5.2
3.1
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.9
2.1
1.5

(7)
8.2
8.2
8.2
8.6
8.5
8.5
8.4
8.0
8.2
8.9
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.1
8.3
7.8
6.5
7.2
6.8
6.2
6.5
7.6
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.3
7.1
8.8
8.4
8.6
8.0
7.4
7.7
7.2
5.8
6.5
10.4
9.6
10.0
8.8
7.8
8.3
3.9
4.4
4.2
7.9
7.2
7.5
9.8
10.1
9.9
7.0
7.1
7.0
8.2
8.3
8.2

1. Data refer to 15-24 year-olds.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

347

C3

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C3.1a. (continued)
Expected years in education and not in education for 15-29 year-olds (2007)
By gender and work status
Employed
(including
work study
programmes)

Sub-total

Employed

Unemployed

Not in the
labour force

Sub-total

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

(1)
4.4
4.1
4.3
6.4
6.9
6.6
5.1
5.6
5.3
4.9
5.3
5.1
4.3
4.9
4.6
5.9
6.1
6.0
2.7
3.2
2.9
3.1
2.6
2.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
4.3
4.2
4.3

(2)
1.8
3.0
2.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.8
1.5
4.2
3.6
3.9
0.6
0.3
0.5
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.5

(3)
6.2
7.1
6.7
7.9
8.1
8.0
5.7
6.1
5.9
5.9
6.3
6.1
5.1
5.8
5.4
7.1
8.0
7.5
6.8
6.8
6.8
3.8
2.9
3.3
5.9
6.1
6.0
6.5
6.9
6.7

(4)
7.9
6.6
7.2
5.2
4.1
4.6
7.7
6.5
7.1
7.3
5.3
6.3
8.1
6.3
7.2
6.5
5.5
6.0
6.9
6.4
6.6
7.9
3.1
5.5
7.3
6.2
6.7
7.1
5.6
6.3

(5)
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
1.5
0.6
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6

(6)
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.8
1.2
0.6
1.1
0.8
0.4
2.4
1.4
0.9
1.8
1.3
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.9
8.3
5.1
0.8
2.1
1.5
0.8
2.0
1.4

(7)
8.8
7.9
8.3
7.1
6.9
7.0
9.3
8.9
9.1
9.1
8.7
8.9
9.9
9.2
9.6
7.9
7.0
7.5
8.2
8.2
8.2
11.2
12.1
11.7
9.1
8.9
9.0
8.5
8.1
8.3

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

4.6
4.9
4.7
5.1
5.5
5.3

1.9
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.7
1.6

6.5
6.9
6.7
6.7
7.2
6.9

6.9
5.4
6.1
6.8
5.5
6.2

0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8

0.7
1.9
1.3
0.6
1.6
1.1

8.3
7.9
8.1
8.3
7.8
8.1

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

2.7
3.3
3.0
5.4
6.5
5.9
4.7
4.5
4.6
5.5
6.6
6.0

2.5
2.0
2.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.8
1.6
2.4
2.5
2.4

5.2
5.3
5.3
6.6
7.8
7.2
6.0
6.3
6.1
7.9
9.1
8.5

8.1
5.4
6.7
6.9
4.8
5.8
4.7
4.0
4.4
5.9
4.1
5.0

0.7
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7

1.0
3.1
2.0
0.8
2.0
1.4
3.7
4.0
3.8
0.6
1.0
0.8

9.8
9.7
9.7
8.4
7.2
7.8
9.0
8.7
8.9
7.1
5.9
6.5

OECD countries

C3
Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average

Brazil

Estonia

Israel

Slovenia

1. Data refer to 15-24 year-olds.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

348

Expected years not in education

Not employed

Expected years in education

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

Table C3.2a.
Percentage of the youth population in education and not in education (2007)
By age group and work status

Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand

Total in education
and not in
education

Germany

Sub-total

France

Not in the
labour force

Finland

Unemployed

Denmark

Employed

Czech Republic

Sub-total

Canada

Not in the
labour force

Belgium

Unemployed

Austria

Other
employed

Australia

Age
group
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-24
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29

Not in education

Students in
work-study
programmes1

OECD countries

In education

(1)
7.6
6.2
1.1
25.9
2.7
c
1.0
c
c
a
a
a
19.9
0.9
c
a
a
a
a
a
a
5.6
3.7
0.6
18.7
14.2
2.2
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
c
0.3
c
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

(2)
30.9
20.9
11.8
4.0
10.0
8.6
2.6
2.8
2.9
30.2
19.7
6.9
0.5
3.3
3.7
47.1
31.5
14.8
13.4
20.7
16.8
2.0
7.7
8.8
6.8
9.2
7.2
1.6
4.5
2.3
c
4.5
7.3
41.0
34.8
19.3
11.0
7.8
1.6
0.7
3.8
4.0
9.1
5.3
c
c
7.7
46.1
46.1
15.4
29.9
20.5
12.7

(3)
4.7
1.4
0.7
c
c
c
0.8
0.9
c
4.9
1.3
0.4
c
0.2
0.1
5.4
1.6
1.5
6.4
4.2
1.9
0.9
1.6
0.6
1.5
0.6
0.6
c
1.4
c
c
0.8
0.7
c
c
0.0
0.9
c
c
0.2
1.2
0.7
0.1
c
0.0
0.0
0.5
5.5
5.5
0.4
4.5
1.2
1.3

(4)
36.5
10.6
4.0
55.1
19.3
5.3
87.5
35.0
3.3
45.2
17.5
4.9
72.2
37.6
5.2
32.3
14.9
8.0
72.4
27.0
8.5
82.6
34.1
4.2
65.2
21.7
8.7
84.8
41.5
5.1
92.0
43.9
5.9
39.2
19.8
9.7
70.7
17.6
3.2
82.6
36.4
11.3
49.2
88.7
53.9
6.6
25.4
36.6
36.6
4.0
38.7
17.1
5.1

(5)
79.6
39.1
17.7
85.6
32.5
14.2
91.9
39.4
7.2
80.2
38.5
12.2
92.7
42.1
9.0
84.8
48.0
24.2
92.2
51.9
27.2
91.1
47.1
14.2
92.2
45.7
18.7
86.7
47.3
7.9
92.3
49.2
13.9
83.8
55.8
29.0
82.6
25.9
4.9
83.5
41.7
16.1
58.4
94.3
55.1
7.1
33.7
88.1
50.8
19.8
73.1
38.9
19.2

(6)
13.9
50.1
68.0
9.1
56.5
70.4
2.9
45.2
75.5
12.5
47.8
72.6
4.4
46.9
71.6
11.3
43.8
66.8
4.3
34.8
59.5
3.1
37.8
69.0
3.6
39.1
62.8
4.8
35.0
70.2
2.7
33.9
63.2
13.3
37.8
64.3
12.3
62.0
81.5
6.3
35.7
58.3
34.0
2.7
35.6
79.1
43.2
8.3
8.3
70.6
17.6
47.5
65.2

(7)
3.3
3.3
3.0
3.2
5.0
4.0
2.2
8.5
8.8
2.8
5.6
5.5
1.8
4.6
4.0
1.4
3.2
3.0
1.5
6.7
4.8
3.4
9.7
8.4
2.5
8.1
8.5
2.6
11.1
11.7
1.6
6.7
6.3
c
c
c
2.8
4.9
4.0
2.9
8.1
7.4
3.3
c
5.9
8.0
2.7
1.1
1.1
2.0
2.6
3.2
2.5

(8)
3.2
7.4
11.4
2.0
6.0
11.4
3.0
6.9
8.4
4.5
8.2
9.7
1.1
6.4
15.4
2.5
5.0
5.9
2.1
6.6
8.5
2.4
5.4
8.5
1.7
7.2
10.0
5.9
6.6
10.2
3.4
10.2
16.6
c
c
5.6
2.3
7.2
9.6
7.3
14.5
18.2
4.3
c
3.3
5.9
20.5
2.5
2.5
7.6
6.7
10.5
13.2

(9)
20.4
60.9
82.3
14.4
67.5
85.8
8.1
60.6
92.8
19.8
61.5
87.8
7.3
57.9
91.0
15.2
52.0
75.8
7.8
48.1
72.8
8.9
52.9
85.8
7.8
54.3
81.3
13.3
52.7
92.1
7.7
50.8
86.1
16.2
44.2
71.0
17.4
74.1
95.1
16.5
58.3
83.9
41.6
5.7
44.9
92.9
66.3
11.9
49.2
80.2
26.9
61.1
80.8

(10)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

1. Students in work-study programmes are considered to be both in education and employed, irrespective of their labour market status according
to the ILO definition.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

349

C3

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C3.2a. (continued)
Percentage of the youth population in education and not in education (2007)
By age group and work status

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average

Brazil
Estonia
Israel
Slovenia

Total in education
and not in
education

Turkey

Sub-total

Switzerland

Not in the
labour force

Sweden

Unemployed

Spain

Employed

Slovak Republic

Sub-total

Portugal

Not in the
labour force

Poland

Unemployed

Norway

Age
group
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29

Other
employed

OECD countries

C3

Not in education

Students in
work-study
programmes1

In education

(1)
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
12.0
0.9
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
35.6
10.6
1.5
a
a
a
3.4
2.7
1.0
a
a
a

(2)
24.3
18.0
5.3
3.9
15.6
8.1
1.4
4.0
4.5
c
3.4
3.3
3.7
8.0
5.3
10.4
11.4
8.7
6.8
16.1
8.4
2.7
4.6
2.7
16.8
12.2
8.0
20.7
19.7
8.7

(3)
3.6
c
c
0.8
3.9
0.9
c
1.1
1.4
c
c
c
1.4
1.7
0.8
7.1
3.7
1.9
2.0
c
c
0.4
1.2
0.4
4.0
1.5
0.3
3.0
1.2
c

(4)
52.7
18.7
6.4
91.1
36.9
3.8
78.8
30.4
6.2
78.0
24.7
3.3
72.7
24.8
4.0
69.4
24.5
9.6
39.9
13.7
2.6
41.5
11.8
1.5
52.1
13.2
3.4
61.5
14.8
3.4

(5)
80.6
37.7
12.2
95.9
56.4
12.8
80.4
35.5
12.1
90.2
29.4
6.8
77.8
34.5
10.0
86.9
39.6
20.2
84.4
41.0
12.9
44.6
17.6
4.7
76.2
29.7
12.7
85.2
35.7
12.4

(6)
15.8
53.6
77.4
1.7
25.2
62.9
11.1
49.3
72.4
4.4
50.7
68.0
11.3
48.2
72.4
7.7
47.3
69.2
7.5
48.6
75.2
19.3
36.7
53.5
13.0
52.3
71.1
8.5
48.1
70.7

(7)
c
2.9
2.1
1.0
10.2
9.9
4.3
9.2
9.1
3.6
10.7
9.6
4.3
8.4
7.3
2.2
6.9
5.2
1.7
5.2
3.9
4.8
9.1
7.4
5.1
6.6
3.9
2.0
5.3
3.8

(8)
2.6
5.8
8.3
1.5
8.1
14.4
4.2
6.0
6.4
1.8
9.2
15.6
6.6
8.9
10.3
3.3
6.2
5.4
6.5
5.2
8.0
31.3
36.6
34.4
5.6
11.5
12.3
4.3
11.0
13.1

(9)
19.4
62.3
87.8
4.1
43.6
87.2
19.6
64.5
87.9
9.8
70.6
93.2
22.2
65.5
90.0
13.1
60.4
79.8
15.6
59.0
87.1
55.4
82.4
95.3
23.8
70.3
87.3
14.8
64.3
87.6

(10)
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

14.5
13.9
8.0
10.4
11.5
7.3

3.0
1.7
0.8
2.9
1.9
0.8

63.7
25.8
5.5
71.8
30.2
5.8

84.3
41.0
14.0
87.7
42.2
13.6

8.6
42.9
68.9
6.6
41.5
69.2

2.7
6.5
5.9
2.6
7.1
6.6

4.7
8.5
11.3
3.3
7.2
10.6

15.7
59.0
86.0
12.3
57.8
86.4

100
100
100
100
100
100

21.0
14.9
8.8
21.0
14.1
8.0
21.0
11.4
16.5
7.2
23.1
16.8

6.7
2.4
1.1
6.7
c
0.0
6.7
1.1
0.9
0.4
2.4
1.3

39.4
7.3
2.2
39.4
30.4
2.1
39.4
16.0
7.1
83.6
33.2
7.9

67.0
24.6
12.2
86.0
45.4
10.1
68.5
28.5
24.5
91.2
58.7
26.1

18.3
52.0
66.0
18.3
39.3
71.4
18.3
31.9
52.0
4.5
30.9
59.5

4.1
8.2
6.6
4.1
4.4
4.6
4.1
7.1
3.9
1.1
4.5
8.1

10.6
15.2
15.2
10.6
10.9
13.8
10.6
32.5
19.6
3.2
5.9
6.3

33.0
75.4
87.8
14.0
54.6
89.9
31.5
71.5
75.5
8.8
41.3
73.9

100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100

15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

1. Students in work-study programmes are considered to be both in education and employed, irrespective of their labour market status according
to the ILO definition.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

350

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

Table C3.3.
Percentage of the cohort population not in education and unemployed (2007)
By level of educational attainment, age group and gender

OECD countries

Upper secondary and
Below upper
post-secondary nonsecondary education tertiary education

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

15-19
(1)
3.5
3.2
3.3
2.9
2.5
2.7
2.1
c
1.7
2.9
1.9
2.4
1.1
0.7
0.9
2.0
c
1.2
c
c
0.9
3.9
2.5
3.2
2.7
1.7
2.2
c
c
c
1.8
c
1.3
c
c
c
3.2
c
2.4
2.4
1.7
2.1
c
c
c
m
m
m
0.9
1.0
0.9
2.4
3.3
2.8

20-24
(2)
9.6
5.2
7.8
11.8
c
11.2
18.0
21.3
19.4
13.3
7.2
11.0
17.3
7.0
12.6
4.7
7.3
5.7
15.5
c
13.2
21.2
23.6
22.2
15.3
8.8
12.2
12.3
c
13.4
14.6
8.2
11.7
c
c
c
15.9
c
12.8
12.5
11.9
12.3
13.4
c
9.6
m
m
m
3.9
5.7
4.6
6.9
6.5
6.7

Tertiary
education

25-29 15-191 20-24 25-29 20-241
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
8.0
4.5
2.2
3.0
c
c
c
2.6
c
c
6.0
3.2
2.4
2.6
2.5
14.8
c
4.7
2.9
m
c
c
3.2
3.4
c
10.5
6.4
3.9
3.2
c
16.8
c
5.5
5.8
c
22.3
c
7.9
9.9
c
19.3
3.9
6.6
7.6
4.1
13.5
4.4
7.2
7.7
5.4
7.3
3.1
3.5
4.9
2.9
11.0
3.8
5.5
6.6
3.9
16.9
8.4
4.0
3.2
c
15.8
7.2
3.8
3.9
c
16.4
7.8
3.9
3.5
4.3
c
c
c
c
m
c
c
c
3.0
c
6.4
c
1.7
2.3
c
9.6
c
7.1
4.0
c
c
c
3.7
5.6
c
7.4
7.4
5.4
4.7
c
17.5
5.2
7.3
8.3
5.9
14.9
3.5
7.4
8.2
6.5
16.3
4.3
7.4
8.3
6.2
25.5
9.1
7.2
8.8
c
12.3
5.7
6.1
6.2
c
18.6
7.1
6.6
7.6
4.9
9.1
c
6.7
8.0
c
13.8
c 10.9 15.0 27.9
10.8
5.9
8.8 11.4 23.7
19.2
c
6.1
6.5
c
9.0
c
5.0
5.0
c
14.1
4.0
5.6
5.8
7.6
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
9.2
c
4.2
4.9
c
c
c
3.2
c
3.8
8.3
3.3
3.7
4.6
3.8
9.6
9.3
7.8
4.9
c
8.5
7.5
6.1
6.0
5.0
9.2
8.3
6.9
5.4
4.1
19.9
c
c 11.4
m
c
c
c
c
c
14.4
c
3.7
7.7
c
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
4.5
2.1
1.2
1.0
c
4.2
1.8
1.2
2.2
c
4.4
2.0
1.2
1.6
c
4.1
2.5
c
c
3.3
4.5
2.1
2.1
3.3
2.9
4.3
2.3
1.8
2.5
3.1

All levels of education

25-29 15-19 20-24
(8)
(9)
(10)
c
3.8
3.8
2.1
2.9
2.9
2.0
3.3
3.3
c
3.5
5.9
c
3.0
4.1
c
3.2
5.0
6.2
2.3
8.2
4.8
2.1
8.8
5.4
2.2
8.5
4.1
3.4
7.5
3.5
2.2
3.6
3.8
2.8
5.6
1.8
2.0
5.2
1.9
1.5
4.0
1.9
1.8
4.6
c
2.1
3.1
c
c
3.3
2.4
1.4
3.2
4.5
1.4
8.3
3.9
1.5
5.2
4.1
1.5
6.7
6.1
4.0
9.8
5.2
2.7
9.6
5.6
3.4
9.7
2.9
3.0
9.5
4.0
1.9
6.6
3.5
2.5
8.1
11.5
c
8.4
14.4
2.9 13.9
13.1
2.6 11.1
c
2.3
7.8
3.4
0.9
5.6
2.9
1.6
6.7
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
3.0
3.6
5.8
c
2.0
3.9
2.5
2.8
4.9
9.0
3.3
8.9
11.4
2.5
7.2
10.5
2.9
8.1
c
c
7.2
c
c
4.7
4.9
c
5.9
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
1.4
1.1
1.9
1.5
1.2
2.1
1.5
1.1
2.0
2.2
2.5
3.1
1.4
2.8
3.2
1.7
2.6
3.2

25-29 15-29
(11) (12)
3.6
3.7
2.3
2.7
3.0
3.2
4.2
4.5
3.8
3.7
4.0
4.1
8.0
6.2
9.6
6.9
8.8
6.5
6.7
5.9
4.3
3.4
5.5
4.6
3.8
3.7
4.3
3.4
4.0
3.5
2.8
2.7
3.2
2.4
3.0
2.5
4.9
4.9
4.7
3.8
4.8
4.4
9.0
7.6
7.7
6.7
8.4
7.1
10.3
7.5
6.7
5.1
8.5
6.3
9.1
7.0
14.6 10.9
11.7
8.9
7.4
6.0
5.1
4.0
6.3
5.0
c
c
c
c
c
1.6
4.6
4.7
3.3
3.2
4.0
4.0
7.0
6.5
7.8
6.0
7.4
6.3
11.1
6.8
4.8
3.9
8.0
5.4
m
3.3
m
2.1
m
2.7
1.9
1.6
2.2
1.8
2.0
1.7
2.5
2.7
2.5
2.8
2.5
2.8

1. Differences between countries in these columns reflect in part the fact that the average age of graduation varies across countries. For instance,
in some countries a smaller share of 15-19 year-olds attain upper secondary education simply because graduation typically occurs at 19. This
means that the denominator in the ratio for the reported columns will be smaller than those for which graduation occurs at an earlier age.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

351

C3

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C3.3. (continued)
Percentage of the cohort population not in education and unemployed (2007)
By level of educational attainment, age group and gender
Upper secondary and
Below upper
post-secondary nonsecondary education tertiary education

OECD countries

C3
Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

OECD average

Partner countries

EU19 average

Brazil

Estonia

Israel

Slovenia

Tertiary
education

All levels of education

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

15-19
(1)
c
c
c
0.6
c
0.3
4.7
3.4
4.0
2.8
1.7
2.3
4.1
4.6
4.3
c
c
c
c
c
1.6
6.2
1.5
3.9
8.0
4.0
6.2
1.1
c
0.9

20-24
(2)
c
c
c
20.8
13.2
17.9
10.3
13.2
11.5
37.5
14.3
25.6
10.2
14.4
11.9
c
c
12.8
c
c
8.3
15.0
2.4
7.5
14.2
9.4
11.8
10.1
7.8
9.1

25-29
(3)
c
c
c
19.5
7.4
14.3
7.7
12.0
9.5
48.1
33.5
41.4
7.7
11.3
9.2
c
c
12.7
c
c
c
11.4
1.7
6.2
8.3
5.4
6.9
5.7
c
5.6

15-191 20-24 25-29
(4)
(5)
(6)
c
c
1.3
c
c
1.4
c
c
1.3
7.1 10.0 10.7
5.7
8.9 10.6
6.3
9.4 10.6
c
4.2
4.6
c
5.8
8.9
6.3
5.1
6.7
15.7 10.2
8.1
11.1
7.7
8.9
13.2
9.0
8.5
5.6
4.4
5.4
3.1
7.4
6.8
4.2
5.9
6.1
c
8.6
4.4
c
7.0
6.1
9.6
7.9
5.1
c
4.2
c
c
4.7
4.6
c
4.4
3.6
7.5
9.3
8.9
6.4
7.6
7.3
7.0
8.6
8.3
4.1
6.1
4.8
3.4
4.2
3.5
3.7
5.1
4.1
6.0
5.9
6.0
3.3
4.1
4.1
4.6
5.0
5.1

20-241
(7)
0.0
c
c
9.3
9.5
9.5
c
19.0
19.9
c
c
c
5.2
7.4
6.5
c
c
c
c
c
c
18.1
20.3
19.3
4.8
4.2
4.5
4.8
3.0
3.8

25-29 15-19 20-24
(8)
(9)
(10)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
2.9
8.5
1.2 11.1
6.9
0.8
9.3
7.5
1.0 10.2
8.9
4.7
8.4
11.9
3.9 10.0
10.8
4.3
9.2
c
4.2 12.6
c
3.0
8.7
4.2
3.6 10.7
5.9
4.2
7.1
6.9
4.4
9.7
6.4
4.3
8.4
c
2.3
7.9
c
2.0
5.9
3.6
2.2
6.9
c
c
5.0
c
c
5.4
3.5
1.7
5.2
10.0
6.7 12.8
11.2
2.8
5.9
10.5
4.8
9.1
c
6.4
7.9
1.6
3.7
5.3
1.6
5.1
6.6
c
2.4
6.3
1.7
1.6
4.2
1.8
2.0
5.3

25-29 15-29
(11) (12)
1.9
2.1
2.4
1.8
2.1
2.0
10.8
7.9
8.9
6.6
9.9
7.3
7.1
6.9
11.1
8.7
9.1
7.8
10.1
9.0
9.1
7.0
9.6
8.0
6.5
6.1
8.2
7.6
7.3
6.8
5.2
5.0
5.3
4.3
5.2
4.7
3.3
3.4
4.5
3.8
3.9
3.6
10.4
9.7
4.2
4.3
7.4
7.0
4.5
6.3
3.2
4.1
3.9
5.2
4.5
4.4
3.2
3.0
3.8
3.7

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

3.0
2.4
2.3
2.9
2.4
2.3

14.1
10.4
12.1
15.0
12.2
13.3

13.9
11.5
11.8
15.5
13.1
13.2

6.5
4.9
5.7
7.4
5.5
6.1

6.1
5.4
5.4
6.2
5.8
5.7

5.9
6.0
5.6
6.0
6.7
6.0

6.3
9.4
7.7
6.3
10.4
8.2

5.7
5.4
4.8
5.8
6.0
5.1

3.2
2.4
2.7
3.0
2.4
2.6

7.3
6.1
6.6
7.6
6.7
7.2

6.2
5.7
5.9
6.8
6.5
6.6

5.4
4.6
4.9
5.8
5.3
5.5

Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F
Males
Females
M+F

2.6
2.7
2.7
3.6
c
2.3
1.1
c
0.8
c
m
c

5.9
8.2
7.0
12.2
c
10.9
8.0
14.4
10.2
12.7
c
8.3

4.6
7.7
6.1
c
c
c
7.6
c
6.5
13.7
20.9
16.2

9.3
13.8
11.9
c
c
c
c
4.1
2.7
3.7
6.3
4.7

7.4
11.3
9.5
c
c
3.1
5.4
7.9
6.6
4.4
3.4
3.9

5.7
9.4
7.7
c
8.1
5.4
2.4
4.1
3.1
5.5
9.0
7.0

6.9
7.4
7.2
m
c
c
c
7.3
7.3
c
c
c

3.4
5.8
4.8
c
c
c
3.9
4.3
4.1
c
11.7
8.8

3.5
4.7
4.1
3.6
c
2.5
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.1

6.6
9.8
8.2
6.2
2.7
4.4
6.0
8.3
7.1
5.5
3.4
4.5

4.9
8.2
6.6
5.3
3.9
4.6
3.6
4.2
3.9
5.7
10.6
8.1

5.0
7.6
6.3
5.0
2.6
3.8
3.6
4.7
4.1
4.3
5.4
4.8

1. Differences between countries in these columns reflect in part the fact that the average age of graduation varies across countries. For instance,
in some countries a smaller share of 15-19 year-olds attain upper secondary education simply because graduation typically occurs at 19. This
means that the denominator in the ratio for the reported columns will be smaller than those for which graduation occurs at an earlier age.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

352

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter C

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

Table C3.4a.
Trends in the percentage of the youth population in education and not in education (1995, 1997-2007)
By age group and work status
1995

1997

2000

2005

2007

Japan
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands

Not
employed

Italy

Employed

Ireland

Total

Iceland

Not
employed

Hungary

Employed

Greece

Total

Germany

Not
employed

France

Employed

Finland

Total

Denmark

Not
employed

Czech Republic

Employed

Canada

Total

Belgium

Not
employed

Austria

Employed

Australia

Age
group
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-24
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29

Total

OECD countries

In
In
In
In
In
eduNot in
eduNot in
eduNot in
eduNot in
eduNot in
cation education cation education cation education cation education cation education

(1)
73.4
27.0
11.4
m
m
m
86.1
37.5
6.8
79.9
33.9
10.3
69.8
13.1
1.1
88.4
50.0
29.6
m
m
m
96.2
51.2
11.4
m
m
m
80.0
29.2
4.7
82.5
22.5
7.3
59.5
33.3
24.1
m
m
m
m
m
m
58.0
82.7
36.5
8.3
45.0
15.9
4.6
m
m
m

(2)
16.7
56.1
67.1
m
m
m
3.3
43.6
74.2
10.5
47.3
67.7
23.7
67.1
76.1
8.7
39.3
59.0
m
m
m
1.3
31.3
67.5
m
m
m
9.6
43.0
65.2
6.7
44.4
56.8
25.7
52.6
64.7
m
m
m
m
m
m
34.9
9.3
52.7
71.6
31.8
53.4
62.0
m
m
m

(3)
9.9
16.9
21.5
m
m
m
10.5
19.0
19.0
9.5
18.7
22.1
6.5
19.8
22.9
3.0
10.7
11.4
m
m
m
2.5
17.5
21.0
m
m
m
10.5
27.8
30.2
10.8
33.1
35.9
14.8
14.0
11.1
m
m
m
m
m
m
7.1
8.0
10.8
20.1
23.2
30.7
33.4
m
m
m

(4)
77.8
31.5
12.8
m
m
m
88.0
39.1
7.2
82.9
36.8
10.3
76.9
16.3
1.6
89.4
54.1
32.3
m
m
m
96.0
53.4
12.2
89.6
32.7
14.1
82.3
31.9
5.2
85.8
28.5
6.5
78.9
51.0
26.5
m
m
m
m
m
m
58.7
90.2
35.2
8.2
49.4
18.5
4.9
88.9
51.0
23.7

(5)
14.2
51.0
65.4
m
m
m
3.0
42.6
74.8
9.4
45.3
68.1
18.1
65.5
74.2
9.2
39.4
58.9
m
m
m
1.1
28.5
65.8
5.4
48.9
67.3
8.1
40.6
65.4
5.3
42.3
58.2
17.0
42.4
64.7
m
m
m
m
m
m
33.6
4.2
54.5
76.2
31.6
52.9
64.8
8.2
41.9
64.3

(6)
8.1
17.5
21.7
m
m
m
9.0
18.3
17.9
7.7
17.9
21.6
5.0
18.2
24.3
1.4
6.5
8.8
m
m
m
2.9
18.0
22.0
5.0
18.4
18.5
9.6
27.5
29.4
8.9
29.2
35.3
c
6.6
8.8
m
m
m
m
m
m
7.7
5.6
10.3
15.6
19.0
28.7
30.3
2.8
7.1
12.0

(13)
79.5
35.9
15.5
m
m
m
89.9
43.8
11.8
80.6
35.7
10.6
82.1
19.7
2.4
89.9
54.8
36.1
m
m
m
95.3
54.2
12.2
87.4
34.1
12.7
82.7
31.5
5.3
83.7
32.3
9.4
83.1
48.0
34.9
80.0
26.7
3.3
77.1
36.0
17.0
62.1
92.2
42.8
11.6
47.9
17.7
4.0
80.6
36.5
5.0

(14)
13.7
50.9
65.5
m
m
m
3.6
40.2
72.5
11.2
48.5
72.3
10.0
60.0
72.1
7.4
38.6
56.4
m
m
m
1.5
31.7
69.2
6.8
49.0
69.8
8.3
43.7
66.9
7.7
45.7
61.4
14.8
47.7
59.2
15.6
63.6
83.4
9.8
36.5
56.1
29.2
6.1
48.9
75.5
33.8
55.2
65.8
15.7
55.2
83.0

(15)
6.8
13.3
19.0
m
m
m
6.5
16.0
15.7
8.2
15.7
17.1
7.9
20.3
25.6
2.7
6.6
7.5
m
m
m
3.3
14.1
18.6
5.7
16.9
17.5
9.0
24.9
27.8
8.6
22.0
29.2
c
c
5.9
4.4
9.7
13.3
13.1
27.5
26.9
8.8
c
8.2
12.9
18.3
27.1
30.2
3.7
8.2
12.1

(28)
78.3
39.4
16.6
84.4
30.4
12.0
90.1
38.1
7.4
80.2
39.2
12.5
90.3
35.9
4.4
88.4
54.4
27.0
90.2
52.8
25.7
91.0
46.8
12.8
92.9
44.2
18.5
84.5
42.6
6.8
90.6
46.6
13.1
86.4
53.0
30.9
82.4
27.7
5.3
81.8
38.6
14.4
59.7
93.4
47.4
8.6
m
m
m
89.2
49.1
18.2

(29)
14.3
49.0
68.0
8.7
57.2
74.6
3.7
43.6
74.9
12.8
46.3
71.7
4.4
47.5
72.4
7.3
37.2
61.3
4.5
34.1
60.3
3.0
37.4
70.0
2.7
37.1
60.3
5.7
37.3
70.2
3.0
34.5
63.0
10.7
37.1
61.5
13.1
60.0
80.9
7.0
37.3
59.8
31.5
4.4
43.3
81.2
m
m
m
7.0
41.8
70.2

(30)
7.4
11.6
15.4
6.9
12.4
13.4
6.2
18.3
17.7
7.0
14.4
15.8
5.3
16.6
23.2
4.3
8.3
11.6
5.2
13.0
14.0
6.0
15.8
17.3
4.4
18.7
21.2
9.8
20.1
23.0
6.4
18.9
24.0
c
10.0
7.6
4.5
12.3
13.8
11.2
24.1
25.8
8.8
2.2
9.3
10.3
m
m
m
3.9
9.1
11.6

(34)
79.6
39.1
17.7
85.6
32.5
14.2
91.9
39.4
7.2
80.2
38.5
12.2
92.7
42.1
9.0
84.8
48.0
24.2
92.2
51.9
27.2
91.1
47.1
14.2
92.2
45.7
18.7
86.7
47.3
7.9
92.3
49.2
13.9
83.8
55.8
29.0
82.6
25.9
4.9
83.5
41.7
16.1
58.4
94.3
55.1
7.1
m
m
m
88.1
50.8
19.8

(35)
13.9
50.1
68.0
9.1
56.5
70.4
2.9
45.2
75.5
12.5
47.8
72.6
4.4
46.9
71.6
11.3
43.8
66.8
4.3
34.8
59.5
3.1
37.8
69.0
3.6
39.1
62.8
4.8
35.0
70.2
2.7
33.9
63.2
13.3
37.8
64.3
12.3
62.0
81.5
6.3
35.7
58.3
34.0
2.7
35.6
79.1
m
m
m
8.3
42.2
70.6

(36)
6.5
10.7
14.4
5.3
11.0
15.4
5.2
15.4
17.2
7.3
13.7
15.2
2.9
11.0
19.4
3.9
8.2
8.9
3.5
13.3
13.3
5.8
15.1
16.8
4.2
15.2
18.5
8.5
17.7
21.9
5.0
16.9
22.9
c
6.4
6.6
5.1
12.1
13.5
10.2
22.6
25.6
7.6
2.9
9.2
13.9
m
m
m
3.6
6.9
9.6

Note: Columns showing the percentage of youth population in education and not in education for the years 1998, 1999, 2001-04 and 2006
(i.e. columns 7-12, 16-27 and 31-33) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

353

C3

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C3.4a. (continued)
Trends in the percentage of the youth population in education and not in education (1995, 1997-2007)
By age group and work status
1995
1997
2000
2005
2007
In
In
In
In
In
eduNot in
eduNot in
eduNot in
eduNot in
eduNot in
cation education cation education cation education cation education cation education

Estonia
Israel
Slovenia

Not
employed

Brazil

Employed

Partner countries

EU19 average

Total

OECD average

Not
employed

United States

Employed

United Kingdom

Total

Turkey

Not
employed

Switzerland

Employed

Sweden

Total

Spain

Not
employed

Slovak Republic

Employed

Portugal

Total

Poland

Not
employed

Norway

Employed

New Zealand

Age
group
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29

Total

OECD countries

C3

(1)
m
m
m
m
m
m
89.6
23.7
3.1
72.4
37.8
11.6
70.1
14.8
1.6
77.3
40.0
14.6
87.4
38.8
19.9
65.6
29.5
10.6
38.7
10.3
2.7
m
m
m
81.5
31.5
11.6

(2)
m
m
m
m
m
m
4.2
42.5
67.5
18.5
46.6
70.9
14.0
54.9
65.5
11.2
34.2
51.5
6.9
43.7
67.0
10.2
59.2
76.2
34.2
46.5
59.6
m
m
m
10.7
50.7
71.4

(3)
m
m
m
m
m
m
6.2
33.8
29.4
9.1
15.6
17.4
15.9
30.3
32.9
11.5
25.8
33.9
5.6
17.5
13.2
24.2
11.3
13.2
27.2
43.2
37.8
m
m
m
7.8
17.8
17.0

(4)
m
m
m
87.1
34.6
13.6
90.8
28.8
5.4
73.0
38.4
13.2
71.0
14.5
4.6
79.2
43.0
15.0
91.1
42.3
21.4
85.4
30.6
10.7
36.1
13.3
2.7
m
m
m
82.6
34.3
11.8

(5)
m
m
m
11.4
53.7
74.1
3.8
45.9
68.7
17.1
47.4
71.8
12.3
60.0
69.1
9.9
34.8
54.3
4.3
41.4
64.2
6.0
59.1
77.5
33.6
38.3
59.4
m
m
m
10.3
50.7
72.2

(6)
m
m
m
c
11.7
12.2
5.3
25.3
25.9
9.8
14.2
15.0
16.7
25.5
26.3
10.9
22.1
30.7
4.6
16.3
14.5
8.5
10.3
11.9
30.2
48.4
37.9
m
m
m
7.1
15.1
15.9

(13)
m
m
m
92.4
41.7
17.5
92.8
34.9
8.0
72.6
36.5
11.0
67.3
18.1
1.3
80.6
44.6
16.2
90.6
42.1
21.9
84.6
37.4
15.0
39.2
12.7
2.9
77.0
32.4
13.3
81.3
32.5
11.4

(14)
m
m
m
5.9
50.3
72.1
2.6
34.3
62.9
19.7
52.6
76.6
6.4
48.8
66.9
11.4
40.3
62.4
5.8
47.2
68.9
7.5
56.7
73.9
29.6
43.1
58.8
15.0
52.2
70.3
11.7
53.1
72.8

(15)
m
m
m
c
8.0
10.4
4.5
30.8
29.1
7.7
11.0
12.5
26.3
33.1
31.8
8.0
15.0
21.4
3.6
10.7
9.2
7.9
5.9
11.1
31.2
44.2
38.3
8.0
15.4
16.3
7.0
14.4
15.8

(28)
75.9
39.7
18.3
87.4
41.5
15.7
97.9
62.7
16.4
79.3
37.4
11.5
90.4
31.0
6.1
78.2
35.1
10.9
89.6
42.5
23.6
84.9
37.3
15.6
42.5
15.2
4.3
76.0
32.1
13.3
85.6
36.1
11.9

(29)
16.9
46.6
66.2
10.1
48.9
72.0
0.4
17.2
54.3
12.2
48.4
73.6
3.3
43.8
64.9
11.0
45.5
69.3
5.8
44.1
66.5
7.9
51.7
72.3
19.9
37.7
53.5
14.6
51.0
70.1
8.3
48.4
70.0

(30)
7.2
13.7
15.5
2.5
9.6
12.3
1.7
20.1
29.3
8.4
14.1
14.9
6.3
25.2
29.0
10.8
19.4
19.8
4.7
13.4
10.0
7.2
11.0
12.1
37.7
47.1
42.2
9.3
16.8
16.6
6.1
15.5
18.1

(34)
73.1
38.9
19.2
80.6
37.7
12.2
95.9
56.4
12.8
80.4
35.5
12.1
90.2
29.4
6.8
77.8
34.5
10.0
86.9
39.6
20.2
84.4
41.0
12.9
44.6
17.6
4.7
76.2
29.7
12.7
85.2
35.7
12.4

(35)
17.6
47.5
65.2
15.8
53.6
77.4
1.7
25.2
62.9
11.1
49.3
72.4
4.4
50.7
68.0
11.3
48.2
72.4
7.7
47.3
69.2
7.5
48.6
75.2
19.3
36.7
53.5
13.0
52.3
71.1
8.5
48.1
70.7

(36)
9.3
13.7
15.7
3.7
8.8
10.4
2.5
18.3
24.3
8.6
15.2
15.5
5.4
19.9
25.2
10.9
17.2
17.6
5.4
13.1
10.6
8.2
10.4
11.9
36.1
45.7
41.8
10.7
18.1
16.2
6.3
16.2
16.9

15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29

75.1
30.3
10.3
81.9
32.9
10.0

13.5
47.8
66.4
9.8
45.3
66.1

11.4
21.8
23.3
8.3
21.8
23.9

80.6
34.5
12.0
85.2
36.4
12.2

11.1
46.7
67.3
7.9
45.3
66.7

8.9
18.8
20.7
7.0
18.4
21.1

80.4
35.3
12.4
83.6
36.5
11.7

11.3
47.8
68.6
9.0
46.4
69.1

9.2
17.5
19.0
7.7
17.1
19.3

84.5
40.6
14.1
87.4
41.9
13.5

8.2
43.1
67.9
6.4
42.0
68.3

7.4
16.3
18.0
6.2
16.1
18.2

84.3
41.0
14.0
87.7
42.2
13.6

8.6
44.1
68.9
6.6
43.2
69.2

7.2
14.9
17.0
5.8
14.6
17.2

15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29
15-19
20-24
25-29

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
92.0
50.9
14.2
68.9
28.3
21.4
92.4
55.7
24.6

m
m
m
2.9
32.7
61.8
6.3
31.4
54.3
2.7
31.3
63.9

m
m
m
5.2
16.3
24.0
24.7
40.3
24.2
4.9
13.0
11.5

67.0
24.6
12.2
86.0
45.4
10.1
68.5
28.5
24.5
91.2
58.7
26.1

18.3
52.0
66.0
8.2
39.3
71.4
5.7
31.9
52.0
4.5
30.9
59.5

14.7
23.4
21.8
5.7
15.3
18.4
25.7
39.6
23.5
4.3
10.4
14.4

Note: Columns showing the percentage of youth population in education and not in education for the years 1998, 1999, 2001-04 and 2006
(i.e. columns 7-12, 16-27 and 31-33) are available for consultation on line (see StatLink below).
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

354

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Successful Are Students in Moving From Education to Work? – Indicator C3

chapter C

Table C3.5.
Proportion of long-term unemployed among unemployed 25-34 year-olds (2003 and 2007)
Proportion of unemployed with unemployment spells over 6 months by educational attainment and gender

Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

All educational
levels

Hungary

Tertiary education

Greece

Upper secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary

Germany

Below upper
secondary

France

All educational
levels

Finland

Tertiary education

Denmark

Upper secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary

Czech Republic

Below upper
secondary

Canada

All educational
levels

Belgium

Tertiary education

Austria

2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2004
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003
2007
2003

Proportion of unemployed
females with unemployment
spells over 6 months

Upper secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary

Australia

Proportion of unemployed
males with unemployment
spells over 6 months

Below upper
secondary
OECD countries

Proportion of unemployed
with unemployment spells
over 6 months

(1)
39
m
38
40
65
m
14
14
84
83
24
32
c
c
62
55
66
61
61
62
67
56
69
71
66
m
71
51
49
56
c
m
73
m
61
m
96
89
42
51
34
28
69
52
38
m
50
m
20
24

(2)
26
m
41
36
62
m
10
12
64
67
36
29
c
c
52
56
60
59
67
73
70
55
43
49
68
m
59
55
46
42
c
26
72
m
57
m
83
82
35
50
28
22
58
42
56
m
38
m
20
32

(3)
22
m
c
63
52
m
10
16
42
48
38
31
c
c
46
49
43
47
63
78
64
38
33
44
58
m
c
49
32
27
c
24
62
m
51
m
57
82
39
54
29
25
30
27
62
m
28
m
26
33

(4)
29
m
37
41
61
m
11
14
68
69
34
30
38
43
54
53
60
58
65
72
69
54
50
57
65
m
67
52
43
43
36
23
70
m
59
m
85
83
39
52
30
24
54
40
46
m
41
m
21
30

(5)
34
m
48
34
67
m
13
13
84
87
c
c
c
c
59
55
66
61
51
55
68
57
74
74
61
m
c
c
42
56
c
m
68
m
58
m
98
88
41
43
40
35
c
45
36
m
50
m
9
22

(6)
23
m
40
31
57
m
10
13
58
58
39
15
c
c
45
56
61
58
57
68
68
54
42
51
68
m
c
c
51
41
c
27
68
m
61
m
81
80
34
45
32
22
69
37
48
m
44
m
19
30

(7)
20
m
c
c
44
m
11
18
40
40
c
47
c
c
55
53
33
49
62
69
71
m
39
53
56
m
c
c
35
29
c
c
57
m
59
m
c
c
34
51
28
23
29
19
62
m
31
m
33
31

(8)
26
m
41
35
58
m
11
15
65
64
36
26
40
43
52
55
60
58
57
65
68
54
54
64
63
m
74
58
44
44
37
26
67
m
58
m
85
82
38
46
33
24
54
32
42
m
44
m
20
28

(9)
43
m
29
46
62
m
17
17
85
77
c
43
c
c
66
54
67
61
68
68
66
55
59
60
72
m
c
c
57
56
c
m
84
m
64
m
92
91
43
57
28
21
71
57
51
m
52
m
34
28

(10)
28
m
42
42
66
m
8
10
67
72
33
42
c
c
59
56
59
61
73
76
72
56
44
47
68
m
c
c
42
42
c
c
75
m
56
m
85
83
35
52
24
22
52
47
70
m
29
m
20
34

(11)
22
m
c
59
59
m
10
13
43
66
35
21
c
c
39
46
52
46
64
84
59
m
26
34
59
m
c
c
28
24
c
c
65
m
48
m
40
m
42
55
30
27
32
40
63
m
26
m
21
34

(12)
31
m
33
46
63
m
10
13
70
72
32
34
35
42
55
52
60
59
69
76
69
54
44
47
67
m
60
46
43
43
35
19
74
m
59
m
84
84
41
55
27
23
54
48
62
m
36
m
23
33

Partner
countries

OECD average

2007
55
50
42
49
53
49
42
49
58
50
41
49
2003
52
46
43
47
52
43
40
45
53
49
42
47
Estonia
2007
c
c
c
48
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
2003
c
64
c
56
c
78
m
61
c
c
c
51
Israel
2007
14
29
26
25
9
20
12
15
c
40
31
33
26
53
37
c
42
38
39
2003
30
33
45
38
30
Slovenia
2007
69
69
56
66
59
66
m
63
77
72
57
68
2003
75
59
48
60
77
51
46
57
71
65
50
63
Note: First quarter 2007, except for Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, where second quarter is used and the United States where the third quarter
is used. Data for Norway refer to the old classification in 2003.
Austrian and Finland data are based on very small cells and the results should therefore be observed with caution
Source: OECD, Network B special data collection, Monitoring Transition Systems working group.
See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

355

C3

chapter C

Access to Education, Participation and Progression

Table C3.6.
Part-time and involuntary part-time work among 25-34 year-olds, by educational attainment (2007)
Proportion of employed 25-34 year-olds with part-time work and proportion of employed with involuntary part-time employment

Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Partner countries

OECD average
Estonia
Israel
Slovenia

All educational
levels

France

Tertiary education

Finland

Below upper
secondary
Upper secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary

Denmark

All educational
levels

Czech Republic

Tertiary education

Canada

Below upper
secondary
Upper secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary

Belgium

Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time
Part-time
Involuntary part-time

All educational
levels

Austria

Tertiary education

OECD countries

C3

Below upper
secondary
Upper secondary
and post-secondary
non-tertiary

Prevalence of part-time and Prevalence of part-time and Prevalence of part-time and
involuntary part-time work involuntary part-time work involuntary part-time work
among males and females
among males
among females

(1)
27
10
19
6
13
2
5
2
16
3
c
c
12
7
33
2
6
3
5
c
17
1
12
2
18
0
32
8
24
6
15
8
4
2
3
c
11
6
19
6
25
14
10
2
20
6
13
8
16
5
10
c
15
15
2
c

(3)
14
4
15
3
9
1
3
0
12
3
c
c
9
3
15
2
6
5
2
c
6
1
12
2
11
2
32
5
16
5
4
2
8
4
2
c
10
4
16
4
20
5
3
0
11
2
8
2
11
3
4
c
23
16
4
2

(4)
18
5
17
4
10
1
3
1
12
3
7
3
10
4
20
2
6
3
3
1
10
1
13
2
14
1
34
6
19
5
6
3
5
2
2
0
11
5
17
5
24
8
7
1
15
3
10
c
12
3
5
c
20
15
3
1

(5)
7
c
4
0
5
1
3
1
8
c
c
c
5
3
14
1
3
3
3
c
5
1
4
1
1
c
10
3
10
c
12
8
2
1
0
c
2
1
10
4
6
4
4
2
6
3
8
6
6
3
4
c
9
c
1
c

(7)
5
2
4
1
4
0
1
0
4
2
c
c
3
2
5
1
4
3
1
c
2
c
6
1
1
c
12
3
9
2
1
1
4
c
1
c
4
2
8
3
9
3
2
0
3
1
3
2
4
2
2
c
10
9
3
c

(8)
4
2
4
1
5
1
1
0
4
1
3
2
4
2
7
1
3
2
1
1
3
0
4
1
3
c
10
3
8
2
3
2
3
1
0
c
3
2
6
3
7
3
3
1
4
2
4
c
4
2
2
c
10
8
1
1

(9)
48
18
49
17
28
3
9
3
26
5
c
c
27
14
61
4
17
6
8
5
49
2
33
5
41
0
73
17
46
11
22
7
8
3
6
c
29
14
38
11
44
24
30
3
45
11
26
13
33
9
c
c
40
35
3
c

(11)
24
6
23
5
13
2
6
0
19
5
c
c
13
4
25
3
8
6
3
0
10
1
17
3
20
4
50
7
22
7
7
3
10
5
3
c
15
7
22
5
37
8
4
1
20
3
13
3
17
4
6
c
32
21
4
2

(12)
36
9
32
8
16
2
7
1
21
4
12
4
18
7
36
3
10
5
4
2
18
1
25
3
25
2
61
9
33
8
10
5
7
3
3
1
21
9
31
8
46
14
18
2
29
6
17
5
22
5
9
c
32
22
5
2

(2)
18
5
19
5
10
1
3
1
11
2
c
c
10
5
20
1
5
3
3
1
11
0
13
2
14
1
36
5
21
4
7
4
3
c
1
0
12
5
18
5
27
8
3
1
16
4
11
4
13
3
4
c
18
14
3
1

(6)
3
2
5
2
5
1
1
0
3
1
c
c
3
2
6
0
2
1
1
1
2
c
4
1
5
c
8
2
6
2
3
2
3
c
0
c
4
2
5
2
5
2
2
1
4
2
5
3
4
2
1
c
10
8
1
c

(10)
38
9
42
9
19
2
8
1
22
4
c
c
22
10
37
3
9
5
5
2
25
0
24
3
23
1
67
9
43
8
13
7
3
c
3
1
22
9
39
10
50
15
6
1
34
6
19
6
25
5
9
c
30
23
6
3

Note: First quarter 2007, except for Austria, Ireland, Switzerland, where second quarter is used and the United States where the third quarter is used.
Source: OECD, Network B special data collection, Monitoring Transition Systems working group.
See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664770480457

356

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Chapter

D

The Learning Environment
and Organisation
of Schools

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

357

HOw mUCH TIME do students spend in the
classroom?
This indicator examines the amount of instruction time students are expected to
receive between the ages of 7 and 15. It also discusses how instruction time is
allocated to different curriculum areas.

INDICATOR D1

Key results
Chart D1.1. Total number of intended instruction hours in public institutions
between the ages of 7 and 14 (2007)
Ages 7 to 8

Ages 9 to 11

Ages 12 to 14

Students in OECD countries are expected to receive, on average, 6 862 hours of instruction
between the ages of 7 and 14, of which 1 580 between ages 7 and 8, 2 504 between ages 9 and
11, and 2 778 between ages 12 and 14. The large majority of intended hours of instruction are
compulsory.

Estonia
Finland
Slovenia
Russian Federation
Sweden
Korea
Norway
Hungary
Germany
Japan
Denmark
Iceland
Czech Republic
Luxembourg
Austria
Spain
Turkey
Belgium (Fl.)
Portugal
England
Greece
Ireland
Israel
Mexico
France
Belgium (Fr.)
Australia
Netherlands
Italy
Chile
0

1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 8 000 9 000 10 000
Total number of intended instruction hours

Countries are ranked in ascending order of total number of intended instruction hours.
Source: OECD. Table D1.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664775782328

358

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• In OECD countries, compulsory instruction time for 7-8 year-old students
averages 769 hours per year and intended instruction time averages 790 hours
per year for this age group. Students aged 9 to 11 receive about 41 compulsory
hours more per year than 7-8 year-olds and students aged 12 to 14 receive just
over 82 hours more per year than 9-11 year-olds. Similarly, students aged 9 to 11
receive about 45 intended hours more per year than 7-8 year-olds and students
aged 12 to 14 receive just over 91 hours more per year than 9-11 year-olds.

INDICATOR D1

• On average across OECD countries, the teaching of reading, writing and literature,
mathematics and science represents 47% of the compulsory instruction time for
9-11 year-olds and just above 40% for 12-14 year-olds. For 9-11 year-olds, the
proportion of compulsory curriculum devoted to reading, writing and literature
varies widely, from 13% in Australia to 30% or more in France, Mexico and the
Netherlands.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

359

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Policy context

D1

Instruction time in formal classroom settings accounts for a large portion of the public investment
in student learning and is a central component of effective schooling. The amount of instruction
time available to students can determine the amount of formal classroom teaching they receive
and therefore their opportunities for effective learning. Instruction time is the main factor in
schools’ operations. It is also central to education policy decision making. Matching resources
with students’ needs and making optimal use of time are major challenges for education policy.
The main costs of education are teachers’ work, institutional maintenance and other educational
resources. The length of time during which these resources are made available to students (as
partly shown in this indicator) is thus an important factor in the allocation of funding.
Countries make various choices concerning the overall length of time that should be devoted to
instruction, and which subjects should be compulsory for students.These choices reflect national
priorities and preferences for the education students receive at different ages and the emphasis
placed on different subject areas. Countries usually have statutory or regulatory requirements
regarding hours of instruction. These are most often stipulated as the minimum number of hours
of instruction a school must offer. Central to the setting of minimum levels is the view that
sufficient teaching time is essential to productive learning outcomes.
Evidence and explanations
What this indicator shows

Intended instruction time is an important indicator of students’ opportunity to learn and of
the public resources invested in education. This indicator captures intended instruction time,
as established in public regulations, as a measure of exposure to learning in formal classroom
settings. It does not show the actual number of hours of instruction received by students
and does not cover learning outside of the formal classroom setting. Discrepancies may exist
across countries between the regulatory minimum hours of instruction and the actual hours of
instruction received by students. There is research showing that due to factors such as school
timetable decisions, lesson cancellations and teacher absenteeism schools may not consistently
reach the regulatory minimum instruction time (see Box D1.1 of Education at a Glance 2007).
The indicator also illustrates how minimum instruction times are allocated across different
curricular areas. It shows the intended net hours of instruction for those grades in which the
majority of students are between 7 and 15. Although the data are difficult to compare among
countries because of different curriculum policies, they nevertheless provide an indication of
how much formal instruction time is considered necessary for students to achieve the desired
educational goals.
Total intended instruction time: an average of 6 862 hours between the ages of 7 and 14

Total intended instruction time is an estimate of the number of hours during which students are
taught both compulsory and non-compulsory parts of the curriculum as per public regulations.
In OECD countries, intended instruction time for students between the ages of 7 and 14 averages
a total of 6 862 hours. However, formal requirements regarding intended instruction time range
from 5 644 hours in the partner country Estonia to over 8 000 hours in Italy and the partner
360

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Time Do Students Spend in the Classroom? – Indicator D1

chapter D

country Chile. During these hours, schools are obliged to offer instruction in compulsory
and non-compulsory subjects. The total intended instruction time for this age range is a good
indicator of students’ theoretical workload, but it cannot be interpreted as the actual instruction
students receive during the years they spend in initial education.
In some countries with a heavier student workload, the age band of compulsory education is
smaller and students drop out of the school system earlier; in other countries a more even
distribution of student workload and study time over more years ultimately means a larger
number of total instruction hours for all. Table D1.1 shows the age range for which over 90% of
the population is in education and Chart D1.1 shows the total amount of intended instruction
time students should receive between the ages of 7 and 14. Intended instruction time does not
capture the quality of learning opportunities provided or the level or quality of the human and
material resources involved. (For some insight into human resources, see Indicator D2, which
shows the number of teachers relative to the student population).
In some countries, intended instruction time varies considerably among regions or types of
schools. In many countries, local education authorities or schools can determine the number
and allocation of hours of instruction. Additional teaching time is often planned for individual
remedial teaching or curriculum enhancement. On the other hand, time may be lost due to
student absences or a lack of qualified substitutes to replace absent teachers.
Annual instruction time should be examined together with the length of compulsory education,
i.e. the period of time during which young people receive full-time educational support from
public resources, and during which more than 90% of the population participates in education
(see Indicator C1).
Compulsory instruction time: an average of 6 645 hours between the ages of 7 and 14

Total compulsory instruction time is an estimate of the number of hours during which students
are taught both the compulsory core and compulsory flexible parts of the curriculum.
For 7-8 year-olds and 9-11 year-olds, total intended instruction time equals the total compulsory
instruction time in most countries; this is less often the case for older age groups. However,
intended instruction time is fully compulsory for all age groups between 7 and 14 years in the
Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg,
Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden, as well as the partner countries Chile,
Estonia, the Russian Federation and Slovenia. Except for England, Greece, Mexico, the Netherlands
and the partner country Chile, these countries have a total length of intended instruction time
that is below the OECD average. Except for Greece (as well as for Japan and the Netherlands:
the two countries for which data are missing), intended instruction time is also fully compulsory
at age 15 in these countries.
Within the formal education system, OECD countries report an average annual total compulsory
instruction time in classroom settings of 769 hours for 7-8 year-olds, 810 hours for 9-11 yearolds and 892 hours for 12-14 year-olds. The average annual number of compulsory instruction
hours is 921 for the typical programme in which most 15-year-olds are enrolled (Table D1.1).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

361

D1

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Teaching of reading and writing, mathematics and science: at least 40%
of compulsory instruction time, on average, for 12-14 year-olds

On average, reading and writing account for the greatest proportion of the curriculum for
9-11 year-olds, but the differences among countries are greater than for other subjects; this
subject area accounts for 13% of compulsory instruction time in Australia, compared with
30% or more in France, Mexico and the Netherlands. There are also sizeable variations in the
time spent learning modern foreign languages, which accounts for 1% or less of compulsory
instruction time in Australia, Japan, Mexico and the Netherlands but 21% of total compulsory
instruction time in Luxembourg and over 10% in the Czech Republic, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
and in the partner countries Estonia, Israel and Slovenia.
Chart D1.2a. Instruction time per subject as a percentage
of total compulsory instruction time for 9-11 year-olds (2007)

Percentage of intended instruction time devoted to various subject areas within the total compulsory curriculum
Reading, writing and literature
Modern foreign languages

Mathematics
Other compulsory core curriculum

Science
Compulsory flexible curriculum

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Netherlands1
France
Mexico
Hungary
Ireland
Greece
Russian Federation
Czech Republic2
Denmark
Norway
Luxembourg3
Austria
Sweden
England
Spain
Belgium (Fl.)
Estonia
Finland
Germany
Korea
Japan
Turkey
Israel
Slovenia
Iceland
Portugal4
Chile
Australia

D1

In OECD countries, study areas for 9-11 year-olds are not necessarily organised as separate
classes. Students at this age spend an average of 47% of the compulsory curriculum on three
basic subject areas: reading, writing and literature (23%), mathematics (16%) and science (8%).
On average, an additional 8% of the compulsory curriculum is devoted to modern foreign
languages. Together with social studies, the arts and physical education, these seven study areas
form the major part of the curriculum for this age cohort in all OECD and partner countries
except Australia (Table D1.2a and Chart D1.2a).

1. Includes 11-year-olds only.
2. For 9-10 year-olds, social studies is included in science.
3. German as a language of instruction is included in “Reading, writing and literature” in addition to the mother
tongue Luxemburgish.
4. Includes 10-11 year-olds only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of intended instruction hours devoted to reading, writing and literature.
Source: OECD. Table D1.2a. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664775782328

362

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Time Do Students Spend in the Classroom? – Indicator D1

chapter D

In OECD countries, an average of 40% of the compulsory curriculum for 12-14 year-olds
is devoted to three subject areas: reading, writing and literature (16%), mathematics (13%)
and science (12%). For this age group, a relatively larger part of the curriculum is devoted to
modern foreign languages (13%) and social studies (12%), and somewhat less time is devoted
to the arts (8%). Together with physical education (8%), these seven study areas form part of
the compulsory curriculum for lower secondary students in all OECD countries and partner
countries (Table D1.2b and Chart D1.2b).

Chart D1.2b. Instruction time per subject as a percentage
of total compulsory instruction time for 12-14 year-olds (2007)

Percentage of intended instruction time devoted to various subject areas within the total compulsory curriculum
Reading, writing and literature
Modern foreign languages

Mathematics
Other compulsory core curriculum

Science
Compulsory flexible curriculum

Ireland1
Sweden
Luxembourg2
Italy3
Denmark
Norway
Turkey
Hungary
France
Spain
Belgium (Fr.)3
Russian Federation
Mexico
Estonia
Israel
Germany
Iceland
Belgium (Fl.)
Chile
Austria
Finland
Slovenia
Korea
Greece
Czech Republic
England
Portugal
Japan
Australia

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

1. For 13-14 year-olds, arts is included in non-compulsory curriculum.
2. German as a language of instruction is included in “Reading, writing and literature” in addition to the mother
tongue Luxemburgish.
3. Includes 12-13 year-olds only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the proportion of intended instruction hours devoted to reading, writing and literature.
Source: OECD. Table D1.2b. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664775782328

Among countries, the allocation of time for the different subjects within the compulsory
curriculum for 12-14 year-olds varies less than for 9-11 year-olds. These differences reflect
different national and curriculum priorities.The greatest variation is again in reading and writing,
which ranges from 10% or less of compulsory instruction time in Australia to 28% in Ireland
(where reading and writing includes work in both English and Irish).
There is also substantial variation in the percentage of compulsory instruction time devoted to
particular subjects for 9-11 year-olds compared to 12-14 year-olds. On average among OECD
countries, 12-14 year-olds spend one-third less time studying reading, writing and literature
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

363

D1

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

than 9-11 year-olds. However, the reverse is true for science, social studies, modern foreign
languages, technology and practical and vocational skills.

D1

These differences are larger in some countries than in others. The percentage of compulsory
instruction time devoted to reading, writing and literature for 12-14 year-olds is equal to or less
than one-half that for 9-11 year-olds in the Czech Republic, Greece, and Mexico. Yet in Ireland
and Sweden, the difference is less than 5%. Clearly, countries place different emphases both on
subjects and on when they should be taught to students.
Among OECD countries, the non-compulsory part of the curriculum comprises on average 4%
to 5% of the total intended instruction time for 9-11 year-olds as well as for 12-14 year-olds.
Nevertheless, a considerable amount of additional non-compulsory instruction time is sometimes
provided. For 9-11 year-olds, all intended instruction time is compulsory in most countries,
but students in Belgium (French Community) and in Italy spend over an additional 11% and
students in Hungary and Turkey up to an additional 20% of their time on non-compulsory
studies. For 12-14 year-olds, non-compulsory instruction time is a feature in Australia, Austria,
Belgium (French Community), Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Turkey, and
ranges from 3% in Portugal to 32% in Hungary (Table D1.2a and Table D1.2b).
On average, 4% of compulsory instruction time belongs to the flexible part of the curriculum
in the grades where most students are 9 to 11 years of age; the corresponding proportion is 8%
for students aged 12 to 14. Most OECD countries define the number of hours of compulsory
instruction. Within the compulsory part of the curriculum, students have varying degrees of
freedom to choose the subjects they want to study. Australia allows the greatest flexibility in the
compulsory curriculum with 58% for 9-11 year-olds and 41% for 12-14 year-olds. Several other
countries allow 10% or more of flexibility in the compulsory curriculum for 12-14 year-olds
(Belgium, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Japan, Korea and Spain, and the partner countries Chile,
Estonia, the Russian Federation and Slovenia) (Table D1.2a and Table D1.2b).
Definitions and methodologies

Data on instruction time are from the 2008 OECD-INES Survey on Teachers and the Curriculum
and refer to the school year 2006/07.
Instruction time for 7-15 year-olds refers to the formal number of 60-minute hours per school
year organised by the school for class instructional activities for students in the reference
school year 2006/07. For countries with no formal policy on instruction time, the number
of hours is estimated from survey data. Hours lost when schools are closed for festivities and
celebrations, such as national holidays, are excluded. Intended instruction time does not include
non-compulsory time outside the school day, homework, individual tutoring, or private study
done before or after school.
Intended instruction time refers to the number of hours per year during which students receive
instruction in the compulsory and non-compulsory parts of the curriculum.
The compulsory curriculum refers to the amount and allocation of instruction time that
almost every public school must provide and almost all public-sector students must attend. The
measurement of the time devoted to specific study areas (subjects) focuses on the minimum
364

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Time Do Students Spend in the Classroom? – Indicator D1

chapter D

common core rather than on the average time spent, since the data sources (policy documents)
do not allow for more precise measurement. The total compulsory curriculum comprises the
compulsory core curriculum as well as the compulsory flexible curriculum.
The non-compulsory part of the curriculum refers to the average time of instruction to which
students are entitled beyond the compulsory hours of instruction.These subjects often vary from
school to school or from region to region, and may take the form of non-compulsory (elective)
subjects.
In Table D1.1, typical instruction time for 15-year-olds refers to the programme in which most
students at this age are enrolled. The programme may take place in lower or upper secondary
education, and in most countries consists of a general programme. If the system channels students
into different programme types at this age, the average instruction time may have been estimated
for the most important mainstream programmes and weighted by the proportion of students in
the grade in which most 15-year-olds are enrolled. When vocational programmes are also taken
into account in typical instruction time, only the school-based part of the programme should be
included in the calculations.
Instruction time for the least demanding programmes refers to programmes for students who
are least likely to continue studying beyond the mandatory school age or beyond lower secondary
education. Such programmes may or may not exist depending on a country’s streaming and
selection policies. In many countries students are offered the same amount of instruction time
in all or most programmes, but there is flexibility in the choice of study areas or subjects. Often
such choices have to be made quite early in the student’s school career if programmes are long
and differ substantially.
Further references

Specific notes on definitions and methodologies for each country related to this indicator are
given in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

365

D1

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Age range at which over
90% of the population
are enrolled

Ages 7-8

Ages 9-11

Ages 12-14

Age 15 (typical
programme)

Age 15 (least
demanding
programme)

Ages 7-8

Ages 9-11

Ages 12-14

Age 15 (typical
programme)

Age 15 (least
demanding
programme)

Table D1.1.
Compulsory and intended instruction time in public institutions (2007)
Average number of hours per year of total compulsory and non-compulsory instruction time in the curriculum
for 7-8, 9-11, 12-14 and 15-year-olds

(1)
5 - 16
5 - 16
3 - 17
3 - 17
5 - 17
3 - 16
4 - 16
6 - 18
3 - 17
4 - 17
6 - 15
4 - 17
3 - 16
5 - 18
3 - 15
4 - 17
6 - 17
4 - 15
5 - 14
4 - 17
4 - 15
4 - 17
6 - 18
5 - 16
4 - 16
6 - 17
3 - 16
3 - 18
5 - 16
7 - 12
6 - 16

(2)
954
690
a
840
687
671
846
608
913
634
828
555
720
941
891
707
612
847
800
940
m
656
m
855
a
m
793
741
m
720
m

(3)
955
767
a
840
806
783
893
640
890
784
889
601
792
941
913
774
703
847
800
1000
m
730
m
849
a
m
794
741
m
720
m

(4)
962
913
a
960
915
900
925
777
966
883
953
671
872
848
1001
868
867
782
1167
1027
m
826
m
880
a
m
956
741
m
750
m

(5)
938
1005
a
m
1030
930
950
856
1036
895
1117
763
888
802
1089
m
1020
750
1058
m
m
855
m
821
a
m
979
741
m
810
m

(6)
938
960
a
m
439
900
a
a
a
m
958
763
a
713
m
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
m
m
a
m
978
a
m
a
m

(7)
954
735
835
930
687
671
846
608
913
634
828
614
720
941
990
707
612
847
800
940
m
656
m
889
a
m
793
741
m
864
m

(8)
955
812
835
930
806
783
893
683
890
784
889
724
792
941
1023
774
703
847
800
1000
m
730
m
878
a
m
794
741
m
864
m

(9)
1006
958
960
1020
915
900
925
829
1060
883
953
885
872
907
1089
868
867
782
1167
1027
m
826
m
905
a
m
956
741
m
846
m

(10)
993
1050
960
m
1030
930
950
913
1142
895
1330
1106
888
891
1089
m
1020
750
1058
m
m
855
m
872
a
m
979
741
m
810
m

(11)
993
1005
450
m
439
900
a
a
a
m
1170
1106
a
891
m
a
a
a
a
a
m
a
m
m
a
m
978
a
m
a
m

OECD average

769

810

892

921

831

790

835

926

966

881

EU 19 average

781

822

888

918

816

802

847

928

977

867

m
1089
595
878
493
621

m
1089
683
867
737
721

m
1089
802
966
879
791

m
1203
840
1040
912
908

m
1203
m
1015
m
888

m
1089
595
878
493
621

m
1089
683
884
737
721

m
1089
802
1016
879
791

m
1203
840
1089
912
908

m
1203
m
1064
m
888

Partner countries

OECD countries

D1
Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)1
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

7 - 16
6 - 16
6 - 16
5 - 17
7 - 15
6 - 17

Average number of hours per year
of total compulsory instruction time

1. “Ages 12-14” covers ages 12-13 only.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664775782328

366

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Average number of hours per year
of total intended instruction time

chapter D

How Much Time Do Students Spend in the Classroom? – Indicator D1

Table D1.2a.
Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory instruction time for 9-11 year-olds (2007)
Percentage of intended instruction time devoted to various subject areas within the total compulsory curriculum

Partner countries

OECD countries

Australia1
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)1
Belgium (Fr.)1
Czech Republic2
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy3
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg4
Mexico
Netherlands5
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal6
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
13
9
3
3
1
24
16
10
3
8
22
19 x(12) x(12)
7
x(12) x(12) x(12) x(12)
5
26
19
11
9
12
26
17
8
4
9
22
19
10
10
4
21
18
10
2
9
31
18
5
10
10
20
18
6
7
10
29
14
11
11
10
29
17
6
7
9
16
15
8
8
4
29
12
4
8 x(14)
a
a
a
a
a
19
15
9
9
n
19
13
10
10
5
25
18
6
2
21
30
25
15
20
n
32
19
6
6
1
m
m
m
m
m
25
16
7
9
7
m
m
m
m
m
15
12
9
6
11
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
22
17
9
9
13
22
14
12
13
12
m
m
m
m
m
19
13
12
10
9
m
m
m
m
m

(6) (7) (8)
n
3
4
n
n
18
n
n
10
n x(12) x(12)
n
n
14
n
n
20
n
10
9
n
n
19
n
3
11
n
1
15
n
n
8
n
n
14
n
6
12
n
n
12
a
a
a
n
n
10
n
2
13
n
n
11
n
n
5
n
n
9
m
m
m
n
n
15
m
m
m
n
x(7)
18
a
a
a
m
m
m
n
n
11
n
x(3)
7
m
m
m
n
n
7
m
m
m

Non-compulsory
curriculum

Total compulsory
curriculum

Total compulsory
core curriculum
Compulsory flexible
curriculum

Other

Practical and
vocational skills

Religion

Physical education

Arts

Technology

Ancient Greek and/
or Latin

Modern foreign
languages

Social studies

Science

Mathematics

Reading, writing
and literature

Compulsory core curriculum

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)
42
4
1
n
1
58 100
n
10
8 x(13)
3 100 x(13) 100
6
89
7
7
n 18
11 100
n
7
7 x(12) 81 100
n 100 11
98
7
n
n
n
2 100
n
10
4
n
3 100
n 100
n
7
5
n
3 100
n 100
n
94
9
5
n
n
6 100
7
13
n
n
n 100
n 100
n
98
11
7
n
4
2 100
n
7
7
n
2 100
n 100
n
12
n
5
2 100
n 100 20
89
9
3
5
2
11 100
n
92
4
10
n 14
8 100
n
a
a
a
a
a
a 100 12
92
9
n
n 21
8 100
m
87
10
n
2
3
13 100
n
10
7
n
n 100
n 100
n
5
n
n
n 100
n 100
n
88
7
5
3
n
13 100
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
9
8
n
3 100
n 100
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
97
9
n
n 17
3 100
5
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
91
11 x(14)
n
n
9 100
n
94
8 x(4)
7
n
6 100
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
89
4
7
2
6
11 100 20
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m

OECD average1

23

16

8

8

8

n

1

12

8

4

1

4

91

4

100

4

EU 19 average1

25

16

8

7

9

n

1

13

9

4

1

3

97

3

100

4

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
15
21
19
27
18

m
15
15
18
16
16

m
14
7
9
7
10

m
4
6
6
6
8

m
2
12
11
9
11

m
n
n
n
n
n

m
7
4
n
7
2

m
10
9
6
7
11

m
7
10
6
7
11

m
5
n
6
n
n

m
n
n
4
n
3

m
1
4
9
n
10

m
79
88
92
85
100

m
21
12
8
15
n

m
100
100
100
100
100

m
n
n
2
n
n

1. Australia, Belgium (Fl.) and Belgium(Fr.) are not included in the averages.
2. For 9-10 year-olds, social studies is included in science.
3. For 9-10 year-olds the curriculum is largely flexible, for 11-year-olds it is about the same as for 12-13 year-olds.
4. German as a language of instruction is included in “Reading, writing and literature” in addition to the mother tongue Luxemburgish.
5. Includes 11-year-olds only.
6. Includes 10-11 year-olds only.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664775782328

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

367

D1

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D1.2b.
Instruction time per subject as a percentage of total compulsory instruction time for 12-14 year-olds (2007)
Percentage of intended instruction time devoted to various subject areas within the total compulsory curriculum

Social studies

Modern foreign
languages

Ancient Greek and/
or Latin

Technology

Arts

Physical education

Total compulsory
curriculum

Non-compulsory
curriculum

(3)
8
13
7
9
20
14
12
17
13
10
10
18
8
8
9
9
11
5
17
m
m
10
m
12
a
m
11
12
m
14
m

(4)
7
12
9
13
16
9
12
7
13
12
10
12
6
17
11
9
10
10
23
m
m
10
m
13
a
m
10
13
m
12
m

(5)
4
11
17
13
10
18
10
14
12
17
12
12
17
7
16
10
10
20
9
m
m
15
m
15
a
m
10
12
m
12
m

(6) (7)
n
6
1
n
n
4
n
3
n
3
n
n
n
11
n
n
n
6
n
3
n
5
n
3
n
4
n x(16)
n
7
n
3
n
4
n
n
n
n
m
m
m
m
n
n
m
m
n
4
a
a
m
m
n
8
n
x(3)
m
m
n
n
m
m

(8)
6
16
4
3
8
11
10
15
7
10
6
10
7
4
13
7
8
10
6
m
m
11
m
7
a
m
11
7
m
4
m

(9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)
59
7
1
n
3
41 100
10
7
2
n 100 x(13) 100
80
6
6
1
n
20 100
88
9
6
n
3
13 100
88
7
n
n
n
12 100
8
3
n
3 100
n 100
93
7
4
n
3
7 100
95
7
5
4
n
5 100
93
11
n
n
n
7 100
97
9
5
2
2
3 100
8
6
1 19 100
n 100
9
n
3
3 100
n 100
85
8
2
4
3
15 100
97
5
9 x(16)
5
3 100
6
3
n
n 100
n 100
87
9
n
n 18
13 100
82
8
n
4
5
18 100
8
6
n
5 100
n 100
6
n
9
3 100
n 100
m
m
m
m
m m
m
m
m
m
m
m m
m
97
9
7
n
5
3 100
m
m
m
m
m m
m
98
9
n
n 15
2 100
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m m
m
87
7 x(14) x(14)
3
13 100
94
8
x(4)
7
n
6 100
m
m
m
m
m m
m
96
7
5
4
7
4 100
m
m
m
m
m m
m

(16)
5
5
n
6
n
n
n
7
10
n
n
32
n
7
14
m
n
n
n
m
m
n
m
3
a
m
n
n
m
13
m

OECD average

16

13

12

12

13

n

3

8

8

3

2

4

92

8

100

5

EU 19 average

16

13

12

12

13

n

4

9

8

4

1

4

95

6

100

6

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
13
14
14
15
13

m
13
14
14
14
13

m
11
17
9
24
15

m
11
7
7
9
15

m
7
17
15
9
11

m
n
n
n
n
n

m
5
5
5
3
2

m
10
7
5
4
6

m
5
7
5
6
6

m
5
n
5
n
n

m
n
n
5
1
n

m
4
n
6
n
9

m
84
89
91
85
90

m
16
11
9
15
10

m
100
100
100
100
100

m
m
m
m
m
m

OECD countries

Other

Science

(2)
9
14
13
13
13
13
12
13
15
13
11
12
14
13
13
10
11
15
14
m
m
13
m
11
a
m
11
14
m
13
m

Practical and
vocational skills

Mathematics

(1)
10
13
14
16
12
20
12
13
16
14
12
17
14
28
21
11
13
22
14
m
m
18
m
11
a
m
16
22
m
17
m

Religion

Reading, writing
and literature
Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)1
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland2
Italy1
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg3
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal4
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

D1

Partner countries

Total compulsory
core curriculum
Compulsory flexible
curriculum

Compulsory core curriculum

1. Includes 12-13 year-olds only.
2. For 13-14 year-olds, arts is included in non-compulsory curriculum.
3. German as a language of instruction is included in “Reading, writing and literature” in addition to the mother tongue Luxemburgish.
4. Technology is included in arts for 14-year-olds.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664775782328

368

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

WHAT IS THE STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO AND HOW BIG
ARE CLASSES?

INDICATOR D2

This indicator examines the number of students per class at the primary and lower
secondary levels, the ratio of students to teaching staff at all levels, including a
breakdown by type of institutions, and the breakdown of educational personnel
between teaching and non-teaching staff. Class size and student-teacher ratios
are much discussed aspects of the education students receive and – along with
students’ total instruction time (see Indicator D1), teachers’ average working time
(see Indicator D4) and the division of teachers’ time between teaching and other
duties – are among the determinants of the size of countries’ teaching force.

Key results
Chart D2.1. Average class size in primary education (2000, 2007)
2007

2000

The average class size in primary education is slightly more than 21 students per class, but varies
from 31 or more in Korea and partner country Chile, to nearly half that number in Luxembourg
and the partner country the Russian Federation. From 2000 to 2007, average class size within
countries did not vary significantly, but differences in class size among OECD countries seem to
have diminished. Class sizes have tended to decrease in countries that had relatively large class
sizes in 2000 (such as Japan, Korea and Turkey), whereas they have tended to increase in countries
that had relatively small class sizes (such as Iceland).
Number of students per classroom

40
30
20

0

Chile
Korea
Japan
Israel
Turkey
Brazil
United Kingdom
Ireland1
Australia
United States
France
Germany2
Spain
Belgium (Fr.)
Hungary
Czech Republic
Austria
Mexico
Finland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Poland
Denmark
Switzerland1
Estonia
Italy
Iceland
Slovenia
Greece
Luxembourg
Russian Federation

10

1. Public institutions only.
2. Years of reference 2001 and 2007.
Countries are ranked in descending order of average class size in primary education in 2007.
Source: OECD. 2007 data:Table D2.1. 2000 data:Table D2.5, available on line. See Annex 3 for notes
(www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

370

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• The average class size in lower secondary education is 24 students per class,
but varies from about 30 or more in Japan, Korea and the partner countries
Chile and Israel, to 20 or fewer in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg and
Switzerland (public institutions) and the partner countries the Russian Federation
and Slovenia.
• The number of students per class increases by an average of nearly three between
primary and lower secondary education, but ratios of students to teaching staff
tend to decrease with increasing levels of education owing to more annual
instruction time, although this pattern is not uniform among countries.

INDICATOR D2

• On average in OECD countries, the availability of teaching resources relative to
numbers of students in secondary education is more favourable in private than
in public institutions. This is most striking in Mexico where, at the secondary
level, there are around 15 more students per teacher in public institutions than in
private ones. On average across OECD countries, at the lower secondary level,
there is one student more per class in public than in private institutions.
• There are on average more than 10 more educational personnel per 1 000 students
in tertiary education than in primary and secondary education. Non-teaching staff
represent on average 27% of the total teaching and non-teaching staff in primary
and secondary schools and about 40% of the total teaching and non-teaching staff
at the tertiary level.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

371

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Policy context
Class size, education quality and education systems

D2

Class size is a hotly debated topic and an important element of education policy in many OECD
countries. Smaller classes are often perceived as allowing teachers to focus more on the needs of
individual students and reducing the amount of class time they spend dealing with disruptions.
Smaller class sizes may also influence parents when they choose schools for their children. In this
respect, class size may be viewed as an indicator of the quality of the school system.
Yet evidence on the effects of differences in class size upon student performance is mixed. In
what has evolved as a contentious area of research, and one which has produced little in the way
of consistent results, there is some evidence that smaller classes may have an impact upon specific
groups of students (e.g. disadvantaged students) (e.g. Krueger, 2002).
A further reason for the mixed evidence on the impact of class size may be that class size does
not vary enough to estimate the true effects of this variable on student performance. In addition,
policies that group students who perform less satisfactorily into smaller classes in order to
devote more attention to individual students may reduce the observed performance gains that
may otherwise be expected from smaller classes. Finally, the fact that the relationship between
class size and student performance is often non-linear makes the effects difficult to estimate.
Many factors influence the interaction between teachers and students, and class size is only
one of them. Other influences include the number of classes or students for which a teacher is
responsible, the subject taught, the division of the teacher’s time between teaching and other
duties, the grouping of students within classes, the pedagogical approach employed and the
practice of team teaching.
The ratio of students to teaching staff is also an important indicator of the resources devoted to
education. A smaller ratio of students to teaching staff may have to be weighted against higher
salaries for teachers, increased professional development and teacher training, greater investment
in teaching technology, or more widespread use of assistant teachers and other paraprofessionals
whose salaries are often considerably lower than those of qualified teachers. Moreover, as larger
numbers of children with special educational needs are integrated into normal classes, more use
of specialised personnel and support services may limit the resources available for reducing the
ratio of students to teaching staff.
The ratio of students to teaching staff is obtained by dividing the number of full-time equivalent
students at a given level of education by the number of full-time equivalent teachers at that level
and in similar types of institutions. However, this ratio does not take into account instruction
time compared to the length of a teacher’s working day, nor how much time teachers spend
teaching and therefore it cannot be interpreted in terms of class size (Box D2.1).
The number of teaching and non-teaching staff employed in education per 1 000 students is an
indicator of the proportion of a country’s human resources devoted to educating the population.
The number of persons employed as either teachers or educational support personnel, and the
level of compensation of educational staff (see Indicator D3), are both important factors affecting
the financial resources that countries commit to education.
372

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is the Student-Teacher Ratio and How Big Are Classes? – Indicator D2

chapter D

Evidence and explanations
Average class size in primary and lower secondary education

At the primary level, the average class size in OECD countries is slightly more than 21 students
per class, but this number varies widely between countries. It ranges from 31 or more students per
primary class in Korea and partner country Chile to fewer than 20 in Austria, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Finland, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, the
Slovak Republic, and Switzerland (public institutions) and the partner countries Estonia, the
Russian Federation and Slovenia. At the lower secondary level (in general programmes), the
average class size in OECD countries is 24 students per class, although this number varies from
nearly 36 students per class in Korea to 20 or fewer in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Luxembourg
and Switzerland (public institutions) and the partner countries the Russian Federation and Slovenia
(Table D2.1).
Box D2.1. Relationship between class size and ratio
of students to teaching staff
The number of students per class results from a number of different elements: the ratio
of students to teaching staff, the number of classes or students for which a teacher is
responsible, the instruction time of students compared to the length of teachers’ working
days, the proportion of time teachers spend teaching, the grouping of students within
classes and team teaching.
For example, in a school of 48 full-time students and 8 full-time teachers, the ratio of
students to teaching staff is 6. If teachers’ working week is estimated to be 35 hours,
including 10 hours teaching, and if instruction time for each student is 40 hours per week,
then whatever the grouping of students in this school, average class size can be estimated
as follows:
Estimated class size = 6 students per teacher * (40 hours of instruction time per student/
10 hours of teaching per teacher) = 24 students.
Using a different approach, the class size presented in Table D2.1 is defined as the division
of students who are following a common course of study, based on the highest number of
common courses (usually compulsory studies), and excludes teaching in sub-groups. Thus,
the estimated class size will be close to the average class size of Table D2.1 where teaching
in sub-groups is less frequent (as is the case in primary and lower secondary education).
Because of these definitions, similar student-teacher ratios between countries can result
in different class sizes. For example, in lower secondary education, Austria and the United
States have similar average class sizes (24.1 students in Austria and 24.3 in the United
States – Table D2.1), but the ratio of students to teaching staff differs substantially,
with 10.3 students per teaching staff in Austria compared to 14.7 in the United States
(Table D2.2). The explanation may lie in the higher number of teaching hours required of
teachers in the United States (607 in Austria and 1 080 in the United States – Table D4.1).

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

373

D2

chapter D

The number of students per class tends to increase, on average, by nearly three students between
primary and lower secondary education. In Austria, Greece, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico
and Poland, and the partner countries Brazil and Israel, the increase in average class size exceeds
four students, while Ireland (public institutions), the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent,
partner country Chile show a drop in the number of students per class between these two levels
of education (Chart D2.2). The indicator on class size is limited to primary and lower secondary
education because class sizes are difficult to define and compare at higher levels, where students
often attend several different classes, depending on the subject area.
Between 2000 and 2007, average class size in primary education did not vary significantly (21.4
in 2007 as compared to 22.0 in 2000). However, among countries with comparable data, class
size decreased in countries that had larger class sizes in 2000 (for example in Korea, Japan and
Turkey), whereas class size increased (or stayed constant) in countries that had the smallest class
sizes in 2000 (Iceland, Italy and Luxembourg). At the secondary level of education, variations in
class sizes between 2000 and 2007 follow a similar trend, leading as well to a narrowing of the
range of class sizes among countries (Table D2.1, and Table D2.5 available on line).

Chart D2.2. Average class size in educational institutions, by level of education (2007)
Number of students
per classroom

Primary education

Lower secondary education

40
30
20
10
0

Korea
Japan
Israel
Chile
Brazil
Mexico
Germany
Spain
Poland
France
United States
Austria
Australia
Czech Republic
Estonia
United Kingdom
Slovak Republic
Portugal
Greece
Hungary
Ireland1
Italy
Finland
Luxembourg
Denmark
Iceland
Slovenia
Switzerland1
Russian Federation
Turkey
Belgium (Fr.)

D2

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

1. Public institutions only.
Countries are ranked in descending order of average class size in lower secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table D2.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

Ratio of students to teaching staff

In primary education, the ratio of students to teaching staff, expressed in full-time equivalents,
ranges from 25 students or more per teacher in Korea, Mexico and Turkey and in the partner
country Brazil to fewer than 11 in Greece, Hungary and Italy. The OECD average in primary
education is 16 students per teacher (Chart D2.3).
374

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is the Student-Teacher Ratio and How Big Are Classes? – Indicator D2

chapter D

Chart D2.3. Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions,
by level of education (2007)
Number of students per teacher
in full-time equivalents

40

Pre-primary education

30
20

D2

0

MEX
TUR
BRA
KOR
CHL
FRA
UKM
JPN
CZE
DEU
IRL
SVK
NZL
RUS
ISR
AUS
NLD
SVN
FIN
CHE
USA
EST
ESP
AUT
BEL
SWE
PRT
LUX
POL
NOR
ITA
HUN
GRC
ISL

10

Number of students per teacher
in full-time equivalents

40

Primary education

30
20
0

MEX
TUR
BRA
KOR
CHL
FRA
UKM
JPN
CZE
DEU
IRL
SVK
NZL
RUS
ISR
AUS
NLD
SVN
FIN
CHE
USA
EST
ESP
AUT
BEL
SWE
PRT
LUX
POL
NOR
ITA
HUN
GRC
ISL

10

Number of students per teacher
in full-time equivalents

40

Lower secondary education

30
20
0

MEX
TUR
BRA
KOR
CHL
FRA
UKM
JPN
CZE
DEU
IRL
SVK
NZL
RUS
ISR
AUS
NLD
SVN
FIN
CHE
USA
EST
ESP
AUT
BEL
SWE
PRT
LUX
POL
NOR
ITA
HUN
GRC
ISL

10

Number of students per teacher
in full-time equivalents

40

Upper secondary education

30
20
0

MEX
TUR
BRA
KOR
CHL
FRA
UKM
JPN
CZE
DEU
IRL
SVK
NZL
RUS
ISR
AUS
NLD
SVN
FIN
CHE
USA
EST
ESP
AUT
BEL
SWE
PRT
LUX
POL
NOR
ITA
HUN
GRC
ISL

10

Number of students per teacher
in full-time equivalents

40

Tertiary education

30
20
0

MEX
TUR
BRA
KOR
CHL
FRA
UKM
JPN
CZE
DEU
IRL
SVK
NZL
RUS
ISR
AUS
NLD
SVN
FIN
CHE
USA
EST
ESP
AUT
BEL
SWE
PRT
LUX
POL
NOR
ITA
HUN
GRC
ISL

10

Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for the list of country codes for country names used in this chart.
Countries are ranked in descending order of students to teaching staff ratios in primary education.
Source: OECD. Table D2.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

375

chapter D

D2

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

There is similar variation among countries in the ratio of students to teaching staff at the secondary
level, ranging from 30 students per full-time equivalent teacher in Mexico to fewer than 11
in Austria, Belgium, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal and Spain and in
the partner country the Russian Federation. On average among OECD countries, the ratio of
students to teaching staff at the secondary level is 13, which is close to the ratios in Australia (12),
the Czech Republic (12), Finland (13), France (12), Ireland (13), Japan (14), Poland (12), the
Slovak Republic (14), Sweden (13), Switzerland (12) and the United Kingdom (14), and the
partner countries Estonia (12), Israel (12) and Slovenia (12) (Table D2.2).
As the difference in the mean ratios of students to teaching staff between primary and secondary
education indicates, there are fewer full-time equivalent students per full-time equivalent teacher
at higher levels of education. The ratio of students to teaching staff decreases between primary
and secondary levels of education, despite a tendency for class sizes to increase. This was found
to be true in all but five OECD countries (Hungary, Mexico, Poland, the United Kingdom and
the United States), and the partner country Chile.
The decrease in the ratio of students to teaching staff from the primary to the secondary level
reflects differences in annual instruction time, which tends to increase with the level of education.
It may also result from delays in matching the teaching force to demographic changes, or from
differences in teaching hours for teachers at different levels. The general trend is consistent
among countries, but it is not obvious from an educational perspective why a smaller ratio of
students to teaching staff should be more desirable at higher levels of education (Table D2.2).
The ratios of students to teaching staff in pre-primary education are shown in Table D2.2. For the
pre-primary level, information is also presented on the ratio of students to contact staff (teachers
and teachers’ aides). Some countries make extensive use of teachers’ aides at the pre-primary
level. Eight OECD countries and two partner countries reported smaller ratios of students to
contact staff (column 1 of Table D2.2) than of students to teaching staff. For countries such as the
Czech Republic, Japan, the Slovak Republic and the United Kingdom and partner country Chile,
this difference is not substantial. However, in Austria, Germany, Ireland and the United States, as
well as in the partner country Brazil, there are larger numbers of teachers’ aides. As a result, the
ratios of students to contact staff are substantially lower than ratios of students to teaching staff,
particularly in Ireland and in the partner country Brazil.
At the tertiary level, the ratio of students to teaching staff ranges from 26 students per teacher
in Greece to 11 or fewer in Iceland, Japan, Norway, Spain and Sweden (Table D2.2). Such
comparisons in tertiary education should be made with caution, however, since it is still difficult
to calculate full-time equivalent students and teachers on a comparable basis at this level.
In 12 out of the 15 OECD and partner countries with comparable data, the ratio of students
to teaching staff is lower in the more occupationally specific tertiary-type B programmes than
in tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes (Table D2.2). Turkey is the only country
with a significantly higher ratio in tertiary-type B programmes.
Teaching resources in public and private institutions

Table D2.3 focuses on the secondary level and illustrates teaching resources in public and private
institutions by comparing the ratio of students to teaching staff for the two types of providers.
376

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is the Student-Teacher Ratio and How Big Are Classes? – Indicator D2

chapter D

On average among OECD countries and partner countries for which data are available, the
ratios of students to teaching staff are smaller in private institutions at both lower secondary and
upper secondary levels, with one more student per teacher in public institutions than in private
institutions at the overall secondary level. The largest differences are in Mexico, the United
Kingdom and the partner country Brazil where, at the lower secondary level, there are at least
11 more students per teacher in public than in private institutions. The difference in Mexico at
the upper secondary level is even larger.
In some countries, ratios of students to teaching staff are smaller in the public sector than in the
private sector.This is most pronounced at the lower secondary level in Spain where there are some
16 students per teacher in private institutions compared with only 10 in public institutions.
Among OECD countries for which data are available, average class sizes do not differ between
public and private institutions by more than one student per class for both primary and lower
secondary education (Chart D2.4 and Table D2.1). However, this disguises marked differences
among countries. At the primary level, in the Czech Republic, Poland,Turkey, the United Kingdom
and the United States, and in the partner countries Brazil, Estonia and the Russian Federation, for
example, average class sizes in public institutions are higher by four students or more per class.
Chart D2.4. Average class size in public and private institutions,
by level of education (2007)
Public institutions

Lower secondary education

Korea
Chile
Japan
Israel
Turkey
Brazil
United Kingdom
Ireland
United States
Australia
France
Germany
Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
Belgium (Fr.)
Austria
Finland
Mexico
Slovak Republic
Switzerland
Portugal
Spain
Estonia
Italy
Iceland
Slovenia
Greece
Luxembourg
Russian Federation

Number of students per classroom

40
30
20
10
0

Primary education

Korea
Chile
Japan
Israel
Turkey
Brazil
United Kingdom
Ireland
United States
Australia
France
Germany
Czech Republic
Denmark
Hungary
Poland
Belgium (Fr.)
Austria
Finland
Mexico
Slovak Republic
Switzerland
Portugal
Spain
Estonia
Italy
Iceland
Slovenia
Greece
Luxembourg
Russian Federation

Number of students per classroom

40
30
20
10
0

Private institutions

Countries are ranked in descending order of average class size in public institutions in primary education.
Source: OECD. Table D2.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

377

D2

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

However, with the exception of the United States and the partner country Brazil, the private sector
is relatively small in all these countries (at most 5% of students at the primary level). In contrast,
class sizes in private institutions exceed those in public institutions to at least a similar degree in
Greece, Japan and Spain.

D2

The comparison of class sizes between public and private institutions shows a mixed picture at
the lower secondary level, where private education is more prevalent. Lower secondary average
class sizes are larger in private institutions than in public institutions in 11 OECD and 2 partner
countries, although differences tend to be smaller than in primary education.
Countries encourage and provide resources for public and private schools for various reasons. In
many countries, one reason is to broaden the choices of schooling available to students and their
families. Considering the importance of class size in discussions of schooling in many countries,
differences in class sizes between public and private schools and institutions may be a driver
of differences in enrolment. It is interesting that in countries with a substantial private sector
in primary and lower secondary education such as Australia, Belgium (French Community),
France, Korea (lower secondary level only), and Luxembourg and the partner country Chile
(Table C1.5), there are, on average, only marginal differences in class size between public and
private institutions. Where large differences do exist, they tend to show that private institutions
have more students per class than public ones. This indicates that in countries where a substantial
proportion of students and families have decided to choose private education institutions, class
size is not a major determinant of their decisions.
Teaching staff and non-teaching staff employed in education

The size of teaching staff has an impact on the training of children and students, and also on
expenditure on educational institutions (expenditure on compensation of teachers). However
expenditure is also dependent on the size of non-teaching staff in the educational sector. There
are significant differences in the distribution of educational staff between teaching and other
categories, reflecting differences among countries in the organisation and management of schooling.
These differences reflect the numbers of staff that countries employ in non-teaching capacities,
e.g. principals without teaching responsibilities, guidance counsellors, school nurses, librarians,
researchers without teaching responsibilities, bus drivers, janitors and maintenance workers, and
also administrative and management personnel both inside and outside the school.
At primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary levels of education, among the 11 OECD
countries and 2 partner countries reporting data for the different categories, the teaching and
non-teaching staff employed in primary and secondary schools ranges from about 90 persons
or less per 1 000 students enrolled in France, Japan, Mexico and the partner country Chile to
120 persons or more per 1 000 students in the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Norway and
the United States and exceeds 150 persons per 1 000 persons in Iceland and Italy.
Among the 13 OECD and partner countries for which data are available for each category of
personnel employed in education, the staff not classified as instructional personnel (staff other
than teaching staff, teachers’ aides and research assistants) represent on average slightly more
than one-quarter of the total teaching and non-teaching staff in primary and secondary schools.
The share of non-instructional staff is lowest in Greece at less than 10%. In five of these countries
378

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is the Student-Teacher Ratio and How Big Are Classes? – Indicator D2

chapter D

(the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, the United States and the partner country Chile), these staff
represent between 30% and 40% of total teaching and non-teaching staff and in Mexico, this
proportion exceeds 40% (Table D2.4a). However, in some countries (e.g. the Czech Republic
and Mexico) these large shares of non-teaching staff are not necessarily associated with higher
than average expenditure per student; expenditure per student in these countries is below the
OECD average (Table B1.2).This implies that the levels of salaries for the different categories are
low enough to counterbalance the larger size of non-teaching categories within the educational
personnel.
In Hungary, Iceland, Italy and the United States, maintenance and operations personnel working
in primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary schools represent more than 20 persons
per 1 000 students enrolled in these schools. Administrative personnel represent between 4 and
10 persons per 1 000 students enrolled in primary and secondary schools in France, Hungary,
Iceland, Japan and the United States and 18 persons or more per 1 000 students in Australia, the
Czech Republic and Mexico, whereas the staff employed in school and higher level management
exceed 6 persons per 1 000 students in Mexico, Norway and the Slovak Republic, and 10 persons
in Greece and Iceland (Table D2.4a). Finally, the staff employed to provide professional support for
students are relatively numerous in Italy and the United States (about 10 persons per 1 000 students
enrolled in both primary and secondary schools).
At tertiary level of education, there are also significant differences in the distribution of educational
staff between instructional and other categories in the 10 OECD countries and one partner
country for which data are available: educational staff varies from less than 50 persons per 1 000
students in Greece to 150 or more in Austria, Iceland, Japan and the United States. Compared to
the primary and secondary levels of education, there are more than 10 more teaching and nonteaching staff per 1 000 students in tertiary education, on average among countries with available
data in the different levels of education. However, among the nine countries with available data
for both tertiary education and primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education,
the difference surpasses 20 persons in six of them.
In tertiary education, staff not classified as instructional personnel represents on average nearly
40% of the total teaching and non-teaching staff (among countries with available data for the
different categories). In most of these countries, non-instructional staff represents between 30%
and 40% of the total teaching and non-teaching staff, but it exceeds 50% in the Czech Republic,
Hungary and the United States (Table D2.4b). In the Czech Republic, this is attributed to a larger
proportion of administrative personnel, and in the United States, this is attributed to the larger
proportions of both management personnel and professional support for students, in comparison
to other countries. It is interesting to note that two (the Czech Republic and Hungary) out
of these three countries have lower than average expenditure per student at the tertiary level
(Table B1.2), thus showing that the size of non-instructional staff does not necessarily result in
higher than average expenditure per student (as shown above for primary, secondary and postsecondary non-tertiary education).
Definitions and methodologies

Data refer to the academic year 2006/07 and are based on the UOE data collection on education
statistics administered by the OECD in 2008 (for details see Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

379

D2

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Class sizes have been calculated by dividing the number of students enrolled by the number
of classes. In order to ensure comparability among countries, special needs programmes have
been excluded. Data include only regular programmes at primary and lower secondary levels of
education and exclude teaching in sub-groups outside the regular classroom setting.

D2

The ratio of students to teaching staff has been calculated by dividing the number of full-time
equivalent students at a given level of education by the number of full-time equivalent teachers
at that level and in the specified type of institution.
The breakdown of the ratio of students to teaching staff by type of institution distinguishes
between students and teachers in public institutions and in private institutions (governmentdependent private institutions and independent private institutions). In some countries the
proportion of students in private institutions is small (Table C1.5).
Instructional personnel comprises:
• Teaching staff refers to professional personnel directly involved in teaching students. The
classification includes classroom teachers, special education teachers and other teachers who
work with a whole class of students in a classroom, in small groups in a resource room, or
in one-to-one teaching situations inside or outside a regular class. Teaching staff also includes
department chairpersons whose duties include some teaching, but excludes non-professional
personnel who support teachers in providing instruction to students, such as teachers’ aides
and other paraprofessional personnel.
• Teachers’ aides and teaching/research assistants include non-professional personnel or
students who support teachers in providing instruction to students.
Non-instructional personnel comprises four categories:
• Professional support for students includes professional staff who provide services to students
that support their learning. In many cases, these staff originally qualified as teachers but then
moved into other professional positions within the education system.This category also includes
all personnel employed in education systems who provide health and social support services
to students, such as guidance counsellors, librarians, doctors, dentists, nurses, psychiatrists
and psychologists, and other staff with similar responsibilities.
• School and higher level management includes professional personnel who are responsible
for school management and administration and personnel whose primary responsibility is
the quality control and management of higher levels of the education system. This category
covers principals, assistant principals, headmasters, assistant headmasters, superintendents
of schools, associate and assistant superintendents, commissioners of education and other
management staff with similar responsibilities.
• School and higher-level administrative personnel includes all personnel who support the
administration and management of schools and of higher levels of the education system. The
category includes: receptionists, secretaries, typists and word processing staff, book-keepers
and clerks, analysts, computer programmers, network administrators, and others with similar
functions and responsibilities.
• Maintenance and operations personnel include personnel who support the maintenance
and operation of schools, the transportation of students to and from school, school security
380

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is the Student-Teacher Ratio and How Big Are Classes? – Indicator D2

chapter D

and catering. This category includes the following types of personnel: masons, carpenters,
electricians, maintenance staff, repairers, painters and paperhangers, plasterers, plumbers
and vehicle mechanics. It also includes bus drivers and other vehicle operators, construction
workers, gardeners and grounds staff, bus monitors and crossing guards, cooks, custodians,
food servers and others with similar functions.
Further references

D2

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

• Table D2.5. Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2000)

Specific notes on definitions and methodologies regarding this indicator for each country are
given in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

381

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D2.1.
Average class size, by type of institution and level of education (2007)
Calculations based on number of students and number of classes

Partner countries

(3)
25.1
x(2)
m
20.8
m
16.0
16.5
18.4
x(2)
22.7
a
21.0
15.5
a
a
a
a
18.2
a
x(5)
m
a
11.8
24.0
18.8
24.3
m
m
a
a
a

(4)
a
x(2)
a
a
m
a
a
a
x(2)
x(3)
20.9
a
n
m
20.1
33.0
30.8
18.5
20.9
a
m
a
12.0
20.7
n
23.5
m
m
17.8
13.1
19.4

Independent
private institutions

Independent
private institutions

(2)
25.1
21.3
m
20.8
m
16.0
16.5
18.4
22.9
22.7
20.9
21.0
15.5
m
20.1
33.0
30.8
18.5
20.9
x(5)
m
a
11.9
21.4
18.8
24.2
m
m
17.8
13.1
19.4

Total:
Public and
private
Public
institutions institutions
(5)
(6)
23.8
23.1
19.9
24.0
m
m
20.2
19.8
m
m
20.0
22.9
19.5
20.2
19.8
20.0
22.6
24.1
22.1
24.6
17.0
21.5
20.0
21.2
18.2
19.9
m
20.3
18.6
20.8
28.2
33.0
31.0
35.8
15.8
19.8
19.8
29.6
m
m
m
m
a
a
19.6
24.6
19.7
22.2
19.6
22.6
20.8
23.7
m
m
m
19.0
27.2
a
24.6
23.7
23.1
24.9

Governmentdependent
private institutions

Governmentdependent
private institutions

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Public
institutions
(1)
23.3
19.9
m
19.9
m
20.0
20.0
19.8
22.6
22.1
16.8
19.9
18.2
24.5
18.4
28.1
31.0
15.6
19.7
x(5)
m
a
19.9
19.5
19.7
19.5
m
19.5
27.5
25.8
23.6

Total private
institutions

OECD countries

D2

Total private
institutions

Lower secondary education
(general programmes)
Private institutions

Primary education
Private institutions

(7)
25.1
24.6
m
m
m
20.8
18.5
21.7
24.9
25.5
23.6
19.4
11.8
m
21.8
35.6
34.7
20.8
25.3
m
m
a
17.9
23.5
21.8
26.5
m
m
a
12.5
19.3

(8)
25.1
x(7)
m
m
m
20.8
18.5
21.7
25.1
25.5
a
19.4
11.8
a
a
a
34.7
20.8
a
m
m
a
25.5
23.8
21.8
26.7
m
m
a
17.8
a

(9)
a
x(7)
a
a
m
a
a
a
13.7
x(8)
23.6
a
n
m
21.8
35.6
a
21.0
25.3
m
m
a
16.0
23.1
n
24.7
m
m
a
11.7
19.3

Total:
Public and
private
institutions
(10)
23.8
24.1
m
m
m
22.9
19.9
20.1
24.3
24.7
21.6
21.0
19.8
m
20.9
33.2
35.6
20.0
29.2
m
m
a
24.3
22.3
22.5
24.5
m
m
a
22.6
24.3

OECD average

21.4   

20.5   

19.5   

20.9   

21.4   

23.4   

22.7   

22.6   

21.4   

23.9   

EU19 average

20.2   

19.3   

19.3   

18.4   

20.0   

22.1   

21.6   

22.3   

19.5   

22.4   

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

25.9
30.7
19.1
27.6
15.5
17.5

18.0
32.2
14.3
a
10.2
17.0

a
34.0
a
a
a
17.0

18.0
23.9
14.3
a
10.2
n

24.9
31.5
18.9
27.6
15.5
17.5

30.0
30.3
23.0
32.7
18.1
19.2

24.4
31.7
15.3
a
9.6
23.5

a
33.2
a
a
a
23.5

24.4
24.5
15.3
a
9.6
n

29.4
30.9
22.8
32.7
18.0
19.2

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

382

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is the Student-Teacher Ratio and How Big Are Classes? – Indicator D2

chapter D

Table D2.2.
Ratio of students to teaching staff in educational institutions (2007)
By level of education, calculations based on full-time equivalents

14.9   

EU19 average

13.6   

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation2, 4
Slovenia

14.7
17.7
m
m
m
9.4

All tertiary
education

14.3   

Tertiary-type A and
advanced research
programmes

OECD average

Tertiary-type B

(2)
m
16.4
16.0
x(6)
13.6
6.0
11.4
19.2
14.4
11.9
10.8
7.3
13.8
11.8
16.8
18.7
12.6
28.4
x(3)
10.5
m
18.6
15.9
13.4
13.7
12.5
16.9
25.9
18.4
13.8

(8)
m
7.0
x(10)
m
15.2
m
n
16.8
11.8
23.0
18.5
x(10)
x(10)
9.3
7.9
m
m
12.3
m
15.5
x(10)
12.8
x(10)
10.5
8.0
x(10)
m
58.1
x(10)
x(10)

(9)
15.0
14.6
x(10)
m
19.0
m
16.6
16.6
12.2
28.6
17.0
x(10)
x(10)
19.6
11.8
m
m
14.5
15.1
17.5
x(10)
17.2
x(10)
13.2
11.1
x(10)
m
13.8
x(10)
x(10)

(10)
m
13.7
18.1
m
18.6
m
16.6
16.6
12.1
26.3
17.1
10.2
16.5
19.5
10.6
m
m
14.4
m
17.0
10.0
17.2
13.2
13.2
10.4
8.8
m
18.1
17.6
15.1

All secondary
education

(1)
m
14.1
16.0
m
13.4
m
m
19.2
11.1
11.9
m
7.3
7.0
11.8
16.1
18.7
m
28.4
m
10.5
m
m
m
13.3
m
m
m
m
18.0
11.3

Upper secondary
education

Australia1, 2
Austria
Belgium3
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France3
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland2
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg2
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway2
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland1, 2
Turkey
United Kingdom1
United States

Primary
education
(3)
15.9
13.6
12.6
x(6)
18.7
x(4)
15.0
19.7
18.3
10.1
10.2
x(4)
17.9
10.5
19.0
25.6
11.2
28.0
15.6
17.5
11.0
11.0
11.8
17.9
13.6
12.3
14.8
26.2
19.4
14.6

Tertiary
education

Lower secondary
education

Students to
teaching staff

Secondary
education

Students to contact
staff (teachers and
teacher aides)
Partner countries

OECD countries

Pre-primary
education

(4)
x(6)
10.3
9.2
x(6)
12.3
11.2
9.9
14.3
15.2
7.7
10.2
10.4
x(6)
9.4
14.8
20.5
x(6)
33.3
x(6)
16.2
10.2
12.4
7.9
13.9
11.7
11.5
12.3
a
16.7
14.7

(5)
x(6)
11.0
10.2
x(6)
12.3
m
15.9
9.6
14.3
7.3
12.1
10.2
x(6)
10.8
12.5
16.2
x(6)
25.7
x(6)
13.3
9.8
12.2
8.4
14.1
7.7
13.6
10.6
16.2
11.3
15.6

(6)
12.1
10.6
9.8
16.4
12.3
m
13.1
11.9
14.9
7.5
11.1
10.3
13.2
10.2
13.5
18.2
9.0
30.3
15.7
14.7
10.0
12.3
8.1
14.0
10.0
12.5
11.9
16.2
13.6
15.1

Postsecondary
non-tertiary
education
(7)
m
9.6
x(5)
m
16.9
m
x(5)
x(8)
14.9
7.0
11.4
x(5, 10)
x(6)
m
x(5, 10)
a
m
a
x(6)
16.6
x(5)
13.2
x(5)
9.8
a
12.2
m
a
x(5)
21.7

16.0   

13.2   

12.5   

13.0   

13.3   

15.1   

16.1   

15.3   

13.9   

14.4   

11.5   

11.4   

11.7   

11.9   

13.3   

16.7   

16.0   

19.9
19.1
m
m
m
9.4

25.8
24.7
14.4
16.4
17.0
15.2

22.3
24.7
11.4
12.4
x(6)
9.5

20.2
25.7
12.2
11.8
x(6)
13.9

21.4
25.3
11.8
12.0
8.8
11.7

a
a
x(5)
m
x(6)
x(5)

x(10)
m
m
m
10.7
x(10)

x(10)
m
m
m
13.7
x(10)

14.3
m
m
m
12.9
21.2

1. Includes only general programmes in upper secondary education.
2. Public institutions only (for Australia, for tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes only; for Ireland, at secondary level only; for the
Russian Federation, at primary level only).
3. Excludes independent private institutions.
4. Excludes part-time personal in public institutions at lower secondary and general upper secondary levels.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

383

D2

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D2.3.
Ratio of students to teaching staff, by type of institution (2007)
By level of education,calculations based on full-time equivalents

Partner countries

Public
(5)
x(9)
11.0
10.5
m
12.0
m
15.2
9.4
14.3
7.4
12.2
10.1
x(9)
11.7
11.8
15.7
x(9)
30.8
m
13.2
9.8
12.4
9.0
14.4
7.1
13.4
10.6
16.9
12.2
16.4

(6)
x(10)
11.0
m
m
14.3
m
20.8
m
13.7
6.3
11.3
11.6
x(10)
4.3
14.2
16.8
m
15.5
m
13.5
m
9.7
6.6
19.6
10.0
15.4
m
6.7
6.6
10.6

(7)
x(11)
x(6)
10.0
m
14.3
m
20.8
10.3
13.7
a
11.3
11.6
a
a
a
16.8
m
a
m
15.6
m
14.3
11.2
19.6
9.9
15.4
m
a
5.1
a

(8)
a
x(6)
m
m
a
a
a
m
x(7)
6.3
a
n
x(12)
4.3
14.2
a
m
15.5
a
9.5
m
9.1
5.7
n
10.3
n
m
6.7
6.7
10.6

Public
(9)
12.3
10.5
9.9
m
12.2
m
12.6
11.7
15.0
7.5
11.2
10.3
13.2
10.7
13.4
18.4
9.0
34.1
m
14.8
10.0
12.4
8.2
14.1
8.9
12.4
11.9
16.9
14.7
15.9

Governmentdependent
private
institutions
Independent
private
institutions

(4)
a
x(2)
m
m
a
a
a
m
x(3)
6.9
a
n
x(12)
6.9
13.1
a
m
22.6
a
13.5
m
9.6
9.3
n
15.9
n
m
a
6.3
9.3

All secondary education
Private
Total private
institutions

(3)
x(11)
x(2)
9.4
m
10.7
11.1
9.8
15.0
14.6
a
10.1
9.5
a
a
a
20.7
m
a
m
16.2
m
12.3
9.6
13.2
16.2
12.3
m
a
25.0
a

Governmentdependent
private
institutions
Independent
private
institutions

(2)
x(10)
11.5
m
m
10.7
11.1
9.8
m
14.6
6.9
10.1
9.5
x(10)
6.9
13.1
20.7
m
22.6
m
15.3
m
10.2
9.5
13.2
16.2
12.3
m
a
7.3
9.3

Upper secondary education
Private
Total private
institutions

Australia1
Austria
Belgium2
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark3
Finland4
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland3, 4
Ireland2
Italy
Japan4
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland 5
Turkey
United Kingdom1
United States

Public
(1)
x(9)
10.2
8.9
m
12.3
11.2
9.9
14.2
15.3
7.6
10.3
10.4
x(9)
9.5
14.9
20.5
x(9)
35.8
m
16.3
10.2
12.5
7.7
13.9
10.3
11.4
12.3
a
18.1
15.6

Governmentdependent
private
institutions
Independent
private
institutions

OECD countries

D2

Total private
institutions

Lower secondary education
Private

(10)
11.7
11.3
m
m
13.7
m
18.1
m
14.3
6.6
10.9
11.0
m
5.0
14.0
17.8
m
18.8
m
14.2
m
9.8
7.6
16.6
13.9
14.0
m
6.7
6.9
9.9

(11)
11.7
x(10)
9.8
m
13.7
m
18.1
12.7
14.3
a
10.9
11.0
a
a
a
17.8
m
a
m
15.8
m
13.4
10.2
16.6
14.5
14.0
m
a
13.9
a

(12)
a
x(10)
m
m
a
a
a
m
x(11)
6.6
a
n
m
5.0
14.0
a
m
18.8
a
11.1
m
9.2
6.5
n
11.8
n
m
6.7
6.5
9.9

OECD average

13.3   

12.0   

13.5   

8.7   

12.8   

11.9   

13.3   

7.1   

13.0   

12.0   

13.7   

7.6   

EU19 average

11.4   

10.7   

13.0   

9.1   

11.5   

11.5   

13.0   

7.1   

11.4   

11.4   

13.5   

7.6   

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia2

24.0
25.3
11.5
12.4
m
9.5

12.8
24.1
8.5
a
m
4.3

a
25.6
a
a
a
4.3

12.8
17.3
8.5
a
m
n

22.6
26.0
12.3
11.8
m
14.0

11.8
25.5
9.5
a
m
13.4

a
28.8
a
a
a
x(6)

11.8
14.3
9.5
a
m
x(6)

23.4
25.7
11.9
12.0
m
11.7

12.2
25.0
9.2
a
m
12.6

a
27.7
a
a
a
x(10)

12.2
15.1
9.2
a
m
x(10)

1. Includes only general programmes in lower and upper secondary education.
2. Upper secondary includes post-secondary non-tertiary education.
3. Lower secondary includes primary education.
4. Upper secondary education includes programmes from post-secondary education.
5. Includes only general programmes in upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

384

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

What Is the Student-Teacher Ratio and How Big Are Classes? – Indicator D2

chapter D

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table D2.4a.
Teaching staff and non-teaching staff employed in primary and secondary educational institutions (2007)
Teaching staff and non-teaching staff in primary and secondary schools per 1000 students, calculation based on full time equivalents

Australia
Austria
Belgium1
Canada2
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland1
France2
Germany
Greece
Hungary3
Iceland1, 3
Ireland
Italy1, 3
Japan1, 3
Korea1
Luxembourg2
Mexico1, 3
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway1, 2
Poland1, 2
Portugal
Slovak Republic1
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland2
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Instructional personnel
Classroom
teachers,
Teacher aides
academic and teaching/ Professional
staff & other
research
support for
teachers
assistants
students
(1)
(2)
(3)
71.3
x(5)
2.3
88.2
m
m
92.6
m
m
61.2
m
m
71.8
1.1
7.6
89.4
m
m
72.6
9.6
m
69.8
2.4
m
63.3
m
m
117.4
0.4
a
92.0
m
2.5
96.9
7.7
5.7
64.3
m
m
97.1
3.2
10.8
63.5
m
5.5
47.0
a
m
100.0
m
m
34.5
0.2
1.1
63.9
m
m
63.3
m
m
95.6
8.1
4.4
84.5
m
4.9
104.0
m
m
67.4
1.2
0.2
86.9
m
m
80.5
m
m
75.1
m
m
43.4
a
m
65.8
m
m
67.2
13.3
9.7

Management/Quality
control/Administration
School- and Maintenance
School- and higher-level
and
Total teaching
higher-level administrative operations
and nonmanagement
personnel
personnel teaching staff
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
97.0
m
20.5
2.9
m
m
m
m
m
4.2
m
m
m
m
m
m
121.2
4.3
19.5
16.8
m
m
m
m
m
3.0
m
m
90.5
4.7
5.3
8.3
m
m
m
m
130.3
10.7
1.4
0.3
126.8
x(1, 5)
9.5
22.8
151.4
11.7
4.8
24.6
m
m
m
m
156.4
2.7
14.0
28.6
85.3
5.6
4.9
5.8
m
2.8
m
m
m
m
m
m
66.1
6.3
18.0
5.9
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
122.2
8.3
m
5.7
m
5.5
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
6.8
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
132.5
5.2
10.0
27.1

OECD average

76.4   

4.7   

5.0   

5.8   

10.8   

13.5   

116.3   

EU19 average

82.7   

3.0   

5.2   

5.3   

10.0   

15.4   

125.0   

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia1, 3

43.4
40.0
78.8
70.7
95.3
78.4

m
a
m
m
m
7.9

m
0.5
m
m
m
9.4

m
4.3
m
m
m
4.5

m
1.2
m
m
m
m

m
16.3
m
m
m
m

m
62.4
m
m
m
100.2

1. School- and higher-level management excludes higher-level management.
2. Public institutions only.
3. School- and higher-level administrative personnel excludes higher-level administrative personnel.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

385

D2

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D2.4b.
Teaching staff and non-teaching staff employed in tertiary educational institutions (2007)
Teaching staff and non-teaching staff in tertiary educational institutions per 1000 students, calculation based on full time equivalents

Partner countries

OECD countries

D2
Australia1, 2
Austria2, 3, 4
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France1, 5
Germany
Greece
Hungary3, 4, 6
Iceland3, 4
Ireland
Italy3, 4
Japan3, 4
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico3, 4
Netherlands
New Zealand1, 4
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic3
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Instructional personnel
Classroom
teachers,
Teacher aides
academic and teaching/ Professional
staff & other
research
support for
teachers
assistants
students
(1)
(2)
(3)
66.8
5.0
m
73.2
34.3
2.1
55.1
m
m
m
m
m
53.7
1.8
8.6
m
m
m
60.1
m
m
61.7
a
1.0
82.6
m
m
38.0
a
a
58.6
m
x(5)
97.6
3.2
3.2
60.5
m
m
51.3
8.6
3.6
94.8
m
24.8
m
m
m
m
m
m
69.4
m
m
66.2
m
m
58.8
15.9
5.9
m
m
m
58.3
m
12.5
75.8
m
m
75.9
m
m
95.8
m
m
114.2
m
m
m
m
m
55.3
a
m
56.9
m
m
66.1
7.9
44.8

Management/Quality
control/Administration
School- and Maintenance
School- and higher-level
and
Total teaching
higher-level administrative operations
and nonmanagement
personnel
personnel teaching staff
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
m
m
m
m
160.6
1.2
44.9
4.8
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
112.3
1.5
33.4
13.3
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
90.9
6.5
7.7
14.0
m
m
m
m
47.9
1.1
7.8
1.0
145.5
x(5)
87.0
x(5)
151.6
10.5
24.8
12.2
m
m
m
m
95.8
0.4
28.8
3.3
150.4
0.5
26.0
4.3
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
6.2
n
n
m
m
m
m
125.1
4.1
35.1
5.4
m
m
m
m
m
30.1
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
0.9
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
193.7
14.4
40.9
19.5

OECD average

68.6   

11.0   

11.8   

6.5   

33.6   

8.6   

127.4   

EU19 average

66.9   

14.9   

5.5   

6.0   

34.9   

7.3   

108.8   

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel1
Russian Federation
Slovenia3, 4

69.7
m
m
81.4
77.7
47.1

m
m
m
m
m
33.4

m
m
m
m
m
21.0

m
m
m
m
m
3.5

m
m
m
m
m
13.6

m
m
m
m
m
4.7

m
m
m
m
m
123.4

1. Public institutions only.
2. Excludes tertiary-type B education.
3. School- and higher-level management excludes higher-level management.
4. School- and higher-level administrative personnel excludes higher-level administrative personnel.
5. School- and higher-level management excludes school-level management.
6. Tertiary-type B is partially included with upper secondary education.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/664810147180

386

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much are teachers paid?

INDICATOR D3

This indicator shows the starting, mid-career and maximum statutory salaries of
teachers in public primary and secondary education, and various additional payments
and incentive schemes used to reward teachers. Together with teachers’ working
and teaching time (see Indicator D4), this indicator presents some key measures of
teachers’ working lives. Differences in teachers’ salaries, along with other factors
such as student-to-staff ratios (see Indicator D2), provide some explanation of the
differences in expenditure per student (see Indicators B1 and B7).

Key results
Chart D3.1. Teachers' salaries in lower secondary education (2007)

Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions in lower secondary education,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs, and the ratio of salary
after 15 years of experience to GDP per capita
Salaries of teachers with at least 15 years of experience at the lower secondary level range from
less than USD 15 000 in Hungary and in the partner countries Chile and Estonia to USD 52 000
or more in Germany, Ireland, Korea and Switzerland, and exceed USD 89 000 in Luxembourg.

100 000
90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0

Salary after 15 years of experience/minimum training

Luxembourg
Switzerland
Germany
Korea
Ireland
Netherlands
Japan
Scotland
Australia
Spain
England
United States
Belgium (Fl.)
Denmark
Austria
Belgium (Fr.)
Finland
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
France
Italy
Sweden
Greece
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Iceland
Mexico
Israel
Hungary
Chile
Estonia

Equivalent USD
converted using PPPs

Salaries for teachers with at least 15 years of experience in lower secondary education are over
twice the GDP per capita in Korea, whereas in Iceland, Norway, and in the partner countries
Estonia and Israel, salaries are 75% or less than the GDP per capita.
3
2
1
0

Ratio of salary after 15 years of experience to GDP per capita

Luxembourg
Switzerland
Germany
Korea
Ireland
Netherlands
Japan
Scotland
Australia
Spain
England
United States
Belgium (Fl.)
Denmark
Austria
Belgium (Fr.)
Finland
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
France
Italy
Sweden
Greece
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Iceland
Mexico
Israel
Hungary
Chile
Estonia

Ratio

Countries are ranked in descending order of teachers' salaries in lower secondary education after 15 years of
experience and minimum training.
Source: OECD. Table D3.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152

388

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• Teachers’ salaries increased in real terms between 1996 and 2007 in virtually
all countries, with the largest increases in Finland, Hungary and Mexico (and
in starting salaries in Australia) and in partner country Estonia. Salaries at the
primary and upper secondary levels in Spain fell in real terms over this period,
although they remained above the OECD average.
• On average in OECD countries, upper secondary teachers’ salaries per teaching
hour exceed those of primary teachers by 42%; the difference is 5% or less in
New Zealand, Scotland and the partner country Chile, and is greater than 75%
only in Denmark.

INDICATOR D3

• Salaries at the top of the scale are on average around 70% higher than starting
salaries for both primary and secondary education, although this differential
largely varies among countries in line with the number of years it takes to progress
through the scale. Top-of-the-scale salaries in Korea are almost three times the
starting salaries, but it takes 37 years to reach the top of the scale. In Portugal,
while the ratio is similar to Korea’s, teachers reach the top of the salary scale after
26 years of service. However, not all teachers in every country reach the top of
the salary scale. For example, in the Netherlands there are three different salary
levels for teachers in secondary education. In 2006 only 14.8% of the teachers in
secondary education were at the maximum salary level.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

389

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Policy context

Teachers’ salaries are the largest single cost in school education. Compensation is therefore a
critical consideration for policy makers seeking to maintain both the quality of teaching and a
balanced education budget (see Indicator B6). The size of education budgets naturally reflects
trade-offs among many related factors: teachers’ salaries, ratio of students to teaching staff,
instruction time planned for students and designated number of teaching hours.

D3

Ensuring a sufficient number of skilled teachers is a key issue in all OECD countries. In a
competitive labour market, the equilibrium rate of salaries paid to different types of teachers
would reflect the supply of and demand for those teachers. This is often not the case in OECD
countries, as salaries and other working conditions are often set centrally for all teachers.
Teachers’ salaries and conditions are therefore policy malleable factors that can affect both the
demand for and supply of teachers. In addition, salaries and working conditions can be important
in attracting, developing and retaining skilled and effective teachers.
Comparing salary levels at different career points allows for some analysis of the structure of
careers and the salary associated with advancement in the teaching profession. Theoretically, the
salary structure can provide salary incentives and rewards so as to attract high-quality teachers and
increase their job satisfaction and performance. Other important aspects of the career structure are
probationary periods at the beginning of teachers’ careers and the issue of tenure (see Indicator D3
in Education at a Glance 2007). Salary increases can be concentrated at different points in the salary
structure, for example, early in the career or for more experienced employees, or can have a more
linear structure with gradual salary increases throughout a career.
Evidence and explanations
Comparing teachers’ salaries

This indicator compares the starting, mid-career and maximum statutory salaries of teachers with
the minimum level of qualifications required for certification in public primary and secondary
education. First, teachers’ salaries are examined in absolute terms at three career points: starting,
mid-career and top-of-the-scale. Next, levels of salaries are compared in relative terms. Finally,
changes in these salaries between 1996 and 2007 are presented.
International comparisons of salaries provide simplified illustrations of the compensation received
by teachers for their work.They provide a snapshot of the systems of compensation and the welfare
inferences that can be made. Large differences in taxation and social benefit systems in OECD
countries as well as the use of financial incentives (including regional allowances for teaching in
remote regions, family allowances, reduced rates on public transport, tax allowances on purchases
of cultural goods, and other quasi-pecuniary entitlements that contribute to a teacher’s basic
income) make it important to exercise caution in interpreting comparisons of teachers’ salaries.
Statutory salaries as reported here must be distinguished from actual expenditures on wages by
governments and from teachers’ average salaries, which are also influenced by factors such as
the age structure of the teaching force and the prevalence of part-time work. Indicator B6 shows
the total amounts paid in compensation to teachers. Furthermore, since teaching time, teachers’
workloads and the proportion of teachers in part-time employment vary considerably among
countries, these factors should be taken into account when using comparisons of statutory salaries
390

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Are Teachers Paid? – Indicator D3

chapter D

to judge teachers’ overall benefits in different countries (see Indicator D4). When considering
the salary structure of teachers it is also important to recall that not all teachers reach the top
of the salary scale. For example, in the Netherlands there are three different salary levels for
teachers in secondary education. In 2006 only 14.8% of the teachers in secondary education
were at the maximum salary level.
The annual statutory salaries of lower secondary teachers with 15 years of experience range
from less than USD 15 000 in Hungary and in the partner countries Chile and Estonia to
over USD 52 000 in Germany, Ireland, Korea and Switzerland and more than USD 89 000 in
Luxembourg (Table D3.1).
Chart D3.2. Teachers’ salaries (minimum, after 15 years of experience, and maximum)
in lower secondary education (2007)

Annual statutory teachers' salaries in public institutions in lower secondary education,
in equivalent USD converted using PPPs, and the ratio of salary after 15 years of experience to GDP per capita

Equivalent USD
converted
using PPPs
125 000

120 000

Salary at the top of scale/minimum training
Salary after 15 years of experience/minimum training
Starting salary/minimum training
Salary after 15 years of experience/minimum training

100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000

0

Luxembourg
Switzerland
Germany
Korea
Ireland
Netherlands
Japan
Scotland
Australia
Spain
England
United States
Belgium (Fl.)
Denmark
Austria
Belgium (Fr.)
Finland
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
France
Italy
Sweden
Greece
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Iceland
Mexico
Israel
Hungary
Chile
Estonia

20 000

3
2
1
0

Ratio of salary after 15 years of experience to GDP per capita

Luxembourg
Switzerland
Germany
Korea
Ireland
Netherlands
Japan
Scotland
Australia
Spain
England
United States
Belgium (Fl.)
Denmark
Austria
Belgium (Fr.)
Finland
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
France
Italy
Sweden
Greece
Slovenia
Czech Republic
Iceland
Mexico
Israel
Hungary
Chile
Estonia

Ratio

Countries are ranked in descending order of teachers’ salaries in lower secondary education after 15 years of experience and minimum
training.
Source: OECD. Table D3.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

391

D3

chapter D

D3

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

In most OECD countries, teachers’ salaries increase with the level of education at which they
teach. For example, in Belgium (Flemish Community), Belgium (French Community), Iceland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland, the salary of an upper secondary teacher with
at least 15 years experience is at least 25% higher than that of a primary school teacher with
the same experience. In contrast, in Australia, England, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New
Zealand, Portugal, Scotland, Turkey and the United States, and in the partner countries Chile,
Estonia, Israel and Slovenia, upper secondary and primary teachers’ salaries are more comparable
(a difference of less than 5%, Table D3.1).The extent of the variation is influenced by the structure
of teachers’ salaries up to the mid-career point. In countries such as the United States, teachers’
salaries are also influenced by the teachers’ educational attainment. As this is not constant at
all levels of teachers’ careers, care should be taken in interpreting the differences in teachers’
salaries at different levels of school education.
Comparatively large differences in teachers’ salaries at different levels may influence how schools
and school systems attract and retain teachers of different levels. They may also influence the
extent to which teachers move among different educational levels and with that, the degree of
segmentation in the labour market for teachers.
Statutory salaries relative to GDP per capita

Countries invest in teaching resources relative to their ability to fund educational expenditure,
among other things. Comparing statutory salaries to GDP per capita is thus a way of assessing
the relative value of teachers’ salaries. Comparative data on salaries for comparable professions
would provide a better benchmark, but since such data are not yet available, comparisons with
GDP per capita provide some basis for standardised comparisons.
Relative to GDP per capita, salaries for teachers with at least 15 years of experience (in primary
and lower secondary education) are relatively low in Hungary (0.77), Iceland (0.71), Luxembourg
(0.86 in primary education), Norway (0.68), Sweden (0.87 in primary, 0.90 in lower secondary)
and in the partner countries Estonia (0.46) and Israel (0.62). They are highest in Korea (2.21 in
primary, 2.20 in lower secondary). In upper secondary general education, the lowest ratios are
found in Norway (0.72) and in the partner countries Estonia (0.46) and Israel (0.62). Relative
to GDP per capita, mid-career salaries are highest in Korea (2.20) (Table D3.1).
At lower secondary level of education, countries such as the Czech Republic, France, Greece,
Hungary, Italy, Mexico, New Zealand and Portugal, as well as the partner countries Chile,
Estonia, Israel and Slovenia, have both comparatively low GDP per capita and low teachers’
salaries compared to OECD averages. Others, such as Korea and Spain, have GDP per capita
lower than the average but teachers’ salaries that are comparable to those in countries with
much higher GDP per capita. Australia, England, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands, Scotland, Switzerland and the United States have both a higher GDP per capita and
higher teachers’ salaries than the OECD averages (Chart D3.2 and Table D3.1).
Statutory salaries per hour of net teaching time

An alternative measure of salaries that better illustrates the overall cost of classroom teaching
time is the statutory salary for a full-time classroom teacher relative to the number of hours
per year that a teacher is required to spend teaching students (see Indicator D4). Although this
392

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Are Teachers Paid? – Indicator D3

chapter D

measure does not adjust salaries for the amount of time that teachers spend in other various
teaching-related activities, it nonetheless provides an approximate estimate of the cost of the
actual time teachers spend in the classroom.
The average statutory salary per teaching hour after 15 years of experience is USD 49 in primary,
USD 61 in lower secondary, and USD 72 in upper secondary general education. In primary
education, Hungary, Mexico and Turkey, and the partner countries Chile, Estonia and Israel, have
the lowest salaries per teaching hour (USD 30 or less). By contrast, salaries are relatively high
in Denmark, Germany, Japan, Korea and Luxembourg (USD 60 or more). There is even more
variation in salaries per teaching hour in general upper secondary education, ranging from about
USD 28 or less in Turkey, and in the partner countries Chile, Estonia and Israel, to USD 80 or
more in Belgium (Flemish Community), Belgium (French Community), Denmark, Germany,
Japan, Korea and Luxembourg (Table D3.1).
As secondary teachers are required to teach fewer hours than primary teachers, their salaries
per teaching hour are usually higher than those of teachers at lower levels, even in countries
where statutory salaries are similar (see Indicator D4). On average among OECD countries,
upper secondary teachers’ salaries per teaching hour exceed those of primary teachers by around
42%. In New Zealand and Scotland and in the partner country Chile, this difference is 5% or
less, but it is 60% or more in Belgium (Flemish Community), France, and more than 100% in
Denmark (Table D3.1). However, the large difference between primary and upper secondary
teachers’ salaries per teaching hour does not necessarily exist when comparing salaries per hour
of working time. In Portugal, for example, where there is a large difference in salaries per
teaching hour between primary and upper secondary teachers, teaching time at the primary
level is 25% higher than teaching time at upper secondary level, even though statutory salaries
and working time at school are the same at these levels (Table D4.1).
Teaching experience and qualifications influence teachers’ salary scales

Salary structures illustrate the salary incentives available to teachers at different points in their
careers. There is some evidence that a sizeable proportion of teachers and school administrators
do not want to move to higher positions in the hierarchy in schools (e.g. to school principal)
(OECD, 2005c). Presumably, this is because the negative aspects of a promotion outweigh positive
aspects such as increased salaries, prestige and other rewards. If this is the case, then changes can
make the promotion more attractive either through changing the duties and requirements of the
position or by changing the salary amount and other rewards offered.
As Table D3.1 shows, OECD data on teachers’ salaries are limited to information on statutory
salaries at three points of the salary scale: starting salaries, salaries after 15 years of service and
salaries at the top of the scale. These salaries are those of teachers with the minimum required
training. They must be interpreted with caution as further qualifications can lead to additional
wage increases in some OECD countries. Some inferences can be drawn from the data on
the degree that salary structures for teachers provide salary increases with different levels of
promotion and tenure.
Deferred compensation is a key incentive for workers in many industries. Organisations can
design complex deferred compensation schemes to attract high-quality workers and then provide
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

393

D3

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

them with appropriate incentives throughout their careers. Deferred compensation rewards
employees for staying in organisations or professions and for meeting established performance
criteria. Pensions are an important form of deferred compensation. In most OECD countries,
teachers receive some pension that accrues with their experience in the teaching profession.
However, pension schemes are not considered here.

D3

Deferred compensation exists in teachers’ salary structure. In OECD countries, statutory
salaries for primary, lower and upper secondary general teachers with 15 years of experience
are, on average, 36%, 35% and 39% higher, respectively, than starting salaries. The increases
from starting salary to the top of the salary scale are, on average, 71%, 71% and 73%. For lower
secondary teachers, the average starting salary is USD 31 000. With minimum training, it rises
to USD 41 993 after 15 years and to USD 51 470 at the top of the salary scale, which is reached,
on average, after 24 years of experience. A similar increase is therefore evident between first, the
starting salary and that at 15 years of experience and second, the salary at 15 years of experience
and at the top of the salary scale (reached, on average, after 24 years of experience).
Salary structures differ widely. A number of countries have relatively flat structures with small
increases. For example, teachers at the top of the salary scale in Denmark (except at the upper
secondary level), Norway and Turkey, and in the partner countries Estonia and Slovenia, only
earn up to 30% more than teachers at the bottom of the salary scale.
Salary increases between the points on a salary structure should be seen in terms of the number of
years it takes for a teacher to advance through the salary scale, a factor which varies substantially
across countries. In lower secondary education, teachers in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand
and Scotland reach the highest step on the salary scale within five to nine years. Monetary
incentives therefore disappear relatively quickly compared to other countries. If job satisfaction
and performance are determined, at least in part, by prospects of salary increases, difficulties
may arise as teachers approach the peak in their age-earnings profiles.
In Austria, the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg and
Spain, and in the partner country Israel, teachers in lower secondary education reach the top
of the salary scale after 30 or more years of service (Table D3.1). It is difficult to categorise
countries simply by steep or flat salary structures. A number of countries have both steep and flat
portions that vary across teachers’ tenure. For example, teachers in Germany and Luxembourg
have the opportunity for similar salary increases in the first 15 years, but then face very different
growth rates; in Luxembourg salaries rise faster, while in Germany increases are relatively small.
Policy makers in these countries face different issues for these more experienced teachers.
While the salary opportunities available to teachers are emphasised here, there may also be
benefits to compression in pay scales. It is often argued that organisations in which employees have
smaller salary differences have greater levels of trust and information flows and a higher degree
of collegiality. These benefits need to be weighed against the benefits of salary incentives.
Teachers’ salaries between 1996 and 2007

In comparing the index of change between 1996 and 2007 in teachers’ salaries, it is evident that
salaries have grown in real terms at both primary and secondary levels in virtually all countries.
The biggest increases at all levels have taken place in Hungary, although salaries remain below
394

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Are Teachers Paid? – Indicator D3

chapter D

the OECD average. In some countries, salaries fell in real terms between 1996 and 2007, most
notably at the primary and upper secondary levels in Spain (Table D3.2), although they remain
above the OECD average.
Salary trends have also varied at different points on the salary scale. For instance, starting salaries
have risen faster than mid-career or top-of-the-scale salaries for all education levels in Australia,
Denmark, England and Scotland (Table D3.2 and Chart D3.3). By contrast, salaries of teachers
with at least 15 years of experience have risen relatively more quickly than both starting and
top-of-the-scale salaries in Austria, Japan, the Netherlands and Portugal. In Finland, Greece and
Mexico (at primary and lower secondary levels) and in the partner country Estonia, top-of-thescale salaries have risen faster than starting and mid-career salaries. In New Zealand, salary after
15 years of experience and the top-of-the-scale salary (due to a relatively short salary scale of
eight years to reach the top) have risen faster than the starting salary. This shows that the focus is
on recruitment in New Zealand. This may be an issue in Australia as well, as starting salaries have
risen considerably. A potential problem is the fact that if teachers are attracted by higher salaries
in the early stages of their careers, they may expect salary increases to continue throughout
their careers. Using resources to attract more early-career teachers to the profession needs to
be weighed against potential implications in terms of retention and reduced satisfaction and
motivation. Moreover, comparing changes in salaries at three points of the salary structure may
not account for changes in other aspects of the structure of teachers’ salaries.

Chart D3.3. Changes in teachers’ salaries in lower secondary education,
by point in the salary scale (1996, 2007)

Index of change between 1996 and 2007 (1996=100, 2007 price levels using GDP deflators)
Starting salary/minimum training
Salary after 15 years of experience/minimum training
Salary at top of scale/minimum training

Index of change

200
150
100

Belgium (Fr.)1

New Zealand

Portugal

Belgium (Fl.)1

Netherlands

Japan

Norway

Italy

Greece

United States

Ireland

Austria

Scotland

Denmark

England

Finland

Australia

Mexico

Estonia

0

Hungary

50

1. The data for Belgium in 1996 are based on Belgium as a whole.
Countries are ranked in descending order of index of change between 1996 and 2007 in teachers’ starting salaries.
Source: OECD. Table D3.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

395

D3

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Additional payments: incentives and allowances

D3

In addition to basic pay scales, many school systems have schemes that offer additional payments
for teachers, which may take the form of financial remuneration and/or reduction in the number
of teaching hours. Greece and Iceland, for example, use a reduction in required teaching hours
to reward experience or long service, and in Portugal, teachers may receive a reduction in their
teaching hours for carrying out special tasks or activities (e.g. leading a drama club, acting as a
supervisor of student teachers, etc.). Together with the starting salary, such payments may affect
a person’s decision to enter or stay in the teaching profession. Early career additional payments
may include family allowances and bonuses for working in certain locations, and higher initial
salaries for higher-than-minimum teaching certification or qualifications, such as qualifications
in multiple subjects or certification to teach students with special educational needs.
Adjustments to the base salary may be awarded to teachers yearly or on an incidental basis in
public schools either by the head teacher or school principal, or by the local, regional or national
government. A distinction is made between an addition to teachers’ base salary, a yearly payment
and an incidental or “one-off ” payment.
Types of additional payments

Data on additional payments fall into three broad areas:
• Those based on responsibilities assumed by teachers and on particular conditions (e.g. additional
management responsibilities or teaching in high-need regions, disadvantaged schools).
• Those based on the demographic characteristics of teachers (e.g. age and/or family status).
• Those based on teachers’ qualifications, training and performance (e.g. higher than the
minimum qualifications and/or completing professional development activities).
Data have not been collected on payment amounts but on whether they are available and on the
level at which the decision to award such payments is taken (see Table D3.3a and Tables D3.3b,
D3.3c and D3.3d available on line, as well as Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Additional payments are most often awarded for particular responsibilities or working conditions,
such as teaching in more disadvantaged schools, particularly those located in very poor
neighbourhoods or with a large proportion of students whose language is not the language of
instruction. Such teachers face demands that teachers elsewhere may not encounter. These schools
often have difficulty attracting teachers and are often more likely to have less experienced teachers
(OECD, 2005c). These additional payments are provided yearly in about two-thirds of OECD and
partner countries. Eleven countries also offer additional payments for teachers who teach in certain
fields in which there are shortages of teachers and are made yearly in almost all of these countries.
Over half of OECD countries offer additional payments based on teachers’ demographic
characteristics and in most cases these are yearly payments. Additional payments based on
teachers’ qualifications, training and performance are also very common in OECD countries
and partner countries. The most common types of payments based on teachers’ initial education
and qualifications are for an initial education qualification higher than the minimum requirement
and/or a level of teacher certification and training higher than the minimum requirements.These
are available in half of OECD countries and partner countries, with one-third offering both
types; they are used in nearly all countries as criteria for base salary. Sixteen OECD countries
396

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Are Teachers Paid? – Indicator D3

chapter D

and partner countries offer additional payments for the successful completion of professional
development activities. In ten of these countries, they are used as criteria for the base salary, but
in Korea and Turkey they are only offered on an incidental basis.
Fifteen OECD countries and three partner countries offer an additional payment for outstanding
performance in teaching.This is the only additional payment that may be classified as a performance
incentive. In nearly one-half of these countries they are incidental payments, and in the other
half, they are mostly yearly additions to teachers’ salaries. In 12 of the 18 countries that offer
this incentive (Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Finland, Hungary, Mexico, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and Turkey and the partner country Slovenia), the decision
to award the additional payments can be made at the school level.
The method for identifying outstanding performance and the form of incentive varies. In Mexico,
outstanding performance is calculated on the basis of students’ achievements and criteria relating
to teachers’ experience, performance and qualification. In Portugal, it is based on the assessment
of the head teacher and in Turkey on assessments by the provincial directorate of education and
the Ministry of Education.
As may be expected, additional payments made due to the years of experience are, in virtually
all OECD countries, made through changes to teachers’ base salary. Additional payments made
for specific teaching conditions or responsibilities are more commonly made through yearly or
incidental payments. The key exception is when a teacher assumes management responsibilities
with additional payments offered more frequently through changes to base salaries or yearly and
incidental payments.
Mixtures of all three types of additional payment are offered in relation to teachers’ qualifications,
training and performance. Given that an initial teacher qualification higher than the minimum
requirement is often identified at the beginning of a teacher’s career, it is not surprising that
it is more often provided through changes to teachers’ base salaries. Additional payments due
to teacher demographics are mainly made through additional yearly payments in 12 of the
16 countries offering a form of additional payment in this category.
Definitions and methodologies

Data on statutory teachers’ salaries and bonuses are derived from the 2008 OECD-INES Survey
on Teachers and the Curriculum. Data refer to the school year 2006/07, and are reported in
accordance with formal policies for public institutions.
Statutory salaries (Table D3.1) refer to scheduled salaries according to official pay scales. The
salaries reported are gross (total sum paid by the employer) less the employer’s contribution to
social security and pension (according to existing salary scales). Salaries are “before tax” (i.e. before
deductions for income taxes). In Table D3.1, salary per hour of net contact divides a teacher’s
annual statutory salary (Table D3.1) by the annual net teaching time in hours (Table D4.1).
Gross teachers’ salaries were converted using GDP and purchasing power parities (PPPs) and
exchange rate data from the OECD National Accounts database. The reference date for GDP per
capita is the calendar year 2007, while the period of reference for teachers’ salaries is from 1 July
2006 to 30 June 2007. The reference date for PPPs is 2006/07. Data are adjusted for inflation
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

397

D3

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

with reference to January 2007. For countries with different financial years (i.e. Australia and
New Zealand) and slightly different salary periods (e.g. Hungary, Iceland, Norway and Spain)
from the general OECD norm, a correction to the deflator is made only if this results in an
adjustment of over 1%. Small adjustments have been discounted because even for salaries for
2005/06, the exact period to which they apply is only slightly different. Reference statistics and
reference years for teachers’ salaries are provided in Annex 2.

D3

For the calculation of changes in teachers’ salaries (Table D3.2), the GDP deflator is used to
convert 1996 salaries to 2007 prices.
Starting salaries refer to the average scheduled gross salary per year for a full-time teacher with
the minimum training necessary to be fully qualified at the beginning of the teaching career.
Salaries after 15 years of experience refer to the scheduled annual salary of a full-time classroom
teacher with the minimum training necessary to be fully qualified plus 15 years of experience. The
maximum salaries reported refer to the scheduled maximum annual salary (top of the salary scale)
of a full-time classroom teacher with the minimum training to be fully qualified for the job.
An adjustment to base salary is defined as any difference in salary between what a particular
teacher actually receives for work performed at a school and the amount that he or she would
expect to receive on the basis of experience (i.e. number of years in the teaching profession).
Adjustments may be temporary or permanent, and they can effectively move a teacher off the
scale and to a different salary scale or to a higher step on the same salary scale.
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available on line at:
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152

• Table D3.3b. Decisions made by school principal on payments for teachers in public institutions
(2007)
• Table D3.3c. Decisions made by local or regional authority on payments for teachers in public
institutions (2007)
• Table D3.3d. Decisions made by the national authority on payments for teachers in public
institutions (2007)

See also: OECD (2005c), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers,
OECD, Paris.
Specific notes on definitions and methodologies regarding this indicator for each country are
given in Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.
As a complement to Table D3.1, which presents teachers’ salaries in equivalent USD, converted
using PPPs, a table with teachers’ salaries in equivalent EUR converted using PPPs is included
in Annex 2.

398

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Are Teachers Paid? – Indicator D3

chapter D

Table D3.1.
Teachers’ salaries (2007)
Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions at starting salary, after 15 years of experience and at the top
of the scale by level of education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs

Salary at top of scale /
minimum training

Ratio of salary after
15 years of experience to
GDP per capita

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years of
experience /minimum
training

Salary at top of scale /
minimum training

Ratio of salary after
15 years of experience to
GDP per capita

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years of
experience /minimum
training

Salary at top of scale /
minimum training

Ratio of salary after
15 years of experience
to GDP per capita

Upper secondary education

Salary after 15 years of
experience /minimum
training

Lower secondary education

Starting salary/
minimum training
Partner countries

OECD countries

Primary education

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

(1)
32 259
28 172
29 680
28 369
21 481
35 691
30 172
28 201
23 640
43 387
26 326
11 216
22 443
31 977
24 945
27 284
31 717
49 902
14 006
34 272
19 236
32 148
m
21 304
30 366
m
34 250
27 498
41 998
14 063
35 907

(2)
(3)
44 245 44 245
37 307 55 852
41 605 50 744
39 885 48 774
29 127 35 551
40 322 40 322
44 507 44 507
36 578 46 003
31 800 46 920
53 345 57 630
32 107 38 619
14 515 19 309
25 227 29 304
52 972 60 025
30 174 36 765
48 742 61 627
54 798 87 745
68 720 101 707
18 420 30 579
44 410 49 541
37 213 37 213
36 298 40 163
m
m
34 876 54 698
48 436 48 436
m
m
39 912 49 466
31 996 36 750
54 339 66 906
15 693 17 515
43 633
m

(4)
1.17
1.01
1.17
1.13
1.21
1.12
1.26
1.06
0.97
1.56
1.13
0.77
0.71
1.17
0.99
1.45
2.21
0.86
1.32
1.13
1.36
0.68
m
1.52
1.37
m
1.26
0.87
1.32
1.21
0.96

(5)
32 406
29 446
29 680
28 369
21 481
35 691
30 172
31 282
26 019
47 936
26 326
11 216
22 443
31 977
26 877
27 284
31 590
71 883
17 957
35 516
19 236
32 148
m
21 304
30 366
m
38 533
28 055
48 286
a
34 519

(6)
(7)
44 942 44 942
40 304 58 046
41 605 50 744
39 885 48 774
29 127 35 551
40 322 40 322
44 507 44 507
39 144 49 534
34 179 49 409
57 978 65 004
32 107 38 619
14 515 19 309
25 227 29 304
52 972 60 025
32 859 40 351
48 742 61 627
54 671 87 617
89 864 124 898
23 455 38 851
48 818 54 332
37 213 37 213
36 298 40 163
m
m
34 876 54 698
48 436 48 436
m
m
44 774 54 648
32 799 37 200
62 183 75 577
a
a
44 015
m

(8)
1.19
1.09
1.17
1.13
1.21
1.12
1.26
1.13
1.04
1.69
1.13
0.77
0.71
1.17
1.08
1.45
2.20
1.13
1.68
1.24
1.36
0.68
m
1.52
1.37
m
1.42
0.90
1.51
a
0.97

(9)
32 406
29 863
36 850
35 260
22 798
35 011
30 172
31 846
26 294
51 512
26 326
12 855
25 389
31 977
26 877
27 284
31 590
71 883
m
35 858
19 236
34 336
m
21 304
30 366
m
39 367
29 554
56 166
14 063
34 672

(10)
(11)
44 942 44 942
41 469 61 170
53 233 64 007
51 195 61 674
31 119 38 208
49 264 49 264
44 507 44 507
43 040 55 778
34 454 49 711
62 372 71 546
32 107 38 619
18 110 24 358
32 251 33 828
52 972 60 025
33 778 42 179
48 742 63 296
54 671 87 617
89 864 124 898
m
m
63 169 71 738
37 213 37 213
38 684 42 325
m
m
34 876 54 698
48 436 48 436
m
m
45 786 55 779
35 005 39 813
72 990 86 732
15 693 17 515
43 966
m

(12)
1.19
1.12
1.50
1.45
1.29
1.37
1.26
1.24
1.05
1.82
1.13
0.97
0.90
1.17
1.11
1.45
2.20
1.13
m
1.61
1.36
0.72
m
1.52
1.37
m
1.45
0.96
1.78
1.21
0.97

OECD average

28 687 39 007 47 747

1.17

31 000 41 993 51 470

1.23

32 183 44 782 54 440

1.30

EU 19 average

29 518 39 610 48 506

1.14

31 691 42 056 51 285

1.19

32 946 45 513 55 600

1.29

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
m
m
10 922 12 976 17 500
10 459 9 419 13 015
14 099 16 466 23 009
m
m
m
27 190 31 754 33 630

m
1.11
0.46
0.62
m
1.19

m
m
m
10 922 12 976 17 500
10 459 9 419 13 015
14 099 16 466 23 009
m
m
m
27 190 31 754 33 630

m
1.11
0.46
0.62
m
1.19

m
m
m
10 922 13 579 18 321
10 459 9 419 13 015
14 099 16 466 23 009
m
m
m
27 190 31 754 33 630

m
1.16
0.46
0.62
m
1.19

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

399

D3

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D3.1. (continued)
Teachers’ salaries (2007)
Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions at starting salary, after 15 years of experience and at the top
of the scale by level of education, in equivalent USD converted using PPPs
Ratio of salary at top of scale to
starting salary

Partner countries

OECD countries

D3
Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Lower
Upper
Primary secondary secondary
education education education
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.37
1.39
1.39
1.98
1.97
2.05
1.71
1.71
1.74
1.72
1.72
1.75
1.65
1.65
1.68
1.13
1.13
1.41
1.48
1.48
1.48
1.63
1.58
1.75
1.98
1.90
1.89
1.33
1.36
1.39
1.47
1.47
1.47
1.72
1.72
1.89
1.31
1.31
1.33
1.88
1.88
1.88
1.47
1.50
1.57
2.26
2.26
2.32
2.77
2.77
2.77
2.04
1.74
1.74
2.18
2.16
m
1.45
1.53
2.00
1.93
1.93
1.93
1.25
1.25
1.23
m
m
m
2.57
2.57
2.57
1.60
1.60
1.60
m
m
m
1.44
1.42
1.42
m
m
m
1.59
1.57
1.54
1.25
a
1.25
m
m
m

Years from
starting to
top salary
(lower
secondary
education)
(4)
9
34
27
27
32
8
10
16
34
28
33
40
18
22
35
34
37
30
14
17
8
16
m
26
6
m
38
a
26
a
m

Salary per hour of net contact
(teaching) time after
15 years of experience

Ratio of salary
per teaching
hour of upper
secondary
to primary
Lower
Upper teachers (after
Primary secondary secondary 15 years of
education education education experience)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
50
55
55
1.10
48
66
70
1.46
52
60
83
1.60
55
60
85
1.54
34
46
51
1.49
62
62
135
2.18
m
m
m
m
54
66
78
1.45
35
54
56
1.60
66
76
87
1.32
43
64
67
1.57
25
26
33
1.31
38
38
58
1.53
56
72
72
1.29
41
55
56
1.37
69
81
98
1.41
73
100
114
1.57
89
140
140
1.58
23
22
m
m
48
m
m
m
38
38
39
1.04
49
56
74
1.51
m
m
m
m
41
46
51
1.25
57
57
57
1.00
m
m
m
m
45
63
66
1.46
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
25
a
28
1.13
w
w
w
w

OECD average

1.71

1.71

1.73

24

49

61

72

1.42

EU 19 average

1.68

1.66

1.74

26

50

63

74

1.47

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
1.60
1.24
1.63
m
1.24

m
1.60
1.24
1.63
m
1.24

m
1.68
1.24
1.63
m
1.24

m
m
m
36
m
13

m
15
15
16
m
47

m
15
15
21
m
47

m
16
16
25
m
51

m
1.05
1.09
1.54
m
1.09

Note: Ratio of salary at the top of the scale has not been calculated for Sweden because the underlying salaries are estimates derived from actual
rather than statutory salaries.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152

400

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Are Teachers Paid? – Indicator D3

chapter D

Table D3.2.
Change in teachers’ salaries (between 1996 and 2007)
Index of change1 between 1996 and 2007 in teachers’ salaries at starting salary, after 15 years of experience and at the top
of the salary scale, by level of education, converted to 2007 price levels using GDP deflators (1996=100)

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary after
15 years of
experience/
minimum training

Salary at top of
scale/minimum
training

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary after
15 years of
experience/
minimum training

Salary at top of
scale/minimum
training

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary after
15 years of
experience/
minimum training

Salary at top of
scale/minimum
training

Upper secondary education,
general programmes

OECD countries

Lower secondary education

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.) 2
Belgium (Fr.) 2
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

(1)
129
109
106
101
w
122
123
130
w
w
112
195
m
114
109
107
w
m
131
106
100
108
m
102
120
m
94
w
99
w
112

(2)
97
112
111
106
w
113
108
127
w
w
115
186
m
122
110
112
w
m
130
112
114
100
m
111
115
m
93
w
96
w
108

(3)
97
107
113
109
w
110
108
156
w
w
117
192
m
117
110
99
w
m
132
102
114
110
m
101
115
m
90
w
102
w
m

(4)
129
110
104
99
w
122
123
128
w
w
109
195
m
109
109
107
w
m
132
104
100
108
m
102
120
m
m
w
m
a
109

(5)
99
116
104
99
w
113
108
115
w
w
112
186
m
116
109
112
w
m
136
114
114
100
m
111
115
m
m
w
m
a
109

(6)
99
104
104
100
w
110
108
139
w
w
115
192
m
116
109
99
w
m
139
102
114
110
m
101
115
m
m
w
m
a
m

(7)
129
105
104
99
w
109
123
126
w
w
109
175
m
109
109
107
w
m
m
104
100
107
m
102
120
m
93
w
m
w
109

(8)
99
109
104
100
w
108
108
121
w
w
112
187
m
116
108
112
w
m
m
105
114
104
m
111
115
m
92
w
m
w
108

(9)
99
97
104
100
w
103
108
148
w
w
115
201
m
116
109
99
w
m
m
101
114
106
m
101
115
m
90
w
m
w
m

Partner countries

Primary education

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
m
159
m
m
m

m
m
134
m
m
m

m
m
173
m
m
m

m
m
159
m
m
m

m
m
134
m
m
m

m
m
173
m
m
m

m
m
159
m
m
m

m
m
134
m
m
m

m
m
173
m
m
m

1. The index is calculated as (teacher salary 2007 in national currency * 100) / (Teacher salary 1996 in national currency * GDP deflator 2007)
(1996=100). See Annex 2 for statistics on GDP deflators and salaries in national currencies in 1996 and 2007.
2. The data for Belgium in 1996 are based on Belgium as a whole.
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

401

D3

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D3.3a.
Decisions on payments for teachers in public institutions (2007)
Criteria for base salary and additional payments awarded to teachers in public institutions

Partner countries

–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
m
–
–
m
–
–
–
–
–

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m m m
–
m m m
–
m m m
–

s

s

s

s

s

s

–
–
–
–

s
s
s
s

s

s
s

s

s

s

s

s

s

–

s

s

–

s
s

s

s

s

–
–

s
s

s
s

–

s

–
s
s

–
–

s
s

s

s

–

s

s

s

s

–

s

–

s

s

s
s

s

s

s

s

s

s

–
–

s
s

s

–
–

s
s

–
–

s
s

s
s

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

–
m

s

–
–

s
s

–
–

s

–

s
s

s

s

s

s

m

m

m

m

m

m

–

s

s

m

s

s
s

s
s
s

m

m

m

m

m
–

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

s
s

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

s

s

–
–

–

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

–
–
s

s

m

m

s

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m m m
–
m m m
–

m

s

s

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m m m
–
m m m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m

m m m
–
m m m

m

m

m

s

m

s

m m m
–
m m m

m m m
–
m m m

– : Decisions on position in base salary scale
Decisions on supplemental payments which are paid every year
: Decisions on supplemental incidental payments
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152
s :

402

s

s

–
–
–
–

Teaching courses in a
particular field

s

Teaching students with
special educational needs
(in regular schools)

s

–
s

Special activities (e.g. sports
and drama clubs, homework
clubs, summer school etc.)

s

Teaching in a disadvantaged,
remote or high cost area
(location allowance)

Special tasks (career
guidance or counselling)

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Teaching more classes or
hours than required by fulltime contract

OECD countries

D3

Management
responsibilities in addition
to teaching duties

Criteria based on teaching conditions/ responsibilities

Years of experience as a
teacher

Experience

s

s

s

How Much Are Teachers Paid? – Indicator D3

chapter D

Table D3.3a. (continued)
Decisions on payments for teachers in public institutions (2007)
Criteria for base salary and additional payments awarded to teachers in public institutions

Partner countries

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

Age (independent of years of
teaching experience)

Family status (married, number
of children)

Criteria based on
demography

Holding an educational
qualification in multiple
subjects

Reaching high scores in the
qualification examination

–

Successful completion of
professional development
activities

–

Outstanding performance in
teaching

Holding a higher than
minimum level of teacher
certification or training
obtained during professional
life

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Holding an initial educational
qualification higher than
the minimum qualification
required to enter the teaching
profession
OECD countries

Criteria related to teachers’ qualifications, training and
performance

D3
Other

s
s

–
–

s

–

s

–
–
–
–

–

s

s

s

–

s

–

s

s

s

–

s

–

s

s
s

–

s

–
–
–
–
–

s

s

s

–
–
–

s
s

–
s

–
s

–

–
–

s

s

s

s

–
s

s
s

–
–
–
–
m
–
m

–
–
–
–

s
s
s

s
s
s

m

m

m

m

m
–
–
m

–

s
s

–
–
–

s
s
s

–
–

s

s

s

s
s

s

s

s

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
s
–
–
–

m

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
–
–
–
–

–

–
m

–

m

–

s

–

s

s

s

m

–
–

s

s

s

s

s

m

m

m

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

m m m
–
m m m

m

m

m
–

m

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
–
–
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
s
–

s

– : Decisions on position in base salary scale
Decisions on supplemental payments which are paid every year
: Decisions on supplemental incidental payments
Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665004614152
s :

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

403

HOW MUCH TIME DO TEACHERS SPEND TEACHING?

INDICATOR D4

This indicator focuses on the statutory working time and statutory teaching time of
teachers at different levels of education. Although working time and teaching time
only partly determine teachers’ actual workload, they do give valuable insight into
differences in what is demanded of teachers in different countries. Together with
teachers’ salaries (see Indicator D3) and average class size (see Indicator D2), this
indicator presents some key measures of the working lives of teachers.

Key results
Chart D4.1. Number of teaching hours per year in lower secondary education
(2007)

Net contact time in hours per year in public institutions

The number of teaching hours in public lower secondary schools averages 709 hours per year but
ranges from 545 hours in Korea to over 1 000 in Mexico (1 047) and the United States (1 080).

1 200
1 100
1 000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

United States
Mexico
New Zealand
Chile
Scotland
Russian Federation
Australia
Brazil
Israel
Germany
Portugal
Ireland
Spain
Belgium (Fl.)
Slovenia
Iceland
Belgium (Fr.)
Norway
Denmark
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
France
Estonia
Austria
Italy
Japan
Finland
Greece
Hungary
Korea

Hours per year

Countries are ranked in descending order of the number of teaching hours per year in lower secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table D4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665026260448

404

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• The number of teaching hours in public primary schools averages 798 per year
(14 less than in 2006), but ranges from less than 650 in Denmark, Hungary,
Turkey and the partner country Estonia to 1 080 in the United States.
• The average number of teaching hours in upper secondary general education is
653, but ranges from 364 in Denmark to 1 080 in the United States.

INDICATOR D4

• The composition of teachers’ annual teaching time, in terms of days, weeks and
hours per day, varies considerably. For instance, while teachers in Denmark teach
for 42 weeks per year (in primary and secondary education) and teachers in
Iceland for 35-36 weeks per year, teachers in Iceland have more total annual
teaching time (in hours) than teachers in Denmark.
• Regulations concerning teachers’ required working time also vary. In most
countries, teachers are formally required to work a specific number of hours;
in some, teaching time is only specified by the number of lessons per week and
assumptions may be made about the amount of non-teaching time required per
lesson (at school or elsewhere). For example, in Belgium (French Community),
additional non-teaching hours at school are set at the school level; the government
only defines the minimum and maximum number of teaching periods per week
at each level of education.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

405

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Policy context

In addition to class size and the ratio of students to teaching staff (see Indicator D2), students’ hours
of instruction (see Indicator D1) and teachers’ salaries (see Indicator D3), the amount of time
teachers spend teaching affects the financial resources countries need to allocate to education (see
Indicator B7). Teaching hours and the extent of non-teaching duties are also important elements of
teachers’ work and may determine the attractiveness of the teaching profession.

D4

The proportion of working time spent teaching provides information on the amount of time
available for activities such as lesson preparation, correction, in-service training and staff meetings.
A large proportion of working time spent teaching may indicate that less working time is devoted
to tasks such as student assessment and lesson preparation. However, such duties may be performed
at the same level as for teachers with less teaching time but outside of regulatory working hours.
Evidence and explanations
Teaching time in primary education

In both primary and secondary education, countries vary in terms of the number of teaching
hours required of the average public school teacher per year. There are usually more teaching
hours in primary education than in secondary education.
A primary school teacher teaches an average of 798 hours per year (14 less than in 2006), but
this ranges from less than 650 hours in Denmark, Hungary, Turkey and the partner country
Estonia to 900 or more in France, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand and over 1 000 in
the United States and in partner country Israel (Chart D4.2 and Table D4.1).
Teaching time can be distributed quite differently throughout the year. Korea is the only country
in which primary teachers teach for more than five days per week on average, yet their total
annual teaching time is below the average because they teach, on average, fewer hours per day.
Denmark and Iceland provide an interesting contrast in this respect. They have a similar annual
net teaching time in hours (Chart D4.2). However, teachers in Denmark must complete 200
days of instruction in 42 weeks, and those in Iceland 180 days in 36 weeks. The number of hours
taught per day of instruction explains the difference.
Primary teachers in Iceland complete 20 fewer days of instruction than teachers in Denmark,
but each of these days includes, on average, 3.7 hours of teaching compared to 3.2 in Denmark.
Iceland’s teachers must provide just over half an hour more teaching time per day of instruction
than Denmark’s teachers, but this relatively small difference leads to a substantial difference in
the number of days of instruction they must complete each year.
With the exception of Austria, Belgium (French Community), Portugal and Scotland, in most
OECD countries with available data, teaching time in primary education was about the same in
1996 and 2007. In Austria, primary teachers were required to teach 13% more in 2007 than in
1996, while in Belgium (French Community) the net contract time dropped by 16% in primary
education (Table D4.2).
Teaching time in secondary education

Lower secondary education teachers teach an average of 709 hours per year.The teaching load ranges
from less than 600 hours in Finland (592), Greece (559), Hungary (555) and Korea (545) to more
than 1 000 hours in Mexico (1 047) and the United States (1 080) (Chart D4.1 and Table D4.1).
406

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Time Do Teachers Spend Teaching? – Indicator D4

chapter D

The upper secondary general education teaching load is usually lighter than in lower secondary
education. A teacher of general subjects has an average statutory teaching load of 653 hours
per year. Teaching loads range from 364 hours in Denmark to 800 or more in Australia (813),
Mexico (843), Scotland (855) and the partner countries Brazil (800), Chile (860) and the Russian
Federation (845), over 900 in New Zealand (950) and over 1 000 in the United States (1 080)
(Chart D4.2 and Table D4.1).
Chart D4.2. Number of teaching hours per year, by level of education (2007)

Net contact time in hours per year in public institutions

United States
Mexico
New Zealand
Chile
Scotland
Russian Federation
Australia
Brazil
Israel
Germany
Portugal
Ireland
Spain
Belgium (Fl.)
Slovenia
Iceland
Belgium (Fr.)
Norway
Denmark
Luxembourg
Czech Republic
France
Estonia
Austria
Italy
Japan
Finland
Greece
Hungary
Korea
Netherlands
Turkey

Hours per year

1 200
1 100
1 000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

Primary education
Lower secondary education
Upper secondary education, general programmes

Countries are ranked in descending order of the number of teaching hours per year in lower secondary education.
Source: OECD. Table D4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665026260448

As for primary teachers, the number of hours of teaching time and the number of days of
instruction vary. As a consequence, the average hours per day that teachers teach also vary widely,
ranging at the lower secondary level from three or fewer per day in Greece, Hungary, Japan
and Korea to five or more in Mexico and New Zealand and the partner country the Russian
Federation, and six in the United States. Similarly, at the upper secondary general level, teachers
in Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Japan, Korea and Norway teach for three hours (or less)
per day on average, compared to five hours in New Zealand and, among the partner countries,
the Russian Federation and six hours in the United States. Korea provides an interesting example
of the differences in the organisation of teachers’ work. Korea’s teachers must complete the
largest number of days of instruction (204) but have the lowest required number of hours of
teaching time for lower secondary teachers and the second lowest for upper secondary teachers
(Chart D4.3). The inclusion of breaks between classes in teaching time in some countries, but
not in others may explain some of these differences.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

407

D4

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Chart D4.3. Percentage of teachers' working time spent teaching,
by level of education (2007)

Net teaching time as a percentage of total statutory working time
%

Primary education

100
80
60
40

Denmark

Iceland

Japan

Turkey

Hungary

Denmark

Iceland

Japan

Turkey

Hungary

Iceland

Japan

Turkey

Hungary

Greece

Austria

Norway

Germany

Denmark

%

Korea

Czech Republic

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

0

Scotland

20

Lower secondary education

100
80
60
40

%

Greece

Austria

Norway

Germany

Korea

Czech Republic

Netherlands

Portugal

Spain

0

Scotland

20

Upper secondary education

100
80
60
40

Greece

Austria

Norway

Germany

Korea

Czech Republic

Netherlands

Portugal

0

Spain

20

Scotland

D4

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers' working time spent teaching in primary education.
Source: OECD. Table D4.1. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665026260448

408

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Time Do Teachers Spend Teaching? – Indicator D4

chapter D

With the exception of Austria, Belgium (French Community), Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Mexico and Portugal, teaching time in secondary education in OECD countries was about the
same in 1996 and 2007. However, in Hungary and Portugal secondary teachers were required to
teach more than 17% more in 2007 than in 1996. In Denmark, teaching time dropped by 35%
in upper secondary education (Table D4.2).
Teaching time contrasts between levels

In the Czech Republic and France and in the partner country Israel a primary teacher is
required to teach over 210 hours more than a lower secondary teacher and 240 hours more
than an upper secondary teacher (general programmes). By contrast, there is less than a 60
hour or even no difference between the number of required teaching hours for primary and
lower secondary teachers and sometimes also for primary and upper secondary teachers in
Hungary, New Zealand, Scotland and the United States, and the partner countries Brazil,
Chile, Estonia and Slovenia. Mexico is the only OECD country and the Russian Federation
the only partner country, in which secondary teachers complete a substantially larger number
of hours of teaching than primary teachers. In Mexico, required teaching hours for lower
secondary teachers are just over 30% more than for primary teachers. Upper secondary
teachers in Mexico have a smaller number of teaching hours than lower secondary teachers
but their required teaching hours are still 5% higher than for primary teachers (Chart D4.1).
This is largely because of greater daily contact time.
In interpreting differences in teaching hours among countries, it should be noted that net contact
time, as used for the purpose of this indicator, does not necessarily correspond to the teaching
load. Contact time is a substantial component, but preparation for classes and necessary followup (including correcting students’ work) also need to be included in comparisons of teaching
loads. Other relevant elements (such as the number of subjects taught, the number of students
taught, and the number of years a teacher teaches the same students) should also be taken into
account. These factors can often only be assessed at the school level.
Teachers’ working time

The regulation of teachers’ working time varies considerably. While some countries formally
regulate contact time only, others also establish working hours. In some countries, time is
allocated for teaching and non-teaching activities within the formally established working time.
In most countries, teachers are formally required to work a specified number of hours per
week to earn their full-time salary; this includes teaching and non-teaching time. Within this
framework, however, countries differ in the allocation of time to teaching and non-teaching
activities (Chart D4.3).Typically, the number of hours for teaching is specified (except in England
and Sweden and in Switzerland where it is specified at the district level only), but some countries
also regulate at the national level the time a teacher has to be present in the school.
Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community for primary education), Denmark (primary and lower
secondary education), England, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey (primary and upper secondary education) and the
United States, and the partner countries Brazil, Chile, Estonia and Israel specify the time during
which teachers are required to be available at school, for both teaching and non-teaching time.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

409

D4

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Greece requires a reduction of teaching hours in line with years of service. Early-career teachers
have 21 teaching hours per week. After 6 years, this drops to 19 and after 12 years to 18.
After 20 years of service, teachers have 16 teaching hours a week, nearly three-quarters that of
early career teachers. However, the remaining hours of teachers’ working time must be spent at
school.

D4

In Austria (primary and lower secondary education), the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary,
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands and Scotland teachers’ total annual working time, at school or
elsewhere, is specified (but the split between time spent at school and time spent elsewhere is
not). In addition, in some countries the number of hours to be spent on non-teaching activities
is also (partly) specified. However, it is not specified whether or not the teachers have to spend
the non-teaching hours at school.
Non-teaching time

In Belgium (French Community), Finland, France, Italy and New Zealand and in partner
countries the Russian Federation and Slovenia, there are no formal requirements for primary
and secondary education as to how much time should be spent on non-teaching duties.
However, this does not mean that teachers are given total freedom to carry out other tasks.
In Austria, provisions concerning teaching time are based on the assumption that the teacher’s
duties (including preparing lessons and tests, marking and correcting papers, examinations, and
administrative tasks) amount to total working time of 40 hours a week. In Belgium (French
Community), the additional non-teaching hours at school are set at the school level.There are no
regulations regarding lesson preparation, correction of tests and marking students’ papers, etc.
The government defines only the minimum and maximum number of teaching periods a week
(of 50 minutes each) at each level of education (Table D4.1).
Definitions and methodologies

Data are from the 2008 OECD-INES Survey on Teachers and the Curriculum and refer to the
school year 2006/07.
Teaching time

Teaching time is defined as the number of hours per year that a full-time teacher teaches a group
or class of students as set by policy. It is normally calculated as the number of teaching days per
year multiplied by the number of hours a teacher teaches per day (excluding periods of time
formally allowed for breaks between lessons or groups of lessons). Some countries, however,
provide estimates of teaching time based on survey data.
At the primary level, short breaks between lessons are included if the classroom teacher is
responsible for the class during these breaks.
Working time

Working time refers to the normal working hours of a full-time teacher. According to a country’s
formal policy, working time can refer to:
• The time directly associated with teaching (and other curricular activities for students, such
as assignments and tests, but excluding annual examinations).
410

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Time Do Teachers Spend Teaching? – Indicator D4

chapter D

• The time directly associated with teaching and hours devoted to other activities related to
teaching, such as lesson preparation, counselling students, correcting assignments and tests,
professional development, meetings with parents, staff meetings, and general school tasks.
Working time does not include paid overtime.
Working time in school

Working time in school refers to the time teachers are required to spend at work, including
teaching and non-teaching time.
Number of teaching weeks and days

The number of teaching weeks refers to the number of weeks of instruction excluding holiday
weeks. The number of teaching days is the number of teaching weeks multiplied by the number
of days per week a teacher teaches, less the number of days on which the school is closed for
holidays.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

411

D4

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D4.1.
Organisation of teachers’ working time (2007)
Number of teaching weeks, teaching days, net teaching hours, and teacher working time over the school year

Partner countries

Primary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education,
general programmes

Primary education

Upper secondary education,
general programmes

Primary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education,
general programmes

Primary education

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education,
general programmes

(1)
40
38
37
37
40
42
38
38
35
40
40
37
36
37
38
40
37
36
42
40
39
38
m
37
38
m
37
a
m
38
36

(2)
40
38
37
37
40
42
38
38
35
40
38
37
36
33
38
40
37
36
42
m
39
38
m
37
38
m
37
a
m
a
36

(3)
40
38
37
37
40
42
38
38
35
40
38
37
35
33
38
40
37
36
36
m
38
38
m
37
38
m
36
a
m
38
36

(4)
197
180
179
181
193
200
190
188
m
193
195
185
180
183
167
200
204
176
200
195
197
190
m
171
190
m
176
a
m
180
180

(5)
197
180
180
181
193
200
190
188
m
193
185
185
180
167
167
200
204
176
200
m
194
190
m
171
190
m
176
a
m
a
180

(6)
197
180
180
181
193
200
190
188
m
193
185
185
175
167
167
198
204
176
172
m
190
190
m
171
190
m
171
a
m
180
180

(7)
(8)
(9)
877 815 813
774 607 589
806 691 645
724 662 603
849 637 608
648 648 364
m
m
m
677 592 550
914 632 618
806 758 714
751 559 544
583 555 555
671 671 560
946 735 735
735 601 601
705 600 498
755 545 480
774 642 642
800 1047 843
930
m
m
985 968 950
741 654 523
m
m
m
855 752 684
855 855 855
m
m
m
880 713 693
a
a
a
m
m
m
639
a 567
1080 1080 1080

(10)
1208
a
931
a
a
1306
1265
a
a
a
1500
a
1650
1036
a
a
a
1022
800
a
985
1300
m
1261
a
m
1140
1360
m
870
1332

(11)
1230
a
a
a
a
1306
1265
a
a
a
1425
a
1650
735
a
a
a
890
1167
a
968
1225
m
1261
a
m
1140
1360
m
a
1368

(12)
1230
a
a
a
a
m
1265
a
a
a
1425
a
1720
735
a
a
a
890
971
a
950
1150
m
1261
a
m
1140
1360
m
756
1368

(13)
a
1768
a
a
1688
1680
1265
a
a
1750
1762
1864
1800
a
a
1960
1554
a
a
1659
a
1688
m
1432
1365
m
1425
1767
m
1832
a

(14)
a
1768
a
a
1688
1680
1265
a
a
1750
1762
1864
1800
a
a
1960
1554
a
a
1659
a
1688
m
1432
1365
m
1425
1767
m
a
a

(15)
a
a
a
a
1688
1680
1265
a
a
1750
1762
1864
1800
a
a
1960
1554
a
a
1659
a
1688
m
1432
1365
m
1425
1767
m
1832
a

Lower secondary education

Upper secondary education,
general programmes

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Lower secondary education

OECD countries

D4

Total statutory
working time in
hours

Primary education

Working time
Number of weeks Number of days of Net teaching time required at school
of instruction
instruction
in hours
in hours

OECD average

38

38

38

187

186

184

798

709

653 1185 1214 1159 1662 1652 1656

EU 19 average

38

38

38

185

183

182

794

665

625 1202 1173 1154 1619 1619 1605

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

40
40
39
43
34
40

40
40
39
42
35
40

40
40
39
42
35
40

200
191
175
183
164
188

200
191
175
175
169
188

200
191
175
175
169
188

800
860
630
1025
656
682

800
860
630
788
845
682

800 800 800 800
860 1152 1152 1152
578 1540 1540 1540
665 1221 945 945
845
a
a
a
626
a
a
a

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665026260448

412

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

800
a
a
a
a
a

800
a
a
a
a
a

800
a
a
a
a
a

How Much Time Do Teachers Spend Teaching? – Indicator D4

chapter D

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table D4.2.
Number of teaching hours per year (1996, 2007)
Net contact time in hours per year in public institutions by level of education, and index of change from 1996 to 2007

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Primary education
Index of
change
1996 -2007
2007
1996
(1996=100)
(1)
(2)
(3)
877
m
m
774
684
113
806
841
96
724
858
84
849
m
m
648
640
101
m
w
m
677
m
m
914
900
102
806
772
104
751
780
96
583
w
m
671
m
m
946
915
103
735
735
100
705
m
m
755
m
m
774
m
m
800
800
100
930
930
100
985
985
100
741
713
104
m
m
m
855
783
109
855
975
88
m
m
m
880
900
98
a
624
m
m
871
m
639
m
m
1080
w
m

Lower secondary education
Index of
change
1996 -2007
2007
1996
(1996=100)
(4)
(5)
(6)
815
m
m
607
658
92
691
724
95
662
734
90
637
607
105
648
640
101
m
w
m
592
m
m
632
647
98
758
715
106
559
629
89
555
473
117
671
m
m
735
735
100
601
601
100
600
m
m
545
w
m
642
m
m
1047
1182
89
m
867
m
968
968
100
654
633
103
m
m
m
752
644
117
855
m
m
m
m
m
713
a
m
a
576
m
m
850
m
a
a
a
1080
w
m

Upper secondary education,
general programmes
Index of
change
1996 -2007
2007
1996
(1996=100)
(7)
(8)
(9)
813
m
m
589
623
95
645
679
95
603
677
89
608
580
105
364
560
65
m
m
m
550
m
m
618
w
m
714
671
106
544
629
86
555
473
117
560
m
m
735
735
100
601
601
100
498
m
m
480
w
m
642
m
m
843
m
m
m
867
m
950
950
100
523
505
104
m
m
m
684
574
119
855
917
93
m
m
m
693
630
110
a
528
m
m
669
m
567
m
m
1080
w
m

OECD average

798

817

709

716

653

659

EU 19 average

794

810

665

661

625

650

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

800
860
630
1025
656
682

m
m
m
m
m
m

800
860
630
788
845
682

m
m
m
m
m
m

800
860
578
665
845
626

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
m
m
m
m
m

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665026260448

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

413

D4

HOW MUCH APPRAISAL AND FEEDBACK DO TEACHERS
RECEIVE, AND WHAT IS the IMPACT?

INDICATOR D5

This indicator focuses on the appraisal and feedback that teachers receive and the
impact that this has on schools and teachers at the lower secondary level of education.
Evaluation can play a key role in school improvement and teacher development
(OECD, 2008c). Providing feedback can help teachers to better understand their
respective strengths and weaknesses which, in turn, can be an important first step
towards the improvement of classroom practices. Identifying such strengths and
weaknesses, informing resource allocation decisions, and motivating actors to
improve performance are important features that can promote policy objectives
such as school improvement, school accountability, and school choice. Data were
collected from both school principals and teachers in TALIS (Teaching and Learning
International Survey) on these and related issues such as the recognition and rewards
that teachers receive. Analysis of this data has produced a number of important
findings for all stakeholders in school education.

Key results
Chart D5.1. Teachers who received no appraisal or feedback

and teachers in schools that had no school evaluation
in the previous five years (2007-08)
No appraisal or feedback

No school evaluation

A number of countries have a relatively weak evaluation structure and do not benefit from school
evaluations and teacher appraisal and feedback. For example, one-third or more of schools in
Portugal (33%), Austria (35%), and Ireland (39%) had no form of school evaluation in the previous
five years. On average across TALIS countries, 22% of teachers did not receive any feedback or
appraisal in the previous five years. Large proportions of teachers are missing out on the benefits
of appraisal and feedback in Italy (55%), and Spain (46%). Importantly, teachers working in
schools that had no school evaluations over the previous five years were less likely to receive
appraisal or feedback.
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Italy
Spain
Portugal
Ireland
Brazil
Iceland
Norway
Austria
Australia
Belgium (Fl.)
Malta
Turkey
Mexico
Denmark
Poland
Korea
Slovenia
Hungary
Estonia
Slovak Republic
Lithuania
Malaysia
Bulgaria

%

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers who have received no appraisal or feedback
in the previous five years.
Source: OECD. Table D5.1 and TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665055402267

414

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• Appraisal and feedback have a strong positive influence on teachers. Teachers
report that receiving appraisal and feedback increases their job satisfaction,
leads to changes in their teaching practices, and significantly increases their
development as teachers.
• Most teachers work in schools that they feel offer no rewards or recognition
for their efforts. Three-quarters of responding teachers reported they would
receive no rewards or recognition for increasing the quality of their work. A
similar proportion reported they would receive no recognition for being more
innovative in their teaching. This says little of a number of countries’ efforts to
promote schools as learning organisations that foster continual improvement.

INDICATOR D5

• Most teachers work in schools that do not address the issue of teachers that
underperform. Three-quarters of responding teachers reported that their school
principal does not take steps to alter the monetary rewards of a persistently
underperforming teacher. In addition, three-quarters of teachers reported that,
in their schools, teachers would not be dismissed because of sustained poor
performance.
TALIS
TALIS is the new OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey. It is the first
international survey to focus on the learning environment and the working conditions
of teachers in schools and it aims to fill important information gaps in the international
comparisons of education systems.TALIS surveyed teachers of lower secondary education
and the principals of the schools in which they work across 23 countries*, i.e. among
OECD countries, Australia, Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Denmark, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Spain and Turkey, and among partner countries, Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania,
Malaysia, Malta and Slovenia. Within participating countries, schools (as well as teachers
within schools) were randomly selected to take part in TALIS. Countries participating in
TALIS chose to focus the survey on the following key aspects of the learning environment,
which can influence the quality of teaching and learning in schools: teacher professional
development; teaching practices, beliefs and attitudes, teacher appraisal and feedback,
and school leadership.
For more information see: www.oecd.org/edu/TALIS
* Because the sampling standards were not achieved in the Netherlands, their data are not shown in the
international comparisons from TALIS.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

415

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Policy context

D5

The role of school evaluation has changed in a number of countries in recent years. Historically, it
focused on monitoring schools to ensure adherence to procedures and policies (OECD, 2008c).
The focus in a number of countries has now shifted to aspects of school accountability and school
improvement (OECD 2007e). An additional factor driving the development of the framework
for evaluating education in schools, and of school evaluation in particular, is the recent increase
in school autonomy in a number of educational systems as shown in Education at a Glance 2008.
A lessening of centralised control can lead to an increase in monitoring and evaluation to ensure
adherence to common standards (Caldwell, 2002). Variation in practice may need to be evaluated
not only to ensure a positive impact on students and adherence to various policy and administrative
requirements, but also to learn more about effective practices for school improvement. This is
particularly important in view of the greater variation in outcomes and achievement among schools
in some education systems than in others (see Education at a Glance 2008 and OECD [2007a]).
School evaluation with a view to school improvement may focus on providing useful information
for making and monitoring improvements and can support school principals and teachers (Van
de Grift and Houtveen, 2006). Appraisal of teachers and subsequent feedback can also help
stakeholders to improve schools through more informed decision making (OECD, 2005c). Such
improvement efforts can be driven by objectives that consider schools as learning organisations
which use evaluation to analyse the relationships between inputs, processes and, to some extent,
outputs in order to develop practices that build on identified strengths and address weaknesses
that can facilitate improvement efforts (Caldwell and Spinks, 1998).
A focus on a specific aspect of evaluation, such as teacher appraisal and feedback, may have
a flow-on effect on the school and its practices, as teachers are the main actors in achieving
school improvement and better student performance (O’Day, 2002). However, for evaluations
to be effective their objectives should be aligned with the objectives and incentives of those who
are evaluated (Lazear, 2000). To the extent that evaluations of organisations and appraisals of
employees create incentives, the evaluations and appraisals need to be aligned so that employees
have the incentive to focus their efforts on factors important to the organisation (OECD, 2008c).
The extent of this effect can depend on the focus in the school evaluation and the potential
impact upon schools (Odden & Busch, 1998). It may also affect the extent to which teacher
appraisal and feedback is emphasised within schools (Senge, 2000).
Evidence and explanations
Frequency of school evaluation

The frequency of school evaluations provides an initial indication of both the extent of the
evaluation of education in schools and the place of school evaluations in the framework of
evaluation. Distinctions between external and internal evaluations identify the actors involved
and the interaction between schools and a centralised decision-making body. As Table D5.1
shows, countries differ considerably in this respect. One-third or more of teachers worked
in schools whose school principal reported no internal or external school evaluations in the
previous five years in Austria (35%), Ireland (39%) and Portugal (33%). This also was the case
for around one-quarter of teachers in Denmark and Spain and around one-fifth in Italy. Clearly,
these countries have relatively little in the way of a framework for school evaluation. However,
416

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Appraisal and Feedback Do Teachers Receive, and What Is Its Impact? – Indicator D5

chapter D

in Ireland and Italy policies are being implemented to increase the frequency and reach of school
evaluations but at the time of the survey these policies were not yet fully in place.
In contrast, in a number of countries teachers worked in schools with at least one evaluation over
the previous five years. In 14 TALIS countries (Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Korea,
Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey), at least
half of teachers worked in schools whose school principal reported at least an annual school
evaluation (either an external evaluation or a school self-evaluation). Over three-quarters of
teachers in Lithuania, Malaysia and the Slovak Republic worked in schools whose school principal
reported having annual or even more frequent evaluations (Table D5.1). This represents a stark
contrast with countries with no school evaluations in the previous five years.
School evaluations conducted by an external inspectorate or equivalent agency were slightly less
frequent than school self-evaluations. Eighty percent of teachers worked in schools whose school
principal reported a school self-evaluation in the previous five years compared to some 70%
who worked in schools whose school principal reported an external inspection (Table D5.1).
This indicates that in some education systems, school evaluations are more internally driven. As
an example, almost half of teachers in Malta worked in schools whose school principal reported
an external evaluation but 90% worked in schools where the school principal reported having a
school self-evaluation in the previous five years. Denmark, Italy, Lithuania and Slovenia also had
fewer external evaluations than self-evaluations.
An important finding is that in a number of countries a substantial proportion of schools only
conducted self-evaluations. They include Austria (25% of teachers worked in schools that
conducted a self-evaluation but no external evaluation during the previous five years), Denmark
(24%), Italy (38%), Lithuania (35%), Malta (44%), Norway (19%), the Slovak Republic (19%)
and Slovenia (23%).
Feedback and appraisal for teachers and their outcomes

As shown in Chart D5.1, most teachers received some form of appraisal or feedback. To this
end, seven specific outcomes that reward and/or affect teachers and their work were identified
as possibly stemming from teacher appraisal and feedback: (i) a change in salary; (ii) a financial
bonus or another kind of monetary reward; (iii) opportunities for professional development;
(iv) a change in the likelihood of career advancement; (v) public recognition from the school
principal and other colleagues; (vi) changes in work responsibilities that makes teachers’ jobs
more attractive; and (vii) a role in school development initiatives. These are presented in Table
D5.2 which shows the percentage of teachers reporting changes in these outcomes following
appraisal or feedback. In interpreting the data it should be kept in mind that the percentages only
concern teachers who received appraisal or feedback about their work in the current school.
The data suggest that teachers’ appraisal and feedback involves relatively small material incentives.
In most TALIS countries, appraisal and feedback entail little financial reward for teachers and are
not linked to their career advancement. Across TALIS countries, just 9% of teachers reported
that appraisal or feedback had a moderate or large impact upon their salary and 11% reported
that it had a moderate or large impact on a financial bonus or another kind of monetary reward.
However, there are stronger links to teacher salaries in a few countries. Between one-fifth and
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

417

D5

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

one-third of teachers indicate that appraisal and feedback led to a moderate to a large change
in their salary in Bulgaria (26%), Malaysia (33%), and the Slovak Republic (20%). Similarly,
teachers in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Malaysia, Poland, the Slovak Republic and
Slovenia were more likely to report a link between appraisal and feedback and a bonus or other
monetary reward (Table D5.2).

D5

A common result of teachers’ appraisal and feedback is some form of public recognition either
from the school principal or from teachers’ colleagues.Thirty-six percent of teachers said that their
appraisal and feedback had led to a moderate or large change in the recognition they received from
their school principal and/or colleagues within the school (Table D5.2). Public recognition is a clear
non-monetary incentive which highlights the role of teacher appraisal and feedback in rewarding
quality teaching. While recognition was more common than monetary incentives, it was still not
very frequent. Clearly, in many countries there are weak links between appraisal and feedback and
both monetary incentives and public recognition and other non-monetary implications.
This weak link extends also to opportunities for professional development. Just under onequarter of teachers reported that appraisal and feedback led to a moderate or a large change
in their opportunities for professional development. The largest proportions were in Bulgaria
(42%), Estonia (36%) Lithuania (42%), Malaysia (51%), Poland (38%) and Slovenia (36%).
Slightly more teachers (27%) reported an impact on changes in their work responsibilities and
30% on their role in school development initiatives.
Teacher appraisal and feedback mechanisms can assume a developmental role as well as reward
performance. A greater percentage of teachers report a moderate or strong link between
their appraisal and feedback and changes in work responsibilities that make their jobs more
attractive in Brazil, Lithuania, Malaysia and Mexico, where teachers’ remuneration is also
more likely to be linked to appraisal and feedback. Few teachers report a strong link in Austria,
Belgium (Fl.), Hungary, Ireland, Malta and Norway where teacher appraisal and feedback
appears to be underdeveloped. Importantly, there were also low rates of school evaluation in
Austria and Ireland.
Impact of appraisal and feedback on job satisfaction and effects on teaching

The impact of appraisal and feedback is complementary to the discussion above but here the focus
is on teachers’ job satisfaction, effect on their teaching, and on broader school development.
As Table D5.3 shows, on average across TALIS countries teachers who received appraisal
and feedback had a positive view of the process and its connection to their work and their
careers. Overall, most teachers considered the appraisal and feedback they received to be a
fair assessment of their work and to have a positive impact upon their job satisfaction (Table
D5.4). This is an important finding given the negative reactions that may be associated with the
introduction of a teacher appraisal system. TALIS provides, for the first time, international data
from representative samples of countries that show that systems of appraisal and feedback can
have a positive impact on teachers.
Feelings of insecurity, fear and reduced appreciation of work can occur when a new or enhanced
appraisal system is introduced in an organisation (Saunders, 2000). An emphasis on accountability
can be assumed in some instances to imply strict and potentially punitive measures and thus
418

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Appraisal and Feedback Do Teachers Receive, and What Is Its Impact? – Indicator D5

chapter D

have a negative impact upon teachers, their appreciation of their jobs and work as teachers
(O’Day, 2002). However the results presented here do not bear out these assumptions, as the
majority of teachers in these varied systems consider the appraisal and feedback they receive to
be beneficial to their work as teachers, to be fair, and to increase job satisfaction. In fact, given
the benefits of systems of appraisal and feedback, the greatest concern may be in countries that
lack such systems. Moreover, it appears that very few systems fully exploit the potential positive
benefits of systems of teacher appraisal and feedback.
Teachers’ perceptions of fairness of appraisal and feedback

Teachers’ perceptions of the appraisal and feedback they receive are likely to be shaped by the
degree to which they consider it fair and a just assessment of their work. It may be assumed that
teachers who do not consider their appraisal and feedback a fair assessment of their work would
also have a negative view of other aspects of its impact and role within their school. Impressions
of fairness are also linked to indicators of the extent to which the outcomes and incentives of
an appraisal and feedback system are properly aligned with teachers’ work, what they consider
to be important in their teaching, and the school’s organisational objectives. For example, if
teachers are appraised and receive feedback on a particularly narrow set of criteria or on a
particular outcome measure which they feel does not fully or fairly reflect their work, a measure
of the fairness of the system should highlight this problem.
Table D5.3 shows that 63% of teachers agreed and 20% strongly agreed that the appraisal
and feedback they received was a fair assessment of their work. However, there were notable
exceptions in some countries. A substantial proportion of teachers either strongly disagreed
or disagreed that the appraisal and feedback was fair in Korea (9% strongly disagreed and 38%
disagreed), and Turkey (12% and 23%, respectively). As detailed in Table D5.4, very few teachers
reported a negative impact upon their job security. In fact, 34% considered that it led to either
a small or large increase in job security. In addition, over half reported either a small or large
increase in their job satisfaction. Appraisal and feedback may therefore be considered to have a
positive impact on aspects of teachers’ careers.
This generally positive impact is important given that 13% of teachers reported receiving no
appraisal or feedback in their current school. These teachers may be missing out on the benefits
of appraisal and feedback both for themselves and for their schools, and on commensurate
developmental opportunities. As discussed in the highlights to this indicator, a number of TALIS
countries have a large proportion of teachers who received no appraisal or feedback (Chart D5.1).
This was apparent in Ireland (26% of teachers report not receiving appraisal or feedback from any
source in their school), Portugal (26%) and particularly in Italy (55%) and Spain (46% of teachers
report not receiving appraisal or feedback from any source in their school).
Of those teachers who received appraisal and feedback, 79% on average considered that it was
helpful for their development as a teacher (Table D5.3). In Italy, and Portugal the percentage
who considered it helpful was above the TALIS average. In these countries with a less welldeveloped system of teacher appraisal and feedback, the benefits for those teachers it does reach
seem to be considerable. This appears to be a clear signal to policy makers that appraisal and
feedback can improve the working lives of teachers.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

419

D5

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Teacher appraisal and feedback and school development

D5

Table D5.5 presents teachers’ views on the interaction of their school’s system of appraisal and
feedback and various issues of school development, incentives and career structures within
schools, and the recognition accorded to teachers for their work. It provides a picture of the
careers and working lives of teachers for those who believe in providing incentives and recognising
achievement, for those wishing to promote effective learning networks within schools, and for
the broad objectives of continually increasing school effectiveness. Overall, teachers surveyed in
TALIS report that systems of appraisal and feedback generally did not recognise teachers’ efforts
and successes, reward effective teachers and effective teaching practices, or provide incentives
to teachers. Teachers in TALIS countries generally did not feel that they receive recognition for
their work and reported that if they increased their efforts and effectiveness they would not
receive more recognition. Most teachers reported that successful and effective teaching is not
rewarded and that more recognition does not go to the teachers who most deserve it.
Three-quarters of teachers reported working in schools that do not give greater rewards (either
monetary or non-monetary) to the most effective teachers (Table D5.5). Such a result may not be
unexpected for purely monetary returns. However, public recognition is an important aspect of the
TALIS analysis and is covered in the questionnaires completed by teachers and school principals.
The lack of this broader recognition shows that teachers’ workplaces offer little incentive for more
effective teaching.This was the situation for the great majority of teachers in a number of countries
and for over 90% in Australia, Belgium (Fl.), Ireland and Spain. This finding is reinforced by the
fact that three quarters of teachers report that they would receive no monetary or non-monetary
reward if they improve the quality of their teaching or are more innovative in their teaching.1 This
is particularly important given that efforts to improve schools rely heavily on improving the quality
of teaching. These figures indicate that efforts to treat schools as learning organisations which
continually refine their teaching methods to improve student learning have not been successful in
providing commensurate recognition or incentives for teachers.
Given the lack of recognition for teachers and their work, it is important to consider their beliefs
about colleagues who are under-performing within schools. If teachers who are more effective
or more innovative are not recognised, what is the situation for teachers who underperform?
Three-quarters of teachers in TALIS countries reported that their school principal does not take
steps to alter the monetary rewards of a persistently underperforming teacher (Table D5.5).
This is not surprising in light of the weak link between appraisal and feedback and monetary
outcomes in most countries. Moreover, not all education systems grant school principals the
authority to make such changes. In most countries teachers reported that sustained poor
performance would not lead to dismissal. This was particularly true in Austria (12% strongly
agreed or agreed), Ireland (11%), Korea (10%), Norway (11%), Slovenia (9%), Spain (15%)
and Turkey (10%) (Chart D5.2). However this is not true for all countries: in some countries
a substantial proportion of teachers agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that their
school principal does take steps to alter the monetary rewards of a persistently underperforming
teacher, particularly in Bulgaria (44%), Hungary (41%), Malaysia (47%), Mexico (35%), Poland
(31%), the Slovak Republic (51%) and Slovenia (45%).
1. It should be noted that TALIS did not seek to define innovative or effective teaching for respondents.Therefore, teachers’
reports in these areas represent their opinions of what is and is not innovative and effective teaching and teachers.

420

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Appraisal and Feedback Do Teachers Receive, and What Is Its Impact? – Indicator D5

chapter D

Chart D5.2. Perception of teachers of the appraisal and feedback
and its impact in their school (2007-08)
Teachers who will be dismissed because of sustained poor performance
Teachers whose school principal takes steps to alter the monetary rewards of a persistently
underperforming teacher
Teachers who would receive increased monetary or non-monetary rewards if they are more
innovative in their teaching
Teachers who would receive increased monetary or non-monetary rewards if they improve
the quality of their teaching

Malaysia
Bulgaria
Poland
Italy
Slovak Republic
Hungary
Mexico
Slovenia
Turkey
Lithuania
TALIS average
Estonia
Brazil
Portugal
Iceland
Malta
Austria
Korea
Spain
Denmark
Australia
Ireland
Norway
Belgium (Fl.)
% 100

50

0

50

100 %

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of teachers reporting to receive increased monetary or non-monetary
rewards for an improvement in the quality of their teaching.
Source: OECD. Table D5.5 and TALIS Database. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665055402267

Given the lack of action against underperforming teachers, it is important to note that
most teachers across TALIS countries thought that in their school sustained or persistent
underperformance would not be tolerated by the rest of the staff. However, in Australia,
Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Korea, Malaysia, Malta and Norway over 40% of teachers agreed
or strongly agreed that poor performance would be tolerated. It is clear therefore that a lack
of recognition for effectiveness is linked in many schools to an inability or unwillingness to
take action for underperforming teachers.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

421

D5

chapter D

D5

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

A key question regarding underperformance is how it is measured and how information is obtained
to determine a teacher’s level of performance. It is difficult to take steps when decision makers
cannot obtain or properly measure information about performance. Across TALIS countries,
55% of teachers agree that the school principal has effective methods to determine whether
teachers perform well or badly. However, this was variable across countries, and more than 60%
of teachers disagreed with this statement in Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Korea, Norway and
Spain (Table D5.5).
Just under half of teachers agreed with the statement that teachers’ work is reviewed merely to
fulfil an administrative requirement. A similar percentage of teachers reported that the review of
teachers’ work has little impact on how teachers act in the classroom. Although nearly two-thirds
of teachers reported that a development or training plan is used in their schools to improve their
work as a teacher, this is a positive sign only if such plans have a positive effect (Table D5.5).
Definitions and methodologies

Data are from the first OECD-TALIS Teaching and Learning International Survey and refer to the
school year 2007/08. TALIS collected data from school principals and teachers. The data from
school principals includes the frequency of school evaluations, including school self-evaluations,
and the importance placed upon various areas. Data were also obtained on the impacts and
outcomes of school evaluations, with a focus on the extent to which these outcomes affect the
school principal and the school’s teachers. TALIS collected data from teachers on the focus and
outcomes of teacher appraisal and feedback and professional development. This information
makes it possible to see the extent to which the focus of school evaluations is reflected in teacher
appraisal and feedback.
The focus of TALIS was lower secondary education as defined by level 2 of the International
Standard Classification for Education (ISCED).
In gathering data in TALIS, the following definitions were applied:
School evaluation

School evaluation refers to an evaluation of the whole school rather than of individual subjects
or departments.
Teacher appraisal

Teacher appraisal and feedback occurs when a teacher’s work is reviewed by either the school
principal, an external inspector or by the teacher’s colleagues. This appraisal can be conducted
in ways ranging from a more formal, objective approach (e.g. as part of a formal performance
management system, involving set procedures and criteria) to a more informal, more subjective
approach (e.g. informal discussions with the teacher).
Questionnaire items

The exact questions and response options in the TALIS survey for this indicator can be found in
Annex 3 at www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009.

422

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Appraisal and Feedback Do Teachers Receive, and What Is Its Impact? – Indicator D5

chapter D

TALIS countries

More than once
per year

Once per year

2-4 times

Once

Frequency of external evaluations
over the last five years

Never

More than once
per year

Once per year

2-4 times

Once

Never

Frequency of school self-evaluations
over the last five years

No evaluation from any
source over the last
five years

Table D5.1.
Frequency and type of school evaluations (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education working in schools where school evaluations were conducted
with the following frequency over the last five years

% (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.)
Australia
6.8 (2.87) 25.3 (3.89) 14.1 (3.17) 50.0 (4.16) 3.7 (1.73) 21.2 (3.43) 36.2 (4.06) 29.7 (4.03) 10.7 (2.28) 2.2 (1.31) 5.0 (2.30)
Austria
41.7 (3.59) 28.2 (2.94) 17.7 (2.91) 11.3 (2.11) 1.1 (0.63) 58.3 (3.37) 22.9 (3.09) 9.0 (1.89) 6.4 (1.78) 3.4 (1.22) 35.2 (3.49)
Belgium (Fl.) 22.0 (3.91) 33.4 (4.04) 30.9 (4.93) 12.9 (2.59) 0.7 (0.71) 10.4 (2.82) 54.6 (4.38) 32.7 (3.71) 1.9 (0.96) 0.4 (0.41) 5.8 (2.19)
Brazil
24.4 (2.61) 10.2 (1.67) 16.5 (2.23) 33.2 (3.29) 15.7 (2.70) 24.3 (2.64) 14.2 (2.56) 21.3 (2.59) 24.9 (2.99) 15.3 (2.50) 18.9 (2.42)
Bulgaria
22.0 (3.65) 12.6 (3.16) 11.4 (3.30) 34.5 (6.15) 19.5 (3.98) 29.4 (4.50) 30.4 (3.86) 15.9 (3.49) 14.0 (3.17) 10.4 (5.71) 18.8 (3.43)
Denmark
32.4 (4.12) 15.1 (4.01) 19.8 (3.92) 25.4 (3.84) 7.3 (2.60) 53.0 (4.31) 22.4 (4.36) 10.9 (2.97) 11.5 (2.83) 2.2 (1.62) 25.4 (4.03)
Estonia
23.9 (3.50) 26.7 (3.50) 19.5 (3.41) 28.4 (3.62) 1.6 (1.13) 27.5 (3.94) 47.8 (4.22) 18.4 (3.43) 4.4 (1.72) 1.8 (0.84) 11.8 (2.76)
Hungary
4.7 (1.92) 11.7 (2.46) 23.1 (3.22) 41.2 (6.51) 19.3 (6.36) 12.4 (2.47) 20.9 (2.81) 38.2 (6.36) 23.2 (6.93) 5.2 (1.47) 1.2 (0.67)
Iceland
11.3 (0.14) 30.9 (0.15) 26.3 (0.17) 28.9 (0.12) 2.6 (0.12) 18.0 (0.11) 56.3 (0.20) 22.5 (0.18) 0.7 (0.00) 2.5 (0.08) 5.0 (0.09)
Ireland
56.5 (5.06) 25.2 (4.52) 7.6 (2.52) 8.2 (2.87) 2.5 (1.73) 56.9 (5.16) 36.5 (5.05) 5.2 (2.11) 1.4 (1.41) 0.0 (0.00) 39.1 (4.91)
Italy
21.2 (2.84) 10.2 (1.81) 19.7 (2.63) 43.9 (3.20) 5.1 (1.50) 60.7 (3.15) 11.3 (2.16) 14.6 (2.37) 12.3 (2.29) 1.1 (0.66) 19.8 (2.76)
Korea
6.5 (2.26) 10.9 (2.70) 26.7 (3.41) 26.8 (3.80) 29.2 (3.32) 3.0 (1.53) 26.3 (3.65) 41.0 (4.22) 10.6 (2.27) 19.1 (3.20) 0.9 (0.88)
Lithuania
3.7 (1.40) 7.9 (2.03) 9.4 (2.53) 67.8 (3.54) 11.2 (2.42) 37.1 (3.50) 25.1 (3.06) 20.6 (3.12) 8.4 (1.66) 8.9 (2.59) 3.4 (1.35)
Malaysia
2.1 (0.98) 2.2 (0.96) 19.9 (2.70) 50.7 (3.36) 25.1 (3.08) 7.8 (2.00) 11.4 (2.27) 25.3 (3.12) 22.9 (3.17) 32.7 (3.51) 2.1 (0.98)
Malta
10.1 (0.13) 10.2 (0.09) 30.5 (0.15) 48.6 (0.20) 0.6 (0.00) 53.9 (0.24) 38.8 (0.25) 6.3 (0.08) 1.0 (0.00) 0.0 (0.00) 7.4 (0.13)
Mexico
20.4 (4.00) 9.5 (2.47) 17.1 (2.86) 32.4 (3.93) 20.6 (3.55) 21.1 (4.05) 11.0 (2.54) 20.0 (3.41) 20.0 (3.20) 27.9 (4.09) 17.1 (3.82)
Norway
25.5 (4.08) 14.3 (3.35) 18.7 (3.32) 33.5 (4.13) 7.9 (2.36) 35.6 (4.44) 34.9 (4.49) 21.2 (3.78) 5.9 (2.17) 2.5 (1.44) 17.2 (3.64)
Poland
10.4 (2.56) 13.8 (2.95) 24.2 (3.92) 34.2 (3.80) 17.5 (2.97) 13.6 (3.07) 51.5 (4.14) 20.1 (3.53) 12.8 (2.83) 1.9 (1.33) 6.5 (2.39)
Portugal
47.9 (3.97) 19.3 (3.56) 13.3 (2.95) 13.0 (3.10) 6.4 (2.14) 49.1 (4.34) 29.9 (4.10) 18.2 (3.11) 2.1 (1.18) 0.6 (0.65) 32.8 (3.32)
Slovak Republic 1.6 (0.79) 5.4 (2.00) 8.3 (2.36) 70.5 (3.34) 14.3 (2.88) 18.1 (3.73) 56.0 (4.28) 15.7 (3.53) 6.8 (1.78) 3.3 (1.45) 1.6 (0.79)
Slovenia
19.9 (2.97) 15.9 (2.91) 12.1 (2.59) 45.2 (3.84) 6.9 (1.86) 40.1 (3.89) 34.2 (3.78) 16.0 (2.95) 7.8 (2.20) 1.9 (1.11) 15.5 (2.81)
Spain
31.1 (3.31) 18.1 (2.74) 13.7 (2.39) 32.4 (3.72) 4.7 (1.80) 38.5 (3.67) 27.2 (3.79) 19.7 (3.27) 13.8 (2.90) 0.8 (0.76) 24.5 (3.14)
Turkey
18.0 (4.43) 16.5 (4.73) 20.9 (3.74) 30.7 (4.58) 13.9 (2.90) 8.5 (3.53) 8.0 (3.82) 28.5 (3.88) 37.6 (5.16) 17.4 (4.50) 1.8 (1.07)
TALIS average 20.2 (0.65) 16.2 (0.62) 18.3 (0.63) 34.9 (0.78) 10.3 (0.55) 30.4 (0.72) 30.8 (0.74) 20.5 (0.70) 11.4 (0.58) 7.0 (0.48) 13.8 (0.56)
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665055402267

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

423

D5

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Table D5.2.
Outcomes of teacher appraisal and feedback (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education who reported that the appraisal and/or feedback they received led to a moderate
or large change in the following aspects of their work and careers

TALIS countries

D5

A change in
salary
(S.E.)
%
Australia
5.6 (0.53)
Austria
1.1 (0.18)
Belgium (Fl.)
0.4 (0.11)
Brazil
8.2 (0.77)
Bulgaria
26.2 (1.70)
Denmark
2.2 (0.50)
Estonia
14.3 (0.72)
Hungary
9.4 (0.92)
Iceland
7.5 (0.76)
Ireland
3.5 (0.44)
Italy
2.0 (0.35)
Korea
5.2 (0.49)
Lithuania
17.3 (0.94)
Malaysia
33.0 (1.36)
Malta
1.7 (0.46)
Mexico
10.6 (0.72)
Norway
7.0 (0.78)
Poland
14.5 (0.88)
Portugal
1.7 (0.29)
Slovak Republic 19.7 (1.17)
Slovenia
14.2 (0.78)
Spain
1.8 (0.34)
Turkey
2.2 (0.49)
TALIS average

9.1

(0.16)

A financial
bonus or
A change in
another kind the likelihood
of monetary
of career
reward
advancement
(S.E.)
(S.E.)
%
%
1.6 (0.26) 16.9 (0.80)
1.7 (0.20)
4.7 (0.39)
0.1 (0.06)
3.7 (0.37)
5.5 (0.55) 25.6 (1.16)
24.2 (2.12) 11.6 (0.93)
2.7 (0.53)
4.7 (1.13)
19.8 (1.13) 10.5 (0.63)
25.1 (1.62) 10.7 (0.76)
9.3 (0.98)
8.6 (0.93)
1.4 (0.40) 13.3 (1.09)
4.0 (0.47)
4.9 (0.53)
8.3 (0.56) 12.7 (0.78)
22.0 (1.31) 14.3 (0.89)
29.0 (1.30) 58.2 (1.39)
1.2 (0.36)
8.2 (0.89)
7.3 (0.60) 28.6 (1.25)
3.0 (0.41)
6.9 (0.61)
26.5 (1.19) 39.2 (1.17)
0.6 (0.14)
6.2 (0.66)
37.3 (1.50) 20.8 (1.05)
19.4 (1.12) 39.4 (1.16)
1.6 (0.36)
8.6 (0.76)
3.6 (0.85) 13.5 (1.15)

Public
Changes
A role in school
recognition
in work
development
from the
Opportunities responsibilities
initiatives
principal
for professional that make (e.g. curriculum
and/or their development the job more development
colleagues
activities
attractive
group)
(S.E.)
(S.E.)
(S.E.)
(S.E.)
%
%
%
%
24.1 (0.99) 16.7 (1.03) 17.4 (0.96) 24.1 (1.03)
27.1 (0.88)
8.0 (0.51) 14.7 (0.63) 17.2 (0.70)
20.7 (0.92)
7.1 (0.57) 11.9 (0.74) 10.1 (0.86)
47.8 (1.22) 27.8 (1.18) 47.7 (1.42) 41.6 (1.43)
64.9 (1.56) 42.4 (2.85) 28.2 (1.58) 49.5 (1.86)
25.3 (1.49) 25.6 (1.43) 19.0 (1.61) 16.3 (1.23)
39.6 (1.23) 35.6 (1.30) 21.7 (0.82) 31.3 (0.94)
40.2 (1.42) 22.8 (1.05) 12.3 (0.81) 28.7 (1.42)
18.3 (1.44) 20.5 (1.28) 18.1 (1.37) 19.2 (1.29)
24.8 (1.10) 13.4 (1.00) 16.0 (1.11) 23.2 (1.29)
46.4 (1.40) 19.2 (1.30) 27.1 (1.34) 38.3 (1.51)
31.0 (1.19) 17.1 (0.91) 24.1 (0.91) 24.9 (1.02)
55.4 (1.11) 42.4 (1.13) 39.9 (1.06) 42.8 (1.20)
58.6 (1.33) 50.8 (1.39) 76.4 (0.92) 64.1 (1.22)
19.3 (1.47)
7.8 (1.07) 15.1 (1.40) 16.7 (1.29)
33.4 (1.30) 27.2 (1.07) 55.9 (1.35) 34.4 (1.42)
25.6 (1.09) 21.3 (1.00) 14.5 (0.79) 22.4 (0.98)
55.7 (1.22) 38.2 (1.19) 24.6 (1.13) 42.1 (1.21)
26.3 (1.11) 11.3 (0.82) 25.3 (1.26) 25.3 (1.10)
40.7 (1.47) 28.7 (1.20) 30.0 (1.00) 35.9 (1.20)
43.3 (1.29) 36.2 (1.26) 24.5 (1.04) 28.7 (1.01)
25.1 (1.27) 13.2 (0.94) 16.9 (1.01) 20.7 (1.38)
42.6 (2.13) 12.1 (1.35) 33.7 (1.69) 24.4 (1.87)

11.1

36.4

(0.20)

16.2

(0.19)

Note: Only includes those teachers that received appraisal or feedback.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665055402267

424

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

(0.27)

23.7

(0.26)

26.7

(0.24)

29.6

(0.26)

How Much Appraisal and Feedback Do Teachers Receive, and What Is Its Impact? – Indicator D5

chapter D

TALIS countries

Appraisal and/or
feedback contained a
judgment about the
quality of the teacher’s
work
Appraisal and/or
feedback contained
suggestions for improving
certain aspects of teacher’s
work

Table D5.3.
Teacher perceptions of the appraisal and/or feedback they received (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education who reported the following about the appraisal and/or feedback
they had received in their school

Appraisal and/or feedback was
Appraisal and/or feedback was
helpful in the development
a fair assessment of their work as
of their work as teachers
a teacher in this school
in this school
Strongly
Strongly Strongly
Strongly
disagree Disagree Agree
agree disagree Disagree Agree
agree
% (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.)
Australia
68.1 (1.36) 55.4 (1.28) 4.4 (0.51) 10.1 (0.73) 66.7 (1.05) 18.8 (0.94) 6.2 (0.60) 18.8 (1.15) 60.0 (1.17) 14.9 (0.87)
Austria
79.4 (0.67) 41.4 (1.09) 3.8 (0.30) 9.3 (0.57) 47.9 (0.83) 39.0 (0.84) 11.7 (0.64) 20.9 (0.81) 46.1 (1.00) 21.3 (0.80)
Belgium (Fl.) 77.3 (0.90) 64.9 (1.19) 3.0 (0.38) 9.0 (0.61) 57.2 (1.22) 30.8 (1.30) 4.2 (0.45) 13.4 (0.67) 60.4 (1.12) 22.0 (1.07)
Brazil
75.0 (1.23) 66.1 (1.65) 5.2 (0.72) 14.8 (0.96) 63.3 (1.20) 16.7 (0.91) 4.4 (0.64) 10.8 (0.76) 63.8 (1.44) 21.0 (1.18)
Bulgaria
92.5 (0.85) 70.2 (2.21) 2.1 (0.39) 6.9 (0.64) 64.8 (1.24) 26.2 (1.58) 2.4 (0.42) 6.8 (0.66) 67.4 (1.38) 23.4 (1.69)
Denmark
69.6 (1.70) 36.0 (1.67) 4.3 (0.65) 10.0 (0.97) 65.3 (1.55) 20.5 (1.25) 6.0 (0.71) 17.7 (0.95) 61.6 (1.30) 14.7 (1.08)
Estonia
83.4 (0.90) 58.2 (1.17) 2.5 (0.31) 10.9 (0.70) 68.9 (1.02) 17.7 (0.91) 6.8 (0.59) 22.9 (1.02) 59.1 (1.12) 11.2 (0.70)
Hungary
79.1 (1.33) 59.0 (2.01) 2.6 (0.43) 10.7 (0.72) 65.0 (1.15) 21.7 (1.14) 3.7 (0.48) 11.8 (0.95) 64.8 (1.06) 19.6 (1.47)
Iceland
63.7 (1.73) 29.9 (1.39) 6.8 (0.78) 12.6 (1.00) 58.9 (1.67) 21.7 (1.34) 9.3 (0.95) 19.2 (1.26) 59.3 (1.81) 12.2 (1.11)
Ireland
69.7 (1.40) 40.3 (1.72) 3.5 (0.49) 8.6 (0.73) 67.6 (1.33) 20.3 (1.13) 4.8 (0.56) 16.4 (0.89) 62.7 (1.29) 16.1 (1.10)
Italy
68.5 (1.42) 55.9 (1.67) 2.8 (0.40) 10.8 (0.84) 77.1 (1.02) 9.3 (0.80) 3.3 (0.41) 13.5 (1.02) 71.6 (1.43) 11.6 (0.96)
Korea
64.2 (1.12) 64.7 (0.99) 9.2 (0.61) 38.1 (1.03) 51.3 (1.10) 1.4 (0.29) 9.8 (0.64) 36.9 (1.00) 51.5 (1.15) 1.8 (0.27)
Lithuania
88.4 (0.82) 69.8 (1.19) 1.1 (0.27) 6.0 (0.48) 74.9 (0.81) 18.0 (0.91) 2.0 (0.31) 8.5 (0.52) 70.1 (0.95) 19.4 (0.93)
Malaysia
94.8 (0.46) 93.1 (0.53) 1.2 (0.17) 9.4 (0.65) 76.9 (0.97) 12.5 (0.89) 0.8 (0.13) 6.1 (0.49) 70.3 (1.11) 22.8 (1.17)
Malta
85.4 (1.34) 62.0 (1.63) 3.3 (0.67) 11.0 (1.24) 66.8 (1.72) 18.9 (1.32) 3.4 (0.75) 17.2 (1.53) 63.5 (1.81) 15.9 (1.29)
Mexico
72.8 (1.01) 77.5 (1.05) 6.2 (0.62) 13.6 (0.86) 54.9 (1.24) 25.4 (1.12) 5.3 (0.49) 9.2 (0.84) 52.6 (1.19) 32.9 (1.28)
Norway
61.8 (1.49) 28.2 (1.27) 6.0 (0.54) 10.0 (0.81) 46.7 (1.25) 37.4 (1.40) 9.9 (0.75) 15.1 (0.96) 54.3 (1.15) 20.7 (1.12)
Poland
88.8 (0.77) 59.1 (1.64) 2.0 (0.30) 4.4 (0.51) 62.3 (1.32) 31.3 (1.28) 2.2 (0.30) 8.9 (0.72) 68.0 (1.20) 20.9 (1.07)
Portugal
77.4 (1.03) 56.1 (1.45) 4.2 (0.54) 14.4 (0.92) 66.7 (1.15) 14.8 (0.85) 4.8 (0.58) 12.7 (0.77) 68.5 (1.22) 14.0 (1.01)
Slovak Republic 87.2 (1.01) 65.0 (1.34) 3.0 (0.40) 15.8 (0.85) 69.0 (1.28) 12.2 (0.97) 3.9 (0.48) 18.1 (1.17) 67.1 (1.26) 10.9 (0.86)
Slovenia
75.3 (0.96) 61.6 (1.30) 2.5 (0.36) 9.0 (0.59) 73.0 (1.03) 15.5 (0.91) 3.7 (0.45) 14.6 (0.79) 68.8 (1.09) 12.9 (0.92)
Spain
42.1 (1.46) 60.4 (1.40) 8.9 (0.92) 16.6 (1.07) 60.2 (1.35) 14.3 (0.96) 9.4 (0.84) 20.3 (1.24) 57.7 (1.46) 12.6 (0.96)
Turkey
53.8 (1.99) 58.7 (2.02) 12.3 (1.20) 23.2 (1.81) 50.9 (2.05) 13.6 (0.89) 10.1 (1.25) 25.4 (1.43) 51.7 (1.74) 12.8 (1.29)
TALIS average

74.7 (0.26) 58.0 (0.31) 4.4 (0.12) 12.4 (0.18) 63.3 (0.27) 19.9 (0.22) 5.6 (0.13) 15.9 (0.20) 61.8 (0.27) 16.8 (0.23)

Note: Only includes those teachers that received appraisal or feedback.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665055402267

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

425

D5

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

D5

TALIS countries

Table D5.4.
Teacher perceptions of the personal impact of teacher appraisal and feedback (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education who reported the following changes following the appraisal and/or feedback
they received in their school
Change in their job satisfaction
Change in their job security
A large A small
No
A small A large A large A small
No
A small A large
decrease decrease change increase increase decrease decrease change increase increase
% (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.)
Australia
3.3 (0.43) 6.3 (0.58) 48.1 (1.31) 34.2 (1.11) 8.3 (0.67) 1.4 (0.32) 2.3 (0.38) 76.3 (1.03) 12.7 (0.76) 7.4 (0.71)
Austria
2.2 (0.26) 3.8 (0.35) 53.5 (0.90) 27.1 (0.84) 13.4 (0.65) 1.0 (0.16) 0.9 (0.15) 83.0 (0.80) 9.0 (0.61) 6.1 (0.41)
Belgium (Fl.)
2.5 (0.38) 4.7 (0.41) 51.4 (1.43) 29.9 (1.28) 11.5 (0.77) 1.0 (0.21) 1.5 (0.21) 68.3 (1.45) 15.9 (0.96) 13.3 (0.80)
Brazil
2.7 (0.48) 5.3 (0.57) 33.5 (1.43) 36.4 (1.15) 22.1 (1.25) 1.5 (0.38) 2.5 (0.29) 58.5 (1.50) 22.1 (1.14) 15.3 (0.94)
Bulgaria
3.7 (0.64) 4.0 (0.51) 34.8 (2.53) 41.7 (2.84) 15.8 (1.29) 1.1 (0.17) 2.2 (0.56) 37.3 (2.51) 40.7 (2.57) 18.6 (1.68)
Denmark
1.3 (0.31) 3.5 (0.47) 51.3 (1.52) 35.1 (1.38) 8.8 (0.93) 0.7 (0.25) 1.3 (0.30) 81.9 (1.41) 11.2 (1.41) 5.0 (0.81)
Estonia
3.1 (0.40) 6.3 (0.52) 37.8 (1.12) 45.0 (1.26) 7.9 (0.57) 3.2 (0.36) 7.3 (0.54) 42.5 (1.07) 36.9 (1.11) 10.2 (0.63)
Hungary
0.9 (0.21) 4.4 (0.43) 42.0 (1.08) 44.3 (1.41) 8.4 (0.95) 1.9 (0.28) 4.2 (0.50) 61.5 (1.42) 21.5 (0.82) 11.0 (1.18)
Iceland
2.8 (0.53) 3.6 (0.59) 39.7 (1.47) 29.8 (1.31) 24.1 (1.34) 1.6 (0.39) 2.4 (0.50) 51.1 (1.68) 21.1 (1.33) 23.7 (1.43)
Ireland
1.6 (0.35) 4.3 (0.56) 43.8 (1.64) 40.0 (1.64) 10.2 (0.81) 0.7 (0.21) 1.3 (0.27) 81.6 (1.17) 11.6 (0.91) 4.8 (0.53)
Italy
1.1 (0.23) 2.7 (0.62) 47.9 (1.38) 35.3 (1.21) 13.0 (1.05) 1.0 (0.23) 1.6 (0.34) 76.9 (1.21) 14.2 (0.99) 6.2 (0.65)
Korea
3.3 (0.46) 8.8 (0.60) 52.8 (1.09) 32.2 (1.10) 2.9 (0.31) 2.6 (0.39) 7.0 (0.53) 59.1 (1.17) 28.8 (1.05) 2.5 (0.32)
Lithuania
2.0 (0.25) 4.9 (0.43) 38.4 (0.99) 40.2 (0.98) 14.4 (0.93) 1.5 (0.19) 4.6 (0.45) 45.7 (1.03) 33.8 (0.92) 14.4 (0.86)
Malaysia
1.2 (0.21) 2.5 (0.28) 13.0 (0.84) 49.3 (1.16) 34.1 (1.16) 0.7 (0.16) 1.9 (0.45) 29.5 (1.88) 41.5 (1.47) 26.4 (1.06)
Malta
3.2 (0.65) 5.7 (0.92) 38.5 (1.77) 38.7 (1.81) 13.9 (1.35) 1.1 (0.42) 2.6 (0.60) 74.5 (1.61) 16.8 (1.38) 4.9 (0.80)
Mexico
1.8 (0.29) 4.7 (0.50) 16.4 (0.75) 42.5 (1.08) 34.6 (1.28) 1.6 (0.31) 3.3 (0.41) 26.1 (0.90) 32.4 (1.16) 36.6 (1.28)
Norway
1.2 (0.27) 2.8 (0.41) 46.3 (1.35) 43.6 (1.23) 6.1 (0.54) 0.8 (0.18) 1.8 (0.35) 69.8 (1.22) 19.2 (1.03) 8.4 (0.75)
Poland
1.9 (0.30) 3.0 (0.32) 36.2 (1.20) 36.1 (1.20) 22.8 (1.00) 1.6 (0.25) 2.3 (0.35) 55.2 (1.21) 23.2 (0.98) 17.8 (0.96)
Portugal
3.9 (0.48) 5.8 (0.56) 42.1 (1.27) 38.2 (1.16) 10.1 (0.76) 2.1 (0.35) 2.9 (0.42) 77.7 (1.26) 13.3 (1.00) 4.0 (0.49)
Slovak Republic 2.9 (0.48) 5.9 (0.59) 42.5 (1.14) 38.3 (1.23) 10.3 (0.77) 1.6 (0.33) 3.3 (0.37) 58.7 (1.22) 25.8 (1.24) 10.7 (0.77)
Slovenia
0.7 (0.15) 2.6 (0.29) 40.7 (1.08) 44.2 (1.10) 11.8 (0.64) 0.9 (0.21) 3.3 (0.41) 62.1 (1.02) 24.2 (0.93) 9.6 (0.61)
Spain
3.5 (0.43) 6.9 (0.64) 50.6 (1.44) 30.5 (1.28) 8.5 (0.69) 2.2 (0.39) 3.3 (0.47) 72.5 (1.16) 15.3 (1.05) 6.8 (0.72)
Turkey
6.9 (0.82) 8.2 (0.94) 47.0 (2.83) 24.9 (2.29) 12.9 (1.25) 2.6 (0.61) 4.4 (0.67) 75.1 (1.45) 10.3 (1.25) 7.6 (1.06)
TALIS average

2.5 (0.09) 4.8 (0.11) 41.2 (0.30) 37.3 (0.30) 14.2 (0.20) 1.5 (0.06) 3.0 (0.09) 61.9 (0.29) 21.8 (0.25) 11.8 (0.19)

Note: Only includes those teachers that received appraisal or feedback.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665055402267

426

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Much Appraisal and Feedback Do Teachers Receive, and What Is Its Impact? – Indicator D5

chapter D

TALIS countries

In this school, the review of
teacher’s work has little impact
upon the way teachers teach in
the classroom

In this school, the review
of teacher’s work is largely
done to fulfil administrative
requirements

In this school, if I am more
innovative in my teaching I will
receive increased monetary or
non-monetary rewards

In this school, if I improve the
quality of my teaching I will
receive increased monetary or
non-monetary rewards

In this school, the most effective
teachers receive the greatest
monetary or non-monetary
rewards

In this school, a development or
training plan is established for
teachers to improve their work
as teachers

In this school, the principal uses
effective methods to determine
whether teachers are performing
well or badly

In this school, teachers will be
dismissed because of sustained
poor performance

In this school, the school
principal takes steps to alter
the monetary rewards of a
persistently underperforming
teacher
In this school, the sustained poor
performance of a teacher would
be tolerated by the rest of the
staff

Table D5.5.
Teacher appraisal and feedback and school development (2007-08)
Percentage of teachers of lower secondary education who agree or strongly agree with the following statements about aspects
of appraisal and/or feedback in their school

% (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.) % (S.E.)
Australia
7.1 (0.72) 42.8 (1.50) 29.2 (1.61) 48.7 (1.54) 54.5 (1.73) 9.2 (0.65) 8.2 (0.67) 9.0 (0.72) 63.4 (1.54) 61.4 (1.42)
Austria
7.6 (0.45) 40.8 (0.97) 11.5 (0.73) 46.2 (1.12) 21.2 (0.99) 10.9 (0.64) 11.6 (0.58) 13.8 (0.66) 44.5 (0.96) 58.9 (0.82)
Belgium (Fl.)
5.9 (0.51) 25.9 (1.13) 43.6 (1.63) 49.5 (1.53) 45.1 (1.54) 5.0 (0.44) 4.1 (0.34) 4.2 (0.37) 37.9 (1.48) 44.4 (1.35)
Brazil
24.0 (1.15) 30.4 (1.12) 30.2 (1.52) 57.7 (1.42) 70.9 (1.41) 13.2 (0.90) 18.2 (0.94) 20.0 (0.90) 45.6 (1.17) 35.9 (1.33)
Bulgaria
44.0 (2.30) 11.0 (1.17) 64.7 (2.41) 83.4 (1.32) 77.4 (2.25) 50.5 (2.83) 53.8 (1.70) 56.0 (1.74) 29.4 (1.85) 33.4 (1.31)
Denmark
6.6 (0.80) 40.7 (1.74) 35.0 (1.76) 37.8 (1.77) 54.4 (1.58) 15.0 (1.32) 8.3 (0.92) 9.0 (0.92) 48.1 (1.84) 60.8 (1.72)
Estonia
13.4 (0.91) 18.2 (0.93) 29.7 (1.16) 50.5 (1.66) 64.0 (1.40) 37.9 (1.59) 25.1 (1.17) 21.2 (1.12) 27.8 (1.18) 43.4 (1.09)
Hungary
40.7 (2.03) 32.6 (1.76) 34.3 (1.71) 61.4 (2.23) 71.9 (2.60) 45.0 (1.51) 44.3 (1.66) 42.1 (1.74) 24.4 (2.32) 40.2 (1.38)
Iceland
28.5 (1.40) 31.9 (1.34) 35.5 (1.32) 38.2 (1.49) 45.4 (1.46) 18.1 (1.08) 17.4 (1.00) 17.4 (1.03) 45.8 (1.41) 55.8 (1.37)
Ireland
5.6 (0.59) 58.9 (1.32) 10.9 (1.06) 39.1 (1.61) 51.9 (1.69) 7.5 (0.66) 6.6 (0.63) 7.0 (0.60) 52.8 (1.28) 60.2 (1.38)
Italy
26.4 (0.88) 28.0 (1.00) 27.3 (1.02) 68.1 (1.13) 71.9 (1.14) 42.6 (1.34) 48.8 (1.38) 48.7 (1.35) 32.8 (1.19) 40.9 (1.01)
Korea
13.3 (0.71) 47.3 (0.98) 10.1 (0.71) 31.9 (1.17) 31.3 (1.15) 10.0 (0.65) 11.2 (0.63) 11.8 (0.64) 60.5 (0.92) 51.9 (1.12)
Lithuania
27.0 (1.19) 20.2 (0.86) 60.2 (1.03) 70.3 (1.15) 90.7 (0.73) 36.3 (1.36) 27.7 (1.23) 26.6 (1.19) 48.9 (1.35) 54.9 (1.16)
Malaysia
47.4 (1.65) 52.8 (1.28) 17.7 (0.94) 75.0 (1.26) 89.4 (0.71) 53.1 (1.28) 56.9 (1.20) 55.1 (1.14) 50.6 (1.23) 34.7 (1.32)
Malta
13.3 (1.19) 41.9 (1.69) 24.7 (1.24) 56.0 (1.46) 60.4 (1.65) 10.2 (1.20) 12.3 (1.15) 12.6 (1.25) 58.3 (1.51) 51.8 (1.63)
Mexico
34.5 (1.31) 17.7 (1.09) 28.9 (1.30) 88.8 (0.80) 69.0 (1.43) 26.9 (1.20) 42.7 (1.28) 39.6 (1.40) 50.2 (1.67) 45.3 (1.34)
Norway
7.5 (0.59) 58.2 (1.15) 10.7 (0.88) 27.6 (1.33) 42.4 (1.41) 11.5 (0.81) 6.3 (0.70) 11.5 (0.87) 43.4 (1.24) 64.9 (1.09)
Poland
31.3 (1.37) 26.5 (1.17) 34.2 (1.22) 75.1 (1.34) 78.8 (1.24) 59.1 (1.52) 52.1 (1.35) 46.7 (1.25) 41.8 (1.53) 37.0 (1.45)
Portugal
22.4 (0.85) 20.0 (0.99) 27.2 (1.10) 57.2 (1.30) 49.3 (1.52) 11.0 (0.75) 17.8 (1.01) 17.4 (1.07) 47.9 (1.13) 55.3 (1.17)
Slovak Republic 50.8 (1.36) 34.9 (1.39) 42.4 (1.70) 64.3 (1.64) 73.6 (1.39) 48.6 (1.97) 47.0 (1.77) 48.4 (1.74) 33.8 (1.34) 54.5 (1.47)
Slovenia
44.8 (1.37) 35.0 (1.18) 8.9 (0.74) 64.3 (1.29) 67.4 (1.27) 42.2 (1.45) 31.4 (1.23) 35.8 (1.37) 37.5 (1.16) 55.5 (1.23)
Spain
12.3 (0.76) 36.3 (1.14) 15.1 (0.94) 35.5 (1.25) 53.6 (1.67) 7.3 (0.59) 10.8 (0.78) 11.3 (0.78) 48.7 (1.10) 62.2 (1.18)
Turkey
17.4 (1.48) 24.6 (1.17) 10.3 (1.09) 46.8 (1.66) 38.8 (2.21) 31.2 (2.08) 31.4 (2.24) 32.6 (2.08) 45.3 (2.04) 42.9 (2.40)
TALIS average

23.1 (0.25) 33.8 (0.26) 27.9 (0.27) 55.4 (0.30) 59.7 (0.32) 26.2 (0.28) 25.8 (0.25) 26.0 (0.25) 44.3 (0.30) 49.8 (0.29)

Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665055402267

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

427

D5

HOW DO TEACHER PRACTICES, BELIEFS AND ATTITUDES
MEASURE UP?

INDICATOR D6

This indicator focuses on teacher practices, beliefs, and attitudes. They are closely
linked to teachers’ strategies for coping with challenges in their daily professional
life and to their general well-being. They also shape the learning environment and
influence student motivation and achievement. Furthermore they can be expected
to mediate the effects of job-related policies – such as changes in curricula for
teachers’ initial education or professional development – on student learning. Data
were collected from teachers in TALIS (Teaching and Learning International Survey)
on teacher practices, beliefs and attitudes, and related issues such as classroom
management practices, teacher professional activities, and job satisfaction. Analysis
of this data has produced a number of important findings.

Key results
Chart D6.1. Distribution of time spent in the classroom during
an average lesson (2007-08)
Keeping order in the classroom

Administrative tasks

Actual teaching and learning

Although on average teachers in most participating countries spend almost 80% of their lesson
time on teaching and learning, teachers in most countries lose valuable lesson time through
disruptions and administrative tasks. Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania,
Norway, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia make relatively effective use of lesson time.
However in Brazil, Malaysia and Mexico a comparatively large proportion of time is spent on
activities other than actual teaching and learning. For example, teachers in Mexico spend more
time on administrative tasks on average than teachers in other countries (17%, compared to less
than 9% in all other participating countries).

Bulgaria
Estonia
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Lithuania
Slovenia
Poland
Ireland
Denmark
Norway
Austria
TALIS average
Turkey
Belgium (Fl.)
Korea
Malta
Italy
Spain
Australia
Portugal
Iceland
Malaysia
Mexico
Brazil

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of actual teaching and learning time.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

428

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Other highlights of this indicator
• Teachers are more inclined to regard students as active participants in the process
of acquiring and constructing knowledge than to see the teacher’s main role as the
transmission of information and demonstration of “correct solutions”.This is most
true in Australia, Korea, north-western Europe and Scandinavia, and least true in
Brazil, Malaysia and southern Europe where teachers fall between the two views.
• In the classroom, teachers in all countries put greater emphasis on ensuring
that learning is well structured than on student-oriented activities which give
them more autonomy. Both of these teaching practices are emphasised more
than enhanced learning activities such as project work. This pattern is true in
every country.

INDICATOR D6

• Co-operation by teachers in all countries more commonly takes the form of
exchanging and co-ordinating ideas and information than direct professional
collaboration such as team teaching.
• The average levels of job satisfaction and of teachers’ belief in their own
effectiveness are fairly similar across countries, although teachers in Norway
stand out as well above average in both respects. Most differences in these
job-related attitudes entail differences among teachers within countries and
within schools.
TALIS
TALIS is the new OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey. It is the first
international survey to focus on the learning environment and the working conditions
of teachers in schools and it aims to fill important information gaps in the international
comparisons of education systems.TALIS surveyed teachers of lower secondary education
and the principals of the schools in which they work across 23 countries*, i.e. among
OECD countries, Australia, Austria, Belgium (Flemish Community), Denmark, Hungary,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic,
Spain and Turkey, and among partner countries, Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania,
Malaysia, Malta and Slovenia. Within participating countries, schools (as well as teachers
within schools) were randomly selected to take part in TALIS. Countries participating in
TALIS chose to focus the survey on the following key aspects of the learning environment,
which can influence the quality of teaching and learning in schools: teacher professional
development; teaching practices, beliefs and attitudes, teacher appraisal and feedback,
and school leadership.
For more information see: www.oecd.org/edu/TALIS
* Because the sampling standards were not achieved in the Netherlands, their data are not shown in the
international comparisons from TALIS.

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

429

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Policy context

D6

It has been demonstrated that quality of instruction is fundamental to student learning. For
instance, Wang, Haertel and Warburg (1997) showed that classroom management and classroom
interactions had effects similar in size to students’ cognitive competencies and their home
environment. Likewise, when reviewing contemporary research on school effectiveness,
Scheerens and Bosker (1997) concluded that characteristics of instruction have a greater effect
on student achievement than those of the school environment. Characteristics of instruction
include teacher beliefs and attitudes, practices and classroom environment. These in turn are
related to the kinds of professional activities teachers engage in and their reported job satisfaction
and self-efficacy.
However, there is no single, well-defined best way of teaching. Teachers’ professional knowledge
and practices may differ not only among countries but also among teachers within a country. It
is important to know more about how teacher practices and beliefs interact, as the quality of the
learning environment is the factor affecting student learning and outcomes that is most readily
under the teacher’s control. In addition, classroom discipline is a core element of instructional
quality and an important part of the quality of the learning environment. In PISA, classroom
discipline is positively related to the school’s mean student achievement in many participating
countries (Klieme and Rakoczy, 2003). Also, unlike other features of classroom instruction,
there is a high level of agreement about this indicator among teachers, students and observers
(Clausen, 2002).
Teachers do not act only in the classroom where they instruct students more or less in isolation
from other classes and teachers. A modern view of teaching also includes professional activities
on the school level, such as co-operating in teams, building professional learning communities,
participating in school development, and evaluating and changing working conditions (DarlingHammond et al., 2005). These activities shape the learning environment on the school level,
i.e. the school climate, ethos and culture, and thus directly and indirectly (via classroom-level
processes) affect student learning. They also have an effect on reports of job satisfaction and selfefficacy. This indicator provides an overview of TALIS data on these issues.
Evidence and explanations
Teacher beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning

Teacher beliefs about learning and teaching have an important impact on classroom styles and
teacher practices. The TALIS report distinguishes between two types of teacher profiles. The
direct transmission view of student learning implies that a teacher’s role is to communicate
knowledge in a clear and structured way, to explain correct solutions, to give students clear
and resolvable problems, and to ensure calm and concentration in the classroom. In contrast, a
constructivist view focuses on students not as passive recipients but as active participants in
the process of acquiring knowledge. Teachers holding this view emphasise facilitating student
inquiry, prefer to give students the chance to develop solutions to problems on their own, and
allow students to play active role in instructional activities. Here, the development of thinking
and reasoning processes is stressed more than the acquisition of specific knowledge (Staub and
Stern, 2002).
430

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter D

How Do Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes Measure Up? – Indicator D6

There is an ongoing debate about the effects of direct transmission versus constructivist
approaches on student achievement, and about the appropriateness of constructivist approaches
in non-European countries. TALIS data make it possible to conduct exploratory comparative
analysis to learn whether countries differ with regard to profiles of teachers’ beliefs. (See
Definitions and methodologies section at the end of this indicator for the questionnaire items
from which the two indices for teachers’ beliefs about teaching were constructed).
Chart D6.2 presents the strength of preference among teachers for one belief (constructivist/
direct transmission) over the other. It shows that in all countries but Italy the average endorsement
of constructivist beliefs is stronger than that of direct transmission beliefs. In most countries,
therefore, teachers believe that their task is not simply to present facts and give their students the
opportunity to practice, but rather that they should support students in their active construction
of knowledge.
Chart D6.2. Country profiles of beliefs about the nature of teaching
and learning (2007-08)

Country mean of ipsative scores

Italy

Malaysia

Bulgaria

Spain

Portugal

Brazil

Lithuania

Ireland

Mexico

Hungary

Turkey

Constructivist beliefs

Poland

Norway

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Korea

Malta

Estonia

Denmark

Australia

Austria

Iceland

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

Belgium (Fl.)

Direct transmission beliefs

Ipsative means

Countries are ranked by the strength of preference among teachers in each country between direct transmission beliefs about teaching
and constructivist beliefs about teaching. So, teachers in Iceland show the strongest preference for constructivist beliefs, over direct
transmission beliefs.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

Besides this general agreement on beliefs about instruction, countries differ in the strength of
teachers’ endorsement of each of the two approaches. The preference for a constructivist view
is especially pronounced in Austria, Australia, Belgium (Fl.), Denmark, Estonia and Iceland.
Differences in the strength of endorsement are small in Brazil, Bulgaria, Italy, Malaysia, Portugal
and Spain. In general, then, teachers in Australia, Korea, north-western Europe and Scandinavia
show a stronger preference for a constructivist view than teachers in Malaysia, Mexico/South
America and southern Europe. Teachers in eastern European countries lie in between.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

431

D6

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Variance across individual, school, and country levels

D6

The question raised by the above data is: to what extent are teachers within schools and within
countries similar as a result of their shared socialisation? This was examined by analysing how much
of the total variation in teachers’ beliefs about teaching lies between countries, between schools and
between teachers within schools. Results show that 25% of the variation in teachers’ constructivist
beliefs and more than 50% of the variation in teachers’ direct transmission beliefs are accounted
for by variance between countries (Chart D6.3). These are high percentages compared with other
TALIS indices measuring teachers’ beliefs and practices. This suggests that these variables are very
strongly influenced by national school systems, culture and pedagogical traditions.
Chart D6.3. Distribution of total variance across the three levels of analysis
for teachers’ beliefs about instruction (2007-08)
%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Teacher level

Direct transmission beliefs

School level

Country level

Constructivist beliefs

The chart analyses the variation in teachers’ beliefs about instruction and indicates how much of this variation can be attributed
to country characteristics (country level), school level characteristics (school level) and individual teacher characteristics.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

The variance that exists between schools represents only a small proportion of the total variance
for both indices. Thus, beliefs about instruction seem to be relatively unaffected by socialisation
within the school, the influence of colleagues and superiors, and other school-level factors. This
may indicate that these beliefs are formed relatively early during initial education or before and
remain stable over time. Stability of teachers’ attitudes has been observed before (e.g. Nettle,
1998) and is coherent with general findings from psychology that attitudes can be quite resistant
to change. It may also be that school-level variables have different effects on individual teachers
depending on other personal characteristics. The large within-school variance also suggests that
teachers with varying beliefs about instruction may well work side by side in the same school.
Throughout the world educationalists and teacher instructors promote constructivist views
about instruction. While most teachers agree, their preferences, influenced by individual
characteristics, vary greatly within each country and school. In order to bring teacher beliefs
and practices more into line, then, a promising strategy might be to enhance the systematic
construction of knowledge about teaching and instruction in teachers’ initial education and
professional development.
432

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Do Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes Measure Up? – Indicator D6

chapter D

Classroom teaching practices

As previously discussed, teacher beliefs about learning and teaching have an important impact
on classroom styles and teacher practices. Do countries differ with regard to the profiles of their
teaching practices? According to previous research in comparative education (including TIMSS,
PIRLS and PISA), countries have quite different profiles in terms of “alternative” teaching
practices. Groups of countries with similar cultural backgrounds and pedagogical traditions are
likely to have similar profiles. In order to compare teaching practices, three indices of teacher
profiles were established. These indices distinguished between three types of practices (see
Definitions and methodologies section for the list of questions asked for these indices):
• Structuring practices, such as explicitly stating learning goals, summary of earlier lessons,
and homework review.
• Student-oriented practices, such as working in small groups, ability grouping, student
self-evaluation and student participation in classroom planning.
• Enhanced activities, such as working on projects that require at least one week to complete,
making a product, writing an essay, and debating arguments.
Chart D6.4 presents the strength of reported preference among teachers for one profile
of practice (structuring/student-oriented/enhanced activities) over the other. It shows that
structuring practices are the most frequently employed practices across all participating countries.
Chart D6.4. Country profiles of classroom teaching practices (2007-08)

Country mean of ipsative scores
Structuring teaching practices
Student-oriented teaching practices
Enhanced teaching activities

Ipsative means

2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-0.5

Ireland

Hungary

Malta

Bulgaria

Italy

Portugal

Lithuania

Belgium (Fl.)

Slovenia

Spain

Estonia

Slovak Republic

Korea

Australia

Austria

Brazil

Mexico

Poland

Turkey

Malaysia

Iceland

Norway

-1.5

Denmark

-1.0

Countries are ranked by the relative frequency with which they engage in structuring teaching practices, student-oriented teaching
practices and enhanced activities. So, teachers in Denmark adopt the different practices to a fairly similar degree, while teachers
in Ireland use structuring teaching practices much more than they do either student-oriented practices and enhanced activities.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

433

D6

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

The relative country means for this index are higher than those for student-oriented practices
and enhanced activities in all of the countries. The predominance of structuring practices is most
pronounced in Hungary, Ireland and Malta, while teachers in Denmark, Iceland and Norway
report using structuring practices only slightly more frequently than the other two practices.

D6

Enhanced activities are less frequently used than student-oriented practices in all participating
countries. This implies that teachers in different regions of the world on average allow student codetermination of the lesson, employ ability grouping and give students individually adapted tasks
more often than they assign their student projects, debates, essays and the creation of products.
Again, a general pattern of relative frequencies is observed but also cross-country differences. In
Brazil, Korea, Malta and Mexico the relative average frequencies of enhanced activities and studentoriented practices are very similar. Hence, in these countries the relative frequency of enhanced
activities is high compared with other countries. Relatively large differences between studentoriented and enhanced activities are found in Bulgaria and Slovenia.
In summary, in no country on average are student-oriented practices reported to be more
frequently used than structuring practices, or in which enhanced activities are reported to be
more frequently used than student-oriented practices. It is thus possible to identify culturegeneral categories for instructional practices and routines. These data indicate that across all
countries, the use of student-oriented and enhanced activities could be more encouraged.
Teacher’s professional activities: co-operation among teaching staff

A modern view of teaching looks at not just teaching behaviours and practices, but also includes
professional activities on the school level, such as co-operating in teams and participating in school
development (Darling-Hammond et al., 2005). These activities shape the school climate and thus
directly and indirectly (via classroom-level processes) affect student learning. Improving the quality
of education and school development requires common goals and co-operation among staff in
order to facilitate the co-ordination of resources and strategies of individual teachers. Co-operation
among staff also creates opportunities for social and emotional support, exchange of ideas and
practical advice. It can thus enhance professionalism and feelings of self-efficacy and prevent stress
and “burnout” (e.g. Rosenholtz, 1989; Clement and Vandenberghe, 2000).
TALIS used two indices to measure teachers’ participation in co-operation with other staff (see
Definitions and methodologies section for the list of questions asked for these indices):
• exchange and co-ordination for teaching: discussion of teaching material, discussion of
student development, team conferences, and ensuring common standards;
• professional collaboration: team teaching, observing other teachers to provide feedback,
co-ordinating activities across classes, and engaging in professional learning activities.
Chart D6.5 presents the strength of reported participation among teachers for one type of
co-operation with other staff (exchange and coordination/professional collaboration) over the
other. It shows that a majority of teachers across and within countries report exchanging and
co-ordinating information and ideas on teaching and administrative issues more often than they
engage jointly in professional collaboration activities and projects across subjects and age groups.
However there are also cross-country differences. In Estonia, Hungary, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico,
Poland, the Slovak Republic and Turkey, differences in the relative frequencies of both forms of
434

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

chapter D

How Do Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes Measure Up? – Indicator D6

co-operation are comparatively small. In contrast, teachers in Australia, Belgium (Fl.), Iceland,
Malta, Slovenia and Spain report the basic forms of exchange and co-ordination of teaching to be
noticeably more common than professional collaboration.
Both kinds of co-operation are important practices which can enhance school development and
effectiveness and ensure the professionalism and the well-being of teachers. However these data
show that professional collaboration practices are still relatively rare compared with practices that
focus on co-ordination and exchange of information and material. It may be useful to enhance
and support such practices, especially in the countries with the lowest reported presence of
these opportunities.
Chart D6.5. Country profiles of co-operation among staff (2007-08)

Country mean of ipsative scores
Exchange and co-ordination for teaching
Professional collaboration

Ipsative means

1.5
1.0
0.5
0
-0.5

Spain

Belgium (Fl.)

Slovenia

Australia

Iceland

Malta

Brazil

Austria

Ireland

Portugal

Malaysia

Bulgaria

Norway

Denmark

Italy

Mexico

Hungary

Estonia

Korea

Lithuania

Poland

Turkey

-1.5

Slovak Republic

-1.0

Countries are ranked in ascending order of the degree to which teachers engage in exchange and co-ordination for teaching more
than professional collaboration. For example, for teachers in the Slovak Republic both types of co-operation are reported almost
equally frequently, while teachers in Spain report a more common practice of exchange and co-ordination for teaching over
professional collaboration.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

Classroom environment, discipline, and time on task

Studies conducted in different regions of the world have shown that classroom climate is one of
the most important predictors of student achievement (e.g. Brophy and Good, 1986; Mortimore
et al., 1988;Wang, Haertel and Walberg, 1997).TALIS focuses on the disciplinary climate because
it has a strong impact on student learning in various subjects (Klieme and Rakoczy, 2003; Rakoczy
et al., 2007), and because it has been shown that – unlike other features of classroom climate –
there is a high level of agreement about this indicator among teachers, students and observers.
To measure classroom disciplinary climate,TALIS asked teachers whether they had to cope with
a lot of noise and interruptions during lessons and whether they find the learning atmosphere
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

435

D6

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

pleasant (see Definitions and methodologies section). This measure is adapted from the PISA
student questionnaire. An additional measure of the environment at the classroom level derived
from TALIS data is an index for “time on task”. Teachers were asked about the percentage of
time they typically spend on actual teaching and learning in the target class. Time on task is
a central aspect of instructional effectiveness because it provides students with a maximum
opportunity to learn.

D6

As Chart D6.1 demonstrates, teachers in most participating countries spend almost 80% of their
lesson time on teaching and learning. However, valuable lesson time is lost through disruptions
and administrative tasks. Analysis of teacher responses indicates that one in four teachers in most
countries lose at least 30% of their lesson time to these factors. In addition, Chart D6.6 and
Table D6.1 show that, as expected, classroom disciplinary climate and time on task are related
both within and between countries. The better the classroom disciplinary climate, the more time
spent on actual teaching and learning.

Chart D6.6. Country means for two indicators of the quality of the classroom environment
(2007-08)
Average percentage of lesson
time spent teaching and learning

90

Bulgaria
Lithuania
Hungary
Slovak Republic
Ireland
Slovenia
Denmark Poland
Norway

85
80
Spain

75

Portugal

Malta

Iceland

Belgium (Fl.) Austria
Italy
Korea Turkey
Australia

Malaysia

70

Estonia

Mexico

Brazil

65
60
-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Classroom disciplinary climate:
mean standardised factor score

Factor scores are standardised, so that the international mean equals zero and the international standard deviation equals one
(see TALIS Technical Report, forthcoming).Thus a negative score indicates a score for classroom disciplinary climate that is below
the international average.This may not necessarily indicate a poor classroom disciplinary climate.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

Within-country correlations between these aspects are significant in all countries, and they
are 0.5 or more in many. At the country level, countries in which teachers report spending a
comparatively small percentage of time on teaching and learning also have a low mean score for
classroom disciplinary climate. This mainly concerns Brazil, Iceland, Korea, Malaysia, Malta,
Portugal, Spain and Turkey. Likewise, countries with a high mean score for classroom disciplinary
436

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Do Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes Measure Up? – Indicator D6

chapter D

climate also have comparatively high mean scores for time on task.This is the case for Estonia and
to a lesser extent for Austria, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Poland and Slovenia. Mexico
is a notable exception in that teachers view the classroom disciplinary climate quite positively
despite the low average score for time on task.
Overall, a majority of teachers in all participating countries report using lesson time effectively.
Nevertheless, a considerable percentage of teachers in each of the countries, and especially
in Brazil, Malaysia and Mexico, are not able to provide their students with adequate time for
learning. Generally, time loss is largely due to disciplinary problems, although administrative
issues also distract from actual teaching and learning, especially in Mexico.
Job-related attitudes: self-efficacy and job satisfaction

In addition to pedagogical beliefs and attitudes, TALIS addresses job-related attitudes, namely
job satisfaction and teacher self-efficacy. Job satisfaction is a central concept in organisational and
work psychology. It is assumed that job satisfaction is both affected by the work situation and
influences work-related behaviour, including performance, absenteeism and turnover (Dormann
and Zapf, 2001). Strong self-efficacy beliefs can prevent stress and burnout and teachers’
self-efficacy beliefs and their job satisfaction are linked to instructional practices and student
achievement (e.g. Ashton and Webb, 1986; Ross, 1998).

Chart D6.7. Country means of teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction (2007-08)
Job satisfaction

3.5
3.4

Norway
Belgium (Fl.)

3.3

Austria
Denmark
Slovenia Malaysia
Ireland
Spain
Malta
Italy
Poland
Bulgaria Iceland

3.2
3.1
Korea

3.0

Portugal
Mexico
Australia
Brazil
Turkey Lithuania
Slovak Republic

Estonia

2.9
Hungary

2.8
-1.0

-0.5

0

0.5

1.0

Self-efficacy: standardised factor scores

Factor scores are standardised, so that the international mean is zero and the international standard deviation equals one (see TALIS
Technical Report, forthcoming).Thus a negative score indicates a score for self-efficacy that is below the international average.This may
not necessarily indicate a low level of self-efficacy.The score for job satisfaction represents the extent of agreement on average with
the statement “All in all I am satisfied with my job”, where strongly agree = 4 points, agree = 3 points, disagree = 2 points and
strongly disagree = 1 point.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

437

D6

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

InTALIS, the teacher self-efficacy index was constructed from four items of the teacher questionnaire
which asked teachers, for instance, how strongly they felt that they made an educational difference
in students’ lives and how well they were able to make progress with the most difficult and
unmotivated students (see Definitions and methodologies section for the list of items). Country
means for the self-efficacy index and for the single item measuring job satisfaction are illustrated
in Chart D6.7.

D6

Generally there are small country differences in self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Norway has an
exceptionally high mean score for both self-efficacy and job satisfaction. Teachers in Austria and
Belgium (Fl.) are also relatively satisfied with their job. For Hungary and the Slovak Republic,
however, average job satisfaction is low compared to that of the other participating countries.
Comparatively weak self-efficacy beliefs are reported by teachers in Estonia, Hungary, Korea and
Spain and to a lesser extent the Slovak Republic. However these data are country means, and an
analysis of the variance (between country, school, and individual levels) indicates that the most
variance (87% and 90%, respectively) is at the teacher level.

Chart D6.8. Distribution of total variance across the three levels of analysis
for self efficacy and job satisfaction (2007-08)
Teacher level

School level

Country level

%

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Self-efficacy

Job satisfaction

Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

Only 5% and 6% (self-efficacy and job satisfaction respectively), of the total variance is
between schools and only 8% and 4%, respectively, is variance between countries. Thus,
teachers within a school vary markedly in their levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction,
while differences between schools and between countries are rather small. Furthermore,
variance at the school level is relatively similar across countries. These results emphasise the
psychological nature of the constructs and the fact that across countries, teachers’ self-efficacy
and job satisfaction depend on and interact with their personality, personal experiences,
competencies and attitudes. This should be considered in interventions aiming at enhancing
teachers’ self-efficacy, as these results suggest that individualised interventions may be more
effective than school or system level policies.
438

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Do Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes Measure Up? – Indicator D6

chapter D

Definitions and methodologies

Data are from the first OECD-TALIS Teaching and Learning International Survey and refer to
the school year 2007/08. TALIS collected data from school principals and teachers. For this
indicator, the data from teachers includes reports of their teaching practices, beliefs, attitudes,
and professional activities. They also cover classroom disciplinary climate, job satisfaction,
feelings of self-efficacy, and relations with students.
The focus of TALIS was lower secondary education as defined by level 2 of the International
Standard Classification for Education (ISCED).
Analysis and computation of scores

Analysis was conducted to test for cross-cultural consistency of the indices on teaching practices,
teachers’ beliefs and attitudes (see Annex A1.1 in OECD [2009e] and TALIS Technical Report,
forthcoming, for full details). This analysis indicated that countries’ mean scores on these indices
are not directly comparable. The analysis in this section therefore focuses on profiles within
countries and in particular on the extent to which teachers endorse one belief over the other. To
do this, teachers’ responses are standardised and presented as ipsative scores, which describe the
relative endorsement of the two indices (see Box D6.1).

Box D6.1. Computation of ipsative scores
Calculating ipsative scores is an approach to standardising individual responses to
express them as preferences between two or more options and thus helps reduce the
effects of response bias (Fischer, 2004). For teachers’ beliefs about instruction, ipsative
scores were computed by subtracting the individual mean across all of the eight items
measuring teachers’ beliefs from the individual mean across the four items belonging
to the index direct transmission beliefs about instruction and also from the four items
measuring constructivist beliefs about instruction. Thus, mean scores were calculated
for both indices and corrected for the overall tendency to accept any of the belief items.
The means across both indices average zero for each teacher, and therefore the country
means across both indices also equal zero. The resulting score of an individual teacher is
the relative endorsement of this index or the relative position of the individual on one
index in relation to the other index. Positive score values indicate that one set of beliefs
receives a relatively stronger support than the other. The standard deviation describes
the variability of the relative endorsement. Given that the variable follows a Normal
distribution, about two-thirds of teachers have an ipsative score that lies in the range of
the mean score plus or minus one standard deviation.

Questionnaire items

The following boxes provide the questionnaire items that comprise the indices that are covered
this indicator.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

439

D6

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Teacher beliefs
The two indices for teachers’ beliefs about teaching comprise the following questionnaire
items:
Direct transmission beliefs about teaching

D6

• Effective/good teachers demonstrate the correct way to solve a problem.
• Instruction should be built around problems with clear, correct answers, and around
ideas that most students can grasp quickly.
• How much students learn depends on how much background knowledge they have; that
is why teaching facts is so necessary.
• A quiet classroom is generally needed for effective learning.
Constructivist beliefs about teaching

• My role as a teacher is to facilitate students’ own inquiry.
• Students learn best by finding solutions to problems on their own.
• Students should be allowed to think of solutions to practical problems themselves before
the teacher shows them how they are solved.
• Thinking and reasoning processes are more important than specific curriculum content.
Analysis was conducted to test for cross-cultural consistency of the indices on teaching
practices, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes (see Annex A1.1 in OECD [2009e] and the TALIS
Technical Report, [forthcoming]).

Teaching practices
The questionnaire items comprising the three teaching practice indices are as follows:
Index of structuring practices

• I explicitly state learning goals.
• I review with the students the homework they have prepared.
• At the beginning of the lesson I present a short summary of the previous lesson.
• I check my students’ exercise books.
• I check, by asking questions, whether or not the subject matter has been understood.
Index of student oriented practices

• Students work in small groups to come up with a joint solution to a problem or task.
• I give different work to the students that have difficulties learning and/or to those who
can advance faster.
• I ask my students to suggest or to help plan classroom activities or topics.
• Students work in groups based upon their abilities.
440

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Do Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes Measure Up? – Indicator D6

chapter D

Index of enhanced activities

• Students work on projects that require at least one week to complete.
• Students make a product that will be used by someone else.
• I ask my students to write an essay in which they are expected to explain their thinking
or reasoning at some length.
• Students hold a debate and argue for a particular point of view which may not be their own.
In the analysis to test the cross-cultural validity of these indices, configural and metric
invariance was achieved but scalar invariance was not. Country means on the index are
therefore not directly comparable. The analysis therefore focuses more on the pattern of
cross-cultural differences than on specific country-by-country comparisons of the index
scores (see Annex A1.1 in OECD [2009e] and the TALIS Technical Report, [forthcoming]).

Co-operation among teachers
The questionnaire items comprising these two indices are as follows:
Index of exchange and co-ordination for teaching

• Discuss and decide on the selection of instructional media (e.g. textbooks, exercise
books).
• Exchange teaching materials with colleagues.
• Attend team conferences for the age group I teach.
• Ensure common standards in evaluations for assessing student progress.
• Engage in discussion about the learning development of specific students.
Index of professional collaboration

• Teach jointly as a team in the same class.
• Take part in professional learning activities (e.g. team supervision).
• Observe other teachers’ classes and provide feedback.
• Engage in joint activities across different classes and age groups (e.g. projects).
• Discuss and coordinate homework practice across subjects.
In the analysis to test the cross-cultural validity of these indices, configural and metric
invariance was achieved but scalar invariance was not. Country means on the index are
therefore not directly comparable. The analysis therefore focuses more on the pattern of
cross-cultural differences than on specific country-by-country comparisons of the index
scores (see Annex A1.1 in OECD [2009e] and the TALIS Technical Report, [forthcoming]).
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

441

D6

chapter D

The Learning Environment and Organisation of Schools

Classroom environment, discipline, and time on task
Index of classroom disciplinary climate

D6

The questionnaire items comprising this index are as follows:
• When the lesson begins, I have to wait quite a long time for students to <quieten down>.
• Students in this class take care to create a pleasant learning atmosphere.
• I lose quite a lot of time because of students interrupting the lesson.
• There is much noise in this classroom.
This index was correlated with ratings of time on task in order to get a measure of the
quality of the classroom environment. In the analysis to test the cross-cultural validity of
this index, configural and metric invariance was achieved. Although full scalar invariance
was not established, the fit of the models for testing this was sufficiently close to allow an
examination of the global picture of mean score differences, though direct comparisons of
country means should be avoided (see Annex A1.1 in OECD [2009e] and the TALIS Technical
Report, [forthcoming]).

Job-related attitudes: self-efficacy and job satisfaction
Index of teachers’ self-efficacy

The questionnaire items comprising this index are as follows:
• I feel that I am making a significant educational difference in the lives of my students.
• If I try really hard, I can make progress with even the most difficult and unmotivated
students.
• I am successful with the students in my class.
• I usually know how to get through to students.
This index was combined with mean scores for the single item measuring job satisfaction
in order to get a measure of job-related attitudes. In the analysis to test the cross-cultural
validity of this index, configural and metric invariance was achieved. Although full scalar
invariance was not established, the fit of the models for testing this was sufficiently close
to allow an examination of the global picture of mean score differences, though direct
comparisons of country means should be avoided (see Annex A1.1 in OECD [2009e] and
the TALIS Technical Report, [forthcoming]).
Further references

The following additional material relevant to this indicator is available through TALIS (Teaching
and Learning International Survey) on line at www.oecd.org/edu/TALIS/.

442

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

How Do Teacher Practices, Beliefs and Attitudes Measure Up? – Indicator D6

chapter D

TALIS countries

Table D6.1.
Correlation between time on task1 and classroom disciplinary climate (2007-08)
Teachers of lower secondary education
Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Brazil
Bulgaria
Denmark
Estonia
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Korea
Lithuania
Malaysia
Malta
Mexico
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey

Correlation coefficient (rxy)2

(S.E.)

0.63
0.56
0.54
0.31
0.50
0.57
0.62
0.61
0.48
0.65
0.46
0.21
0.35
0.36
0.58
0.20
0.56
0.46
0.59
0.49
0.51
0.61
0.41

(0.019)
(0.014)
(0.018)
(0.022)
(0.021)
(0.024)
(0.017)
(0.020)
(0.029)
(0.015)
(0.018)
(0.018)
(0.018)
(0.024)
(0.026)
(0.027)
(0.018)
(0.024)
(0.016)
(0.020)
(0.019)
(0.014)
(0.029)

D6

1. Percentage of classroom time spent on teaching and learning.
2. Statistically significant at the 5% level.
Source: OECD, TALIS Database.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/665115410485

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

443

Annex

1

Characteristics
of Educational Systems
The typical graduation age is the age at the
end of the last school/academic year of the
corresponding level and programme when
the degree is obtained. The age normally
corresponds to the age of graduation.
(Note that at some levels of education the term
“graduation age” may not translate literally
and is used here purely as a convention.)

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

445

Annex 1

Characteristics of Educational Systems

OECD countries

Annex 1

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Partner countries

Table X1.1a.
Upper secondary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and method used to
calculate graduation rates (2007)

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

Programme orientation
Pre-vocational
General
or vocational
programmes
programmes
17
17
17-18
17-19
18
18
17-18
17-18
19
18
18-19
20-21
19
19
18-19
17-21
19-20
19-20
18
18
19
19
19
17
18
19
19
18
18
18
17
17
18
17-20
18
18
17-18
18-20
17-18
17-18
18
19-20
19
20
17
17-18
19
19
17
17
18
18
18-20
18-20
16-17
16-17
16-18
16-18
17
m
18
17
19
17
17
19

18
17
19
17
17
17-19

Typical graduation ages
Educational/labour market destination
ISCED 3A
programmes
17
17-18
18
17-18
19
18-19
19
18-19
19-20
18
19
19
18
19
18
17
18-19
18
17-20
18
18
19
17
19
17
18
18-20
16-17
18
17

ISCED 3B
programmes
17
17-19
a
a
19
a
a
19-21
19-20
a
a
21
a
18
18
a
19-20
a
a
17
a
a
m
a
a
n
18-20
a
18
m

17
17
19
17
17
19

18
a
a
a
17
19

ISCED 3C short ISCED 3C long
programmes1 programmes1
17
17
14-15
16-17
18
18
a
17-18
a
18
23
20-21
a
a
17-19
18-23
19-20
a
18
18
18
19
17
20
19
18
17
a
16
18
a
17
17-18
18-19
a
18
18
18-19
17
17
m
19-20
a
19
m
m
18
18
17
17
n
18
17-19
18-20
m
a
16
16
m
m
a
a
19
a
16
17

a
a
a
17
17
18

1. Duration categories for ISCED 3C – Short: at least one year shorter than ISCED 3A/3B programmes; Long: of similar duration to ISCED 3A
or 3B programmes.
Source: OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672

446

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Characteristics of Educational Systems

Annex 1

Table X1.1a. (continued)
Upper secondary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and method used to
calculate graduation rates (2007)

OECD countries

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

First-time
graduates
m
m
m
gross
gross
net
net
m
gross
net
net
net
net
net
gross
gross
net
net
m
gross
net
net
m
net
gross
net
gross
net
gross
net

Partner countries

Graduation rates calculation: Gross versus net

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
net
m
net
m
gross

PreISCED
ISCED
vocational or
ISCED 3A
ISCED 3B
3C short
3C long
General
vocational
programmes programmes programmes1 programmes1 programmes programmes
gross
m
net
m
gross
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
a
net
net
net
net
gross
a
gross
a
gross
gross
gross
gross
gross
a
gross
gross
net
a
net
net
net
net
net
a
a
a
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross
gross
a
gross
gross
gross
net
a
net
m
net
net
net
a
net
m
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
a
net
net
net
net
net
gross
a
gross
net
net
gross
gross
gross
m
gross
gross
gross
a
gross
a
gross
gross
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
a
net
a
net
net
net
a
net
net
net
net
m
m
m
m
m
m
net
a
net
m
net
net
net
a
net
a
net
net
net
m
m
m
net
net
net
a
net
net
net
net
gross
a
gross
gross
gross
gross
net
n
net
n
net
net
gross
gross
gross
m
gross
gross
net
a
a
m
net
net
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
net
net
net
net
gross
net

net
a
a
a
gross
net

a
a
a
net
gross
net

a
a
net
a
m
net

net
net
net
net
gross
net

net
net
net
net
gross
net

1. Duration categories for ISCED 3C – Short: at least one year shorter than ISCED 3A/3B programmes; Long: of similar duration to ISCED 3A
or 3B programmes.
Source: OECD. See definitions of gross and net rates in Indicator A2.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

447

Annex 1

Annex 1

Characteristics of Educational Systems

OECD countries

Annex 1

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Partner countries

Table X1.1b.
Post-secondary non-tertiary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and method used to
calculate graduation rates (2007)

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

Typical graduation ages
Educational/labour market destination
ISCED 4A
ISCED 4B
ISCED 4C
programmes programmes programmes
a
a
18-20
18-19
19-20
24-25
19
19-21
19-21
m
a
30-34
21
a
21
21
a
a
a
a
35-39
22-25
a
22-25
22
22
a
a
a
20
a
a
20
n
n
26
a
a
23
a
a
20
19
19
19
a
a
a
a
a
22-24
a
a
a
a
a
20-21
18-19
18-19
18-19
20-21
a
21-22
a
a
21
19-20
19-20
19-20
22
a
a
a
a
a
n
n
19-20
21-23
21-23
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
m
a
20

a
a
21
a
a
20

a
a
a
a
19
n

Graduation rates calculation: Gross versus net
Educational/labour market destination
First-time
ISCED 4A
ISCED 4B
ISCED 4C
graduates programmes programmes programmes
m
a
a
net
m
net
net
net
m
net
net
net
m
m
a
m
gross
gross
a
gross
net
net
a
a
net
a
a
net
m
gross
a
gross
gross
gross
gross
a
net
a
a
net
net
a
a
net
net
n
n
net
net
a
a
net
net
a
a
net
m
m
m
m
a
a
a
a
net
a
a
net
a
a
a
m
m
a
a
net
net
m
m
m
net
net
a
net
net
a
a
net
m
m
m
m
net
net
a
a
a
a
a
a
net
n
n
net
gross
gross
gross
a
a
a
a
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
m
m
m
net

Source: OECD. See definitions of gross and net rates in Indicator A2.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672

448

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

a
a
a
m
a
net

a
a
m
a
a
gross

a
a
a
a
gross
n

Characteristics of Educational Systems

Annex 1

Partner countries

OECD countries

Table X1.1c.
Tertiary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and method used to calculate graduation rates (2007)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Tertiary-type B
(ISCED 5B)
19-21
21-23
21-22
21-24
22-23
23-25
24-27
20-24
21-23
22-24
21
27-28
20-21
22-23
20
21-23
m
20
n
19-20
21-22
22
21-23
22
19
22
23-29
20-21
19-24
20

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

22
22-25
22
m
20
23-26

Typical graduation ages
Tertiary-type A (ISCED 5A)
Advanced research
3 to less than 5
programmes
years
5 to 6 years
More than 6 years
(ISCED 6)
20-22
21-23
24
25-26
22-24
24-26
a
27-29
22
23-24
24
26-29
22
23-24
25
27-29
23
25
23-26
28
24
26
26
30-34
24
26
35-39
30-34
20-23
22-25
28-29
27-29
24-26
25-27
a
28-29
22-23
25-27
a
28-29
23
24
a
30-34
23-24
25
n
30-34
21
23
25
27
23
25
30-34
29
22
24
25
27
21
23
a
30-34
m
m
m
m
23
23-26
m
24-28
21-23
23-25
a
28-29
21-22
22-23
25
29
22-23
24-25
26-27
28-29
23
25
a
25-29
22
23-24
25-29
30-34
23
24
a
28
20
22
27-28
25-27
25
25
n
30-34
24-26
25-27
25-27
30-34
22-23
25-26
30-34
30-34
20-22
22-24
23-25
25-29
22
24
25
27
22
23-25
22
26
21
25-26

m
24-26
24
a
22
25-26

m
25-27
a
a
n
a

30-34
30-34
30-34
30-34
24-26
29

Note: Where tertiary-type A data are available by duration of programme, the graduation rate for all programmes is the sum of the graduation
rates by duration of programme.
Source: OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

449

Annex 1

Annex 1

Characteristics of Educational Systems

Table X1.1c. (continued)
Tertiary graduation rate: typical graduation ages and method used to calculate graduation rates (2007)
Graduation rates calculation: Gross versus net
Tertiary-type B (ISCED 5B)

Graduation rate
(all students)

Graduation rate
for international/
foreign students only

Graduation rate
(all students)

Graduation rate
for international/
foreign students only

Graduation rate
(all students)

Graduation rate
for international/
foreign students only

Graduation rate
(all students)

Graduation rate
for international/
foreign students only

Graduation rate
(all students)

Graduation rate
for international/
foreign students only

Second degree

Graduation rate
for international/
foreign students only

First degree

Graduation rate
(all students)

First-time

OECD countries

First degree

Advanced
research
programmes
(ISCED 6)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

m
net
m
m
gross
net
net
m
gross
net
gross
net
m
m
gross
m
m
m
n
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross
net
net
gross

m
m
m
m
gross
net
n
m
m
m
m
net
m
gross
m
m
m
m
m
net
m
m
m
m
m
net
m
m
m
m

net
net
net
m
gross
net
net
gross
gross
net
net
net
gross
net
gross
net
m
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross
net
net
gross

m
net
gross
m
gross
net
n
gross
m
m
gross
net
m
gross
gross
net
m
m
n
net
gross
m
gross
m
m
net
m
gross
gross
gross

net
net
m
gross
net
net
net
m
net
net
gross
net
gross
net
gross
m
m
m
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross
net
net
m
net
gross

net
net
m
m
net
net
m
m
net
m
m
net
m
net
m
m
m
m
m
net
m
m
m
m
m
net
m
m
m
m

net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross
net
net
net
net
gross
net
gross
net
m
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross

net
net
gross
gross
net
net
net
gross
net
m
gross
net
m
net
gross
net
m
m
net
net
gross
gross
gross
gross
m
net
gross
gross
gross
gross

net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross
net
net
net
net
gross
net
gross
net
m
gross
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross

net
net
gross
gross
net
net
m
gross
net
m
gross
net
m
gross
gross
net
m
m
net
net
gross
gross
gross
gross
m
net
gross
gross
gross
gross

net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross
net
gross
net
net
gross
gross
gross
net
m
gross
gross
net
net
gross
net
net
net
net
net
net
net
gross

net
net
gross
gross
net
net
net
gross
net
m
gross
net
m
gross
gross
net
m
m
m
net
gross
m
gross
gross
m
net
gross
gross
gross
gross

Partner countries

First-time

Tertiary-type A (ISCED 5A)

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
m
m
m
m
net

m
m
m
m
m
m

m
net
net
m
gross
net

m
m
gross
m
gross
gross

m
m
m
net
m
net

m
m
m
m
m
m

net
net
net
net
gross
net

m
m
gross
m
gross
gross

net
net
net
net
gross
net

m
m
gross
m
m
gross

net
net
net
net
gross
net

m
m
gross
m
m
m

Annex 1

Source: OECD. See definitions of gross and net rates in Indicator A3.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672

450

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Characteristics of Educational Systems

Annex 1

Table X1.2a.
School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, OECD countries
Financial year
2005

School year
2006

2007

2008

OECD countries

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

Australia
Austria
Belgium

Annex 1

Canada
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

2005

2006

2007

2008

Source: OECD.

1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

451

Annex 1

Characteristics of Educational Systems

Table X1.2b.
School year and financial year used for the calculation of indicators, partner countries
Financial year
2005

School year
2006

2007

2008

Partner countries

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

Annex 1

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia
Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6

2005

2006

Source: OECD.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672		

452

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

2007

2008

Characteristics of Educational Systems

Annex 1

Table X1.3.
Summary of completion requirements for upper secondary programmes

N
Y
a
a

Y
Y
a
a

N
Y
a
a

N
N
a
a

N
a

Y
a

Y
a

N
a

a
Y

a
Y

a
N

a
N

a
Y
a
Y
N

a
Y
a
Y/N
N

a
N
a
Y/N
Y

a
N
a
N
N

Y

Y

Y

N

a

a

a

a

a
a
m

a
a
m

a
a
m

a
a
m

N
N
Y5

Y
N
a
a

Y
N
a
a

Y
Y
a
a

N
a
a

Y/N

Y

Y

N

a

a

a

a

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
m
N
N
Y/N

Specified number
of course hours only

N
N
N
N
N
N

Specified number
of course hours, AND
examination

Specified number
of course hours only

Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
N
Y/N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
m
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
SS

Series of examinations
during programme

Specified number
of course hours, AND
examination

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
m
N
Y
Y/N
Y
N
Y
SS

Final examination

Series of examinations
during programme

Specified number
of course hours only

N/Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y/N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y/N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
m
Y
N
Y/N
Y
N
N4
20Y/30N

ISCED 3C programmes

Final examination

Specified number
of course hours, AND
examination

Israel1

Series of examinations
during programme

Australia1, 2
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)3
Belgium (Fr.)
Canada (Québec)1
Czech Republic1
Denmark1
Finland
France
Germany
Greece1
Hungary
Iceland1
Ireland1
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands1
New Zealand
Norway
Poland1
Portugal
Slovak Republic1
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey1
United Kingdom1
United States1

ISCED 3B programmes

Final examination
Partner
country

OECD countries

ISCED 3A programmes

N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
N
N
N

Y/N
Y
N
Y
Y/N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y/N
Y

Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y/N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y

N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N

N
Y
m
Y
Y/N

Y
N
m
N
Y/N

Y
Y
m
Y
Y/N

N
N
m
N
N

a

N
Y
a

Y
Y
N
a

N
N
a

Y/N

Y

Y

Y
N

Note: Y = Yes; N = No; SS = Some states
1. See Annex 3 Chapter A for additional notes on completion requirements (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
2. Completion requirements for ISCED 3A vary by state and territory. The information provided represents a generalisation of diverse
requirements.
3. Covers general education only.
4. There is usually no final examination, though some ISCED 3A programmes can be completed this way.
5. Almost all states specify levels of Carnegie credits (i.e. acquired through completion of a two-semester course in specific subjects, which vary
by state).
Source: OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681781308672

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

453

Annex 1

Annex

2

Reference Statistics

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

455

Annex 2

Reference Statistics

OECD countries

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada1
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States

Total public
expenditure as a
percentage of GDP
m
49.3
48.3
43.4
43.8
51.6
48.9
52.7
45.3
42.4
51.8
41.7
33.7
49.9
36.5
30.2
38.6
22.0
45.6
31.9
40.6
43.8
46.3
19.5
38.5
54.3
43.1
m
46.1
37.0

Partner countries

Table X2.1.
Overview of the economic context using basic variables
(reference period: calendar year 2006, 2006 current prices)

Brazil
Chile2
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

31.2
20.5
33.4
45.0
29.6
44.4

Annex 2

GDP per capita

(in equivalent USD
converted using PPPs)

GDP deflator

GDP deflator

35 666
35 259
33 608
34 888
21 966
34 871
32 586
31 055
32 835
26 701
18 030
35 096
41 803
29 356
32 040
23 083
75 754
13 332
37 130
26 808
52 118
14 842
21 656
18 020
29 520
34 456
38 568
12 074
34 137
43 839

136.8
113.2
120.1
125.2
158.8
126.2
116.2
118.7
107.2
156.5
264.3
157.4
152.4
133.7
89.9
130.6
131.4
341.4
131.4
126.8
167.4
195.3
141.2
175.1
147.2
115.0
107.0
4 448.3
131.3
126.7

124.5
110.4
113.3
115.4
114.5
114.4
106.3
113.0
106.1
121.9
137.1
132.6
122.1
116.9
92.6
111.6
121.5
149.0
117.0
116.6
127.7
115.2
120.1
128.2
127.8
109.0
104.7
340.7
116.7
116.7

9 440
13 904
18 519
24 680
13 248
24 868

251.0
182.9
219.8
149.4
1 203.9
192.0

178.0
156.4
133.3
108.6
254.7
132.4

1.Year of reference 2005.
2.Year of reference 2007.
Source:OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681888503672

456

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

(1995 =100)

(2000 =100)

Reference Statistics

Annex 2

Table X2.2
Basic reference statistics (reference period: calendar year 2006, 2006 current prices)1
Gross
Domestic
Product

Gross
Domestic
Product

Purchasing
Total
Purchasing Purchasing Power Parity
Total public population Power Parity Power Parity for private
expenditure in thousand
for GDP
for GDP
consumption
(in millions of
(mid-year
(PPP)
(PPP)
(PPP)

Partner countries

OECD countries

(in millions of (adjusted to
local currency)2 financial year)3 local currency)

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada4
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan5
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Euro zone

1 045 674
257 295
318 223
1 372 626
3 215 642
1 628 630
167 041
1 807 462
2 321 500
213 207
23 785 244
1 167 684
177 286
1 479 981
508 925 100
848 044 635
33 921
10 306 839
539 929
169 135
2 159 573
1 060 031
155 446
1 659 398
982 303
2 900 790
487 041
758 391
1 321 860
13 116 500

Brazil
Chile6
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

2 322 818
85 639 828
205 038
640 776
26 879 762
7 430 748

1 311 337

503 532 075

1 269 844
12 928 400

estimates)

(USD = 1)

(Euro zone = 1)

(USD = 1)

333 972
126 926
153 582
568 681
1 409 224
841 076
81 631
952 516
1 052 290
90 506
12 329 018
486 617
59 720
739 185
183 596 600
256 137 600
13 101
2 270 559
246 356
54 003
875 710
464 337
71 947
323 655
378 321
1 575 244
209 950
m
584 779
4 779 807

20 822
8 282
10 543
32 649
10 267
5 437
5 266
63 195
82 366
11 149
10 071
304
4 253
58 942
127 755
48 297
473
104 748
16 341
4 142
4 661
38 132
10 584
5 391
44 068
9 081
7 459
72 974
60 587
299 199

1.408059
0.881098
0.898096
1.205036
14.259145
8.590117
0.973386
0.920985
0.85839
0.716248
130.984735
109.325126
0.997109
0.855332
124.331944
760.668286
0.94748
7.380627
0.88988
1.523227
8.890022
1.873
0.678159
17.081592
0.755099
9.270923
1.692962
0.860733
0.639124
1
0.855

1.6461
1.0300
1.0499
1.4087
16.6696
10.0422
1.1379
1.0767
1.0035
0.8373
153.1269
127.8059
1.1657
0.9999
145.3495
889.2545
1.1076
8.6283
1.0403
1.7807
10.3928
2.1896
0.7928
19.9691
0.8827
10.8381
1.9791
1.0062
0.7472
1.1690

1.4646
0.8822
0.9228
1.2436
15.0383
8.9264
1.0606
0.9413
0.8909
0.7676
137.7105
109.4026
1.0724
0.9017
138.5823
872.7427
0.9671
7.7016
0.9002
1.5995
9.7187
2.0926
0.7341
18.487
0.7938
9.4818
1.8229
1.0376
0.6501
1

725 227
17 578 959
68 412
288 389
7 959 567
3 302 139

189 323
16 604
1 345
7 054
142 487
2 008

1.2997
370.955
8.233554
3.6808
14.24
148.822431

1.5194
433.6626
9.6254
4.3030
m
173.9799

m
m
9.118
4.0293
m
0.6643

1. Data on GDP, PPPs and total public expenditure in countries in the Euro zone are provided in Euros.
2. GDP calculated for the fiscal year in Australia and GDP and total public expenditure calculated for the fiscal year in New Zealand.
3. For countries where GDP is not reported for the same reference period as data on educational finance, GDP is estimated as: wt-1 (GDPt - 1) + wt
(GDPt), where wt and wt-1 are the weights for the respective portions of the two reference periods for GDP which fall within the educational financial
year. Adjustments were made in Chapter B for Australia, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
4.Year of reference 2005.
5. Total public expenditure adjusted to financial year.
6.Year of reference 2007.
Source: OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681888503672				

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

457

Annex 2

Annex 2

Reference Statistics

Table X2.3a.
Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries, by level of education (1996, 2007)

OECD countries

Annex 2

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)2
Belgium (Fr.)2
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Partner countries

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years
of experience/
minimum training

Starting salary/
minimum training

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
25 693
46 781
46 781
25 693
46 781
46 781
25 693
46 781
46 781
19 911
25 522
40 136
20 598
26 791
42 910
21 891
29 334
48 204
20 479
27 542
32 721
20 950
29 346
35 781
25 998
37 534
45 119
20 479
27 542
32 721
20 950
29 346
35 781
25 998
37 534
45 119
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
200 000
244 000
250 000
200 000
244 000
250 000
218 000
310 000
325 000
12 113
20 423
20 423
12 113
20 423
20 423
12 113
20 423
20 423
17 660
23 378
24 051
19 846
27 751
28 928
20 519
28 928
30 610
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
10 772
12 854
15 148
11 141
13 223
15 518
11 141
13 223
15 518
341 289
462 618
597 402
341 289
462 618
597 402
435 279
574 067
717 756
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
18 235
28 189
33 362
19 141
29 872
33 679
19 141
29 872
33 679
14 939
18 030
21 864
16 213
19 796
24 233
16 213
20 412
25 442
3 462 000 5 917 000 8 475 000 3 462 000 5 917 000 8 475 000 3 462 000 5 917 000 8 733 000
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
29 105
38 606
63 264
37 092
47 174
76 196
m
m
m
21 772
26 537
32 627
22 925
28 847
35 840
23 120
40 273
47 756
23 000
39 220
39 220
23 000
39 220
39 220
23 000
39 220
39 220
165 228
201 446
204 211
165 228
201 446
204 211
178 752
207 309
222 078
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
9 970
15 001
25 902
9 970
15 001
25 902
9 970
15 001
25 902
12 510
20 796
20 796
12 510
20 796
20 796
12 510
20 796
20 796
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
18 609
21 823
27 940
m
m
m
21 582
25 327
31 780
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
65 504
87 585
100 847
m
m
m
m
m
m
w
w
w
a
a
a
w
w
w
25 079
31 693
m
24 861
31 690
m
24 891
31 954
m
m
m
25 380
m
m
m

m
m
27 120
m
m
m

m
m
29 040
m
m
m

m
m
25 380
m
m
m

m
m
27 120
m
m
m

1. Data on salaries for countries now in the Euro zone are shown in Euros.
2. Data on teachers’ salaries for 1996 refer to Belgium.
Source: OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681888503672

458

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years
of experience/
minimum training

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years
of experience/
minimum training

Starting salary/
minimum training

Teachers’ salaries in national currency (1996)1
Upper secondary education,
Primary education
Lower secondary education
general programmes

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

m
m
29 040
m
m
m

m
m
25 380
m
m
m

m
m
27 120
m
m
m

m
m
29 040
m
m
m

Reference Statistics

Annex 2

Table X2.3a. (continued)
Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries, by level of education (1996, 2007)1
Teachers’ salaries in national currency (2007)2

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years
of experience/
minimum training

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years
of experience/
minimum training

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Upper secondary education,
general programmes

GDP
deflator
2007

(1996 = 100)

OECD countries

Salary after 15 years
of experience/
minimum training

Lower secondary education

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
46 646
63 977
63 977
46 858
64 984
64 984
46 858
64 984
64 984
24 791
32 830
49 150
25 913
35 467
51 080
26 279
36 493
53 830
26 563
37 236
45 416
26 563
37 236
45 416
32 981
47 644
57 286
25 390
35 697
43 653
25 390
35 697
43 653
31 558
45 820
55 198
305 998 414 913 506 424 305 998 414 913 506 424 324 757 443 286 544 267
306 762 346 569 346 569 306 762 346 569 346 569 300 918 423 426 423 426
19 461
28 707
28 707
19 461
28 707
28 707
19 461
28 707
28 707
27 496
35 664
44 853
30 500
38 165
48 296
31 050
41 964
54 384
21 631
29 097
42 932
23 807
31 274
45 209
24 059
31 525
45 486
37 313
45 877
49 562
41 225
49 861
55 903
44 300
53 640
61 530
18 169
22 159
26 653
18 169
22 159
26 653
18 169
22 159
26 653
1 532 436 1 983 240 2 638 332 1 532 436 1 983 240 2 638 332 1 756 380 2 474 508 3 328 212
2 518 454 2 830 814 3 288 386 2 518 454 2 830 814 3 288 386 2 849 000 3 619 000 3 796 000
31 497
52 177
59 125
31 497
52 177
59 125
31 497
52 177
59 125
21 328
25 799
31 434
22 980
28 095
34 500
22 980
28 880
36 063
3 335 000 5 958 000 7 533 000 3 335 000 5 958 000 7 533 000 3 335 000 5 958 000 7 737 000
23 955 100 41 387 505 66 271 272 23 859 100 41 291 505 66 175 272 23 859 100 41 291 505 66 175 272
47 407
65 284
96 622
68 289
85 371 118 653
68 289
85 371 118 653
104 415 137 323 227 967 133 872 174 854 289 632
m
m
m
30 331
39 303
43 844
31 432
43 204
48 084
31 734
55 905
63 488
30 150
58 327
58 327
30 150
58 327
58 327
30 150
58 327
58 327
294 237 332 218 367 592 294 237 332 218 367 592 314 261 354 059 387 383
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
14 380
23 541
36 921
14 380
23 541
36 921
14 380
23 541
36 921
19 586
31 241
31 241
19 586
31 241
31 241
19 586
31 241
31 241
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
25 688
29 934
37 099
28 900
33 580
40 986
29 525
34 339
41 834
256 800 298 800 343 200 262 000 306 300 347 400 276 000 326 900 371 800
70 346
91 017 112 067
80 879 104 157 126 592
94 079 122 259 145 276
11 835
13 206
14 740
a
a
a
11 835
13 206
14 740
35 907
43 633
m
34 519
44 015
m
34 672
43 966
m

(10)
141
115
122
122
149
126
130
120
120
109
150
231
162
151
130
90
126
130
274
132
130
164
171
142
130
170
147
117
109
2 703
128

Partner countries

Starting salary/
minimum training

Primary education

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
3 818 076 4 636 394 6 204 576 3 818 076 4 636 394 6 204 576 3 818 076 4 852 425 6 499 056
88 800
79 968 110 500
88 800
79 968 110 500
88 800
79 968 110 500
50 967
59 525
83 176
50 967
59 525
83 176
50 967
59 525
83 176
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
17 130
20 005
21 187
17 130
20 005
21 187
17 130
20 005
21 187

221
m
193
135
m
180

1. For the computation of teachers’ salaries in equivalent USD shown in Indicator D3, teachers’ salaries are converted from national currencies to USD
using January 2006 PPPs for GDP and adjusted for inflation where necessary.Teachers’ salaries in equivalent USD based on January 2006 PPPs
for final consumption are shown in Table X2.3c of Annex 2.
2. Data on salaries for countries now in the Euro zone are shown in Euros.
Source: OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681888503672

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

459

Annex 2

Annex 2

Reference Statistics

Table X2.3b.
Reference statistics used in the calculation of teachers’ salaries (1996, 2007)

OECD countries

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)3
Belgium (Fr.)3
Czech Republic
Denmark
England4
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland4
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Partner countries

Gross
Domestic
Product

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

Annex 2

Purchasing Purchasing Purchasing
Total
GDP per
Power
Power Power Parity (in millions of population
capita
Parity for Parity for
for GDP local currency, in thousands (in equivalent Reference Adjustments
GDP (PPP) GDP (PPP)
(PPP)
(calendar
USD, calendar year for 2007 for inflation
calendar
(2006)1
(2007)1 (January 2007)1 year 2007)1
salary data
(2007)
year 2007)
year 2007)2
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
1.41
1.42
1.42
1 132 172
21 153
37 692
2007
0.98
0.88
0.88
0.88
270 837
8 315
37 012
2006/2007
1.00
0.90
0.89
0.90
334 917
10 622
35 428
Jan 2007
1.00
0.90
0.89
0.90
334 917
10 622
35 428
2006/2007
1.00
14.26
14.23
14.25
3 530 249
10 323
24 033
2006/2007
1.00
8.59
8.60
8.60
1 687 892
5 460
35 946
2006/2007
1.00
0.64
0.65
0.65
1 401 042
60 783
35 461
2006/2007
1.00
0.97
0.98
0.98
179 659
5 289
34 664
01 Oct. 2006
1.00
0.92
0.91
0.92
1 892 241
63 573
32 709
2006/2007
1.00
0.86
0.86
0.86
2 422 900
82 263
34 248
2006/2007
1.00
0.72
0.72
0.72
228 180
11 193
28 314
2005
1.04
130.98
134.78
132.88
25 419 164
10 056
18 755
2007
0.97
109.33
115.10
112.22
1 279 379
311
35 695
2006/2007
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.99
190 603
4 357
45 099
2006/2007
1.00
0.86
0.85
0.86
1 535 540
59 319
30 454
2006/2007
1.00
124.33
120.14
122.24
515 804 800
127 771
33 602
2006/2007
1.00
760.67
749.88
755.28
901 188 604
48 456
24 801
2007
1.00
0.95
0.95
0.95
36 278
480
79 557
2006/2007
1.00
7.38
7.53
7.46
11 139 674
105 677
13 999
2006/2007
1.00
0.89
0.88
0.89
567 066
16 377
39 347
2006/2007
1.00
1.52
1.55
1.54
177 551
4 185
27 371
2007
0.98
8.89
9.05
8.97
2 277 111
4 706
53 467
1Dec. 2007
0.98
1.87
1.92
1.90
1 167 795
38 116
15 957
m
1.00
0.68
0.67
0.68
163 119
10 608
22 950
2006/2007
1.00
0.64
0.65
0.65
1 401 042
60 783
35 461
2006/2007
1.00
17.08
17.10
17.09
1 852 781
5 397
20 078
m
1.00
0.76
0.74
0.75
1 050 595
44 874
31 638
2006/2007
1.00
9.27
9.14
9.21
3 061 449
9 148
36 615
2007
0.99
1.69
1.66
1.68
512 142
7 509
41 088
2006/2007
1.00
0.86
0.89
0.88
856 387
73 904
13 020
2006
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
13 741 600
302 087
45 489
2006/2007
1.00
1.36
363.46
8.23
3.67
m
0.62

1.38
371.42
8.75
3.56
m
0.64

1.37
367.44
8.49
3.62
m
0.63

1 937 598
66 598 992
238 929
673 552
m
34 471

191 000
16 600
1 342
7 180
m
2 019

7 351
10 802
20 341
26 351
m
26 681

m
2007
2006/2007
2006/2007
m
2006/2007

m
0.96
1.00
1.00
m
1.00

Note: Adjustments for inflation are used if the reference year deviates from 2006/2007 and the inflation between the actual reference year and
2006/2007 would deviate more than 1 per cent.
1. Data on PPPs and GDP for countries now in the Euro zone are shown in Euros.
2. GDP per capita in national currencies (2007) has been calculated from total population (2007) and total GDP (2007), and has been converted
to USD using PPPs for GDP (2007). These data are available in this table.
3. Data on Gross Domestic Product and total population refer to Belgium.
4. Data on Gross Domestic Product and total population refer to the United Kingdom.
Source: OECD.
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681888503672

460

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Reference Statistics

Annex 2

Table X2.3c.
Teachers’ salaries (2007)
Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in public institutions at starting salary, after 15 years of experience and at the top of the scale
by level of education, in equivalent Euros converted using PPPs
Salary after 15 years of
experience/minimum
training

Ratio of salary after
15 years of experience
to GDP per capita

Starting salary/
minimum training

Salary after 15 years of
experience/minimum
training

(2)
38 847
32 755
36 529
35 019
25 573
35 403
39 077
32 116
27 920
46 837
28 190
12 744
22 149
46 509
26 493
42 796
48 113
60 336
16 173
38 992
32 673
31 870
m
30 621
42 527
m
35 043
28 092
47 709
13 778
38 310

(3)
38 847
49 038
44 553
42 823
31 214
35 403
39 077
40 391
41 196
50 599
33 907
16 954
25 729
52 702
32 280
54 109
77 040
89 299
26 848
43 497
32 673
35 263
m
48 024
42 527
m
43 431
32 267
58 743
15 379
m

(4)
1.17
1.01
1.17
1.13
1.21
1.12
1.26
1.06
0.97
1.56
1.13
0.77
0.71
1.17
0.99
1.45
2.21
0.86
1.32
1.13
1.36
0.68
m
1.52
1.37
m
1.26
0.87
1.32
1.21
0.96

(5)
28 452
25 854
26 059
24 908
18 860
31 336
26 491
27 466
22 844
42 088
23 114
9 847
19 705
28 075
23 598
23 955
27 736
63 113
15 767
31 183
16 889
28 226
m
18 705
26 661
m
33 832
24 633
42 395
a
30 308

(6)
(7)
39 459 39 459
35 387 50 964
36 529 44 553
35 019 42 823
25 573 31 214
35 403 35 403
39 077 39 077
34 368 43 491
30 009 43 381
50 904 57 073
28 190 33 907
12 744 16 954
22 149 25 729
46 509 52 702
28 850 35 428
42 796 54 109
48 001 76 928
78 901 109 660
20 593 34 111
42 862 47 704
32 673 32 673
31 870 35 263
m
m
30 621 48 024
42 527 42 527
m
m
39 312 47 981
28 797 32 662
54 597 66 357
a
a
38 645
m

(8)
1.19
1.09
1.17
1.13
1.21
1.12
1.26
1.13
1.04
1.69
1.13
0.77
0.71
1.17
1.08
1.45
2.20
1.13
1.68
1.24
1.36
0.68
m
1.52
1.37
m
1.42
0.90
1.51
a
0.97

(9)
28 452
26 219
32 354
30 958
20 017
30 740
26 491
27 961
23 086
45 227
23 114
11 286
22 291
28 075
23 598
23 955
27 736
63 113
m
31 483
16 889
30 147
m
18 705
26 661
m
34 564
25 949
49 314
12 348
30 442

(10)
(11)
39 459 39 459
36 410 53 708
46 739 56 198
44 949 54 150
27 322 33 546
43 254 43 254
39 077 39 077
37 789 48 973
30 250 43 647
54 762 62 817
28 190 33 907
15 901 21 387
28 316 29 701
46 509 52 702
29 657 37 033
42 796 55 574
48 001 76 928
78 901 109 660
m
m
55 463 62 986
32 673 32 673
33 965 37 162
m
m
30 621 48 024
42 527 42 527
m
m
40 200 48 974
30 734 34 956
64 086 76 151
13 778 15 379
38 602
m

(12)
1.19
1.12
1.50
1.45
1.29
1.37
1.26
1.24
1.05
1.82
1.13
0.97
0.90
1.17
1.11
1.45
2.20
1.13
m
1.61
1.36
0.72
m
1.52
1.37
m
1.45
0.96
1.78
1.21
0.97

OECD average

25 187 34 248 41 922

1.17

27 218 36 870 45 191

1.23

28 256 39 319 47 798

1.30

EU 19 average

25 917 34 778 42 589

1.14

27 825 36 925 45 028

1.19

28 926 39 961 48 817

1.29

Brazil
Chile
Estonia
Israel
Russian Federation
Slovenia

m
m
m
9 589 11 393 15 365
9 183 8 270 11 427
12 379 14 457 20 202
m
m
m
23 873 27 880 29 527

m
1.11
0.46
0.62
m
1.19

m
m
m
9 589 11 393 15 365
9 183 8 270 11 427
12 379 14 457 20 202
m
m
m
23 873 27 880 29 527

m
1.11
0.46
0.62
m
1.19

m
m
m
9 589 11 922 16 086
9 183 8 270 11 427
12 379 14 457 20 202
m
m
m
23 873 27 880 29 527

m
1.16
0.46
0.62
m
1.19

Ratio of salary after
15 years of experience
to GDP per capita

Starting salary/
minimum training

(1)
28 323
24 735
26 059
24 908
18 860
31 336
26 491
24 761
20 756
38 094
23 114
9 847
19 705
28 075
21 901
23 955
27 848
43 814
12 297
30 091
16 889
28 226
m
18 705
26 661
m
30 072
24 144
36 874
12 348
31 526

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Ratio of salary after
15 years of experience
to GDP per capita

Australia
Austria
Belgium (Fl.)
Belgium (Fr.)
Czech Republic
Denmark
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Scotland
Slovak Republic
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United States

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Salary at top of scale/
minimum training

Upper secondary education

Salary after 15 years of
experience/minimum
training

Lower secondary education

Starting salary/
minimum training
Partner economies

OECD countries

Primary education

Source: OECD. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning the symbols replacing missing data.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/681888503672				

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

461

Annex 2

Annex 2

Reference Statistics

General notes

Definitions
Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the producers’ value of the gross outputs of resident producers, including
distributive trades and transport, less the value of purchasers’ intermediate consumption plus import duties. GDP is
expressed in local money (in millions). For countries which provide this information for a reference year that is different
from the calendar year (such as Australia and New Zealand), adjustments are made by linearly weighting their GDP
between two adjacent national reference years to match the calendar year.
The GDP deflator is obtained by dividing the GDP expressed at current prices by the GDP expressed at constant prices.
This provides an indication of the relative price level in a country. Data are based on the year 2000.

Annex 2

GDP per capita is the gross domestic product (in equivalent US dollars converted using PPPs) divided by the
population.
Purchasing power parity exchange rates (PPP) are the currency exchange rates that equalise the purchasing power
of different currencies. This means that a given sum of money when converted into different currencies at the PPP rates
will buy the same basket of goods and services in all countries. In other words, PPPs are the rates of currency conversion
which eliminate the differences in price levels among countries. Thus, when expenditure on GDP for different countries
is converted into a common currency by means of PPPs, it is, in effect, expressed at the same set of international prices so
that comparisons between countries reflect only differences in the volume of goods and services purchased.
Total public expenditure as used for the calculation of the education indicators, corresponds to the non-repayable
current and capital expenditure of all levels of government. Current expenditure includes final consumption expenditure
(e.g., compensation of employees, consumption intermediate goods and services, consumption of fixed capital, and military
expenditure), property income paid, subsidies, and other current transfers paid (e.g., social security, social assistance,
pensions and other welfare benefits). Capital expenditure is spending to acquire and/or improve fixed capital assets, land,
intangible assets, government stocks, and non-military, non-financial assets, and spending to finance net capital transfers.

Sources
The 2009 edition of the National Accounts of OECD Countries: Main Aggregates,Volume I.
The theoretical framework underpinning national accounts has been provided for many years by the United Nations’
publication A System of National Accounts, which was released in 1968. An updated version was released in 1993 (commonly
referred to as SNA93).
OECD Analytical Data Base, January 2009.

462

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Annex

3

Sources, Methods
and Technical Notes
Annex 3 on sources and methods is available
in electronic form only. It can be found at:
www.oecd.org/edu/eag2009

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

463

References
Ashton, P. and N. Webb (1986), Making a Difference: Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement, Monogram, Longman,
White Plains, New York.
Brophy, J.E. and T.L. Good (1986),“Teacher Behaviour and Pupil Achievement”, in M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook

of Research on Teaching, MacMillan, New York, pp. 328-375.
Caldwell, B. (2002),“Autonomy and Self-management: Concepts and Evidence”, in T. Bush and L. Bell, The Principles

and Practice of Educational Management, Paul Chapman, London, pp. 34-48.
Caldwell, B. and J. Spinks (1998), Beyond the Self-Managing School, Falmer Press, London.
Clausen, M. (2002), “Unterrichtsqualität: Eine Frage der Perspektive?”, Pädagogische Psychologie und

Entwicklungspsychologie, D.H. Rost (ed.), Waxmann, Munster.
Darling-Hammond, L., D.J. Holtzman, S.J. Gatlin and J.V. Heilig (2005), “Does Teacher Preparation Matter?

Evidence about Teacher Certification,Teach for America, and Teacher Effectiveness”, Education Policy Analysis Archives,
No. 13 (42).
Dormann, C. and D. Zapf (2001), “Job Satisfaction – A Meta-analysis of Stabilities”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, No. 22, pp. 483-504.
Fischer, R. (2004), “Standardization to Account for Cross-Cultural Response Bias: A Classification of Score
Adjustment Procedures and Review of Research in JCCP”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, No. 35, pp. 263-282.
Kelo, M., U. Teichler and B. Wächter (eds.) (2005), “EURODATA: Student Mobility in European Higher
Education”, Verlags and Mediengesellschaft, Bonn.
Klieme, E. and K. Rakoczy (2003), “Unterrichtsqualität aus Schülerperspektive: Kulturspezifische Profile,

regionale Unterschiede und Zusammenhänge mit Effekten von Unterricht”; in J. Baumert, C. Artelt, E. Klieme, M.
Neubrand, M. Prenzel, U. Schiefele, W. Schneider and K.-J. Tillmann, (eds.), PISA 2000: Ein differenzierter Blick auf
die Länder der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (pp. 334-359), Leske & Budrich, Opladen.
Krueger, A.B. (2002), “Economic Considerations and Class Size”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working

Paper: 8875.
Lazear, E.P. (2000), “The Future of Personnel Economics”, The Economic Journal, No.110, p. 467, F611-F639.
Mincer, J. (1974), “Schooling, experience, and earnings”, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), NewYork.
Mortimore, P., P. Sammons, L. Stoll, D. Lewis and E. Russell (1988), School Matters:The JuniorYears, Open Books,

Wells.
Nettle, E.B. (1998), “Stability and Change in the Belief of Student Teachers During Practice Teaching”, Teaching and

Teacher Education, No. 14 (2), pp. 193-204.
O’Day, J. (2002), “Complexity, Accountability, and School Improvement”, Harvard Educational Review, No. 72 (3),
pp. 293-329.
Odden, A. and C. Busch (1998), Financing Schools for High Performance, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
OECD (2004), Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2005a), Where Immigrant Students Succeed: A Comparative Review of Performance and Engagement in PISA 2003,
OECD, Paris.
OECD (2005b), Education at a Glance 2005: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2005c), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD, Paris.
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

465

References

OECD (2006a), OECD Revenue Statistics 1965-2005, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2006b), Education at a Glance 2006: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2007a), PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2007b), Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning,OECD, Paris.
OECD (2007c), Health at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators,OECD, Paris.
OECD (2007d), Education at a Glance 2007: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2007e), Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2008a), Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2008b), Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society:Thematic Review of Tertiary Education, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2008c), Measuring Improvements in Learning Outcomes: Best Practices to Assess the Value-Added of Schools, OECD,

Paris.
OECD (2009a), Top of the Class: High Performing Learners in PISA 2006, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2009b), OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report March 2009, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2009c), Social Outcomes of Learning – Country Questionnaires, OECD, Paris.
OECD (2009d), Main Science and Technology Indicators/Principaux indicateurs de la science et de la technologie, OECD,

Paris.
OECD (2009e), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris.
OECD (forthcoming), TALIS Technical Report, OECD, Paris.
Quebec, Ministère de l’Éducation, du Loisir et du Sport (2005), “Educational Spending Relative to the GDP
in 2001: A comparison of Québec and the OECD Countries”, Education Statistics Bulletin, www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/stat/
bulletin/bulletin_31an.pdf.
Rakoczy, K., E. Klieme, B. Drollinger-Vetter, F. Lipowsky, C. Pauli and K. Reusser (2007), “Structure as
a Quality Feature in Mathematics Instruction of the Learning Environment versus a Structured Presentation of
Learning Content”, in M. Prenzel (ed.), Studies on the Educational Quality of Schools:The Final Report of the DFG Priority
Programme, pp. 101-120, Waxmann, Munster.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989), Teachers’ Workplace:The Social Organization of Schools, Longman, New York.

Ross, J.A. (1998), “The Antecedents and Consequences of Teacher Efficacy”, in J. Brophy (ed.) Advances in Research
on Teaching, Vol. 7, pp. 49-74, JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.
Saunders, L. (2000), Understanding Schools Use of “Value Added” Data:The Psychology and Sociology of Numbers. Research

Papers in Education, No. 15 (3), pp. 241-58.
Scheerens, J. and R.J. Bosker (1997), The Foundations of Educational Effectiveness, Pergamon, Oxford.
Senge, P. (2000), Schools that Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Cares About

Education, Doubleday, New York.
St. John, E.P. (2003), Refinancing the College Dream: Access, Equal Opportunity and Justice for Taxpayers, Johns Hopkins

University Press, Baltimore.
Staub, F. and E. Stern (2002), “The Nature of Teachers’ Pedagogical Content Beliefs Matters for Students’
Achievement Gains: Quasi-experimental Evidence from Elementary Mathematics”, Journal of Educational Psychology,
No. 93, pp. 144-155.
Usher, A. (2006), “Grants for Students: What They Do, Why They Work”, Canadian Education Report Series,

Educational Policy Institute, Toronto.
Van de Grift, W. and A.A.M. Houtveen (2006), “Underperformance in Primary Schools”, School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, No. 17 (3), pp. 255-273.
Wang, M.C., G.D. Haertel and H.J.Walberg (1997), “Learning Influences”, in H.J.Walberg and G.D. Haertel (eds.),
Psychology and Educational Practice, McCuthan, Berkeley.

466

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Contributors to this Publication
Many people have contributed to the development of this publication. The following lists the names
of the country representatives, researchers and experts who have actively taken part in the preparatory work
leading to the publication of Education at a Glance – OECD Indicators 2009.
The OECD wishes to thank them all for their valuable efforts.

INES Working Party
Ms. Oon Ying CHIN (Australia)
Mr. Paul CMIEL (Australia)
Ms. Shannon MADDEN (Australia)
Ms. Sabine MARTINSCHITZ (Austria)
Mr. Mark NÉMET (Austria)
Mr. Wolfgang PAULI (Austria)
Mr. Markus SCHWABE (Austria)
Mr. Philippe DIEU (Belgium)
Mr. Liës FEYEN (Belgium)
Ms. Nathalie JAUNIAUX (Belgium)
Mr. Guy STOFFELEN (Belgium)
Mr. Raymond VAN DE SIJPE (Belgium)
Ms. Ann VAN DRIESSCHE (Belgium)
Ms. Maria das Graças MOREIRA COSTA (Brazil)
Ms. Carla Maria MOTTA DO VALLE CASTRO (Brazil)
Ms. Ana Carolina SILVA CIROTTO (Brazil)
Ms. Carmilva SOUZA FLORES (Brazil)
Dr. Patrice DE BROUCKER (Canada)
Ms. Shannon DELBRIDGE (Canada)
Mr. Gerald MORTON (Canada)
Mr. Cristian Pablo YANEZ NAVARRO (Chile)
Ms. Michaela KLENHOVÁ (Czech Republic)
Mr. Felix KOSCHIN (Czech Republic)
Mr. Lubomir MARTINEC (Czech Republic)
Ms. Karin BLIX (Denmark)
Ms. Julie GRUNNET HANSEN (Denmark)
Mr. Simon HEIDEMANN (Denmark)
Mr. Leo Elmbirk JENSEN (Denmark)
Ms. Kristi PLOOM (Estonia)
Mr. Anders HINGEL (European Commission)
Mrs. Lene DIL MEJER (EUROSTAT)
Mr. Fernando REIS (EUROSTAT)
Mr. Ville HEINONEN (Finland)
Mr. Matti KYRÖ (Finland)
Mr. Heikki KOKKALA (Finland)
Mr. Reijo LAUKKANEN (Finland)
Ms. Riikka RAUTANEN (Finland)
Mr. Mika TUONONEN (Finland)
Mr. Matti VÄISÄNEN (Finland)

Mr. Cédric AFSA ESSAFI (France)
Ms. Michele JACQUOT (France)
Mrs. Elodie LEPREVOST (France)
Mrs Claude MALEGUE (France)
Mr. Christophe PEPIN (France)
Mrs. Pascale POULET-COULIBANDO (France)
Ms. Christine RAGOUCY (France)
Mr. Claude SAUVAGEOT (France)
Mrs. Alexia STEFANOU (France)
Mr. Heinz-Werner HETMEIER (Germany)
Mr. Martin SCHULZE (Germany)
Ms. Eveline VON GAESSLER (Germany)
Ms. Roy CHOURDAKI (Greece)
Ms. Chrysa DRYDAKI (Greece)
Ms. Maria FASSARI (Greece)
Ms. Melina PAPADAKI (Greece)
Ms. Anna IMRE (Hungary)
Ms. Judit KÁDÁRNÉ-FÜLÖP (Hungary)
Mr. Tibor KÖNYVESI (Hungary)
Ms. Judit KOZMA-LUKÁCS (Hungary)
Mr. László LIMBACHER (Hungary)
Ms. Éva TÓT (Hungary)
Mr. Gunnar ÁRNASON (Iceland)
Mr. Júlíus BJÖRNSSON (Iceland)
Ms. Ásta URBANCIC (Iceland)
Mr. Pat McSITRIC (Ireland)
Ms. Nicola TICKNER (Ireland)
Mr.Yoav AZULAY (Israel)
Mr.Yosef GIDANIAN (Israel)
Mr. Giovanni BIONDI (Italy)
Ms. Maria Gemma DE SANCTIS (Italy)
Ms. Paola DI GIROLAMO (Italy)
Ms. Maria Teresa MORANA (Italy)
Ms. Claudia PIZZELLA (Italy)
Mr. Paolo TURCHETTI (Italy)
Mr. Hiroshi KAMIYO (Japan)
Mr. Hiromi SASAI (Japan)
Ms. Kumiko TANSHO-HIRABAYASHI (Japan)
Mr. Tokuo OGATA (Japan)
Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

467

Contributors

Mr. Chang-Hwan KIM (Korea)
Mr. Jong-Hyo PARK (Korea)
Mr. Jérôme LEVY (Luxembourg)
Mr. Rafael FREYRE MARTINEZ (Mexico)
Ms. Daisy SATIJN (Netherlands)
Ms. Linda SLIKKERVEER (Netherlands)
Mr. Marcel SMITS VAN WAESBERGHE (Netherlands)
Mr. Dick TAKKENBERG (Netherlands)
Ms. Pauline THOOLEN (Netherlands)
Mr. Paul GINI (New Zealand)
Ms. Frances KELLY (New-Zealand)
Ms. Marie ARNEBERG (Norway)
Ms. Karin BJØRKELI HJERMUNDRUD (Norway)
Mr. Kjetil HELGELAND (Norway)
Mr. Lars NERDRUM (Norway)
Mr. Geir NYGÅRD (Norway)
Mr. Terje RISBERG (Norway)
Ms. Anne Marie RUSTAD HOLSETER (Norway)
Ms. Hanna GOLASZEWSKA (Poland)
Ms. Grazyna MARCINIAK (Poland)
Ms. Anna NOWOZYNSKA (Poland)
Ms. Maria ULATOWSKA (Poland)
Ms. Beatriz GONÇALVES (Portugal)
Ms. Elisa GONZALEZ (Portugal)
Mr. Joao PEREIRA DE MATOS (Portugal)
Mr. Nuno Miguel RODRIGUES (Portugal)
Mr. Joaquim SANTOS (Portugal)
Mr. Mark AGRANOVICH (Russian Federation)
Mr. Evgeny BUTKO (Russian Federation)

Ms. Anna FATEEVA (Russian Federation)
Ms. Alzbeta FERENCICOVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Zuzana JAKUBCOVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Elena REBROSOVA (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Helga KOCEVAR (Slovenia)
Ms. Tatjana SKRBEC (Slovenia)
Ms. Isabel ALABAU BALCELLS (Spain)
Mr. Eduardo DE LA FUENTE FUENTE (Spain)
Mr. Luis HERNAEZ GLUCK (Spain)
Mr. Jesús IBAÑEZ MILLA (Spain)
Mr. Enrique ROCA COBO (Spain)
Ms. Carmen UREÑA UREÑA (Spain)
Mr. Mats BJÖRNSSON (Sweden)
Ms. Marie KAHLROTH (Sweden)
Mr. Kenny PETERSSON (Sweden)
Ms. Katrin HOLENSTEIN (Switzerland)
Mr. Stefan C. WOLTER (Switzerland)
Ms. Nilgün DURAN (Turkey)
Mr. Ibrahim Zeki KARABIYIK (Turkey)
Mr. Michael BRUNEFORTH (UNESCO)
Mr. Albert MOTIVANS (UNESCO)
Mr. Said Ould Ahmedou VOFFAL (UNESCO)
Mr. Anthony CLARKE (United Kingdom)
Mr. Stephen HEWITT (United Kingdom)
Mr. Stephen LEMAN (United Kingdom)
Ms. Rachel DINKES (United States)
Ms. Jana KEMP (United States)
Ms. Valena White PLISKO (United States)
Mr. Thomas SNYDER (United States)

Network on Labour Market, Economic and Social Outcomes of Learning (LSO)
Lead Country: Canada
Network Leader: Mr. Patrice De Broucker

Mr. Dan ANDERSSON (Former Network Leader)
Ms. Oon Ying CHIN (Australia)
Mr. Paul CMIEL (Australia)
Ms. Shannon MADDEN (Australia)
Mr. Scott MATHESON (Australia)
Mr. Mark NÉMET (Austria)
Ms. Isabelle ERAUW (Belgium)
Ms. Geneviève HINDRYCKX (Belgium)
Ms. Maria das Graças MOREIRA COSTA (Brazil)
Ms. Carla Maria MOTTA DO VALLE CASTRO (Brazil)
Ms. Ana Carolina SILVA CIROTTO (Brazil)
Mr. Patric BLOUIN (Canada)
Mr. Patrice DE BROUCKER (Canada)
Ms. Emmanuelle CARRIÈRE (Canada)
Ms. Shannon DELBRIDGE (Canada)
Ms. Sona FORTOVA (Czech Republic)
Ms. Vendula KAŠPAROVÁ (Czech Republic)
Ms. Julie GRUNNET HANSEN (Denmark)

468

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

Mr. Lars JAKOBSEN (European Commission)
Ms. Marta BECK-DOMZALSKA (European Commission)
Mr. Sylvain JOUHETTE (European Commission)
Ms. Irja BLOMQVIST (Finland)
Ms. Aila REPO (Finland)
Ms. Pascale POULET-COULIBANDO (France)
Ms. Christiane KRÜGER-HEMMER (Germany)
Ms. Susanne REIF (Germany)
Mr. Chrysa DRYDAKI (Greece)
Mr. Angelos KARAGIANNIS (Greece)
Ms. Nicola TICKNER (Ireland)
Mr.Yosef GIDANIAN (Israel)
Mr. David MAAGAN (Israel)
Ms. Liana VERZICCO (Italy)
Ms. Jihee CHOI (Korea)
Ms. Jong-Hyo PARK (Korea)
Mr. Jos NOESEN (Luxembourg)
Mr. Rafael FREYRE MARTINEZ (Mexico)
Mr. Héctor ROBLES (Mexico)
Mr. Roy TJOA (Netherlands)
Mr. Marcel SMITS VAN WAESBERGHE (Netherlands)

Contributors

Mr. Dick TAKKENBERG (Netherlands)
Mr. David SCOTT (New Zealand)
Mr. Lars NERDRUM (Norway)
Mr. Geir NYGÅRD (Norway)
Mr. Mark AGRANOVICH (Russian Federation)
Ms. Lubomíra SRNÁNKOVÁ (Slovak Republic)
Ms. Raquel ÁLVAREZ-ESTEBAN (Spain)
Mrs. Carmen UREÑA UREÑA (Spain)

Ms. Anna JÖNSSON (Sweden)
Mr. Kenny PETERSSON (Sweden)
Mr. Russell SCHMIEDER (Sweden)
Mr. Emanuel VON ERLACH (Switzerland)
Mr. Anthony CLARKE (United Kingdom)
Mr. Stephen LEMAN (United Kingdom)
Ms. Lisa HUDSON (United States)
Mr. Dan SHERMAN (United States)

Network for the Collection and Adjudication of System-level descriptive Information
on Educational Structures, Policies and Practices (NESLI)
Lead Country: United Kingdom
Network Leader: Mr. Stephen Leman

Mr. Jaap SCHEERENS (Formal Network Leader)
Ms. Oon Ying CHIN (Australia)
Mr. Paul CMIEL (Australia)
Ms. Shannon MADDEN (Australia)
Mr. Scott MATHESON (Australia)
Mr. Christian KRENTHALLER (Austria)
Mr. François-Gérard STOLZ (Belgium)
Mr. Raymond VAN DE SIJPE (Belgium)
Ms. Ann VAN DRIESSCHE (Belgium)
Ms. Carla Maria MOTTA DO VALLE CASTRO (Brazil)
Ms. Ana Carolina SILVA CIROTTO (Brazil)
Ms. Michaela KLENHOVA (Czech Republic)
Ms. Pavla POLECHOVA (Czech Republic)
Ms. Pavlina STASTNOVA (Czech Republic)
Mr. Jørgen Balling RASMUSSEN (Denmark)
Mr. Richard DEISS (European Commission)
Mr. Hannu-Pekka LAPPALAINEN (Finland)
Ms. Petra PACKALEN (Finland)
Ms. Nadine DALSHEIMER (France)
Ms. Pia BRUGGER (Germany)
Ms. Cornelia FRANKE (Germany)
Ms. Maria DEMOU (Greece)
Ms. Maria FASSARI (Greece)
Mr. Pat McSITRIC (Ireland)

Mr.Yosef GIDANIAN (Israel)
Ms. Gianna BARBIERI (Italy)
Ms. Kumiko TANSHO-HIRABAYASHI (Japan)
Ms. Jong-Hyo PARK (Korea)
Mr. Gilles HIRT (Luxembourg)
Mr. Rafael FREYRE MARTINEZ (Mexico)
Ms. Maria HENDRIKS (Netherlands)
Mr. Hans RUESINK (Netherlands)
Mr. Marcel SMITS VAN WAESBERGHE (Netherlands)
Mr. Cyril MAKO (New Zealand)
Ms. Eli-Karin FLAGTVEDT (Norway)
Mr. Kjetil HELGELAND (Norway)
Ms. Anne-Berit KAVLI (Norway)
Mr. Nuno Miguel RODRIGUES (Portugal)
Mr. Mark AGRANOVICH (Russian Federation)
Ms. Anna FATEEVA (Russian Federation)
Ms. Isabel ALABAU BALCELLS (Spain)
Mr. Antonio DEL SASTRE (Spain)
Mr. Anders BORGSTRÖM (Sweden)
Ms. Madeleine NYMAN (Sweden)
Mr. Eugen STOCKER (Switzerland)
Ms. Lorna BERTRAND (United Kingdom)
Mr. Anthony CLARKE (United Kingdom)
Mr. Stephen HEWITT (United Kingdom)
Mr. Stephen LEMAN (United Kingdom)

Other contributors to this publication
Ms. Janet Looney (Editing)
Ms. Fung-Kwan TAM (Layout)

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

469

Related OECD Publications
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS (2009)

ISBN 92-64-05605-3
Education Today:The OECD Perspective (2009)

ISBN 92-64-05989-4
Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society:Thematic Review of Tertiary Education (2008)

ISBN 92-64-04652-6
Top of the Class: High Performers in Science in PISA 2006 (2009)

ISBN 92-64-06068-5
PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Volume 1 Analysis (2007)

ISBN 92-64-04000-5
Measuring Improvements in Learning Outcomes: Best Practices to Assess theValue-Added of Schools (2008)

ISBN 92-64-05022-8
Evidence in Education: Linking Research and Policy (2007)

ISBN 92-64-03366-5
From Education to Work: A Difficult Transition for Young Adults with Low Levels of Education (2005)

ISBN 92-64-00918-3
Education Policy Analysis 2005-2006 (2006)

ISBN 92-64-02269-4
OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and
Classifications (2004)

ISBN 92-64-10410-0
Completing the Foundation for Lifelong Learning: An OECD Survey of Upper Secondary Schools (2004)

ISBN 92-64-10372-4
OECD Survey of Upper Secondary Schools:Technical Report (2004)

ISBN 92-64-10572-7
Internationalisation and Trade in Higher Education: Opportunities and Challenges (2004)

ISBN 96-64-01504-3
Classifying Educational Programmes: Manual for ISCED-97 Implementation in OECD Countries (1999)

ISBN 92-64-17037-5
Education at a Glance 2008: OECD Indicators (2008)

ISBN 92-64-04061-7
Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning (2007)

ISBN 978-92-64-03310-8
OECD publications can be browsed or purchased at the OECD Online Bookshop (www.oecdbookshop.org).

Education at a Glance   © OECD 2009

471

OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16
PRINTED IN FRANCE
(96 2009 06 1 P) ISBN 978-92-64-02475-5 – No. 56911 2009